23 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

One of ME3’s endings’ main problems is that the options for the final choice all appear to be the Catalyst’s options, which means the antagonists options, so that the ending scenario comes across as “the antagonist wins”. This is an alternative ending exposition, which describes the same choices but is found and presented to us by one of the scientists who works on the Crucible. I’ve chosen Brynn Cole for that role, for no other reason that she’s the only named scientist in ME3 I recalled except for Mordin, who can be killed by main plot developments.

 

In another thread, I’ve explained why it is most plausible that the source of the ending options is the Crucible, in spite of the rather blatant assertion added by the EC that it’s the Catalyst. This exposition is based on that conclusion.

 

Regarding the Synthesis, I've added a few things that might be considered an interpretation, but I wanted it to be better grounded and less "space-magickey". Also, its rationale is vague since the Catalyst’s motivations aren’t known at this time. I’ve added some uncertainty with regard to the outcome which I thought was only plausible with its necessarily limited understanding. Shepard’s replies fit the information in the scene, it’s not meant to be an ultimate  dismissal of the option. Also, at the start of this scene “Destroy the Reapers” is the goal that’s in everyone’s mind. That Shepard mentions it as “the” goal at this time is not meant to be an endorsement.  

 

Shepard’s replies in this scene are the replies I’d have written for my own main Shepard, and I didn’t bother to write alternatives. Sorry about this, but if these replies don’t fit what you’d have chosen, just imagine your own.

 

This scene would occur on the Normandy in the room where you do usually do all your external communication. I omitted any intro or greeting. It would occur after Priority: Horizon.
 
BC: We’ve deciphered significant parts of the Crucible’s functions.
 

S: You don’t look exactly excited. I take it the Crucible can’t destroy the Reapers?
 

BC: Well….yes and no. The Crucible’s main function is to use the mass relays to distribute pre-programmed effects over the galaxy. There is a number of scenarios with widely varying data, of which we’ve deciphered three. We’d likely find more, but I hear we’re running out of time.
 

S: You said it can destroy the Reapers. If that’s not a cause for celebration, I guess there’s a problem.
 

BC: Indeed so. One of the scenarios does destroy the Reapers, but the targeting isn’t exactly specific. It targets technology above a certain complexity, which means that at the very least, it’ll destroy all AI and VI hardware up to 50 parsecs around any relay. Other technology may be affected, depending on how well we’ll be able to calibrate it…
 

S: I’ll just ask Garrus to do the calibrations….sorry, please continue.
 

BC: In addition, this is a high-energy setting. The mass relays will end up at least severely damaged, if not outright destroyed.
 

S: So we’ll buy our survival at the cost of the geth and our civilization….yeah, not appealing at all. What are the alternatives?
 

BC: No less unpleasant I’m afraid. There is an option to take control of the Reapers.
 

S: Why isn’t that good? We could fly them into the next star and be rid of them.
 

BC: It has to do with the missing part we haven’t found yet, the Catalyst. It appears that the one who would take control has to undergo a destructive mind upload to the Catalyst. We don’t know anything about it, but the descriptions indicate that person will become very powerful, comparable to those “AI gods” some of us speculated about when we discovered Ploba.
 

S: An ultimate authority, perhaps comparable to that “master of the pattern” mentioned by Vengeance…
 

BC: Yes. Depending on the hardware, it may turn out effectively immortal as well. I’m not too comfortable about creating such an entity, no matter who’s used for the initial template.
 

S: Yeah, if Vengeance was right, there already exists one, and it’s responsible for the cycles. Still, it would mean everyone gets to survive, right? What about the mass relays?
 

BC: They will not be damaged, as far as we’ve been able to determine.
 

S: Hmm….we’ll possibly buy our survival at the cost of our freedom. Damn it. What’s the third option?
 

BC: That’s an odd one. This will alter the biochemistry of life in the affected areas….
 

S: What? Is it even possible to do that?
 

BS: Apparently. I must admit the technology is completely beyond us. As far as we’ve been able to decipher it, certain biochemical compounds will be replaced by some kind of assembler made from sub-elementary matter.
 

S: …and it’ll turn us all into grey goo.
 

BC: Well, I can’t rule that out with certainty, but if it works as intended those constructs will constitute a significant upgrade for the organism affected, because of their versatility. If applied to a human, they will give the organism the ability to fix certain non-organic elements as well as eezo, and build from those several new components triggered by programmable brain patterns in the visual cortex.
 

S: Eezo, you say…I could learn a visual trigger in order to make my body grow a natural biotic amp?
 

BC (raises eyebrows): Some of my colleagues weren’t as fast in picking that up. Yes, that’s part of the package. Another is the ability to grow natural interfaces with various kinds of technology. In the most general sense, technology would be able to become part of us in ways beyond everything we’ve imagined before.
 

S: A radical advancement scenario, but the possibilities for abuse are beyond horrifying…
 

BC: Some of us speculated it’ll turn us all into mind-controlled slaves. Again, there are no data to support that hypothesis, but I can’t rule it out with certainty. Also, there will be no opting out. Everyone and everything in the target areas will be changed.
 

S: I can imagine some who wouldn’t like that at all. Apart from that, it’s all very intriguing, but how exactly does that help us against the Reapers?
 

BC: The data suggest that either one of two things will happen: the Reaper will treat with us as equals, or we’ll be able to defeat them on our terms in fairly short order.
 

S: You’ll have to explain that.
 

BC: Are you familiar with the singularity hypothesis?
 

S: The theory about what will happen as the speed of technological advancement increases?
 

BC: More specifically, the part about what will happen when synthetic intelligence surpasses organic intelligence. One 20the century futurist phrased it like this: once AI acquires human-like intelligence, the age of man will be over. That we can create synthetic intelligence means we have understood how intelligence works, and that means our creations will also be able to understand that. Unlike organic intelligence, however, synthetic intelligence can self-improve its own hardware. We’d be effectively out-evolved in fairly short order. Evidence exists: by everything we know, the geth consensus surpasses everything else in the galaxy in terms of intelligence by an order of magnitude or more, and it’s just a few hundred years old.
 

S: Again: what does this have to do with the Reapers?
 

BC: That our theories fail to explain how some of the Reapers’ technology works suggests that it may be a post-singularity technology from our point of few. This scenario will effectively invoke a singularity on ourselves, only that we’ll acquire the same self-improvement capability possessed naturally only by synthetic intelligence. Beyond that, we don’t know how exactly the cause – this fundamental change – and the effect – ending the Reapers’ extinction cycle – are connected. There may be something we don’t know yet about their purpose, but there may also be some intrinsic unpredictability. It is a singularity event after all..
 

S: So we’ll gamble with everything we are for the stake of radical advancement to a point on par with the Reapers...and….win them over or defeat them? And risk we’ll be turned into mind-controlled slaves or grey goo if we lose? Uh…I think I need to know more about the odds before I’ll give that any consideration.
 

BC: Also, the mass relays will be severely damaged or destroyed as well. I don’t think it will matter as such, though.
 

S: Don’t tell me we’ll all be able to teleport thousands of light years.
 

BC (laughs): No. Well, honestly neither can I rule that out. We’ve barely scratched the surface of this scenario’s scientific underpinnings. All I can tell now is that we’ll be able to miniaturize existing tech and build mass relays without having to dismantle a planet to do it. Neither will we need an ME core with the energy density of a star.
 

S: We’d be able to do that in the other scenarios as well, won’t we?
 

BC: Unfortunately, it’s not so easy. The problem is similar to why Drexler’s nanotechnology scenario hasn’t happened yet. Once you have the first universal constructor, it will change the world. But so far it has proven impossible to build one if the technology doesn’t already exist.  Obviously there is a solution, but we haven’t found it. So we’ll need those subatomic-scale machines and some control over them.
 

S: It doesn’t matter anyway. I’d recommend staying very far away from this scenario unless we know more about the odds.
…
 
With this exposition, I think getting corroborating info from the Catalyst in the ending confrontation would make it much more satisfying for the player. It works with the existing scene, although I’d have added variability to the Synthesis option depending on EMS, and have the Catalyst mention that.  
 

   
 
 

[StarcloudSWG]

The Reapers aren't a post-singularity culture. If they were, the Illusive Man wouldn't have been able to figure out how they communicate / indoctrinate. Other pieces of technology from the Reapers were also reverse engineered.

 

In fact, it's very likely that the Reapers were deliberately set on the course of these harvests in order to avoid / avert the technological singularity from ever happening.

 

But the real problem with the ending isn't how the Crucible is presented. It's about the complete lack of these themes being developed throughout the entire trilogy instead of being sprung at us at the last minute.

 

Basically, to make the ending really fit, you have to change much of the story leading up to it, and leave many things unresolved UNTIL the very end. 

[Ticondurus]

 

 

But the real problem with the ending isn't how the Crucible is presented. It's about the complete lack of these themes being developed throughout the entire trilogy instead of being sprung at us at the last minute.

 

Basically, to make the ending really fit, you have to change much of the story leading up to it, and leave many things unresolved UNTIL the very end. 

 

Here, here.  Exactly my point.  I never thought that ME was about Synthetics vs Organics.  The game, to me, was really about meeting and understanding cool, different cultures and beings as a human, combating the Reapers and developing relationships with your squad.  I mean, yeah, Synthetics were compelling and useful (EDI, Legion) but they didn't develop those last-choice themes properly and instead pitted them to you as a rather quick choice - and something that you haven't been even pondering beforehand.  I would have been happy if the game ended when Anderson (and you) died when the Citadel exploded, killing the Reapers and your Shep going out as a hero.

 

Also, why in "Destroy" do I HAVE to destroy the Reapers AND all Synthetics? I dont wanna kill EDI, Legion and others but I have to with that choice.

[rossler]

One of ME3’s endings’ main problems is that the options for the final choice all appear to be the Catalyst’s options, which means the antagonists options, so that the ending scenario comes across as “the antagonist wins”.

 

Harbinger did always say it was inevitable. So it was foreshadowed. Listen to the dialogue during the Object Rho fight. It's really laid down well.

 

Even if you did destroy the Reapers, it would come at a heavy cost.

[Ieldra]

Basically, to make the ending really fit, you have to change much of the story leading up to it, and leave many things unresolved UNTIL the very end. 

That is true. I didn't say my scenario addressed all of the endings' problems, just one.

[aoibhealfae]

I remember Legion saying the Geth perceive death in a way that organics didn't understand. They're already more than three centuries old. Even the Reapers was several million years old and yet they're constant and unevolving and they merely value the preservation of life rather than actual living. I like reading/watching fiction relating to artificial intelligence and also research on ethics on artificial life (yes, they exist). I find it was poignant that EDI felt her own mortality, the fear and courage to fight for what she believe in that should be foreign to an immortal synthetic life. 

 

Destroy might ended her life but she is and always been the Normandy. There's a huge possibility that her consciousness might persist even without her Eva Core body and her reaper-modified AI core. Geth doesn't need a physical platform and I reckoned they're like Cylons with their hubs. And much of the conclusion was left hanging in purpose. For what its worth, their sacrifice is significant in the war against the Reapers. 

[UpUpAway95]

It's really just another head canon of the ending, so I'm not sure what the point would be unless you're planning to write another ending mod.  I do think there was a lot of hatred built up against the synthesis ending merely because of the Catalyst's association with the Reapers and this does take some of that away.  In the end, it promotes refusal... which would be the ending I would prefer to see BioWare canonize if they were going to canonize a single ending.  I suspect though that you want it to more clearly promote the destroy ending, which it would if it were the last option discussed rather than the first.

 

Personally, I go for a simpler solution... despite whatever the Catalyst child, Shepard, and the Alliance thought the Crucible would do, it itself is a schematic of unknown origin and no one in the galaxy really knows what it does... Therefore, rather than it actually being a weapon, I think it could be a transmitter that summons the Andromedans to the Milky Way galaxy... who are the actual "source" for the schematic and have been waiting for a cycle that managed to complete it before intervening in the Reaper cycles.

 

The idea that the Crucible might just let something in rather than just be a weapon is foreshadowed by Hackett very early on in ME3 when he discusses the what the scientists employing the A-bomb felt... "They were terrified by what they might let in, but they did it anyways."

 

Likewise, I believe the technology that gets us to the Andromeda system so quickly comes from them.  To avoid the consequences of the ME3 ending (particularly if synthesis)... all the Andromedans have to do is get some of the species out of the MW Galaxy ahead of the Crucible wave.  In the ending battle scene, we see a number of ships apparently jump to FTL and "disappear" out of the system... we don't actually see them going through the relay... so they could be the ships that the Andromedans successfully "grab" into the Andromeda Galaxy ahead of the wave.

[MrFob]

Hm, I definitely think this conversation would have been a good addition to the game. I would have probably chosen Kahlee Sanders instead of Brynn but in the end, it doesn't really matter who gives you the rundown.

 

If the goal of this exercise is - as you state - to prevent the notion that the catalyst/reapers allow the options, I still think though that a lot of changes to the final dialogue with the catalyst would be required in addition to this. There is just too much in this final dialogue that hints at the catalyst being either in control or at the very least in accordance with the choices. That problem is not removed, just by having repeated exposition to the choices from another, albeit more trustworthy, source.

 

On a strictly personal level, I would have enjoyed this conversation, had it been in the vanilla game but I doubt it would have changed my view of the endings by much. Too many other problems there in my opinion.

[StarcloudSWG]

Likewise, I believe the technology that gets us to the Andromeda system so quickly comes from them.  To avoid the consequences of the ME3 ending (particularly if synthesis)... all the Andromedans have to do is get some of the species out of the MW Galaxy ahead of the Crucible wave.  In the ending battle scene, we see a number of ships apparently jump to FTL and "disappear" out of the system... we don't actually see them going through the relay... so they could be the ships that the Andromedans successfully "grab" into the Andromeda Galaxy ahead of the wave.

 

Uh, no. That "disappearing" effect is the visual representation of what happens when a ship's FTL drives are engaged from the point of view of a static observer.

 

It's not some kind of mystical galactic distance teleport, that's just ships using their 'conventional' FTL drives to go faster than light. You've seen it before, in reverse when the Collectors appear out of nowhere to ambush the Normandy SR2 in ME 2. You've seen it with the shuttle departing after the prologue /tutorial in ME 2. You've seen it near the end of ME 2 when the Normandy escapes the blast wave of the Collector Base exploding.

 

Much of FTL travel in Mass Effect is not done through the relays.

 

And who says that the travel to Andromeda is quick? At this stage, we don't know for certain that it is a mere one hundred years. For all we know, it could have taken a thousand, with the crew in cryogenic stasis.

[Ieldra]

Hm, I definitely think this conversation would have been a good addition to the game. I would have probably chosen Kahlee Sanders instead of Brynn but in the end, it doesn't really matter who gives you the rundown.

 

If the goal of this exercise is - as you state - to prevent the notion that the catalyst/reapers allow the options, I still think though that a lot of changes to the final dialogue with the catalyst would be required in addition to this. There is just too much in this final dialogue that hints at the catalyst being either in control or at the very least in accordance with the choices. That problem is not removed, just by having repeated exposition to the choices from another, albeit more trustworthy, source.

 

On a strictly personal level, I would have enjoyed this conversation, had it been in the vanilla game but I doubt it would have changed my view of the endings by much. Too many other problems there in my opinion.

Thanks for the link, reminding me of just how many things in ME3 didn't make sense.   

 

Otherwise, I mostly agree with your reply - quite a few other things would've had to be different to make for a coherent ending - but at least there would've been something more plausible than "some space magic happens". Well, enough of that, there was enough talk about this over the years. I just wish I knew what the hell Casey Hudson and Mac Walters were thinking when they made this mess. 

[UpUpAway95]

Uh, no. That "disappearing" effect is the visual representation of what happens when a ship's FTL drives are engaged from the point of view of a static observer.

 

It's not some kind of mystical galactic distance teleport, that's just ships using their 'conventional' FTL drives to go faster than light. You've seen it before, in reverse when the Collectors appear out of nowhere to ambush the Normandy SR2 in ME 2. You've seen it with the shuttle departing after the prologue /tutorial in ME 2. You've seen it near the end of ME 2 when the Normandy escapes the blast wave of the Collector Base exploding.

 

Much of FTL travel in Mass Effect is not done through the relays.

 

And who says that the travel to Andromeda is quick? At this stage, we don't know for certain that it is a mere one hundred years. For all we know, it could have taken a thousand, with the crew in cryogenic stasis.

 

I know all of this... I'm just positing a way the current situation could be "stretched" to cover a quick exit to the Andromeda Galaxy without a major rewrite of any of the endings.  I think it is possible with a little leap of faith to have ME:A start at a point AFTER ME3.  People are debating about the length of time required to develop intergalatric travel capabilities within the MW during the period between the discovery of the Mars Archives and the events of ME3.  If the "tech," however, comes from Andromeda itself... this length of time is no longer a concern... all that is required is for ships heading for Andromeda to "somehow" get out of the galaxy ahead of the RGB wave generated by the Crucible.  Yes, it's "deus ex machina" but it's not like that's never been used before to side-step an issue like ME3's endings.

 

At any rate, this is a discussion of ME3's endings.  Leldra is proposing a sort of rewrite... I'm not sure as to the purpose of that exercise... unless this is a new ending mod in the making.  Bioware, at this stage of the game, is simply NOT going to rewrite their endings in any way, shape, or form..  They may decide to make one canon in ME:A; but they still won't rewrite it.

[Ieldra]

At any rate, this is a discussion of ME3's endings.  Leldra is proposing a sort of rewrite... I'm not sure as to the purpose of that exercise... unless this is a new ending mod in the making.  Bioware, at this stage of the game, is simply NOT going to rewrite their endings in any way, shape, or form..  They may decide to make one canon in ME:A; but they still won't rewrite it.

There was no purpose except that I was curious just how much weight the impression "the antagonist wins" has had in people's minds. There is no modding out of this, not with the tools at our disposal. If ME3 was as moddable as a TES game I'm sure there would be hundreds of ending mods.

 

BTW, my forum name starts with an uppercase "I" , not a lowercase "L".

[UpUpAway95]

There was no purpose except that I was curious just how much weight the impression "the antagonist wins" has had in people's minds. There is no modding out of this, not with the tools at our disposal. If ME3 was as moddable as a TES game I'm sure there would be hundreds of ending mods.

 

BTW, my forum name starts with an uppercase "I" , not a lowercase "L".

 

I'm sincerely sorry about messing up your name... my eyesight just isn't what it once was anymore.  It's a shame you're not equipped to make a mod... I was looking forward to seeing a clip of it (can't use mods on the Xbox myself but I like seeing them on YouTube nonetheless).

 

Personally, I never interpreted the Catalyst as "the antagonist."  I view it as a discussion Shepard is having within the confines of his/her own mind with the implication that the child represents his/her child in a future he/she realizes he/she is never going to see (because I view the motion of looking at his/her bleeding side and moving forward and collapsing as Shepard actually dying).  So that makes the Catalyst - Telemachus to my Ulysses... and the ending a reflection on what might have been had Shepard lived long enough to activate the Crucible.  The catalyst (i.e. "a person or thing that precipitates an event") for the whole Reaper war was always essentially Shepard throughout the 3 games.

[Get Magna Carter]

It's a first step

The second should be to get rid of the "Starchild" altogether partially because electrical ghost children are a bad idea but mainly because it so badly serves the 2 reasons it was there for

1) to present the player with the options for the final choice

2) to explain the Reaper's motives

If the choices were explained earlier you don't need the "Starchild" for that

Sovereign claimed the Reapers' motives could not be understood - the player doesn't really need to know more - just knowing the Reapers intend to eradicate everyone is enough

 

of course, this won't solve all the problems (Maybe if Bioware had come up with the ending before they started Mass Effect 3 they could have set up things to properly lead to the ending).

 

Quick aside, back in my School chemistry lessons, a catalyst was something that enhanced chemical reactions without being altered by the reaction.

[rossler]

At any rate, this is a discussion of ME3's endings.  Leldra is proposing a sort of rewrite... I'm not sure as to the purpose of that exercise... unless this is a new ending mod in the making.  Bioware, at this stage of the game, is simply NOT going to rewrite their endings in any way, shape, or form..  They may decide to make one canon in ME:A; but they still won't rewrite it.

 

Rewriting the ending won't fix anything, but it will cause those who liked the original ending to be upset. There was no easy way out of this.

 

Best to just cut your losses and accept that some will be upset, while some might not.

 

I don't personally believe Andromeda will do anything with the endings in regards to making one of them canon. It will be a clean slate, like starting ME1 again.

[UpUpAway95]

Rewriting the ending won't fix anything, but it will cause those who liked the original ending to be upset. There was no easy way out of this.

 

Best to just cut your losses and accept that some will be upset, while some might not.

 

I don't personally believe Andromeda will do anything with the endings in regards to making one of them canon. It will be a clean slate, like starting ME1 again.

 

I agree.  Personally, I was quite satisfied with the original endings and felt the Extended Cut actually detracted from them a little bit... although many people felt that the extended cut was an improvement.  If Bioware did want to canonize a particular ending or even pull on an ending not presented to the players at all yet and canonize that, I would personally not be upset either.  I agree that Bioware will probably just "gloss over" the whole issue or avoid it completely in ME:A... and I'm OK with that approach as well.  It's their prerogative as the authors of both games.

 

People also can (and do) write their own endings and put them into mods or fan fictions.  I'm OK with that was well and enjoy reading/watching them (as the case may be.)

[UpUpAway95]

It's a first step

The second should be to get rid of the "Starchild" altogether partially because electrical ghost children are a bad idea but mainly because it so badly serves the 2 reasons it was there for

1) to present the player with the options for the final choice

2) to explain the Reaper's motives

If the choices were explained earlier you don't need the "Starchild" for that

Sovereign claimed the Reapers' motives could not be understood - the player doesn't really need to know more - just knowing the Reapers intend to eradicate everyone is enough

 

of course, this won't solve all the problems (Maybe if Bioware had come up with the ending before they started Mass Effect 3 they could have set up things to properly lead to the ending).

 

Quick aside, back in my School chemistry lessons, a catalyst was something that enhanced chemical reactions without being altered by the reaction.

 

There are multiple dictionary definitions of the word "catalyst" - yours being one (scientific), mine being another (social).  Here's another along the lines of my previous definition.

 

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/catalyst

 

"a person or event that quickly causes change or action"

[rossler]

Since the original trilogy is about Shepard's story, the decisions he or she makes should be confined to the trilogy.

[Andreas Amell]

I've heard and read so many arguments about why the ending choices were garbage. But to me, I think it's just the complaint of players who couldn't handle a position that culminated after thousands of years, made by a force that was clearly more advanced than mortals. When players say they gladly choose the Destroy ending it's like the stupid arguments that Reed Richards should have killed Galactus when he had the chance.

 

They can't see far into the future for the good of everybody. They don't trust the spooky kid because Shepard must be close to Indoctrination. They make circular arguments about individualism and freedom of choice. They don't want to sacrifice themselves in the end because they want the fairy tale ending with the hero's reward. 

 

"Anthropocentric bag of dicks" sums it all up.

 

The war was hell. If everybody gets to live peacefully at the cost of my own life, then that's right choice for me. 

[Ieldra]

I've heard and read so many arguments about why the ending choices were garbage. But to me, I think it's just the complaint of players who couldn't handle a position that culminated after thousands of years, made by a force that was clearly more advanced than mortals. When players say they gladly choose the Destroy ending it's like the stupid arguments that Reed Richards should have killed Galactus when he had the chance.

 

They can't see far into the future for the good of everybody. They don't trust the spooky kid because Shepard must be close to Indoctrination. They make circular arguments about individualism and freedom of choice. They don't want to sacrifice themselves in the end because they want the fairy tale ending with the hero's reward. 

 

"Anthropocentric bag of dicks" sums it all up.

 

The war was hell. If everybody gets to live peacefully at the cost of my own life, then that's right choice for me. 

Your post appears to be out of place in this thread.

 

I did not claim the ending choices themselves were garbage, only that they made no sense in several ways:

 

(1) The presentation of the themes intrinsic to Control and Synthesis went against the way the same themes were presented in the story that came before: the desire to control the Reapers was presented as evil, and Synthesis resulted in "Synthetics becoming alive" when the story that came before told us they already were. In my games, I chose Control and Synthesis, but I always felt the story screamed at me to choose Destroy.

 

(2) Any help we might've had from the ending expositor to resolve that contradiction was nullified by the fact that the ending expositor was also the antagonist responsible for the whole situation in the first place. *Of course* people don't trust it. It has nothing to do with indoctrination (I think IT is nonsense).

 

I'll keep it at that because the whole list has been re-iterated ad nauseam. My OP was intended to resolve problem #2 and make the choices more viable. I have no problem with the Catalyst's logic (althouth its presentation was abysmal), no problem with the amorality of the choices (they come from a non-human AI after all) except in the case of Synthesis, where its main drawback nullifies one of its main thematic messages, and while yes, I do hate the forced sacrifice as I always do in these cases, this is a minor complaint compared to the others. However, the whole ending sequence feels like the ending of another story. I would've liked that story better, most likely, and that's why I also like the ending choices as such, but it's not the story we *were* told. And I really hate the non-SF-like pseudo-religious mood that tells me I should trust something just because it has godlike powers, and that sacrifice as such gives you results rather than that action which makes it one. 

[Valhallix]

Only the destroy ending makes sense. The other two are ridiculous. Not only do they force you to view the world from a machines eyes, but they ask you to basically ignore the past few hours of the game because the catalyst says so. Making everyone part robots will not stop conflict, AI still fought with each other all throughout the series, and by that time we had already mended things with the Geth and Quarians. The Reapers and the Catalyst were apart of the problem in more ways than one. Without them the Rachni wouldn't have been driven to near extinction, the Protheons wouldn't have wiped out the Zha etc. The catalyst was making all these speeches about chaos but when you look back, they caused a lot of the chaos and then just wiped people out after the fact. They were the real problem in the galaxy, not other synthetics or organics. Organics make mistakes, it is what it is. Noone should be able to play god with life because of that fact like the Reapers did.

[Legion of 1337]

I'd like if they started by plugging the plot holes. We can talk about the Catalyst's dialogue after the story makes coherent sense again.

[ZipZap2000]

For me it was that ME3 had three endings:

 

Best seats in the house. (Blew my ending wad.)

 

Catalyst dialogue and decision (This made no sense to me for some time.)

 

Buzz Aldrin. (Which renders everything else pointless, might as well have all been a dream.)

 

 

Had the options been presented earlier it would have made for a plot twist during the catalyst conversation "Oh, but the catch is you die again." nice touch. But you're still stuck with the catalyst himself and the presentation of its broken logic. I can buy into to needing to die to complete the mission. But needing to commit suicide or even genocide or even both, to stop synthetics from committing genocide against us so we don't commit 'suicide by synthetic' would have still killed it for me. 

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Here, here. Exactly my point. I never thought that ME was about Synthetics vs Organics. The game, to me, was really about meeting and understanding cool, different cultures and beings as a human, combating the Reapers and developing relationships with your squad. I mean, yeah, Synthetics were compelling and useful (EDI, Legion) but they didn't develop those last-choice themes properly and instead pitted them to you as a rather quick choice - and something that you haven't been even pondering beforehand. I would have been happy if the game ended when Anderson (and you) died when the Citadel exploded, killing the Reapers and your Shep going out as a hero.

Also, why in "Destroy" do I HAVE to destroy the Reapers AND all Synthetics? I dont wanna kill EDI, Legion and others but I have to with that choice.

The whole series was focused on destroying the reapers. It's the obvious choice. It's why we've been playing the games so long.

They had to add something that would make that choice undesirable to give the other options any chance at all.

Without that destroy is the big glowing I win button.