To answer the OP's question, the same thing I think of all vanilla ME3 endings.
'Piece of ****'
If I had to pick between which three turds to carry around for the forseeable future though, I'd definitely pick it over the other two.
In the end though, its all the same. You're choosing between Mass Slavery, Mass Rape and Mass Genocide. Pick one and feel like a hero if you can.
I think it is a great ending, especially for those who went with Destroy. Imo Synthesis is teh best ending.
It is the best of Mass Effect 3's endings, but still deeply flawed.
It is the best of Mass Effect 3's endings, but still deeply flawed.
I wouldn't even call it "best"
"least bad" maybe
I suppose that - even though he seems to die in this ending too - Shepard at least gets to see the world his choices created, if only for a little while. I'd personally say Control was my favourite overall, but everyone's got an opinon, y'know?
Although I haven't finished ME3 yet, I have seen all the endings and I believe this is the best. You survive and complete what you set out to do (Destroy the Reapers.). Unfortunately, EDI and all the Geth (I've just finished the Geth dreadnought and I'm going to make peace if I can.) die. Everything else is fine apart from the extended cut part of the ending not saying what happened to shepard afterwards. I do agree that all endings are flawed though. Synthesis is not set up in the game (Only mentioned by the Catalyst I believe at the end. Control is also more flawed than destroy because what happens if Shepard goes insane over time or something and turns against the galaxy? The reapers will destroy everything.
@GDICanuck
It's a common theory that only synthetics with Reaper code/tech are affected. Which makes sense given it targets Reapers as well as EDI and the geth, which both have the code.
I'd call it the best ending and I certainly am going to pick it (Although I am yet to finish the game I am on the beam run and have over 3200 EMS.). However, it is still not good as I believe the Geth and EDI should survive (Or at least the Geth as EDI is partially reaper tech whereas they just have Reaper code to give them free will. Both the Geth and EDI could probably dodge the crucible by being tempoarily deactivated for instance.). Shepard should also survive the middle destroy ending (I believe there are 3.) and should have a scene after they have recovered with their LI or Joker if they don't have one. If they ever remaster or otherwise update ME3 I think Bioware should revise the destroy ending to include this. Then it would become good instead of merely ok.
Oddly enough it was my first experience and it worked out nicely. My Shep was in love with Thane, and he was her last thought before she thought she would die. Kaiden who loved her even though she turned him down, was the one smiling hopefully at the end and staring at her name. I think it was a nice added touch for the extra effort put into getting those points.
It's the only ending i could ever do. After everything Shepard went through in three games i had to make sure he had a chance to live and have a chance at a happy ending.
Q: What do you think about the high EMS ending, in which you survive if you choose Destroy?
A: It is the best, and I don't feel bad about EDI or the Geth because apparently technology damaged by the pulse can be easily repaired... fix the tech then reboot or restore from backup (and too bad for the stupid AIs that didn't have a snapshot backup of themselves).
the multiplayer wasn't that bad, we got to play as krogan and the geth! *i'm a geth lover yes*. Personally i think it was a great addition. I Didn't know people disliked the multiplayer even if they did I would like to know why.
It's not that people "disliked" the multiplayer as opposed to "liking" the multiplayer. It was that it was irrelevant either way because without it, the entire effort through what was supposed to be three single player self sufficient games was insta-borked despite Bioware "selling" the addition of multiplayer by swearing it had no game changing impact.
Some people are not good at multiplayer gaming. I'm one of them for example, which is why I never last more than about 48 hours with any new multiplayer game (except TESO). Other people simply don't want to play with other people. Either of these things could have made a series like ME a godsend that kept them out of such games as EVE Online or Sins of a Solar Empire. Then Bioware takes that away by forcing multiplayer into an already award winning single player campaign.
Should have simply kept their word on the option part of things. People wouldn't have had as rash a reaction to the choice thing at the end, I don't think. I've been playing TES since Arena on DOS but if they'd forced TESO into Skyrim or any other single player TES game and then slaved the result of the game to multiplayer activity I'd have stopped playing TES.
It's not that people "disliked" the multiplayer as opposed to "liking" the multiplayer. It was that it was irrelevant either way because without it, the entire effort through what was supposed to be three single player self sufficient games was insta-borked despite Bioware "selling" the addition of multiplayer by swearing it had no game changing impact.
Some people are not good at multiplayer gaming. I'm one of them for example, which is why I never last more than about 48 hours with any new multiplayer game (except TESO). Other people simply don't want to play with other people. Either of these things could have made a series like ME a godsend that kept them out of such games as EVE Online or Sins of a Solar Empire. Then Bioware takes that away by forcing multiplayer into an already award winning single player campaign.
Should have simply kept their word on the option part of things. People wouldn't have had as rash a reaction to the choice thing at the end, I don't think. I've been playing TES since Arena on DOS but if they'd forced TESO into Skyrim or any other single player TES game and then slaved the result of the game to multiplayer activity I'd have stopped playing TES.
Thanks for the insight, The problem is that the multiplayer is optional, they were also planning for a pvp in mass effect 2 but scraped it, It could have been worse.The current multiplayer effects not much in the singleplayer and galactic readiness can be raised through the single player, I am annoyed by the people who call the mp contrived and look down on people who loved it, it makes me believe they barely touched it or understand it's appeal.
Making the enemy dead and surviving are all that matter. So it's more ok than the others.
I almost always choose destroy at the end of my playthroughs. I like the idea of Shepard being alive after the war: meeting up with Ashley, Garrus, and even Jacob at the little bar in Rio. My Shepard is Renegade (complete the misssion no matter the cost) and I like the idea of all of his harsh decisions finally paying off for him at the very end.
Mine is the high EMS destroy ending with Shep "surviving".
Looking back, now I like the refuse option.
We are all gone, with the all-important "Liara's beacons" surviving to educate the next cycle's generations. They then use them (instead of hoarding them like the Asari did with their Prothean equivalent in our cycle), and finally defeat the reapers.
The story of our cycle lives, with Shep ascending to immortality as "The Shepard" as seen in the final, final ending.
I could never get my head around the Refusal ending. If you have the ability to defeat the Reapers, why not do it? Do you not think that the people in the next cycle would horde the technology like the Asari did?
It's the only ending i could ever do. After everything Shepard went through in three games i had to make sure he had a chance to live and have a chance at a happy ending.
It doesn't boil down to the possibility of a "happy ending", but to the fact that every other ending feels like I majorly rape the galaxy. Either force a new state of evolution onto everyone now, or even possibly start another genocide in 20,000 years by harnessing the Reaper power?
Destroy is the only ending during which I don't feel like I just doomed the entire galaxy, or forced something on people beyond their will. I'm always sad because EDI and the Geth had to go, seeing they were helping to build a life on Rannoch and boost immune systems for suitless labour, but forcing the new "pinnacle of evolution" on everyone always felt like a long stretch.
Maybe it also boils down to simplicity and the Illusive Man. I set out to destroy the Reapers. Control over them was the IM's goal. It antagonized me against control, no matter how much "Paragon blue" colour the ending had. Destroying the Reapers was the goal. Destroying the reapers with some casualties it is.
To answer the OP's question, the same thing I think of all vanilla ME3 endings.
'Piece of ****'
If I had to pick between which three turds to carry around for the forseeable future though, I'd definitely pick it over the other two.
In the end though, its all the same. You're choosing between Mass Slavery, Mass Rape and Mass Genocide. Pick one and feel like a hero if you can.
Yep, of the joke endings which are part of the utter trainwreck it's the one i picked before mods arrived, despite Bioware's desperate attempts to artificially force people to choose space rape with unbalanced consequences across the endings.
The Extended Cut Destroy ending, highest EMS... is the best possible ending that they gave us. I have to admit, I teared up a bit as the music played while romanced Tali was holding Shepard's nameplate at the memorial wall.
Still, nothing would've been as good as an ending where the Crucible was actually a weapon that fired at the Reapers and blew them up. We win, happy ending.
The Extended Cut ultimately failed when Bioware chose not to get rid of the starchild and the stargazer scene.
This is why I like John P's Alternate Mass Effect Happy Ending Mod.
Version A leaves everything about the Extended Cut substantially intact. The big difference is that High EMS Destroy
In my personal epilogue, I replaced Stargazar's scene with a Battlestar Galactica scene where EDI woke up in a human body surrounded by her 'sisters'.
I could never get my head around the Refusal ending. If you have the ability to defeat the Reapers, why not do it? Do you not think that the people in the next cycle would horde the technology like the Asari did?
Shepard pointing a gun at the Destroy tube and shooting is him shooting EDI and the entire Geth. As well as directly deciding to cause the damage to organics that the effects of even High Destroy will bring.
There's easy RP paths to make that acceptable but not necessarily. There can be Sheps that you can believe are not willing to be so direct in their murder of, at minimum, millions of possibly sapient beings.
Personally I see Refuse as a barely-covert patched in Fail ending, but its not a fail because Shepard lacks the guts to take action (exactly), but because Shepard lacks the will to become so much like the Reapers that his influence and actions affect the galaxy to such a disturbing degree.
Here's a gun. Shoot it and it'll kill all Germans and Japanese and Italians but it'll end the World War. Go ahead. Shoot it. Okay, its not as clear as the Reaper threat, but we can or do gain enough seemingly likely legit info that indicates that destroying the Reapers, while its our 'job', is not necessarily the way to go. So we're bound by choices and all of them are too much to stomach - even a higher EMS Destroy. So we don't be bound by them, and refuse. So the next cycle does better, Shepard is not so much of a 'destroyer' that he kills so many of his supposed allies himself, yet his inaction doomed the last cycle and gave him a lesser legendary status than otherwise.
Refuse = I'm a man/woman of action but damn, this is too much. I cannot and will not be responsible for existence for such a degree. I'm human, not a god.
Of course it makes less sense to pick it in High EMS but especially in Low or Super Low EMS... its potentially compelling.
Retour en haut