55 ответов в этой теме

[kal_reegar]

Who says they pushed anything, or even agreed on what the best outcome was?

 

Some people. It's an opinion I've heard many times (synthesis = best ending according to bioware).

[fraggle]

Some people. It's an opinion I've heard many times (synthesis = best ending according to bioware).

 

I think I remember a file or anything being mentioned where Synthesis was named 'best ending'.

Found the post... here.

 

However I don't know if they ever mentioned openly that Synthesis is the best ending and MrFob also posted this later on:

Also, I'd like to make it clear (just in case it wasn't) that I posted that screen with my tonuge in my cheek. IMO, we don't know if this was labeled just by some level designer or what. IMO, it's pretty clear that the writers did not intend for one ending to be absolutely superior to the others. Given all the influence this took from Deus Ex, I believe they tried go a similar road there as well, that no ending was supposed to be better or "the best", sparking exactly the discussions that have been going on for the past 3 years (and whatever you may say about the ending, that is still an achievement in a way). As we all know, "speculation for everyone" was intended.

 

"Speculation for everyone" on whether Bio intended Synthesis to be the best ending is also valid here I guess

[voteDC]

 

Illusive Man was indoctrinated in ME3 but it has nothing to do with his eyes which were caused by something in his origin story.

He got his eyes from a Reaper device that was converting turians into Husks, or Marauders technically I suppose.

A blast of energy went through his friend, who ended up fully converted, and into him. This altered his eyes and enabled him to speak alien languages without the need of a translator.

So the Illusive Man was changed physically and mentally by a Reaper device. Chances are that there was at least some low level of indoctrination, a connection to the Reapers. When they invaded they just strengthened that connection and turned the Illusive Man into their puppet.

Synthesis is perhaps the choice I like the least. Simply because I don't see how it would bring peace unless there was a mind control element involved. Are people really going to forgive the Reapers just because they now share green glowy bits with them?

[UpUpAway95]

Who says they pushed anything, or even agreed on what the best outcome was?

 

The endings are undeniably ranked by Bioware by virtue of the fact that the player requires different levels of EMS to unlock the various endings.  The unlock in order from "easiest" to hardest: Destroy (dies), Control, Synthesis, Destroy (lives).  Destroy is at both ends of the spectrum.  So, of all the endings, it is the only one that is always available to the player and yet still also can be viewed as the "win bomb" because is can also require the highest EMS to get the "best" version of it where the PC lives.  If Bioware were going to maintain a sense of total neutrality on the endings, they would not have ranked them at all and all of the ending options would be available to all players regardless of their overall "performance" in the game itself.  I think Synthesis got mislabeled as the "best" ending because, initially, the people were unaware of the "Destroy (lives)" ending - it simply required too much EMS to be obtained without playing some multiplayer.  The release of the EC, of course, changed that.

[Ithurael]

I agree. They also say that synthesis in the best ending bacause is the one that requires the highest EMS. But this is false.

Destroy ending with shepard alive requires the highest EMS.

 

While I do say that the High EMS destroy breath scene is my preference, and destroy is a fan favorite. The Breath Scene is more an Easter egg than an actual ending choice. The Sequence of High EMS Destroy (shep dies) plays out the same cinematic with High EMS Destroy (shep lives) sans the breath scene of course.

 

Technically, MrFOB discovered in the game files that even the developers saw Synthesis/Synergy as the best ending (or whomever was coding the game at the behest of the writers & team apparently thought so)

Link

 

EDIT: Ah Fraggle Beat me to it!!!

[UpUpAway95]

While I do say that the High EMS destroy breath scene is my preference, and destroy is a fan favorite. The Breath Scene is more an Easter egg than an actual ending choice. The Sequence of High EMS Destroy (shep dies) plays out the same cinematic with High EMS Destroy (shep lives) sans the breath scene of course.

 

Technically, MrFOB discovered in the game files that even the developers saw Synthesis/Synergy as the best ending (or whomever was coding the game at the behest of the writers & team apparently thought so)

Link

 

EDIT: Ah Fraggle Beat me to it!!!

 

If you want to dismiss it as an Easter Egg, you can... but it's still an Easter Egg directly tied to the player's 'performance" of the game itself... and it requires the highest EMS to unlock.  Synthesis still comes in second "best" as far as how the game was actually released to the public.

 

It also doesn't negate the reality that it is Destroy (dies) that is also always available (being the ending that also requires the lowest EMS to unlock).

 

Destroy being in there twice (as lowest and highest) - is what might be seen as the developer "pushing" an ending on the public.  What's "hidden" in the code and not generally accessible does not constitute "pushing."  If they wanted to appear to be completely neutral about the ending choices, they should not have ranked them (i.e. tied them to game performance) at all.  If they wanted to be consistent with their "in-house" opinion reflected by MrFobs discovery - Control should have unlocked first.

[Ithurael]

If you want to dismiss it as an Easter Egg, you can... but it's still an Easter Egg directly tied to the player's 'performance" of the game itself... and it requires the highest EMS to unlock.  Synthesis still comes in second "best" as far as how the game was actually released to the public.

 

It also doesn't negate the reality that it is Destroy (dies) that is also always available (being the ending that also requires the lowest EMS to unlock).

 

Destroy being in there twice (as lowest and highest) - is what might be seen as the developer "pushing" an ending on the public.  What's "hidden" in the code and not generally accessible does not constitute "pushing."  If they wanted to appear to be completely neutral about the ending choices, they should not have ranked them (i.e. tied them to game performance) at all.  If they wanted to be consistent with their "in-house" opinion reflected by MrFobs discovery - Control should have unlocked first.

 

In the post EC world I would, and largely do, agree. simply because of the variants in both Memorial scene and the tiny breath scene, from the vanilla release - no way . From a story point though, due to the catalyst superseding the central conflict from stopping the reapers to preventing organics from being destroyed by their synthetic creations, synthesis is already made out to be the best (in both EC and Vanilla).

 

When I think about the logic that this is based on and long-term effects I, personally, do not see this working out the way the catalysts states.

 

And while I do agree that we don't see the code, we can learn what was going through their heads when we inspect a product (especially software). Upon this inspection, we see that they (or this person coding that section) had a heavy favor on the green option.

[AlanC9]

The endings are undeniably ranked by Bioware by virtue of the fact that the player requires different levels of EMS to unlock the various endings.  The unlock in order from "easiest" to hardest: Destroy (dies), Control, Synthesis, Destroy (lives).  Destroy is at both ends of the spectrum.  So, of all the endings, it is the only one that is always available to the player and yet still also can be viewed as the "win bomb" because is can also require the highest EMS to get the "best" version of it where the PC lives.  If Bioware were going to maintain a sense of total neutrality on the endings, they would not have ranked them at all and all of the ending options would be available to all players regardless of their overall "performance" in the game itself.  I think Synthesis got mislabeled as the "best" ending because, initially, the people were unaware of the "Destroy (lives)" ending - it simply required too much EMS to be obtained without playing some multiplayer.  The release of the EC, of course, changed that.

Well, Destroy isn't always available. Low-EMS runs with the Collector base intact only get Control.

Note that the leaked script outline includes different EMS levels for the endings, but the relative point totals hadn't been set yet. Also, some of the devs didn't know what the EMS requirement for Shepard's survival was; in the early days following release we saw some outright denials that it required MP. From people who should have known better. I'm not convinced that there was enough of a coherent design intent here for us to be drawing conclusions.

[Ithurael]

Coherence in a Bioware Product!!

 

Surely you must Jest AlanC9!!

[UpUpAway95]

Well, Destroy isn't always available. Low-EMS runs with the Collector base intact only get Control.

Note that the leaked script outline includes different EMS levels for the endings, but the relative point totals hadn't been set yet. Also, some of the devs didn't know what the EMS requirement for Shepard's survival was; in the early days following release we saw some outright denials that it required MP. From people who should have known better. I'm not convinced that there was enough of a coherent design intent here for us to be drawing conclusions.

 

I wasn't aware that the Low EMS Base Intact just gets Control.  I've never played a Low EMS/Base Intact game yet.  I stand corrected on that point then.

 

I do stand by the statement, however, that if Bioware wanted to give the public an impression of complete neutrality about the endings, they should not have tied them to game performance at all.

 

That some individuals on this website "push" an "anti-Synthesis" stance can hardly be denied.  It's true, that others "push" a pro-Synthesis stance, but I am of the impression the "anti-Synthesis" movement here is stronger (e.g. Destroy is a "fan favorite" as cited above) and that the "anti-Synthesis sentiments here can get rather... overbearing.  I often wonder if people would feel differently about it if Bioware had presented it as just being an exchange of "understanding" between Synthetics and Organics... leaving the "DNA" of both groups intact.  I personally think the IRL commentary Bioware was trying to make with the ending was that it has been essentially impossible to erase generations of dispute between some human groups to derive a lasting peace.  After a millennia of intermittent war, hatred of the "other" is almost completely ingrained in their DNA.

[Pee Jae]

There are people who mentioned that they were rushing to get out the third game. Then why not just do the third focusing on Cerberus (or a game under the ME3 franchise but a bridge story for the finale) and the fourth focusing on the Harbinger and the Reapers themselves?

 

Bottom line? Money. Games have a set release date and a maximum amount of money that can be spent. If the parent company doesn't want to spend extra on either, the final product may feel rushed or incomplete.

 

If "The Intelligence" aka The Catalyst aka Starchilds job was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics why wasn't the purpose unity vs control?

 

The Catalyst seems to have latched onto the idea that organics vs synthetics was the "problem" it was meant to "solve."

 

They (the reapers and Starchild) extend their intelligence to each make choices so they are in essence individuals according to the Geth. Why does their free will matter more than the rest of the galaxy?

 

Sovereign: "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." They apparently need no reason.

 

How come the Reapers have no say in what happens to their whole species? Only Starchilds.

 

It controls all of the Reapers.

 

Why did we only see the humanoid aliens when we did all that work to gather forces across the galaxy? I didn't see the Ancient Artifacts for Leviathan or hardly any of the benefits of having the Leviathan joining the war, where were the Elcor with armor/Weapons strapped to their back. Where were the Volus bomb squad, and where were the Hanars, Batarians, Vorcha, Yahg, and Rachni. We missed 90% of the actual army.

 

Again, money. Or "resources" if you like that better.

 

So If I chose Synthesis or Control my eyes change and I look thrall like does that mean I was Indoctrinated? (If not then why does Shepard get to be a hero when Sovereign literally did the same thing in order to save everyone?)

 

Synthesis changes everything to look synthetic. But, who's to say that look wouldn't go away after a time? Control literally kills Shepard, whose consciousness is apparently then inserted into or takes the place of, the Catalyst. Indoctrination of Shepard is a question usually sidestepped by anyone from Bioware. Speculations!

 

So was the illusive man indoctrinated the whole time (due to his eyes)?

 

Yes and he later had even more Reaper tech surgery, if you use that console, you can see the conversation between him and a Cerberus doctor. 

 

How would it be possible for Shepard to remain control when that would mean the reapers would have to stop looking for knowledge which was their whole purpose?

 

Shepard has complete Control of the Reapers, same as the Catalyst.

 

Also, why would Shepard have more control then all the other billions of sentient species contained in the Reapers?

 

Again, the central intelligence, (the Catalyst, Shepard) has direct control over every Reaper, including Harbinger.

 

If humans were picked out of all the other races due to their genetic diversity, why would they want Shepard vs. the illusive man who specialty is in the genetics/furtherment of humans? He could give them an expansive knowledge Shepard couldn't dream to.

 

Shepard is a special snowflake. AKA Space Jesus. AKA Story, plot, etc.

 

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

The Catalyst simply believes that it is right and that its solution is the only way to do things. Of course, it is completely insane.

 

And if they were made to end synthetics turning on organics and preserving life. Wouldn't it make sense to only attack the synthetics who turn on the organics?

 

But, then the organics would make more synthetics to kill organics.

 

Why didn't the Leviathan take control of the Starchild? Why didn't Shepard bring an artifact?

 

Clearly, the Leviathan (s) are only interested in their little corner of the universe. Plus, there are only three left, according to what we see in the game. Continuity of civilisation to consider.

 

How did Joker survive the crash with brittle bone disease?

 

Mass effect fields.

 

Why is Synthesis pushed as a great Idea? It looks like Indoctrination of all species, and how would that stop future synthetics from turning on them?

 

Because all life in the galaxy is apparently connected somehow some way. He ain't heavy, he's my toaster. Yeah, it's weird.

 

So are the Collectors free now? Will they be able to live their lives as Protheans again? Of their own race?

 

I'd assume the Collectors are still connected to the Reapers or the Catalyst or Shepard. As Mordin says in ME2, everything was "replaced by tech." Likewise, everything that was converted by the Reapers, like husks, banshees and so on. So, thralls for the central intelligence.

 

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO HARBINGER????????????????????????? Why did he just leave? That has to mean I am indoctrinated or I'm about to be.

 

Why is grass green? If I have to headcanon it, I'd say, he thought everybody was dead.

 

Did EA/Bioware ever address the Indoctrination Theory?

 

No.

[themikefest]

I wasn't aware that the Low EMS Base Intact just gets Control.  I've never played a Low EMS/Base Intact game yet.  I stand corrected on that point then.

That will only happen if ems is below 1750

 

Save the base, control

destroy the base, destroy

[UpUpAway95]

That will only happen if ems is below 1750

 

Save the base, control

destroy the base, destroy

 

I was aware that Destroy would be the only one availabe with a Low EMS/Base Destroyed situation... just wasn't aware the leaving the Base Intact changed it to Control.

[ExesandOhs]

AHHHHH Everyone you rock!!!!!! These answers helped alot!

[rossler]

There are people who mentioned that they were rushing to get out the third game. Then why not just do the third focusing on Cerberus (or a game under the ME3 franchise but a bridge story for the finale) and the fourth focusing on the Harbinger and the Reapers themselves?

 

Shepard's story arc was designed as a trilogy from the start. ME3 was the final game in the story. 

[voteDC]

Shepard's story arc was designed as a trilogy from the start. ME3 was the final game in the story. 

If that's true then it was poorly done so.

You have a second part that ends with the main character in the same situation that they ended the first game, and a third game that according to Bioware was the perfect jumping on point.

The best place to start a trilogy is its final part? Doesn't sound right to me. If Mass Effect 3 is the best place to start the trilogy, then they didn't plan it out at all.

[rossler]

If that's true then it was poorly done so.

You have a second part that ends with the main character in the same situation that they ended the first game, and a third game that according to Bioware was the perfect jumping on point.

The best place to start a trilogy is its final part? Doesn't sound right to me. If Mass Effect 3 is the best place to start the trilogy, then they didn't plan it out at all.

 

They said the same thing about ME2. That it was a good place to start. 

 

I'm sure they had rough ideas, but if you think that had around 10,000 pages of text and diagrams worth of plans, describing what they were going to do for the entire trilogy in immense detail before they even started working on ME1, you are mistaken.

 

Most games, or even TV series aren't planned out in intricate detail. They usually go game by game, or season by season. 

[angol fear]

If people consider that the ending of a trilogy must be planned from the beginning then most series apply the "bad writing". Game of throne which is very popular is badly written too, because the ending isn't planned from the beginning.

[rossler]

From what I recall, 24 had only 13 episodes planned. The rest was made up as they went along. 

 

Turned out okay though. 

[voteDC]

They said the same thing about ME2. That it was a good place to start. 

 

I'm sure they had rough ideas, but if you think that had around 10,000 pages of text and diagrams worth of plans, describing what they were going to do for the entire trilogy in immense detail before they even started working on ME1, you are mistaken.

 

Most games, or even TV series aren't planned out in intricate detail. They usually go game by game, or season by season. 

 

If people consider that the ending of a trilogy must be planned from the beginning then most series apply the "bad writing". Game of throne which is very popular is badly written too, because the ending isn't planned from the beginning.

I don't think they even had rough ideas. If they did then Shepard would not have been at exactly the same place in the story at the end of the first two games.

Planning everything out to the last detail isn't needed, it doesn't allow flexibility after all, but you do need an idea of where you want to go or you end up with a ME3 situation where the last part has to try and wrap up everything because the second part didn't even try.

As to A Song of Ice and Fire, I've never been able to get into it, the books are just too meandering and directionless. That's why I've prefered the TV adaption, which cuts out a lot of the unnecessary fluff. Though, and perhaps it is hindsight at work here, you can tell that season 6 wasn't an adaption but based on vague plans.

Now I'm going to wait for angol to come and tell me that I am completely wrong,

[rossler]

ME2 revolved around the Collector plot. At the end, you can either destroy the base and all the Collectors. Or save the base, but the radiation pulse will kill the Collectors. Therefore the plot is resolved. 

 

With ME3, the story is resolved with Shepard dying from controlling, synthesizing, or destroying the Reapers (low EMS), or destroying the Reapers and surviving with high EMS. The Reapers have been dealt with the the conflict is resolved. I don't see the problem. 

[Ieldra]

He got his eyes from a Reaper device that was converting turians into Husks, or Marauders technically I suppose.

A blast of energy went through his friend, who ended up fully converted, and into him. This altered his eyes and enabled him to speak alien languages without the need of a translator.

So the Illusive Man was changed physically and mentally by a Reaper device. Chances are that there was at least some low level of indoctrination, a connection to the Reapers. When they invaded they just strengthened that connection and turned the Illusive Man into their puppet.

There was a connection to the Reapers. That's how he knew that some unspecified big threat to humanity was on the horizon (alluded to in ME: Evolution), and this was what made him organize all those crazy experiments. His complete lack of regard for actual people's wellbeing may also be partly due to Reaper influence.

[Hrulj]

                                                             ********SPOILER ALERT*********

 

 

 

Okay I just finished ME3 and the ending was a letdown. To me it wasn't about the options available it was more so about the last mission/ game wrap up with no explanation.

 

There are people who mentioned that they were rushing to get out the third game. Then why not just do the third focusing on Cerberus (or a game under the ME3 franchise but a bridge story for the finale) and the fourth focusing on the Harbinger and the Reapers themselves?

 

If "The Intelligence" aka The Catalyst aka Starchilds job was to oversee relations between organics and synthetics why wasn't the purpose unity vs control?

 

They (the reapers and Starchild) extend their intelligence to each make choices so they are in essence individuals according to the Geth. Why does their free will matter more than the rest of the galaxy?

 

How come the Reapers have no say in what happens to their whole species? Only Starchilds

 

Why did we only see the humanoid aliens when we did all that work to gather forces across the galaxy? I didn't see the Ancient Artifacts for Leviathan or hardly any of the benefits of having the Leviathan joining the war, where were the Elcor with armor/Weapons strapped to their back. Where were the Volus bomb squad, and where were the Hanars, Batarians, Vorcha, Yahg, and Rachni. We missed 90% of the actual army.

 

So If I chose Synthesis or Control my eyes change and I look thrall like does that mean I was Indoctrinated? (If not then why does Shepard get to be a hero when Sovereign literally did the same thing in order to save everyone?)

 

So was the illusive man indoctrinated the whole time (due to his eyes)?

 

How would it be possible for Shepard to remain control when that would mean the reapers would have to stop looking for knowledge which was their whole purpose?

 

Also, why would Shepard have more control then all the other billions of sentient species contained in the Reapers?

 

If humans were picked out of all the other races due to their genetic diversity, why would they want Shepard vs. the illusive man who specialty is in the genetics/furtherment of humans? He could give them an expansive knowledge Shepard couldn't dream to.

 

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

And if they were made to end synthetics turning on organics and preserving life. Wouldn't it make sense to only attack the synthetics who turn on the organics?

 

Why didn't the Leviathan take control of the Starchild? Why didn't Shepard bring an artifact?

 

How did Joker survive the crash with brittle bone disease?

 

Why is Synthesis pushed as a great Idea? It looks like Indoctrination of all species, and how would that stop future synthetics from turning on them?

 

So are the Collectors free now? Will they be able to live their lives as Protheans again? Of their own race?

 

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO HARBINGER????????????????????????? Why did he just leave? That has to mean I am indoctrinated or I'm about to be.

 

Did EA/Bioware ever address the Indoctrination Theory?

 

 

I know it's a lot I actually cut down my questions LOL, but answers, opinions, etc. are all welcomed.

I will try to answer to some of your questions:

 

Why did we only see the humanoid aliens when we did all that work to gather forces across the galaxy? I didn't see the Ancient Artifacts for Leviathan or hardly any of the benefits of having the Leviathan joining the war, where were the Elcor with armor/Weapons strapped to their back. Where were the Volus bomb squad, and where were the Hanars, Batarians, Vorcha, Yahg, and Rachni. We missed 90% of the actual army.

 

Time constraints, or lack of will to design it. It was a huge letdown for me as well. I wanted to see all the different allies I gathered.

 

 

So If I chose Synthesis or Control my eyes change and I look thrall like does that mean I was Indoctrinated? (If not then why does Shepard get to be a hero when Sovereign literally did the same thing in order to save everyone?)

 

 

No, or at least it isnt presented as indoctrination. What you did is change everyone's DNA and turned everyone into Cyborgs, part organic, parth synth. 

 

So was the illusive man indoctrinated the whole time (due to his eyes)?

 

No, he became indoctrinated in the time between ME2 and ME3. 

 

How would it be possible for Shepard to remain control when that would mean the reapers would have to stop looking for knowledge which was their whole purpose?

 

I do not think Reapers posses free will of their own. They do what they are programed to do by Starchild, or Shepard.

 

Also why did Starchilds reasoning for the Harvest make no sense? He says that the harvest is to prevent synthetics from turning on Organics. BUT we saw how it was a disproven view point, just a few missions earlier with Quarians and the Geth.

 

Very important to note is that Reapers are dealing with eternity. It is difficult for humans to imagine it, but when you're faced with eternity, everything is certainty. You created peace between Geth and Quarians. The peace may last a year, a century, a milenia, or even a billion years, In the time the universe has until its end, can you guarantee Geth and Quarians will not go to war? 

 

And if they were made to end synthetics turning on organics and preserving life. Wouldn't it make sense to only attack the synthetics who turn on the organics?

 

No because that still leaves the organics who posses knowledge on how to make synthetics behind, who will be even more reckless from then on, believing that any mistake they make will be rectified by Reapers ex Machina

 

 

Why is Synthesis pushed as a great Idea? It looks like Indoctrination of all species, and how would that stop future synthetics from turning on them?

 

Its not a great idea. The Starchild sees it as such since from his viewpoint, the viewpoint of a machine. If everyone is part Organic and part synthetic, even if one race does turn against everyone else, organics still survive, and thus its goal is fullfilled. From my viewpoint, synthesis is equal to galactic rape of every living being, from grass to human. 

 

 

So are the Collectors free now? Will they be able to live their lives as Protheans again? Of their own race?

 

They are dead, they were destroyed by Shepard. And those who were reaperfied dont revert. In case of Synthesis, you just gave husks sentience, without giving them back their bodies. Just imagine the agony they feel

 

 

If humans were picked out of all the other races due to their genetic diversity, why would they want Shepard vs. the illusive man who specialty is in the genetics/furtherment of humans? He could give them an expansive knowledge Shepard couldn't dream to.

 

[themikefest]

 How did Joker survive the crash with brittle bone disease?

A better question is how did the Normandy end up on the unknown planet in one piece?

 

Before the extended cut was released, the thrusters were seen being torn from the fuselage no matter what. Doesn't matter how much ems the player had. The Normandy should be in pieces with all onboard dead.

 

With the extended cut, if ems is above 2600, the thrusters are not seen being torn from the fuselage. The ship is in good shape and seen flying away from the unknown planet. If below 2600, the thrusters are seen being ripped from the fuselage. The ship is stuck on the unknown planet for however long.

[angol fear]

I don't think they even had rough ideas. If they did then Shepard would not have been at exactly the same place in the story at the end of the first two games.

Planning everything out to the last detail isn't needed, it doesn't allow flexibility after all, but you do need an idea of where you want to go or you end up with a ME3 situation where the last part has to try and wrap up everything because the second part didn't even try.

As to A Song of Ice and Fire, I've never been able to get into it, the books are just too meandering and directionless. That's why I've prefered the TV adaption, which cuts out a lot of the unnecessary fluff. Though, and perhaps it is hindsight at work here, you can tell that season 6 wasn't an adaption but based on vague plans.

Now I'm going to wait for angol to come and tell me that I am completely wrong,

 

Actually that's exactly because they knew where they were going that they have made Shepard being at the "same place" in the story at the end of ME1 and 2.

So I can tell you that you are completely wrong, because that's what you expect from me.