spoilers:mass effect 3 ending

[clone]

what ending you chose. i am thinking destroy but i dont like the fact that geth are going to die

[The Despondent Mind]

There is a dozen threads related to this...

[Cold_Mac]

Citadel DLC. Very satisfactory pay-off.

In my 2nd playthrough at least, just dodged London and the last 3-4 hours.

[gastovski]

I thought the game ended after killing Marauder Shields.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Synthesis - killing EDI and the Geth seemed unfair after I saved the Geth just hours before. It resolves the AI/Biological conflict forevermore - no more cycles.

[Mangalore]

To me it was simply:
Destroy is the only option you came to the Citadel and brought the Catalyst for: You blow up the Reapers.

Control is the Starchild convincing you to put your hands on high voltage circuits to burn you to death ... on some vague promise that burning you to death somehow gives you control over the Reapers after you are dead... wait a minute!

Synthesis has the Starchild convincing you to jump into an energy beam... to burn you to death... on some vague promise that burning you to death somehow transforms all life and synthetics to something new on some vague promise that new thing somehow solves anything for the future because... ... ... because deep, man!

Control and Synthesis are completely unclear about what Shepard got to do with anything besides Bioware's Messiah complex. How is Shepard an integral part in either of those two endings? It would make more sense the Starchild doing it itself because why would one human meatbag be special after the Reapers having harvested a couple of billions of them? Shooting something to make it go BOOOM is however precisely in Shepard's CV. It's the only thing giving Shepard at least a desperate illusion of agency. Try to fight or die trying.

That and the war needing sacrifice should have been a more central theme. That would have been an artistic vision I'd have supported and defended. In the end your choice is the sacrifice of one race and a friend or everyone. Watch Star Trek II for an answer to that dilemma.


Otherwise: Do a high warscore Extended Cut if you really want none dieing. I think the Geth and EDI survive that.


edit: Synthesis is a no go because it declares itself to be a pinnacle of evolution which is the biggest possible " YOU!" to science I can imagine.

[gyabo]

All endings in Mass Effect 3 doesn't make sense at all. Even the beginning of the game. Seriously how come Shepard is part of the alliance even though his on Cerberus side in Mass effect 2??

Yes i played the stupid DLC in Mass effect 2 why Shepard is on trial for blowing up a planet but batarians aren't even part of the council and the alliance?? Why the hell they still worried about the batarians?? Also Reapers wipe all the Batarian's system.

Seriously if Shepard felt sorry for blowing up a planet, why the hell he surrender himself with the council?? What part did Shepard broke the law in Alliance??

[Mangalore]

All endings in Mass Effect 3 doesn't make sense at all. Even the beginning of the game. Seriously how come Shepard is part of the alliance even though his on Cerberus side in Mass effect 2??

Yes i played the stupid DLC in Mass effect 2 why Shepard is on trial for blowing up a planet but batarians aren't even part of the council and the alliance?? Why the hell they still worried about the batarians?? Also Reapers wipe all the Batarian's system.

Seriously if Shepard felt sorry for blowing up a planet, why the hell he surrender himself with the council?? What part did Shepard broke the law in Alliance??

He's not really much on trial though, more a investigative hearing about his whereabouts and mass murder is a reason to do something like that regardless of jurisdiction. It's also not the Council but the Alliance Shepard surrendered to which makes sense in ME2 context.

[Adamat]

All endings in Mass Effect 3 doesn't make sense at all. Even the beginning of the game. Seriously how come Shepard is part of the alliance even though his on Cerberus side in Mass effect 2??

Yes i played the stupid DLC in Mass effect 2 why Shepard is on trial for blowing up a planet but batarians aren't even part of the council and the alliance?? Why the hell they still worried about the batarians?? Also Reapers wipe all the Batarian's system.

Seriously if Shepard felt sorry for blowing up a planet, why the hell he surrender himself with the council?? What part did Shepard broke the law in Alliance??

Shepard realised after destroying the Collector base that Cerberus are bad and the Illusive Man is crazy. He returned to the Alliance as he was a soldier there before, and believed they had the best chance of stopping the Reapers. The beginning isn't so bad, the ending is. Unsatisfactory, extremely theorycrafty and makes no sense, even with the extended cut. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but the ending was just sub-par.

[clone]

To me it was simply:
Destroy is the only option you came to the Citadel and brought the Catalyst for: You blow up the Reapers.

Control is the Starchild convincing you to put your hands on high voltage circuits to burn you to death ... on some vague promise that burning you to death somehow gives you control over the Reapers after you are dead... wait a minute!

Synthesis has the Starchild convincing you to jump into an energy beam... to burn you to death... on some vague promise that burning you to death somehow transforms all life and synthetics to something new on some vague promise that new thing somehow solves anything for the future because... ... ... because deep, man!

Control and Synthesis are completely unclear about what Shepard got to do with anything besides Bioware's Messiah complex. How is Shepard an integral part in either of those two endings? It would make more sense the Starchild doing it itself because why would one human meatbag be special after the Reapers having harvested a couple of billions of them? Shooting something to make it go BOOOM is however precisely in Shepard's CV. It's the only thing giving Shepard at least a desperate illusion of agency. Try to fight or die trying.

That and the war needing sacrifice should have been a more central theme. That would have been an artistic vision I'd have supported and defended. In the end your choice is the sacrifice of one race and a friend or everyone. Watch Star Trek II for an answer to that dilemma.


Otherwise: Do a high warscore Extended Cut if you really want none dieing. I think the Geth and EDI survive that.


edit: Synthesis is a no go because it declares itself to be a pinnacle of evolution which is the biggest possible " YOU!" to science I can imagine.

i agree with you. i will choose destroy too.the only downside is the destroyal of geth and normandy ai

[gyabo]

He's not really much on trial though, more a investigative hearing about his whereabouts and mass murder is a reason to do something like that regardless of jurisdiction. It's also not the Council but the Alliance Shepard surrendered to which makes sense in ME2 context.

Trial for what?? Batarians and the Alliance are still at war!! Yes some Batarians terrorist cells are causing this dispute not the Batarian government but the Batarian government still have involvement for supplying weapons all their extremist cell. Did alliance sign some treaty order with the batarians?? Also Shepard is not representing the alliance in Mass Effect 2. The alliance could just say Shepard have gone rogue if there afraid for any retaliation of any alien planets.

[gyabo]

Shepard realised after destroying the Collector base that Cerberus are bad and the Illusive Man is crazy. He returned to the Alliance as he was a soldier there before, and believed they had the best chance of stopping the Reapers. The beginning isn't so bad, the ending is. Unsatisfactory, extremely theorycrafty and makes no sense, even with the extended cut. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but the ending was just sub-par.

Gotta agreed that Alliance forces are now the leading forces in the universe but the trial doesn't make sense at all due to the stupid DLC in Mass effect 2.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

The Geth and EDI are the one thing that stop me doing Destroy - because I agree that is the logical choice; and the one Anderson "picks" so I would normally do that.
But then AIs will come back and blow up all organics, not fun. I think Synthesis is kind of the one Shepard is "meant" to pick - by which I mean; you see the Illusive Man go for Control and Anderson go for Destroy - so it seems to me it's the one they want you to go for.

[Wulfburk]

I hated the ending so much that even though i love the geth, i picked destroy since it was the least worse.

Didnt mind killing EDI cause since she got that body i was like " this ". I remember thinking that i would get a choice to destroy it at the moment you fight it, before EDI came along and took control. Didnt happen.

[Mangalore]

Trial for what?? Batarians and the Alliance are still at war!! Yes some Batarians terrorist cells are causing this dispute not the Batarian government but the Batarian government still have involvement for supplying weapons all their extremist cell. Did alliance sign some treaty order with the batarians?? Also Shepard is not representing the alliance in Mass Effect 2. The alliance could just say Shepard have gone rogue if there afraid for any retaliation of any alien planets.

I said "not really much" on trial. The Batarians and Alliance are _not_ at war, at best at a Cold War stand off. The fighting that happened essentially was a proxy conflict via non state actors by the Batarians in the first place => both sides intentionally never declared war. It is stated the Batarians resorted to those covert ops because as they have been banned from the Citadel council they can't risk open war and are isolated.

There is plenty of reasons to put someone in front of an investigative hearing after that person caused the deaths of several hundred thousand civilians in peace time regardless of what citizenship they have. One would hope that we are willing to that today.

The Geth and EDI are the one thing that stop me doing Destroy - because I agree that is the logical choice; and the one Anderson "picks" so I would normally do that.
But then AIs will come back and blow up all organics, not fun. I think Synthesis is kind of the one Shepard is "meant" to pick - by which I mean; you see the Illusive Man go for Control and Anderson go for Destroy - so it seems to me it's the one they want you to go for.

Yes, BW for some reason loved that idea and push it but it is badly thought out, pretty vague and not set up at all. Destroy is obvious and Control can be argued via the revelation of the existence of the Starchild but I still have no clue (and don't want to kill more neurons thinking about) what the heck Synthesis is actually supposed to solve. It's claimed to solve the AI-organics conflict (a conflict I don't buy because the entire trilogy displays the opposite, every time it comes up the only problematic AI are the Reapers) but how altering all life and non life somehow changes that conflict and how that somehow fosters understanding I have no clue. I mean, there is no difference in the conflict between the Quarians and the Geth to any other conflict in the galaxy and it is resolved precisely the same way any other conflict is resolved. Both sides behave entirely rationally when pursuing the conflict and when ending it. Where is the magical unsolvable conflict coming from? None is showing said conflict! Only the Reapers are evidence of such a conflict existing, them being the bad guys of said conflict.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Yes, BW for some reason loved that idea and push it but it is badly thought out, pretty vague and not set up at all. Destroy is obvious and Control can be argued via the revelation of the existence of the Starchild but I still have no clue (and don't want to kill more neurons thinking about) what the heck Synthesis is actually supposed to solve. It's claimed to solve the AI-organics conflict (a conflict I don't buy because the entire trilogy displays the opposite, every time it comes up the only problematic AI are the Reapers) but how altering all life and non life somehow changes that conflict and how that somehow fosters understanding I have no clue. I mean, there is no difference in the conflict between the Quarians and the Geth to any other conflict in the galaxy and it is resolved precisely the same way any other conflict is resolved. Both sides behave entirely rationally when pursuing the conflict and when ending it. Where is the magical unsolvable conflict coming from? None is showing said conflict! Only the Reapers are evidence of such a conflict existing, them being the bad guys of said conflict.

You make a good point - the Council outlawed creating a true AI anyway, so unless so rouge gang makes an army in secret as long as the Council enforces the law it's OK. And as EDI is an AI and does not attempt to murder Shepherd at any point in the series I don't see why we can't all just get along.
Whilst the AI-Organic conflict is not really emphasised in the first two games I guess it was always looming. I think the whole idea is more based on real world speculation than the in-game depiction. Still I was satisfied with the ending - I know I'm in a minority but I was satisfied, I think I view ME3 as a massive extended ending and it works better that way.

[clone]

can i ask something. which mision is a no go back( you cant do any assigments)

[Mangalore]

can i ask something. which mision is a no go back( you cant do any assigments)

When you go to the Cerberus station.

Whilst the AI-Organic conflict is not really emphasised in the first two games I guess it was always looming. I think the whole idea is more based on real world speculation than the in-game depiction. Still I was satisfied with the ending - I know I'm in a minority but I was satisfied, I think I view ME3 as a massive extended ending and it works better that way.

Oh, it's based on the singularity idea and that a super AI will maybe make us redundant but you still have to show that conflict in your story to create the insight how it is so threatening. It already starts with the idea of Synthetics and Organics being somehow at odds when they are a pretty arbitrary line in a hyper advanced civilization with tons of cybernetic implants and genetic optimization. What's the supposed difference? Silicium vs. Carbon?
I'm also not sure if that is intentional (I really doubt it since it would need thought about the ending) but I find it hilarious that the Reapers - a murderous AI - plead to murder everyone now in order to safe everyone from being murdered by someone else later. BW either wanted to hint at the Starchild being insane or ... I don't know. Yes, you can imagine the idea of the Singularity concept kind of creating a scenario where it becomes plausible but it is not really presented in the game other than by the Reapers you are in the last minutes of the game suddenly supposed to believe to be interested in fixing it (after millions of years being too dumb to do so which implies their Singularity theory is wrong since that implies an exponentially growing intelligence).

The fascinating thing is how it manages to be so good and then go so wrong.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

can i ask something. which mision is a no go back( you cant do any assigments)

Do you mean when you have to finish the game?

Its the assault of the Elusive Man's base - once you go for that you can't stop till you end the game. But once you finish the game credits and all it goes back to just before you attack the Elusive Man.

[Wulfburk]

This summarizes the ending greatly.




And my expectation of ME4 is as low as my expectation of the new Call of Duty. It gets worse when everything i hear is "Oh graphics this, frostbite this, weapons and armor this, frostbite this... " Its at least -supposed- to be a roleplaying game, i wanna hear about the roleplaying characteristics DAMNIT.