Replayed it at least 10 times, 2/10 would`t recommend, all jokes aside destroy is the best ending, especially with the extenden cut, I only feel sorry for Joker, poor Joker ;(
and on top it is the only ending, if you tryed to get teh best results accross the bord, wive a hint that shappered may some how survived that explosion and following crash to earth...., btw. anyone else thought that at the synth ending it looked like shappered turned into 1 of those husks, wile flinging him/her-self into the energy beam?
This trilogy, especially the 'destroy' ending, is perfectly summed up by Javik: "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghost if honour matters."
Exactly , i thought about this line of line of him when i wondered which ending to choose. So i chose Destroy , i know that the Geth and EDI would die , but my Shep was ready to take this guilt if it meant a secure future for all other people
@@kennethfharkin that would be a long time since the galaxy is in ruins and will take time to rebuild, even then it is proven that organics and synthetics can coexist peacefully if both sides respect each other, something that everyone will follow after remembering that the Geth fought alongside them
@@podlodialgilap3490 its not like any future AI would look at history and say "hey, these meat bags eliminated ALL of us once before to save their asses!"
@@kennethfharkin they will understand that there was no other option. either that or forceful singularity for the entire galaxy which leaves everyone with no purpose. even attempting to control the reapers is highly likely to result in Shepard AI going mad and turning into starchild 2.0. Also i believe the geth are not entirely dead , they live on the very edge of the galaxy, and probably have programs uploaded in stations in deep space where the EMP pulse can't reach them
No matter what ending you choose, we can all agree that music and the end of this grand adventure had us crying our hearts out, and that is what makes Mass Effect a powerful story and fantastic epic.
The reason Mass Effect is so popular as a series, is that the characters are equally as important as the world. The ending as it was when the ME3 shipped, gave very little information on what happened to the characters, besides crashing on the planet in the normandy. The fact that people HAD to ask questions like, what happened? where are they? are they OK? what's next for them? is exactly why one of the most common complaints towards the ending is that it's unsatisfactory, because very little information is given to answer those questions about the characters. Bioware made a game about characters and worldbuilding and then they made the ending all about consequences to the worldbuilding with no solid answers as to what the consequences were to the characters.
We see a great deal about what happens to the characters. Depending upon the ending you receive, Zaeed might be kicking back drinking a beer in semi-retirement, while Samara spends time with her daughter at the monastery. What more do you want? Knowing every last detail wouldn't improve the ending, it'd make it worse.
This is in line with my "soft indoctrination" theory: The ending does happen for real, but the Reapers are trying to convince Shephard to choose anything other than destroy.
The concept of me3’s ending was too grand and went over most everyone’s head as people are easily suggestible. I completely agree with the soft indoctrination theory that is exactly the way I perceived all the endings which weren’t destroy. Just about every way that the reapers possessed to keep existing after the crucible is docked.
EDI is afraid to die. The Geth are afraid to die. You see this in both of their storylines. So why would the Reapers be any different? But here's the thing; the Reapers have no remorse. How can we forgive them as machines just following orders while also recognizing the free will of sentient synthetic lifeforms? That's why my Shepard wiped them out. It's the Genophage all over again, except with that, there was debate, there was remorse. The Reapers believe they are right, that they know what's best for the galaxy. But...they don't. Even when we've proven them wrong, they refuse to change. To evolve. And so they must be destroyed for the galaxy to grow. And that's why Shep takes a breath in perfect destroy. It's the galaxy finally being able to breathe freely now that the Reapers are gone.
@@jepe4537 i get incredibly annoyed when people argue ME3 had a high concept ending and people complaining are too stupid to understand. Mass Effect 3 was released a year after Mass Effect 2. They didn’t have time to write a good (or even just sensible) ending that didn’t boil down to pressing 1 of 4 buttons. The end. The ending was bad, it presented a new concept 5 minutes from the end of the game, took agency away from the player, and 1 of its 4 options straight up didn’t make any sense.
@@blakemorris2328 mass effect 2 was still being worked on until 2011 because of the DLC’s. Meant to say “a year after the last DLC.” It absolutely had a shorter development time than either of the first 2 games.
But the cycle *will* continue in the Destroy ending. The Catalyst tells Shep that, “The peace won’t last. Soon your children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back.” Maybe you think C is lying, but I think in context of a game all about recurring cycles, I believe him. Destroy just kicks the problem down the road.
Not true. The game was NEVER about the endless cycle of conflict between organics and synthetics. In fact, a main plot point was brokering peace between the Geth and the Quarians. The game itself showed that war was not inevitable.
The one point I agree with you on is that Destroy is the least offensive of all endings. The reason I find ME 3's ending to be a complete farcical sham was because of how the central conflict of the series is thrown out of the window. The entire underlying theme of Mass Effect out of the gate was to work past our differences for the greater good, as cliche as that sounds. In ME 1 you assemble a rag tag team who through the diversity of your skill sets work together to bring a halt to Sovereign's plan. ME 2 is the same principal on steroids, as you get together another team of the good, the bad and the ugly to stop the Collectors. ME 3 all up until the final 15 minutes shared the same central conflict. You had to assemble everybody to build the Crucible and fight the Reapers but on a Galactic Scale. Old wounds had to be mended and enemies made allies for the best possible chance at victory and at that point the series was locked into an emotional contract to provide the natural conclusion to the tale it was telling, be that your annihilation because you told everyone to go fuck themselves and started picking sides or something more cathartic because you had put the time and energy into bringing every race together for a last hurrah, where you win or die trying. As soon as Shepard has defeated Marauder Shields and ascended the stairway to heaven, all of that goes out the window. Now all of a sudden I'm getting lectured by ghost boy about how synthetics and organics living together is like trying to drink milk after orange juice. The conflict has gone from uniting the divided good, bad and ugly to fight for your right to wake up tomorrow or go out in a blaze of glory to an equally cliched but way worse trope of Skynet taking the order to defend Earth a little too seriously and blowing up the greatest threat to it, which just so happens to be the geezers who built it. I don't think its attempt at a thought provoking ending in which you have to make a choice with an impossible set of options is what makes it bad. War is fucking shit and as much as we want to believe, not everyone will come home ever. Its transgression comes in the form of it taking a massive swerve in the other direction and leaving masses of loose ends and players thinking more 'what in the fuck just happened' as opposed to 'fuck, that just happened.' TLDR; it betrays its own themes and already flaky narrative in a cack handed attempt to be thought provoking when that was not the tale that was being built. I appreciate your well structured and explained argument as to the way you feel about this and 9/10 times, I agree with these shorts videos but this is one time where I vehemently disagree your sentiments. I don't want to hate it but I do and every time I go back to play the series again, I have to choose secret option #4 as a spiritual fuck you to Mack Walters.
I love how Spacedock is loving comments that agree with him, no matter what or how short they are, and ignoring ones that don't agree with him regardless of what they say.
I agree that the Destroy ending is the only choice and the story that comes with it is fine by me. What I don't like about the ending is that it is essentially Red Wave, Green Wave or Blue Wave. Sure, the cutscenes have different narrations and other effects on the textures, but after 3 games and countless decisions that supposedly have shaped the fate of the galaxy, boiling it down to this just felt massively cheap. The extended cut helped a bit, but the issue still remains IMO. Instead of endings that play out differently we just got a 7 minute cutscene in either red, blue or green and that is what truly bugs me about it.
But the consequences are so mind-glowingly different that if you only see three colours it really isn't the writers fault I'd say! Still, to each their own, I prefer more suggestive and less descriptive endings.
What would have been better, would be to remove the three options, and leave the player with two based on their actions leading up to the end. Either you proceed down the path that your actions dictated, or you walk away. But that would have been much harder to code and might have upset fans even more since to get there would require replaying the whole trilogy in much different ways.
@@mella4376 I disagree. significant parts of the footage are the same. In all three the Normandy effectively deserts from the battlefield (questionable in itself), crashes on a supposedly unknown planet and a number of people crawls from the wreck. The fact that they couldn't be arsed not to copy and paste so much footage across the endings is what bothers so many people - including myself.
Fyi etymologically ruth probably/maybe comes from rue. Like you'll rue (regret) the day... that helps me think Garrus was all about making sacrifices WITHIN moral constraints, just with moral confidence.
IE if your counter attack is going to kill the enemy's slaves, not avoidable, being regret less, ruthless, is merely acknowledging that the enemy is morally responsible for those deaths. Ymmv
@@OdinBarenjagerschlos I think I remember Garry's saying something of loosing thousands in order to save millions, and that those were the ruthless calculations of war, and that he wouldn't like being the one making them. By the way, what's with the response a year later. And what are the odds that I just watched this video again a few days ago because youtune recommended it
People's discontent came from absolutely no influence of player's choices on the ending. Those 3 endings were the same for everyone no matter what actions they took. The assets you gather through the game were not even depicted during the final push, save the couple of seconds when particular fleet arrived. Also the starchild meme Bioware served us was not funny at all and completely unnecessary. As for control ending - its outcome may actually differ from player to player depending on Shepard's personality. If he was altruistic, taking control of the Reapers could have elevated peoples of the galaxy to unseen level. If he was cruel psychopath he could have actually finished Reapers' job and turn his attention towards other galaxies to strip them out of organic life too.
When you have something that large facing you, it kind of washes out some insignificant things. When faced with a civilization ending threat, it doesn't really matter if you helped Chad in me1 or let him believe he was n7 in me2 where he subsequently died, or helped him with the orphans in 3. It's so big that the little things don't add up enough to matter.
The out comes of your choices are seen through out the game, which negates them being needed in the ending itself. as was already said, the ending was too big to make something as small as whether or not the krogan are cured of the genophage for example, is relevant in comparison.
I’m thinking you’re right about the “control” ending having different outcomes depending on Shepard’s character. My Shepard was *technically* Renegade, but went Paragon on most of the “Big Decisions” throughout the series and did a heel-face turn to almost full Paragon by the end of ME3. Picked the “Control” option, and while it was sad that Shepard turned into an emotionless God AI, the implication I got was that she uses the Reapers to help rebuild and afterwards uses them as a means of guarding the galaxy from external threats and preventing the other races from starting wars with each other. Sure, that’s a little 1984ian, but not nearly as bad as the ending mentioned in this video.
Control actually goes one of two ways depending if your paragon or renegade. Renegade makes you more like big brother always watching and gives a dark undertone. Paragon gives a more paternal feeling and sounds more hopeful
adan daniels Someone else agrees, yay lol. You really do need the reapers for protection, the leviathans being the biggest concern as well as potentially hostile Ais or organics the galaxy will face in the future.
Agree, ironically I think control as Paragon is actually the best ending since a super benevolent protector controlling god machines to preserve the right for all organic life to exist and stop any major threats is a pretty good way to go. You don't even need defense spending anymore since the "shepherds" could protect Citadel space.
@Carlos Chagas that is exactly the opposite of what is explained about that ending. As the explanation goes it's Shepard's morals and conscience that will guide the reapers from that moment onward.
@Carlos Chagas the different endings between paragon and renegade shows opposite, Shepard and the catalyst converge into a new being their morals are bonded. I think that the reapers needs to exist, they're the only force in the galaxy that can bring balance, soon or later other organics will create the next reapers or worse, at least the reapers created a balanced cycle where every race has an opportunity to exist. Evolution cannot be stopped, technology is only a form of evolution the reapers must exist.
People who think like thanos do not avenge and would have no issue with pulling an illusive man. Control is viable for those who do not trust a self regulated council of civilizations.
@@michaelandreipalon359 saren was widely considered to be the best specter the council had plus with the reaper upgrades he had he had an equal footing with the reaper soldiers There’s a couple more but it’s 4 am and I just woke up lol
@@ACrazedGaming the entire premise of Saren is that he could not be saved, only made to realise the stupidly of his actions and what needed to be done to correct them (aka kill himself). He was almost fully indoctrinated (which allowed him to have “some” degree of free will, which brings back to the previous point) and he could of turned into an highly advanced Reaper troop of its own type (as seen in the boss fight) at any time even if he somehow been saved and Sovereign defeated (which only happened cause Sovereign was too busy trying to both unlock the Citidel's relay and control/possess Reaper Saren, When Reaper Saren died that caused a massive feedback effect on Sovereign, allowing the Alliance to defeat Sovereign (which is why Harbinger piggybacks off the signal produced by the Collector General to its troops in order to possess them and suffers no feedback effect when they die). With Nihlus, Nihlus would have been the main character as he would of been the one to make contact with the Beacon (as he was in charge and babysitting Shepard for his evaluation). The rest of the story would have been the same except for Tali dying as if Nihlus lives, both Nihlus and Shepard would have never needed Tali to provide the evidence needed to convict Saren. Other than Liara; Wrex, Tali (as she is dead) and Garrus would have very unlikely made it aboard the Normandy as crew/teammates(as Nihlus is a “Renegade but by the books” sort of being) even though Shepard would still own the Ship (Anderson would still have to step down to keep an eye on thing at the Citidel as he stated), Nihlus is running the operation as Shepard’s mentor and evaluator and thus has final decision over everything. (Reason for Liara getting a pass is because she’s crucial for the story to progress as she helps to make the Beacon's vision make sense and Nihlus would most likely keep her as a potential hostage against her mother
@@TheGUARDIANOFFOR Ummm he said that there is no choice to safe both and that is absolutely true. Legion dies no matter what. What he is talking about is the choice of simply not giving the Geth the reaper code to safe Legion. That would safe both but it isn´t there
@@JBasilix not accurate. You didn’t choose one over the other. Legion sacrificed itself. He’s implying there was no choice in saving them both. Implying the choice between siding with the geth or the quarians. Which clearly you don’t have to.
Thing is - even the Destroy ending meant the end of civilization as we knew it. Sure, the organics survived as they were, but the Mass Relay network is destroyed, making long-range interstellar travel impossible, and with the Reapers gone, no one possesses the technology to rebuild them.
Exactly. The will lead to extinction of many Planets and Colonys in the Galaxy since the gates are gone and they cant sustain themselves. Not to mention how much damage the Gate explosions do.
From available material in the ending, repairing mass relays after the ending is not only possible, it doesn't even take more than few months or years. If Wrex and Eve are alive, you can see a picture of Wrex (and Grunt, if he's alive too) exiting shuttle after returning on Tuchanka while Eve is holding his child, which means that only relatively short time passed between the battle of Earth and restoration of some of the mass relays (at least in high EMS endings).
I'd say Saren was control, because he thought he could control them only to be indoctrinated and now think being a slave is better. Illusive Man was destroy until his greedy ass saw the Collector tech. The running theme of the villains is they think they can control the Reapers until they are indoctrinated.
TheVerySeriousLewis totally wrong. Saren always preached synthesis, he wanted to merge with the reapers as to survive, he literally became part machine/merged with the reapers at the end of me1. The illusive men on the other hand was always talking about controlling the reapers, simply using them so humanity can survive. Have you even played the game?😅 that was all he was talking about in me3... so yeah, destroy is the right ending
My justification for disliking synthesis comes from Legion and Mordin's own words in Mass Effect 2. It leads to stagnation by skipping to the 'final evolution of life'. Mordin: "Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations: cant carry a load, so invent wheel, can't catch food, so invent spear-limitations! No limitations, no advancement, culture stagnated. Works other way too". Legion: "Accepting another's path, blinds you to alternatives". Even excluding the moral arguments, it still is a terrible option.
@@thedarkmaster4747 Refusal to me is definitely more valid than synthesis though, so no argument here. The Reaper's themselves by being subject to the Catalyst's control are tools; the Geth can still deviate from the 'hive mind' and make somewhat independent choices and thus, qualify for sentience and independence more than any reaper we've met. In destroy, you're essentially giving up most of the universe's technology in exchange for freedom and the chance to build a new future on our 'own terms' (Legion's ME2 perspective). It's one of my least favourite options, but creates a lot of possibilities. In control, the Reaper's fall under the control of Shepard. Under the assumption of a paragon Shepard, the Reapers serve as the replacement fleet and guardian's for the galaxy, restoring the relays and society back to Pre-ME3 levels. Individuals still have the capacity and freedom to change, explore new technologies and there's still diversity amongst the galaxy and innovation can still occur. This is my personally favourite one if the Shepard is paragon: if not, then it turns into the second worst option behind Synthesis, with Reaper-Shepard hinting at a military dictatorship. With a paragon Shepard, It allows the galaxy to focus on rebuilding society rather than just the military initially, unlike the Destroy ending and prevents a possible internal power struggle occuring. Worst-destroy ending is also better than Synthesis in my eyes as some individuals survive and start rebuilding, even with catastrophic damage, whilst retaining the individual freedom I've championed so far. Synthesis essentially has the benefit's of control in terms of technology but removes elements of individual freedom: non-consensually turning everyone into bio-synthetic hybrids is one of the main things you're aiming to prevent. If by rewriting everyone's entire genetic makeup without their consent turns everyone co-operative, is it even truly life? Refusal still allows for the Destroy and Control options to occur in future cycles and whilst tragically phyrric, it thematically fits into the story.
Jordan Beeney It is a phyrric victory, but also a moral victory and an ethical vicrory. But its also a mo-ral annihilation as the reapers essentially just win the war in the face of the futility of shepherds defiance. "Control" is equally as bad irreguardless of shepherds morality or allignment, ultimately they would've inevitably of shared the same fate as thee illusive man. Because as stated in the first game by sovereign, the reapers are beyond human comprihension. Infact the only race that could've attempted to control the reapers would've been the leviathans - as we have actional proof of such agency, in the game. Not that i'd bet on them, given how badly they lost to the reapers/the star child/the intelligence/citadel the first time around. Thematically you have the whole man creates god in the form of machine trope, but here it's more god creates c'thulu in a vain attempt to save man from himself. Control is a bad ending because if anything your only making the reapers even smarter. "Destroy" is equally awefull for the same core under lying reason, the star child/citadel states that it will not allow you to only destroy the reapers and thus achieve your military victory condition. "BUT" and this is a big but, it Will destroy all synthetic life and E.M.P. all technology, E.D.I. & her replicants, the geth and numerous other A.I. across the galaxy down to every single street light, aswell as it's reaper armies. Which ofcourse when you think about it, citadel being a being without compassion, reverence or sentiment. Makes no difference to it whatsoever, infact, just as with control, in destroy citadel has an advantage - if anything. Even the husk of a dead reaper as we experienced in the mission to recruit legion in mass effect 2 can indoctrinate. There is no reason to assume that in this way - citadel cannot ressemble itself faster than the milkyway can advance to a point of sufficient military opposition. And given citadels intellect, comprising of every civilization that it has harvested, it is perfectly possible that it could of calculated this exact strategem:"The experiments will continue." And "synthesis" is essentially the borg, citadels end goal, but as it has stated, this cannot be "forced", not to imagine tha citadel hasn't tried numerous times, repeatedly. Given the state of the krogan turian hybrid reaper form that breaks the current in universe understanding of biotechnology. We do achieve "synthesis" through the geth and quarian alliance or reunification. Citadel is ofcourse aware of this, and has not desisted the current harvest. Neither had citadel stopped the harvest of the countless other civilisations, given what - you can imagine, being the various other responces to the inevitablity of the reaper hollocaust. Which is why the only option is refusal, and thus, conventional defiance.
The Dark master Refusal is a terrible ending aswell, you're dooming the whole galaxy to extinction which is much worse than destroy which only dooms synthetic life. Sure technology will be damaged but if you have a high ems hackett said it is possible for everything to be rebuilt, it's low ems destroy which is much more of a problem. Also if shepard doesn't destroy the reapers the next cycle will anyways, the difference is shepards cycle gets wiped out because shepard would have been too weak willed to have done it himself, and in return would have wasted everything that shepard ,his cycle and the protheans cycle fought for. Shepard sacrificed a system to slow down the reapers, so shepard shouldn't have a problem going one step further if it meant stopping the reapers permanently especially If the other alternative is just letting everyone die. Quite frankly I hate the refusal ending aswell, it felt like a slap in the face from bioware that was thrown in there out of spite because of the negative reaction the endings got. I don't think it's the worst ending (synthesis is the worst for multiple reasons), but it is still really bad. I think all the endings are bad, but the destroy ending is the least worst.
Emmanuel 49 Refusal is what would've happened anyway, naturally. ME 1 & 2 were essentially shepherd perpetually chosing the refusal option. Refusal is a fight, a hypothetically futile one
i feel the ending shouldn't have been a "choice" but the culmination of choices all the way back from ME1. where the star child is simply a terminal to inform shepard that the Crucible is merely a power source with the citadel being an 'essence' gun and Shepard the singular being who has brought a force capable of showing the Reapers a new path. Shepard being the catalyst and the ending reflective of who Shepard has been throughout the series Paragon or Renegade and what they have done, if they brought peace through understanding or dominating the parties involved or destroyed any who would not fall into line even in the face of the truth. The ending should be about salvation for all, including the species that comprised the Reapers by showing the flaws of the extinction cycle and offering a new path forward.
Watched the video, and... yeah that's gonna be a no from me. Just a thing about the "sinister overtones"... that all depends on Shepard's alignment. The Extended Cut speech changes based on the Shepard's morality. Also your mention of "no choice to save both Tali and Legion" is wrong. Legion dies in every scenario, either killed by Shepard or sacrificing itself. And that is where I have to disagree with your core assessment about Mass Effect's theme: The best sacrifice is always of the self, by one's own volition. Both Kaidan and Ashley tell you to save the other one on Virmire. 2 starts with Shepard choosing to sacrifice himself to save Joker, then being resurrected to go on what is literally deemed a "suicide mission", which everyone on the squad willingly chooses to join in on (nobody is coerced), and many of the side missions reflect that (Okeer sacrifices himself to make sure Grunt's tank survives, Tali willing to accept exile to prevent her father's name from being ruined, Miranda willing to throw away her own life to save her sister, etc). All of the best endings to the various story arcs in 3 involve personal sacrifice: Mordin chooses to go up to the Genophage tower, Thane literally throws himself at Kai Leng, Legion destroys itself to awaken the geth as truly sentient beings. Meanwhile the villains are the ones that want to sacrifice others to save themselves: TIM with Cerberus, Saren with pretty much all sapient life, the salarian dalatrass asking you to throw away the krogan, Miranda's father, Gavin Archer... the list goes on. So taking the destroy ending to save Shepard actually makes Shepard the villain. You're willing to throw away the geth and EDI to save yourself. Making the comparison to Trek, it's not Kirk you should connect Shepard to, but instead Spock. With full knowledge that he will die, he chooses to throw away his own life, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
toadofsteel wow... perfect. Dare anyone to make an argument against that lol. also don’t forget our protagonist’s last name... paragon definitely makes the Ai. Out to be a shepherd. They don’t enslave sheep... they guide and protect them like paragon Shepherd, or Jesus if you wanna get into the shepherd savior metaphor.
The "paragon" control ending doesn't work as it's what the Reapers push for. The green ending breaks established lore and resorts to essentially magic in hard science sci-fi, and the destroy ending also killed Shepard unless you reach a specific threshold. Another thing you want to look at is the fact that the Reaper AI smiles rather creepily if you pick either control or synthesis while it scowls before fading with destroy. Since you're looking at past events to justify the control ending allow me to do the same with the destruction ending. Mass Effect 1. Saren preaches the idea of coexisting with the Reapers to preserve life all whilst undergoing extensive cybernetic implantation with Reaper Tech to the player. Turns out to be a puppet. Mass Effect 2 and 3. T.I.M preaches about harnessing the power of the Reapers (and the Collector base) by controlling them, using them to benefit mankind and lead the galaxy to great strength. Turns out that he got the idea after being completely indoctrinated by the Reapers. Now why would the Reapers push for two out of three options? Both of which get an almost rapey grin from the Reaper AI? Why does the "Renegade" option that every character that is established as trustworthy pushes for get a negative reaction from the literal embodiment of the Reapers minds? Food for thought.
toadofsteel Shepard doesn't pick the destroy ending to save himself, where did you get that from? The star child even tells shepard if he chooses destroy he will die aswell as he is part synthetic, shepard had no idea he would survive so yeah shepard was willing to sacrifice himself in the destroy ending. If you want to start bringing up what the villains wanted then let's talk about how the illusive man wanted to control the reapers and he was indoctrinated, saren wanted synthesis and once again he was indoctrinated. Anderson, shepard and all of the good guys in mass effect wanted the reapers destroyed and they were not indoctrinated. Also if you're trying to say shepard isn't willing to sacrifice others to get the job done then you're wrong, he sacrificed an entire system to delay the reapers in mass effect 2, do you really think he wouldn't go 1 step further and sacrifice synthetic life if it meant stopping the reapers permanently? Also why would shepard even want to control the reapers? It's not a life worth living, it was never his goal throughout the series even when the illusive man tried to persuade him to and I'm pretty sure shepard is against mind control anyway, he's conflicted about rewriting the geth, disgusted by batarians using control chips in slaves brains and he tells miranda it's better to be dead than be controlled so it is hypocritical for him to then mind control the reapers no matter how much he hates them especially when he can just kill them outright. Also Shepard would be putting the galaxy in danger choosing control, he has no idea if the star child is lieing or if he might start up another cycle of genocide due to no longer being in full control of his actions as he will basically become like an AI. Destroy ending is the best and safest ending, on top of that it's exactly what shepard wanted from the start throughout the series, no point changing his mind in the last 5 minutes because the greatest enemy shepards ever faced tells him to.
You have a good point. It doesn't change the fact that the ending was unpolished, rushed and had severe plot holes and directly contridicted codex entries
The ending was good in theory, they fucked up the execution which was why so many people (including me) missed the point when they first played it. To be clear, that's on Bioware and EA for not putting enough time into it, but it was still a good concept on paper.
il say ending was rushed but they always had this kinda of ending in my and i liked then again i played it with all dlc and extendet cut but overall i loved the ending. And yes i want another ME game that is set after 3 let's 10 years later
Leviathan fixes most of this. In my opinion the leviathan subplot should have been in the base game and the cerberus part should have been a DLC, as no one cares about it.
No Spacedock, don't do it! Choose life! Actually when you think about it, player choice has no hold the final choices with the Crucible. This was not a (Current Cycle) created machine, but one made by the Protheans and all those that came before them. THEY provided the options to choose from, and we had to make that choice. No one in the galaxy truly knew what the device would do until the end, and so the whole game basically ran on hope that the ancient space Mcguffin would somehow save us all. Your choices do not lead towards How the game will END, but instead WHO will SURVIVE to see the Crucible fired, and the subsequent aftermath. I would have loved for there to have been a follow up Aftermath mission (or multiple) where you play as one of squad mates and witness just how the decisions you made affected the REBUILDING of Galactic Society, Who lived, What they went on to do, How Shepard was remembered. Shepard didn't SAVE the Galaxy in the final moments, all the previous cycles efforts did, Shepard chose how it Survive after the fact.
Yes, exactly. You get to shape how things turn out given premises that you can only change to a certain extent, it would be crazy to think you could alone shape very aspect of the story.
Mass effect 4 could have been what you are talking about. But I wont get into that. I completely agree though. Your idea would have made at least an excellent DLC.
I'm gonna take this a step further: all the endings are good. They all represent what Mass Effect is about. Yes, synthesis was sort of a vague cop-out, so are 90% of paragon choices and just about every "happy ending" in art and literary history. I think your critiques about the other two endings, along with most other critiques from people who hate the endings, assume a shit ton. I don't think the control ending implied the Reapers control organics, or that synthesis meant a loss of individuality or something of the sort. I think they implied the possibility of things like that happening, but it's not like "Oh this is what happens and you actually made the wrong choice". The truth is, we don't *know* the right answer and we were never supposed to. The endings are all about what type of character your Shepard was. Was he/she someone who always believed that every life deserved to be saved, that working together and becoming closer and more cohesive would be our salvation? Or was he/she the pragmatic type, who understood sacrifices were important in war, and that 10 trillion lives were more important than 10 billion? The type that sent Aarlack company to die so we could secure assets from the Rachni queen and secretly sabotaged the genophage so he could get the commitment of the Salarians as well as the Krogan. Or was he/she arrogant, egotistical, and maybe slightly naive about the power he deserved or could maintain without being corrupted by it? Did your Shepard preserve the collector base and perhaps leaves David in Project Overlord so he can be used. These are all possible personalities of Shepard, and in the end, none of them are right or wrong, they're just them. I feel like that's the way Mass Effect has always worked, you can be the idealist who is willing to take all risks at any opportunity in order to *try* to preserve all life, there's the pragmatist who will only take risks that they calculate will overall benefit the universe as a whole, or you can be the despot who thinks *you* are the key to the survival of the universe and will personally make any decision he has to, in order to maintain that control and power for the sake of all those who you mean to defend. The only valid complaint is that they could have added more frames that differ between the three endings, but I think what's more important is what you think happens and what you think your Shepard is willing to risk. If the ending went right out and said "Heres what happens if you choose this, this, or this", then that makes the choice meaningless. It would mean there is a right answer and no reason to pick the other choices. I think that would be a much worse way to end Mass Effect than what we got.
@D Yes, when I said "the Reapers control organics" I didn't mean control in the same sense as Shepard controlling the reapers. In the control ending, Shepard sorta becomes a demi-god, and controls the reapers like puppets, however, the creator of the video argued that the epilogue when you pick that ending implies that Shepard and the reapers then go on to become the overlords of the organics, which I think is a mental leap.
Bugs Money I prefer the freeze frames rather than a New Vegas voice-over because it leaves more interpretation on behalf of the player rather than the game telling you Goodsprings is screwed no matter what your character can do after the game ends.
@@MattRowland I assume you're talking about the Illusive Man? Not sure because you really only fight him for one game, but that's beside the point. Some people might choose Control because they believe Shepard is worthy to control them and the Illusive man is not or, going back to my main point, more importantly they believe that the Shepard they played would deem himself worthy to control them. There are people who genuinely believe thoughts like that, right? They're called authoritarians or totalitarians. Totalitarians love when they're in power and hate when people they don't agree with are in power. That might not be what you think *your* Shepard fought for, but that's the whole point of a role-playing game, isn't it?
@@bugsmoney1264 could be, like you said, that's what makes role playing so amazing. My Shepard would never control the reapers, because he spent way too much time as an idealist who wanted to rid the galaxy of them. I ultimately believe this is why Andromeda failed. Not because of the bugs, not because of the story, but because Mass Effect IS Shepard to all of us, especially our version of Shepard. When we don't have that, we resist, even unconsciously. Shepard is just an amazing, dynamic hero that it's hard to separate the universe of this story without him/her.
I always liked ME3 the most. It was always about the journey not the destination. I was used to the hard choices and it seemed right that Shepherd gave his life
@@blacknoiz3757 no, he doesn't. It's just a stupid easter egg that doesn't mean anything. It could be a random soldier on earth, it doesn't mean anything. Mass effect is over. It ends with Shepard sacrificing himself and millions of other individuals to save sextillions more, that's how it ends and has remained ended for over 10 years. It's a contained story that is over, there should never be another mass effect game ever, not even a spin-off or a fucking prequel or any of that garbage. Mass effect is sacred, it should be left alone in a museum. Not fucking made into a stupid fucking product that keeps shitting out sequels, spin-offs, rip-offs, prequels, sequels tradequels whateverthefuck-teequels. Even if the new one does go that route, it already failed. Not to mention Bioware is long dead anyway, if anything the next mass effect will probably make andromeda look good.
When I chose Control, it showed Shepard doing exactly that, his essence taking control of the Reapers, and using them to rebuild and protect life across the Galaxy. Not sure why you thought it turned people into Reapers.
This hits on the Indoctrination Theory a bit. That the Control option, being both Saren and The Illusive Man, is succumbing to indoctrination. It's important to note that also, in the Starchild sequence, the Illusive Man is shown taking the "Control" option and Anderson is shown taking the "Destroy" option, but there is no hallucination for Synthesis because it hadn't even occurred to the Reapers before.
Uh no, synthesis has been done by the reapers like 20,000 times before by their own admission. All those other times they wiped the galaxy out every 50k years. They saved the genetic and scientific materials of alllllll those other merged species. In an unfulfilling-to-us-humans way, they all still exist in the reaper horde. Destroy is the only one that's never been done successfully before.
The RED RENEGADE Anderson makes little sense, same for BLUE PARAGON Illusive Man. Also award-like for picking what they really want, new bio-synth reaper constructs. They confused you into telling the galaxy to lay down their arms and "merge" like all other 20,000 cycles. Amazing really, you spent so many hours fighting that same end and then immediately championed it instead. Superior species I guess.
Also re control, it showed Shep doing exactly what Saren was doing, blue f'd up eyes and all. Sorry it's late and meta but you and the galaxy died, please reload an old save.
It's always nice to see thoughtful ME3 discourse, even if I wholly disagree with the interpretation. Refusal is a quirky throwaway but otherwise, Destroy is the ending I found least desirable. Even Hackett's narration of it has a morose overtone of tragedy that implies society should have been better prepared. That said, it's a tragic end that's still completely valid. Where I disagree is that I feel Synthesis and Control speak just as much towards one's interpretation of the story as Destroy. The catalyst presents it all up front; the options are available because you've made new possibilities a reality. Synthesis rejects the status quo of existence that has led to the societal bickering that created the Reapers and prevented the galaxy from being better prepared to stop them. It rewrites the nature of life as we understand it as a solution to its own folly but it never says the solution is perfect. A Synthesis galaxy will face it's own challenges. They'll just be different challenges from the existing civilization and everyone will have to figure out how to solve them on a more level playing field. Control is the most extreme conclusion of following the story as a character narrative. Shepherd uses the Reapers to whatever means they (Shepherd) deem necessary. It's not inherently bad or good. It depends on what kind of person your Shepherd was. Which speaks to the nature of what's "right" and "wrong" with the endings in terms of content. The Paragon/Renegade system didn't always work in execution but the intent was to clearly break the binary mentality of morality and choice in game design and storytelling. Successful diplomacy isn't always rewarding, harsh action carries consequences that vary, etc. To that end, I disagree with tying validity of the other endings to correlation with the antagonists. Saren and Illusive Man aren't inherently wrong, they're doomed for playing into the hands of Reaper design; Saren enhanced himself with Reaper tools to do their bidding and Illusive Man wanted to control their tech for his own shallow affairs. The Catalyst even says that while their solutions were possible, they never could have achieved them because they were already puppets before realizing it. The journey was about recognizing that the choices aren't inherently tied down to our human-centric perceptions of morality. Paragons can destroy, Renegades can Control, the consequences of either can be destructive or salvation and the color coding is a red herring to that end. The only thing informing whether you potentially saved or destroyed the galaxy is your Shepherd's morality and legacy, not those last few cutscenes without context. And while I disagree with your interpretation of the ending, it's nonetheless an interesting and valid one and I do wholeheartedly agree that the variety in these interpretations are piece of what makes the endings brilliant beyond the usual boundaries of commercial art. It's why I'm hesitant to see any continuation, as it seems moving forward would mean canonizing 1ending or invalidating all of them. In any case, thanks for the take and coverage. Not enough healthy discourse on the Shepherd trilogy ending.
I'm on the same page. I will only had that synthesis has also the evolution aspect to it. People tend to believe that evolution is only a biological process, it is not, there is a technological and even a social aspect to it. Synthesis is when this 3 aspects of evolution stop being disjointed and start to merge. The synthesis ending is the natural next step to any advance civilization evolution. We can already see it in our world. Biological - The mingling of different people, the passing traits like skin color, bone density and frame, eye color. Technological - The argumentation of the body like prosthetics, pacemakers and in the future electric prosthetics like eye capable of seeing infrared and zooming. And Socially the creation of social networks like Facebook.
Excellent argument. The control ending is the least damaging with Commander Shepard being the only one to pay a price( which isn’t really out of character if you played paragon like I did).
THIS. I feel like adding, interpretation-wise, that in the control ending you stop the reaper assault. You do not stop the galactic navy from finishing the job. So it can be surmised that society willingly chose, through fear or lack thereof, that they would not continue to fight the reprogrammed reapers which have chosen to halt the reaping. I quite like the idea that given the opportunity the reapers are ultimately reduced in numbers to nothing or close to in paragon control, not allowed to keep the military strength they started with. Because who in their right mind would agree to that except the geth, cerberus, and perhaps renegade shepard. Like the quarians murdering helpless geth, I find it likely the reapers were still pulverized the moment the opportunity arose. But I too will never diss on destroy ending lovers, considering how it's exactly what everyone wanted, and achieves in the short term immediate results, although it does perpetuate the cycle of violence against synthetics, reapers, that ages all the way back to the era of Leviathan. Synthesis really does just seem like galaxy-wide indoctrination with extra steps, though.
they also admit it was two of them locking themselves away and getting drunk to write it. It was the ramblings of the two worst writers bioware has ever employed, whilst drunk.
I don't think that inherently makes it a bad ending in the same it lending itself to the best headcannon ending in gaming history doesn't make it a good ending. I think what we're given is good, it maintains a theme that's been going since the beginning; organic life vs synthetic life, are they really alive and if they are, are their lives worth less than a organic life? Interpretation is just as meaningful as intent. I think an ending that can inspire such debate and thought is worthy of some sort of merit, even through flawed execution.
One writer admits that another writer says it was on the table from early development to do a bitter sweet ending. The only issue is people were let down by the fact that the ending cutscenes were too similar depending on your choice but the fact that they don't even show the geth or Edi dying is something to keep a close eye on.
@@gibster9624 geths dying is bittersweet. The whole fleet strangled on the earth, destruction of the world as we know it (relays), many strangled worlds... that's not bittersweet, that's shitting on the whole property. PS: the rest of the series wasn't really bittersweet, so it didn't tonally fit. You are playing pretty standard blockbuster story right up till the end of the last game. This is not the time to turn bitter.
@@MartinJab I think that's the heart of my issues. In the last two games you can get a flat out good ending, everyone lives and it's very happy. Then in the last minutes of the final game they just pull this "oh yeah the good ending means killing every synthetic and Shepard dies". To me it just doesn't fit tonally. If the "no-win" ending was being hinted towards or pursued in the last two I wouldn't have an issue, but its just sour as is.
If you put literally any two similarly sized groups of people in place of the synthetic and non-synthetic life, this interpretation of the game becomes rather problematic. That said, in the game, you're told flat out that the "destruction" ending is only a stopgap, that AI will eventually be recreated and the cycles start again. One of the main reasons people complain about the ending is because it's so proforma, you're outright told that Destruction and Assimilation are both wrong and won't fix anything, and Synthesis will fix everything, so saying that ending isn't bad but the Synthesis option is, is cherry picking.
The Star Brat is similar to KoToR 2's G0-T0. Only G0-T0 knew he was broken, but was slaved to his directives regardless. The Star Brat was given an impossible task within the confine's of his allowed parameter's, so he broke them to achieve his solution. As a result, the Star Brat is not a good end game mouth piece. He's just a broken machine that couldn't say, "Unable to comply".
@@cannon26ify I agree, I don't think the synthesis choice is good for several reasons. I just think the dialogue is saying it's the best, and only good, choice.
@@rngwrldngnr Control is exactly what the illusive man wanted and refusing to act at all is damning everyone alive in the galaxy to death so that leaves Destroy as the only option that is right. Shepard set out from the start in the first game to destroy the reapers and yes the cost is high but that's the point ,to give weight to your decisions. Old school Sci-fi has always been bleak and rather gritty.
Because we didn't have the extended cut when we first played through. Imagine 100+ hours of gameplay, we get some literal Deus Ex Machina where we couldn't ask any questions, get a silly ending. Then you reloaded it, chose a different, and get the same ending with a different color.
@@TheDancerMacabre That's not why most people hated the endings. They hated the endings because, no matter which three you choose, and extended cut or not, it is a blatant, open, bold, LIE. Starting in 2007, BioWare said that "Your choices matter." Really? They matter? No... They fiddle with your War Readiness Rating, but there are ways to hit every mission in the final game and get enough points. None of the decisions from the previous games matter. What color explosion do you want? Pick it now, at the final decision point, and make nothing else you've done across 3 games relevant... Even after the extended cut, all you get is still shots. Shep, in the end, at the Crucible, is who BioWare wanted him/her to be. He/She isn't who I built over 90 hours of game play. They could have cut down the play time in 3 to half what it is, and instead demonstrate how each pivotal decision from the 3 previous games creates the ending to this game, and I would have applauded it. Instead, save the Rachni Queen 3 times, and get a codex entry about her being a war asset. Turning the Collector Base over to Cerberus or Destroying it is a matter of getting the Reaper Heart or the Reaper Brain as a codex entry of being a war asset. Save the heretic Geth or Blow them up? Oh, look, another codex entry of being a war asset. My decisions were points to be tabulated in a future game, not something that mattered.
@@GetDaved At least it fleshed out the endings. Original endings had two major problems, they felt out of place and were too short, barebones literally. We made a decision that supposedly changes the whole galaxy for the rest of time and we didn't know shit about what happened later. Extended Cut, well, extended it, thankfully. The overall conclusion is still somewhat disappointing in grand scheme of things but at least we with the DLC we know roughly what happened next. Original ending was abrupt, out of nowhere and created dozens of questions with no answers. That ending was the single biggest disappointment I've ever experienced on screen. Extended Cut didn't "save" the ending but at least it saved the trilogy and made it worth the time after all. What happened in March 2012 was not overreaction, we weren't "crybabies". Fans were rightfully disappointed and had the right to demand more after something like this.
I think, the reason why everyone hated it (including me) is the extreme lack of context and that shepard died in the end. Another reason would be the weird child that just showed up out of nowhere, making shepards haunted dreams kind of meaningless. Reason being is that they feel more like visions rather then actual survivors guilt. It was also too dragged out with the extreme infodump of that stupid child. I am fine with the choices and how they played out (I am with you on the destruction end. That Shepard survives is my personal headcanon :D) but for christs sake remove the child and give some proper context what happens afterwards.
I personaly think the ending would be better received, if starchild's place would be given to Harbinger, that character was almost completely forgotten in ME3 and never truly appeared in the trilogy, despite ME2 was picturing Harbinger as a reaper with special significance.
Shep actually survives if you have high enough EMS and pick destroy. There will be a short cutscene on Earth where you can see Shep lying in rubble and suddenly taking a breath.
Shepherd living is stupid, as the troupe of "the hero saves the day, and lives" is outdated, and very unrealistic. It is literally asinine to be able to save the entirety of the galaxy, and be able to walk away in the end. The hero dying in the end, not only shows the scale of what they were up against, but it also goes to show that they were truly willing to lay down their life for others. Heroes are not defined by their actions, but by their will to recognize, and yes I'm quoting star trek, that the needs of the many, out weight the needs of the one.
Synthesis may be the cop out ending but I dont think Control is sinister at all. Shepard's consciousness has control of the reapers and is using them to protect galactic civilization. All of the races of the galaxy survive as they are including the synthetic ones, and the reapers, under Reaper-Shepard's controll, are a non-threat.
@@channonikelman2041 I would be a little concerned having a Reaper that is being controlled by the consciousness of the person who once threw someone off windows(for pissing them off). My point is, there is still a risk of a Control-ending future to be not-so-bright.
Honestly perfect paragon shephard ... not much a chance of that Ai going bad. It’s main priority to me Would be not allowing any race to go completely extinct, considering what a paragon Shepard would do for the Krogan and Rachni. Besides with destroy you’re assured that synthetic life would cause wars in the future...especially if they knew an organic chose to wipe them all out. Peace with them would be near impossible at that point.
I always choose Destroy for the same reasons. Though I held out for the Indoctrination Theory until the extended cut came out, where BioWare double downed on the ending. I did the Synthesis ending once and it just felt like I was being told a happy lie, and that soon, very soon, we would learn it was a horribly wrong decision. I always choose Destroy... Even after saving the Geth.
"There was no desition to save both tali and legion" legion dies either way theres no way you can save him, what you can do is save both the geth and the quarians so you are wtong there, that and that the refusual ending has a hopefull ending since the next cycle manage to destroyed the reapers
It's never shown the next cycle will win, only that they find the box left by Liara as far as I remember. Also you screwed over all advanced species in the galaxy and let them be harvested, so to say it's a hopeful ending is a bit of a stretch.
@@Lucifer_26 Refusal is basically just bioware giving everyone the middle finger not wanting to believe in anything the catalyst says. Like would you believe in anything in a being who controls robotic abominations with the powers to manipulate and brainwash people to thinking there way is always the right way? This is basically what happened to Saren when he believed what Sovereign was saying after he was successfully indoctrinated.
You learn the next cycle wins via different Stargazer scene dialogue. Refusal ending has a female (instead of the male voiced by Buzz Aldrin) telling a child how Shepard's cycle is why they have peace.
Fantastic video. You managed to capture the same feeling I had at the end of the trilogy. Many fans wanted a "happy ending at a party", but forgot all the debates about the war against the Reapers. The third game concluded the main conflicts established in the previous games such as the war between the Quarians and Geth and also the cure for genophage. We meet the previous characters on missions helping in the war against the Reapers like Miranda, Jack, Jacob, Thane, etc. They weren't forgotten in the final game. An ending without sacrifices and that failed to convey a sense of loss would not be a worthy ending to the completion of this space epic. Furthermore, the possible philosophical lines of analysis of Mass Effect 3's endings yield a rich debate about wars and their sacrifices, as well as the theme of free will and control over ultra-advanced technology.
I feel like you gave ME3 ending more credit than it deserves. Yes the core idea was great, however there was no build up to that ending. You didn't even had to work towards any of those endings. Synths vs. Organics was only one of many themes ME dealt with and somehow it came out on top at the last minute and the your choise was boiled down to "press a button". They didn't even bother to show the results of our smaller choices that we made through 3 games. There was nothing said about the fate of the galaxy. Just a bunch of genereic cut scenes with almost zero meaning. Let's looks at original Deus Ex for example: at the end as you were marching through Area 51 to deal with Paige you were presented with different options by different factions and as you were progressing you had to make a choice, visit different areas and complete different objectives depending on what goal you wanted to achieve. That and many monologues through infolink provided DX's ending with a lot of depth bacuse in the end you clearly knew what you did and and what price you and the rest of the world had to pay. As for smaller choices let's look far actually: Dragon Age Origins. Made by same people who made ME. At the end you were told what effect your actions had on the world, it's cities and it's people in a cutscene that had just a bunch of pictures and text and that was enough. Many other games sucesssfully did that before DAO. Something similar would totally work in ME but instead we got completely nothing. TL;DR the idea behind the ending was great, however it's execution was beyond lazy.
Agree, most of ME3 just doesn't tie to the other two. What was the point of the conduit and the big reveal of the citadel as a mass relay in ME1, when all along the Reaper hivemind was controlling it all along? What, it just decided to let the Protheans hack the thing after they were supposed to be dead? Why did the Reapers make new Reapers look like the race they harvested in ME2, only to put it in a shell that looked like Sovereign? so visual effects artists had to use fewer assets? Why did the crucible have literally no lead up in either previous game, and just come out of thin air? And why didn't Vigil tell us about it when we talked to him before? Why did the Reaper AI have circular logic about its mission that makes zero sense? I preferred the cosmic space horror to an AI that ran rampant and did exactly what it wanted to prevent. What's the point in all these weird war assets we collect over the series, when all they do is fill up a status bar? Why couldn't we see a rachni swarm help us in the final mission, or one of the smugglers we helped do a boming run on an enemy strong point or something? So many things that just made the game and the ending feel really lazy and not well thought out after the epic buildup from the prior two.
@@JCDenton3 I think you folks a being a little harsh, yes no doubt the ending of ME3 was rushed and didn't have as good of a payout as it should have and the entire ending concept could have had a lot more tact, but calling the ending lazy is a bit disingenuous, giving an ending that would be satisfying to everything is a superbly impossible task, most popular TV shows struggle with this too. The ending was sound in theory it's just a shame it didn't come out as well as it could have, ultimately they could have spent the time to tie up every single choice you've made over the series in the ending sequence but the game would have to be half the size it is to achieve that, the game has to ship at some point and the ending does a much better job at tying up the themes than people give it credit for. (plus the indoctrination theory caps off Shepard's story really well in my opinion and I really wish the game put more credence into that idea, but that's beside the point)
@@Meandery It’s an ending that I didn’t particularly enjoy at the time. No final boss fight, no satisfying final showdown with the Illusive Man (killed in a cutscene) or Harbinger (messes you up and then disappears to presumably share the same fate as the other reapers), the final piece of proper game play is that horrible horde battle, filled with banshees that set my teeth on edge whenever they scream (appreciate that this is just me, but it is difficult to enjoy a segment of game play when you have to mute to get through it), that has all the hallmarks of a final test before the finale. Instead you get what amounts to a binary choice which leads to the effectively the same outcome: the reapers are defeated but you are dead. To be clear I don’t care that Shepard dies. Dying to save the galaxy is an ideal ending for the character (IMO). What irked me was how the choice was presented. We speak with the mind behind the Reapers and see that it is nothing more than a child with a flawed world view, this could have been fine if you then get the opportunity to challenge its view point but you don't, you are forced to accept its view that synthetic and organic life are incapable of living together. There is no opportunity to challenge this viewpoint, you can’t point out that you have managed to broker peace between the Quarians and the Geth, or that EDI is one your most loyal companions despite being a synthetic among organics. You lose your agency in the very final moments in a series which always put your choices front and centre. Since I’ve had an opportunity to dwell on it I have grown to appreciate what it represents so much more. I do now consider it to be exactly the ending that Shepard deserved: sacrificing himself in order to save everyone (whichever choice you make, I accept them all equally valid, I personally went with control). The above still annoys me to some degree but not to the extent it used to.
heck, it wasn't even brought up until the second game except as lore fluff. unless you count that random aim side quest, or the moon training facility. If only we *knew* that's wasn't just something to keep the main storyline from being repetitive. That was the storyline.
It absolutely does show you the results of the other choices. It shows the aftermath of the krogans, quarian/geth, etc. It also shows a brief scene of what happens to your crewmates. What more would you want?
If I understood it properly, even my beloved destroy ending was only a temporary victory because it's implied that the whole cycle will repeat itself once again when synthetic life is inevitably created.
This video cuts deep. After almost 10 years of saying, “I’ll play Mass Effect someday”, I finally bought the Legendary Edition this year and completed it this last week. That final decision had me so torn. I made the tough call to sacrifice myself for Synthesis, as it was objectively the only way I could strike a peace with the Reapers that would save trillions of lives and guarantee a long-term peace. Then, *just* as I was about to enter the light - I had an epiphany that hit me like a goddamn ton of bricks. There was no guarantee that the Reapers were dealing with me in good faith. If synthesis worked exactly like as-described, great. But what if it didn’t? What if synthesis just handed the power of the Crucible over to the Reapers, allowing them to indoctrinate the entire galaxy - was I really sure what I was signing everyone up for? If mass-indoctrination didn’t happen today, what about tomorrow or years from now? How would I know for certain that the Reapers would truly regard organic life as co-equals? And my heart broke man, because that was the moment I understood that the Reapers could never be trusted. The final decision is less of a negotiation that respects your free will and more like dealing with a psychopath who has pulled the pin on a grenade. I had to choose destroy. The Reaper AI does everything it can to obscure the fact that it is forcing you to contemplate this choice while refusing to call off the dreadnoughts slaughtering everyone you know, love, or care about. It even uses your virtue against you by holding synthetic life hostage - using the Geth and Edi as shields and making you pull the trigger. The Reapers are truly manipulative, psychotic, and totally committed to the genocide of intelligent life unless, and only unless intelligent life is perpetually unthreatening and conforms to their will. Heavy hearted, I turned around and chose destroy. It was the only way to guarantee that they could not hurt anyone ever again. Seeing breakdown videos like this doesn’t take the sting of that decision away, but it’s cool seeing how other people weighed that tough call and committed to it.
I played mass effect for the first time and thought destroying all reapers was the most logical option. True Geth and EDI are dead and with the mass relays gone, the universe was probably setback to square one BUT I still think it's the best option out of 3 already terrible options.
So many people forget that the Catalyst is the Leviathan AI that turned against them. It created the Reapers and sees the harvest cycle as perfection. Which begs the questions...why would it allow someone else to take control? And, why would it want to synthesize all synthetic and organic life together? Before the Extended Cut dlc changed the endings, choosing Control or Synthesis showed Shepard's eyes turn blue and their skin burn away to reveal the blue/black husk flesh underneath...implying that both of those choices were tricks to indoctrinate Shepard; just like Saren and the Illusive Man. But the Destroy choice was also a lie since if your rating was high enough, Shepard would survive. The Catalyst tries to make you sympathize to save Edi and the Geth by not choosing Destroy.
"Here we stand and here shall we die, unbroken and unbowed, though the very hand of death itself come for us, we will spit our defiance to the end!" ~Chaplain-Dreadnought Armand Titus, Howling Griffons Destruction was the only choice, for the souls of zillions waited at the crescendo of their defiance for their justice to finally be granted to them.
"There is no decision to save both Tali and Legion." UMMMM.....there totally is dude lol. There are plenty of statements made in this video that are 100% incorrect, but that's a discussion we can have later. Putting aside the issue of the lack story development for the characters you got to know along this journey and the lack of involvement in seeing them and their culture evolve toward the end of the final game, I actually agree with you in the idea that a "control or destroy" option for the final choice is viable. Drew Karpyshyn (lead writer of ME1 and ME2) stated (and alluded in ME 1 and 2) that the ending would be heavily related to the concept "mass effect" and how dark energy is warping the galaxy out of control. He then made a statement alluding that Shepard would have to make a choice to let the Reapers continue their plan of harvesting to potentially save the galaxy from being destroyed by a cosmic Armageddon or to resist them and to find a way to save the galaxy without the Reapers who have been trying to develop a plan for millions of years. That kind of finality is actually not only fine but a realistic hard choice; and if the "destroy and control" endings were presented that way I think the backlash of ME3's ending would have been minimal. But Bioware did not keep it that simple for gamers in the end. In the last 10 min. we were given a new character, Star Child, who provided 14 lines of dialogue and presented to the player this new issue that resembled (rips off) Deus Ex's game ending. In addition to the way Star Child is presented to the player, he pretty much replaces Shepard as the protagonist of the game since he gives Shepard the power to choose when Star Child had the power of choice all along. Any power that the player thought they had over the Reapers was taken away with this one character. This huge development in the narrative was so shocking that it ripped players out of their suspense of disbelief due to the laws and logic of the Mass Effect universe started to not add up. Essentially, the Star Child caused an uttter loss of narrative coherence. There is even an edit of the finale that uses the destroy ending and just edits out the Star Child and it actually is alright. There are some issues for certain, but simply editing out the Star Child solved 90% of ME3's ending issues. I mean I have a major issue with you seeming like you did little research when saying things like how Saren was an extension of Synthesis (when you also say in the same video that it was a catch-all Bioware threw in) when it was clear he was indoctrinated and wanted some means of power and/or control over the Reapers (that's just the way he was written and that was how Karpyshyn wrote that character). But that is not the topic that made me question your analysis of the ME3 ending(s). It was the utter lack of a discussion about the Star Child. You cannot talk about how ME3's endings are good or bad without mentioning him. Doing so is a such a huge oversight, especially since that character was the poster boy of the ME3 ending hysteria. In my opinion, the ending can never be good with that character still part of the Mass Effect universe and, unless he is retconed, simply ignoring him is a disservice to the history of Bioware and how their fall under EA started.
They can retcon him---he's the collective AI of Reapers who've shown no care or regard for the will of organics, or understanding of what motivates them. Synthesis need not even be a literal merging of technology into organics, either, but something else entirely that allows these forms of life to co-exist. I think BioWare shouldn't run from making a choice with aspects of the universe that doesn't go along with player's choices. I mean, look, you can still be a Renegade Shepherd, but does anyone think the canon should be that Shepherd guns people down for no reason and is practically genocidal at times? Or should BW just go with a mostly-Paragon outcome? I don't think the stories have to end but BW is going to have to grapple with 'canceling' out player choices to an extent to continue making stories in this universe.
Niko Aroketo he obviously cannot be saved, but you as the player have an option to not directly kill either Tali or Legion. Legion consciously chooses to sacrifice itself if you are able to compromise with both the get and quarians or if you choose the get over the quarians. My initial point in my essay was that this TH-cam content creator clearly did not do his research before making this video due to his allusion that you cannot save both the quarians and the get as an extension from his original statement. If he were to respond and say"that's not what I meant at all(or something like that)" then he failed to communicate his true thoughts and arguments on the ending throughout the video which is rather lazy in my opinion; and if that's the case then there a lot of nitpicky things that need to be addressed in his video.
While I agree with most of what you said, you really need to just take the L on there being a decision which aaves both Legion and Tali. Acting as if it's the video creator's fault that you took a relatively clear statement to mean something very different from what was said does a number on the perception of credibility in your comments. With that out of the way, I fully agree with calling bullahit on the ending and disagree vehemently, as you say, with the fundamental thesis of this video. Good points made succinctly.
Star child was the reapers dude, he wasn't some AI separate from them. Spacedock also states there's no way to save both Tali and legion, not "Quarians or geth".If you're gonna write a novel on why someone is wrong, make sure you are right.
This would make sense if not for the fact that the studio advertised something entirely different. The plan was to have something where the choices through the entire series matter. Then they don't. If they had followed through on their promise there would have been over a dozen possible endings depending on the Ashley/Kaiden, council, squad, loyalty, suicide, Illusive man, war assets and other decisions made. Additionally the potential for negating the whole problem of synthetics destroying their creators exists in this cycle, it is nearly impossible that something like that hasn't happened before in the universe so the whole premise upon which the Reapers supposedly exist is nonsensical. It would have worked better for the Reapers to be truly incomprehensible. If this ending had been planned out and not explicitly contradicted by EVERY promotion then the theory makes sense. But it is like the Indoctrination theory. It is fans reading something that explicitly wasn't there and seeing more than there is.
@Genoy B "every choice matters" this is what was said in the promotional material for ME3. But at the end you choose what color of explosion kills or dooms to starvation most of the galaxy. If they had been intending to make a story about the horrors of war like Spec Ops The Line, then this would have been brilliant. But that is Bioware what they setup or advertised. Or even something Lovecraftian, but that is not what was setup or advertised. They setup the premise of Shepard determining the fate of the galaxy, then advertised that. Then, depending on who you believe either never had a coherent overarching story and were making it up as they went, or changed it at the last minute when the plot was leaked. This video is like the Indoctrination Theory. It would be brilliant if it were true, but the way ME3 was written in such a self contradictory way to both itself and the rest of the series means that the creators could not possibly have put that much thought into it and this is just the desperation of the people who love the series not wanting the ending to suck as badly as it did so they are reading things into it that were never there.
Sure, except those making the argument that control or merge are good have realistically been asleep for almost all of the previous trilogy. Indoctrination is coming indoctrination is coming indoctrination is coming... believe everything that *confirmed telepathically derived child* says is true and up front with you despite your fleet obviously ultimately losing outside to a billion year scientific and military buildup.
@@OdinBarenjagerschlos Oh you're in the indoctrination theory camp, that explains all the nonsense you've been spamming around here. Cope harder. ME3 was great and you people missed the point.
I actually always found it interesting that the added endings related to the themes of Battlestar Galatica hell even having EDI same voice as Caprica 6 in the show (It almost felt like the writers were on the same theories). I found the synthesis to be the best choice (But that is just my opinion). I felt after seeing BSG finalle which dealt with the same issue and the synthesis ending they just seemed to be the best choice. What do you do in breaking a cycle that keeps happening, try something new. Wiping out or dominating inorganic life would only create the cycle again. Again not saying synthesis is the best choice but its one that is still interesting it might still lead to the same inevitable cycle but nobody can say it's not new either. In the end though it's just a game and choice is all about the game and I have respect for everyone's decisions on it. :)
I ended up taking control of the Reapers mainly due to a roleplay choice. I spent three games establishing my Fem!Shep as a character that would play the perfect paragon in public, but would commit or abet murder with a smile on her face the moment it was needed to repay, preferably with interest, a slight done to a friend, and cling to life with the tenacity of a water bear, meaning that out of the three options she ended choosing control because, in her eyes, it was the one option that had the highest chance of what made her her surviving long enough to create a gynoid body to download herself into and return to her friends and significant other.
What I like about the ending is each choice is totally inline with catalyst programming. All three are essentially reaper choices. Destroy is essential the harvesting in reverse. Control is the original choice Catalyst himself made and Synthesis is adjusting life so they don't register in the perimeters of the experiment and become the same design Principe as the reapers themselves. It was genius that we weren't given the options we wanted as it is unlike Catalyst could have conceived them.
I think the true beauty of ME3's ending (And, ironically, a big part of why it was so divisive in the first place) is that a lot of it is left up to player interpretation. If you take Starchild at his word, then Synthesize seems like the pretty obvious right choice; Sure, all organic beings become synthetic units, but as the Geth plotline showed, synthetics are still "alive" in a meaningful way, so those units still have souls. Alternatively, you could interpret the Catalyst as lying, trying to trick you into choosing anything but Destroy. Indoctrination Theory adds another layer to this, where you could either interpret the non-Destroy endings as being Shepard succumbing to Indoctrination, or that they're able to resist Indoctrination while still making their favored choice. The narrative is open-ended enough that all of these interpretations are valid, IMO. Maybe not intentionally so, but Death of the Author (Or, Developer, as it were) applies here. I'm personally partial to Control, myself, but I do like hearing other interpretations, and you make a compelling case for Destroy, I have to admit. I just don't like people attacking others over their own interpretations, calling them "Indoctrinated", etc.
Whilst I get the point you're trying to make here Daniel, the problem is that it is also made clear by the starchild (no matter your opinion on him) that destroying the Reapers will only lead to future generations going through the same series of events that led to the Leviathans creating the Reapers in the first place. There will once again be a rise of some galaxy-wide threat to organics from non-organics, which makes the sacrifices of Shepard & Co. redundant, and worse, in vain. I also understand why the Synthesis ending might not be your cup of tea, but from the info we're given, it seems to be the best solution in the long run. Is it tacked on? That argument can absolutely be made, especially in light of the fact that there was no allusion to it prior to the final choice sequence of ME3. However, I reiterate that from all the info the game gives us, despite suspicions of what a Synthesized universe with Reapers in it might imply, the Synthesis ending seems best long-term. Love your work, even when I disagree with something in it. Glad you have no trouble voicing your thoughts on topics that interest you.
That may be so (the red option leading to future org-synth wars), but that will be for us (or rather our descendant to decide. That's what the meaning of choice and freedom are. The other options take away that freedom in exchange for security. Some may be fine by it, some may not.
Brother you're an absolute legend, thank you for articulating what I have tried to unsuccessfully; I'm a newcomer to the series with the LE, and I'm with you 100% on the ending, I couldn't understand why I'd heard the end wasn't well received. So again, thanks for this!
I like the ME3's endings because I always found it implausible that the Reapers could be defeated with a giant laser bazooka and in the end everybody go to Shepard's house and they start watch a Game of Thrones episode. The thing I like in the end of the game is the fact of the player is bargaining with the wills of the Reapers, basically making an deal with gods.
Although I prefer the control ending, I find the possibilities that the destroy ending foretells to be interesting. I imagine an era of reunification and exploration where whatever is left of the Citadel militaries reorganizes itself into an expeditionary force ala Starfleet with the sole purpose of reconnecting the known galaxy.
Personally, I would've chosen synthesis. Control takes Sheppard's mind out of their body and turns them into the master control AI of the Reapers, though the galaxy would still live in fear of them. Destroy would cause a mass genocide of all synthetic life in the galaxy. Synthesis instead gives all organics and synthetics the best of the other. Organics would become near immortal and synthetics get granted with the gift of life itself. Granted, not everyone would like it, but I still think this would be better then enslavement or genocide.
"I still think this would be better then enslavement or genocide" And yet in deciding synthesis you do both, by eradicating what was there and deciding for everyone else that synthesis is right, subjecting them to your will without their consent...
@@corwinhyatt519 i guess you could say that the lifeforms that were there don't exist any more, at least not the way they used to be. but the difference to simple genocide or enslavement is that you create a new and ultimately better way of living for everybody, if some people like it or not.
@@schoggo3407 "difference to simple genocide or enslavement" There isn't a difference. By making the decision for them you removed their free agency, enslaving them to your will. The synthesis kills who they were, genocide. Your assumption that what results will be better is disturbingly on the same level as the "True Believers" who adhered worshipfully to genocidal pogroms in our own history...
@@corwinhyatt519 as i said, maybe that is genocide and enslavement. but i'm fine with that because their death/enslavement leads to a better society, which may not be very good but better than let their deaths be useless. you have to kill at least one faction anyways, so why not kill everyone but make their deaths be good for something?
i'd say i cannot really agree on this one destroy ending is actually the worst ending imo because all syntetic will just evolve again overtime, just like the reaper it will start harvesting organic, and the cycle continue again, yes i know shepard maybe alive in this ending but it's still bleak future but yeah i agree with merging&control ending it's just bioware free outta jail card, it should be no choice ending where we have to choose who would we sacrifice organic or syntetic, it would be more interesting.. imo
First time I hear someone having the same feeling than me. I think the originals endings were a brutal comeback to a real life situation where sometimes there is simply no good outcome as an opposition to the traditional story of a hero who wins every time.
Yes and lets face it they did give us solutions which was generous given the magnitude of the threat and that we actually had no clue at all what the crucible was.
Except he disproves that point in his own argument if this is what he's saying: Because according to him and the wider part of the internet Destruction is the hero winning.
I think the overall problem, for me, is that the game rewards you for making good decisions, even tough decisions. Yeah, Ash/Kaiden, Mordin, Thane, and Legion all die, but their deaths had dramatic impacts on the galaxy and we felt those impacts. But here, it doesn’t feel like a reward. It feels like Shepard just dies and then the galaxy instantly moves on. We don’t get to see or experience the affect of their sacrifice expect for a few cutscenes or still images. You know what I would’ve loved? A prologue that has you briefly play as the love interest, and it’s about them mourning and remembering Shepard, before turning around a leading the galaxy into a brighter future, like Shepard would have wanted.
I like the idea that ultimately only Shepard can decide between these options, because of all the hard decisions he's had to make along the way, he's the only one who can. He's the one who's always done the impossible, and understands the consequences that come with it. Control will always be my ending (it doesn't turn humans into reapers from how I interpreted it) seeing as the geth that worshipped "the old machines" could be saved, and with the right person guiding them, so can the reapers
I can respect the argument that the series does in fact force you into several situations with no "total victory, no compromises." The problem with the argument as Spacedock makes it, though, is that the "Suicide Mission" in ME2 which actually CAN be survived by all squadmates, sets the expectation of the possibility of a mostly ideal, emotionally satisfying, cathartic and against-all-odds victory. In other words, winning the so-called No Win Scenario. The overarching theme of strength through hard won cooperation and unity across the various species and races of life forms in the galaxy likewise sets the player up to believe the message of the trilogy's ending will trend toward a more Utopian, "when we work together we ALL win" sort of ending. Yes, it makes plain that sacrifices--and painfully difficult and unfair ones--line the path to victory, but the past games' endings set an expectation that the victory being desperately fought toward at the end will be complete enough to make it feel as if those painful sacrifices won't be in vain. ME3 then soundly murders those expectations with a meat cleaver. Given time and the more fleshed out endings of the extended cut, I learned to live with a somewhat disappointing and thematically jarring ending to my otherwise favorite trilogy of sci fi games. But the initial endings were such a soul crushing disappointment the profoundness of the letdown and empty feeling they left me with are tough to explain. Nearly made me want to quit gaming AAA, story driven franchises, and only play arcadey, lighter stuff where the fun is derived SOLELY from gameplay.
It's a bit like with the option to sacrifice E.D.E. in the "talk Joshua down" ending of the Lonesome Road DLC for fallout new Vegas. The difference here being, of course, that in new Vegas, E.D.E. only dies IN the DLC, making that sacrifice significantly less impactful.
Destroy is not only the clear and obvious choice to me, but it's the only one I'm ever able to make at the end of each playthrough. I considered Control or Synthesis on my "evil" or renegade playthrough, but even then, it's not just the evil choice, it's the stupid choice. If you choose anything but Destroy, you're falling into the same trap seen in both previous games, the idea that the Reapers are right. Now, I also have the added layer of my staunch belief in and support of the Indoctrination Theory, the idea that Shepard was being affected by the Reapers' indoctrination entirely at the end, so much so that they almost managed to turn him against what he/she had been fighting for the entire time. Destroy is the representation of Shepard breaking the Reapers' hold over him, and that's how I'll choose to remember the ending of Mass Effect, even if Bioware decided to completely ignore it in order to pursue spinoffs instead of the franchise that made me into even more of the huge sci-fi nerd I already was.
Sorry but I don’t agree that destroy is the best ending for the Mass effect trilogy. Control is… at least for me it is. I have spent all three games being a paragon. Choosing life and people before a mission. The Geth counts as people, Edi counts as people and destroying them is no better than the Reapers doing the same to preserve an age old cycle. Choosing to instead replace their whole worldview as your own hits differently when you’re playing as paragon. Yes Shepard dies but they control the Reapers. They can use them any way they like and the paragon Shepard simply rebuilds the relays. Not to repeat the cycle but to keep the progress that was made. To ensure that the future Shepard’s cycle made continues. They’re using the reapers as guardians and rebuilders instead of monsters hellbent on destruction. The paragon control ending is the closest thing to a good ending and that’s why I prefer it.
Meh, I don't agree that Synthesis was a bad choice. It changes everything but not in a way that is worse. I also didn't get the impression it would let the reaper threat continue.
The ending's conception isn't the issue (synthesis aside), it's the manner in which the choice comes about and is presented to the player. Starchild in particular comes out of (almost) nowhere and there's no real reason to believe anything it says. The idea the Starchild presents - that it kills organics to preserve them in Reaper form - has been memed to death and for good reason. It's the kind of "too logical" choice a machine might make but it's something that Shepard (at least in the original cut) takes entirely at face value. Shooting some sort of conduit shouldn't help the Crucible do its job; if anything it should be what you do in the control ending. And a thousand other confusing bits besides
Personally i thought the ending was perfect as well with Directors Cut. The weight of saying goodbye to the characters we had gotten to care for so much, and our decision at the end was just emotional. I thought the heaviest I'd feel in a video game was Lee's death in The Walking Dead, but in Mass Effect 3, we're talking about saying goodbye to a wide cast of characters who we'd gotten just as close to as Lee. Which is even harder. Not to mention our past choices also affecting the outcome, and the hard work spent to save the galaxy from the Reapers was also rewarding. And if you get enough galactic readiness, Shepard actually lives, even more reason why this ending is awesome. All of our relationships and decisions really decide the fate of everyone and everything in the galaxy.
I feel like you're kinda forgetting one theme here that kinda plays an important role in deciding what to do; the whole idea that something like the reapers can happen again. It's kinda similar to BSG in the fact that there's this whole cyclical nature to violence and time, and the only way to break it is to coexist. The whole premise popping the reapers up, according to the leviathan DLC and the star-kid-dude at the very end is that the reapers are a solution to an age old problem: how can organic and synthetic life get along? Organics despise synthetics because they're so different and are impossible to understand, while synthetics strive to become more like their creators, inevitably leading to conflict. That's why the only real choice is synthesis; it breaks the cycle of violence by forcing the two together, and prevents stuff like the reapers from happening ever again. Destruction solves the problem, but only temporary.
All solutions are temporary. There's no such thing as an omnipotent, eternal solution. After WWI, the world thought the sheer size of the conflict and the generations of families lost would stop further wars: it didn't. After WWII, the formation of the United Nations was supposed to bring an end to all conflict, just like the League before it. It didn't. In the end, all we have are temporary solutions. Synthesis and Control are no more a permanent solution than Destroy and Refusal are.
Red Centurion perhaps not, but it certainly a) reduces the risk of such things happening and b) at least makes them smaller in scale, in some cases. Regardless though, I feel like that's a moot point. In the case of synthesis, it completely eliminates the problem at hand. Sure, there still might be war after a synthesis ending as groups begin to re-organize themselves and as new factions and problems spring up--that's probably a certainty. But will those wars be over the understanding of artificial intelligence, or how organics feel threatened by synthetics? I very much doubt it. There will always be other issues to fight over, but this won't be one of them.
Frankly I think you are misunderstanding the "control" option. Shepard becomes ALL the reapers. Shepards name in itself symbolises that ending. The reapers are rebuilding the star gates in the end and are shepherding the galaxy as a whole toward a better future(we can use our imagination of we chose paragon or renegade) and if you chose to destroy than all star gates are gone so everyone is stuck where they are across the galaxy....idk just seems like the control or synthesise are the better choice.
Excellent arguments. I love how you noticed the thematic development of the series and how the original ending just reinforces it in such an accurate way. Many people focus on the gameplay and not the narrative, hence the indignity over an ending without regards the player's decisions (ME3 is a perfect example of a Greek Tragedy after all, and I think since ME1 it is clearly stated that there is no escape to the Reapers). But well, the wonder of fiction is that anyone can decide what to believe when it comes to endings. Great story. Also, I think we as players are used to having the final word, especially on RPGs. I just loved how Bioware took the bold and risky decision and said "nope, the story is more powerful than the player now" and decided to literally destroy it all because that's what the narrative demanded! So coherent with the tone and mood ME3 presents since the tutorial.
This is why I prefer the Indoctrination theory. The correct ending is still destroy but you never made that choice. The Geth, EDI, and the Reapers are still alive and we don't know of the galaxy wins the fight.
I like that theory too. But the indoctrination (in my view) happens during the nightmare sequences (after witnessing the fake boy's death on Earth) and culminates with the catalyst on the crucible. The boy is not really there, it is the reapers trying to get shepard not to choose destroy.
Obviously every choice is going to have it's drawbacks. This includes "Destroy" as well. Forgetting that you'd be killing EDI and the Geth (assuming you improved relations with the Quarians), you'd also be destroying the Mass Relays. This would essentially leave everyone stranded where they are, and the Relays would take decades or even longer to repair.
@Beese Churger ain't a game, it's a fantasy book series named "The Wheel of time" by Robert Jordan (last 3 or 4 books were written by Sanderson due to Jordan's death). It really is a great series and a TV show is about to come up (let's hope it is as good as the books...)
It didn’t matter? Do the Krogans live in your ending? Do the quarian live in your ending? Was your Cruicible built well enough to focus its power, or did it burn the Earth down? Considering the fact that this is NOT an RPG, but an action game, your choices mattered quite a lot. Of course it is always your final choice which matters the most, however some choices are not even available based on your earlier decisions.
Yes but none of those choices change what ending you could get, everything results in the same decisions. While that is what video games do, the promises and vision for the game we kept getting told made at least me feel that we’re going to payoff all your renegade and paragon choices over the trilogy.
@@Death36669 They do. You can or cannot see happy Krogan baby in the ending video, for example. Also some of the ending can be completely unavailable based on your choices before. It is not an RPG, though, but an action game. Don’t measure it like an RPG, where the ending can be completely different. It is not. And it never was. You didn’t get completely different ending in ME1 or ME2 either.
@@juzoli the endings in both me1 & 2 are far better, hell just look at the suicide mission, the results of that mission depends of the choices of the player. The examples you gave us don't matter for the ending they just there to show you the outcome of a few of your decisions through the game but not the ending itself. You can literly have the worst possible war assets and you still get the same 4 endings.
@@nikolasferreira3247 ME2 ending is good? Wtf? Yes, the mission itself is amazing. But the ending has little relation to the overall storyline, as it is not about the reapers, and also we have ZERO effect on the ending. We either beat the collectors, or mission failed. That’s all. If they could somehow merge this mission with the Arrival DLC, which is much more connected to the story, it would’ve been a good ending. ME1 is the best storywise, I have no argument against that. And no, you can’t have all endings with low war assets, and also your renegadeness can affect it.
The destroy ending as it is, is not just bad because of its consequences, it is bad because it is practically space magic, same as synthesis. The destroy- and synthesis-ending make no sense neither in real life terms nor considering the in-game logic. In order for it to make sense, it would either have to destroy only the reapers/reaper code or all technology (which is also a little far fetched but still more plausible, just think of it as a huge EMP-canon). If the latter was the case, then it would inevitably kill most sentient organic lifeforms in the process as well, since all ships, space stations, artificial environments, infrastructure, implants and space-/environmental suits in the galaxy would be destroyed in the process as well. The control- and the refusal-ending are the only in-game endings that are plausible as they are, but the former feels like a betrayal and the latter makes everything you did up until this point meaningless.
Honestly, I’m somewhere in between agreeing and disagreeing. I think you make good points once the extended cut DLC is added, but without it, I do think the ending is a mess. At least the journey was worth it. I have a tradition of marathoning the trilogy every summer.
I totally agree. The destroy ending is definitely the best ending especially since Shepard can survive at the end if you do everything right. You set out to destroy the reapers and that's what you end up doing.
*KUDOS* Spacedock. The logic you present in this video is 100% accurate. It is refreshing to see a pragmatic approach to this years-long discussion (argument?). Is 'Destroy' ideal? No, of course not... ...but such is life. Life is not ideal and often times one is forced to compromise in order to proceed. I concur 100% that all option aside from 'Destroy' is tantamount to the ending of civilization as it is known and flies in face of the core reasoning behind the fight throughout the entire trilogy. As stated, EDI herself reinforces several times the logic behind the 'Destroy' option. Anderson constantly makes comments that reinforce the 'Destroy' option. The list goes on. BioWare did an AMAZING job tugging on your heartstrings and generated the doubt the player must endure but as you clearly pointed out, by taking emotion out of the ending and looking at it from pure logic, 'Destroy' is the only ending that fits the core values of what Shepard was fighting for. In addition, BioWare agrees by presenting 'Destroy' ending is the only one where Shepard survives.
First of all, respect for actually coming out to defend ME3s ending. I don't think many people would dare that. That being said, while I don't hate it myself (especially with the EC ending), I disagree that Destroy is the only choice. I'm going to condense my opinion as much as possible, but destroying the Reapers (and all synthetics) won't make them lose per se. If future cycles would restart the conflict then the Reapers will be proven right and have the last laugh. Personally, Control is my preferred one. Because Shepard proves to the Reapers that they're wrong. It _can_ be done better. The Catalyst is operating on faulty logic and Shepard is a much better replacement. That really is, to me, the best option. Plus Shepard's "Immortal" speech and the music of it is just bone chilling in a good way. While Synthesis has a similar idea (making the Reapers outright obsolete), it still is unexplained and makes little to no sense in the context. But that's a whole different can of worms. But hey, at least we can agree that Refusal sucks.
We don't know if it will destroy all synthetic life. The crucible could probably just destroy the reapers. The intelligence wants to continue the cycle in any way it can and would lie to Shepard to continue what it was programmed to do.
@@r1cosito The AI that is in the crucible is a fully evolved AI as stated in the game. That means it has a measure of self preservation so it can continue its cycle of reaping. So I think I will take that chance.
But the whole point on why Destroy is the worst, is because it doesn't solve anything. The exact same shit is going to happen again and it's not even like you could warn the people because Shepard dies unless you are really good at it, even than it's not like Shepard's words of warning would be carried on forever exactly as they said them. Control isn't great either but you just assume that everybody still gets turned into Reapers, when they show its Reapers helping civilization because of all that Shepard did and was. It's pretty much Destroy but nobody dies and it is canceling the cycle. The synthesis ending is a cop-out but it is ultimately what the AI wanted to do and it is explained as essentially adding synthetic components to DNA and giving synthetics the Reaper without being controlled upgrades like Legion. EDI would be willing to sacrifice herself but she could at least listen to the words the ancient AI said.
It's was always about Destroy being the ending but about why that ending and the subsequential other endings had to be a choice in that first place. I'm always believed that Bio-Ware made this ending because the game was not ready to be released and EA wanted it out asap. Every way you slice it with the build up of the first two games, Shepard was indoctrinated by the Reapers. Every single thing will make you become indoctrinated happened to Shepard with him coming into contact with Reaper Tech, the visions of "black inky shadows" and seeing a boy that's not ready there, plus the build up the the ending itself. Everything made no sense during that last 20 mins or so in the game which make it more possible that Bio-Ware was going for something else but choice this as a quicker ending. I believe that the game was about an extra 2 or 3 hrs longer had EA not wanted the game out before it was completely finished and since EA is their bread and butter they had to tell people that this was the ending they had all along...I call B.S.
One of my favorite games of all time and the trilogy is an absolute work of art. I have an issue over what you said regarding the control, you said it was enslaving humanity? I didn't see that. I saw the reapers rebuilding and protecting. Sheppard's ideals imprinted into them. They become guardians of the galaxy. For my part, I never wanted a happy ever after ending. You're right in that the game right from the first game gave you impossible choices that resulted in loss no matter what decision you made. My irk is that the ending had nothing to do with the general theme throughout the series. You have essentially played 3 games, hours and hours of gameplay unifying the diverse galaxy as well as your diverse team to defeat the reapers. And indeed during games one and two you are successful through this unification. But the ending of the third game, with the defeat of the Reapers, it throws that unity and strength over unification out the window. You have poured hours in gaining allies, and technologies and resources for it to have literally no affect on the ending of the game. Even if you max out your readiness and recruit every man, woman, child and dog to your war effort it makes no shred of difference. You have these 3 narrow rudimentary (or 4 with the DLC) endings. It genuinely feels like a cop out. I may as well not bothered trying to recruit the Geth and Quarians together for example. Makes no difference to those 3 endings. It was frustrating.
I just played Mass Effect Legendary Edition for the first time- 1 through 3, back to back this past week. I don't have any previous versions to compare to, no nostalgia goggles, and never kept track of the behind the scenes drama regarding writers/staff changes, etc. And I feel it was a well developed, cohesive story from beginning to end and don't see the flaws that so many people are going on about. That said: Synthesis is the only ending that made sense to me given just what is in the game itself, and not the speculation that I see. Yes, it rewrites the DNA, but unless you are a determinist, the DNA does not make you who you are. The Crucible AI says that organics and synthetics will understand each other, and can co-exist peacefully. Obviously it depends on how you play the game, and what matters most to you, but if you value the Geth, and the lives of everyone that came before (the Protheans, the people who were absorbed by the reapers, and who knows how many cycles), the destroy ending makes no sense. Synthesis justifies the struggles of everyone, now and in the past. Their knowledge and development isn't lost. Control makes more sense than destroy in my playthrough. Shepard wasn't interested in doing things his way. He wanted to help people find reasons to come together for the whole. I don't see him setting himself up as a demagogue. Control seemed the ending for those who agreed with the Illusive Man even at the end. Destroy was for those who agreed with Cerberus' stated intentions or who wanted revenge. Synthesis seemed the most hopeful and egalitarian which is what I think my Shepard would have wanted. But leaving Tali behind in every ending sucks.
I'd also add that if you played as I did through the series: Encouraging compromise, getting people to look past their histories to build something better, trying to keep everyone you could alive, encouraging communication and trust... You're already creating "synthesis". Getting the Aquarians to accept the Geth was synthesis, Getting Wrex and Grunt to aspire to more than their history was synthesis, to get the rest of the council to accept the Krogans, and to make them accept the cure to the genophage was synthesis... Before Shepard came along, the universe was at each other's throats. It was NOT a good place to be, which is what made it vulnerable to the Reapers in the first place. By the time of the conclusion of ME3, there was already very little of the universe left and had Shepard not brought them all together in the first place, there would have been no point in saving what was left. Destroy is understandable. It's relatable. But not even the Reapers had control over what they were doing. I don't go in for the "Shepard was secretly indoctrinated" thing. There's only poor circumstancial evidence for it. Bringing the universe together, organic and synthetic, including the Reapers, seems the best of all possible outcomes.
I just now realize I probably chose the wrong ending, I chose the control ending cause it was blue and I was running paragon so I thought it was good. Damn it
A complete sidetrack, but having read all published Expanse novels, I can assure you that James Holden gets really intimate with the concept of sacrifice as the series progresses.
Pains me to admit it, but you are absolutely right. Thematically, the ending makes perfect sense given the message of the series. I still wish I got to have an ending where I got to have the closure of Shepard and his crew/romance interest being together once more after the final decision.
No matter what everyone says, the reason that the catalyst brings up for wiping out all intelligent life is stupidest thing ever. "Lets kill you all so that synthetics don't kill you". That will never make any sense. It's so stupid it ruined the ending for me. I rolled my eyes so hard at it. I wish it was just a simple destroy/ control choice and no star child.
i have a headcanon of sorts for the red ending that i really like: edi and the geth died, but in a sense they did what living things are supposed to do, ensured the survival of their species. yes they are dead, but they were so useful, and their behavior was so good, that humanity, and other species, would probably try to build them again.
...Which would eventually lead to Reapers again. The games made it quite clear that is was inevitable for the created to rebel against their creators, simply by virtue of surpassing them. Control is the only option if you want to save everyone in an ethical manner.
My headcanon is basically what happened up until he goes on that damn elevator. Where Shepherd and Anderson are sitting there after defeating the Illusive Man, succumbing to their wounds watching the armies push back the Reapers and Anderson telling Shepherd he's proud of them. Perfection.
This is one of the dumbest takes I’ve heard regarding the ending. “The hardest choice is when there is no choice” is most certainly not the underlying theme of the Mass Effect trilogy, MAYBE you could argue that about ME3 but in 2 and 1. First off did this guy miss the whole part about making peace between the Geth and Quarians? So let’s see, you make peace between synthetics and organics, something the star child deems impossible and you don’t get an option to mention that? Your only left with choices that immediately undo it? What you see there is the game contradicting itself there, first it’s “OH HEY if you work really hard you can save the geth and quarians, see everyone can get along” followed by “Organics and Synthetics can ever get along, Yea that thing with the geth and the quarians, that never happened”. The dude points to 1 decision at the end of ME1 that was a no win scenario and that is LITERALLY IT. There is nothing else that supports that this ending fits within the franchise, as a matter of fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite (ie. all crew mates surviving the suicide mission if you put enough time and care into it, saving both the quarian and the geth again if you are diligent and make the right dialogue choices and do all the missions, saving Samara and Falare, talking down Wrex on Virmire, etc.) the whole game was based on choice and they always gave you the option that if you followed the paragon or renegade paths closely enough you’d be granted with a “fuck you we do it my way” option. That was taken off the table for the ending and the fourth ending in the extended cut was kind of fuck you to that mentality as it gave the player that option but it ends it a “HAHAHA IT DIDN’T MATTER ANYWAY!”. There are DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of choices you can make in Mass Effect that are designed to be beat the impossible odds choices if you play the game paragon or renegade enough and maybe 2-3 no win choices so trying to make the case that no win choices was a core part of the franchise is asinine.
The only zero-sum choice in the whole game is Kaiden/Ashely. There's no saving them, one of them has to die, there's no reward for it, and no failure for picking the wrong one. It's the most realistic and brutal choice in the game and if it's the metric by which we're measuring how weighty our choices are in this whole failed franchise, nothing in ME2 or ME3 that doesn't have its roots in something from ME1 can even hold a candle.
The issue with the ending (with or without DLC) is substance. To wrap up the fate of the universe, it shouldn't be "alright, walk to your preferred cut-scene". For a game that focuses on dialog and choice to decide to undermine itself is bananas. The ending should have been more of a dialog or judgement, having Shepard explain his/her actions throughout the series to justify the salvation or destruction of all organic life-form. This is why the ending to ME2 is my favorite, a suicide mission who's success pivots on the actions of you and your crew. The game could have even built in more dialog for those with imported characters, thus rewarding people for playing the entire series. I hear people saying, "well that's not very realistic for Shepard to have a convo with the Reapers". Yeah... It's not realistic that he/she died and came back to life in ME2 either, but what's more perfect ending of a Christ metaphor than to have Shepard ascend and vouch for all of life and existence? In conclusion, I have nothing wrong with the endings, I have issue what the endings lack. SOME level of gameplay or interaction, not this choose your own adventure ending.
Good point, as someone who really loves the ending I do think you're right that it could have done with a bit more drama and emotional content that involves your team & past decisions
Happy N7 Day everyone!
This just became my favorite holiday. And yeah. Destroy is the best option. No matter how much it hurts in the moment.
Replayed it at least 10 times, 2/10 would`t recommend, all jokes aside destroy is the best ending, especially with the extenden cut, I only feel sorry for Joker, poor Joker ;(
"Red" ending is the only ending where Shepard live, so... xD
I vehemently disagree with this video, but you are not a terrible person for having an opinion.
and on top it is the only ending, if you tryed to get teh best results accross the bord, wive a hint that shappered may some how survived that explosion and following crash to earth....,
btw. anyone else thought that at the synth ending it looked like shappered turned into 1 of those husks, wile flinging him/her-self into the energy beam?
This trilogy, especially the 'destroy' ending, is perfectly summed up by Javik: "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghost if honour matters."
Exactly , i thought about this line of line of him when i wondered which ending to choose. So i chose Destroy , i know that the Geth and EDI would die , but my Shep was ready to take this guilt if it meant a secure future for all other people
@@podlodialgilap3490 until AI comes about again...
@@kennethfharkin that would be a long time since the galaxy is in ruins and will take time to rebuild, even then it is proven that organics and synthetics can coexist peacefully if both sides respect each other, something that everyone will follow after remembering that the Geth fought alongside them
@@podlodialgilap3490 its not like any future AI would look at history and say "hey, these meat bags eliminated ALL of us once before to save their asses!"
@@kennethfharkin they will understand that there was no other option. either that or forceful singularity for the entire galaxy which leaves everyone with no purpose. even attempting to control the reapers is highly likely to result in Shepard AI going mad and turning into starchild 2.0. Also i believe the geth are not entirely dead , they live on the very edge of the galaxy, and probably have programs uploaded in stations in deep space where the EMP pulse can't reach them
No matter what ending you choose, we can all agree that music and the end of this grand adventure had us crying our hearts out, and that is what makes Mass Effect a powerful story and fantastic epic.
"Mass Effect has a good story because the music emotionally manipulates you."
@@ginge641 what piece of media doesnt use music lol
@@redfive8486 Why exactly did your dumbass think this was a relevant question?
@@ginge641 lyrical indoctrination!😵
Ngl I cried the first time I finished it, mostly because it was over.
The reason Mass Effect is so popular as a series, is that the characters are equally as important as the world. The ending as it was when the ME3 shipped, gave very little information on what happened to the characters, besides crashing on the planet in the normandy. The fact that people HAD to ask questions like, what happened? where are they? are they OK? what's next for them? is exactly why one of the most common complaints towards the ending is that it's unsatisfactory, because very little information is given to answer those questions about the characters.
Bioware made a game about characters and worldbuilding and then they made the ending all about consequences to the worldbuilding with no solid answers as to what the consequences were to the characters.
We see a great deal about what happens to the characters. Depending upon the ending you receive, Zaeed might be kicking back drinking a beer in semi-retirement, while Samara spends time with her daughter at the monastery. What more do you want? Knowing every last detail wouldn't improve the ending, it'd make it worse.
@@slow17motion He's talking about the original endings but that is a moot point since the endings haven't been like that in almost 10 years.
People still don't get this. I swear people subconsciously think they love the mass effect world, when they truly just love the characters.
You sir, have balls of adamantium steel my friend, and I respect that.
Four of 'em!
True, now burn the heretic who liked the ending of this game! Kappa
@@zenteck4950 ahh! you beat me to it, I was about to say he's got a Quad
Well spoken!
@@logosofgame4273 I have the pile ready and good to use. Just throw him in!😄😆
This is in line with my "soft indoctrination" theory: The ending does happen for real, but the Reapers are trying to convince Shephard to choose anything other than destroy.
The concept of me3’s ending was too grand and went over most everyone’s head as people are easily suggestible. I completely agree with the soft indoctrination theory that is exactly the way I perceived all the endings which weren’t destroy. Just about every way that the reapers possessed to keep existing after the crucible is docked.
EDI is afraid to die. The Geth are afraid to die. You see this in both of their storylines. So why would the Reapers be any different? But here's the thing; the Reapers have no remorse. How can we forgive them as machines just following orders while also recognizing the free will of sentient synthetic lifeforms? That's why my Shepard wiped them out. It's the Genophage all over again, except with that, there was debate, there was remorse. The Reapers believe they are right, that they know what's best for the galaxy. But...they don't. Even when we've proven them wrong, they refuse to change. To evolve. And so they must be destroyed for the galaxy to grow. And that's why Shep takes a breath in perfect destroy. It's the galaxy finally being able to breathe freely now that the Reapers are gone.
@@jepe4537 i get incredibly annoyed when people argue ME3 had a high concept ending and people complaining are too stupid to understand.
Mass Effect 3 was released a year after Mass Effect 2. They didn’t have time to write a good (or even just sensible) ending that didn’t boil down to pressing 1 of 4 buttons. The end. The ending was bad, it presented a new concept 5 minutes from the end of the game, took agency away from the player, and 1 of its 4 options straight up didn’t make any sense.
@@WinstonKillDeath Mass Effect 3 was released 2 years after Mass Effect 2.
@@blakemorris2328 mass effect 2 was still being worked on until 2011 because of the DLC’s. Meant to say “a year after the last DLC.” It absolutely had a shorter development time than either of the first 2 games.
But the cycle *will* continue in the Destroy ending. The Catalyst tells Shep that, “The peace won’t last. Soon your children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back.” Maybe you think C is lying, but I think in context of a game all about recurring cycles, I believe him. Destroy just kicks the problem down the road.
Being able to unite both the Geth and Quarians on Rannoch proves the Catalyst wrong
Not true. The game was NEVER about the endless cycle of conflict between organics and synthetics. In fact, a main plot point was brokering peace between the Geth and the Quarians. The game itself showed that war was not inevitable.
The one point I agree with you on is that Destroy is the least offensive of all endings. The reason I find ME 3's ending to be a complete farcical sham was because of how the central conflict of the series is thrown out of the window. The entire underlying theme of Mass Effect out of the gate was to work past our differences for the greater good, as cliche as that sounds. In ME 1 you assemble a rag tag team who through the diversity of your skill sets work together to bring a halt to Sovereign's plan. ME 2 is the same principal on steroids, as you get together another team of the good, the bad and the ugly to stop the Collectors. ME 3 all up until the final 15 minutes shared the same central conflict. You had to assemble everybody to build the Crucible and fight the Reapers but on a Galactic Scale. Old wounds had to be mended and enemies made allies for the best possible chance at victory and at that point the series was locked into an emotional contract to provide the natural conclusion to the tale it was telling, be that your annihilation because you told everyone to go fuck themselves and started picking sides or something more cathartic because you had put the time and energy into bringing every race together for a last hurrah, where you win or die trying.
As soon as Shepard has defeated Marauder Shields and ascended the stairway to heaven, all of that goes out the window. Now all of a sudden I'm getting lectured by ghost boy about how synthetics and organics living together is like trying to drink milk after orange juice. The conflict has gone from uniting the divided good, bad and ugly to fight for your right to wake up tomorrow or go out in a blaze of glory to an equally cliched but way worse trope of Skynet taking the order to defend Earth a little too seriously and blowing up the greatest threat to it, which just so happens to be the geezers who built it.
I don't think its attempt at a thought provoking ending in which you have to make a choice with an impossible set of options is what makes it bad. War is fucking shit and as much as we want to believe, not everyone will come home ever. Its transgression comes in the form of it taking a massive swerve in the other direction and leaving masses of loose ends and players thinking more 'what in the fuck just happened' as opposed to 'fuck, that just happened.'
TLDR; it betrays its own themes and already flaky narrative in a cack handed attempt to be thought provoking when that was not the tale that was being built.
I appreciate your well structured and explained argument as to the way you feel about this and 9/10 times, I agree with these shorts videos but this is one time where I vehemently disagree your sentiments. I don't want to hate it but I do and every time I go back to play the series again, I have to choose secret option #4 as a spiritual fuck you to Mack Walters.
I agree with this.
Tbh this sums it up pretty well.
Thank you, couldn't put my thoughts into words. You did it and more.
IMO there should have been an option to feint with the crucible and destroy sol in its entirety.
I love how Spacedock is loving comments that agree with him, no matter what or how short they are, and ignoring ones that don't agree with him regardless of what they say.
I agree that the Destroy ending is the only choice and the story that comes with it is fine by me. What I don't like about the ending is that it is essentially Red Wave, Green Wave or Blue Wave. Sure, the cutscenes have different narrations and other effects on the textures, but after 3 games and countless decisions that supposedly have shaped the fate of the galaxy, boiling it down to this just felt massively cheap. The extended cut helped a bit, but the issue still remains IMO. Instead of endings that play out differently we just got a 7 minute cutscene in either red, blue or green and that is what truly bugs me about it.
But the consequences are so mind-glowingly different that if you only see three colours it really isn't the writers fault I'd say! Still, to each their own, I prefer more suggestive and less descriptive endings.
What would have been better, would be to remove the three options, and leave the player with two based on their actions leading up to the end. Either you proceed down the path that your actions dictated, or you walk away. But that would have been much harder to code and might have upset fans even more since to get there would require replaying the whole trilogy in much different ways.
@@mella4376 I disagree. significant parts of the footage are the same. In all three the Normandy effectively deserts from the battlefield (questionable in itself), crashes on a supposedly unknown planet and a number of people crawls from the wreck. The fact that they couldn't be arsed not to copy and paste so much footage across the endings is what bothers so many people - including myself.
@@ranekeisenkralle8265
Good point on the Normandy, such a ship should have at least fired upon the enemy in the "Final battle."
This
"The ruthless calculations of war" as Garrus would say
I was looking for "ruthless calculus" but maybe that's my memory and emotion filling the phrase. But either way you were 2nd comment so w.d.
Fyi etymologically ruth probably/maybe comes from rue. Like you'll rue (regret) the day... that helps me think Garrus was all about making sacrifices WITHIN moral constraints, just with moral confidence.
IE if your counter attack is going to kill the enemy's slaves, not avoidable, being regret less, ruthless, is merely acknowledging that the enemy is morally responsible for those deaths. Ymmv
@@OdinBarenjagerschlos I think I remember Garry's saying something of loosing thousands in order to save millions, and that those were the ruthless calculations of war, and that he wouldn't like being the one making them.
By the way, what's with the response a year later. And what are the odds that I just watched this video again a few days ago because youtune recommended it
People's discontent came from absolutely no influence of player's choices on the ending. Those 3 endings were the same for everyone no matter what actions they took. The assets you gather through the game were not even depicted during the final push, save the couple of seconds when particular fleet arrived. Also the starchild meme Bioware served us was not funny at all and completely unnecessary. As for control ending - its outcome may actually differ from player to player depending on Shepard's personality. If he was altruistic, taking control of the Reapers could have elevated peoples of the galaxy to unseen level. If he was cruel psychopath he could have actually finished Reapers' job and turn his attention towards other galaxies to strip them out of organic life too.
Or, she could have just say immediately commanded then to self destruct. Thus getting the best ending.
When you have something that large facing you, it kind of washes out some insignificant things. When faced with a civilization ending threat, it doesn't really matter if you helped Chad in me1 or let him believe he was n7 in me2 where he subsequently died, or helped him with the orphans in 3. It's so big that the little things don't add up enough to matter.
The out comes of your choices are seen through out the game, which negates them being needed in the ending itself. as was already said, the ending was too big to make something as small as whether or not the krogan are cured of the genophage for example, is relevant in comparison.
Why couldn't have added a orb or created a new alien well a hologram of it but a child take about lazy or stupid
I’m thinking you’re right about the “control” ending having different outcomes depending on Shepard’s character. My Shepard was *technically* Renegade, but went Paragon on most of the “Big Decisions” throughout the series and did a heel-face turn to almost full Paragon by the end of ME3. Picked the “Control” option, and while it was sad that Shepard turned into an emotionless God AI, the implication I got was that she uses the Reapers to help rebuild and afterwards uses them as a means of guarding the galaxy from external threats and preventing the other races from starting wars with each other. Sure, that’s a little 1984ian, but not nearly as bad as the ending mentioned in this video.
Control actually goes one of two ways depending if your paragon or renegade. Renegade makes you more like big brother always watching and gives a dark undertone. Paragon gives a more paternal feeling and sounds more hopeful
adan daniels Someone else agrees, yay lol. You really do need the reapers for protection, the leviathans being the biggest concern as well as potentially hostile Ais or organics the galaxy will face in the future.
Agree, ironically I think control as Paragon is actually the best ending since a super benevolent protector controlling god machines to preserve the right for all organic life to exist and stop any major threats is a pretty good way to go. You don't even need defense spending anymore since the "shepherds" could protect Citadel space.
@Carlos Chagas that is exactly the opposite of what is explained about that ending. As the explanation goes it's Shepard's morals and conscience that will guide the reapers from that moment onward.
@Carlos Chagas the different endings between paragon and renegade shows opposite, Shepard and the catalyst converge into a new being their morals are bonded.
I think that the reapers needs to exist, they're the only force in the galaxy that can bring balance, soon or later other organics will create the next reapers or worse, at least the reapers created a balanced cycle where every race has an opportunity to exist. Evolution cannot be stopped, technology is only a form of evolution the reapers must exist.
People who think like thanos do not avenge and would have no issue with pulling an illusive man. Control is viable for those who do not trust a self regulated council of civilizations.
man saren wouldve made a badass ally if he couldve been saved
@@michaelandreipalon359 agreed having both of them would’ve been devastating
@@michaelandreipalon359 saren was widely considered to be the best specter the council had plus with the reaper upgrades he had he had an equal footing with the reaper soldiers
There’s a couple more but it’s 4 am and I just woke up lol
@@ACrazedGaming the entire premise of Saren is that he could not be saved, only made to realise the stupidly of his actions and what needed to be done to correct them (aka kill himself). He was almost fully indoctrinated (which allowed him to have “some” degree of free will, which brings back to the previous point) and he could of turned into an highly advanced Reaper troop of its own type (as seen in the boss fight) at any time even if he somehow been saved and Sovereign defeated (which only happened cause Sovereign was too busy trying to both unlock the Citidel's relay and control/possess Reaper Saren, When Reaper Saren died that caused a massive feedback effect on Sovereign, allowing the Alliance to defeat Sovereign (which is why Harbinger piggybacks off the signal produced by the Collector General to its troops in order to possess them and suffers no feedback effect when they die). With Nihlus, Nihlus would have been the main character as he would of been the one to make contact with the Beacon (as he was in charge and babysitting Shepard for his evaluation). The rest of the story would have been the same except for Tali dying as if Nihlus lives, both Nihlus and Shepard would have never needed Tali to provide the evidence needed to convict Saren. Other than Liara; Wrex, Tali (as she is dead) and Garrus would have very unlikely made it aboard the Normandy as crew/teammates(as Nihlus is a “Renegade but by the books” sort of being) even though Shepard would still own the Ship (Anderson would still have to step down to keep an eye on thing at the Citidel as he stated), Nihlus is running the operation as Shepard’s mentor and evaluator and thus has final decision over everything. (Reason for Liara getting a pass is because she’s crucial for the story to progress as she helps to make the Beacon's vision make sense and Nihlus would most likely keep her as a potential hostage against her mother
@@kanewilson8624 true I agree with you
It’s just a what if dream
@@kanewilson8624 in other words without nihlus dying the series wouldn’t be a thing
"Why Mass Effect 3's Ending is Perfect"
Bold words for someone in stabbing distance
funiest thing is that he didnt even play the game you can tell by him not knowing that you dont need to chose between tali and legion .......
@@TheGUARDIANOFFOR Ummm he said that there is no choice to safe both and that is absolutely true. Legion dies no matter what. What he is talking about is the choice of simply not giving the Geth the reaper code to safe Legion. That would safe both but it isn´t there
Stfu that statement is trash. Nothing is perfect
@@nomejest5919 that's the point he saying this guy could get f'd up for saying that. This guy is wrong in his video. The endings are trash
@@JBasilix not accurate. You didn’t choose one over the other. Legion sacrificed itself. He’s implying there was no choice in saving them both. Implying the choice between siding with the geth or the quarians. Which clearly you don’t have to.
Thing is - even the Destroy ending meant the end of civilization as we knew it. Sure, the organics survived as they were, but the Mass Relay network is destroyed, making long-range interstellar travel impossible, and with the Reapers gone, no one possesses the technology to rebuild them.
Exactly. The will lead to extinction of many Planets and Colonys in the Galaxy since the gates are gone and they cant sustain themselves. Not to mention how much damage the Gate explosions do.
In the destroy Hackett states that the relays are damaged but can be repaired so civilization would be temporary hampered by a downed relay network
I'm pretty sure they rebuild the Mass Relays or just repair them since they only shut down when the Red Wave hits.
The mass relays aren't fully destroyed with the best possible endings so the galactic civilisation could easily repair them
From available material in the ending, repairing mass relays after the ending is not only possible, it doesn't even take more than few months or years. If Wrex and Eve are alive, you can see a picture of Wrex (and Grunt, if he's alive too) exiting shuttle after returning on Tuchanka while Eve is holding his child, which means that only relatively short time passed between the battle of Earth and restoration of some of the mass relays (at least in high EMS endings).
Saren was synthesis. Failed.
The Illusive Man was control. Failed.
Shepherd is destruction....
I'd say Saren was control, because he thought he could control them only to be indoctrinated and now think being a slave is better.
Illusive Man was destroy until his greedy ass saw the Collector tech.
The running theme of the villains is they think they can control the Reapers until they are indoctrinated.
TheVerySeriousLewis totally wrong. Saren always preached synthesis, he wanted to merge with the reapers as to survive, he literally became part machine/merged with the reapers at the end of me1. The illusive men on the other hand was always talking about controlling the reapers, simply using them so humanity can survive. Have you even played the game?😅 that was all he was talking about in me3... so yeah, destroy is the right ending
@@shepardcommander5174 So... How is he wrong again? You just repeated all he said, simply taking longer.
@@irishspartanstudios are u dumb? He said that Saren was control and i said he was always about synthesis. Learn to read
@@shepardcommander5174 Okay, okay, let's cool it down. Let's agree to disagree with them. Hyped for legendary? I am totally worried about ME4...
My justification for disliking synthesis comes from Legion and Mordin's own words in Mass Effect 2. It leads to stagnation by skipping to the 'final evolution of life'.
Mordin:
"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations: cant carry a load, so invent wheel, can't catch food, so invent spear-limitations! No limitations, no advancement, culture stagnated. Works other way too".
Legion:
"Accepting another's path, blinds you to alternatives".
Even excluding the moral arguments, it still is a terrible option.
Jordan Beeney Then why acceept any of the star childs options, refusal is the only choice.
@@thedarkmaster4747 Refusal to me is definitely more valid than synthesis though, so no argument here.
The Reaper's themselves by being subject to the Catalyst's control are tools; the Geth can still deviate from the 'hive mind' and make somewhat independent choices and thus, qualify for sentience and independence more than any reaper we've met. In destroy, you're essentially giving up most of the universe's technology in exchange for freedom and the chance to build a new future on our 'own terms' (Legion's ME2 perspective). It's one of my least favourite options, but creates a lot of possibilities. In control, the Reaper's fall under the control of Shepard. Under the assumption of a paragon Shepard, the Reapers serve as the replacement fleet and guardian's for the galaxy, restoring the relays and society back to Pre-ME3 levels. Individuals still have the capacity and freedom to change, explore new technologies and there's still diversity amongst the galaxy and innovation can still occur. This is my personally favourite one if the Shepard is paragon: if not, then it turns into the second worst option behind Synthesis, with Reaper-Shepard hinting at a military dictatorship. With a paragon Shepard, It allows the galaxy to focus on rebuilding society rather than just the military initially, unlike the Destroy ending and prevents a possible internal power struggle occuring. Worst-destroy ending is also better than Synthesis in my eyes as some individuals survive and start rebuilding, even with catastrophic damage, whilst retaining the individual freedom I've championed so far. Synthesis essentially has the benefit's of control in terms of technology but removes elements of individual freedom: non-consensually turning everyone into bio-synthetic hybrids is one of the main things you're aiming to prevent. If by rewriting everyone's entire genetic makeup without their consent turns everyone co-operative, is it even truly life? Refusal still allows for the Destroy and Control options to occur in future cycles and whilst tragically phyrric, it thematically fits into the story.
Jordan Beeney It is a phyrric victory, but also a moral victory and an ethical vicrory. But its also a mo-ral annihilation as the reapers essentially just win the war in the face of the futility of shepherds defiance. "Control" is equally as bad irreguardless of shepherds morality or allignment, ultimately they would've inevitably of shared the same fate as thee illusive man. Because as stated in the first game by sovereign, the reapers are beyond human comprihension. Infact the only race that could've attempted to control the reapers would've been the leviathans - as we have actional proof of such agency, in the game. Not that i'd bet on them, given how badly they lost to the reapers/the star child/the intelligence/citadel the first time around. Thematically you have the whole man creates god in the form of machine trope, but here it's more god creates c'thulu in a vain attempt to save man from himself. Control is a bad ending because if anything your only making the reapers even smarter. "Destroy" is equally awefull for the same core under lying reason, the star child/citadel states that it will not allow you to only destroy the reapers and thus achieve your military victory condition. "BUT" and this is a big but, it Will destroy all synthetic life and E.M.P. all technology, E.D.I. & her replicants, the geth and numerous other A.I. across the galaxy down to every single street light, aswell as it's reaper armies. Which ofcourse when you think about it, citadel being a being without compassion, reverence or sentiment. Makes no difference to it whatsoever, infact, just as with control, in destroy citadel has an advantage - if anything. Even the husk of a dead reaper as we experienced in the mission to recruit legion in mass effect 2 can indoctrinate. There is no reason to assume that in this way - citadel cannot ressemble itself faster than the milkyway can advance to a point of sufficient military opposition. And given citadels intellect, comprising of every civilization that it has harvested, it is perfectly possible that it could of calculated this exact strategem:"The experiments will continue." And "synthesis" is essentially the borg, citadels end goal, but as it has stated, this cannot be "forced", not to imagine tha citadel hasn't tried numerous times, repeatedly. Given the state of the krogan turian hybrid reaper form that breaks the current in universe understanding of biotechnology. We do achieve "synthesis" through the geth and quarian alliance or reunification. Citadel is ofcourse aware of this, and has not desisted the current harvest. Neither had citadel stopped the harvest of the countless other civilisations, given what - you can imagine, being the various other responces to the inevitablity of the reaper hollocaust. Which is why the only option is refusal, and thus, conventional defiance.
The Dark master Refusal is a terrible ending aswell, you're dooming the whole galaxy to extinction which is much worse than destroy which only dooms synthetic life. Sure technology will be damaged but if you have a high ems hackett said it is possible for everything to be rebuilt, it's low ems destroy which is much more of a problem. Also if shepard doesn't destroy the reapers the next cycle will anyways, the difference is shepards cycle gets wiped out because shepard would have been too weak willed to have done it himself, and in return would have wasted everything that shepard ,his cycle and the protheans cycle fought for. Shepard sacrificed a system to slow down the reapers, so shepard shouldn't have a problem going one step further if it meant stopping the reapers permanently especially If the other alternative is just letting everyone die. Quite frankly I hate the refusal ending aswell, it felt like a slap in the face from bioware that was thrown in there out of spite because of the negative reaction the endings got. I don't think it's the worst ending (synthesis is the worst for multiple reasons), but it is still really bad. I think all the endings are bad, but the destroy ending is the least worst.
Emmanuel 49 Refusal is what would've happened anyway, naturally. ME 1 & 2 were essentially shepherd perpetually chosing the refusal option. Refusal is a fight, a hypothetically futile one
i feel the ending shouldn't have been a "choice" but the culmination of choices all the way back from ME1. where the star child is simply a terminal to inform shepard that the Crucible is merely a power source with the citadel being an 'essence' gun and Shepard the singular being who has brought a force capable of showing the Reapers a new path. Shepard being the catalyst and the ending reflective of who Shepard has been throughout the series Paragon or Renegade and what they have done, if they brought peace through understanding or dominating the parties involved or destroyed any who would not fall into line even in the face of the truth.
The ending should be about salvation for all, including the species that comprised the Reapers by showing the flaws of the extinction cycle and offering a new path forward.
Watched the video, and... yeah that's gonna be a no from me.
Just a thing about the "sinister overtones"... that all depends on Shepard's alignment. The Extended Cut speech changes based on the Shepard's morality. Also your mention of "no choice to save both Tali and Legion" is wrong. Legion dies in every scenario, either killed by Shepard or sacrificing itself.
And that is where I have to disagree with your core assessment about Mass Effect's theme: The best sacrifice is always of the self, by one's own volition. Both Kaidan and Ashley tell you to save the other one on Virmire. 2 starts with Shepard choosing to sacrifice himself to save Joker, then being resurrected to go on what is literally deemed a "suicide mission", which everyone on the squad willingly chooses to join in on (nobody is coerced), and many of the side missions reflect that (Okeer sacrifices himself to make sure Grunt's tank survives, Tali willing to accept exile to prevent her father's name from being ruined, Miranda willing to throw away her own life to save her sister, etc). All of the best endings to the various story arcs in 3 involve personal sacrifice: Mordin chooses to go up to the Genophage tower, Thane literally throws himself at Kai Leng, Legion destroys itself to awaken the geth as truly sentient beings. Meanwhile the villains are the ones that want to sacrifice others to save themselves: TIM with Cerberus, Saren with pretty much all sapient life, the salarian dalatrass asking you to throw away the krogan, Miranda's father, Gavin Archer... the list goes on. So taking the destroy ending to save Shepard actually makes Shepard the villain. You're willing to throw away the geth and EDI to save yourself.
Making the comparison to Trek, it's not Kirk you should connect Shepard to, but instead Spock. With full knowledge that he will die, he chooses to throw away his own life, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
toadofsteel wow... perfect. Dare anyone to make an argument against that lol. also don’t forget our protagonist’s last name... paragon definitely makes the Ai. Out to be a shepherd. They don’t enslave sheep... they guide and protect them like paragon Shepherd, or Jesus if you wanna get into the shepherd savior metaphor.
@@guardiantree8879 The only people got Shepard where the players.
The "paragon" control ending doesn't work as it's what the Reapers push for. The green ending breaks established lore and resorts to essentially magic in hard science sci-fi, and the destroy ending also killed Shepard unless you reach a specific threshold.
Another thing you want to look at is the fact that the Reaper AI smiles rather creepily if you pick either control or synthesis while it scowls before fading with destroy.
Since you're looking at past events to justify the control ending allow me to do the same with the destruction ending.
Mass Effect 1. Saren preaches the idea of coexisting with the Reapers to preserve life all whilst undergoing extensive cybernetic implantation with Reaper Tech to the player. Turns out to be a puppet.
Mass Effect 2 and 3. T.I.M preaches about harnessing the power of the Reapers (and the Collector base) by controlling them, using them to benefit mankind and lead the galaxy to great strength. Turns out that he got the idea after being completely indoctrinated by the Reapers.
Now why would the Reapers push for two out of three options? Both of which get an almost rapey grin from the Reaper AI? Why does the "Renegade" option that every character that is established as trustworthy pushes for get a negative reaction from the literal embodiment of the Reapers minds?
Food for thought.
or the one.
toadofsteel Shepard doesn't pick the destroy ending to save himself, where did you get that from? The star child even tells shepard if he chooses destroy he will die aswell as he is part synthetic, shepard had no idea he would survive so yeah shepard was willing to sacrifice himself in the destroy ending. If you want to start bringing up what the villains wanted then let's talk about how the illusive man wanted to control the reapers and he was indoctrinated, saren wanted synthesis and once again he was indoctrinated. Anderson, shepard and all of the good guys in mass effect wanted the reapers destroyed and they were not indoctrinated. Also if you're trying to say shepard isn't willing to sacrifice others to get the job done then you're wrong, he sacrificed an entire system to delay the reapers in mass effect 2, do you really think he wouldn't go 1 step further and sacrifice synthetic life if it meant stopping the reapers permanently? Also why would shepard even want to control the reapers? It's not a life worth living, it was never his goal throughout the series even when the illusive man tried to persuade him to and I'm pretty sure shepard is against mind control anyway, he's conflicted about rewriting the geth, disgusted by batarians using control chips in slaves brains and he tells miranda it's better to be dead than be controlled so it is hypocritical for him to then mind control the reapers no matter how much he hates them especially when he can just kill them outright. Also Shepard would be putting the galaxy in danger choosing control, he has no idea if the star child is lieing or if he might start up another cycle of genocide due to no longer being in full control of his actions as he will basically become like an AI. Destroy ending is the best and safest ending, on top of that it's exactly what shepard wanted from the start throughout the series, no point changing his mind in the last 5 minutes because the greatest enemy shepards ever faced tells him to.
You have a good point. It doesn't change the fact that the ending was unpolished, rushed and had severe plot holes and directly contridicted codex entries
The ending was good in theory, they fucked up the execution which was why so many people (including me) missed the point when they first played it. To be clear, that's on Bioware and EA for not putting enough time into it, but it was still a good concept on paper.
il say ending was rushed but they always had this kinda of ending in my and i liked then again i played it with all dlc and extendet cut but overall i loved the ending. And yes i want another ME game that is set after 3 let's 10 years later
Leviathan fixes most of this. In my opinion the leviathan subplot should have been in the base game and the cerberus part should have been a DLC, as no one cares about it.
You know, I went in with a fairly neutral opinion and yet somehow this video has convinced me that the ending is actually worse than I thought.
No Spacedock, don't do it! Choose life!
Actually when you think about it, player choice has no hold the final choices with the Crucible. This was not a (Current Cycle) created machine, but one made by the Protheans and all those that came before them. THEY provided the options to choose from, and we had to make that choice. No one in the galaxy truly knew what the device would do until the end, and so the whole game basically ran on hope that the ancient space Mcguffin would somehow save us all.
Your choices do not lead towards How the game will END, but instead WHO will SURVIVE to see the Crucible fired, and the subsequent aftermath.
I would have loved for there to have been a follow up Aftermath mission (or multiple) where you play as one of squad mates and witness just how the decisions you made affected the REBUILDING of Galactic Society, Who lived, What they went on to do, How Shepard was remembered.
Shepard didn't SAVE the Galaxy in the final moments, all the previous cycles efforts did, Shepard chose how it Survive after the fact.
Yes, exactly. You get to shape how things turn out given premises that you can only change to a certain extent, it would be crazy to think you could alone shape very aspect of the story.
Mass effect 4 could have been what you are talking about. But I wont get into that. I completely agree though. Your idea would have made at least an excellent DLC.
I'm gonna take this a step further: all the endings are good. They all represent what Mass Effect is about. Yes, synthesis was sort of a vague cop-out, so are 90% of paragon choices and just about every "happy ending" in art and literary history. I think your critiques about the other two endings, along with most other critiques from people who hate the endings, assume a shit ton. I don't think the control ending implied the Reapers control organics, or that synthesis meant a loss of individuality or something of the sort. I think they implied the possibility of things like that happening, but it's not like "Oh this is what happens and you actually made the wrong choice".
The truth is, we don't *know* the right answer and we were never supposed to. The endings are all about what type of character your Shepard was. Was he/she someone who always believed that every life deserved to be saved, that working together and becoming closer and more cohesive would be our salvation? Or was he/she the pragmatic type, who understood sacrifices were important in war, and that 10 trillion lives were more important than 10 billion? The type that sent Aarlack company to die so we could secure assets from the Rachni queen and secretly sabotaged the genophage so he could get the commitment of the Salarians as well as the Krogan. Or was he/she arrogant, egotistical, and maybe slightly naive about the power he deserved or could maintain without being corrupted by it? Did your Shepard preserve the collector base and perhaps leaves David in Project Overlord so he can be used.
These are all possible personalities of Shepard, and in the end, none of them are right or wrong, they're just them. I feel like that's the way Mass Effect has always worked, you can be the idealist who is willing to take all risks at any opportunity in order to *try* to preserve all life, there's the pragmatist who will only take risks that they calculate will overall benefit the universe as a whole, or you can be the despot who thinks *you* are the key to the survival of the universe and will personally make any decision he has to, in order to maintain that control and power for the sake of all those who you mean to defend.
The only valid complaint is that they could have added more frames that differ between the three endings, but I think what's more important is what you think happens and what you think your Shepard is willing to risk. If the ending went right out and said "Heres what happens if you choose this, this, or this", then that makes the choice meaningless. It would mean there is a right answer and no reason to pick the other choices. I think that would be a much worse way to end Mass Effect than what we got.
@D Yes, when I said "the Reapers control organics" I didn't mean control in the same sense as Shepard controlling the reapers. In the control ending, Shepard sorta becomes a demi-god, and controls the reapers like puppets, however, the creator of the video argued that the epilogue when you pick that ending implies that Shepard and the reapers then go on to become the overlords of the organics, which I think is a mental leap.
Bugs Money I prefer the freeze frames rather than a New Vegas voice-over because it leaves more interpretation on behalf of the player rather than the game telling you Goodsprings is screwed no matter what your character can do after the game ends.
Why would you choose to control the reapers when you spent two games fighting the person who literally wants to do this?
@@MattRowland I assume you're talking about the Illusive Man? Not sure because you really only fight him for one game, but that's beside the point. Some people might choose Control because they believe Shepard is worthy to control them and the Illusive man is not or, going back to my main point, more importantly they believe that the Shepard they played would deem himself worthy to control them.
There are people who genuinely believe thoughts like that, right? They're called authoritarians or totalitarians. Totalitarians love when they're in power and hate when people they don't agree with are in power. That might not be what you think *your* Shepard fought for, but that's the whole point of a role-playing game, isn't it?
@@bugsmoney1264 could be, like you said, that's what makes role playing so amazing. My Shepard would never control the reapers, because he spent way too much time as an idealist who wanted to rid the galaxy of them.
I ultimately believe this is why Andromeda failed. Not because of the bugs, not because of the story, but because Mass Effect IS Shepard to all of us, especially our version of Shepard. When we don't have that, we resist, even unconsciously. Shepard is just an amazing, dynamic hero that it's hard to separate the universe of this story without him/her.
I always liked ME3 the most. It was always about the journey not the destination. I was used to the hard choices and it seemed right that Shepherd gave his life
Exactly! Thank you
Except he survives if you achieve the perfect ending
@@blacknoiz3757 no, he doesn't. It's just a stupid easter egg that doesn't mean anything. It could be a random soldier on earth, it doesn't mean anything. Mass effect is over. It ends with Shepard sacrificing himself and millions of other individuals to save sextillions more, that's how it ends and has remained ended for over 10 years. It's a contained story that is over, there should never be another mass effect game ever, not even a spin-off or a fucking prequel or any of that garbage. Mass effect is sacred, it should be left alone in a museum. Not fucking made into a stupid fucking product that keeps shitting out sequels, spin-offs, rip-offs, prequels, sequels tradequels whateverthefuck-teequels. Even if the new one does go that route, it already failed. Not to mention Bioware is long dead anyway, if anything the next mass effect will probably make andromeda look good.
When I chose Control, it showed Shepard doing exactly that, his essence taking control of the Reapers, and using them to rebuild and protect life across the Galaxy. Not sure why you thought it turned people into Reapers.
The clip in his video showed a husk suddenly acting human again after Shepard takes over, clearly Spacedock mistook the meaning of that.
This hits on the Indoctrination Theory a bit. That the Control option, being both Saren and The Illusive Man, is succumbing to indoctrination. It's important to note that also, in the Starchild sequence, the Illusive Man is shown taking the "Control" option and Anderson is shown taking the "Destroy" option, but there is no hallucination for Synthesis because it hadn't even occurred to the Reapers before.
Uh no, synthesis has been done by the reapers like 20,000 times before by their own admission. All those other times they wiped the galaxy out every 50k years. They saved the genetic and scientific materials of alllllll those other merged species. In an unfulfilling-to-us-humans way, they all still exist in the reaper horde. Destroy is the only one that's never been done successfully before.
The RED RENEGADE Anderson makes little sense, same for BLUE PARAGON Illusive Man. Also award-like for picking what they really want, new bio-synth reaper constructs. They confused you into telling the galaxy to lay down their arms and "merge" like all other 20,000 cycles. Amazing really, you spent so many hours fighting that same end and then immediately championed it instead. Superior species I guess.
Also re control, it showed Shep doing exactly what Saren was doing, blue f'd up eyes and all. Sorry it's late and meta but you and the galaxy died, please reload an old save.
It's always nice to see thoughtful ME3 discourse, even if I wholly disagree with the interpretation.
Refusal is a quirky throwaway but otherwise, Destroy is the ending I found least desirable. Even Hackett's narration of it has a morose overtone of tragedy that implies society should have been better prepared. That said, it's a tragic end that's still completely valid.
Where I disagree is that I feel Synthesis and Control speak just as much towards one's interpretation of the story as Destroy.
The catalyst presents it all up front; the options are available because you've made new possibilities a reality.
Synthesis rejects the status quo of existence that has led to the societal bickering that created the Reapers and prevented the galaxy from being better prepared to stop them. It rewrites the nature of life as we understand it as a solution to its own folly but it never says the solution is perfect.
A Synthesis galaxy will face it's own challenges. They'll just be different challenges from the existing civilization and everyone will have to figure out how to solve them on a more level playing field.
Control is the most extreme conclusion of following the story as a character narrative. Shepherd uses the Reapers to whatever means they (Shepherd) deem necessary. It's not inherently bad or good. It depends on what kind of person your Shepherd was.
Which speaks to the nature of what's "right" and "wrong" with the endings in terms of content.
The Paragon/Renegade system didn't always work in execution but the intent was to clearly break the binary mentality of morality and choice in game design and storytelling. Successful diplomacy isn't always rewarding, harsh action carries consequences that vary, etc. To that end, I disagree with tying validity of the other endings to correlation with the antagonists.
Saren and Illusive Man aren't inherently wrong, they're doomed for playing into the hands of Reaper design; Saren enhanced himself with Reaper tools to do their bidding and Illusive Man wanted to control their tech for his own shallow affairs.
The Catalyst even says that while their solutions were possible, they never could have achieved them because they were already puppets before realizing it.
The journey was about recognizing that the choices aren't inherently tied down to our human-centric perceptions of morality. Paragons can destroy, Renegades can Control, the consequences of either can be destructive or salvation and the color coding is a red herring to that end. The only thing informing whether you potentially saved or destroyed the galaxy is your Shepherd's morality and legacy, not those last few cutscenes without context.
And while I disagree with your interpretation of the ending, it's nonetheless an interesting and valid one and I do wholeheartedly agree that the variety in these interpretations are piece of what makes the endings brilliant beyond the usual boundaries of commercial art.
It's why I'm hesitant to see any continuation, as it seems moving forward would mean canonizing 1ending or invalidating all of them.
In any case, thanks for the take and coverage. Not enough healthy discourse on the Shepherd trilogy ending.
Well said.
Excellent rebuttal and, as far as it goes, I agree.
I'm on the same page. I will only had that synthesis has also the evolution aspect to it. People tend to believe that evolution is only a biological process, it is not, there is a technological and even a social aspect to it. Synthesis is when this 3 aspects of evolution stop being disjointed and start to merge. The synthesis ending is the natural next step to any advance civilization evolution. We can already see it in our world. Biological - The mingling of different people, the passing traits like skin color, bone density and frame, eye color. Technological - The argumentation of the body like prosthetics, pacemakers and in the future electric prosthetics like eye capable of seeing infrared and zooming. And Socially the creation of social networks like Facebook.
Excellent argument. The control ending is the least damaging with Commander Shepard being the only one to pay a price( which isn’t really out of character if you played paragon like I did).
THIS. I feel like adding, interpretation-wise, that in the control ending you stop the reaper assault. You do not stop the galactic navy from finishing the job. So it can be surmised that society willingly chose, through fear or lack thereof, that they would not continue to fight the reprogrammed reapers which have chosen to halt the reaping. I quite like the idea that given the opportunity the reapers are ultimately reduced in numbers to nothing or close to in paragon control, not allowed to keep the military strength they started with. Because who in their right mind would agree to that except the geth, cerberus, and perhaps renegade shepard. Like the quarians murdering helpless geth, I find it likely the reapers were still pulverized the moment the opportunity arose. But I too will never diss on destroy ending lovers, considering how it's exactly what everyone wanted, and achieves in the short term immediate results, although it does perpetuate the cycle of violence against synthetics, reapers, that ages all the way back to the era of Leviathan. Synthesis really does just seem like galaxy-wide indoctrination with extra steps, though.
When the writers admit they weren't that smart when writing the ending...there's a problem there...
they also admit it was two of them locking themselves away and getting drunk to write it. It was the ramblings of the two worst writers bioware has ever employed, whilst drunk.
I don't think that inherently makes it a bad ending in the same it lending itself to the best headcannon ending in gaming history doesn't make it a good ending.
I think what we're given is good, it maintains a theme that's been going since the beginning; organic life vs synthetic life, are they really alive and if they are, are their lives worth less than a organic life?
Interpretation is just as meaningful as intent. I think an ending that can inspire such debate and thought is worthy of some sort of merit, even through flawed execution.
One writer admits that another writer says it was on the table from early development to do a bitter sweet ending. The only issue is people were let down by the fact that the ending cutscenes were too similar depending on your choice but the fact that they don't even show the geth or Edi dying is something to keep a close eye on.
@@gibster9624 geths dying is bittersweet. The whole fleet strangled on the earth, destruction of the world as we know it (relays), many strangled worlds... that's not bittersweet, that's shitting on the whole property. PS: the rest of the series wasn't really bittersweet, so it didn't tonally fit. You are playing pretty standard blockbuster story right up till the end of the last game. This is not the time to turn bitter.
@@MartinJab I think that's the heart of my issues. In the last two games you can get a flat out good ending, everyone lives and it's very happy. Then in the last minutes of the final game they just pull this "oh yeah the good ending means killing every synthetic and Shepard dies". To me it just doesn't fit tonally. If the "no-win" ending was being hinted towards or pursued in the last two I wouldn't have an issue, but its just sour as is.
If you put literally any two similarly sized groups of people in place of the synthetic and non-synthetic life, this interpretation of the game becomes rather problematic.
That said, in the game, you're told flat out that the "destruction" ending is only a stopgap, that AI will eventually be recreated and the cycles start again.
One of the main reasons people complain about the ending is because it's so proforma, you're outright told that Destruction and Assimilation are both wrong and won't fix anything, and Synthesis will fix everything, so saying that ending isn't bad but the Synthesis option is, is cherry picking.
@Rising Horizon Gaming sure, but if you don't trust the Catalyst, why believe any of the endings work the way it says.
The Star Brat is similar to KoToR 2's G0-T0. Only G0-T0 knew he was broken, but was slaved to his directives regardless. The Star Brat was given an impossible task within the confine's of his allowed parameter's, so he broke them to achieve his solution. As a result, the Star Brat is not a good end game mouth piece. He's just a broken machine that couldn't say, "Unable to comply".
Synthesis is bad because you are forcing the whole galaxy to become a new life form against their will.
@@cannon26ify I agree, I don't think the synthesis choice is good for several reasons. I just think the dialogue is saying it's the best, and only good, choice.
@@rngwrldngnr Control is exactly what the illusive man wanted and refusing to act at all is damning everyone alive in the galaxy to death so that leaves Destroy as the only option that is right. Shepard set out from the start in the first game to destroy the reapers and yes the cost is high but that's the point ,to give weight to your decisions. Old school Sci-fi has always been bleak and rather gritty.
There is a way to save both Tally and Legion though. Not that I disagree with your other points,
Do tell, because as far as I know, Tali kills herself if you save legion
You have to have a high enough paragon or renegade score to open up a speech option.
I saved both first try...
Even if you save Tali and Legion, Legion sacrifices himself to upgrade the Geth
There isn't, people are misremembering. Legion sacrifices themselves to upload the code.
Yea, I don't think you understand at all why people hated the endings.
Because we didn't have the extended cut when we first played through.
Imagine 100+ hours of gameplay, we get some literal Deus Ex Machina where we couldn't ask any questions, get a silly ending.
Then you reloaded it, chose a different, and get the same ending with a different color.
@@TheDancerMacabre That's not why most people hated the endings. They hated the endings because, no matter which three you choose, and extended cut or not, it is a blatant, open, bold, LIE.
Starting in 2007, BioWare said that "Your choices matter." Really? They matter? No... They fiddle with your War Readiness Rating, but there are ways to hit every mission in the final game and get enough points. None of the decisions from the previous games matter. What color explosion do you want? Pick it now, at the final decision point, and make nothing else you've done across 3 games relevant...
Even after the extended cut, all you get is still shots. Shep, in the end, at the Crucible, is who BioWare wanted him/her to be. He/She isn't who I built over 90 hours of game play. They could have cut down the play time in 3 to half what it is, and instead demonstrate how each pivotal decision from the 3 previous games creates the ending to this game, and I would have applauded it. Instead, save the Rachni Queen 3 times, and get a codex entry about her being a war asset. Turning the Collector Base over to Cerberus or Destroying it is a matter of getting the Reaper Heart or the Reaper Brain as a codex entry of being a war asset. Save the heretic Geth or Blow them up? Oh, look, another codex entry of being a war asset.
My decisions were points to be tabulated in a future game, not something that mattered.
@@TheDancerMacabre The extended cut still didn't fix that much.
@@GetDaved At least it fleshed out the endings. Original endings had two major problems, they felt out of place and were too short, barebones literally. We made a decision that supposedly changes the whole galaxy for the rest of time and we didn't know shit about what happened later.
Extended Cut, well, extended it, thankfully. The overall conclusion is still somewhat disappointing in grand scheme of things but at least we with the DLC we know roughly what happened next. Original ending was abrupt, out of nowhere and created dozens of questions with no answers.
That ending was the single biggest disappointment I've ever experienced on screen. Extended Cut didn't "save" the ending but at least it saved the trilogy and made it worth the time after all.
What happened in March 2012 was not overreaction, we weren't "crybabies". Fans were rightfully disappointed and had the right to demand more after something like this.
@@TheDancerMacabre the extended cut sucked aswell
Dammit!
*leaves room and comes back with a torch, pitchfork, and some rope*
I'm sorry about this, I promise to make it quick.
Lmao
I think, the reason why everyone hated it (including me) is the extreme lack of context and that shepard died in the end. Another reason would be the weird child that just showed up out of nowhere, making shepards haunted dreams kind of meaningless. Reason being is that they feel more like visions rather then actual survivors guilt. It was also too dragged out with the extreme infodump of that stupid child. I am fine with the choices and how they played out (I am with you on the destruction end. That Shepard survives is my personal headcanon :D) but for christs sake remove the child and give some proper context what happens afterwards.
I personaly think the ending would be better received, if starchild's place would be given to Harbinger, that character was almost completely forgotten in ME3 and never truly appeared in the trilogy, despite ME2 was picturing Harbinger as a reaper with special significance.
Shep actually survives if you have high enough EMS and pick destroy. There will be a short cutscene on Earth where you can see Shep lying in rubble and suddenly taking a breath.
@@DarthJane I know. But maybe its her last breath. That's why i headcanon that she survives
@@wickiei4556 of course he/she survived. Its fucking shepard, not some normal human beeing
Shepherd living is stupid, as the troupe of "the hero saves the day, and lives" is outdated, and very unrealistic. It is literally asinine to be able to save the entirety of the galaxy, and be able to walk away in the end. The hero dying in the end, not only shows the scale of what they were up against, but it also goes to show that they were truly willing to lay down their life for others. Heroes are not defined by their actions, but by their will to recognize, and yes I'm quoting star trek, that the needs of the many, out weight the needs of the one.
Your defense of the ending makes for a better ending than what was actually given.
Synthesis may be the cop out ending but I dont think Control is sinister at all. Shepard's consciousness has control of the reapers and is using them to protect galactic civilization. All of the races of the galaxy survive as they are including the synthetic ones, and the reapers, under Reaper-Shepard's controll, are a non-threat.
Depends on your Renegade/Paragon status. Shepard goes pretty nuts if you are Renegade.
At least, that is what the reapers want you to believe ;)
@@Y0G0FU I'm always Paragon. My Shepard is a nice person untill you piss her off, then she throws people out windows
@@channonikelman2041 I would be a little concerned having a Reaper that is being controlled by the consciousness of the person who once threw someone off windows(for pissing them off). My point is, there is still a risk of a Control-ending future to be not-so-bright.
Honestly perfect paragon shephard ... not much a chance of that Ai going bad. It’s main priority to me Would be not allowing any race to go completely extinct, considering what a paragon Shepard would do for the Krogan and Rachni. Besides with destroy you’re assured that synthetic life would cause wars in the future...especially if they knew an organic chose to wipe them all out. Peace with them would be near impossible at that point.
I always choose Destroy for the same reasons. Though I held out for the Indoctrination Theory until the extended cut came out, where BioWare double downed on the ending. I did the Synthesis ending once and it just felt like I was being told a happy lie, and that soon, very soon, we would learn it was a horribly wrong decision. I always choose Destroy... Even after saving the Geth.
Wasn't it that in the perfect ending without mods EDI and the Geth get to live?
"There was no desition to save both tali and legion" legion dies either way theres no way you can save him, what you can do is save both the geth and the quarians so you are wtong there, that and that the refusual ending has a hopefull ending since the next cycle manage to destroyed the reapers
There is no outcome where both Tali and Legion survive. If you save both the geth and quarians, Legion still gives his life.
It's never shown the next cycle will win, only that they find the box left by Liara as far as I remember. Also you screwed over all advanced species in the galaxy and let them be harvested, so to say it's a hopeful ending is a bit of a stretch.
@@Lucifer_26 Refusal is basically just bioware giving everyone the middle finger not wanting to believe in anything the catalyst says. Like would you believe in anything in a being who controls robotic abominations with the powers to manipulate and brainwash people to thinking there way is always the right way? This is basically what happened to Saren when he believed what Sovereign was saying after he was successfully indoctrinated.
You learn the next cycle wins via different Stargazer scene dialogue.
Refusal ending has a female (instead of the male voiced by Buzz Aldrin) telling a child how Shepard's cycle is why they have peace.
He... didn't talk about the Geth and Quarians. He talked about Tali and Legion.
Fantastic video. You managed to capture the same feeling I had at the end of the trilogy. Many fans wanted a "happy ending at a party", but forgot all the debates about the war against the Reapers. The third game concluded the main conflicts established in the previous games such as the war between the Quarians and Geth and also the cure for genophage. We meet the previous characters on missions helping in the war against the Reapers like Miranda, Jack, Jacob, Thane, etc. They weren't forgotten in the final game. An ending without sacrifices and that failed to convey a sense of loss would not be a worthy ending to the completion of this space epic. Furthermore, the possible philosophical lines of analysis of Mass Effect 3's endings yield a rich debate about wars and their sacrifices, as well as the theme of free will and control over ultra-advanced technology.
I feel like you gave ME3 ending more credit than it deserves. Yes the core idea was great, however there was no build up to that ending. You didn't even had to work towards any of those endings. Synths vs. Organics was only one of many themes ME dealt with and somehow it came out on top at the last minute and the your choise was boiled down to "press a button". They didn't even bother to show the results of our smaller choices that we made through 3 games. There was nothing said about the fate of the galaxy. Just a bunch of genereic cut scenes with almost zero meaning. Let's looks at original Deus Ex for example: at the end as you were marching through Area 51 to deal with Paige you were presented with different options by different factions and as you were progressing you had to make a choice, visit different areas and complete different objectives depending on what goal you wanted to achieve. That and many monologues through infolink provided DX's ending with a lot of depth bacuse in the end you clearly knew what you did and and what price you and the rest of the world had to pay. As for smaller choices let's look far actually: Dragon Age Origins. Made by same people who made ME. At the end you were told what effect your actions had on the world, it's cities and it's people in a cutscene that had just a bunch of pictures and text and that was enough. Many other games sucesssfully did that before DAO. Something similar would totally work in ME but instead we got completely nothing.
TL;DR the idea behind the ending was great, however it's execution was beyond lazy.
Agree, most of ME3 just doesn't tie to the other two. What was the point of the conduit and the big reveal of the citadel as a mass relay in ME1, when all along the Reaper hivemind was controlling it all along? What, it just decided to let the Protheans hack the thing after they were supposed to be dead? Why did the Reapers make new Reapers look like the race they harvested in ME2, only to put it in a shell that looked like Sovereign? so visual effects artists had to use fewer assets? Why did the crucible have literally no lead up in either previous game, and just come out of thin air? And why didn't Vigil tell us about it when we talked to him before? Why did the Reaper AI have circular logic about its mission that makes zero sense? I preferred the cosmic space horror to an AI that ran rampant and did exactly what it wanted to prevent. What's the point in all these weird war assets we collect over the series, when all they do is fill up a status bar? Why couldn't we see a rachni swarm help us in the final mission, or one of the smugglers we helped do a boming run on an enemy strong point or something? So many things that just made the game and the ending feel really lazy and not well thought out after the epic buildup from the prior two.
@@JCDenton3 I think you folks a being a little harsh, yes no doubt the ending of ME3 was rushed and didn't have as good of a payout as it should have and the entire ending concept could have had a lot more tact, but calling the ending lazy is a bit disingenuous, giving an ending that would be satisfying to everything is a superbly impossible task, most popular TV shows struggle with this too.
The ending was sound in theory it's just a shame it didn't come out as well as it could have, ultimately they could have spent the time to tie up every single choice you've made over the series in the ending sequence but the game would have to be half the size it is to achieve that, the game has to ship at some point and the ending does a much better job at tying up the themes than people give it credit for.
(plus the indoctrination theory caps off Shepard's story really well in my opinion and I really wish the game put more credence into that idea, but that's beside the point)
@@Meandery It’s an ending that I didn’t particularly enjoy at the time. No final boss fight, no satisfying final showdown with the Illusive Man (killed in a cutscene) or Harbinger (messes you up and then disappears to presumably share the same fate as the other reapers), the final piece of proper game play is that horrible horde battle, filled with banshees that set my teeth on edge whenever they scream (appreciate that this is just me, but it is difficult to enjoy a segment of game play when you have to mute to get through it), that has all the hallmarks of a final test before the finale. Instead you get what amounts to a binary choice which leads to the effectively the same outcome: the reapers are defeated but you are dead.
To be clear I don’t care that Shepard dies. Dying to save the galaxy is an ideal ending for the character (IMO). What irked me was how the choice was presented. We speak with the mind behind the Reapers and see that it is nothing more than a child with a flawed world view, this could have been fine if you then get the opportunity to challenge its view point but you don't, you are forced to accept its view that synthetic and organic life are incapable of living together. There is no opportunity to challenge this viewpoint, you can’t point out that you have managed to broker peace between the Quarians and the Geth, or that EDI is one your most loyal companions despite being a synthetic among organics. You lose your agency in the very final moments in a series which always put your choices front and centre.
Since I’ve had an opportunity to dwell on it I have grown to appreciate what it represents so much more. I do now consider it to be exactly the ending that Shepard deserved: sacrificing himself in order to save everyone (whichever choice you make, I accept them all equally valid, I personally went with control). The above still annoys me to some degree but not to the extent it used to.
heck, it wasn't even brought up until the second game except as lore fluff. unless you count that random aim side quest, or the moon training facility. If only we *knew* that's wasn't just something to keep the main storyline from being repetitive. That was the storyline.
It absolutely does show you the results of the other choices. It shows the aftermath of the krogans, quarian/geth, etc. It also shows a brief scene of what happens to your crewmates. What more would you want?
If I understood it properly, even my beloved destroy ending was only a temporary victory because it's implied that the whole cycle will repeat itself once again when synthetic life is inevitably created.
This video cuts deep. After almost 10 years of saying, “I’ll play Mass Effect someday”, I finally bought the Legendary Edition this year and completed it this last week. That final decision had me so torn. I made the tough call to sacrifice myself for Synthesis, as it was objectively the only way I could strike a peace with the Reapers that would save trillions of lives and guarantee a long-term peace.
Then, *just* as I was about to enter the light - I had an epiphany that hit me like a goddamn ton of bricks. There was no guarantee that the Reapers were dealing with me in good faith. If synthesis worked exactly like as-described, great. But what if it didn’t? What if synthesis just handed the power of the Crucible over to the Reapers, allowing them to indoctrinate the entire galaxy - was I really sure what I was signing everyone up for? If mass-indoctrination didn’t happen today, what about tomorrow or years from now? How would I know for certain that the Reapers would truly regard organic life as co-equals? And my heart broke man, because that was the moment I understood that the Reapers could never be trusted.
The final decision is less of a negotiation that respects your free will and more like dealing with a psychopath who has pulled the pin on a grenade. I had to choose destroy. The Reaper AI does everything it can to obscure the fact that it is forcing you to contemplate this choice while refusing to call off the dreadnoughts slaughtering everyone you know, love, or care about. It even uses your virtue against you by holding synthetic life hostage - using the Geth and Edi as shields and making you pull the trigger. The Reapers are truly manipulative, psychotic, and totally committed to the genocide of intelligent life unless, and only unless intelligent life is perpetually unthreatening and conforms to their will.
Heavy hearted, I turned around and chose destroy. It was the only way to guarantee that they could not hurt anyone ever again. Seeing breakdown videos like this doesn’t take the sting of that decision away, but it’s cool seeing how other people weighed that tough call and committed to it.
I played mass effect for the first time and thought destroying all reapers was the most logical option. True Geth and EDI are dead and with the mass relays gone, the universe was probably setback to square one BUT I still think it's the best option out of 3 already terrible options.
So many people forget that the Catalyst is the Leviathan AI that turned against them. It created the Reapers and sees the harvest cycle as perfection. Which begs the questions...why would it allow someone else to take control? And, why would it want to synthesize all synthetic and organic life together?
Before the Extended Cut dlc changed the endings, choosing Control or Synthesis showed Shepard's eyes turn blue and their skin burn away to reveal the blue/black husk flesh underneath...implying that both of those choices were tricks to indoctrinate Shepard; just like Saren and the Illusive Man. But the Destroy choice was also a lie since if your rating was high enough, Shepard would survive. The Catalyst tries to make you sympathize to save Edi and the Geth by not choosing Destroy.
"Here we stand and here shall we die, unbroken and unbowed, though the very hand of death itself come for us, we will spit our defiance to the end!"
~Chaplain-Dreadnought Armand Titus,
Howling Griffons
Destruction was the only choice, for the souls of zillions waited at the crescendo of their defiance for their justice to finally be granted to them.
"There is no decision to save both Tali and Legion." UMMMM.....there totally is dude lol.
There are plenty of statements made in this video that are 100% incorrect, but that's a discussion we can have later. Putting aside the issue of the lack story development for the characters you got to know along this journey and the lack of involvement in seeing them and their culture evolve toward the end of the final game, I actually agree with you in the idea that a "control or destroy" option for the final choice is viable.
Drew Karpyshyn (lead writer of ME1 and ME2) stated (and alluded in ME 1 and 2) that the ending would be heavily related to the concept "mass effect" and how dark energy is warping the galaxy out of control. He then made a statement alluding that Shepard would have to make a choice to let the Reapers continue their plan of harvesting to potentially save the galaxy from being destroyed by a cosmic Armageddon or to resist them and to find a way to save the galaxy without the Reapers who have been trying to develop a plan for millions of years. That kind of finality is actually not only fine but a realistic hard choice; and if the "destroy and control" endings were presented that way I think the backlash of ME3's ending would have been minimal.
But Bioware did not keep it that simple for gamers in the end. In the last 10 min. we were given a new character, Star Child, who provided 14 lines of dialogue and presented to the player this new issue that resembled (rips off) Deus Ex's game ending. In addition to the way Star Child is presented to the player, he pretty much replaces Shepard as the protagonist of the game since he gives Shepard the power to choose when Star Child had the power of choice all along. Any power that the player thought they had over the Reapers was taken away with this one character. This huge development in the narrative was so shocking that it ripped players out of their suspense of disbelief due to the laws and logic of the Mass Effect universe started to not add up. Essentially, the Star Child caused an uttter loss of narrative coherence. There is even an edit of the finale that uses the destroy ending and just edits out the Star Child and it actually is alright. There are some issues for certain, but simply editing out the Star Child solved 90% of ME3's ending issues.
I mean I have a major issue with you seeming like you did little research when saying things like how Saren was an extension of Synthesis (when you also say in the same video that it was a catch-all Bioware threw in) when it was clear he was indoctrinated and wanted some means of power and/or control over the Reapers (that's just the way he was written and that was how Karpyshyn wrote that character). But that is not the topic that made me question your analysis of the ME3 ending(s). It was the utter lack of a discussion about the Star Child. You cannot talk about how ME3's endings are good or bad without mentioning him. Doing so is a such a huge oversight, especially since that character was the poster boy of the ME3 ending hysteria. In my opinion, the ending can never be good with that character still part of the Mass Effect universe and, unless he is retconed, simply ignoring him is a disservice to the history of Bioware and how their fall under EA started.
They can retcon him---he's the collective AI of Reapers who've shown no care or regard for the will of organics, or understanding of what motivates them. Synthesis need not even be a literal merging of technology into organics, either, but something else entirely that allows these forms of life to co-exist. I think BioWare shouldn't run from making a choice with aspects of the universe that doesn't go along with player's choices. I mean, look, you can still be a Renegade Shepherd, but does anyone think the canon should be that Shepherd guns people down for no reason and is practically genocidal at times? Or should BW just go with a mostly-Paragon outcome? I don't think the stories have to end but BW is going to have to grapple with 'canceling' out player choices to an extent to continue making stories in this universe.
legion dies no matter what you do. he cant be saved.
Niko Aroketo he obviously cannot be saved, but you as the player have an option to not directly kill either Tali or Legion. Legion consciously chooses to sacrifice itself if you are able to compromise with both the get and quarians or if you choose the get over the quarians. My initial point in my essay was that this TH-cam content creator clearly did not do his research before making this video due to his allusion that you cannot save both the quarians and the get as an extension from his original statement.
If he were to respond and say"that's not what I meant at all(or something like that)" then he failed to communicate his true thoughts and arguments on the ending throughout the video which is rather lazy in my opinion; and if that's the case then there a lot of nitpicky things that need to be addressed in his video.
While I agree with most of what you said, you really need to just take the L on there being a decision which aaves both Legion and Tali. Acting as if it's the video creator's fault that you took a relatively clear statement to mean something very different from what was said does a number on the perception of credibility in your comments.
With that out of the way, I fully agree with calling bullahit on the ending and disagree vehemently, as you say, with the fundamental thesis of this video. Good points made succinctly.
Star child was the reapers dude, he wasn't some AI separate from them. Spacedock also states there's no way to save both Tali and legion, not "Quarians or geth".If you're gonna write a novel on why someone is wrong, make sure you are right.
In my play through, I was able to keep both tali and Legion. Just saying
Steven Gerrish how could you keep both Tali and legion? It’s not possible
@@Spider-PunkOffical he probably meam having both fleets , saving legion is impossible
@@Spider-PunkOffical Sorry I meant both fleets. My bad
@@Spider-PunkOffical I think he meant that he saved both the Geth and Quarians and ended their war peacefully.
EXACTLY
This would make sense if not for the fact that the studio advertised something entirely different. The plan was to have something where the choices through the entire series matter. Then they don't. If they had followed through on their promise there would have been over a dozen possible endings depending on the Ashley/Kaiden, council, squad, loyalty, suicide, Illusive man, war assets and other decisions made. Additionally the potential for negating the whole problem of synthetics destroying their creators exists in this cycle, it is nearly impossible that something like that hasn't happened before in the universe so the whole premise upon which the Reapers supposedly exist is nonsensical. It would have worked better for the Reapers to be truly incomprehensible. If this ending had been planned out and not explicitly contradicted by EVERY promotion then the theory makes sense. But it is like the Indoctrination theory. It is fans reading something that explicitly wasn't there and seeing more than there is.
@Genoy B "every choice matters" this is what was said in the promotional material for ME3. But at the end you choose what color of explosion kills or dooms to starvation most of the galaxy. If they had been intending to make a story about the horrors of war like Spec Ops The Line, then this would have been brilliant. But that is Bioware what they setup or advertised. Or even something Lovecraftian, but that is not what was setup or advertised. They setup the premise of Shepard determining the fate of the galaxy, then advertised that. Then, depending on who you believe either never had a coherent overarching story and were making it up as they went, or changed it at the last minute when the plot was leaked. This video is like the Indoctrination Theory. It would be brilliant if it were true, but the way ME3 was written in such a self contradictory way to both itself and the rest of the series means that the creators could not possibly have put that much thought into it and this is just the desperation of the people who love the series not wanting the ending to suck as badly as it did so they are reading things into it that were never there.
The best part about those more vague endings is that every single option can realisticly be interpreted as good, depending on who makes the argument.
Sure, except those making the argument that control or merge are good have realistically been asleep for almost all of the previous trilogy.
Indoctrination is coming indoctrination is coming indoctrination is coming... believe everything that *confirmed telepathically derived child* says is true and up front with you despite your fleet obviously ultimately losing outside to a billion year scientific and military buildup.
@@OdinBarenjagerschlos Oh you're in the indoctrination theory camp, that explains all the nonsense you've been spamming around here. Cope harder. ME3 was great and you people missed the point.
I actually always found it interesting that the added endings related to the themes of Battlestar Galatica hell even having EDI same voice as Caprica 6 in the show (It almost felt like the writers were on the same theories). I found the synthesis to be the best choice (But that is just my opinion). I felt after seeing BSG finalle which dealt with the same issue and the synthesis ending they just seemed to be the best choice. What do you do in breaking a cycle that keeps happening, try something new. Wiping out or dominating inorganic life would only create the cycle again. Again not saying synthesis is the best choice but its one that is still interesting it might still lead to the same inevitable cycle but nobody can say it's not new either. In the end though it's just a game and choice is all about the game and I have respect for everyone's decisions on it. :)
I ended up taking control of the Reapers mainly due to a roleplay choice. I spent three games establishing my Fem!Shep as a character that would play the perfect paragon in public, but would commit or abet murder with a smile on her face the moment it was needed to repay, preferably with interest, a slight done to a friend, and cling to life with the tenacity of a water bear, meaning that out of the three options she ended choosing control because, in her eyes, it was the one option that had the highest chance of what made her her surviving long enough to create a gynoid body to download herself into and return to her friends and significant other.
That was actually pretty similar to how I played my shep actually
Remember Marauder Shields. He died trying to safe us from the ending.
Thank God he came back for Doom: Eternal.
Waits 6 years for the heat to die down
What I like about the ending is each choice is totally inline with catalyst programming. All three are essentially reaper choices. Destroy is essential the harvesting in reverse. Control is the original choice Catalyst himself made and Synthesis is adjusting life so they don't register in the perimeters of the experiment and become the same design Principe as the reapers themselves. It was genius that we weren't given the options we wanted as it is unlike Catalyst could have conceived them.
I think the true beauty of ME3's ending (And, ironically, a big part of why it was so divisive in the first place) is that a lot of it is left up to player interpretation. If you take Starchild at his word, then Synthesize seems like the pretty obvious right choice; Sure, all organic beings become synthetic units, but as the Geth plotline showed, synthetics are still "alive" in a meaningful way, so those units still have souls.
Alternatively, you could interpret the Catalyst as lying, trying to trick you into choosing anything but Destroy. Indoctrination Theory adds another layer to this, where you could either interpret the non-Destroy endings as being Shepard succumbing to Indoctrination, or that they're able to resist Indoctrination while still making their favored choice. The narrative is open-ended enough that all of these interpretations are valid, IMO. Maybe not intentionally so, but Death of the Author (Or, Developer, as it were) applies here.
I'm personally partial to Control, myself, but I do like hearing other interpretations, and you make a compelling case for Destroy, I have to admit. I just don't like people attacking others over their own interpretations, calling them "Indoctrinated", etc.
Whilst I get the point you're trying to make here Daniel, the problem is that it is also made clear by the starchild (no matter your opinion on him) that destroying the Reapers will only lead to future generations going through the same series of events that led to the Leviathans creating the Reapers in the first place. There will once again be a rise of some galaxy-wide threat to organics from non-organics, which makes the sacrifices of Shepard & Co. redundant, and worse, in vain.
I also understand why the Synthesis ending might not be your cup of tea, but from the info we're given, it seems to be the best solution in the long run. Is it tacked on? That argument can absolutely be made, especially in light of the fact that there was no allusion to it prior to the final choice sequence of ME3. However, I reiterate that from all the info the game gives us, despite suspicions of what a Synthesized universe with Reapers in it might imply, the Synthesis ending seems best long-term.
Love your work, even when I disagree with something in it. Glad you have no trouble voicing your thoughts on topics that interest you.
That may be so (the red option leading to future org-synth wars), but that will be for us (or rather our descendant to decide. That's what the meaning of choice and freedom are. The other options take away that freedom in exchange for security. Some may be fine by it, some may not.
That is the Star brat's own circular logic and desire to continue the cycle talking.
Brother you're an absolute legend, thank you for articulating what I have tried to unsuccessfully; I'm a newcomer to the series with the LE, and I'm with you 100% on the ending, I couldn't understand why I'd heard the end wasn't well received. So again, thanks for this!
We didn’t need any of this crap. We destroy the reapers and then we win. Then we deal with the consequences.
if you think the synthesis ending is a copout then you're pretty much saying "the ending was perfect! (if you ignore chunks of it)"
I like the ME3's endings because I always found it implausible that the Reapers could be defeated with a giant laser bazooka and in the end everybody go to Shepard's house and they start watch a Game of Thrones episode.
The thing I like in the end of the game is the fact of the player is bargaining with the wills of the Reapers, basically making an deal with gods.
You know who else had a no win situation?
The Stormtrooper who fired the big gun on the Deathstar......
Killing a couple million to around a billion souls vs the wrath of *the senate* himself?
_I'd pull the trigger._
Although I prefer the control ending, I find the possibilities that the destroy ending foretells to be interesting. I imagine an era of reunification and exploration where whatever is left of the Citadel militaries reorganizes itself into an expeditionary force ala Starfleet with the sole purpose of reconnecting the known galaxy.
This is a bold video to make
Personally, I would've chosen synthesis. Control takes Sheppard's mind out of their body and turns them into the master control AI of the Reapers, though the galaxy would still live in fear of them. Destroy would cause a mass genocide of all synthetic life in the galaxy. Synthesis instead gives all organics and synthetics the best of the other. Organics would become near immortal and synthetics get granted with the gift of life itself. Granted, not everyone would like it, but I still think this would be better then enslavement or genocide.
So it is a "Get out of Jail for free card" just as he stated in the Video
"I still think this would be better then enslavement or genocide" And yet in deciding synthesis you do both, by eradicating what was there and deciding for everyone else that synthesis is right, subjecting them to your will without their consent...
@@corwinhyatt519 i guess you could say that the lifeforms that were there don't exist any more, at least not the way they used to be. but the difference to simple genocide or enslavement is that you create a new and ultimately better way of living for everybody, if some people like it or not.
@@schoggo3407 "difference to simple genocide or enslavement" There isn't a difference. By making the decision for them you removed their free agency, enslaving them to your will. The synthesis kills who they were, genocide. Your assumption that what results will be better is disturbingly on the same level as the "True Believers" who adhered worshipfully to genocidal pogroms in our own history...
@@corwinhyatt519 as i said, maybe that is genocide and enslavement. but i'm fine with that because their death/enslavement leads to a better society, which may not be very good but better than let their deaths be useless. you have to kill at least one faction anyways, so why not kill everyone but make their deaths be good for something?
i'd say i cannot really agree on this one destroy ending is actually the worst ending imo because all syntetic will just evolve again overtime, just like the reaper it will start harvesting organic, and the cycle continue again, yes i know shepard maybe alive in this ending but it's still bleak future
but yeah i agree with merging&control ending it's just bioware free outta jail card, it should be no choice ending where we have to choose who would we sacrifice organic or syntetic, it would be more interesting.. imo
First time I hear someone having the same feeling than me. I think the originals endings were a brutal comeback to a real life situation where sometimes there is simply no good outcome as an opposition to the traditional story of a hero who wins every time.
Yes and lets face it they did give us solutions which was generous given the magnitude of the threat and that we actually had no clue at all what the crucible was.
Except he disproves that point in his own argument if this is what he's saying: Because according to him and the wider part of the internet Destruction is the hero winning.
The mods with destroy as default and citadel DLC as an 'epilogue' were perfection
I think the overall problem, for me, is that the game rewards you for making good decisions, even tough decisions. Yeah, Ash/Kaiden, Mordin, Thane, and Legion all die, but their deaths had dramatic impacts on the galaxy and we felt those impacts.
But here, it doesn’t feel like a reward. It feels like Shepard just dies and then the galaxy instantly moves on. We don’t get to see or experience the affect of their sacrifice expect for a few cutscenes or still images.
You know what I would’ve loved? A prologue that has you briefly play as the love interest, and it’s about them mourning and remembering Shepard, before turning around a leading the galaxy into a brighter future, like Shepard would have wanted.
They could just do it how Dragon Age: Orgins does it. It has a funeral cutscene.
I like the idea that ultimately only Shepard can decide between these options, because of all the hard decisions he's had to make along the way, he's the only one who can. He's the one who's always done the impossible, and understands the consequences that come with it. Control will always be my ending (it doesn't turn humans into reapers from how I interpreted it) seeing as the geth that worshipped "the old machines" could be saved, and with the right person guiding them, so can the reapers
I can respect the argument that the series does in fact force you into several situations with no "total victory, no compromises."
The problem with the argument as Spacedock makes it, though, is that the "Suicide Mission" in ME2 which actually CAN be survived by all squadmates, sets the expectation of the possibility of a mostly ideal, emotionally satisfying, cathartic and against-all-odds victory. In other words, winning the so-called No Win Scenario.
The overarching theme of strength through hard won cooperation and unity across the various species and races of life forms in the galaxy likewise sets the player up to believe the message of the trilogy's ending will trend toward a more Utopian, "when we work together we ALL win" sort of ending. Yes, it makes plain that sacrifices--and painfully difficult and unfair ones--line the path to victory, but the past games' endings set an expectation that the victory being desperately fought toward at the end will be complete enough to make it feel as if those painful sacrifices won't be in vain.
ME3 then soundly murders those expectations with a meat cleaver.
Given time and the more fleshed out endings of the extended cut, I learned to live with a somewhat disappointing and thematically jarring ending to my otherwise favorite trilogy of sci fi games. But the initial endings were such a soul crushing disappointment the profoundness of the letdown and empty feeling they left me with are tough to explain. Nearly made me want to quit gaming AAA, story driven franchises, and only play arcadey, lighter stuff where the fun is derived SOLELY from gameplay.
It's a bit like with the option to sacrifice E.D.E. in the "talk Joshua down" ending of the Lonesome Road DLC for fallout new Vegas. The difference here being, of course, that in new Vegas, E.D.E. only dies IN the DLC, making that sacrifice significantly less impactful.
Instead of saying 'Why Mass Effect 3's Ending is Perfect' the title of this video should be 'Why Mass Effect 3's Destroy ending is the only option'
Destroy is not only the clear and obvious choice to me, but it's the only one I'm ever able to make at the end of each playthrough. I considered Control or Synthesis on my "evil" or renegade playthrough, but even then, it's not just the evil choice, it's the stupid choice. If you choose anything but Destroy, you're falling into the same trap seen in both previous games, the idea that the Reapers are right. Now, I also have the added layer of my staunch belief in and support of the Indoctrination Theory, the idea that Shepard was being affected by the Reapers' indoctrination entirely at the end, so much so that they almost managed to turn him against what he/she had been fighting for the entire time. Destroy is the representation of Shepard breaking the Reapers' hold over him, and that's how I'll choose to remember the ending of Mass Effect, even if Bioware decided to completely ignore it in order to pursue spinoffs instead of the franchise that made me into even more of the huge sci-fi nerd I already was.
Sorry but I don’t agree that destroy is the best ending for the Mass effect trilogy. Control is… at least for me it is.
I have spent all three games being a paragon. Choosing life and people before a mission. The Geth counts as people, Edi counts as people and destroying them is no better than the Reapers doing the same to preserve an age old cycle.
Choosing to instead replace their whole worldview as your own hits differently when you’re playing as paragon. Yes Shepard dies but they control the Reapers. They can use them any way they like and the paragon Shepard simply rebuilds the relays.
Not to repeat the cycle but to keep the progress that was made. To ensure that the future Shepard’s cycle made continues. They’re using the reapers as guardians and rebuilders instead of monsters hellbent on destruction.
The paragon control ending is the closest thing to a good ending and that’s why I prefer it.
Meh, I don't agree that Synthesis was a bad choice. It changes everything but not in a way that is worse. I also didn't get the impression it would let the reaper threat continue.
The ending's conception isn't the issue (synthesis aside), it's the manner in which the choice comes about and is presented to the player. Starchild in particular comes out of (almost) nowhere and there's no real reason to believe anything it says. The idea the Starchild presents - that it kills organics to preserve them in Reaper form - has been memed to death and for good reason. It's the kind of "too logical" choice a machine might make but it's something that Shepard (at least in the original cut) takes entirely at face value. Shooting some sort of conduit shouldn't help the Crucible do its job; if anything it should be what you do in the control ending. And a thousand other confusing bits besides
Nah.
@@balabanasireti yea
@@HalfTangible i played leviathan before seeing the ending so for me it came off as way less bullshit, though i woulve liked to be able to talk back
Personally i thought the ending was perfect as well with Directors Cut. The weight of saying goodbye to the characters we had gotten to care for so much, and our decision at the end was just emotional. I thought the heaviest I'd feel in a video game was Lee's death in The Walking Dead, but in Mass Effect 3, we're talking about saying goodbye to a wide cast of characters who we'd gotten just as close to as Lee. Which is even harder. Not to mention our past choices also affecting the outcome, and the hard work spent to save the galaxy from the Reapers was also rewarding. And if you get enough galactic readiness, Shepard actually lives, even more reason why this ending is awesome. All of our relationships and decisions really decide the fate of everyone and everything in the galaxy.
You are walkin on thin ice, boi ! :D
At least it will quench the flames they burn him with. XD *whispers*... AsHeDrownsInTheDepravedDepthsOfHisOwnHereticalSins...
aaaaand it collapsed hard
I feel like you're kinda forgetting one theme here that kinda plays an important role in deciding what to do; the whole idea that something like the reapers can happen again. It's kinda similar to BSG in the fact that there's this whole cyclical nature to violence and time, and the only way to break it is to coexist. The whole premise popping the reapers up, according to the leviathan DLC and the star-kid-dude at the very end is that the reapers are a solution to an age old problem: how can organic and synthetic life get along? Organics despise synthetics because they're so different and are impossible to understand, while synthetics strive to become more like their creators, inevitably leading to conflict. That's why the only real choice is synthesis; it breaks the cycle of violence by forcing the two together, and prevents stuff like the reapers from happening ever again. Destruction solves the problem, but only temporary.
All solutions are temporary. There's no such thing as an omnipotent, eternal solution. After WWI, the world thought the sheer size of the conflict and the generations of families lost would stop further wars: it didn't. After WWII, the formation of the United Nations was supposed to bring an end to all conflict, just like the League before it. It didn't. In the end, all we have are temporary solutions. Synthesis and Control are no more a permanent solution than Destroy and Refusal are.
Red Centurion perhaps not, but it certainly a) reduces the risk of such things happening and b) at least makes them smaller in scale, in some cases.
Regardless though, I feel like that's a moot point. In the case of synthesis, it completely eliminates the problem at hand. Sure, there still might be war after a synthesis ending as groups begin to re-organize themselves and as new factions and problems spring up--that's probably a certainty. But will those wars be over the understanding of artificial intelligence, or how organics feel threatened by synthetics? I very much doubt it. There will always be other issues to fight over, but this won't be one of them.
@@SultanOfAwesomeness 😌😌😌 Synthesis is the way to GO 👍👌
Frankly I think you are misunderstanding the "control" option. Shepard becomes ALL the reapers. Shepards name in itself symbolises that ending. The reapers are rebuilding the star gates in the end and are shepherding the galaxy as a whole toward a better future(we can use our imagination of we chose paragon or renegade) and if you chose to destroy than all star gates are gone so everyone is stuck where they are across the galaxy....idk just seems like the control or synthesise are the better choice.
Excellent arguments. I love how you noticed the thematic development of the series and how the original ending just reinforces it in such an accurate way. Many people focus on the gameplay and not the narrative, hence the indignity over an ending without regards the player's decisions (ME3 is a perfect example of a Greek Tragedy after all, and I think since ME1 it is clearly stated that there is no escape to the Reapers). But well, the wonder of fiction is that anyone can decide what to believe when it comes to endings. Great story.
Also, I think we as players are used to having the final word, especially on RPGs. I just loved how Bioware took the bold and risky decision and said "nope, the story is more powerful than the player now" and decided to literally destroy it all because that's what the narrative demanded! So coherent with the tone and mood ME3 presents since the tutorial.
This is why I prefer the Indoctrination theory. The correct ending is still destroy but you never made that choice. The Geth, EDI, and the Reapers are still alive and we don't know of the galaxy wins the fight.
I like that theory too.
But the indoctrination (in my view) happens during the nightmare sequences (after witnessing the fake boy's death on Earth) and culminates with the catalyst on the crucible.
The boy is not really there, it is the reapers trying to get shepard not to choose destroy.
@@ApolloXL5 well at least we will get answers in Mass effect 4
@@kanewilson8624 and Mass Effect 4 will pick a Canon ending, not the IT bullshit.
@@frankgeorgestacker3760 IT aint bullshit lol. Its the best ending explaination
Obviously every choice is going to have it's drawbacks. This includes "Destroy" as well. Forgetting that you'd be killing EDI and the Geth (assuming you improved relations with the Quarians), you'd also be destroying the Mass Relays. This would essentially leave everyone stranded where they are, and the Relays would take decades or even longer to repair.
most of this is not a problem if you have high EMS
"The choice isn't always what you do son, but why you do it." Tam al'Thor to his son Rand in The Gathering Storm.
Love Wheel of Time...skeptical about the upcoming series.
Jeez someone who knows this masterpiece, finally.
@Beese Churger ain't a game, it's a fantasy book series named "The Wheel of time" by Robert Jordan (last 3 or 4 books were written by Sanderson due to Jordan's death). It really is a great series and a TV show is about to come up (let's hope it is as good as the books...)
The problem isn't the ending, the problem is that none of the choices you make throughout all three games matter at all.
It didn’t matter? Do the Krogans live in your ending? Do the quarian live in your ending? Was your Cruicible built well enough to focus its power, or did it burn the Earth down?
Considering the fact that this is NOT an RPG, but an action game, your choices mattered quite a lot. Of course it is always your final choice which matters the most, however some choices are not even available based on your earlier decisions.
Yes but none of those choices change what ending you could get, everything results in the same decisions. While that is what video games do, the promises and vision for the game we kept getting told made at least me feel that we’re going to payoff all your renegade and paragon choices over the trilogy.
@@Death36669 They do. You can or cannot see happy Krogan baby in the ending video, for example. Also some of the ending can be completely unavailable based on your choices before.
It is not an RPG, though, but an action game. Don’t measure it like an RPG, where the ending can be completely different. It is not. And it never was. You didn’t get completely different ending in ME1 or ME2 either.
@@juzoli the endings in both me1 & 2 are far better, hell just look at the suicide mission, the results of that mission depends of the choices of the player. The examples you gave us don't matter for the ending they just there to show you the outcome of a few of your decisions through the game but not the ending itself. You can literly have the worst possible war assets and you still get the same 4 endings.
@@nikolasferreira3247 ME2 ending is good? Wtf? Yes, the mission itself is amazing. But the ending has little relation to the overall storyline, as it is not about the reapers, and also we have ZERO effect on the ending. We either beat the collectors, or mission failed. That’s all.
If they could somehow merge this mission with the Arrival DLC, which is much more connected to the story, it would’ve been a good ending.
ME1 is the best storywise, I have no argument against that.
And no, you can’t have all endings with low war assets, and also your renegadeness can affect it.
The destroy ending as it is, is not just bad because of its consequences, it is bad because it is practically space magic, same as synthesis. The destroy- and synthesis-ending make no sense neither in real life terms nor considering the in-game logic. In order for it to make sense, it would either have to destroy only the reapers/reaper code or all technology (which is also a little far fetched but still more plausible, just think of it as a huge EMP-canon). If the latter was the case, then it would inevitably kill most sentient organic lifeforms in the process as well, since all ships, space stations, artificial environments, infrastructure, implants and space-/environmental suits in the galaxy would be destroyed in the process as well. The control- and the refusal-ending are the only in-game endings that are plausible as they are, but the former feels like a betrayal and the latter makes everything you did up until this point meaningless.
Honestly, I’m somewhere in between agreeing and disagreeing. I think you make good points once the extended cut DLC is added, but without it, I do think the ending is a mess. At least the journey was worth it. I have a tradition of marathoning the trilogy every summer.
I totally agree. The destroy ending is definitely the best ending especially since Shepard can survive at the end if you do everything right. You set out to destroy the reapers and that's what you end up doing.
And by right, you mean he happy ending mod right?
*KUDOS* Spacedock.
The logic you present in this video is 100% accurate. It is refreshing to see a pragmatic approach to this years-long discussion (argument?). Is 'Destroy' ideal? No, of course not... ...but such is life. Life is not ideal and often times one is forced to compromise in order to proceed. I concur 100% that all option aside from 'Destroy' is tantamount to the ending of civilization as it is known and flies in face of the core reasoning behind the fight throughout the entire trilogy. As stated, EDI herself reinforces several times the logic behind the 'Destroy' option. Anderson constantly makes comments that reinforce the 'Destroy' option. The list goes on.
BioWare did an AMAZING job tugging on your heartstrings and generated the doubt the player must endure but as you clearly pointed out, by taking emotion out of the ending and looking at it from pure logic, 'Destroy' is the only ending that fits the core values of what Shepard was fighting for. In addition, BioWare agrees by presenting 'Destroy' ending is the only one where Shepard survives.
First of all, respect for actually coming out to defend ME3s ending. I don't think many people would dare that.
That being said, while I don't hate it myself (especially with the EC ending), I disagree that Destroy is the only choice. I'm going to condense my opinion as much as possible, but destroying the Reapers (and all synthetics) won't make them lose per se. If future cycles would restart the conflict then the Reapers will be proven right and have the last laugh. Personally, Control is my preferred one. Because Shepard proves to the Reapers that they're wrong. It _can_ be done better. The Catalyst is operating on faulty logic and Shepard is a much better replacement. That really is, to me, the best option. Plus Shepard's "Immortal" speech and the music of it is just bone chilling in a good way.
While Synthesis has a similar idea (making the Reapers outright obsolete), it still is unexplained and makes little to no sense in the context. But that's a whole different can of worms.
But hey, at least we can agree that Refusal sucks.
Proving the enemy right is more of a moral victory than an actual victory, though.
Not if apart of their moral victory is synthetics wiping out all life in the galaxy in a thousand years or so...
We don't know if it will destroy all synthetic life. The crucible could probably just destroy the reapers. The intelligence wants to continue the cycle in any way it can and would lie to Shepard to continue what it was programmed to do.
Are you willing to take that risk? The only source of info about this thing specially goes out of the way to tell you that this will happen.
@@r1cosito The AI that is in the crucible is a fully evolved AI as stated in the game. That means it has a measure of self preservation so it can continue its cycle of reaping. So I think I will take that chance.
But the whole point on why Destroy is the worst, is because it doesn't solve anything. The exact same shit is going to happen again and it's not even like you could warn the people because Shepard dies unless you are really good at it, even than it's not like Shepard's words of warning would be carried on forever exactly as they said them.
Control isn't great either but you just assume that everybody still gets turned into Reapers, when they show its Reapers helping civilization because of all that Shepard did and was. It's pretty much Destroy but nobody dies and it is canceling the cycle.
The synthesis ending is a cop-out but it is ultimately what the AI wanted to do and it is explained as essentially adding synthetic components to DNA and giving synthetics the Reaper without being controlled upgrades like Legion.
EDI would be willing to sacrifice herself but she could at least listen to the words the ancient AI said.
It's was always about Destroy being the ending but about why that ending and the subsequential other endings had to be a choice in that first place. I'm always believed that Bio-Ware made this ending because the game was not ready to be released and EA wanted it out asap. Every way you slice it with the build up of the first two games, Shepard was indoctrinated by the Reapers. Every single thing will make you become indoctrinated happened to Shepard with him coming into contact with Reaper Tech, the visions of "black inky shadows" and seeing a boy that's not ready there, plus the build up the the ending itself. Everything made no sense during that last 20 mins or so in the game which make it more possible that Bio-Ware was going for something else but choice this as a quicker ending. I believe that the game was about an extra 2 or 3 hrs longer had EA not wanted the game out before it was completely finished and since EA is their bread and butter they had to tell people that this was the ending they had all along...I call B.S.
One of my favorite games of all time and the trilogy is an absolute work of art.
I have an issue over what you said regarding the control, you said it was enslaving humanity? I didn't see that. I saw the reapers rebuilding and protecting. Sheppard's ideals imprinted into them. They become guardians of the galaxy.
For my part, I never wanted a happy ever after ending. You're right in that the game right from the first game gave you impossible choices that resulted in loss no matter what decision you made.
My irk is that the ending had nothing to do with the general theme throughout the series. You have essentially played 3 games, hours and hours of gameplay unifying the diverse galaxy as well as your diverse team to defeat the reapers. And indeed during games one and two you are successful through this unification. But the ending of the third game, with the defeat of the Reapers, it throws that unity and strength over unification out the window. You have poured hours in gaining allies, and technologies and resources for it to have literally no affect on the ending of the game. Even if you max out your readiness and recruit every man, woman, child and dog to your war effort it makes no shred of difference. You have these 3 narrow rudimentary (or 4 with the DLC) endings. It genuinely feels like a cop out. I may as well not bothered trying to recruit the Geth and Quarians together for example. Makes no difference to those 3 endings. It was frustrating.
I just played Mass Effect Legendary Edition for the first time- 1 through 3, back to back this past week. I don't have any previous versions to compare to, no nostalgia goggles, and never kept track of the behind the scenes drama regarding writers/staff changes, etc.
And I feel it was a well developed, cohesive story from beginning to end and don't see the flaws that so many people are going on about.
That said:
Synthesis is the only ending that made sense to me given just what is in the game itself, and not the speculation that I see.
Yes, it rewrites the DNA, but unless you are a determinist, the DNA does not make you who you are. The Crucible AI says that organics and synthetics will understand each other, and can co-exist peacefully.
Obviously it depends on how you play the game, and what matters most to you, but if you value the Geth, and the lives of everyone that came before (the Protheans, the people who were absorbed by the reapers, and who knows how many cycles), the destroy ending makes no sense.
Synthesis justifies the struggles of everyone, now and in the past. Their knowledge and development isn't lost.
Control makes more sense than destroy in my playthrough. Shepard wasn't interested in doing things his way. He wanted to help people find reasons to come together for the whole. I don't see him setting himself up as a demagogue.
Control seemed the ending for those who agreed with the Illusive Man even at the end. Destroy was for those who agreed with Cerberus' stated intentions or who wanted revenge.
Synthesis seemed the most hopeful and egalitarian which is what I think my Shepard would have wanted.
But leaving Tali behind in every ending sucks.
I'd also add that if you played as I did through the series: Encouraging compromise, getting people to look past their histories to build something better, trying to keep everyone you could alive, encouraging communication and trust... You're already creating "synthesis". Getting the Aquarians to accept the Geth was synthesis, Getting Wrex and Grunt to aspire to more than their history was synthesis, to get the rest of the council to accept the Krogans, and to make them accept the cure to the genophage was synthesis...
Before Shepard came along, the universe was at each other's throats. It was NOT a good place to be, which is what made it vulnerable to the Reapers in the first place.
By the time of the conclusion of ME3, there was already very little of the universe left and had Shepard not brought them all together in the first place, there would have been no point in saving what was left.
Destroy is understandable. It's relatable.
But not even the Reapers had control over what they were doing.
I don't go in for the "Shepard was secretly indoctrinated" thing. There's only poor circumstancial evidence for it.
Bringing the universe together, organic and synthetic, including the Reapers, seems the best of all possible outcomes.
The issue with the ending is that your choices UP UNTIL THAT POINT OVER 3 GAMES don’t matter. That’s why it’s a terrible ending.
I always liked that you could do full Paragon perfectly, and still had to do the major no won scenarios, I completely agree man.
Not true. You can totally come out like roses other than two instances: Virmire and the Ending.
@@geofff.3343 And Tuchanka (Mordin), the Citadel (Thane), and Rannoch (Legion).
I just now realize I probably chose the wrong ending, I chose the control ending cause it was blue and I was running paragon so I thought it was good. Damn it
A complete sidetrack, but having read all published Expanse novels, I can assure you that James Holden gets really intimate with the concept of sacrifice as the series progresses.
Also, Holden gets a lot of shit for following his ideals as he tend to fuck things up by doing it
Pains me to admit it, but you are absolutely right. Thematically, the ending makes perfect sense given the message of the series. I still wish I got to have an ending where I got to have the closure of Shepard and his crew/romance interest being together once more after the final decision.
No matter what everyone says, the reason that the catalyst brings up for wiping out all intelligent life is stupidest thing ever. "Lets kill you all so that synthetics don't kill you". That will never make any sense. It's so stupid it ruined the ending for me. I rolled my eyes so hard at it. I wish it was just a simple destroy/ control choice and no star child.
i have a headcanon of sorts for the red ending that i really like:
edi and the geth died, but in a sense they did what living things are supposed to do, ensured the survival of their species. yes they are dead, but they were so useful, and their behavior was so good, that humanity, and other species, would probably try to build them again.
...Which would eventually lead to Reapers again. The games made it quite clear that is was inevitable for the created to rebel against their creators, simply by virtue of surpassing them. Control is the only option if you want to save everyone in an ethical manner.
My headcanon is basically what happened up until he goes on that damn elevator. Where Shepherd and Anderson are sitting there after defeating the Illusive Man, succumbing to their wounds watching the armies push back the Reapers and Anderson telling Shepherd he's proud of them. Perfection.
This is one of the dumbest takes I’ve heard regarding the ending. “The hardest choice is when there is no choice” is most certainly not the underlying theme of the Mass Effect trilogy, MAYBE you could argue that about ME3 but in 2 and 1. First off did this guy miss the whole part about making peace between the Geth and Quarians? So let’s see, you make peace between synthetics and organics, something the star child deems impossible and you don’t get an option to mention that? Your only left with choices that immediately undo it? What you see there is the game contradicting itself there, first it’s “OH HEY if you work really hard you can save the geth and quarians, see everyone can get along” followed by “Organics and Synthetics can ever get along, Yea that thing with the geth and the quarians, that never happened”. The dude points to 1 decision at the end of ME1 that was a no win scenario and that is LITERALLY IT. There is nothing else that supports that this ending fits within the franchise, as a matter of fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite (ie. all crew mates surviving the suicide mission if you put enough time and care into it, saving both the quarian and the geth again if you are diligent and make the right dialogue choices and do all the missions, saving Samara and Falare, talking down Wrex on Virmire, etc.) the whole game was based on choice and they always gave you the option that if you followed the paragon or renegade paths closely enough you’d be granted with a “fuck you we do it my way” option. That was taken off the table for the ending and the fourth ending in the extended cut was kind of fuck you to that mentality as it gave the player that option but it ends it a “HAHAHA IT DIDN’T MATTER ANYWAY!”. There are DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of choices you can make in Mass Effect that are designed to be beat the impossible odds choices if you play the game paragon or renegade enough and maybe 2-3 no win choices so trying to make the case that no win choices was a core part of the franchise is asinine.
Nice
The only zero-sum choice in the whole game is Kaiden/Ashely. There's no saving them, one of them has to die, there's no reward for it, and no failure for picking the wrong one. It's the most realistic and brutal choice in the game and if it's the metric by which we're measuring how weighty our choices are in this whole failed franchise, nothing in ME2 or ME3 that doesn't have its roots in something from ME1 can even hold a candle.
The issue with the ending (with or without DLC) is substance. To wrap up the fate of the universe, it shouldn't be "alright, walk to your preferred cut-scene". For a game that focuses on dialog and choice to decide to undermine itself is bananas. The ending should have been more of a dialog or judgement, having Shepard explain his/her actions throughout the series to justify the salvation or destruction of all organic life-form.
This is why the ending to ME2 is my favorite, a suicide mission who's success pivots on the actions of you and your crew.
The game could have even built in more dialog for those with imported characters, thus rewarding people for playing the entire series.
I hear people saying, "well that's not very realistic for Shepard to have a convo with the Reapers". Yeah... It's not realistic that he/she died and came back to life in ME2 either, but what's more perfect ending of a Christ metaphor than to have Shepard ascend and vouch for all of life and existence?
In conclusion, I have nothing wrong with the endings, I have issue what the endings lack. SOME level of gameplay or interaction, not this choose your own adventure ending.
Good point, as someone who really loves the ending I do think you're right that it could have done with a bit more drama and emotional content that involves your team & past decisions
Hoo boy, this should be interesting.
interesting enough to mute the video and just read the comments