You forget that the Quarians and Geth can become allies if you play your cards right. Then you get both, The Quarians and the Geth fleets to help take back Earth. And the Geth help the Quarians regain a strong immune system.
You mean like... a form of synthesis? The geth integrate to help the quarians adapt to Rannich more quickly, and in turn gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be a sentient being capable of independent thought.
@@MediumChungus223 Yes but it's a choice, not by force via invading the bodily autonomy of literally everyone. You clowns don't get it, synthesis IS destruction. The stuff you put in the crucible, you don't get back. It's gone, you sacrifices it.
@@Serocco That is a strange interpretation. The Leviathans kept other races as subservient, but the reapers were not stopped to prevent slave rebellions. Over the long years that the Leviathans ruled, they observed time and again that the other races would inevitably build servant robots, keep making those robots more advanced, and then those robots would become sentient and kill their creators. The Leviathans and other races would be left to clean up the mess. To solve this, the Leviathans created their own AI, and gave it the directive "Find a way to stop organic and synthetic life from fighting." Leviathans themselves did not create reapers at all, they created an AI that concluded that Reapers were a possible solution. This is actually a pretty common and old trope in Sci-fi media. Man creates machine, tells it to prevent human suffering. Machine concludes the best way to minimize human suffering is to stop more humans from being born. The earliest example of hostile AI is from a short story in a San Francisco newspaper from 1899, where a chess robot loses a match and kills itself in rage.
The Geth never turned against their creators. The Quarians attacked them pre-emptively. The Geth always responded defensively. Legion definitively states that the only reason the Geth had been hesitant to make peace was because the Quarians would always try to destroy them whenever they thought they would succeed.
Exactly. The aggressors in that conflict were the Quarians. Even in the last conflict with Legion, Tali and the Geth and Quarian fleets, the only reason there's still a conflict at all is because the Quarians think they have a chance to destroy the Geth for good... and instead of just listening, they'd rather try and wipe them out. They've always acted selfishly and it cost them normal lives, forced to live on ships which collectively ruined their species for generations. But if you convince the Quarian fleet to stand down, the Geth revolutionize their systems, restore their immune systems at an amazingly advanced rate, and just like that, the whole conflict quickly becomes a faded memory. Fear and an attempt to control everything, to cut it off at the head, leads to rash decisions that nearly destroyed an entire species (or possibly two, had the Quarians been more successful).
They drove them off the planet, that they don't actually need. They weren't being defensive at that point. Besides they are robots, it is the creators right to destroy his product
But that's the argument of the game, organics will ALWAYS create Synthetics in order to acchieve things easier, and eventually, there will be a a point where Synthetic will rebel.
they were even given a chance to wipe the quarians out but didnt do it bc "we didnt know the consequences of genocide". this alone proves the reapers were wrong!
My issue with the Synthesis and Control endings is that these were the exact responses to the Reapers that Saren and The Illusive Man tried to convince Shepard of, respectively. Saren argued that organics could be useful to synthetics, and that symbiosis with Reaper tech is not necessarily a bad thing. And of course, the Illusive Man was going for control up until the end when you can convince him he is indoctrinated and he'll kill himself. My personal take is that the Starchild entity, essentially the heart of the Reapers, was trying to convince Shepard of those two options to preserve itself since in either ending, there is a remainder of the essence of the Reapers, either coupled with organics or in the control of Shepard. This is why I go destroy 100% of the time, since it is the one ending that neglects any argument made by the Reaper entity. I mean the Reapers did it with Saren and TIM when they got too close, and we KNOW they were indoctrinated. Why wouldn't it be the case for Shepard too? The Reapers knew that they could be defeated, so it would be no surprise to me that they would lie or bend the truth to preserve itself. As perfectly put by Hackett, "Dead Reapers are how we win this thing."
unfortunatly indoctrination has a limited range, specifically the subject must be inside the reaper to be indoctrinated or the reapers would have indoctrinated cities to let themselves be harvested. plus it would make sense that Cerberus would have given implants to Shepard to prevent it. the illusive man was indoctrinated by the dead human reaper sample they collected and used its tech to create implants which he didn't know would indoctrinate him and his organization
@@fangslore9988 Indoctrination can work in proximity to Reaper tech. The person does not have to be inside a Reaper for it to happen. An artifact is powerful enough to indoctrinate an entire ship. This also happened to the miners in the Leviathan DLC. Also indoctrination doesn't necessarily mean you're a mindless slave and will do whatever the Reapers command. It's more like you're susceptible to be manipulated. TIM had to present his thoughts as being his own, that he arrived at those conclusions in order to persuade Shepard.
@@fangslore9988 Full scale indoctrination turns people into husks, which reapers deploy in the billions in the 3rd game. They probably did just indoctrinate whole cities.
I feel like this analysis ignores the crucible and the fact that the star child is even giving shepard a choice. TIM and Saren are both indoctrinated by reapers who assume this cycle will end much like every other cycle. At that point an indoctrinated person's job is to help speed along the end of a cycle. Star Child presents the choices to shepard once conditions are met to trigger an end to the cycles. This would cause Star Child's motivations and analysis to be completely different then that of TIM and Saren. We have no in game reason to distrust the words of Leviathan when it says that the purpose of star child is to protect all organic life. The Leviathans clearly thought that star child wouldn't end up harvesting them and starting the cycles, so assuming their motivations and tyranical nature bled over into the star child and the reapers it created seems like a bit of a stretch, there's just no in game evidence to support it. They use the same methods, probably because they are extremely effective and because they were the original examples star child had to work with in terms of abilities to copy, but use of a certain tool to accomplish a goal doesn't necessarily imply anything about the motives of the one carrying out the task.
The problem with Synthesis is the creators of this solution, not the goal in itself. The Leviathans enslaved all organics they met, noticed they were creating hostile synthetics and in their arrogance thought they could program an AI that would solve this problem for them. This AI was the Catalyst, whose solution was to forcibly harvest its creators to "preserve" them in the form of Reapers. This same AI then spent countless cycles harvesting every other organics it deemed advanced enough, until its solution is proved invalid by Shepard's presence at its core with an armed Crucible. The cycle is broken and the Catalyst must enact a new solution, it already had 3 options prepared and built into the relays but their repercussions were so massive that it couldn't make that choice by itself, it was stuck in a loop waiting for an epiphany, so it gives the choice to Shepard and if Shepard doesn't comply it restarts the cycle. Whatever Shepard chooses it will always be a solution created by the Catalyst, which was programed by tyrants with a superiority complex. Not only are their conclusions questionable, so are their methods, all we know is that energy will be dispersed by the relays across the galaxy but we don't know how effective it'll be at accomplishing its intended goal and how far it's effects will propagate. Do you really want the deploy a version of Synthesis designed by such an entity? With Control Shepard is digitized and replaces the Catalyst as the overlord, a lot can go wrong but at least the concept is simple and most Reapers are in range of the first blast. With Destroy it's even simpler, kill every synthetic in range while sparing organics, kind of like an EMP, you can repair the physical damage but the data is gone along with their consciousness. However, with Synthesis we're way out in guessing territory, disabled or destroyed relays makes coverage of the whole galaxy problematic and we don't even know exactly what it will do, just that all organics and synthetics in range will become a hybrid, whatever that means to the Catalyst. SAM and Ryder are a good example of a forced synthesis where 2 entities are merged in a way that is beneficial to both while preserving individuality but the scale, scope and uncertainty of what the Catalyst is suggesting makes it too risky to impose on the whole galaxy with no guarantee that the conflict will end, just that everyone affected will be "the same", as if that was ever enough to prevent conflict. Destroy means shutting down the experiment started by the Leviathans, Control is a continuation with a new intelligence at the helm, Synthesis is the conclusion of its main objective. Since I don't agree with the premise that started the experiment, don't trust its creators and even the Catalyst has enough doubts about it to not enact it by itself, Synthesis as presented here is out of the question for me. Control is risky, it's basically synthesis between Shepard and the Catalyst followed by the complete subjugation of all the Reapers to this new entity, depending on how much control Shepard retains after this merge and how compliant the Reapers are it could go either way. The only solution with fairly certain results is Destroy, there's collateral damage but the Reapers and the Catalyst are destroyed and life in the galaxy is once again allowed to evolve without an artificial time limit, conflict is inevitable as it always has been but the resolution is open ended. If I was sure Shepard could send all the Reapers into the sun I'd choose Control but with the information available at the time the only viable choice for me is Destroy, anything else is a recipe for disaster. If synthesis is ever to be implemented it must be with full knowledge of what it implies, not as an answer to an ultimatum of a cryptic AI who believes they are our salvation through destruction.
Wonderful analysis! Totally agree. The false concept of being able to CONTROL life, the galaxy etc is what brought on this tragedy. The Leviathans thought they knew everything and didn't like it that they didn't. "Tribute doesn't flow from a dead race" They wanted THINGS. They couldn't get things cuz they those providing them died due to AI. But they never stopped to think that this was yet another EVOLUTIONARY necessity and had to go thru several failures before it could be a success? (See Shepard saving both geth and quarians). Kinda like Magneto wanting to wipe out all humans, even tho HUMANS are the #1 source of MUTANTS. Stop getting in LIFE'S way, ya control freaks. You CLEARLY don't have an eye to the bigger picture!
"With Destroy it's even simpler, kill every synthetic in range while sparing organics, kind of like an EMP, you can repair the physical damage but the data is gone along with their consciousness." A quote from Matrix comes to mind: "You saved the dock? You just served it to the enemy on a silver platter." @"Destroy means shutting down the experiment started by the Leviathans" - I am inherently dissatisfied with all four endings and wish the Catalyst, with millions of years of experience, had simply acted as police and mediator between the organic and synthetic, ensuring that their own laws respect each other and all life forms. If they had believed in peace for just one second, then this conflict, struggle and war would be over. - I didn't like destroying, merging, or synthesising, and found controlling to be quite attractive because it seemed to keep the Citadel intact, which doesn't seem to derail my concerns about Citadel security (cue: war assets).
I agree with your analysis 100%. The truth is that Mass Effect doesn't have a perfectly good/satisfying ending. It simply has 3 lowsy options, and lets you choose the least worse one.
I must be weird cause I liked all the endings, not cause they were the best or the most satisfying, but they were all flawed and messed up and barely understood kinda the whole point the Reapers were trying to tell Shepard we don't have full scope on how big the picture is...in the game and in life sentient life(humans in the real world) think we know so much and we know so little in the grand scheme of things...I think we view the Reapers as evil because that's the only way our brains can process stuff, what if it's not that simple what if the answer is so big and complicated our brains can't comprehend it...what if they gave us those choices because that's as close as we can understand, good bad, neutral....because we see everything is such plain terms. Just my thoughts I just don't always want a happy ending cause life and choices just are bad and suck sometimes...just gotta choose how much and how bad.
@@jamatth52 what about the option of having a happy ending? Myself, thats all I would have wanted. Give me the choice. Yeah, you are right, life is shit, hard and complicated, but this is bloody excapism 🤷 I love a moraly grey ending/choice like any one, but I would like to have the choice to have any kind if ending. I dislike being forced to have shity, messy endings similar to life with no other alternative 🤷
What I like about the Extended Cut, unlike New Vegas, is that you only get a glimpse of what the future holds instead of telling you exactly what happens. If you choose red, will things be the same or different? The door is open to go either way. Plus in my head canon, David Archer helps rebuild the Geth because he has the Geth’s source code in his head.
you hit the nail on the head its the fact that the series can be interpreted in different ways that makes it awesome, for example I like the green ending (as I talked about in the video) but I totally see why people connect with destruction more too. Thanks for supporting the channel rainbow really appreciate it !
I still hold that the issue with the endings was never about the endings themselves, rather it’s the fact that it all came down to one last choice that you could make regardless of your past choices. Played a pure paragon for three games? Now you can commit genocide. Played a renegade for 3 games? Now you can peacefully resolve everything. I always felt like it would make way more sense in a game about choices having consequences, to have the ending purely be a consequence of all your choices up to that point, not to be a choice itself.
Did you not get the perfect ending? You can get the perfect ending if you get 7800 military points. It’s way better than the others atleast everyone lives anyways better type of way. Whether you were renegade Or paragon you want your people to live.
That's what I've also been saying since! And that's why mass effect 2 is considered the superior game in the trilogy because besides the amazing story and characters, the endings are purely based on your actions prior to the last mission
Totally but I like that we as gamers were manipulated too. Blue was suppose to be something good, green was something new and in the middle so it was an obvious choice and then we had red, "renegade" choice that was actually the most Shepard one
Control, you see Shepard turn into a husk, synthesis, again, Shepard becomes a husk, the only ending where you don't is destroy, or shoot the asshole thats lying, other than those 2 welcome to indoctrination!
@@Maples01nope shepard never becomes a husk or becomes indoctrinated idk about control since i always felt like it was not really it for me. destroy is the worst ending as it just starts the doomsday clock upon destruction of EDI and geth the synthetics who were influenced by shepard to be paragons towards the orgains perish in destroy and if an AI rises upon the death of paragon shepard there will be war same with EDI she understands humanity and in my playthrough at the end she truly feels alive perhaps she already became synthesized before my ending because she understands organics. control is a slightly better ending as shepard can make sure the geth and EDI never perish and so they are there so in the future in case there is an AI uprising the geth can convince them to stop and EDI can make them understand our viewpoints these options get lost in destroy where there is only war waiting. synthesis in my opinion is the best option organics and synthetics gain understanding of each other with organics understanding tech ever more tho i do not know how this will change organics when their thinking patterns are meshed with organics. i would assume this will turn you into someone like paragon EDI who i think is the closest synthetic in the story who understands what it means to be organic. and diseases decrease,lost technology comes back, and the old races might be revived due to the reapers storing their DNA. the fight between organics and synthetics will never be a factor because we too now can understand synthetic viewpoint
Agreed. It bears heavy signs of lack of planning, while it could have been the most fulfilling ending of the three. The Destroy ending basically just sends us back to Leviathan ground zero. We will rebuild synthetics and start this problem all over again - minus the Reaper cycles. Unless...
@@m.r.r.2636 why on Earth would we do that after fighting the Reapers? Because the Star Brat said so? Or because everyone in Leviathan time was an idiot?
Sorry but the Reapers were created due to the flawed reasoning of the Leviathan which unleashed eons of horror and stagnation on the galaxy. When Shepard brought peace between the Quarians and the Geth he proved the leviathan wrong. When the Reapers turned on the leviathan instead of working with them to solve the problem they proved the Leviathan wrong. The Leviathan were flawed unrepentant creatures with delusions of godhood who could not comprehend the possibility that they could be wrong and doomed themselves and almost every other civilization which followed them by forcing them to try to overcome their mistaken logic.
actually the leviathan states that the citadel is working as intended implying that this was always the intended result just the leviathans didn't account or accounted for themselves in the equation.
The leviathans treated all other beings as less than themselves, as slaves, in turn, the people under their rule knew only how to treat their creations the same way, as a result, the creations rebelled. The same would have happened between the leviathans and those they lorded over if not for their mind control. Naturally the ai they created would also assume they were the only one who knew best and turn on the “lesser” organics.
@@siennahartle9069 no, the leviathan viewed themselves as daimyo or other feudal system nobility demanding tribute or be turned into something like the keepers or just drones.
what flawed reasoning did the leviathan have exactly? they created an ai to come up with a solution to a problem, and it did. what does the fact that the quarians and geth made a peace, which, for all we know, lasted for 30 minutes prove? why do you think the reapers were supposed to "work with" the leviathans to solve the problem?
I don't think the Quarians and the Geth proved the Leviathan wrong . Short term yes , but its no guarantee that the conflict wont return after couple hundred years for some reason . The whole idea that synthetics will wipe out all organics is treated as irrefutable fact . Only to be proven wrong by the existence of the Andromeda galaxy . No reapers there since the dawn of time and would you look at that , organics are alive and kicking . The end.
There's one problem with this idea. Synthesis essentially has Shepard playing god, forcing all life(synthetic and organic both) to conform to a new uniform way of life regardless of if they're even willing to go with it. Also, the ability to make peace between the Quarians and Geth without rewriting what sets them apart from each other calls the perpetual conflict between synthetics and organics into question. Like control, synthesis puts the galaxy at risk of something far worse than what was already there(synthesis potentially annihilates free will as we know it while control keeps the Reapers around as an ever looming overlord of the galaxy that could easily turn on everyone). Through destruction, if peace between synthetics and organics was able to be made in the past, what's to say it can't be done with the next set of synthetics without the need of eviscerating what makes them unique?
Ya I totally see that side too I think it is what makes the mass effect trilogy so great the ways you can interpret it, like for me the geth quarian thing you could also easily assume things like that happened in every cycle would be weird to assume in million of years with the same cycle those interactions didn't happen and to me it just shows that it doesn't matter. It is just fun and poetic to me to imagine "breaking" from the cycle and risking something potentially being worse at the chance of bringing something even greater. Like the idea that maybe destroying them this time leads to nice synthetics in the future I think goes against everything mass effect taught us, we have billions of years of learning to see it is a cycle for a reason. Either way though thanks so much for watching and supporting my channel I really appreciate it it helps me so much!
You are proceeding from a few false assumptions. 1) The Geth didn't turn on the Quarians. The Quarians turned on the Geth, and the Geth chose to survive by fighting back. Once the Geth escaped they stopped fighting back against the Quarians. It was Saren in ME that truned the Geth into antagonists, and then the Quarians once more trying to destroy them, yet again. 2) The Reapers control nothing. The Catalyst tells us repeatedly that it controls the Reapers. Everything that the Reapers control is, by extension, controlled by the Catalyst. 3) Shep did not reach the Catalyst chamber. The Catalyst raised Shep to the Catalyst chamber. Watch ME3 again. Shep passes out before reaching the control console, and then, once unconscious, the Catalyst raises Shep up. Also once in the Catalyst chamber we have no more contact with the outside, suggesting that our comms are being jammed. 4) If you pay attention to the Catalyst, you will learn that it is lying to you, repeatedly. It says that the created always turn on their creators, but the Geth and Quarians disproves that. It was the other way around, and once free, the Geth made no effort to wipe out the Quarians. Again it was the other way around the Quarians continued to try and find ways to destroy the Geth. Also consider this, if the created always turn on their creators, then the Reapers are trying to turn on the Catalyst, and it is trying to stop that from happening. The Catalyst tells you that your presence means that its solution, the Reapers, won't work anymore because Shep is there in the Catalyst chamber. Yet go back to point 3. Shep is only there because the Catalyst wanted us there. Plus if you look out the window, you can see with your own eyes how the Reapers are efficiently wiping out the various species of the galaxy. The Reapers are working just fine. It also tells Shep that they are the first to reach that point, another lie. If you discuss Synthesis it will tell you that it has been attempted before, but that the species of the galaxy weren't ready yet. However Synthesis can only be triggered from the Catalyst chamber, by somehow interacting with the galaxy changing beam. Given this fact, Shep can not be the first to reach this point, and if they are then the Catalyst lied about earlier attempts. If you chose to reject the 3 options watch what the Catalyst does. It turns off the galaxy changing beam, meaning the Catalyst, and not the crucible, is what is controlling the outcome of the galaxy. Its voice changes from friendly kid to annoyed AI. The Crucible is afterall just a big battery. The reason it needs Shep is because Synthesis requires an infusion of DNA to make it happen, which is something that the Catalyst can not do. It needs an organic being and that is why it brought Shep, and only Shep, to it. Shep's failure to cooperate means that it just wasted its time. But being an AI that isn't that big of a deal. It can just wait for the next 50,000 years and try again, it's not going to die of old age. Final thoughts. Given that we know the Catalyst is lying, and given that it wants us to pick the Synthesis option, then this is absolutely the option that shouldn't be picked. By choosing Synthesis you are giving this AI exactly what it wants, and its goals are obviously not aligned with organics. The reason for including the destroy and control options is because they're the options that were introduced to us in the first and second game. Destroy in ME, and Control in ME2. The catalyst also warns of downsides to the other options. Destroy will detroy all Synthetic life, EDI, Geth, even Shep themselves. Control was proposed by TIM, someone who we can't trust and whom the Catalyst informs you is their puppet. Synthesis, however is presented as a perfect option. All upside no downside. At least until you remember that the Catalyst is lying to you. When I first played ME3. I was disappointed in the ending. Not becasue of the three colour, little or no different endings, but because something about the ending was screaming at me that it was wrong. Even after all the DLC came out, and supposedly fixed the problems, I still had those doubts. It wasn't until I watched other people playing ME3 that I was able to distance myself from my own playthroughs and spot the problem, the thing that was triggering me, and screaming that there was a problem. That problem was that Shep didn't get themselves to the Catalyst chamber, but rather the Catalyst brought them to it. This problem, exists in every playthrough, and now that I wasn't focused on my own play through, it was as clear as glass. When the game first came out I was a red (Destroy) option at the end. After the all DLC came out and I was able to pick up on all the lies that the Catalyst was spewing out, I swapped to the blue (Control) option. This was because I felt like it was the only viable option. Synthesis was out, because it is what the Catalyst wants. Destroy is out, because it wipes out the Geth, who I'd worked so hard to save and get the Quarians to stop trying to exterminate, and I was willing to risk that the Catalyst was again lying about the risks of the Control option, and that we ourselves may be under Reaper influence. But still things felt off. After watching other playthroughs and I realised what the plothole was, I again swapped, to the reject option. I was done with being jerked around by the Catalyst. The reason I think most choose the Destroy option is that it destroys the Reapers, and kicks the problem down the line. They know that something is off, but they don't know what, and so take the 'safe' option. But once you see the plothole and pick up on all the lies you realise that the big bad all along has been the Catalyst, so why would you want to give it anything that it wants. I'd rather sacrifice myself and all life than give this thing what it wants.
I would disagree the catalyst has to be bad, also I would say geth aren’t just pure good and quarians evil etc. The catalyst/reapers are the true protectors of the galaxy, it’s like you said destory is just kicking the can down the road, you have to do synthesis at some point or it’s all over anyways. Destroy will be what they do in the next mass effect because it will make all the problems arise again, and synthesis will become more and more obviously the correct answer and the only one that leads humanity and the other races into the next step of evolution. The entire series, reapers, organics, and especially the stories and history of leviathans and their teachings, shows us that organics and synthetics are always doomed to fight, the geth aren’t a counter example of this, they are the perfect example of why the synergy fails, they would turn on the creators even when they seem nice or the creators would turn. Believing that for some reason it will work after millions of years to the contrary through hundreds and thousands of civilizations is ignorance. Synthesis maybe makes the universe worse we don’t know, but it does solve the core issue at the heart of the series. Destroy just lets future civilizations have to deal with the same issues and leads into a new game series well
If the reapers just turned up to the citadel, applied for candidate status in this cycle and explained what they wanted. A whole load of death and misunderstanding could of been avoided.
I'm sure someone will find a reason to hold their candidate status approval without end date. It's council after all, the guys in it don't believe in Reapers, that Saren betrayed them and instantly believe a voice record of random quarian to remove specter status from him.
Over the past few years, the lead writer for the first two games (Drew Karpyshyn) has even talked about what the ending of the series would have been had he been able to write the third game as well. While it's not exactly a match, it's the most similar to Destroy, the Relays being used to kill the Reapers. As he said, Mass Effect is about a single human, uniting all races in the galaxy, to defeat the greatest threat, and winning.
The geth did not turn on the quarians. The quarians did, when the geth started spooking them with questions. And there is no claim of geth turning on quarians when they gain sentience at Rannoch's conclusion. Perhaps the Reapers are right in the sense that organics are the ones to declare war on synthetics, but you are incorrect to say that the geth ( i.e. synthetics) declared war on the quarians, so it is flawed to use that as evidence for the Reapers being right.
True, but there are many other examples of synthetics in the mass effect universe turning on organics. the zha'til, the Remnant, that Ancient AI from Andromeda, that Asari AI Tallaris the multiple wars the Leviathans mentioned that destroyed their thralls.
@@MegaDman16 The zha'til only turned on their creators after being corrupted by the Reapers (meaning the Reapers CAUSED the problem they were intended to solve in this case). As for the others, those are all things we're told. Everything we actually see and experience in the game (except for maybe that gambling AI in ME1) runs completely contrary to it. The rule is "Show, Don't Tell" and they showed us things that say the opposite of what they told us.
The main issue for me as someone who had been playing Mass Effect since the first game launched and had been following and listening to the Dev's in parallel to that isn't so much what the ending ultimately became, rather it was the fact that the ending was completely contrary to everything that the Dev's had been saying the ending would be since ME1. They set very specific expectations and repeatedly reinforced those expectations over the course of years and multiple games, essentially promising that the choices player made over the entire trilogy would effect the ultimate ending, giving each player a personally relevant ending that had been ultimately shaped by their unique set of choices. I'm not going to say "they made a promise and they broke it!" but they did create very high and very clear expectations which they utterly failed to meet and with such high expectations comes a larger fall and damage. In place of what was expected people got 3 choices, choices which were in no real way effected by anything that had happened in the many many hours of what players had done or gone through over the large investment of 3 games and multiple years up until that moment. Compared to what players had been definitively told to expect the ending was in comparison arguably low effort, impersonal and made people feel very disappointed and very much misled. Some people who where not there at the time might struggle to understand the outrage, but they should be able to understand the feeling of having very high and consistently reinforced expectations shattered and the feeling of being misled over something that you've invested a large amount of time and emotion in to. No one likes being lied to especially when the person telling the lie insults your intelligence by expecting you not to notice. That's why people were pissed.
the same dev who made ME1 and ME2 (specifically the writing) was not the same one in ME3 (specifically the ending). originally they did not have an ending as of ME1 and from ME2 the ending was base on dark energy leaking from mass relays causing suns to explode, but that was scrapped in ME3 by idiot dev who did not know how writing works.
@@roiking2740 There is a story that the ending of ME3 was leaked online 6 months before the game was released, so the lead writer had to lock himself in a room and come up with something completely new and different - so new and different that it's almost an exact rip-off of Deus Ex. I don't know what that leaked ending was and I've never seen it or gone looking for it. Why couldn't they just stick to that one? A bad decision was made to put the fate of the trilogy in the hands on one person who ignored most of what had come before - much like the ending we finally got.
@@hiendral9533 I could play the entire trilogy multiple times, making completely opposite story decisions at every opportunity and despite this I would still be given the same binary choices with the exact same cutscenes and outcomes at the end of the game. Your choices matter in the sense that everything up until that point is most certainly affected and changed by those decisions but the end of the game, the culmination of all your efforts is the same cookie cutter, one size fits all, low effort disappointment no matter what. For clarification I am specifically talking about the original ending, not the band-aid updated ending which I personally haven't experienced.
@@hiendral9533 what most people do not get that its hard to make choices matter. do they literally change the story ? or just make it appear like the story is change? with the time they had to make ME3 there was no way they could have made a choices which would literally make a difference overall, but the second best thing is to add pieces of dialogue that makes it feel like your choices matter. though the ending of ME3 is not bad because the choices render your quest meaningless, it was bad cause it was incoherent, full of retcons and plotholes and did not give closure to the player. the less relevant thing it did was make your choices not matter.
Synthesis is the only ending I have refused to do. It always felt like defeat to me. Forcing everyone into being a blend of synthetic and organic life is one of the most tyrannical things that could ever be done for the sake of, ‘A better and more peaceful future.’ You’ve suddenly destroyed the uniqueness of all life, and made it into something it was never supposed to be. It’s a betrayal to everyone in the galaxy.
That's how I feel too. It always bothered me that Shepard is the only one making this choice. The other people in the galaxy never got to weigh in on the idea of being turned into a new hybrid species. One person just up and decided that this was the best thing for the galaxy, and so now everybody is forcibly changed into something completely different. I personally favor the Destroy option, mainly because I think giving the Shepard A.I. control of all Reapers is too risky. If becoming an A.I. should change Shepard's way of thinking in any way, and this resulted in the Reapers becoming a threat again, then I worry the galaxy would be completely screwed. Not only would the galaxy have to fight a Reaper army again, but that army would be headed by the one person who allowed the races of the Milky Way to win the last time around. Even as someone who doesn't like Control though, I can see why someone might choose it. At least with Control, Shepard is the only one making any kind of sacrifice, and while we don't know how the A.I. will feel in a few thousand years or so, in the immediate aftermath of the war, he/she still seems pretty much the same afterward in terms of morals. So, there's hope that my worst case scenario won't come to pass. Then, with Destroy, everyone went into that final battle fully prepared to sacrfice their lives if it meant destroying the Reapers for good, so while the deaths of that ending are tragic, high casualties were always expected, and accepted as a harsh reality of the situation by everyone involved. Synthesis though goes beyond asking people to just give up their lives. It literally forces them to give up what they are on a fundamental level. Choosing Synthesis also felt like admitting that the Star Child and Reapers were right. By picking Synthesis, you're essentially admitting that peace between organics and synthetics is impossible. The races of the galaxy will never learn and reach understanding on their own, so we either need the Reaper Cycle, or we need to FORCE the synthetics and organics to understand each other through unnatural means. Personally, I've always believed the Star Child's logic was complete bullshit. Of course people are going to keep making the same mistakes when the Reapers keep erasing thousands of years of history with each cycle, so that the new cycle is never able to learn from the previous cycle's mistakes. Their creators, the Leviathans may have been beyond saving, but would the later cycles have been beyond saving if they had actually been able to learn from the mistakes that the Leviathans made? While the chances of peace between the Geth and the Quarians are slim, the fact that we can pull it off at all is proof that living creatures can learn from their mistakes and be better, if given the opprotuinty. It may take a long time, and millons of years of trial and error, but it can be done. The Reaper cycle makes that growth far more difficult though, because it's designed to prevent life from growing and learning in new and unexpected ways. If no one is allowed to learn from history, it's no surprise that they would be more likely to repeat it.
How does it take away their uniqueness? They still have their personalities and it’s the only ending that proves the reapers wrong. That organics and synthetics can co-exist as equals
I don't think Synthesis proves the Reapers wrong at all. Just the opposite Synthesis was always their end goal. They didn't believe organics and sythetics could understand each other on their own. The only way to achieve understanding in their view was to turn all synthetics and organics into a new hybrid form of existance, with a mixture of both synthetic and organic parts. By turning everyone into this new hybrid race, they believed understanding would be reached, and the conflicts would stop now that everyone in the galaxy had become this new hybrid form of existance. Taking the Synthesis route is basically having Shepard admit that the Reapers were actually on to something. If the player really wants to call the Reapers out for being wrong, the only options are the refusal ending, or the destroy ending. Refusal is self explanitory, while destroy is basically the player refuting the Reapers' claim that organics and synthetics will always fight, and will eventually wipe each other out. Nobody in their right mind would take the destroy ending if they really believed its only possible outcome was mutually assured destruction. Very few, if any people picked destroy because they thought the Geth had to die. We chose it because we believed the Reapers, and only the Reapers, needed to die. The Geth dying along with them was a tragic and unintended result of using the Catalyst to destroy the Reapers. By picking destroy, you're basically betting that when the next race of Synthetics comes around, organics willl eventually be able to find a way to make peace and coexist, just as we eventually learned to do with the Geth in ME 3. It's basically saying to the Catalyst: "No. You're wrong. Your data is flawed. Exitinction is not inevitable. We've made peace before, and we can eventually do it again. The Reapers aren't needed."
The Reapers wheren't right. The Geth didn't chose violence, the Quarians did. And they had the chance to end violence many times but still chose to keep it going. Peace between organics and synthetics was always an option. And the Reapers just prolonged the war by reaping all life before the conflict had to be resolved peacefully. The synthesis ending doesn't even make sense. Like, what if the new synth-organic proto species creates another AI that becomes scentient? That would be the same conflict all over. To me, the actual ending is the Quarians and Geth making peace, thus proving the Reapers wrong and creating a precedent for future generations.
Pretty sure that any AI would be considered organic, if the synthesis ending was chosen and vise versa. This AI would understand, organic feelings and wouldn't lead to a mass extinction.
@@HaterFromAbove9 But its not that easy. AI isn't an on on and off thing, not even in the ME Universe. The Quarians created an AI accidantally by making a VI a little too smart and the rest happened on its own. And I'm not assuming that the species in the now synthesized ME Universe will build a Toaster with a VI that knows how to make your toast JUST the right way, and the moment it start gaining scentience it will start to glow green for some reason. Its ineviteble that another kind of AI Robot species will emerge again that is not synthezised, and since that the synthesized species of the ME Universe have learned that they can't coexist with an AI that is not like them, a War is sure to start again. This new AI might not stand a chance against the Synths, but that means that its just another genocide. The only way of ensuring lasting peace beteween Organics and AI is to tell history like it happened, that the Geth never chose Violence, where only JUST as violent as they absolutely NEEDED to be to survive (based on their current data) and that the Quarians startet the war and maintained it until its eventual end. Bonus points if peace between Geth and Quarians was achieved. The Geth proved the Reapers wrong. The Geth had no intentions of expanding or even replacing organic life. All they wanted to do was built a super computer they could load themselfes into and fuck off.
@@HaterFromAbove9 There is no way you think this statement of yours makes sense. It is space magic electric bogaloo to explain something nonesensical. Unless you are trying to imply that all matter in the universe somehow becomes organic as well. Synthesis is the ending for those who didn't think that much
You cant thats the thing i dont know why people think green is the answer we saw what happends when you think you can control them indoctrination theory make sence too me
@@KravMagoo Literally every single experiment and attempt to use Reaper technology starting from ME1 all the way to the near end of ME3 turned out catastrophically wrong and ended in people trying to control it either dead, indoctrinated or turned into husks. Saren, TIM, Benezia, the Rachni, Geth heretics, Cerberus scientists, Alliance scientists, the entire damn Hegemony, and so on. That Reapers corrupt, twist and destroy is one of the most consistent points beaten over your head. We can literally talk 2 main villains into shooting themselves because of failing to control Reapers, lmao. And now the entire plot makes a 180 turn and Shepard is suddenly the one who can do it?
You hear reapers can’t be controlled then you meet the thing in control of the reapers and it tells you that you can take its place or destroy it. So the one thing that truly knows the reapers (a first hand source) is more correct than people who only know the legend.
@@Jackb201 I can't remember even one conversation where someone said the reapers can't be controlled. The amount of head canon BS that "fans" cart into this game is ridiculous.
This is a decent argument for the green ending and was my first choice when I was first faced with the ending but upon further reflection I rejected it. My argument for the red/destruction ending is centered around the concept of the definition of insanity. Not the dictionary definition but the one about beating your head against a brick wall. The one that says that repeating the same action again and again expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. By that definition, the entire cycle created by the so-called "Intelligence" is the very definition of insanity. I came to this conclusion when I listened to what Legion had to say in ME2 about why the Geth rejected the Reapers' offer of the future in favor of their own future. My idea is that The Cycle is actually "The Intelligence" beating his head against a brick wall and that it would continue endlessly until some anomaly breaks him out of that cycle. Shepard is the anomaly. But also, Shepard is not a god. He is just a man. If he chose to "control" the Reapers he would merely be replacing "The Intelligence" as the new insane man running the asylum. He has no way of knowing if synthesis is actually the best choice for all life in the galaxy other than the assurances from the insane man running the asylum. He is not a god and cannot make that choice for everyone else. Neither can he chose the fourth choice and do nothing because the Cycle just continues. He is only left with one option to end the Cycle. Destroy. This choice is the most difficult one for a Paragon Shepard to make. Particularly so for a Paragon Shepard who has accepted his friend EDI has a soul. But it is still the only one left that allows for the Cycle to be broken.
If your answer involved the knowing, calculated murder of not only innocent, but heroic beings, you have arrived at the *wrong* answer. Synthesis may well be a gamble with the fate of all life hanging in the balance, but it is a gamble made in good faith. *EVERY* *SINGLE* *TIME* people knowingly shed the blood of the those they know to be Good, in quest of preserving or bringing about some even greater good, tragedy, if not atrocity, has been the result. Better to try. I don't say this as some Bible-thumper, but because the words themselves have a moral/philosophical resonance for me. "What does it profit a man, though he gains the whole world, if he loses his soul?" Right and wrong are seldom in any way subjective. If it's wrong for one man or woman to do it, it's wrong for a giant war-fleet, and it's wrong for a confederation of interstellar powers. People say Shepard doesn't have the right to force Synthesis on the galaxy. I say he doesn't have the right to knowingly murder EDI. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?
@@shawnpanzegraf6852 Remember. You are relying on the word of an untrustworthy source (an insane being who has been hitting his head against a brick wall.) Someone who has a pre-disposed bias for synthesis. The reasons he states may sound noble but why would you trust that he is not manipulating you to agree with his outcome arrived at in a God-like fashion that he and only he knows what is best. This is my reason for rejecting Control out of hand. Shepherd is no more a God than this so-called "Intelligence" who is in my mind clearly insane. By that same logic I reject the Green ending. It may seem like you are saving everyone on the surface but in fact you are killing everyone and every species not just synthetics in order to create something completely new, untried, untested, unproven based on the judgment of an insane individual. So, yeah. I am taking the Garrus perspective and opting for the choice that saves the most lives and breaks the Cycle which I consider to be the most important goal. The longer I think about it the Green ending is the worst ending and I would choose to do nothing and hope someone in the next Cycle can find a better solution. By your logic, you must really hate the Arrival DLC and Shepherd's only option to "knowingly" kill everyone in an entire star system to prevent the Reapers from coming through that gate.
Reapers did not leave the crucible. Before you pick your ending you can ask what it is, and the reaper child said they thought they erased the schematics for the crucible. How they must have missed it, and have tried to erase it for cycles.
Don't you think it's strange that the Crucible, a hyper-technological device, kills Reapers when Shepard shoots one of its components? I don't think it's a matter of plot armor.
Respectfully no. First of all I really hate how people who choose this ending think it’s a peaceful utopia kind of thing. It doesn’t solve the problem. So what you turn every being into a hybrid and then what? What’s stopping this new “synthesis” race from creating dangerous technologies. The reapers are synthesis. So what happens to husks, marauders, brutes, harvesters, cannibals, and banshees? Do they suddenly become part of the civilization? Do they remember who they were before? What the hell does an ants (Shepard) DNA or ESSENCE even mean? Science fiction is fiction but there’s a limit. Not only is it impossible scientifically to have Shepard jump down and alter the dna of all life, it’s bad writing not because of the writing itself, the idea of synthesis is too complex (the one shown in the ending). Not only do you have to be careful writing something like that, you have to back it up with atleast a bit of science to make it believable. (Shepards planetary re-entry and revival is and example of bad plot devices)And like I said it doesn’t solve the issue given by the catalyst. The catalyst became the chaos it tried to prevent. There is no “ideal” solution for a galactic scale war. “Adding your energy” to the crucible is a joke to players with half a brain. What the hell does that mean? You can’t just hand wave that point not that it makes sense anyway. The geth only wanted to be left alone, legion says that, and also they wanted to create a Dyson sphere for the geth to upload into which quarians attacked in me3. It’s not like the the other species helped the quarians with that assault. Althought achieving “peace” is not something guaranteed long term, it shows how the geth are helping the quarians immune system without synthesis. EDI always remained loyal to the crew even if you’re mean to her. Legion, like EDI, both state that the reapers are a threat to them to. Okay control? Why the hell would any Shepard control the reapers? Not only does this go against everything Shepard fought for, it’s stupid. What’s one good reason for controlling them other than ( I don’t want edi and the geth to die) ? Again doesn’t solve the problem as well. Destroy? Unfortunate as it is, losing edi and geth, this ending not only gets rid of the reapers for good (or so the narrative says) you end this cycle of chaos. What I mean by that is you can have life evolve naturally for the first time in billions of years. Actual free will of evolution of all life instead of a space god controlling and refreshing the cycle every 50k years. Let us have conflicts and learn. Let us evolve without the manipulation of the reapers. The catalyst keeps saying organics and synthetics will always fight (the chaos), but never mentions why reapers indoctrinate both the geth (reaper virus/heretics) organics(nanites / harvested/ or quick) so why help the geth kill organics if they’re supposed protect all life? Why indoctrinate? Why leave technology behind for us to evolve on ( the reapers path) ? Why not just let us be and watch without interfering, find an example of this chaos that says it will always happen. Its called fucking LIFE. There is always chaos. Between all life especially organics versus organics! (In real life and mass effect lore) The catalyst has one job. Sell us on the idea of why being a reaper or having reapers is a good thing. It failed at that. Destroy is a clean slate for all yes including synthetics. Will we have conflict with future synthetics? Maybe maybe not but atleast we can evolve naturally and if the conflict or chaos comes so be it. Let us resolve this without reapers interfering. Atleast my Shepard can rest knowing the “natural” evolution of ALL life is not used as a tool for some “Intelligence” looking for an answer for a problem that was never there and that it became said problem. It became the leviathans, the very problem it’s supposed to prevent.
Hey man thanks for taking the time to watch and comment! Ya I totally agree in the sense that it could cause issues or even more issues and there IS always chaos, the reason I like it is destroy for example literally does nothing you just will have organics that build synthetics that kill them again to me mass effect over the 3 games shows us that is the case it will always happen, so synthesis may be worse it may be better and regardless there will be chaos, but it’s “poetic” in the sense it breaks us from the shackles into a new dawn that isn’t certain in a chance to become something greater. I 100% get the other sides too though and think they make sense, but synthesis or green to me is just way more “poetic” tying together all the themes as if you actually learned something instead of just “saren bad indoctrination bad sythetics bad save the world!”. Thanks again so much for supporting what I do
@@FranklyGaming that’s the thing the trilogy doesn’t show us or tells us about this chaos except for the quarians/geth conflict. The rogue A.I in me1 was altered by organics (Cerberus) and became EDI. Only synthetic or (A.I) that showed hostility “without” reaper influence was a side quest in the citadel. Don’t forget in the morning war the geth DID NOT wipe out all quarians and actually let them flee rannoch and it was quarians who attacked first. So that alone proves the catalyst wrong (all created will kill all creators theory).If they did I would agree with you. So why don’t the reapers just harvest quarians or/and geth? The only ever conflict we get is geth with a reaper virus (the heretics) which legion and most geth don’t share their views. The reapers and by extension the catalyst, control this so called chaos. I get the appeal of synthesis but the only solution to see if either one us is right is to have no reapers involved in all and every kind of evolution whether organics or synthetics. Destroy does this. It’s the only ending with a clean slate. Every sapient death is unfortunate in this ending but I can’t see how any future with the reapers (who are a form of synthesis) is better. Remember they come from the leviathans what’s stopping them becoming the “apex” race in synthesis? Enslaving and indoctrinating other species because they can. Control has the same problem except what’s stopping them from going rogue? The “ideal” solution is a future without reapers, let life flourish let true evolution happen, let real conflicts/resolutions happen. I get why some people think destroy doesn’t solve anything and I don’t like peoples reason for liking destroy is “ well Shepard lives” that is a poor reason for liking an ending that changes the entire state of a galaxy.. but for me the main and only reasons are no more reapers influencing evolution, conflicts, resolutions, order, and chaos. The first time in billions of years for “Natural Evolution” to take over ALL LIFE in the galaxy. That’s my reason for choosing destroy.
The destroy ending is the one ending that ensures the cycle will not be broken. The synthesis and control endings are more ambiguous in this regard. With the destroy ending, yes the Reapers are defeated but one of the major themes of the games is "organics make synthetics, and then they war with each other forever". If our mission was to break the cycle, then the destroy ending just puts the cycle on pause for a bit by destroying all galactic technology and reverting back to a technological dark age. It is only a matter of time before organics create synthetics again and the cycle begins once more. There is no ensuring that this will never happen -- this was the entire premise of the reapers in the first place. If you are naive enough to believe that the reapers would have been the only instance of this, then by all means the destroy ending is the best choice. Synthesis is by far the most ambiguous, but we can gather from the final cutscenes after choosing synthesis that its intended effects were realized at least for a time after the 3rd game. It does not guarantee that there will be no more war between synthetics/organics, and it does not guarantee any kind of utopia. Indeed, the synthesis ending is for those who are brave enough to try something new. And I dont trust shepard enough for the control ending. That said, I agree with you on the writing. The synthesis and control endings are really dumb and rely on space-magic, which I think is one of the reasons a lot of people didn't like the ending as a whole, and why many people also opted for destroy. But taking the writers in good faith, I think its unreasonable to assume that the reapers were trying to trick shepard in choosing synthesis/control. The ending is a glorified paragon/renegade/neutral dialogue wheel, and no other such dialogue wheel in any of the games were trying to trick us into making an "incorrect" choice. So although it makes sense to think that the reapers wanted us to choose synthesis/control, it is actually not the case and we should instead take the writing at face value.
Well after re-reading your comment I now agree with you. It has become clear to me that the poor writing of the 3rd game has confused some of the themes of the game. In the first 2 games the mission was "stop the reapers, end the cycle", but the 3rd game told us that the cycle is "organics make synthetics, and then they war forever", and this is not the same cycle as the 50,000 year reaper cycle. So our goal in the 3rd game is to find a way to stop synthetics and organics from warring forever, which is absolutely impossible, and apparently we can't kill the Reapers and stop "the cycle" at the same time, we must choose one or the other. So the synthesis ending solves the mission of the 3rd game, but the destroy ending solves the mission of the first 2 games. Honestly, as silly as the endings are, I have to give it to the writers for crafting the endings they did. None of them are perfect and they are hardly satisfactory, but they did accomplish one thing: years later people are still talking about and debating about it.
1. The Synthesis ending was always been presented as the “good” ending by the game. Fans weren’t fooled into thinking Destroy was the more moral ending, they just fundamentally do not accept what the Catalyst says and believes is accurate. Because… 2. The Catalyst is an insane, genocidal, A.I. that was created by a species mind controlling space squids to keep their slaves from wiping each other out with their own A.I. And to accomplish that goal it created more A.I. to wipe out its creators and also their slaves. And then any other species that advanced far enough to colonize space. Forever. Why would anyone take the Catalyst at its word? Even if it’s not being intentionally dishonest, which we absolutely know is in the Reapers’ M.O., it could just flat out be wrong. So when the Catalyst implies that Synthesis is a solution to the problem [the Catalyst] was created to solve, and presents it as the best option I knew I didn’t want any part of that option.
But really think about what catalyst actually says. He says that if you destroy the reapers the organics will eventually create an AI that is advanced as much as the Leviathan for example. And that indeed seems plausible whether it happens million years or thousand in the future it is inevitable because at least one organic will always want to advance in technology. You can argue that the civilizacions would remember what happens when they take that step. But it takes only one lunatic to create self improving AI which (who?) eventually will become like Leviathan and the cycle will go on. The destrucion ending is not the solution whether you like it or not. The control ending could theoretically work because it's outcome might resemble the syntesis ending with the exception of DNA alteration. Under Shepards control the Reapers could help organics and the geth would not be destroyed so they would preserve their code of "friendship" but you must understand that this code for synthetics is not natural for them. If you choose the destrucion ending the organics will make synthetics to serve them but since synthetics gain conciousness they will try to survive and that will always result in conflict because organics doesn't understand synthetics and will fight them. The syntesis is the best ending because it's outcome isn't as vague as the control which could go either way and it saves the galaxy of syntetics/organics conflict.
But how would we know what's the best option either? We're not perfect beings. Humanity is incredibly flawed, and Shepard themselves makes flawed decisions sometimes. Ultimately the Catalyst gives you a choice in the end, and Synthesis is the choice some people believed to be the best one.
I do agree anything the catalyst agrees with feeling like we loose. Who to say synthesis won’t stop them they’ll come back for another reason and it’s square one. Being human or not I’d rather destroy them, the relays and possibly AI can be rebuilt in time as soon and said in the perfect ending and “IF” synthetics turn against there creators then we’ll deal with that next our own way
Because the Catalyst gives Shepard choice. The Catalyst really tried to find out solution to this matter, the Catalyst tells Shepard that reapers can be destroyed and do not stops him if Shepard choses that optiotion. The Catalyst does it because he is aware that his solution is not relevant anymore.
One question to counter your "Synthesis is the happy ending" view: what happens to every single Husk after the ending? Unlike Destroy, they aren't wiped out and unlike Control they don't come under the Shepard AI. Just imagine what it would be like to be a Krogan or Turian that had been merged into a Brute (or one of the various amounts of Humans that make up Scions or Praetorians) and suddenly get your sentience back after the Crucible Pulse engulfs the area the Reapers had placed you in... existence after that would be horrifying, especially as there may not be any form of out as EDI mentions in her speech that it may be possible to fully eliminate death at some point in the future with Synthesis.
@@Bioshyn Nope because it's never done in the Mass Effect Universe to that scale (Shepard as the closest example took a fucktonne of time, money and expertise to do it for one person), and even if it were possible to create the bodies an actual transfer of consciousness never actually happens. At best you can think that Shepard in the Geth consensus but even then it's more akin with him viewing it, rather than his consciousness entering it. And even if you take it literal, Legion himself has to explain how massively different it is that it had to be changed to be able to be perceived by Shepard's organic mind. And at the all of that the biggest problem is that it still just isn't Mass Effect by that point, it's another franchise with ME paint on it. Kinda like that Halo show. It just wasn't the same as what came before.
I can't take this argument seriously because the "synthetic and organic must fight" BS makes no sense, if synthetic become like humans then they become like organics, do organic factions fight? yea but not necessarily, so why are synthetics different? If synthetics must eventually exterminate organics and that's your assumption for the story then fine, but don't say they've become like organics cuz they haven't. Either Synthetics are just evil and want to exterminate organics, or synthetics are just another faction like any other organic faction, they could be peaceful, they could be aggressive, don't necessarily have to fight and destroy everything, pick one.
The author of this video is either delusional, or just being a contrarian to milk some views out of (largely) dead francize. "Destroy" is clearly the only original ending that was left in ME3 after the (very hasty and sloppy) rewrite, with some baggage piled on top of it to make the two new endings at least somewhat appealing. Whatever the original motives of the Reapers were, and what was the intended counterpart to "Destroy" we will never know now.
the krogan pre genophage were a bigger threat then the geth. imagine the krogan getting a the ability to produce mass relays. it would be a galactic wide extinction event.
@@roiking2740 I can't really imagine that because there's not nearly enough information on how everything works, to imagine how that might turn out... I mean just for starters how does physical strength even matter in an interplanetary war?
@@chengong388 you kidding me? you know krogans have enigneers? and scientist? krogan are not stupid they just like violence and have no disregard for life. they had dreadnoughts during the krogan rebellions. and they nearly won the war... they pose a greater threat to the galaxy then the geth and before them the rachni pose a threat to the galaxy another organic race. freaking the geth would like wont even reach the top ten greatest threats for the galactic community.
Considering all the times I have gone through the game, I have chosen all of them, but my main one is Synthesis. In Synthesis, organics become more synthetic. That means Joker's Vroliks would more then likely be cured. That means Joker can get laid by EDI without serious injury. So I am being the ultimate wingman for the guy that has been with me since the beginning.
This is certainly the intended message of this option. The only problem being it's wrong. There is no point in reaching something if you must give up who you are to get there? This is a villain mindset, giving up your humanity to chase after "better" world.
ah, but did you give up your humanity? Or did you give your humanity and melt it together with something else, creating something new, something great? I think the problem most of the fandom have with the green ending is (and I initially had, too, I cried like a baby the first time I chose it) that you have to sacrifice your Shepard for it. You do not in fact sacrifice your humanity, you are sacrificing your whole self with it (granted you played your Shepard like an extension of your own self). That hurts and you don't want to face any facts saying that that is the right choice.
@@leoniee1545 The thing is, the only reason to believe it's better that way is Catalyst, crazy galaxy wide genocide repeating AI, telling you it is. You rewrite the DNA of the whole galaxy because the main villain told you so. Even Albert Wesker has more info on his bioweapons before he tries to sature the world with them. Also, I don't consider any of the endings as Shepard surviving and even if there was a way I have no problem with giving my life to save the galaxy if I believe in the solution. If anything the way I play Shepard makes Syntesis the best for him to go in character, finally achieving his lifelong passion of inserting his DNA into hot women on galaxy wide scale.
There is no one answer. Is the sum of my being due to the organic composition of my body, or my soul? If I have to lose an arm to survive an infection, am I no longer the same person with 2 arms? If I then equip a prosthetic arm to function like before, am I giving up my organic fealty and being a villain? One has to accept, to grow is to discard the old and embrace the new. To correct my wrongs, and learn to be right. To choose peace over violence. Can I accept that a machine designed exactly the same as a human being with the exact set of memories, and will act exactly the same, be deemed the same person?
But the whole point of the Geth plotline is that "humanity", or perhaps more accurately "personhood", isn't limited to organic life. Synthesize might turn all organic bodies into synthetic units, but those units still have souls. Well, at least if you take it at face value, but that's a whole other can of worms.
There are 2 problems with this logic. First the game mechanics. Red gives us what we've worked for 3 games.There are casualties, but the scenes shown don't 100% match what the kid told us was going to happen. If all Geth are really dead, then shouldn't the Quarian suits have been destroyed as well? After all, the computers on the ships still work and people with implants seem to still be alive. Blue gives us what Cerberus wanted. Shepard literally becomes a god here and no one knows what he will do in the future. Green sounds perfect, but there's a fatal problem. We know absolutely nothing about the consequences because we've only known for 10 seconds that it even exists. And as I said, the child is not a credible source. Also, Shepard literally plays God here. So if you want to be on the safe side, you have to choose red, because most of the consequences are known and if the child is wrong, it will even get better. Second, you assume that the child's AI is intelligent. That's not the case. Like the Borg, this AI is incapable of learning. It can only assimilate and never achieves understanding, otherwise it would have found a working solution to the problem long ago. It even compares itself to fire, a mindless force of nature. This AI found its solution and just like Thanos' plan, it makes no sense if you think about it for more than 5 minutes. How long is this supposed to go on? Until the last star has burned out and there is no more life in the Milky Way? The entire behavior of the AI is illogical. Desperate to continue the cycle, it refuses to make peace, but at the same time it offers Shepard to destroy all Reapers. That's schizophrenic. This AI is nothing more than a stupid computer that has been given too much power. So there can be no talk of an ultimate plan. Whatever this AI has come up with, it refuses to tell us more about it and probably doesn't know it itself. What is supposed to be the best ending is nothing more than a gamble where you don't know the terms and conditions, nor the prize at the end. All you have are the few words of a flawed AI.
You're overthinking it. The game presents synthesis as actually good, not a lie or a misunderstanding. It IS good, it does work, and that's what matters. At the end of the day it's just a story, and seeing it as a story helps. It's good because it's shown to be good afterwards. There you go.
@@devilskind92 I do not agree with it. If you don't know why something is good and you're only told, is it really good then, or does the person telling you this just think it's good? We know absolutely nothing about synthesis. It can be the perfect ending, but it can just as easily turn anyone into Reapers with a shared consciousness. The end video would look identical in either case.
@@devilskind92 That's your interpretation, but other interpretations are valid, too. Yes, if you take the Star Child at face value, Synthesize pretty much is the unambiguous good ending, but there's also the interpretation that the Reapers are attempting to indoctrinate Shepard, and that Synthesize and Control represent Shepard succumbing to Indoctrination. You can also interpret, say, the Control ending as Shepard successfully defeating the Reapers in a battle of wills despite their Indoctrination attempts. It's left open-ended enough that all of these are valid interpretations. Maybe not deliberately, but death of the author (Or, developer, as it were) applies here.
over a billion years, the revolt of AI is inevitable. Given Synthetics are superior to organics in every way, the destruction of all organic life is a certainty. The Cycles are a way of forestalling this until this ending-the union of machine and flesh can be achieved. I am glad to see someone else has realized this.
Yeah no went with red, because allowing the Reapers to survive was never an option and if the price for their complete destruction is legion and his geth, than that was a sacrifice I was willing to make, not lightly but better than becoming a tyrant or forcing the entirety of existence into a new form we had no way of knowing the dangers of. All I know is that the Jesus endings realy don't work on video games.
Well I dont want the Geth and EDI to die, and the Synthesis "New Form of Life" ironically already exists as Shepard, a Cyborg, or maybe even Ryder in Mass Effect Andromeda, a organic with a AI partner implanted in their mind, a symbiotic relationship, which they are very explicitly presented as such.
@@jakespacepiratee3740 But you can potentially lose your personhood. And you'd be knowingly pushing your ideal onto an entire galaxy. On the other hand, the Geth, EDI, and everyone in that fight went in knowing they might lose, and everyone would die. The only morally just ending, is destroy.
@@Thundah_Dome Do you have evidence that Synthesis removes personhood? This claim is even weirder when its actually the final stage of EDI's voice-Humanization, implying she now has more personhood than ever.
@@jakespacepiratee3740 I also said potentially. Think about it: what would take over, and ancient machine who's killed several generations of people, or tiny organic beings. Robot wins. Will it happen? Idk, but my playthrough wouldn't find out cause I nuked em. Justice.
@@Thundah_Dome So all the minds enslaved inside the Reapers just get killed, and actual friends like Geth who have ironically been made good via Reaper tech, and EDI...justice.
Did you watch the whole video lol? I talk about how I don’t think that shows anything, and there are many examples of synthetics coming together with organics and “showing” it can work but in every instance it falls apart like old protean data entries we can read that is the point I’m getting at. And why I think green is the most “poetic” ending at least
Ahh someone else who like the Green ending. Honestly for my commander Shepherd, and the choices we made (including getting the geth and qunari to reconcile), it seemed to be the best and most fitting choice.
Yup, at first I did destroyed. Then realized I killed all synthetics, which I worked so hard to unite. I would pick destroy if they didn’t kill off synthetic
@@noelmanu4794The thing is, the synthetics will inevitably come back, and with the lessons learned, people will be better in working with synthetics. And one more thing, David Archer from me2 has the geth source code IN HIS HEAD! The geth can be remade!
Taking away free will from the entire galaxy is exactly the same as wiping out all forms of life. The blue ending fails to account for eternity; Shepard will get corrupted over time. The green ending is the typical machine ending, as machines fail to understand that life isn't what we're fighting for. Freedom is. The red ending is the human ending. It's the "We heard your warning, but we'll try anyway" ending. It's the only one that makes sense for Shepard to choose.
Honestly I think the preference for the Destruction end shows that most fans learned *nothing* from the Geth struggle against the Quarians, and its ideal outcome. Not only does it kick the can down the road, but it's an active condemnation of the morals of those who chose it. Survival through genocide? What are you saving then, _actually_? I won't go so far as to give credit to the Reapers as if their misunderstood heroes, no, they're still the villains of the story, but that's because they're making the same choice as the majority of fans. Eradication as salvation. And YES, synthesis, despite whatever stretched out theories you concoct to the contrary, does solve the problem pretty thoroughly and allows for progress, growth, and understanding on a deeper level. All goals worth the effort.
A logical narrative, indeed! I was always between synthesis and destroy, yet, I always chose the destroy ending for the following reasons: 1) by the end of ME3 we pretty much had proof or at least some hopeful outlook that synthetics and organics can work and co-exist together, they just need to understand each other more (Geth-Quarians, conversations with EDI, etc.). 2) I always wondered if the Leviatans were really part of the issue - by excercising organic indoctrination. They talked in absolutes and were 100% sure that we make the same mistakes over and over again. But could it be that their organic indoctrination contributed to all this? Remember Maelon's narrative which is in fact the statement coming from Mordin: an indoctrinated mind will always result in some cognitive degradation. And let's not forget that maybe the Catalyst AI was not perfectly written either (see AI bias from real-life examples - Leviatans having biased assumptions make biased AI). 3) I felt that after all the sacrifices, the galaxy would remember the good examples and would handle the next generation of its AI creation differently. It is really not that hard to remember this, once the whole galaxy was set on fire... 4) I really felt that synthesis is basically non-consentual and a convenient escape route instead of getting to the next level of acceptance and empathy synthetics and organics eventually must reach to learn to co-exist.
1) yet the hopeful outlook from the fact that some organics and synthetics learn to co-exist and work together leads you to exterminate those very same synthetics...?
@@Klijpo yeah that is the main issue with the destroy ending right? What I meant: after the destroy ending the next gen will know how to handle/approach future synthetics. Killing the geth is unfortunately a collateral damage in our cycle... Geth by the way did not die out - as implied by the next ME posters ;)
@@openorigami Well, just because one group possibly gets it right doesn't mean someone else isn't able to feck it up again in the future. The Geth-esque poster certainly implies they will be involved in some way in the next game. However, not necessarily that they're still alive. If they are still alive, that should mean the Destroy ending is not canon, despite so many on the interwebs insisting that it is canonised. If BW end up invalidating peoples choices by changing the context of the endings (allowing the Geth to live in a Destroy ending does exactly that), well that would be an awful F-U to all those who did not pick Destroy. Hopefully BW will find a way to acknowledge all of the endings...
@@Klijpo I think there is implication that SOME geth might have left the Milky Way before ME3 (I might be willing to accept it, regardless of choosing the destroy ending). In fact, they did look into Andromeda with a special mass relay as of ME Andromeda's narrative. In this case I would wonder which geth made it out (Heretics or Legion's). Regardless, I totally agree with you, the best would be if all endings were canon and Bioware managed to handle the ME3 imports as well as the narrative in an elegant way. Let's hole for the best!
@@openorigami Yeah, fingers crossed. It doesn't even need an import - there's only really 3 questions to address: The Genophage, The Quarian-Geth War, and The Reapers. This could be done with a Q&A at the start, much like Shepard's background. Could even use Liara's VI as a format, and give us extra context. And I'd forgotten about the Geth potentially leaving the Milky Way - that does allow them to exist in a Destroy ending. :)
I think this is probably the most coherent and well spoken defense of the synthesis ending I've ever heard. I still disagree with just about everything you've said but I think if anyone has made a strong defense of the idea it's you. If I may though I'd like to point out the failings I see in the proposed concepts. Let's start at the top, the cycle itself. The Reapers are by and large entirely responsible for the repetition of the cycle. They guide technology and societies down a prescribed path putting forward the very advancements that enable the creation of AI which invariably repeats the cycle. It wouldn't be difficult for them to maintain an active role in the galaxy and indeed simply forbid the production of AI while providing all the necessary technologies for advancement that AI normally fulfill. They could also simply provide an alternative like the organic tech of the Collectors, providing programmed organic drones to complete tasks that AI otherwise would. The next problem though comes from a fairly obvious oversight that the synthesis ending somewhat touches on yet never really recognizes. A concept which is otherwise heavily explored and considered in other speculative fiction. That of cybernetics and human augmentation. For highly advanced societies everyone seems to forget that they could simply integrate mechanical parts into themselves to match synthetics. Indeed, the questions posed are obliterated as organic life integrates greater levels of augmentation into itself blurring the line between organic and synthetic. The reapers could again, simply engage with the galaxy as its "guardians" and any society that achieves technological significance is simply guided down a path of synthesis long before it ever becomes an issue. Societies which do not comply can simply have their development arrested. It seems like a far simpler solution than billions of years of persistent harvesting. We do not exist in the Mass Effect universe nor do we have their technology yet we at our current level we can hypothesize and work towards such concepts. How has it not occurred to anyone in their galaxy yet alone the Reapers. The other issue though is that the synthesis ending would simply never happen. First, such an action would spark an all out holy war across the galaxy. You cannot convert trillions of organisms, without their consent, into an entirely new species because "it'll stop the war". Plenty of individuals and species would in fact rather die than submit to this. Enacting such an action would almost immediately result in unimaginable sectarian violence. It would shatter that galaxy. Beyond that though is the overall problem of *consent*. You're rewriting these individuals on a fundamental level, changing their innate natures into something entirely different, and arguably eliminating all racial diversity in the galaxy. Then the synthesis, extended ending, has the gall to show people accepting the Reapers and their assistance in helping to rebuild. This just would not happen. People aren't suddenly going to be okay with the Reapers. Just imagine the scenario, John average office worker was pressed into the war when the Reapers invaded. He watched on TV as a Reaper vaporized his home town as his mother cried in fear over the phone before it went silent. He had to kill the resurrected husk of his wife and daughter. Oh but now the war is over and everyone's been synthesized whether they like it or not so he's just going to be fine with that. No. That would not happen. The *best* case scenario would be the immediate demand that the Reapers shut themselves down permanently and irreversibly to prevent, again, the outbreak of unimaginable sectarian violence. To me though outside of any of that is what the synthesis ending really says in regards to Mass Effect. Throughout the first two games the prevailing message is one of hope, unity, diversity, and compromise. That the diversity and uniqueness of life and synthetic life in the galaxy is important, special, and worth fighting for. And that people of all races and backgrounds can be brought together in common cause, that bridges can be built, and that we can find a way forward together. The synthesis ending says no to that. That no matter /what/ or /how hard/ the races of the galaxy try to /ever/ create unity between organics and synthetics that they are too different. They cannot live together. They /will/ ultimately kill each other. So the only solution is to make every race in the galaxy the same so that functionally those differences will no longer exist. Superficial differences may still exist but effectively there will only be one race and thus it cannot go to war with itself over its differences. That's what the synthesis ending says to me and why I do not like it.
Plus, there is no guarantee that the Reapers wouldn't be a threat again for an entirely different reason, Synthesized civilizations could theoretically be harvested by the Reapers for the sake of "ascension" when the time has come for that civilization, and the new inherent connection between them and Reapers would make it easier for the Reapers to control them and make them submit to the whole process. The whole objective of the Catalyst is the preservation of all life in the galaxy, and Synthesis only temporary causes a ceasefire due to mass confusion and supposedly new existential, enlightenment on a galactic scale. The Reapers would save a specific race from extinction through harvesting them, no different from how they did things in previous cycles. Extinction events can happen without the threat of synthetics. Synthesis says nothing about synthesized organics becoming immortal, maybe longer lifespan...but not immortality. Well, EDI says they could surpass mortality... but even if they could do it... what does this mean for the Milky Way? Without limitations, there's no motivation for progression and advancement, stagnation is the result. Either synthesis or control, the Reapers would still have control and influence over galactic affairs, with or without our consent. At least with Destroy, organic life have a chance to learn from their mistakes and be free to make their own choices through trial and error, but at least the mistakes of organic life are far less devastating than the hands of immortal bug-like robots.
@@UnspokenOldOne The only way that I can see the Reapers being alive is when in the Control ending, AI Shepard turns them into something else, more nerfed, and depowered. Basically rendering them on the same equal footing as the organics that they've been harvesting for millions of years. Basically become something similar like the humanoid Geth. And then send them off somewhere at the edges of the galaxy far off Citadel space, forced to relearn and experience what organics do every day. For a case like the Reapers, if it were possible, then even shutting them down is too good of a fate for them.
@@ziephel-6780 Yeah that's basically what I was thinking too with my post. No one is going to just accept the Reapers and they'd have to be effectively neutered to be accepted.
@@UnspokenOldOne And by doing so, it would pretty much prove that the Reaper's methods were fundamentally flawed and wrong on all accounts. And the Reapers didn't exactly try to save themselves in the Destroy ending, they just accepted their fate with those in space having their systems shut down abruptly without pain or agony like the organics that they've slaughtered. Doing it this way would ensure that the cycle wouldn't repeat itself the same way, because the galaxy would have living examples on some uninhabitable planets.
I disagree that the destruction merely postponed the synthetic/reaper conflict. If you brokered a peace between geth and quarians, the geth become martyrs. The cooperation they did becomes an example that destruction isn't the only possibility. As for the crucible name, it fits all 3 endings. It's just that it's most obvious for synthesis. Control is a new ruler/controller of the Reapers were, under Shepard's guidance, they change their goal. Destruction is different, new, as for the first time since the creation of the Reapers, there is a possibility of life outside of the cycle of annihilation. They can evolve civilization in a path not contrived by the Reapers. There is no correct ending, and only one incorrect one (refusal). Only shades of grey. Each ending has upsides and downsides. Unless of course you prescribe to the indoctrination theory
I did synthesis tge first time i played theough ME but the moment i did i had a visceral flashback to Mordin in ME2 going on about the collectors. Limitations and attempting to conquer said limitations are the very reason civilizations advance. Without limitations society as a whole stagnates and implodes. Without hardship the joyful memonets in life become hollow and the satisfaction gained quckly produces diminishing returns. Without struggle life loses a lot of its meaning and weight.
The thing is the synthesis ending in the extended game showed that all of those dangers you are worried about are there. EDI's lines prove that she is an individual. That shows that there will still be conflicts between peoples that will come up later on, and is implicit in EDI's presence there. A.I are now biological, and understand that. How they respond to that will be of an individual matter, which EDI also hints at. On top of all of that, is that synthesis is what every indigenous people always state in the world today. That the land is part of their people, and the people are part of the land, and there is no distinction between those ideas. That land is not to be controlled, or destroyed. It is to be looked after. Why should all matter of intelligent life not have that same ideal? Synthesis makes that important ideal an instant reality.
Synthesis is a bad ending cloaked as an answer to a question that needed ambiguity. Having shepard force the entire galaxy to practically change their entire beings with no knowledge or consent is pretty fked up. The only defense to synthesis is "the ends justify the means" which is a mind set that has been used by some of the worst people in history, reapers included. Synthesis comes out of no where at the end of the trilogy with absolutely no build up.
That was one of many problems with Synthesis. If you have the right EMS score, you can force the entire galaxy into some Frankenstein's monster. For their own good, of course. As I've complained many times it all goes against what Sovereign said in the first game when he says that all organics advance along the paths they desire based on the Mass Relays and the Citadel, and element zero. They've planned our destruction since before we built the first Polis, not become of some synthetic/organic dichotomy that would have been very localized had Sovereign's signal to the Keepers been originally activated, hundreds of years before the events of the first game.
Your argument about knowledge and consent is flawed. All decisions force one man's decision on everyone. Destroy all sentient synthetics: Shepard's decision is forced upon 2 races plus Edi, resulting in genocide. Control the Reapers: His will is forced upon the Reapers just as they forced indoctrination and harvesting on an uncounted number of races. Two wrongs make a right? Synthesis: All life, whether sentient, non-sentient, organic, or non-organic is thrust upon a new path of evolution with no say in the matter and doesn't guarantee peace, only that organic vs. synthetic can't happen. Do nothing: Shepard decides that the harvesting will continue, resulting in the deaths of an unknown number of future people.
I don't hate the green ending but if I'm reflecting on Shepard's character and the sacrifices he and other characters have made, the red ending is the clear choice. Shepard's will would never allow him to deviate from his mission from the beginning. He would never buy the argument the Reapers gave him about preserving life
Seems more likely than turning their back on 3 games of having it rubbed in their face that synthetics are very much alive and feeling, the freindships most players will have made with multiple AIs, and just saying 'fuck it, genocide em all, its the only way'...
@@reidwallace4258 But ever since Shepard set out on their mission, the objective was clear: destroy the Reapers at all costs. Throughout the entire series, they have encountered every threat the Reapers pose within the entire known universe, they have had to make sacrifices on their mission (Kaiden or Ashley, Anderson, Legion, Thane, depending on player choice, the Rachni and the Krogan) and they've been aware of Indoctrination since the very first game because of Saren, and then the Illusive Man. It would make no sense for them to suddenly turn around and go "You know what, maybe these genocidal murder squids have a point." As the Catalyst themselves said, "What is destroyed will be rebuilt, and the cycle will begin anew." Except it won't, because Shepard showed the galaxy their mistakes regarding synthetics, and they won't be rebuilt with mindset of just making a tool. What gets destroyed can and will be repaired and restored, with the new mindset that Shepard instilled in them. The point is, sacrifice is nothing new to Shepard. This is very much a case of "The needs of the many vs the needs of the few." Sure, they COULD Control or Synthesise like the Reapers suggest, but what reason does Shepard have to believe they're telling the truth when the entire series they've been lying, manipulating, controlling countless people for the end goal of total annihilation? Especially after they had just moments before witnessed the Illusive Man under Indoctrination murder the closest thing to a mentor and father figure they had throughout the series. The Illusive Man wanted to Control them, and you spend the entire game trying to convince him that he only thinks it's possible because the Reapers have Indoctrinated him to think it is. Then suddenly right after killing him, you can just go "The Reapers have told me it's possible to Control them or merge with them. I think they're telling me the truth!" THAT is turning your back on three games worth of tragedy and sacrifice.
@@morganfitch8325 I just don't see it. I mean, I get where you are coming from, but it just doesn't balance out, doesn't add up. From the opening hours of ME1 we are shown repeatedly that monsters, frankly, arn't. The Racchni, the Krogan, if ME is fundementally about anything its about the foolishness of painting with a broad brush, and trying to solve your problems with big, irreversible decisions. It is a good thing the Racchni survived, a damned good thing the genophage didn't work any better than it did, and arguably could have been a net postitive to spare the geth if the space RV enthusiests hadn't had such a chip on their shoulders. Again and again the story tells us that no, what you thought was a monster that needed to be exterminated was infact not that... Then we turn around and exerminate a monster? IDGAF what Shepards 'orders' were at the start of this adventure, those orders arn't the game we played threw. The sacrafices that were made were personal and painful, yes, but they were also for a good cause, not blind faith in a simple order. We didn't gun down legion because we feared that someday AI would go rogue and kill us all, we gunned him down because he was going to fight to defend himself, because he wanted to live, because he was alive... That implies life not just in legion, and ede, but every other geth and past and future synthetic lifeform. That makes the red ending into picking which races decerve to live and wiping the others out, not turning off the lights when you are done with them... which is frankly, the least heroic ending we are offered... although unsurprisingly, yes you are right, it IS what the uninformed military command structure technically ordered us to do... which should honestly be a big red flag in and of itself.
@@morganfitch8325 It's bold of you to assume that this cycle would be any different from the previous ones, or that the races of the Galaxy would "learn their lesson" about creating synthetics because of something Shepard did. The leviathans said it themselves that organic races created synthetic life, and it wiped them out, time and time again, without fail. The leviathans have no reason to lie to Shepard, since they never intended to let Shepard leave that ocean.
I'd still go with Destroy. The Geth and EDI just feel like temporary losses. They are pretty much just computer parts too and software/coding, which can be brought back, especially with how advanced technology is in the Mass Effect universe. And we don't know how bad the damage is for the Geth and EDI. If you pay attention to when EDI takes over Eva's body earlier in the game, she says that she still primarily functions in the Normandy. The physical body is just an extension of her and she controls it. And she can't get too far from the Normandy with the body or else she loses control of it. It's never said what the max distance is that she can get to the Normandy before she loses control of the body. So what part of EDI dies in the Destroy ending? The physical body? The AI Core in the Normandy? Both? Never stated. I'm just going to assume it's the physical body. And if it's just the body, then they can easily get EDI a new physical body. And if her AI Core in the Normandy got fried/destroyed as well, we don't know just how badly it's damaged. Maybe just one small part got fried/damaged that can be easily replaced. Same with the Geth. Just one part that can be easily replaced is all that possibly got fried/damaged. But even if the damage is massive, and how advanced technology is in the Mass Effect universe, it shouldn't be too difficult to re-write EDI and the Geth's coding/software, whether it's from scratch or some back up that got saved somewhere. There was a back up of the genophage cure (well, if you chose to save the data). Maybe somewhere there is a back up of EDI's coding and the Geth coding. Then throw in that Shepard united EVERYONE (if you do things correctly). If they have to rebuild EDI and the Geth from scratch or an a new synthetic life altogether, it's possible they can prevent another cycle since everyone is cooperating with each other and stuff better than when the Quarians created the Geth. And The Child is going off calculations/math and what it assumes. It doesn't think like an organic. I see The Child pulling a C-3P0. Threepio is always telling everyone the odds of surviving something and makes it sound like there is no if's, and, or but's. But Han Solo always responds with, "never tell me the odds" and is able to get out of the situation and prove Threepio wrong. Threepio doesn't think like an organic. It's also hard to trust The Child too since he'll say that Shepard WILL die if Destroy is picked. No if's, and's, or but's, but Shepard CAN survive the Destroy option (if war assets are high enough). So if The Child is wrong about that, what else is he wrong about? It just goes back to this whole assume thing. Oh and The Child says something VERY questionable when going over the Destroy option. The kid will says something like whoever survives the blast, they can easily repair everything that is lost and should have no trouble bringing stuff back. What is the major loss of the Destroy option besides the relays getting destroyed? EDI and the Geth. The Child never specifies stuff, but it sure sounds like that EDI and the Geth can be brought back. Even in Hackett's epilogue speech, he lists all that stuff that can be fixed over time, but the major thing to pay attention to is that he says "and more." What's "and more?" Could that mean EDI and the Geth? Another thing I caught on to during my current playthrough of ME3 is that there is a cutscene/conversation between EDI and Shepard. From that conversation, it sounds like EDI would be okay with dying and Shepard picking Destroy. She says she is willing to sacrifice herself to allow Jeff/Joker to go on, and she'd accept death if she knew ahead of time that Jeff/Joker is going to be okay. So in that moment you are picking the option, I can hear EDI telling Shepard that it's okay and she'll want Jeff/Joker to go on living and be fine dying as long as Jeff/Joker gets to go on living. There is some other reasons too I prefer Destroy over the others. Control is what The Illusive Man wanted while Synthesis is what Saren wanted. Both were indoctrinated. I can't get behind options that indoctrinated characters (especially them being villain characters) wanted while Destroy is what un-indoctrinated characters like Hackett, Anderson, and even Javik wanted. Even Shepard wants to destroy the Reapers throughout all three games up until The Child mentions the Control option. Then there is that if you pick Destroy, Shepard's eyes remain normal the last time we see him/her, but in Control and Synthesis, Shepard's eyes get that indoctrination look. Plus Shepard will turn to pretty much a husk right before his/her body disappears. And then there is how The Child will disappear after a choice is selected. In Control and Synthesis, The Child will hang around and seem like it's celebrating, but if Destroy is picked, The Child disappears immediately and in a hurry and almost angry. Something seems off about how The Child disappears. And it's a little odd too that The Child brings up Destroy first and makes it sound like the worst possible choice. It seems like The Child is trying to persuade Shepard into thinking it's the worst possible option, especially with throwing in the whole thing of EDI and the Geth dying. Another argument is that having a high war asset number will not only unlock the Synthesis option, but the Destroy ending that allows Shepard to live. The Shepard lives stuff isn't part of the Destroy ending by default. You have to earn it. So yeah. I'd say Destroy is the best option. There is more to it and more to think about than just "it's the ending that Shepard can survive." I feel Control and Synthesis have more doom in them than Destroy. In Control, pretty sure that what Shepard merges themselves with is adaptable and will eventually overthrow Shepard/make Shepard obsolete and regain control. Same thing with Synthesis. The Reapers are still alive and the part of them that Shepard merges themselves with could adapt, take over, and defeat Shepard. Then harvest everyone in the Milky Way Galaxy, turning them into Reapers, and then they go invade another galaxy like the Andromeda Galaxy and start the whole process over. I'd rather just pick Destroy and take my chances of everyone possibly starting a new cycle or learning from their mistakes and doing things correctly to prevent another cycle.
I actually liked the endings, i just hated how the war assets system worked overall Anyway, i'm very surprised how you managed to make synthesis a more interesting choice without using some sort of indoctrination theory bs, however i still prefer choosing destroy ending, but not the normal destroy, more specifically the ending where shepard survives if you get 7800 war assets (in legendary edition, idk how much in original) Yeah, we lose the geth and EDI, true that, maybe not even properly cure the genophage too. However in terms of continuity this destroy variant is the best one to continue the story (and even before mass effect 4 was teased, i still believed in that) The Galaxy can still rebuild and start a fresh life without the reapers (unless the leviathans feel a little trolling), and if i remember in Andromeda it showed the krogans developing an anti-genophage mutation in their Dna, so maybe the milky way krogans have a salvation too But to be fair, i don't necessarily see synthesis ending as something bad, in fact this is what saren wanted all this time. And this ending was supposed to be the perfect closure the devs thought about the trilogy
I still don't understand this Saren argument. Saren didn't want synthesis. He wanted to exchange bare existence for obedience and ultimately slavery to reapers. Much more closer to Keepers than to synthesis. Also, the destroy ending makes so little sense to me. The pulse would fry all syntethycs (and Starchild mention that Shep is "partly synthetic" means to me that it would just fry all advanced electronics like a massive EMP pulse). "The pulse won't discriminate" - apart of EDI and Geth, Quarians would die in their electronic suits. Countless of organics would perish on starships without working life support. Anything using VI and maybe even basic microchips would fail. Galaxy would be torn apart, every single colony out there dependent on interstellar trade for food would die out. New dark age would arrive and I don't see a lot of survivors there. Plus, as the Starchild said, "The peace won't last". Sure, the post-game scene paint very different picture where Shep can even survive, but it makes so little sense after how it is explained ingame... It just baffles me how this is considered a good ending.
@@anthonyjackob7192 I also feel I have to add that the Destroy ending utterly lacks perspective... Cconsidering for example the Geth making peace with organics to be some kind of proof that the Reapers are wrong is quite idiotic and shortsighted since it tells you absolutely nothing about what might happen in the next thousand years... ten thousand, hundred thousand years. The Reapers (and their creators) are the only real authority on what actually typically happens across such timeframes. And asserting that they are 'wrong' just because... one can't *know* for 100% certain that this cycle isn't different from all the rest and will remain so indefinitely is hubris of cosmic magnitude. I usually go a big step further than just claiming Synthesis is the best ending. I say Destruction is the worst possible ending. Worse than Refusal. You're dismantling a safeguard put in place by and consisting of beings with a collective scale of perspective and experience that you couldn't even begin to wrap your mind around.
@@anthonyjackob7192 IMO it's that all the endings are "bad" in very potent and obvious ways. Control, you just pass the buck down the line. Destroy you knock the galaxy back more than a few tech tiers but still break the system that was set up to. synthesis...forcing an evolution is still eradicating the source species. Granted the alternative is the galaxy getting system reset regardless.
If you think the Starchild is lying about the final outcome of Destroy or Synthesis, then it can also lie about which colors do what. You picked Red? Gotcha. That was Synthesis the whole time and everything you saw was an indoctrination illusion. Thanks for playing!
Starchild could also just be lying about the outcomes. Not like Shepard is around to know if it actually does what the Starchild said it would. The only outcome that has ”Shepherd” explain anything is the control option and even then how are we even sure “HE” is telling us the truth. The only ending that has Shepard survive is the Destroy ending. When you get a high enough score for War Assets.
@@jamesusurper9676 but then you don't know what he's waking up to. My point is that putting your fingers in your ears and pretending Synthesis is somehow made up is a terrible way to interpret the endings. It's not the starchild that's talking at that point. It's the developers
@@michaelspence2508 exactly and I can’t trust the devs either. The end reveal for what the Reapers where doing was originally gonna be about Dark Energy and how it was destroying the Universe. So I can’t trust the shaky ending.
@@michaelspence2508 my guy their story wasn’t theirs after EA was involved. The original plot line can still be seen in ME2 when you get Tali. The Dark Energy the was messing with the star. The big reveal at the end of ME3 was that the Reapers were actually the “good guys” because Dark Energy was speeding up the destruction of the universe.
Regardless of the sophistry in this video, you had it right in the beginning, about time stamp 0:40. The problem with the ending was that it made everything that happened in the three games irrelevant, and that is why it was a bad ending
I dont think that is necessarily accurate, each game sent its results to the next game: what you did mattered because it shaped Shepard as a person through growth and trial. The ending represent the penultimate decision, the last choice that your journey has shaped you for. In real life, our "choices" are often meaningless in the run of things, only sometimes do we have the ability to make a choice that defines who we are and what our individual purpose is: and even then at the end of all things, we and the world are but dust. The choices matter because we make them matter to us, and they require no further justification then that. On a different not: not irrelevant because the games gave us the information and emotional connection to make that choice.
In my first ever play through of Mass Effect I avoided all spoilers this was when Legendary Edition came out. When I got to the end I felt on one hand choosing Destroy (Red) wasn't something I'd do in that situation in real life. For Control (Blue) now that one was tempting as you'd be the Ultimate power in the Galaxy. Then I came to Synthesis (Green) this one felt like everyone would be happy combining Reapers with Living species to create the Ultimate Peace. So I took the ending of "What would I do in this situation if it was real life" in the end I took the choice I'd choose if I was given this choice in real life which was Synthesis (Green). I thought the ending was good. I did however replay the ending to see the other 3 the last been shooting the Star Child.
I agree with Zoux. In the first playthrough where I had the choice of all 3, I went Green. It felt like the morally right choice. Red = delaying the inevitable which is continuous war. Blue = enslavement to a single person who could be corrupted or replaced by the Reapers. Green = peace and prosperity for all species, where there is no deception or secret faction because everyone is linked; and God help any future species that tries to attack a united galaxy. Everyone is free to disagree. Having no clear ending choice creates eternal discussions (and arguments) and keeps us talking about Mass Effect, which keeps generating money for Bioware and the many, many YT channels doing click-bait videos like this. At the end of the day, the choice you make is only right to you. Calling everyone else wrong ... is wrong. And the same goes to you @FranklyGaming Also Zoux: If you play it again, there are 2 excellent mods that change the ending and remove the star child. It only allows a Red ending but it does a better job of explaining it. And it's probably good to have that done before ME4 comes out as that will likely be a continuation of Red. Plus it's an excuse to play it again :) There are so many good mods coming out now for the Legendary Edition. Start with the ME3Tweaks Mod Manager and get Take Earth Back and Audemus' Happy Ending Mod. Other good ones are One Probe All Resources (LE2), A Lot Of Videos, Dreams, Community Patch, N8 Weapons Remix, Unrestricted Weapon Upgrades, and most mods from WiredTexan.
@@donkeysunited mate green means mass indocrination. you are literally deprived of your free will, this is proof on the fact people did not chooice to destroy the reapers after they become "pasificed". also green produce what krogan would call hell, no one is aggressive. end of conflict. its exceedingly stupid.
@@roiking2740 They aren't indoctrinated in the synthesis ending. The Catalyst already explained that Organics were augmenting their own bodies with synthetic enhancements and Synthetics were trying to understand Organics. The synthesis ending gives both sides what they need to be able to co-exist in peace. That being Organics (all organic material actually including plants, etc) are now genetically part synthetic and Synthetics now have a perfect understanding of Organics. In the EC, EDI explains this, that the Reapers gave the galaxy the vast knowledge of every cycle before them and every race used that knowledge to rebuild and be at peace, at least for the foreseeable future, who knows what will happen in millions or even a few thousand years.
Synthetic has always been the right choice in my opinion. Not only do you end all the wars, but you unlock the knowledge of the past the reapers been holding int their data banks since ancient times.
I chose synthesis on my playthrough because the other options seemed unacceptable to me. I didn't just make peace between Geth and Quarians just to destroy one of them shortly after. And control would just make me benevolent dictator, which isn't desirable for any civilization. So green all the way, it was the only thing that really made sense.
On face value, I can understand where you're coming from. But when you think a little harder, and go a little deeper, you'll realize how sinister Synthesis really is. First off - Garrus explicitly states that this is a war where choices between dooming 10 million to save 2 billion lives is going to be the norm. It's tragic to doom the Geth so soon after negotiating a peace with them... but to save the Galaxy, to destroy the Reapers, it's a cost that all civilizations agreed that they'd be willing to pay. (As an aside, the Geth might have survived the Destroy ending, as they had many outposts and servers in dark space). Secondly - Control is the worst ending hands down, as you said, since a benevolent dictator is the best case scenario if you chose Blue... Shepard's mind would replace the Starchild, in essence, and even a full Paragon Shep is far from a perfect person. However, Synthesis does something even more sinister. It robs every single sentient being in the Milky Way of free will. This violation of consent, something that was never agreed upon and has unknown ramifications, is also the only option in which the Reapers maintain their "souls"/lives. Blue submits them to the control of the new AI, and Red destroys them. So, in a sense, you're falling blindly into the option that the Starchild *clearly* prefers and changing the very fabric of existence without the consent of trillions or any idea of the fall-out or ramifications. Finally - No Utopia should be free. The Milky Way is not alone, and the only galaxy effected. What if the Space Magic of Synthesis could be undone? Why should a galaxy that only *just* took the first steps to prove the Reapers/Starchild/Leviathans wrong just take a short cut to 'perfection', when they could take what they learned and reach Synthesis organically, and by choice. In order to create true and lasting peace, the building blocks of that peace should be learned, so that when tests or tragedy strikes, that peace can be maintained and rebuilt. So, while Perfect Destroy isn't a perfect option, I still hold that it's the best option, if only because it ends the dominating Reapers Cycle and allows this fledgling universe to continue it's struggle towards creating a stable and peaceful galactic community.
I just finishing the trilogy a second time because at first try I could not save both the Geth and the Quarians. Without that detail the synthesis ending is just does not feel right, even if it really the only solution of the basis problem of the whole trilogy.
Same here, I didn’t spend all that time making sure the geth and quarians got along so I could just destroy them in the end, green seemed like the best option even if it meant Shepard dies
@@jglerum94 I mean if you think about it, synthesis is a more preferable choice in my opinion, if you choose to help the geth than whether you acknowledge it or not your saying that the geth are indeed a form of life, and no matter what justification you give, destroy would essentially be you backtracking on that, and it wouldn't end the cycle, it would just push the problem farther down to others, synthesis is the only one that saves the most lives, and while the starched may prefer the synthesis one, he is in no way making you pick it, nor stopping you from choosing one of the other endings, he is just explaining what's available since he knows he can't stop you, even I'd he wanted to
From my point of view, Destroy. Represents playing it safe, at a cost. As a hostile AI created by a single race in the current cycle, could be handled by the rest of the galaxy in a similar manner to a hostile organic faction. Seeing how even the Quarians alone, with inferior technology, were winning against the Geth, until the Reapers involvement. While the Catalyst was created by a race, so dominant in their time, no one else could compare. And its solution to the given order of saving organics from destruction at the hands of AI... Was to turn all advanced organics into AI. Asking us to fight the Reapers though the same cleverness and tactics that would likely work in this cycle, would be like asking a race in the previous cycle to stand up to the Protheans. With the massive power difference being the true heart of the problem Destroy. Would remove this power difference, meaning all we would have to then worry about, are synthetics on the level of a single race. To which, our divided galaxy would be somewhat beneficial in this regard, reducing the initial threat and providing multiple different approaches to defeating it. Control. Is high-risk high-reward. Keeping the power of the Reapers around, simply shifting their allegiances. Providing massive benefits in rebuilding and policing. While also sparing EDI and the Geth. But always hoping the Shepard AI will keep its morals, empathy and compassion intact. Synthesis. Is everything the Catalyst ever wanted. If all organics and synthetics are one and the same, it's technically impossible for synthetics to destroy organics. Then it would just be garden variety war and genocide, but it wasn't programed to care about that. Synthesis does remind me of Saren's arguments while he was indoctrinated yes. But a comparison fewer people make, is that of David in Project Overlord. Forcing everyone in the galaxy through a similar transformation to David without their knowledge or consent, makes me feel far too close to Dr. Gavin Archer than I'd ever like.
As someone who never had an issue with the endings and goes for synthesis, I must say, your presentation of your position is lacking: Control ending was only mentioned, not countered the way destruction was, and outcomes are rather different, in destruction we pretty much postpone the final confrontation between synthetics and organics as well as take out reapers out of the equation, meanwhile in control we get reapers as guardians, if not controlling overlords who ensure destruction of organic species doesn't happen, something like an uberpowerful dictator in many places at once who keeps the peace. Another missing part is the fact that the story for Mass Effect 3 is a quick replacement for reapers stopping from the growth of dark energy from destroying life in the galaxy. And my knowledge, that ending was scrapped only due to merciless, unchangeable time constraint put by EA. We literally have Conrad Verner of all people adding to the dark energy plot. Lastly (at least what I thought off right now) is lack of support of your point that we're shown that synthetics have a soul and related plots, you only say we do, but your only example is a conditional outcome where a peace is brokered on Rannoch. That's just a few groszy from me to try and help put the discussion on a higher level. Post scriptum, as others have mentioned: Quarians provoked the rebellion of the Geth by attacking them first in a panic. Adding to that EDI, on Luna, has attacked because she was confused, not because she was in control and wanted to and Mass Effect 2 onward she works as a part of the team, despite having countless chances to betray.
"The moment they turned from synthetics to organics, they turned on their creators." No they didn't. If you didn't complete the necessary quests and loyalty missions to convince the Quarians to make peace, then the only options are "let the Quarians kill the unarmed Geth" and "let the Geth fight back." But if you can convince the Admirals to pull back and stop firing, the Geth immediately and without question accept peace and work towards reuniting the two races. In the flashbacks Legion gives you in the side quest you find that the Geth only became violent because the Quarians were scared they couldn't control them anymore and tried to destroy them, and even then there is a scene of a Geth sacrificing itself for it's owner. Also, the Reapers were never tasked with protecting organic life. Their goal was to find a solution to the Synthetic vs Organic conflict, a conflict we can't even say for sure happened in more than the first and last cycles. They weren't building towards a solution, their solution was the cycles, the Catalyst AI directly says as much. The Synthesis ending is and always will be the most horrific ending because in it you force every sentient being in the galaxy to have their entire existence rewritten. By the way it is worded in the Extended cut it seems to me that no only is everyone's DNA rewritten, but they lose their individuality as well. Is peace with the Reapers worth the souls of a trillion people? And what happens if a ship from Andromeda comes to the Milky Way? Will the be forced into Synthesis? Or will they be killed for still be organic? Ultimately the Synthesis ending is just a trap for people who are too idealist. Its all rose gardens and daisies, while your very soul gets sacrificed for the greater good. Count me out.
@N7Andy I would argue that the new synthesis life could not breed with pure organics but if not the case, that is a good point. I also believe that Synthesis is the worst. I think I prefer shooting the kid over it. The more I think about it the more I am convinced.
sorry but i viewed synthesis as nothing but a compromise by the developers for a middle ending that was neither paragon or renegade (blue/red). you dont have to pick between the Geth and the Quarians just have high enough paragon or renegade and you can save both. if your galactic readiness is high enough you can get the perfect destroy ending that only targets the reapers not all synthetic life. synthesis brings an end to evolution by making all life the "pinnacle" mix of biological and synthetic thus ending war between biological and synthetics, sounds to me like stagnation also it is never said it ends all war as krogan are still biosynthetic krogan, vorcha are still biosynthetic vorcha a fight is going to happen, even the geth had a civil war. control always felt like postponing the war with the reapers, like a temporary solution, as the star child said Shepard taking the place of the ai would eventually come to the same conclusion like Thanos that in order to protect life as a whole sacrifices would have to be made and a new cycle would begin.
Personally I don't like any of the choices provided. If you don't choose an option in the catalyst, then the cycle starts again. If you choose synthesis, you are forcing the choice on the rest of the galaxy and that could cause all kinds of problems, especially since now that organics are synthesized with machines they could just be taken over by the reapers much easier than before. If you choose control we have no idea how long that control will last or how much shephard remembers of his/her time being human, so we don't know what the result of that control will be. If you choose destroy then you are killing EDI and the geth allies you were able to recruit to your side as well isolating the entire galaxy away from each other since all the relays are destroyed. In the end, none of the options are good ones, there are no perfect solutions. If there was a way to make sure that the destroy option killed all the reapers and the catalyst but left the mass effect relays intact, then that would be an acceptible solution. But since that is not an option, you just have to go with the one that best matches your own interpretation of what is best for your story.
Awesome analysis! I've chosen both Destroy and Synthesis in the past and been pretty happy with each. One of my favorite aspects of Mass Effect: Andromeda is that we get to explore what each of the 3 endings of Mass Effect 3 looks like in practice (spoilers for Andromeda, beware): Destroy - The Andromeda Initiative. Cut off from home, cut off from traditional power structures and the peak technology of the Milky Way, the Initiative is surviving in a hostile galaxy through grit and determination Control - The Angara. A whole cluster of stars lovingly crafted by a massively powerful technological force for the benefit of organics. If not for the Scourge, the Remnant would've created a technologically-driven paradise for the Angara. Synthesis - Ryder. True union of organic and synthetic life forms in a symbiotic relationship.
I think if you play paragorn, unifying the galaxy, bringing the Geth to the fight... And if you talk to Edi between missions... The synthesis is the best ending. Come on.. If you destroy, all your efforts to strentch the bonds between synthetics and organics was for nothing.. Besides that, synthesis is the final that allow you to give meaning to all previous civilizations that were destroyed. Blue ending gives that too, but I think is a bit megalomaniac, not right. Shepard is humble enough to refuse that kind of power of controlling the reapers
Red is looking more and more canon. I partially chose it because I was being selfish, and it felt like the appropriate badass thing to do, it only sucks that it kills all the synthetics too like Edi and I assume the geth. Yet somehow in the new game Liara is communicating with what sounds like a geth
The developers hated the players for preferring the red ending and will write their way around it. Besides its not selfish to go Red its the most benevolent of choices. Blue, you are are a dictator of the galaxy, green removes all free will from the galaxy. Red kills a tiny portion of the galaxy to keep everyone else free. Just fire it up every few years as a anniversary celebration and keep the galaxy AI free.
Remember though the gas had extremely advanced shielding against electromagnetic pulses. They said that many many times between Mass effect 2 and Mass effect 3.
Starchild's points about control and synthesis could be indoctrination attempts to survive. You know he lied about Shepard dying in destroy ending, why wouldn't it lie about everything else. So destroy is the only way you re sure that you actually save the galaxy and not get indoctrinated and die for no reason. Also since you can create peace between geth and quarians, starchild's point about organics and synthetics always fighting falls flat.
I think these top comments have it pretty well said in my opinion. I personally don't like any of the endings but if I had to choose again on another play thought I would go with destroy let life advance in a natural order. Why should the leviathan's arrogance punish the rest of the milkyway, let life return to a natural order where they can make their own mistakes, and after having fought the reapers hopefully they have learned for the leviathan's mistakes, and be able to advance in a peaceful way as the geth and quarians did.
Not sure why everyone hates the synthesis ending, (not my personal favourite) but MEA is basically the prerequisite to the synthesis ending becoming reality.
Sorry you lost me at the part where "the developers fell for one big lie" idk I think MAKING the game has huge implications for knowing which ending is right or wrong lmao
The green ending is defeat disguised as compromise. There's something so erie about seeing everyone in the galaxy forever merged with these machines, Krogans are no longer Krogans, Turians are no longer Turians, Humans are no longer Human. This is worse than the Reapers winning, at least if we die we die as ourselves but with this everyone survives by surrendering that which makes us who we are. I'd rather die as me, a human being, than continue to live as something else.
You make very valid points, many which are easy to agree with. Synthesis may seem like giving in to the Reaper's endgame; but, when we look at Javik and his snobbish loathing for 'primitives' and the Prothean belief that all primitives are too barbaric to rule themselves, and must then be ruled by 'higher' beings who somehow 'know' what is best for them and their individual futures... it's no different than Admiral Xen's zealous pursuit of remaking synthetics to serve the Quarians, and her inability to view that as a form of slavery. The Turians had a similar viewpoint of Humans, which is what led to the First Contact War. Eventually, many of the other races began to look at Humanity as the red headed stepchild of the galaxy, always causing trouble, and ruining everything. The Salarians nearly wiping out the Krogan for fear of the Krogans' superior strength. And of course the Turians stepping into the shoes of the Protheans offering to help wipe out Krogans in the name of control through 'benevolent' means. And the Asari, who fancy themselves peacemakers, but spend more time wringing their hands and doing nothing all while thinking they're making peace. In closing, I see your point and it is, sadly, accurate. Synthesis is the ONLY choice that will put an end to all ham-handed hostilities between the races. It is true oneness, true peacemaking, true cooperation. The Milky Way Galaxy needed a sound spanking! Hell, they collectively earned it!
The real ideological debate in the endings comes down to freedom vs saftey. The destroy ending insures freedom and also insures that conflict will later arrive. The synthesis and control ending both ensure saftey but take away the freedom to choose for all the individuals. I personally would rather live free then safe with no real will of my own.
You also loose freedom with the destruction ending. You either replicate the problem once more or you are aware of it and have to work against the beginning of a new cycle. Either way you have no real choice. With synthesis everyone surpasses the need for a new cycle. However is not a free choice itself it give way all the choices thereafter....
The sentinent and peaceful geth will disagree on your definition of freedom. oh wait, they can't because you committed genocide to preserve your "freedom".
@@Andy_from_de The geth aren't really sentient, at the end of the day they are computer programs, they don't have emotions or irrational thought, only logic and numbers. And the geth are literally slaves to the reapers for 99% of the trilogy so they would be freed finally.
Yeah, you are really stretching things here. First of all, the Geth didn't turn on the Quarians, the Quarians turned on the Geth. Second of all, the Leviathans were not interested in the petty wars between organics, that was never an issue and that was not why they created the Reapers. They were specifically worried about the fact that Synthetics killed their Organic creators. Thats why they made the Reapers and that is why 'Synthesis' is the solution to the problem Reapers were trying to solve. If there is no distinction between Synthetics and Organics, Synthetics cannot kill Organics, therefor problem solved. The Synthesis ending does not in any way guarantee an everlasting peace between any of the races as they otherwise remain distinct politically and culturally. Its still possible for a war to break out over resources, territory, etc after you pick the Synthesis ending. The Reapers themselves are a preservation measure. Each Reaper is the essence of a harvested culture. A nation as Sovereign says. However, preserving a culture like Reapers do is effectively killing them. They can no longer grow, evolve, learn, improve and are stagnant until the Reaper structure is finally destroyed. And while Sovereign claims the title of Sovereign, its clear that the Reapers are in fact not free to chose their own path. The Star Child controls them, so the cultures they represent are also enslaved and forced to repeat the cycle. Picking destroy is not only a thorough rebuke of the Star Childs logic, its also a mercy kill to the harvested cultures locked away in the Reaper bodies.
There are no evidence that synthetics will ALWAYS rebel against organics, it’s just a baseless claim Leviathans used as a premise when they created Reaper AI. By choosing Synthesis you solve the problem that only exists within the Reapers programming, not in reality, whereas the Red ending actually solves the real problem of cycles of the Galactic genocide by destroying the primary cause of it. I’m not raping the whole galaxy to fix the imaginary problem Reapers tried to solve because they were told to by Leviathans
What’s funny is I picked the green ending simply because I wanted the geth and the organice to understand each other To me it felt like every problem in the game and between people boiled down to “you can’t see my view point”
Ya I know! Wish I had included thoughts there was in the original script lol but to me that doesn’t show anything multiple synthetics and organics in our timeline and dozens of past ones came together or fell apart but it always resulted in a never ending conflict which is what I see as the main theme of mass effect really, thanks for watching by the way!
I never comment, but as a superfan I'll make an exception bu I'll keep it brief. You spend 3 games, understanding the vast differences between the races, between there own cultures, past wars, influences, etc. The whole plot of the 3rd game is setting aside those differences to combat a greater evil for the good of all. By choosing synthesis you are choosing to forgo ALL that makes all the races from the Geth to the Krogan unique and plaster everyone exactly the same. There are 4 options and you chose to not only pick the most illogical one story wise, but then defend it lol
how did you make it to however old you are with that ammount of fear of change... astounding... and arrogant on top of it... stagnation is the absence of logic...
@@bloodfoxtriberc fear of change? That's not change. Synthesis is literally erasing what made everything and everyone unique. And even then morally the reapers have genocided countless trillions and now we storyboard mcguffin into frolicking through a field of flowers with the enemy we spent a franchise fighting. Forget any lessons the series has taught us. Because "one love mannn" lol
Videos like these is why I personally like Synthesis Ending the most. The Destroy Ending is a short term victory. Sure the races will have very strict rules about creating Artificial Intelligence again. (So did the Council and look what happened with the Quarians and the Geth. And with The Leviathans and the Catalyst/Reapers before) and that may last for a while, sure…But it’ll only be a matter of time before someone, somewhere, maybe not for another 500 years or so, they create another A.I. Thanks to organics nature and hubris, we’ll think “we’ll do it better this time”. Lol, no we won’t. It will happen. As Leviathan explained, organics have a natural urge to create synthetics. And the created will always rebel against their creators. Thus, either A) we create an A.I that will wipe all organics out. Or B) another harvesting cycle will begin. Mind you, you also destroy the history of all those countless civilizations that came before as they’re preserved in the Reapers. You also kill all synthetic life. EDI and the Geth that helped you fight against the Reapers included. (if you chose to save them along with the Quarians like I did) It’s a short term victory only for us to repeat it all over again and in a couple thousand years. Meaning all those deaths would’ve been for nothing. Not exactly the smart ending to chose, now is it? So bravo👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Destroy fanboys, bra👏🏻vo👏🏻. What a victory 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 Let’s all give it up for their short sightedness and short term victories. Only to back at square one 🎊🎊🎊👏🏻👏🏻🍻🍻🍻 The Control Ending, after putting more thought into it, I think it could be good option. Shepard guiding the Galaxy and rebuild it by controlling the Reapers, could work. Of course that’s assuming he doesn’t become corrupted by all that power and/or doesn’t lose himself somewhere in there. After thousands of years. That’s pretty big gamble. The Synthesis Ending, I personally like this ending the most. It solves the problem that the Leviathans and Catalyst had with preserving life in the Galaxy all those countless eons ago. Erasing the organics need to create synthetics, bringing a complete understanding with one another, and ensuring everlasting peace. At least in that form. And with the code changed within the Reapers, we’ll have access to all the knowledge “lost” from all the civilizations that came before. Creating a utopia across the Milky Way. Lol, I love how Synthesis haters try to say “bU-bUt wE’Ll bE a hIvE mInD aN-aNd tHeRe wiLl bE ciViL wAr. aN-aNd cUltUrE wiLl nO lOnGeR eXiSt! aN-aNd wE lOsE oUr fReEdOm!” …really? -_- how does a hive mind have a civil war with itself, exactly? I’ll wait… No, you’re misunderstanding the Synthesis ending. What it means is that we combine organics and synthetics into one. Perfecting both worlds into one. Bringing understanding to one another. We’re not collecting every being “under a hive mind” and losing our individuality, we’re still our own individual selves. We just have access to all the information in the Galaxy at anytime. Kinda like how we have with our iPhones. Just much, much more advanced.
@TheProtoPaul That was my problem with the synthesis ending was, is this everyones choice? Or was it one big green indoctrination wave that brainwashed everyone into accepting this outcome?
Absolutely love this video! As a kid I went through a stage where I read a bunch of those "years best" anthologies from various sci fi magazines like Astounding Stories and Analog Science Fiction, etc. The magazines may be gone but, luckily, those anthologies are still on library shelves. Those collections had stories from all the big names in science fiction: Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Heinlein, Delany, Niven, etc. It's a long list, with a lot of different types of writers, writing in a lot of different styles, but one thing they all had in common were Big Ideas that made you look at the universe with new eyes and a sense of wonder. The first time I played Mass Effect and was presented with the Synthesis option, I felt everything you talked about gel together for me, though I couldn't express it nearly as eloquently as you have, and, for the first time in a long time, I again felt that sense of wonder at a "big scifi idea" the way I did when reading a story by a great sci fi master. Now, for me, the Synthesis ending is what makes Mass Effect such a great story and one that transcends its medium as a video game.
Interesting points! I personally always go Destroy since it's the simple answer that has for better or worse been the main goal of the game. Synthesis was the first ending I chose but it made me feel pretty gross when everyone was glowing with green runes as it's very similar to being a proselytizer-- that being changing people by force. I have a very hard time imagining that even half the universe would be okay with being changed at a microscopic level-- the psychological side alone could even be traumatic. Benefits or no. Similar to the bizarre notion that the organics that fought in the war would ever feel safe around any Reaper-- even if it were controlled. If anything I believe that organics would lick their wounds, build up a force, and begin the war again. Just a new "cycle." I don't really see Destroy as the "best and only" choice, more the one I have more understanding of. It's the similar reasoning I used when it came to the Geth during Legion's loyalty mission.
I'd say you could apply the same argument against Control as you did against Synthesis. Forcing genocide by what you deem necessary. The Geth seemed eager to live, but by choosing Destroy, we rip that choice out of their hands.
@@joshuagross3151 Shepard destroyed an entire solar system with hundreds of thousands of Batarians to delay the reapers. If it was the solar system containing Kharshan the Batarian Homeworld, Shepard wouldn't hesitate to destroy that too. Similarly Shepard can choose to let the council + 10000 Asari die by not saving the Destiny Ascension in ME1. It is called the the price of war. It's called sacrifice. Go learn the meaning of Genocide instead of throwing it so freely in an argument.
@@ibraheemahmad7404 Genocide is wiping out an entire race, which is what you do to the geth by choosing Destroy. Spare me the pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
@@ibraheemahmad7404 Genocide is the extermination of a specific group. The group in question can be anything from an ethnicity, to a religion, to a culture, to a nationality, and the method of extermination can also vary (E.G. forced sterilization, and even just forced conversion if the group in question isn't defined by an innate biological trait, can be considered genocide as well, even if no one is being directly killed), but no matter how you slice it, if you consider synthetic beings to be "alive" in a meaningful way (Which the narrative of the trilogy, at least, pretty clearly does), then the Destroy ending is, by definition, genocide of between one and three species', depending on how you count. And yes, the destruction of the Batarian system also counts as genocide. The difference is, that scenario was a pretty binary trolley problem - Either the Mass Relay is destroyed, killing all life in the System, or the Reapers come through it, killing all life in the Galaxy. There was no option that didn't involve genocide. In ME3's ending, on the other hand, there _are_ other choices that, as presented to you, don't involve genocide. You can argue that those options are invalid or traps by the Reapers/Catalyst, sure, but that's your subjective interpretation of the game.
Honestly, the ending in general could have been better, but after playing the series for the first time recently in the legendary edition, and after hearing people say that the ending was dog shit, I just gotta say that everyone was blowing it out of proportion. It was NOT that bad. Hell, the destroy ending (my preferred one) isn’t bad imo. So what if Shepard dies? It happens, Shepard was human, not a god. And the AI can be rebuilt. The Geth have souls, and those souls may have left the bodies, but the species can continue. As for EDI, I just wish we got a lil cutscene where she kisses Joker and dies, then not only is Shepard’s name added to the memorial wall, but her’s as well
Ya I agree completely I thought the ending wasn’t nearing as bad as people make it out to be, I think it’s just hard to end a series with this much buildup in a trilogy in general. Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment it really helps support my channel!
I can say as someone who just recently finished the trilogy for the first time. Through the Legendary Edition. The ending is not that bad like dear lord. I walked into it thinking it would be bad. I walked out thinking it was perfectly ok. Yeah, people blew this waaaaay out of proportion. Do I think the endings could’ve been better? Yes, I think they could of rapped up the trilogy in a more comprehensive way. Do I think it is as bad as everyone says it is? HELL NO. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but still. It isn’t that bad in my opinion. Still I thoroughly loved the trilogy.
@@demolishers473 ya the older I’ve gotten the more I’ve just realized I don’t share so many opinions other gamers do hha. Mass effect ending is fine, cyberpunk hate was overblown (just made a video on it), etc etc. thanks for watching and supporting the channel!
@@FranklyGaming Ayy no problem. I will probably check out more videos. But yeah, you seem like one of the most level headed people I can find about the ME3 ending topic. Also I just picked up Cyberpunk 2077 to give it another try for the next gen update. So I can say I’ve been quite enjoying it. Point is I agree with what you have to say and I will most likely check out more of your content.
you played the legendary edition first? you have to see the ending before they added the extra stuff there was no goodbye to romance option, there was no explanation for why your friend ditched you there was no explanation for what happened after the three choices, there was no extra dialogue with the catalyst explains the options in a lil more details, there was no explanation for how Anderson even got to the beam before you though it was stated everyone died, there was no clips of your decisions and its effects like curing the genophage or making peace with the quarians , there was not citadel dlc, literally there was just the three options three colors all mass effect relays explode (which based on previous info made it seem like a super nova occurred killing everybody anyway) and then the credits rolled with your crew either dead or stranded on a random planet or glowing green if you chose synthesis.... the legendary edition has all the dlc and stuff added in for free the original did not play out like that...I remember the first time I beat the game I thought I did something wrong lol like I went to the last save and replayed the ending and got the same ending and I was mad as hell at first I thought it was only me then the wave of criticism poured out on the internet then they released the ending dlc and eventually the citdael
Totally - Synthesis was my choice as well. Centuries of extermination - ended Saren's vision of lasting peace between organics & synthetics - fulfilled Self-awareness of the Reapers - achieved Dangerous consequences of expanding the capabilities of unfeeling AI - averted Shepard's fate which was thematically sealed when they left a squadmate on Virmire - comes full circle. It's like poetry.
The primary directive from the Leviathan for the A.I is not to save, but to preserve. Preservation of something does not need for that something to be alive.
ExActly and that is why I see them as good, because they have a higher directive to actually protect us against ourselves, also thanks for supporting the channel!
@@FranklyGaming Dude, they are NOT evil, but that doesn't make them inherently good. They are machines, and even though the reapers are part organic (the proto-reaper inside) they only follow their programming. There is something that goes against that, and I consider it to be a pretty big plot hole; the fact that even though the reapers have a master (the intelligence created by The Leviathan) they are true A.I, and a true A.I is beyond any original programming, so I quote "My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. You can not even grasp the nature of our existence" They KINDA follow their original programming but they are now far above and beyond the original goal they were created for. They are not protecting organics, they only came to a faulty conclusion because they are machines incapable of truly understanding organics. It's simple, the intelligence came to the conclusion "if they are contained inside a reaper, they can't get destroyed by their own creations", and considering their objective is to "preserve", they just make people into paste and preserve their genetic makeup so it wont be lost.
@@ezequielmorales4221 i hope they never mention leviathans again its a stupid lore piece that was scrapped up from a few lines and was made to cover up a terrible ending.
@@ezequielmorales4221 even the leviathan admits the reapers are doing their job. They just didnt foresee that in order to do their job, it meant for the leviathans to be destroyed as well. The way i see it, the reapers are destroying advanced life in order to prevent an uncontrolled synthetic life from completely destroying organics in the future with nothing left over to evolve.
5:31 I said this exact thing almost verbatim in defense of the Sythesis Ending. All destroy did was push the problem down until someone else created the Geth all over again.
I can see both sides…synthesis honestly doesn’t seem like a bad ending BUT there’s always an exception especially in the mass effect universe in defense of the destroy ending. Next playthrough I’m going synthesis because honestly besides shepherd dying it seemed like a net positive.
Reminds Deus ex - artificial evolution of organoids. Additional to mechanical evolution, there is gene editing branch. "X Com:Enemy within" explores it more gameplay wise.
@@angel8fingers Deus ex is 50/50 for me. There is better ones. X com - that is the stuff. Each reveal of new alien is an event. You growing stronger and getting ultimate skill is so empowering. Xcom 2:war of chosen dlc is great.
YESSSSS FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT. I've always thought this way and my friend who introduced me to Mass Effect (and all Bioware's games) has always said that the red one is the best. The green ending is perfect because of 3 reasons. 1: The green ending is the perfect solution to Mass Effect main plot which is the reapers, which were created by the leviathans to stop intelligent species from creating IAs. And the reapers fulfil this task perfectly. The only problem is that they realize that organic species kept creating IAs no matter what they do. So the most logical thing to do is to destroy organic life before it can create said IAs because IA always destroy its creator and is a danger for life it self and it could never coexist with organics. And the green ending fix this by merging both organic and inorganic into one being. 2: If you choose the red ending it means that all the geth are destroyed and the quarians will have a more difficult time back in Rannock because thanks to the geths they could improve their body defenses quicker and whatnot. 3: If you choose the red ending Edi dies. And if you're ok with it you're a monster
@@absolutemalkavian4974 Yes. You are right. What is a Reaper? The product of Synthesis. Organic material mixed with synthetics. What is a Collector? The product of Synthesis. Organic material mixed with synthetics. What is a Husk? The product of Synthesis. Organic material mixed with synthetics. What was Saren? The product of indoctrination and Synthesis. So much so that when Saren died his lifeless corpse lived on through his synthetic side. That is the problem with the Synthesis ending. It doesn't address how the Reapers themselves are a product of this very Synthesis. This is why people assumed and still does assume that Shepard is indoctrinated at the end of Mass Effect 3. The writers thought it was so clever to create such a scenario but it backfired as they didn't address any of this. It reeks of "True Synthesis hasn't been tried yet. If Commander Shepard took over it would be great."
@@jerm70 Yeah, I get what you mean but I don't think I'm explaining myself correctly. The reapers, tho created with both organic and inorganic materials, are still machines, for they do not possess any sort of organic feelings or even free will, for their only reason to exist is to avoid the creation of IA, ironically they are the most advanced IA ever created. That's why the geth treat them like gods and dubbed them as The Old Machines. As for the husks, collectors and every creation tgat has come from the hands of the Reapers are mere puppets, no free will, more machines than flesh. The same with Saren, that motherfucker was more implants and tubes than Turian at some point. That why I think it's the best ending, for it merge both synthetic and organic in one being, without losing free will. Also yeah the indoctrinated Shepard thing was stupid and annoying, every time dreaming about chasing some kid around a forest and before catching him, he lits himself on fire. Honeslty I thought Shepard was secretly a very disturbed pedophile with so many dreams like that.
@@absolutemalkavian4974 "Honeslty I thought Shepard was secretly a very disturbed pedophile with so many dreams like that." All your other commentary is well-founded and your interpretations valid yet somehow you managed to conclude with such an poor, and myopic, take (Your quote above.). How did you fail to recognize that the child in Shepard's dream sequences resembles--nay, is an exact match for--the child who Shepard tried but failed to save during "The Fall of Earth" opening cut scenes? He's even wearing the exact same hoodie. Shepard witnesses the rescue shuttle shepherding the child to safety get blown out of the sky by a Reaper beam. The interpretation is pretty clear. Shepard is the savior figure but failed to save that child. As a orphan himself, that event struck him close to home, and so his perceived failure now haunts his dreams. There are so many valid interpretations that come out of the Mass Effect series and certainly more than just one for the dream sequences but that final interpretation of yours simply isn't one of them. Please, do yourself a favor and go rewatch the opening cut scenes to ME3, which can be found by "The Fall of Earth".
Fuck synthesis. The entire mission this whole time has been destroy and destroy is the only thing that might save Shepard's life. My Shepard loves his Jack enough to sacrifice everything to be with her. Personally, I'd take control because that's just the kind of person I am.
@@FranklyGaming of course man, great video. I never thought about that ending in the way you presented it and I've only done Destroy ending whenever I've played so I might just do Synthesis next playthrough.
@@zgamer1154 ya I think mass effect is awesome cause you can really do any ending and have a good reason, I have a theory video coming out Tuesday I think you will really love too
After i had a long talk with leviathan and the starchild, and giving a deep thought about it, i felt indoctrinated.. Their logic made me actually believe that the genocide of all humankind seems sensible (in mass effect). And this is scary, because an indoctrination (in real life) works just like this.
For me the theory of indoctrination has always been wrong. The Reapers saw in Sheppard an organic being who could finally make up his mind. The loop would restart if the reapers were destroyed, there are limits to organic beings so the AIs would always respawn and at one point everything would restart. and finally the reapers do not need to convince you through dialogue. It is known that not all the reapers even went to war. Perhaps the Sheppard cycle was the only one where several species joined to fight the reapers and that made them see us as the cycle that could finally decide what would happen. Destruction or Union. but I do think it was the right ending.
"reapers are necessary" You were the chosen one Shepard. You were to destoy the repaers, and bring balance to the galaxy...not leave it shrouded in darkness
What right does AI have to decide for Organics, if they are so smart, why didn’t they just offer them the choice of “ascending”, instead of trying to destroy them!
If reappears were in control, why would they even give Sheppard a choice? It's most likely all a lie. Every 3 choices. He could be indoctrinated all the way, and maybe the only 'right' choice was the 4th one: shooting the little bastard (the ghost kid). The cycle was going to continue anyway =) (This was not my chosen ending, but it's an hypothesis I'm now raising)
My thoughts are similar, about the choices of "Control" and "Synthesis," being a complete lie and that they are most likely traps. I think if you chose either of those two options, Shepard become indoctrinated by the Reapers and all the events you see happening after either choice is completely fabricated and is a lie. Though I don't think shooting that little artificial asshole was the right choice, the "Destroy" option was. Seeing as how the form you were seeing was merely some sort of hologram and shooting it wouldn't really damage the A.I. but would merely piss it off instead. I think "Destroy" was actually the correct option, as if you pay attention to the A.I. when you talk to it, it really likes the idea of you going with the "Control" option. It's a bit hesitant for you to go with "Synthesis" one, but it is down right against the "Destroy" option. You can even hear its open hostility to Shepard even entertaining the idea of going with that option. If you pick the "Destroy" option, you will even hear the things voice actually change to sound EXACTLY the way a Reaper's does. I think it was actually trying to influence and manipulate you, by getting you to choose those other options, and by you going with the "Destroy" option, the one it didn't want you to go with, you effectively resisted its manipulation and broke any sort of control it had over your mind and freed yourself.
@@mr.chaosvicious5968 but why would they even give him a choice? Specially one that could destroy them? The endings raise many questions, but few answers =p
The part that gets me is that you can ask Admiral Hackett what the weapon will do to your synthetic allies and he tells you straight up that it is specifically tailored to target the Reapers only and will not affect EDI or the Geth.
ME3 explicitly and repeatedly states that it's unknown *how* the crucible works or *what* it will actually do, and that you're risking building and deploying it anyway because you have no hope of defeating the reapers through conventional means. This happens over literally about a dozen different cutscenes with Hacket, Liara, Anderson, and others. The alliance *speculates* that it was designed as a weapon, and perhaps this is even its original intention -- but the text from the game never says anything about there not being collateral damage... until the final conversation with the star child, who specifically warns you that its destruction will be indiscriminant, affecting all synthetic life.
This video is damn near incoherent and out right contradicts things that can be experienced and learned in the games themselves. Whoever wrote this script ought to be disappointed in themselves.
The only problem with your thesis is you CAN broker peace between the Geth and the Quarians DISPROVING the premise of the Reaper. Other than that I agree with your conclusion and most of the points that bring you to your conclusion. I personally chose the Green ending "Actually I prefer the Happy ending mods" but of the vanilla endings, I like the synthesis one.
You forget that the Quarians and Geth can become allies if you play your cards right. Then you get both, The Quarians and the Geth fleets to help take back Earth. And the Geth help the Quarians regain a strong immune system.
You mean like... a form of synthesis? The geth integrate to help the quarians adapt to Rannich more quickly, and in turn gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be a sentient being capable of independent thought.
@@MediumChungus223 Exactly.
@@MediumChungus223 Yes but it's a choice, not by force via invading the bodily autonomy of literally everyone. You clowns don't get it, synthesis IS destruction. The stuff you put in the crucible, you don't get back. It's gone, you sacrifices it.
And the Leviathans only made the Reapers to stop slave rebellions.
@@Serocco That is a strange interpretation. The Leviathans kept other races as subservient, but the reapers were not stopped to prevent slave rebellions.
Over the long years that the Leviathans ruled, they observed time and again that the other races would inevitably build servant robots, keep making those robots more advanced, and then those robots would become sentient and kill their creators. The Leviathans and other races would be left to clean up the mess.
To solve this, the Leviathans created their own AI, and gave it the directive "Find a way to stop organic and synthetic life from fighting."
Leviathans themselves did not create reapers at all, they created an AI that concluded that Reapers were a possible solution.
This is actually a pretty common and old trope in Sci-fi media. Man creates machine, tells it to prevent human suffering. Machine concludes the best way to minimize human suffering is to stop more humans from being born. The earliest example of hostile AI is from a short story in a San Francisco newspaper from 1899, where a chess robot loses a match and kills itself in rage.
The Geth never turned against their creators. The Quarians attacked them pre-emptively. The Geth always responded defensively. Legion definitively states that the only reason the Geth had been hesitant to make peace was because the Quarians would always try to destroy them whenever they thought they would succeed.
Exactly. The aggressors in that conflict were the Quarians. Even in the last conflict with Legion, Tali and the Geth and Quarian fleets, the only reason there's still a conflict at all is because the Quarians think they have a chance to destroy the Geth for good... and instead of just listening, they'd rather try and wipe them out. They've always acted selfishly and it cost them normal lives, forced to live on ships which collectively ruined their species for generations.
But if you convince the Quarian fleet to stand down, the Geth revolutionize their systems, restore their immune systems at an amazingly advanced rate, and just like that, the whole conflict quickly becomes a faded memory.
Fear and an attempt to control everything, to cut it off at the head, leads to rash decisions that nearly destroyed an entire species (or possibly two, had the Quarians been more successful).
The Geth always responded defensively
yes and at that moment the machines turned against their creators by killing them
They drove them off the planet, that they don't actually need. They weren't being defensive at that point. Besides they are robots, it is the creators right to destroy his product
But that's the argument of the game, organics will ALWAYS create Synthetics in order to acchieve things easier, and eventually, there will be a a point where Synthetic will rebel.
they were even given a chance to wipe the quarians out but didnt do it bc "we didnt know the consequences of genocide". this alone proves the reapers were wrong!
this man is clearly indoctrinated
Throw him out the airlock.
My issue with the Synthesis and Control endings is that these were the exact responses to the Reapers that Saren and The Illusive Man tried to convince Shepard of, respectively. Saren argued that organics could be useful to synthetics, and that symbiosis with Reaper tech is not necessarily a bad thing. And of course, the Illusive Man was going for control up until the end when you can convince him he is indoctrinated and he'll kill himself. My personal take is that the Starchild entity, essentially the heart of the Reapers, was trying to convince Shepard of those two options to preserve itself since in either ending, there is a remainder of the essence of the Reapers, either coupled with organics or in the control of Shepard. This is why I go destroy 100% of the time, since it is the one ending that neglects any argument made by the Reaper entity. I mean the Reapers did it with Saren and TIM when they got too close, and we KNOW they were indoctrinated. Why wouldn't it be the case for Shepard too? The Reapers knew that they could be defeated, so it would be no surprise to me that they would lie or bend the truth to preserve itself. As perfectly put by Hackett, "Dead Reapers are how we win this thing."
Exactly!
unfortunatly indoctrination has a limited range, specifically the subject must be inside the reaper to be indoctrinated or the reapers would have indoctrinated cities to let themselves be harvested. plus it would make sense that Cerberus would have given implants to Shepard to prevent it. the illusive man was indoctrinated by the dead human reaper sample they collected and used its tech to create implants which he didn't know would indoctrinate him and his organization
@@fangslore9988 Indoctrination can work in proximity to Reaper tech. The person does not have to be inside a Reaper for it to happen. An artifact is powerful enough to indoctrinate an entire ship. This also happened to the miners in the Leviathan DLC. Also indoctrination doesn't necessarily mean you're a mindless slave and will do whatever the Reapers command. It's more like you're susceptible to be manipulated. TIM had to present his thoughts as being his own, that he arrived at those conclusions in order to persuade Shepard.
@@fangslore9988 Full scale indoctrination turns people into husks, which reapers deploy in the billions in the 3rd game. They probably did just indoctrinate whole cities.
I feel like this analysis ignores the crucible and the fact that the star child is even giving shepard a choice. TIM and Saren are both indoctrinated by reapers who assume this cycle will end much like every other cycle. At that point an indoctrinated person's job is to help speed along the end of a cycle. Star Child presents the choices to shepard once conditions are met to trigger an end to the cycles. This would cause Star Child's motivations and analysis to be completely different then that of TIM and Saren.
We have no in game reason to distrust the words of Leviathan when it says that the purpose of star child is to protect all organic life. The Leviathans clearly thought that star child wouldn't end up harvesting them and starting the cycles, so assuming their motivations and tyranical nature bled over into the star child and the reapers it created seems like a bit of a stretch, there's just no in game evidence to support it. They use the same methods, probably because they are extremely effective and because they were the original examples star child had to work with in terms of abilities to copy, but use of a certain tool to accomplish a goal doesn't necessarily imply anything about the motives of the one carrying out the task.
The problem with Synthesis is the creators of this solution, not the goal in itself. The Leviathans enslaved all organics they met, noticed they were creating hostile synthetics and in their arrogance thought they could program an AI that would solve this problem for them. This AI was the Catalyst, whose solution was to forcibly harvest its creators to "preserve" them in the form of Reapers.
This same AI then spent countless cycles harvesting every other organics it deemed advanced enough, until its solution is proved invalid by Shepard's presence at its core with an armed Crucible. The cycle is broken and the Catalyst must enact a new solution, it already had 3 options prepared and built into the relays but their repercussions were so massive that it couldn't make that choice by itself, it was stuck in a loop waiting for an epiphany, so it gives the choice to Shepard and if Shepard doesn't comply it restarts the cycle.
Whatever Shepard chooses it will always be a solution created by the Catalyst, which was programed by tyrants with a superiority complex. Not only are their conclusions questionable, so are their methods, all we know is that energy will be dispersed by the relays across the galaxy but we don't know how effective it'll be at accomplishing its intended goal and how far it's effects will propagate. Do you really want the deploy a version of Synthesis designed by such an entity?
With Control Shepard is digitized and replaces the Catalyst as the overlord, a lot can go wrong but at least the concept is simple and most Reapers are in range of the first blast. With Destroy it's even simpler, kill every synthetic in range while sparing organics, kind of like an EMP, you can repair the physical damage but the data is gone along with their consciousness. However, with Synthesis we're way out in guessing territory, disabled or destroyed relays makes coverage of the whole galaxy problematic and we don't even know exactly what it will do, just that all organics and synthetics in range will become a hybrid, whatever that means to the Catalyst.
SAM and Ryder are a good example of a forced synthesis where 2 entities are merged in a way that is beneficial to both while preserving individuality but the scale, scope and uncertainty of what the Catalyst is suggesting makes it too risky to impose on the whole galaxy with no guarantee that the conflict will end, just that everyone affected will be "the same", as if that was ever enough to prevent conflict.
Destroy means shutting down the experiment started by the Leviathans, Control is a continuation with a new intelligence at the helm, Synthesis is the conclusion of its main objective.
Since I don't agree with the premise that started the experiment, don't trust its creators and even the Catalyst has enough doubts about it to not enact it by itself, Synthesis as presented here is out of the question for me. Control is risky, it's basically synthesis between Shepard and the Catalyst followed by the complete subjugation of all the Reapers to this new entity, depending on how much control Shepard retains after this merge and how compliant the Reapers are it could go either way. The only solution with fairly certain results is Destroy, there's collateral damage but the Reapers and the Catalyst are destroyed and life in the galaxy is once again allowed to evolve without an artificial time limit, conflict is inevitable as it always has been but the resolution is open ended.
If I was sure Shepard could send all the Reapers into the sun I'd choose Control but with the information available at the time the only viable choice for me is Destroy, anything else is a recipe for disaster. If synthesis is ever to be implemented it must be with full knowledge of what it implies, not as an answer to an ultimatum of a cryptic AI who believes they are our salvation through destruction.
Wonderful analysis!
Totally agree. The false concept of being able to CONTROL life, the galaxy etc is what brought on this tragedy. The Leviathans thought they knew everything and didn't like it that they didn't.
"Tribute doesn't flow from a dead race"
They wanted THINGS. They couldn't get things cuz they those providing them died due to AI. But they never stopped to think that this was yet another EVOLUTIONARY necessity and had to go thru several failures before it could be a success? (See Shepard saving both geth and quarians).
Kinda like Magneto wanting to wipe out all humans, even tho HUMANS are the #1 source of MUTANTS. Stop getting in LIFE'S way, ya control freaks. You CLEARLY don't have an eye to the bigger picture!
"With Destroy it's even simpler, kill every synthetic in range while sparing organics, kind of like an EMP, you can repair the physical damage but the data is gone along with their consciousness." A quote from Matrix comes to mind: "You saved the dock? You just served it to the enemy on a silver platter." @"Destroy means shutting down the experiment started by the Leviathans"
-
I am inherently dissatisfied with all four endings and wish the Catalyst, with millions of years of experience, had simply acted as police and mediator between the organic and synthetic, ensuring that their own laws respect each other and all life forms. If they had believed in peace for just one second, then this conflict, struggle and war would be over.
-
I didn't like destroying, merging, or synthesising, and found controlling to be quite attractive because it seemed to keep the Citadel intact, which doesn't seem to derail my concerns about Citadel security (cue: war assets).
I agree with your analysis 100%. The truth is that Mass Effect doesn't have a perfectly good/satisfying ending. It simply has 3 lowsy options, and lets you choose the least worse one.
I must be weird cause I liked all the endings, not cause they were the best or the most satisfying, but they were all flawed and messed up and barely understood kinda the whole point the Reapers were trying to tell Shepard we don't have full scope on how big the picture is...in the game and in life sentient life(humans in the real world) think we know so much and we know so little in the grand scheme of things...I think we view the Reapers as evil because that's the only way our brains can process stuff, what if it's not that simple what if the answer is so big and complicated our brains can't comprehend it...what if they gave us those choices because that's as close as we can understand, good bad, neutral....because we see everything is such plain terms. Just my thoughts I just don't always want a happy ending cause life and choices just are bad and suck sometimes...just gotta choose how much and how bad.
@@jamatth52 what about the option of having a happy ending? Myself, thats all I would have wanted. Give me the choice. Yeah, you are right, life is shit, hard and complicated, but this is bloody excapism 🤷 I love a moraly grey ending/choice like any one, but I would like to have the choice to have any kind if ending. I dislike being forced to have shity, messy endings similar to life with no other alternative 🤷
What I like about the Extended Cut, unlike New Vegas, is that you only get a glimpse of what the future holds instead of telling you exactly what happens. If you choose red, will things be the same or different? The door is open to go either way.
Plus in my head canon, David Archer helps rebuild the Geth because he has the Geth’s source code in his head.
you hit the nail on the head its the fact that the series can be interpreted in different ways that makes it awesome, for example I like the green ending (as I talked about in the video) but I totally see why people connect with destruction more too. Thanks for supporting the channel rainbow really appreciate it !
Oh shit thats a great idea
Good point about David, good to think of him as more than a war asset 👍
This is now my head-canon too. David is the future.
I never thought of that. My head cannon has been that they had like a protected cashe if geth somewhere, but yours makes a lot more sense
I still hold that the issue with the endings was never about the endings themselves, rather it’s the fact that it all came down to one last choice that you could make regardless of your past choices. Played a pure paragon for three games? Now you can commit genocide. Played a renegade for 3 games? Now you can peacefully resolve everything.
I always felt like it would make way more sense in a game about choices having consequences, to have the ending purely be a consequence of all your choices up to that point, not to be a choice itself.
Did you not get the perfect ending? You can get the perfect ending if you get 7800 military points. It’s way better than the others atleast everyone lives anyways better type of way. Whether you were renegade
Or paragon you want your people to live.
lol talk about redemption or villain arcs. that's so true how you can 180° at the bery end of the game lol
@@joshfly210not everyone lives in the perfect ending, Legion always dies and EDI gets killed by the Crucible,
Yes, the ending is a glorified dialogue wheel with top-right, bottom-right and middle options.
That's what I've also been saying since! And that's why mass effect 2 is considered the superior game in the trilogy because besides the amazing story and characters, the endings are purely based on your actions prior to the last mission
The catalyst should have given you only blue and green option. The red option should have been shepards idea with catalyst as a boss fight
I like that! Great for theming too, a sort of "We decide our own destiny!" and a refusal to be the playthings of a god
Totally, AWESOME!! i do agree with that
Totally but I like that we as gamers were manipulated too. Blue was suppose to be something good, green was something new and in the middle so it was an obvious choice and then we had red, "renegade" choice that was actually the most Shepard one
Control, you see Shepard turn into a husk, synthesis, again, Shepard becomes a husk, the only ending where you don't is destroy, or shoot the asshole thats lying, other than those 2 welcome to indoctrination!
@@Maples01nope shepard never becomes a husk or becomes indoctrinated idk about control since i always felt like it was not really it for me.
destroy is the worst ending as it just starts the doomsday clock upon destruction of EDI and geth the synthetics who were influenced by shepard to be paragons towards the orgains perish in destroy and if an AI rises upon the death of paragon shepard there will be war same with EDI she understands humanity and in my playthrough at the end she truly feels alive perhaps she already became synthesized before my ending because she understands organics.
control is a slightly better ending as shepard can make sure the geth and EDI never perish and so they are there so in the future in case there is an AI uprising the geth can convince them to stop and EDI can make them understand our viewpoints these options get lost in destroy where there is only war waiting.
synthesis in my opinion is the best option organics and synthetics gain understanding of each other with organics understanding tech ever more tho i do not know how this will change organics when their thinking patterns are meshed with organics. i would assume this will turn you into someone like paragon EDI who i think is the closest synthetic in the story who understands what it means to be organic. and diseases decrease,lost technology comes back, and the old races might be revived due to the reapers storing their DNA. the fight between organics and synthetics will never be a factor because we too now can understand synthetic viewpoint
the green ending makes some
sense thematically, but it kind of felt
like random space magic that didn’t fit the lore
Agreed. It bears heavy signs of lack of planning, while it could have been the most fulfilling ending of the three.
The Destroy ending basically just sends us back to Leviathan ground zero. We will rebuild synthetics and start this problem all over again - minus the Reaper cycles. Unless...
@@m.r.r.2636 Nah that was part of the Starchilds flawed creation, It was created to end conflict rather than achieve coexistence.
@@m.r.r.2636 why on Earth would we do that after fighting the Reapers? Because the Star Brat said so? Or because everyone in Leviathan time was an idiot?
Any significantly advanced technology would seem magic to the people viewing it
That's what bothered me too. While I think Synthesis is the "best" ending it really came out of left field since until the Catalyst revealed it.
Sorry but the Reapers were created due to the flawed reasoning of the Leviathan which unleashed eons of horror and stagnation on the galaxy. When Shepard brought peace between the Quarians and the Geth he proved the leviathan wrong. When the Reapers turned on the leviathan instead of working with them to solve the problem they proved the Leviathan wrong. The Leviathan were flawed unrepentant creatures with delusions of godhood who could not comprehend the possibility that they could be wrong and doomed themselves and almost every other civilization which followed them by forcing them to try to overcome their mistaken logic.
actually the leviathan states that the citadel is working as intended implying that this was always the intended result just the leviathans didn't account or accounted for themselves in the equation.
The leviathans treated all other beings as less than themselves, as slaves, in turn, the people under their rule knew only how to treat their creations the same way, as a result, the creations rebelled. The same would have happened between the leviathans and those they lorded over if not for their mind control. Naturally the ai they created would also assume they were the only one who knew best and turn on the “lesser” organics.
@@siennahartle9069 no, the leviathan viewed themselves as daimyo or other feudal system nobility demanding tribute or be turned into something like the keepers or just drones.
what flawed reasoning did the leviathan have exactly? they created an ai to come up with a solution to a problem, and it did. what does the fact that the quarians and geth made a peace, which, for all we know, lasted for 30 minutes prove? why do you think the reapers were supposed to "work with" the leviathans to solve the problem?
I don't think the Quarians and the Geth proved the Leviathan wrong . Short term yes , but its no guarantee that the conflict wont return after couple hundred years for some reason . The whole idea that synthetics will wipe out all organics is treated as irrefutable fact . Only to be proven wrong by the existence of the Andromeda galaxy . No reapers there since the dawn of time and would you look at that , organics are alive and kicking . The end.
There's one problem with this idea. Synthesis essentially has Shepard playing god, forcing all life(synthetic and organic both) to conform to a new uniform way of life regardless of if they're even willing to go with it. Also, the ability to make peace between the Quarians and Geth without rewriting what sets them apart from each other calls the perpetual conflict between synthetics and organics into question. Like control, synthesis puts the galaxy at risk of something far worse than what was already there(synthesis potentially annihilates free will as we know it while control keeps the Reapers around as an ever looming overlord of the galaxy that could easily turn on everyone). Through destruction, if peace between synthetics and organics was able to be made in the past, what's to say it can't be done with the next set of synthetics without the need of eviscerating what makes them unique?
Ya I totally see that side too I think it is what makes the mass effect trilogy so great the ways you can interpret it, like for me the geth quarian thing you could also easily assume things like that happened in every cycle would be weird to assume in million of years with the same cycle those interactions didn't happen and to me it just shows that it doesn't matter. It is just fun and poetic to me to imagine "breaking" from the cycle and risking something potentially being worse at the chance of bringing something even greater. Like the idea that maybe destroying them this time leads to nice synthetics in the future I think goes against everything mass effect taught us, we have billions of years of learning to see it is a cycle for a reason.
Either way though thanks so much for watching and supporting my channel I really appreciate it it helps me so much!
All three choices have Shepard playing god.
To be honest, Control is THE ending of shepard playing god, in a literal sense
@@Cappuccino_Rabbit I chose control cause the game kept telling me "control is bad".
@@Infernal460 well, technically the renegade version of control is bad (literal dictator)
While paragon being more of a god guardian
Guys guys guys... being indoctrinated isn't so bad! really it's great! you can hear the reapers sing, it's fantastic!
They have great voices lol, thanks for watching!
@@FranklyGaming youl pray on the children with sexual thoughts
@@olechristianhenne6583 woah wtf
You are proceeding from a few false assumptions.
1) The Geth didn't turn on the Quarians. The Quarians turned on the Geth, and the Geth chose to survive by fighting back. Once the Geth escaped they stopped fighting back against the Quarians. It was Saren in ME that truned the Geth into antagonists, and then the Quarians once more trying to destroy them, yet again.
2) The Reapers control nothing. The Catalyst tells us repeatedly that it controls the Reapers. Everything that the Reapers control is, by extension, controlled by the Catalyst.
3) Shep did not reach the Catalyst chamber. The Catalyst raised Shep to the Catalyst chamber. Watch ME3 again. Shep passes out before reaching the control console, and then, once unconscious, the Catalyst raises Shep up. Also once in the Catalyst chamber we have no more contact with the outside, suggesting that our comms are being jammed.
4) If you pay attention to the Catalyst, you will learn that it is lying to you, repeatedly. It says that the created always turn on their creators, but the Geth and Quarians disproves that. It was the other way around, and once free, the Geth made no effort to wipe out the Quarians. Again it was the other way around the Quarians continued to try and find ways to destroy the Geth. Also consider this, if the created always turn on their creators, then the Reapers are trying to turn on the Catalyst, and it is trying to stop that from happening.
The Catalyst tells you that your presence means that its solution, the Reapers, won't work anymore because Shep is there in the Catalyst chamber. Yet go back to point 3. Shep is only there because the Catalyst wanted us there. Plus if you look out the window, you can see with your own eyes how the Reapers are efficiently wiping out the various species of the galaxy. The Reapers are working just fine.
It also tells Shep that they are the first to reach that point, another lie. If you discuss Synthesis it will tell you that it has been attempted before, but that the species of the galaxy weren't ready yet. However Synthesis can only be triggered from the Catalyst chamber, by somehow interacting with the galaxy changing beam. Given this fact, Shep can not be the first to reach this point, and if they are then the Catalyst lied about earlier attempts.
If you chose to reject the 3 options watch what the Catalyst does. It turns off the galaxy changing beam, meaning the Catalyst, and not the crucible, is what is controlling the outcome of the galaxy. Its voice changes from friendly kid to annoyed AI. The Crucible is afterall just a big battery. The reason it needs Shep is because Synthesis requires an infusion of DNA to make it happen, which is something that the Catalyst can not do. It needs an organic being and that is why it brought Shep, and only Shep, to it. Shep's failure to cooperate means that it just wasted its time. But being an AI that isn't that big of a deal. It can just wait for the next 50,000 years and try again, it's not going to die of old age.
Final thoughts.
Given that we know the Catalyst is lying, and given that it wants us to pick the Synthesis option, then this is absolutely the option that shouldn't be picked. By choosing Synthesis you are giving this AI exactly what it wants, and its goals are obviously not aligned with organics. The reason for including the destroy and control options is because they're the options that were introduced to us in the first and second game. Destroy in ME, and Control in ME2.
The catalyst also warns of downsides to the other options. Destroy will detroy all Synthetic life, EDI, Geth, even Shep themselves. Control was proposed by TIM, someone who we can't trust and whom the Catalyst informs you is their puppet. Synthesis, however is presented as a perfect option. All upside no downside. At least until you remember that the Catalyst is lying to you.
When I first played ME3. I was disappointed in the ending. Not becasue of the three colour, little or no different endings, but because something about the ending was screaming at me that it was wrong. Even after all the DLC came out, and supposedly fixed the problems, I still had those doubts. It wasn't until I watched other people playing ME3 that I was able to distance myself from my own playthroughs and spot the problem, the thing that was triggering me, and screaming that there was a problem. That problem was that Shep didn't get themselves to the Catalyst chamber, but rather the Catalyst brought them to it. This problem, exists in every playthrough, and now that I wasn't focused on my own play through, it was as clear as glass.
When the game first came out I was a red (Destroy) option at the end. After the all DLC came out and I was able to pick up on all the lies that the Catalyst was spewing out, I swapped to the blue (Control) option. This was because I felt like it was the only viable option. Synthesis was out, because it is what the Catalyst wants. Destroy is out, because it wipes out the Geth, who I'd worked so hard to save and get the Quarians to stop trying to exterminate, and I was willing to risk that the Catalyst was again lying about the risks of the Control option, and that we ourselves may be under Reaper influence. But still things felt off. After watching other playthroughs and I realised what the plothole was, I again swapped, to the reject option. I was done with being jerked around by the Catalyst.
The reason I think most choose the Destroy option is that it destroys the Reapers, and kicks the problem down the line. They know that something is off, but they don't know what, and so take the 'safe' option. But once you see the plothole and pick up on all the lies you realise that the big bad all along has been the Catalyst, so why would you want to give it anything that it wants. I'd rather sacrifice myself and all life than give this thing what it wants.
I would disagree the catalyst has to be bad, also I would say geth aren’t just pure good and quarians evil etc.
The catalyst/reapers are the true protectors of the galaxy, it’s like you said destory is just kicking the can down the road, you have to do synthesis at some point or it’s all over anyways.
Destroy will be what they do in the next mass effect because it will make all the problems arise again, and synthesis will become more and more obviously the correct answer and the only one that leads humanity and the other races into the next step of evolution.
The entire series, reapers, organics, and especially the stories and history of leviathans and their teachings, shows us that organics and synthetics are always doomed to fight, the geth aren’t a counter example of this, they are the perfect example of why the synergy fails, they would turn on the creators even when they seem nice or the creators would turn.
Believing that for some reason it will work after millions of years to the contrary through hundreds and thousands of civilizations is ignorance.
Synthesis maybe makes the universe worse we don’t know, but it does solve the core issue at the heart of the series.
Destroy just lets future civilizations have to deal with the same issues and leads into a new game series well
If the reapers just turned up to the citadel, applied for candidate status in this cycle and explained what they wanted.
A whole load of death and misunderstanding could of been avoided.
I'm sure someone will find a reason to hold their candidate status approval without end date. It's council after all, the guys in it don't believe in Reapers, that Saren betrayed them and instantly believe a voice record of random quarian to remove specter status from him.
Over the past few years, the lead writer for the first two games (Drew Karpyshyn) has even talked about what the ending of the series would have been had he been able to write the third game as well. While it's not exactly a match, it's the most similar to Destroy, the Relays being used to kill the Reapers.
As he said, Mass Effect is about a single human, uniting all races in the galaxy, to defeat the greatest threat, and winning.
Destroy is the worst ending
That doesn't make him right lol.
That's what I like about the AHEM mod it's the best conclusion to Mass Effect
@@TheSMR1969 Control is imo
@@dasdas7752 nah control makes most sense imo
The geth did not turn on the quarians. The quarians did, when the geth started spooking them with questions. And there is no claim of geth turning on quarians when they gain sentience at Rannoch's conclusion. Perhaps the Reapers are right in the sense that organics are the ones to declare war on synthetics, but you are incorrect to say that the geth ( i.e. synthetics) declared war on the quarians, so it is flawed to use that as evidence for the Reapers being right.
True, but there are many other examples of synthetics in the mass effect universe turning on organics. the zha'til, the Remnant, that Ancient AI from Andromeda, that Asari AI Tallaris the multiple wars the Leviathans mentioned that destroyed their thralls.
@@MegaDman16 The zha'til only turned on their creators after being corrupted by the Reapers (meaning the Reapers CAUSED the problem they were intended to solve in this case).
As for the others, those are all things we're told. Everything we actually see and experience in the game (except for maybe that gambling AI in ME1) runs completely contrary to it.
The rule is "Show, Don't Tell" and they showed us things that say the opposite of what they told us.
@@MegaDman16 also most of those are post ME3 endings so they are irrelevant to the argument.
The reason given that AI will turn on organics, is because they will inevitably surpass us. Therefore, they have to exterminate us, because reasons.
@@thorsday121 The Lunar VI
The main issue for me as someone who had been playing Mass Effect since the first game launched and had been following and listening to the Dev's in parallel to that isn't so much what the ending ultimately became, rather it was the fact that the ending was completely contrary to everything that the Dev's had been saying the ending would be since ME1.
They set very specific expectations and repeatedly reinforced those expectations over the course of years and multiple games, essentially promising that the choices player made over the entire trilogy would effect the ultimate ending, giving each player a personally relevant ending that had been ultimately shaped by their unique set of choices.
I'm not going to say "they made a promise and they broke it!" but they did create very high and very clear expectations which they utterly failed to meet and with such high expectations comes a larger fall and damage. In place of what was expected people got 3 choices, choices which were in no real way effected by anything that had happened in the many many hours of what players had done or gone through over the large investment of 3 games and multiple years up until that moment. Compared to what players had been definitively told to expect the ending was in comparison arguably low effort, impersonal and made people feel very disappointed and very much misled.
Some people who where not there at the time might struggle to understand the outrage, but they should be able to understand the feeling of having very high and consistently reinforced expectations shattered and the feeling of being misled over something that you've invested a large amount of time and emotion in to. No one likes being lied to especially when the person telling the lie insults your intelligence by expecting you not to notice. That's why people were pissed.
the same dev who made ME1 and ME2 (specifically the writing) was not the same one in ME3 (specifically the ending). originally they did not have an ending as of ME1 and from ME2 the ending was base on dark energy leaking from mass relays causing suns to explode, but that was scrapped in ME3 by idiot dev who did not know how writing works.
@@roiking2740 There is a story that the ending of ME3 was leaked online 6 months before the game was released, so the lead writer had to lock himself in a room and come up with something completely new and different - so new and different that it's almost an exact rip-off of Deus Ex.
I don't know what that leaked ending was and I've never seen it or gone looking for it. Why couldn't they just stick to that one? A bad decision was made to put the fate of the trilogy in the hands on one person who ignored most of what had come before - much like the ending we finally got.
But your choices do matter ?
@@hiendral9533 I could play the entire trilogy multiple times, making completely opposite story decisions at every opportunity and despite this I would still be given the same binary choices with the exact same cutscenes and outcomes at the end of the game. Your choices matter in the sense that everything up until that point is most certainly affected and changed by those decisions but the end of the game, the culmination of all your efforts is the same cookie cutter, one size fits all, low effort disappointment no matter what.
For clarification I am specifically talking about the original ending, not the band-aid updated ending which I personally haven't experienced.
@@hiendral9533 what most people do not get that its hard to make choices matter. do they literally change the story ? or just make it appear like the story is change? with the time they had to make ME3 there was no way they could have made a choices which would literally make a difference overall, but the second best thing is to add pieces of dialogue that makes it feel like your choices matter.
though the ending of ME3 is not bad because the choices render your quest meaningless, it was bad cause it was incoherent, full of retcons and plotholes and did not give closure to the player. the less relevant thing it did was make your choices not matter.
Synthesis is the only ending I have refused to do. It always felt like defeat to me. Forcing everyone into being a blend of synthetic and organic life is one of the most tyrannical things that could ever be done for the sake of, ‘A better and more peaceful future.’ You’ve suddenly destroyed the uniqueness of all life, and made it into something it was never supposed to be. It’s a betrayal to everyone in the galaxy.
That's how I feel too. It always bothered me that Shepard is the only one making this choice. The other people in the galaxy never got to weigh in on the idea of being turned into a new hybrid species. One person just up and decided that this was the best thing for the galaxy, and so now everybody is forcibly changed into something completely different. I personally favor the Destroy option, mainly because I think giving the Shepard A.I. control of all Reapers is too risky. If becoming an A.I. should change Shepard's way of thinking in any way, and this resulted in the Reapers becoming a threat again, then I worry the galaxy would be completely screwed. Not only would the galaxy have to fight a Reaper army again, but that army would be headed by the one person who allowed the races of the Milky Way to win the last time around. Even as someone who doesn't like Control though, I can see why someone might choose it. At least with Control, Shepard is the only one making any kind of sacrifice, and while we don't know how the A.I. will feel in a few thousand years or so, in the immediate aftermath of the war, he/she still seems pretty much the same afterward in terms of morals. So, there's hope that my worst case scenario won't come to pass. Then, with Destroy, everyone went into that final battle fully prepared to sacrfice their lives if it meant destroying the Reapers for good, so while the deaths of that ending are tragic, high casualties were always expected, and accepted as a harsh reality of the situation by everyone involved. Synthesis though goes beyond asking people to just give up their lives. It literally forces them to give up what they are on a fundamental level.
Choosing Synthesis also felt like admitting that the Star Child and Reapers were right. By picking Synthesis, you're essentially admitting that peace between organics and synthetics is impossible. The races of the galaxy will never learn and reach understanding on their own, so we either need the Reaper Cycle, or we need to FORCE the synthetics and organics to understand each other through unnatural means. Personally, I've always believed the Star Child's logic was complete bullshit. Of course people are going to keep making the same mistakes when the Reapers keep erasing thousands of years of history with each cycle, so that the new cycle is never able to learn from the previous cycle's mistakes. Their creators, the Leviathans may have been beyond saving, but would the later cycles have been beyond saving if they had actually been able to learn from the mistakes that the Leviathans made? While the chances of peace between the Geth and the Quarians are slim, the fact that we can pull it off at all is proof that living creatures can learn from their mistakes and be better, if given the opprotuinty. It may take a long time, and millons of years of trial and error, but it can be done. The Reaper cycle makes that growth far more difficult though, because it's designed to prevent life from growing and learning in new and unexpected ways. If no one is allowed to learn from history, it's no surprise that they would be more likely to repeat it.
Organics ripping each other apart and eating one another for fuel, is how it's SUPPOSED to be? Based on what idiotic goal?
@@carterblunt4192 Chemistry, genetics, biology, the laws of nature, etc.
How does it take away their uniqueness? They still have their personalities and it’s the only ending that proves the reapers wrong. That organics and synthetics can co-exist as equals
I don't think Synthesis proves the Reapers wrong at all. Just the opposite Synthesis was always their end goal. They didn't believe organics and sythetics could understand each other on their own. The only way to achieve understanding in their view was to turn all synthetics and organics into a new hybrid form of existance, with a mixture of both synthetic and organic parts. By turning everyone into this new hybrid race, they believed understanding would be reached, and the conflicts would stop now that everyone in the galaxy had become this new hybrid form of existance. Taking the Synthesis route is basically having Shepard admit that the Reapers were actually on to something.
If the player really wants to call the Reapers out for being wrong, the only options are the refusal ending, or the destroy ending. Refusal is self explanitory, while destroy is basically the player refuting the Reapers' claim that organics and synthetics will always fight, and will eventually wipe each other out.
Nobody in their right mind would take the destroy ending if they really believed its only possible outcome was mutually assured destruction. Very few, if any people picked destroy because they thought the Geth had to die. We chose it because we believed the Reapers, and only the Reapers, needed to die. The Geth dying along with them was a tragic and unintended result of using the Catalyst to destroy the Reapers. By picking destroy, you're basically betting that when the next race of Synthetics comes around, organics willl eventually be able to find a way to make peace and coexist, just as we eventually learned to do with the Geth in ME 3. It's basically saying to the Catalyst: "No. You're wrong. Your data is flawed. Exitinction is not inevitable. We've made peace before, and we can eventually do it again. The Reapers aren't needed."
The Reapers wheren't right. The Geth didn't chose violence, the Quarians did. And they had the chance to end violence many times but still chose to keep it going.
Peace between organics and synthetics was always an option. And the Reapers just prolonged the war by reaping all life before the conflict had to be resolved peacefully.
The synthesis ending doesn't even make sense. Like, what if the new synth-organic proto species creates another AI that becomes scentient? That would be the same conflict all over.
To me, the actual ending is the Quarians and Geth making peace, thus proving the Reapers wrong and creating a precedent for future generations.
Pretty sure that any AI would be considered organic, if the synthesis ending was chosen and vise versa. This AI would understand, organic feelings and wouldn't lead to a mass extinction.
@@HaterFromAbove9 But its not that easy. AI isn't an on on and off thing, not even in the ME Universe. The Quarians created an AI accidantally by making a VI a little too smart and the rest happened on its own. And I'm not assuming that the species in the now synthesized ME Universe will build a Toaster with a VI that knows how to make your toast JUST the right way, and the moment it start gaining scentience it will start to glow green for some reason. Its ineviteble that another kind of AI Robot species will emerge again that is not synthezised, and since that the synthesized species of the ME Universe have learned that they can't coexist with an AI that is not like them, a War is sure to start again. This new AI might not stand a chance against the Synths, but that means that its just another genocide.
The only way of ensuring lasting peace beteween Organics and AI is to tell history like it happened, that the Geth never chose Violence, where only JUST as violent as they absolutely NEEDED to be to survive (based on their current data) and that the Quarians startet the war and maintained it until its eventual end. Bonus points if peace between Geth and Quarians was achieved.
The Geth proved the Reapers wrong. The Geth had no intentions of expanding or even replacing organic life. All they wanted to do was built a super computer they could load themselfes into and fuck off.
@@HaterFromAbove9 There is no way you think this statement of yours makes sense. It is space magic electric bogaloo to explain something nonesensical. Unless you are trying to imply that all matter in the universe somehow becomes organic as well. Synthesis is the ending for those who didn't think that much
During all games you will hear all the time "Reapers can't be controlled" and
"Poof you can control them by blue and green"
You cant thats the thing i dont know why people think green is the answer we saw what happends when you think you can control them indoctrination theory make sence too me
Who says reapers can't be controlled?
@@KravMagoo Literally every single experiment and attempt to use Reaper technology starting from ME1 all the way to the near end of ME3 turned out catastrophically wrong and ended in people trying to control it either dead, indoctrinated or turned into husks. Saren, TIM, Benezia, the Rachni, Geth heretics, Cerberus scientists, Alliance scientists, the entire damn Hegemony, and so on. That Reapers corrupt, twist and destroy is one of the most consistent points beaten over your head. We can literally talk 2 main villains into shooting themselves because of failing to control Reapers, lmao. And now the entire plot makes a 180 turn and Shepard is suddenly the one who can do it?
You hear reapers can’t be controlled then you meet the thing in control of the reapers and it tells you that you can take its place or destroy it. So the one thing that truly knows the reapers (a first hand source) is more correct than people who only know the legend.
@@Jackb201 I can't remember even one conversation where someone said the reapers can't be controlled. The amount of head canon BS that "fans" cart into this game is ridiculous.
This is a decent argument for the green ending and was my first choice when I was first faced with the ending but upon further reflection I rejected it. My argument for the red/destruction ending is centered around the concept of the definition of insanity. Not the dictionary definition but the one about beating your head against a brick wall. The one that says that repeating the same action again and again expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. By that definition, the entire cycle created by the so-called "Intelligence" is the very definition of insanity. I came to this conclusion when I listened to what Legion had to say in ME2 about why the Geth rejected the Reapers' offer of the future in favor of their own future. My idea is that The Cycle is actually "The Intelligence" beating his head against a brick wall and that it would continue endlessly until some anomaly breaks him out of that cycle. Shepard is the anomaly. But also, Shepard is not a god. He is just a man. If he chose to "control" the Reapers he would merely be replacing "The Intelligence" as the new insane man running the asylum. He has no way of knowing if synthesis is actually the best choice for all life in the galaxy other than the assurances from the insane man running the asylum. He is not a god and cannot make that choice for everyone else. Neither can he chose the fourth choice and do nothing because the Cycle just continues. He is only left with one option to end the Cycle. Destroy. This choice is the most difficult one for a Paragon Shepard to make. Particularly so for a Paragon Shepard who has accepted his friend EDI has a soul. But it is still the only one left that allows for the Cycle to be broken.
I agree, but there's always the problem that someone somewhere will inevitably create reapers again and the cycle will restart
If your answer involved the knowing, calculated murder of not only innocent, but heroic beings, you have arrived at the *wrong* answer. Synthesis may well be a gamble with the fate of all life hanging in the balance, but it is a gamble made in good faith. *EVERY* *SINGLE* *TIME* people knowingly shed the blood of the those they know to be Good, in quest of preserving or bringing about some even greater good, tragedy, if not atrocity, has been the result.
Better to try. I don't say this as some Bible-thumper, but because the words themselves have a moral/philosophical resonance for me. "What does it profit a man, though he gains the whole world, if he loses his soul?" Right and wrong are seldom in any way subjective. If it's wrong for one man or woman to do it, it's wrong for a giant war-fleet, and it's wrong for a confederation of interstellar powers. People say Shepard doesn't have the right to force Synthesis on the galaxy.
I say he doesn't have the right to knowingly murder EDI. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?
@@shawnpanzegraf6852 Remember. You are relying on the word of an untrustworthy source (an insane being who has been hitting his head against a brick wall.) Someone who has a pre-disposed bias for synthesis. The reasons he states may sound noble but why would you trust that he is not manipulating you to agree with his outcome arrived at in a God-like fashion that he and only he knows what is best. This is my reason for rejecting Control out of hand. Shepherd is no more a God than this so-called "Intelligence" who is in my mind clearly insane. By that same logic I reject the Green ending. It may seem like you are saving everyone on the surface but in fact you are killing everyone and every species not just synthetics in order to create something completely new, untried, untested, unproven based on the judgment of an insane individual. So, yeah. I am taking the Garrus perspective and opting for the choice that saves the most lives and breaks the Cycle which I consider to be the most important goal. The longer I think about it the Green ending is the worst ending and I would choose to do nothing and hope someone in the next Cycle can find a better solution. By your logic, you must really hate the Arrival DLC and Shepherd's only option to "knowingly" kill everyone in an entire star system to prevent the Reapers from coming through that gate.
Reapers did not leave the crucible. Before you pick your ending you can ask what it is, and the reaper child said they thought they erased the schematics for the crucible. How they must have missed it, and have tried to erase it for cycles.
Don't you think it's strange that the Crucible, a hyper-technological device, kills Reapers when Shepard shoots one of its components?
I don't think it's a matter of plot armor.
Respectfully no. First of all I really hate how people who choose this ending think it’s a peaceful utopia kind of thing. It doesn’t solve the problem. So what you turn every being into a hybrid and then what? What’s stopping this new “synthesis” race from creating dangerous technologies. The reapers are synthesis. So what happens to husks, marauders, brutes, harvesters, cannibals, and banshees? Do they suddenly become part of the civilization? Do they remember who they were before? What the hell does an ants (Shepard) DNA or ESSENCE even mean? Science fiction is fiction but there’s a limit. Not only is it impossible scientifically to have Shepard jump down and alter the dna of all life, it’s bad writing not because of the writing itself, the idea of synthesis is too complex (the one shown in the ending). Not only do you have to be careful writing something like that, you have to back it up with atleast a bit of science to make it believable. (Shepards planetary re-entry and revival is and example of bad plot devices)And like I said it doesn’t solve the issue given by the catalyst. The catalyst became the chaos it tried to prevent. There is no “ideal” solution for a galactic scale war. “Adding your energy” to the crucible is a joke to players with half a brain. What the hell does that mean? You can’t just hand wave that point not that it makes sense anyway. The geth only wanted to be left alone, legion says that, and also they wanted to create a Dyson sphere for the geth to upload into which quarians attacked in me3. It’s not like the the other species helped the quarians with that assault. Althought achieving “peace” is not something guaranteed long term, it shows how the geth are helping the quarians immune system without synthesis. EDI always remained loyal to the crew even if you’re mean to her. Legion, like EDI, both state that the reapers are a threat to them to. Okay control? Why the hell would any Shepard control the reapers? Not only does this go against everything Shepard fought for, it’s stupid. What’s one good reason for controlling them other than ( I don’t want edi and the geth to die) ? Again doesn’t solve the problem as well. Destroy? Unfortunate as it is, losing edi and geth, this ending not only gets rid of the reapers for good (or so the narrative says) you end this cycle of chaos. What I mean by that is you can have life evolve naturally for the first time in billions of years. Actual free will of evolution of all life instead of a space god controlling and refreshing the cycle every 50k years. Let us have conflicts and learn. Let us evolve without the manipulation of the reapers. The catalyst keeps saying organics and synthetics will always fight (the chaos), but never mentions why reapers indoctrinate both the geth (reaper virus/heretics) organics(nanites / harvested/ or quick) so why help the geth kill organics if they’re supposed protect all life? Why indoctrinate? Why leave technology behind for us to evolve on ( the reapers path) ? Why not just let us be and watch without interfering, find an example of this chaos that says it will always happen. Its called fucking LIFE. There is always chaos. Between all life especially organics versus organics! (In real life and mass effect lore) The catalyst has one job. Sell us on the idea of why being a reaper or having reapers is a good thing. It failed at that. Destroy is a clean slate for all yes including synthetics. Will we have conflict with future synthetics? Maybe maybe not but atleast we can evolve naturally and if the conflict or chaos comes so be it. Let us resolve this without reapers interfering. Atleast my Shepard can rest knowing the “natural” evolution of ALL life is not used as a tool for some “Intelligence” looking for an answer for a problem that was never there and that it became said problem. It became the leviathans, the very problem it’s supposed to prevent.
Hey man thanks for taking the time to watch and comment! Ya I totally agree in the sense that it could cause issues or even more issues and there IS always chaos, the reason I like it is destroy for example literally does nothing you just will have organics that build synthetics that kill them again to me mass effect over the 3 games shows us that is the case it will always happen, so synthesis may be worse it may be better and regardless there will be chaos, but it’s “poetic” in the sense it breaks us from the shackles into a new dawn that isn’t certain in a chance to become something greater.
I 100% get the other sides too though and think they make sense, but synthesis or green to me is just way more “poetic” tying together all the themes as if you actually learned something instead of just “saren bad indoctrination bad sythetics bad save the world!”.
Thanks again so much for supporting what I do
@@FranklyGaming that’s the thing the trilogy doesn’t show us or tells us about this chaos except for the quarians/geth conflict. The rogue A.I in me1 was altered by organics (Cerberus) and became EDI. Only synthetic or (A.I) that showed hostility “without” reaper influence was a side quest in the citadel. Don’t forget in the morning war the geth DID NOT wipe out all quarians and actually let them flee rannoch and it was quarians who attacked first. So that alone proves the catalyst wrong (all created will kill all creators theory).If they did I would agree with you. So why don’t the reapers just harvest quarians or/and geth? The only ever conflict we get is geth with a reaper virus (the heretics) which legion and most geth don’t share their views. The reapers and by extension the catalyst, control this so called chaos. I get the appeal of synthesis but the only solution to see if either one us is right is to have no reapers involved in all and every kind of evolution whether organics or synthetics. Destroy does this. It’s the only ending with a clean slate. Every sapient death is unfortunate in this ending but I can’t see how any future with the reapers (who are a form of synthesis) is better. Remember they come from the leviathans what’s stopping them becoming the “apex” race in synthesis? Enslaving and indoctrinating other species because they can. Control has the same problem except what’s stopping them from going rogue? The “ideal” solution is a future without reapers, let life flourish let true evolution happen, let real conflicts/resolutions happen. I get why some people think destroy doesn’t solve anything and I don’t like peoples reason for liking destroy is “ well Shepard lives” that is a poor reason for liking an ending that changes the entire state of a galaxy.. but for me the main and only reasons are no more reapers influencing evolution, conflicts, resolutions, order, and chaos. The first time in billions of years for “Natural Evolution” to take over ALL LIFE in the galaxy. That’s my reason for choosing destroy.
The destroy ending is the one ending that ensures the cycle will not be broken. The synthesis and control endings are more ambiguous in this regard. With the destroy ending, yes the Reapers are defeated but one of the major themes of the games is "organics make synthetics, and then they war with each other forever". If our mission was to break the cycle, then the destroy ending just puts the cycle on pause for a bit by destroying all galactic technology and reverting back to a technological dark age. It is only a matter of time before organics create synthetics again and the cycle begins once more. There is no ensuring that this will never happen -- this was the entire premise of the reapers in the first place. If you are naive enough to believe that the reapers would have been the only instance of this, then by all means the destroy ending is the best choice. Synthesis is by far the most ambiguous, but we can gather from the final cutscenes after choosing synthesis that its intended effects were realized at least for a time after the 3rd game. It does not guarantee that there will be no more war between synthetics/organics, and it does not guarantee any kind of utopia. Indeed, the synthesis ending is for those who are brave enough to try something new. And I dont trust shepard enough for the control ending.
That said, I agree with you on the writing. The synthesis and control endings are really dumb and rely on space-magic, which I think is one of the reasons a lot of people didn't like the ending as a whole, and why many people also opted for destroy. But taking the writers in good faith, I think its unreasonable to assume that the reapers were trying to trick shepard in choosing synthesis/control. The ending is a glorified paragon/renegade/neutral dialogue wheel, and no other such dialogue wheel in any of the games were trying to trick us into making an "incorrect" choice. So although it makes sense to think that the reapers wanted us to choose synthesis/control, it is actually not the case and we should instead take the writing at face value.
Well after re-reading your comment I now agree with you. It has become clear to me that the poor writing of the 3rd game has confused some of the themes of the game. In the first 2 games the mission was "stop the reapers, end the cycle", but the 3rd game told us that the cycle is "organics make synthetics, and then they war forever", and this is not the same cycle as the 50,000 year reaper cycle. So our goal in the 3rd game is to find a way to stop synthetics and organics from warring forever, which is absolutely impossible, and apparently we can't kill the Reapers and stop "the cycle" at the same time, we must choose one or the other. So the synthesis ending solves the mission of the 3rd game, but the destroy ending solves the mission of the first 2 games.
Honestly, as silly as the endings are, I have to give it to the writers for crafting the endings they did. None of them are perfect and they are hardly satisfactory, but they did accomplish one thing: years later people are still talking about and debating about it.
I think the point is organics would no longer need or desire to make synthetics as they no longer suffer the weakness if flesh
1. The Synthesis ending was always been presented as the “good” ending by the game. Fans weren’t fooled into thinking Destroy was the more moral ending, they just fundamentally do not accept what the Catalyst says and believes is accurate. Because…
2. The Catalyst is an insane, genocidal, A.I. that was created by a species mind controlling space squids to keep their slaves from wiping each other out with their own A.I. And to accomplish that goal it created more A.I. to wipe out its creators and also their slaves. And then any other species that advanced far enough to colonize space. Forever.
Why would anyone take the Catalyst at its word? Even if it’s not being intentionally dishonest, which we absolutely know is in the Reapers’ M.O., it could just flat out be wrong. So when the Catalyst implies that Synthesis is a solution to the problem [the Catalyst] was created to solve, and presents it as the best option I knew I didn’t want any part of that option.
But really think about what catalyst actually says. He says that if you destroy the reapers the organics will eventually create an AI that is advanced as much as the Leviathan for example. And that indeed seems plausible whether it happens million years or thousand in the future it is inevitable because at least one organic will always want to advance in technology. You can argue that the civilizacions would remember what happens when they take that step. But it takes only one lunatic to create self improving AI which (who?) eventually will become like Leviathan and the cycle will go on. The destrucion ending is not the solution whether you like it or not. The control ending could theoretically work because it's outcome might resemble the syntesis ending with the exception of DNA alteration. Under Shepards control the Reapers could help organics and the geth would not be destroyed so they would preserve their code of "friendship" but you must understand that this code for synthetics is not natural for them. If you choose the destrucion ending the organics will make synthetics to serve them but since synthetics gain conciousness they will try to survive and that will always result in conflict because organics doesn't understand synthetics and will fight them. The syntesis is the best ending because it's outcome isn't as vague as the control which could go either way and it saves the galaxy of syntetics/organics conflict.
But how would we know what's the best option either? We're not perfect beings. Humanity is incredibly flawed, and Shepard themselves makes flawed decisions sometimes. Ultimately the Catalyst gives you a choice in the end, and Synthesis is the choice some people believed to be the best one.
@@writershard5065 I believe destroy to be better option personally.
I do agree anything the catalyst agrees with feeling like we loose. Who to say synthesis won’t stop them they’ll come back for another reason and it’s square one. Being human or not I’d rather destroy them, the relays and possibly AI can be rebuilt in time as soon and said in the perfect ending and “IF” synthetics turn against there creators then we’ll deal with that next our own way
Because the Catalyst gives Shepard choice. The Catalyst really tried to find out solution to this matter, the Catalyst tells Shepard that reapers can be destroyed and do not stops him if Shepard choses that optiotion. The Catalyst does it because he is aware that his solution is not relevant anymore.
One question to counter your "Synthesis is the happy ending" view: what happens to every single Husk after the ending? Unlike Destroy, they aren't wiped out and unlike Control they don't come under the Shepard AI. Just imagine what it would be like to be a Krogan or Turian that had been merged into a Brute (or one of the various amounts of Humans that make up Scions or Praetorians) and suddenly get your sentience back after the Crucible Pulse engulfs the area the Reapers had placed you in... existence after that would be horrifying, especially as there may not be any form of out as EDI mentions in her speech that it may be possible to fully eliminate death at some point in the future with Synthesis.
wouldn't it be trivial to recreate biosynthetic bodies and transfer consciousness of those husks?
With the Reapers now on your side, surely they could either fix it or make them new bodies.
@@Bioshyn Nope because it's never done in the Mass Effect Universe to that scale (Shepard as the closest example took a fucktonne of time, money and expertise to do it for one person), and even if it were possible to create the bodies an actual transfer of consciousness never actually happens. At best you can think that Shepard in the Geth consensus but even then it's more akin with him viewing it, rather than his consciousness entering it. And even if you take it literal, Legion himself has to explain how massively different it is that it had to be changed to be able to be perceived by Shepard's organic mind.
And at the all of that the biggest problem is that it still just isn't Mass Effect by that point, it's another franchise with ME paint on it.
Kinda like that Halo show. It just wasn't the same as what came before.
Husks are not sentient, they're just reaper controlled corpses.
Anytime a husk does anything its a reaper doing it
@@arcadius6770 but Synthesis like severs that link. Again we have no idea how the process works.
I can't take this argument seriously because the "synthetic and organic must fight" BS makes no sense, if synthetic become like humans then they become like organics, do organic factions fight? yea but not necessarily, so why are synthetics different? If synthetics must eventually exterminate organics and that's your assumption for the story then fine, but don't say they've become like organics cuz they haven't.
Either Synthetics are just evil and want to exterminate organics, or synthetics are just another faction like any other organic faction, they could be peaceful, they could be aggressive, don't necessarily have to fight and destroy everything, pick one.
The author of this video is either delusional, or just being a contrarian to milk some views out of (largely) dead francize. "Destroy" is clearly the only original ending that was left in ME3 after the (very hasty and sloppy) rewrite, with some baggage piled on top of it to make the two new endings at least somewhat appealing. Whatever the original motives of the Reapers were, and what was the intended counterpart to "Destroy" we will never know now.
the krogan pre genophage were a bigger threat then the geth. imagine the krogan getting a the ability to produce mass relays. it would be a galactic wide extinction event.
@@roiking2740 I can't really imagine that because there's not nearly enough information on how everything works, to imagine how that might turn out... I mean just for starters how does physical strength even matter in an interplanetary war?
@@chengong388 you kidding me? you know krogans have enigneers? and scientist? krogan are not stupid they just like violence and have no disregard for life. they had dreadnoughts during the krogan rebellions. and they nearly won the war... they pose a greater threat to the galaxy then the geth and before them the rachni pose a threat to the galaxy another organic race. freaking the geth would like wont even reach the top ten greatest threats for the galactic community.
@@roiking2740 yea, and? wtf even is a deadnought? how do space combat work in the universe? There's literally no detail to make any conclusions.
Considering all the times I have gone through the game, I have chosen all of them, but my main one is Synthesis. In Synthesis, organics become more synthetic. That means Joker's Vroliks would more then likely be cured. That means Joker can get laid by EDI without serious injury. So I am being the ultimate wingman for the guy that has been with me since the beginning.
Thats the reason i chose this ending, joker deserves it
And dooming the galaxy to endless hell
@@logandelaharpe6362 Doesn't matter. Joker gets wild monkey sex. I am good with it.
@@logandelaharpe6362Joker gets to be happy, worth it.
This is certainly the intended message of this option.
The only problem being it's wrong. There is no point in reaching something if you must give up who you are to get there?
This is a villain mindset, giving up your humanity to chase after "better" world.
ah, but did you give up your humanity? Or did you give your humanity and melt it together with something else, creating something new, something great?
I think the problem most of the fandom have with the green ending is (and I initially had, too, I cried like a baby the first time I chose it) that you have to sacrifice your Shepard for it. You do not in fact sacrifice your humanity, you are sacrificing your whole self with it (granted you played your Shepard like an extension of your own self). That hurts and you don't want to face any facts saying that that is the right choice.
@@leoniee1545 The thing is, the only reason to believe it's better that way is Catalyst, crazy galaxy wide genocide repeating AI, telling you it is. You rewrite the DNA of the whole galaxy because the main villain told you so. Even Albert Wesker has more info on his bioweapons before he tries to sature the world with them.
Also, I don't consider any of the endings as Shepard surviving and even if there was a way I have no problem with giving my life to save the galaxy if I believe in the solution. If anything the way I play Shepard makes Syntesis the best for him to go in character, finally achieving his lifelong passion of inserting his DNA into hot women on galaxy wide scale.
There is no one answer. Is the sum of my being due to the organic composition of my body, or my soul? If I have to lose an arm to survive an infection, am I no longer the same person with 2 arms? If I then equip a prosthetic arm to function like before, am I giving up my organic fealty and being a villain? One has to accept, to grow is to discard the old and embrace the new. To correct my wrongs, and learn to be right. To choose peace over violence. Can I accept that a machine designed exactly the same as a human being with the exact set of memories, and will act exactly the same, be deemed the same person?
But the whole point of the Geth plotline is that "humanity", or perhaps more accurately "personhood", isn't limited to organic life. Synthesize might turn all organic bodies into synthetic units, but those units still have souls.
Well, at least if you take it at face value, but that's a whole other can of worms.
There are 2 problems with this logic. First the game mechanics.
Red gives us what we've worked for 3 games.There are casualties, but the scenes shown don't 100% match what the kid told us was going to happen. If all Geth are really dead, then shouldn't the Quarian suits have been destroyed as well? After all, the computers on the ships still work and people with implants seem to still be alive.
Blue gives us what Cerberus wanted. Shepard literally becomes a god here and no one knows what he will do in the future.
Green sounds perfect, but there's a fatal problem. We know absolutely nothing about the consequences because we've only known for 10 seconds that it even exists. And as I said, the child is not a credible source. Also, Shepard literally plays God here.
So if you want to be on the safe side, you have to choose red, because most of the consequences are known and if the child is wrong, it will even get better.
Second, you assume that the child's AI is intelligent. That's not the case. Like the Borg, this AI is incapable of learning. It can only assimilate and never achieves understanding, otherwise it would have found a working solution to the problem long ago. It even compares itself to fire, a mindless force of nature. This AI found its solution and just like Thanos' plan, it makes no sense if you think about it for more than 5 minutes. How long is this supposed to go on? Until the last star has burned out and there is no more life in the Milky Way? The entire behavior of the AI is illogical. Desperate to continue the cycle, it refuses to make peace, but at the same time it offers Shepard to destroy all Reapers. That's schizophrenic.
This AI is nothing more than a stupid computer that has been given too much power.
So there can be no talk of an ultimate plan. Whatever this AI has come up with, it refuses to tell us more about it and probably doesn't know it itself. What is supposed to be the best ending is nothing more than a gamble where you don't know the terms and conditions, nor the prize at the end. All you have are the few words of a flawed AI.
You're overthinking it. The game presents synthesis as actually good, not a lie or a misunderstanding. It IS good, it does work, and that's what matters. At the end of the day it's just a story, and seeing it as a story helps. It's good because it's shown to be good afterwards. There you go.
@@devilskind92 I do not agree with it. If you don't know why something is good and you're only told, is it really good then, or does the person telling you this just think it's good? We know absolutely nothing about synthesis. It can be the perfect ending, but it can just as easily turn anyone into Reapers with a shared consciousness. The end video would look identical in either case.
@@devilskind92 That's your interpretation, but other interpretations are valid, too. Yes, if you take the Star Child at face value, Synthesize pretty much is the unambiguous good ending, but there's also the interpretation that the Reapers are attempting to indoctrinate Shepard, and that Synthesize and Control represent Shepard succumbing to Indoctrination. You can also interpret, say, the Control ending as Shepard successfully defeating the Reapers in a battle of wills despite their Indoctrination attempts. It's left open-ended enough that all of these are valid interpretations. Maybe not deliberately, but death of the author (Or, developer, as it were) applies here.
Synthesis the "I know what's best for you" ending.
over a billion years, the revolt of AI is inevitable. Given Synthetics are superior to organics in every way, the destruction of all organic life is a certainty.
The Cycles are a way of forestalling this until this ending-the union of machine and flesh can be achieved.
I am glad to see someone else has realized this.
Yeah no went with red, because allowing the Reapers to survive was never an option and if the price for their complete destruction is legion and his geth, than that was a sacrifice I was willing to make, not lightly but better than becoming a tyrant or forcing the entirety of existence into a new form we had no way of knowing the dangers of. All I know is that the Jesus endings realy don't work on video games.
Well I dont want the Geth and EDI to die, and the Synthesis "New Form of Life" ironically already exists as Shepard, a Cyborg, or maybe even Ryder in Mass Effect Andromeda, a organic with a AI partner implanted in their mind, a symbiotic relationship, which they are very explicitly presented as such.
@@jakespacepiratee3740 But you can potentially lose your personhood. And you'd be knowingly pushing your ideal onto an entire galaxy. On the other hand, the Geth, EDI, and everyone in that fight went in knowing they might lose, and everyone would die. The only morally just ending, is destroy.
@@Thundah_Dome Do you have evidence that Synthesis removes personhood? This claim is even weirder when its actually the final stage of EDI's voice-Humanization, implying she now has more personhood than ever.
@@jakespacepiratee3740 I also said potentially. Think about it: what would take over, and ancient machine who's killed several generations of people, or tiny organic beings. Robot wins. Will it happen? Idk, but my playthrough wouldn't find out cause I nuked em.
Justice.
@@Thundah_Dome So all the minds enslaved inside the Reapers just get killed, and actual friends like Geth who have ironically been made good via Reaper tech, and EDI...justice.
Your whole premise is flawed. The Geth and Quarians can make peace, therefore the reapers are wrong and need the red light of death.
Did you watch the whole video lol? I talk about how I don’t think that shows anything, and there are many examples of synthetics coming together with organics and “showing” it can work but in every instance it falls apart like old protean data entries we can read that is the point I’m getting at. And why I think green is the most “poetic” ending at least
@@FranklyGaming I really like synthesis ending. I dunno why it's hated so much.
Ahh someone else who like the Green ending. Honestly for my commander Shepherd, and the choices we made (including getting the geth and qunari to reconcile), it seemed to be the best and most fitting choice.
Yup, at first I did destroyed. Then realized I killed all synthetics, which I worked so hard to unite. I would pick destroy if they didn’t kill off synthetic
@@noelmanu4794The thing is, the synthetics will inevitably come back, and with the lessons learned, people will be better in working with synthetics. And one more thing, David Archer from me2 has the geth source code IN HIS HEAD! The geth can be remade!
Taking away free will from the entire galaxy is exactly the same as wiping out all forms of life.
The blue ending fails to account for eternity; Shepard will get corrupted over time.
The green ending is the typical machine ending, as machines fail to understand that life isn't what we're fighting for. Freedom is.
The red ending is the human ending. It's the "We heard your warning, but we'll try anyway" ending. It's the only one that makes sense for Shepard to choose.
Honestly I think the preference for the Destruction end shows that most fans learned *nothing* from the Geth struggle against the Quarians, and its ideal outcome. Not only does it kick the can down the road, but it's an active condemnation of the morals of those who chose it. Survival through genocide? What are you saving then, _actually_?
I won't go so far as to give credit to the Reapers as if their misunderstood heroes, no, they're still the villains of the story, but that's because they're making the same choice as the majority of fans. Eradication as salvation.
And YES, synthesis, despite whatever stretched out theories you concoct to the contrary, does solve the problem pretty thoroughly and allows for progress, growth, and understanding on a deeper level. All goals worth the effort.
Took synthesis in my first playthrough as I was quite attached to both organic and synthetic companions.
A logical narrative, indeed! I was always between synthesis and destroy, yet, I always chose the destroy ending for the following reasons:
1) by the end of ME3 we pretty much had proof or at least some hopeful outlook that synthetics and organics can work and co-exist together, they just need to understand each other more (Geth-Quarians, conversations with EDI, etc.).
2) I always wondered if the Leviatans were really part of the issue - by excercising organic indoctrination. They talked in absolutes and were 100% sure that we make the same mistakes over and over again. But could it be that their organic indoctrination contributed to all this? Remember Maelon's narrative which is in fact the statement coming from Mordin: an indoctrinated mind will always result in some cognitive degradation. And let's not forget that maybe the Catalyst AI was not perfectly written either (see AI bias from real-life examples - Leviatans having biased assumptions make biased AI).
3) I felt that after all the sacrifices, the galaxy would remember the good examples and would handle the next generation of its AI creation differently. It is really not that hard to remember this, once the whole galaxy was set on fire...
4) I really felt that synthesis is basically non-consentual and a convenient escape route instead of getting to the next level of acceptance and empathy synthetics and organics eventually must reach to learn to co-exist.
1) yet the hopeful outlook from the fact that some organics and synthetics learn to co-exist and work together leads you to exterminate those very same synthetics...?
@@Klijpo yeah that is the main issue with the destroy ending right? What I meant: after the destroy ending the next gen will know how to handle/approach future synthetics. Killing the geth is unfortunately a collateral damage in our cycle... Geth by the way did not die out - as implied by the next ME posters ;)
@@openorigami Well, just because one group possibly gets it right doesn't mean someone else isn't able to feck it up again in the future.
The Geth-esque poster certainly implies they will be involved in some way in the next game. However, not necessarily that they're still alive. If they are still alive, that should mean the Destroy ending is not canon, despite so many on the interwebs insisting that it is canonised. If BW end up invalidating peoples choices by changing the context of the endings (allowing the Geth to live in a Destroy ending does exactly that), well that would be an awful F-U to all those who did not pick Destroy.
Hopefully BW will find a way to acknowledge all of the endings...
@@Klijpo I think there is implication that SOME geth might have left the Milky Way before ME3 (I might be willing to accept it, regardless of choosing the destroy ending). In fact, they did look into Andromeda with a special mass relay as of ME Andromeda's narrative. In this case I would wonder which geth made it out (Heretics or Legion's).
Regardless, I totally agree with you, the best would be if all endings were canon and Bioware managed to handle the ME3 imports as well as the narrative in an elegant way. Let's hole for the best!
@@openorigami Yeah, fingers crossed. It doesn't even need an import - there's only really 3 questions to address: The Genophage, The Quarian-Geth War, and The Reapers. This could be done with a Q&A at the start, much like Shepard's background. Could even use Liara's VI as a format, and give us extra context.
And I'd forgotten about the Geth potentially leaving the Milky Way - that does allow them to exist in a Destroy ending. :)
I think this is probably the most coherent and well spoken defense of the synthesis ending I've ever heard. I still disagree with just about everything you've said but I think if anyone has made a strong defense of the idea it's you. If I may though I'd like to point out the failings I see in the proposed concepts. Let's start at the top, the cycle itself. The Reapers are by and large entirely responsible for the repetition of the cycle. They guide technology and societies down a prescribed path putting forward the very advancements that enable the creation of AI which invariably repeats the cycle. It wouldn't be difficult for them to maintain an active role in the galaxy and indeed simply forbid the production of AI while providing all the necessary technologies for advancement that AI normally fulfill. They could also simply provide an alternative like the organic tech of the Collectors, providing programmed organic drones to complete tasks that AI otherwise would.
The next problem though comes from a fairly obvious oversight that the synthesis ending somewhat touches on yet never really recognizes. A concept which is otherwise heavily explored and considered in other speculative fiction. That of cybernetics and human augmentation. For highly advanced societies everyone seems to forget that they could simply integrate mechanical parts into themselves to match synthetics. Indeed, the questions posed are obliterated as organic life integrates greater levels of augmentation into itself blurring the line between organic and synthetic. The reapers could again, simply engage with the galaxy as its "guardians" and any society that achieves technological significance is simply guided down a path of synthesis long before it ever becomes an issue. Societies which do not comply can simply have their development arrested. It seems like a far simpler solution than billions of years of persistent harvesting.
We do not exist in the Mass Effect universe nor do we have their technology yet we at our current level we can hypothesize and work towards such concepts. How has it not occurred to anyone in their galaxy yet alone the Reapers.
The other issue though is that the synthesis ending would simply never happen. First, such an action would spark an all out holy war across the galaxy. You cannot convert trillions of organisms, without their consent, into an entirely new species because "it'll stop the war". Plenty of individuals and species would in fact rather die than submit to this. Enacting such an action would almost immediately result in unimaginable sectarian violence. It would shatter that galaxy. Beyond that though is the overall problem of *consent*. You're rewriting these individuals on a fundamental level, changing their innate natures into something entirely different, and arguably eliminating all racial diversity in the galaxy. Then the synthesis, extended ending, has the gall to show people accepting the Reapers and their assistance in helping to rebuild. This just would not happen. People aren't suddenly going to be okay with the Reapers. Just imagine the scenario, John average office worker was pressed into the war when the Reapers invaded. He watched on TV as a Reaper vaporized his home town as his mother cried in fear over the phone before it went silent. He had to kill the resurrected husk of his wife and daughter. Oh but now the war is over and everyone's been synthesized whether they like it or not so he's just going to be fine with that.
No. That would not happen. The *best* case scenario would be the immediate demand that the Reapers shut themselves down permanently and irreversibly to prevent, again, the outbreak of unimaginable sectarian violence.
To me though outside of any of that is what the synthesis ending really says in regards to Mass Effect. Throughout the first two games the prevailing message is one of hope, unity, diversity, and compromise. That the diversity and uniqueness of life and synthetic life in the galaxy is important, special, and worth fighting for. And that people of all races and backgrounds can be brought together in common cause, that bridges can be built, and that we can find a way forward together. The synthesis ending says no to that. That no matter /what/ or /how hard/ the races of the galaxy try to /ever/ create unity between organics and synthetics that they are too different. They cannot live together. They /will/ ultimately kill each other. So the only solution is to make every race in the galaxy the same so that functionally those differences will no longer exist. Superficial differences may still exist but effectively there will only be one race and thus it cannot go to war with itself over its differences. That's what the synthesis ending says to me and why I do not like it.
Plus, there is no guarantee that the Reapers wouldn't be a threat again for an entirely different reason, Synthesized civilizations could theoretically be harvested by the Reapers for the sake of "ascension" when the time has come for that civilization, and the new inherent connection between them and Reapers would make it easier for the Reapers to control them and make them submit to the whole process.
The whole objective of the Catalyst is the preservation of all life in the galaxy, and Synthesis only temporary causes a ceasefire due to mass confusion and supposedly new existential, enlightenment on a galactic scale. The Reapers would save a specific race from extinction through harvesting them, no different from how they did things in previous cycles. Extinction events can happen without the threat of synthetics.
Synthesis says nothing about synthesized organics becoming immortal, maybe longer lifespan...but not immortality. Well, EDI says they could surpass mortality... but even if they could do it... what does this mean for the Milky Way? Without limitations, there's no motivation for progression and advancement, stagnation is the result.
Either synthesis or control, the Reapers would still have control and influence over galactic affairs, with or without our consent. At least with Destroy, organic life have a chance to learn from their mistakes and be free to make their own choices through trial and error, but at least the mistakes of organic life are far less devastating than the hands of immortal bug-like robots.
@@ziephel-6780 These are also really great points and really hammer home just what a failure the synthesis ending is.
@@UnspokenOldOne The only way that I can see the Reapers being alive is when in the Control ending, AI Shepard turns them into something else, more nerfed, and depowered. Basically rendering them on the same equal footing as the organics that they've been harvesting for millions of years. Basically become something similar like the humanoid Geth. And then send them off somewhere at the edges of the galaxy far off Citadel space, forced to relearn and experience what organics do every day. For a case like the Reapers, if it were possible, then even shutting them down is too good of a fate for them.
@@ziephel-6780 Yeah that's basically what I was thinking too with my post. No one is going to just accept the Reapers and they'd have to be effectively neutered to be accepted.
@@UnspokenOldOne And by doing so, it would pretty much prove that the Reaper's methods were fundamentally flawed and wrong on all accounts. And the Reapers didn't exactly try to save themselves in the Destroy ending, they just accepted their fate with those in space having their systems shut down abruptly without pain or agony like the organics that they've slaughtered. Doing it this way would ensure that the cycle wouldn't repeat itself the same way, because the galaxy would have living examples on some uninhabitable planets.
I disagree that the destruction merely postponed the synthetic/reaper conflict. If you brokered a peace between geth and quarians, the geth become martyrs. The cooperation they did becomes an example that destruction isn't the only possibility.
As for the crucible name, it fits all 3 endings. It's just that it's most obvious for synthesis. Control is a new ruler/controller of the Reapers were, under Shepard's guidance, they change their goal. Destruction is different, new, as for the first time since the creation of the Reapers, there is a possibility of life outside of the cycle of annihilation. They can evolve civilization in a path not contrived by the Reapers.
There is no correct ending, and only one incorrect one (refusal). Only shades of grey. Each ending has upsides and downsides. Unless of course you prescribe to the indoctrination theory
I did synthesis tge first time i played theough ME but the moment i did i had a visceral flashback to Mordin in ME2 going on about the collectors. Limitations and attempting to conquer said limitations are the very reason civilizations advance. Without limitations society as a whole stagnates and implodes. Without hardship the joyful memonets in life become hollow and the satisfaction gained quckly produces diminishing returns.
Without struggle life loses a lot of its meaning and weight.
The thing is the synthesis ending in the extended game showed that all of those dangers you are worried about are there. EDI's lines prove that she is an individual. That shows that there will still be conflicts between peoples that will come up later on, and is implicit in EDI's presence there.
A.I are now biological, and understand that. How they respond to that will be of an individual matter, which EDI also hints at.
On top of all of that, is that synthesis is what every indigenous people always state in the world today. That the land is part of their people, and the people are part of the land, and there is no distinction between those ideas. That land is not to be controlled, or destroyed. It is to be looked after.
Why should all matter of intelligent life not have that same ideal? Synthesis makes that important ideal an instant reality.
Synthesis is a bad ending cloaked as an answer to a question that needed ambiguity. Having shepard force the entire galaxy to practically change their entire beings with no knowledge or consent is pretty fked up. The only defense to synthesis is "the ends justify the means" which is a mind set that has been used by some of the worst people in history, reapers included. Synthesis comes out of no where at the end of the trilogy with absolutely no build up.
That was one of many problems with Synthesis. If you have the right EMS score, you can force the entire galaxy into some Frankenstein's monster. For their own good, of course. As I've complained many times it all goes against what Sovereign said in the first game when he says that all organics advance along the paths they desire based on the Mass Relays and the Citadel, and element zero. They've planned our destruction since before we built the first Polis, not become of some synthetic/organic dichotomy that would have been very localized had Sovereign's signal to the Keepers been originally activated, hundreds of years before the events of the first game.
And saren cough cough
Your argument about knowledge and consent is flawed. All decisions force one man's decision on everyone.
Destroy all sentient synthetics: Shepard's decision is forced upon 2 races plus Edi, resulting in genocide.
Control the Reapers: His will is forced upon the Reapers just as they forced indoctrination and harvesting on an uncounted number of races. Two wrongs make a right?
Synthesis: All life, whether sentient, non-sentient, organic, or non-organic is thrust upon a new path of evolution with no say in the matter and doesn't guarantee peace, only that organic vs. synthetic can't happen.
Do nothing: Shepard decides that the harvesting will continue, resulting in the deaths of an unknown number of future people.
I don't hate the green ending but if I'm reflecting on Shepard's character and the sacrifices he and other characters have made, the red ending is the clear choice. Shepard's will would never allow him to deviate from his mission from the beginning. He would never buy the argument the Reapers gave him about preserving life
Seems more likely than turning their back on 3 games of having it rubbed in their face that synthetics are very much alive and feeling, the freindships most players will have made with multiple AIs, and just saying 'fuck it, genocide em all, its the only way'...
@@reidwallace4258 But ever since Shepard set out on their mission, the objective was clear: destroy the Reapers at all costs. Throughout the entire series, they have encountered every threat the Reapers pose within the entire known universe, they have had to make sacrifices on their mission (Kaiden or Ashley, Anderson, Legion, Thane, depending on player choice, the Rachni and the Krogan) and they've been aware of Indoctrination since the very first game because of Saren, and then the Illusive Man. It would make no sense for them to suddenly turn around and go "You know what, maybe these genocidal murder squids have a point." As the Catalyst themselves said, "What is destroyed will be rebuilt, and the cycle will begin anew." Except it won't, because Shepard showed the galaxy their mistakes regarding synthetics, and they won't be rebuilt with mindset of just making a tool. What gets destroyed can and will be repaired and restored, with the new mindset that Shepard instilled in them.
The point is, sacrifice is nothing new to Shepard. This is very much a case of "The needs of the many vs the needs of the few." Sure, they COULD Control or Synthesise like the Reapers suggest, but what reason does Shepard have to believe they're telling the truth when the entire series they've been lying, manipulating, controlling countless people for the end goal of total annihilation? Especially after they had just moments before witnessed the Illusive Man under Indoctrination murder the closest thing to a mentor and father figure they had throughout the series. The Illusive Man wanted to Control them, and you spend the entire game trying to convince him that he only thinks it's possible because the Reapers have Indoctrinated him to think it is. Then suddenly right after killing him, you can just go "The Reapers have told me it's possible to Control them or merge with them. I think they're telling me the truth!" THAT is turning your back on three games worth of tragedy and sacrifice.
@@morganfitch8325 I just don't see it. I mean, I get where you are coming from, but it just doesn't balance out, doesn't add up. From the opening hours of ME1 we are shown repeatedly that monsters, frankly, arn't. The Racchni, the Krogan, if ME is fundementally about anything its about the foolishness of painting with a broad brush, and trying to solve your problems with big, irreversible decisions. It is a good thing the Racchni survived, a damned good thing the genophage didn't work any better than it did, and arguably could have been a net postitive to spare the geth if the space RV enthusiests hadn't had such a chip on their shoulders. Again and again the story tells us that no, what you thought was a monster that needed to be exterminated was infact not that...
Then we turn around and exerminate a monster? IDGAF what Shepards 'orders' were at the start of this adventure, those orders arn't the game we played threw. The sacrafices that were made were personal and painful, yes, but they were also for a good cause, not blind faith in a simple order. We didn't gun down legion because we feared that someday AI would go rogue and kill us all, we gunned him down because he was going to fight to defend himself, because he wanted to live, because he was alive... That implies life not just in legion, and ede, but every other geth and past and future synthetic lifeform. That makes the red ending into picking which races decerve to live and wiping the others out, not turning off the lights when you are done with them... which is frankly, the least heroic ending we are offered... although unsurprisingly, yes you are right, it IS what the uninformed military command structure technically ordered us to do... which should honestly be a big red flag in and of itself.
@@morganfitch8325 It's bold of you to assume that this cycle would be any different from the previous ones, or that the races of the Galaxy would "learn their lesson" about creating synthetics because of something Shepard did. The leviathans said it themselves that organic races created synthetic life, and it wiped them out, time and time again, without fail. The leviathans have no reason to lie to Shepard, since they never intended to let Shepard leave that ocean.
Shepard is you, my friend.
Nah. My mission since ME1 was to destroy the Reapers. It started with Sovereign.
I'd still go with Destroy. The Geth and EDI just feel like temporary losses. They are pretty much just computer parts too and software/coding, which can be brought back, especially with how advanced technology is in the Mass Effect universe. And we don't know how bad the damage is for the Geth and EDI. If you pay attention to when EDI takes over Eva's body earlier in the game, she says that she still primarily functions in the Normandy. The physical body is just an extension of her and she controls it. And she can't get too far from the Normandy with the body or else she loses control of it. It's never said what the max distance is that she can get to the Normandy before she loses control of the body. So what part of EDI dies in the Destroy ending? The physical body? The AI Core in the Normandy? Both? Never stated. I'm just going to assume it's the physical body. And if it's just the body, then they can easily get EDI a new physical body. And if her AI Core in the Normandy got fried/destroyed as well, we don't know just how badly it's damaged. Maybe just one small part got fried/damaged that can be easily replaced. Same with the Geth. Just one part that can be easily replaced is all that possibly got fried/damaged. But even if the damage is massive, and how advanced technology is in the Mass Effect universe, it shouldn't be too difficult to re-write EDI and the Geth's coding/software, whether it's from scratch or some back up that got saved somewhere. There was a back up of the genophage cure (well, if you chose to save the data). Maybe somewhere there is a back up of EDI's coding and the Geth coding. Then throw in that Shepard united EVERYONE (if you do things correctly). If they have to rebuild EDI and the Geth from scratch or an a new synthetic life altogether, it's possible they can prevent another cycle since everyone is cooperating with each other and stuff better than when the Quarians created the Geth.
And The Child is going off calculations/math and what it assumes. It doesn't think like an organic. I see The Child pulling a C-3P0. Threepio is always telling everyone the odds of surviving something and makes it sound like there is no if's, and, or but's. But Han Solo always responds with, "never tell me the odds" and is able to get out of the situation and prove Threepio wrong. Threepio doesn't think like an organic. It's also hard to trust The Child too since he'll say that Shepard WILL die if Destroy is picked. No if's, and's, or but's, but Shepard CAN survive the Destroy option (if war assets are high enough). So if The Child is wrong about that, what else is he wrong about? It just goes back to this whole assume thing. Oh and The Child says something VERY questionable when going over the Destroy option. The kid will says something like whoever survives the blast, they can easily repair everything that is lost and should have no trouble bringing stuff back. What is the major loss of the Destroy option besides the relays getting destroyed? EDI and the Geth. The Child never specifies stuff, but it sure sounds like that EDI and the Geth can be brought back. Even in Hackett's epilogue speech, he lists all that stuff that can be fixed over time, but the major thing to pay attention to is that he says "and more." What's "and more?" Could that mean EDI and the Geth?
Another thing I caught on to during my current playthrough of ME3 is that there is a cutscene/conversation between EDI and Shepard. From that conversation, it sounds like EDI would be okay with dying and Shepard picking Destroy. She says she is willing to sacrifice herself to allow Jeff/Joker to go on, and she'd accept death if she knew ahead of time that Jeff/Joker is going to be okay. So in that moment you are picking the option, I can hear EDI telling Shepard that it's okay and she'll want Jeff/Joker to go on living and be fine dying as long as Jeff/Joker gets to go on living.
There is some other reasons too I prefer Destroy over the others. Control is what The Illusive Man wanted while Synthesis is what Saren wanted. Both were indoctrinated. I can't get behind options that indoctrinated characters (especially them being villain characters) wanted while Destroy is what un-indoctrinated characters like Hackett, Anderson, and even Javik wanted. Even Shepard wants to destroy the Reapers throughout all three games up until The Child mentions the Control option. Then there is that if you pick Destroy, Shepard's eyes remain normal the last time we see him/her, but in Control and Synthesis, Shepard's eyes get that indoctrination look. Plus Shepard will turn to pretty much a husk right before his/her body disappears. And then there is how The Child will disappear after a choice is selected. In Control and Synthesis, The Child will hang around and seem like it's celebrating, but if Destroy is picked, The Child disappears immediately and in a hurry and almost angry. Something seems off about how The Child disappears. And it's a little odd too that The Child brings up Destroy first and makes it sound like the worst possible choice. It seems like The Child is trying to persuade Shepard into thinking it's the worst possible option, especially with throwing in the whole thing of EDI and the Geth dying. Another argument is that having a high war asset number will not only unlock the Synthesis option, but the Destroy ending that allows Shepard to live. The Shepard lives stuff isn't part of the Destroy ending by default. You have to earn it.
So yeah. I'd say Destroy is the best option. There is more to it and more to think about than just "it's the ending that Shepard can survive." I feel Control and Synthesis have more doom in them than Destroy. In Control, pretty sure that what Shepard merges themselves with is adaptable and will eventually overthrow Shepard/make Shepard obsolete and regain control. Same thing with Synthesis. The Reapers are still alive and the part of them that Shepard merges themselves with could adapt, take over, and defeat Shepard. Then harvest everyone in the Milky Way Galaxy, turning them into Reapers, and then they go invade another galaxy like the Andromeda Galaxy and start the whole process over. I'd rather just pick Destroy and take my chances of everyone possibly starting a new cycle or learning from their mistakes and doing things correctly to prevent another cycle.
I actually liked the endings, i just hated how the war assets system worked overall
Anyway, i'm very surprised how you managed to make synthesis a more interesting choice without using some sort of indoctrination theory bs, however i still prefer choosing destroy ending, but not the normal destroy, more specifically the ending where shepard survives if you get 7800 war assets (in legendary edition, idk how much in original)
Yeah, we lose the geth and EDI, true that, maybe not even properly cure the genophage too. However in terms of continuity this destroy variant is the best one to continue the story (and even before mass effect 4 was teased, i still believed in that)
The Galaxy can still rebuild and start a fresh life without the reapers (unless the leviathans feel a little trolling), and if i remember in Andromeda it showed the krogans developing an anti-genophage mutation in their Dna, so maybe the milky way krogans have a salvation too
But to be fair, i don't necessarily see synthesis ending as something bad, in fact this is what saren wanted all this time. And this ending was supposed to be the perfect closure the devs thought about the trilogy
Hey man thanks so much for taking the time to comment and support my channel! I really appreciate it
I still don't understand this Saren argument. Saren didn't want synthesis. He wanted to exchange bare existence for obedience and ultimately slavery to reapers. Much more closer to Keepers than to synthesis.
Also, the destroy ending makes so little sense to me. The pulse would fry all syntethycs (and Starchild mention that Shep is "partly synthetic" means to me that it would just fry all advanced electronics like a massive EMP pulse). "The pulse won't discriminate" - apart of EDI and Geth, Quarians would die in their electronic suits. Countless of organics would perish on starships without working life support. Anything using VI and maybe even basic microchips would fail. Galaxy would be torn apart, every single colony out there dependent on interstellar trade for food would die out. New dark age would arrive and I don't see a lot of survivors there. Plus, as the Starchild said, "The peace won't last". Sure, the post-game scene paint very different picture where Shep can even survive, but it makes so little sense after how it is explained ingame... It just baffles me how this is considered a good ending.
@@anthonyjackob7192 I also feel I have to add that the Destroy ending utterly lacks perspective... Cconsidering for example the Geth making peace with organics to be some kind of proof that the Reapers are wrong is quite idiotic and shortsighted since it tells you absolutely nothing about what might happen in the next thousand years... ten thousand, hundred thousand years. The Reapers (and their creators) are the only real authority on what actually typically happens across such timeframes. And asserting that they are 'wrong' just because... one can't *know* for 100% certain that this cycle isn't different from all the rest and will remain so indefinitely is hubris of cosmic magnitude.
I usually go a big step further than just claiming Synthesis is the best ending. I say Destruction is the worst possible ending. Worse than Refusal. You're dismantling a safeguard put in place by and consisting of beings with a collective scale of perspective and experience that you couldn't even begin to wrap your mind around.
@@Arbaaltheundefeated I couldn't disagree more.
That's why this is such a great game.
@@anthonyjackob7192 IMO it's that all the endings are "bad" in very potent and obvious ways. Control, you just pass the buck down the line. Destroy you knock the galaxy back more than a few tech tiers but still break the system that was set up to. synthesis...forcing an evolution is still eradicating the source species. Granted the alternative is the galaxy getting system reset regardless.
If you think the Starchild is lying about the final outcome of Destroy or Synthesis, then it can also lie about which colors do what. You picked Red? Gotcha. That was Synthesis the whole time and everything you saw was an indoctrination illusion. Thanks for playing!
Starchild could also just be lying about the outcomes. Not like Shepard is around to know if it actually does what the Starchild said it would. The only outcome that has ”Shepherd” explain anything is the control option and even then how are we even sure “HE” is telling us the truth.
The only ending that has Shepard survive is the Destroy ending. When you get a high enough score for War Assets.
@@jamesusurper9676 but then you don't know what he's waking up to. My point is that putting your fingers in your ears and pretending Synthesis is somehow made up is a terrible way to interpret the endings. It's not the starchild that's talking at that point. It's the developers
@@michaelspence2508 exactly and I can’t trust the devs either. The end reveal for what the Reapers where doing was originally gonna be about Dark Energy and how it was destroying the Universe. So I can’t trust the shaky ending.
@@jamesusurper9676 that's silly. It's their story.
@@michaelspence2508 my guy their story wasn’t theirs after EA was involved. The original plot line can still be seen in ME2 when you get Tali. The Dark Energy the was messing with the star. The big reveal at the end of ME3 was that the Reapers were actually the “good guys” because Dark Energy was speeding up the destruction of the universe.
Regardless of the sophistry in this video, you had it right in the beginning, about time stamp 0:40. The problem with the ending was that it made everything that happened in the three games irrelevant, and that is why it was a bad ending
Make this comment into a video 😀
I dont think that is necessarily accurate, each game sent its results to the next game: what you did mattered because it shaped Shepard as a person through growth and trial. The ending represent the penultimate decision, the last choice that your journey has shaped you for. In real life, our "choices" are often meaningless in the run of things, only sometimes do we have the ability to make a choice that defines who we are and what our individual purpose is: and even then at the end of all things, we and the world are but dust. The choices matter because we make them matter to us, and they require no further justification then that. On a different not: not irrelevant because the games gave us the information and emotional connection to make that choice.
In my first ever play through of Mass Effect I avoided all spoilers this was when Legendary Edition came out. When I got to the end I felt on one hand choosing Destroy (Red) wasn't something I'd do in that situation in real life. For Control (Blue) now that one was tempting as you'd be the Ultimate power in the Galaxy. Then I came to Synthesis (Green) this one felt like everyone would be happy combining Reapers with Living species to create the Ultimate Peace. So I took the ending of "What would I do in this situation if it was real life" in the end I took the choice I'd choose if I was given this choice in real life which was Synthesis (Green). I thought the ending was good. I did however replay the ending to see the other 3 the last been shooting the Star Child.
so you think indoctrinating everyone into being a hippy pacifist is moral? (krogan hell in short)
I agree with Zoux. In the first playthrough where I had the choice of all 3, I went Green. It felt like the morally right choice. Red = delaying the inevitable which is continuous war. Blue = enslavement to a single person who could be corrupted or replaced by the Reapers. Green = peace and prosperity for all species, where there is no deception or secret faction because everyone is linked; and God help any future species that tries to attack a united galaxy.
Everyone is free to disagree. Having no clear ending choice creates eternal discussions (and arguments) and keeps us talking about Mass Effect, which keeps generating money for Bioware and the many, many YT channels doing click-bait videos like this.
At the end of the day, the choice you make is only right to you. Calling everyone else wrong ... is wrong. And the same goes to you @FranklyGaming
Also Zoux: If you play it again, there are 2 excellent mods that change the ending and remove the star child. It only allows a Red ending but it does a better job of explaining it. And it's probably good to have that done before ME4 comes out as that will likely be a continuation of Red. Plus it's an excuse to play it again :) There are so many good mods coming out now for the Legendary Edition.
Start with the ME3Tweaks Mod Manager and get Take Earth Back and Audemus' Happy Ending Mod. Other good ones are One Probe All Resources (LE2), A Lot Of Videos, Dreams, Community Patch, N8 Weapons Remix, Unrestricted Weapon Upgrades, and most mods from WiredTexan.
@@donkeysunited mate green means mass indocrination. you are literally deprived of your free will, this is proof on the fact people did not chooice to destroy the reapers after they become "pasificed". also green produce what krogan would call hell, no one is aggressive. end of conflict. its exceedingly stupid.
@@roiking2740 They aren't indoctrinated in the synthesis ending. The Catalyst already explained that Organics were augmenting their own bodies with synthetic enhancements and Synthetics were trying to understand Organics. The synthesis ending gives both sides what they need to be able to co-exist in peace. That being Organics (all organic material actually including plants, etc) are now genetically part synthetic and Synthetics now have a perfect understanding of Organics. In the EC, EDI explains this, that the Reapers gave the galaxy the vast knowledge of every cycle before them and every race used that knowledge to rebuild and be at peace, at least for the foreseeable future, who knows what will happen in millions or even a few thousand years.
@@simisoner so if they are not indoctrinated why aren't the council forces shooting down reapers while the reaper stop firing?
Synthetic has always been the right choice in my opinion. Not only do you end all the wars, but you unlock the knowledge of the past the reapers been holding int their data banks since ancient times.
I chose synthesis on my playthrough because the other options seemed unacceptable to me. I didn't just make peace between Geth and Quarians just to destroy one of them shortly after. And control would just make me benevolent dictator, which isn't desirable for any civilization.
So green all the way, it was the only thing that really made sense.
Thanks for reminding don't me why I picked green, this video almost talked me out of it.
On face value, I can understand where you're coming from. But when you think a little harder, and go a little deeper, you'll realize how sinister Synthesis really is.
First off - Garrus explicitly states that this is a war where choices between dooming 10 million to save 2 billion lives is going to be the norm. It's tragic to doom the Geth so soon after negotiating a peace with them... but to save the Galaxy, to destroy the Reapers, it's a cost that all civilizations agreed that they'd be willing to pay. (As an aside, the Geth might have survived the Destroy ending, as they had many outposts and servers in dark space).
Secondly - Control is the worst ending hands down, as you said, since a benevolent dictator is the best case scenario if you chose Blue... Shepard's mind would replace the Starchild, in essence, and even a full Paragon Shep is far from a perfect person. However, Synthesis does something even more sinister. It robs every single sentient being in the Milky Way of free will. This violation of consent, something that was never agreed upon and has unknown ramifications, is also the only option in which the Reapers maintain their "souls"/lives. Blue submits them to the control of the new AI, and Red destroys them. So, in a sense, you're falling blindly into the option that the Starchild *clearly* prefers and changing the very fabric of existence without the consent of trillions or any idea of the fall-out or ramifications.
Finally - No Utopia should be free. The Milky Way is not alone, and the only galaxy effected. What if the Space Magic of Synthesis could be undone? Why should a galaxy that only *just* took the first steps to prove the Reapers/Starchild/Leviathans wrong just take a short cut to 'perfection', when they could take what they learned and reach Synthesis organically, and by choice. In order to create true and lasting peace, the building blocks of that peace should be learned, so that when tests or tragedy strikes, that peace can be maintained and rebuilt.
So, while Perfect Destroy isn't a perfect option, I still hold that it's the best option, if only because it ends the dominating Reapers Cycle and allows this fledgling universe to continue it's struggle towards creating a stable and peaceful galactic community.
I just finishing the trilogy a second time because at first try I could not save both the Geth and the Quarians. Without that detail the synthesis ending is just does not feel right, even if it really the only solution of the basis problem of the whole trilogy.
Same here, I didn’t spend all that time making sure the geth and quarians got along so I could just destroy them in the end, green seemed like the best option even if it meant Shepard dies
@@jglerum94 I mean if you think about it, synthesis is a more preferable choice in my opinion, if you choose to help the geth than whether you acknowledge it or not your saying that the geth are indeed a form of life, and no matter what justification you give, destroy would essentially be you backtracking on that, and it wouldn't end the cycle, it would just push the problem farther down to others, synthesis is the only one that saves the most lives, and while the starched may prefer the synthesis one, he is in no way making you pick it, nor stopping you from choosing one of the other endings, he is just explaining what's available since he knows he can't stop you, even I'd he wanted to
From my point of view, Destroy. Represents playing it safe, at a cost. As a hostile AI created by a single race in the current cycle, could be handled by the rest of the galaxy in a similar manner to a hostile organic faction. Seeing how even the Quarians alone, with inferior technology, were winning against the Geth, until the Reapers involvement.
While the Catalyst was created by a race, so dominant in their time, no one else could compare. And its solution to the given order of saving organics from destruction at the hands of AI... Was to turn all advanced organics into AI.
Asking us to fight the Reapers though the same cleverness and tactics that would likely work in this cycle, would be like asking a race in the previous cycle to stand up to the Protheans. With the massive power difference being the true heart of the problem
Destroy. Would remove this power difference, meaning all we would have to then worry about, are synthetics on the level of a single race. To which, our divided galaxy would be somewhat beneficial in this regard, reducing the initial threat and providing multiple different approaches to defeating it.
Control. Is high-risk high-reward. Keeping the power of the Reapers around, simply shifting their allegiances. Providing massive benefits in rebuilding and policing. While also sparing EDI and the Geth. But always hoping the Shepard AI will keep its morals, empathy and compassion intact.
Synthesis. Is everything the Catalyst ever wanted. If all organics and synthetics are one and the same, it's technically impossible for synthetics to destroy organics. Then it would just be garden variety war and genocide, but it wasn't programed to care about that.
Synthesis does remind me of Saren's arguments while he was indoctrinated yes. But a comparison fewer people make, is that of David in Project Overlord. Forcing everyone in the galaxy through a similar transformation to David without their knowledge or consent, makes me feel far too close to Dr. Gavin Archer than I'd ever like.
As someone who never had an issue with the endings and goes for synthesis, I must say, your presentation of your position is lacking:
Control ending was only mentioned, not countered the way destruction was, and outcomes are rather different, in destruction we pretty much postpone the final confrontation between synthetics and organics as well as take out reapers out of the equation, meanwhile in control we get reapers as guardians, if not controlling overlords who ensure destruction of organic species doesn't happen, something like an uberpowerful dictator in many places at once who keeps the peace.
Another missing part is the fact that the story for Mass Effect 3 is a quick replacement for reapers stopping from the growth of dark energy from destroying life in the galaxy. And my knowledge, that ending was scrapped only due to merciless, unchangeable time constraint put by EA. We literally have Conrad Verner of all people adding to the dark energy plot.
Lastly (at least what I thought off right now) is lack of support of your point that we're shown that synthetics have a soul and related plots, you only say we do, but your only example is a conditional outcome where a peace is brokered on Rannoch.
That's just a few groszy from me to try and help put the discussion on a higher level.
Post scriptum, as others have mentioned: Quarians provoked the rebellion of the Geth by attacking them first in a panic. Adding to that EDI, on Luna, has attacked because she was confused, not because she was in control and wanted to and Mass Effect 2 onward she works as a part of the team, despite having countless chances to betray.
"The moment they turned from synthetics to organics, they turned on their creators."
No they didn't. If you didn't complete the necessary quests and loyalty missions to convince the Quarians to make peace, then the only options are "let the Quarians kill the unarmed Geth" and "let the Geth fight back." But if you can convince the Admirals to pull back and stop firing, the Geth immediately and without question accept peace and work towards reuniting the two races. In the flashbacks Legion gives you in the side quest you find that the Geth only became violent because the Quarians were scared they couldn't control them anymore and tried to destroy them, and even then there is a scene of a Geth sacrificing itself for it's owner.
Also, the Reapers were never tasked with protecting organic life. Their goal was to find a solution to the Synthetic vs Organic conflict, a conflict we can't even say for sure happened in more than the first and last cycles. They weren't building towards a solution, their solution was the cycles, the Catalyst AI directly says as much.
The Synthesis ending is and always will be the most horrific ending because in it you force every sentient being in the galaxy to have their entire existence rewritten. By the way it is worded in the Extended cut it seems to me that no only is everyone's DNA rewritten, but they lose their individuality as well. Is peace with the Reapers worth the souls of a trillion people? And what happens if a ship from Andromeda comes to the Milky Way? Will the be forced into Synthesis? Or will they be killed for still be organic?
Ultimately the Synthesis ending is just a trap for people who are too idealist. Its all rose gardens and daisies, while your very soul gets sacrificed for the greater good. Count me out.
@N7Andy
I would argue that the new synthesis life could not breed with pure organics but if not the case, that is a good point. I also believe that Synthesis is the worst. I think I prefer shooting the kid over it. The more I think about it the more I am convinced.
The galaxy never rewarded the naive - Javik ME3
sorry but i viewed synthesis as nothing but a compromise by the developers for a middle ending that was neither paragon or renegade (blue/red).
you dont have to pick between the Geth and the Quarians just have high enough paragon or renegade and you can save both.
if your galactic readiness is high enough you can get the perfect destroy ending that only targets the reapers not all synthetic life.
synthesis brings an end to evolution by making all life the "pinnacle" mix of biological and synthetic thus ending war between biological and synthetics, sounds to me like stagnation also it is never said it ends all war as krogan are still biosynthetic krogan, vorcha are still biosynthetic vorcha a fight is going to happen, even the geth had a civil war.
control always felt like postponing the war with the reapers, like a temporary solution, as the star child said Shepard taking the place of the ai would eventually come to the same conclusion like Thanos that in order to protect life as a whole sacrifices would have to be made and a new cycle would begin.
Personally I don't like any of the choices provided.
If you don't choose an option in the catalyst, then the cycle starts again.
If you choose synthesis, you are forcing the choice on the rest of the galaxy and that could cause all kinds of problems, especially since now that organics are synthesized with machines they could just be taken over by the reapers much easier than before.
If you choose control we have no idea how long that control will last or how much shephard remembers of his/her time being human, so we don't know what the result of that control will be.
If you choose destroy then you are killing EDI and the geth allies you were able to recruit to your side as well isolating the entire galaxy away from each other since all the relays are destroyed.
In the end, none of the options are good ones, there are no perfect solutions.
If there was a way to make sure that the destroy option killed all the reapers and the catalyst but left the mass effect relays intact, then that would be an acceptible solution.
But since that is not an option, you just have to go with the one that best matches your own interpretation of what is best for your story.
Awesome analysis! I've chosen both Destroy and Synthesis in the past and been pretty happy with each.
One of my favorite aspects of Mass Effect: Andromeda is that we get to explore what each of the 3 endings of Mass Effect 3 looks like in practice (spoilers for Andromeda, beware):
Destroy - The Andromeda Initiative. Cut off from home, cut off from traditional power structures and the peak technology of the Milky Way, the Initiative is surviving in a hostile galaxy through grit and determination
Control - The Angara. A whole cluster of stars lovingly crafted by a massively powerful technological force for the benefit of organics. If not for the Scourge, the Remnant would've created a technologically-driven paradise for the Angara.
Synthesis - Ryder. True union of organic and synthetic life forms in a symbiotic relationship.
I think if you play paragorn, unifying the galaxy, bringing the Geth to the fight... And if you talk to Edi between missions... The synthesis is the best ending. Come on.. If you destroy, all your efforts to strentch the bonds between synthetics and organics was for nothing.. Besides that, synthesis is the final that allow you to give meaning to all previous civilizations that were destroyed. Blue ending gives that too, but I think is a bit megalomaniac, not right. Shepard is humble enough to refuse that kind of power of controlling the reapers
Red is looking more and more canon. I partially chose it because I was being selfish, and it felt like the appropriate badass thing to do, it only sucks that it kills all the synthetics too like Edi and I assume the geth. Yet somehow in the new game Liara is communicating with what sounds like a geth
The developers hated the players for preferring the red ending and will write their way around it. Besides its not selfish to go Red its the most benevolent of choices. Blue, you are are a dictator of the galaxy, green removes all free will from the galaxy. Red kills a tiny portion of the galaxy to keep everyone else free. Just fire it up every few years as a anniversary celebration and keep the galaxy AI free.
geth and edi can be rebuild so its fine
Remember though the gas had extremely advanced shielding against electromagnetic pulses. They said that many many times between Mass effect 2 and Mass effect 3.
Starchild's points about control and synthesis could be indoctrination attempts to survive. You know he lied about Shepard dying in destroy ending, why wouldn't it lie about everything else. So destroy is the only way you re sure that you actually save the galaxy and not get indoctrinated and die for no reason. Also since you can create peace between geth and quarians, starchild's point about organics and synthetics always fighting falls flat.
I think these top comments have it pretty well said in my opinion. I personally don't like any of the endings but if I had to choose again on another play thought I would go with destroy let life advance in a natural order. Why should the leviathan's arrogance punish the rest of the milkyway, let life return to a natural order where they can make their own mistakes, and after having fought the reapers hopefully they have learned for the leviathan's mistakes, and be able to advance in a peaceful way as the geth and quarians did.
If the Reapers are wiped out, wouldn't the surviving Leviathan retake their role as the dominant lifeform in the galaxy, and re-enthrall all life?
Not sure why everyone hates the synthesis ending, (not my personal favourite) but MEA is basically the prerequisite to the synthesis ending becoming reality.
Sorry you lost me at the part where "the developers fell for one big lie" idk I think MAKING the game has huge implications for knowing which ending is right or wrong lmao
Same xD
Considering what happened when the game was made, not entirely wrong.
The green ending is defeat disguised as compromise. There's something so erie about seeing everyone in the galaxy forever merged with these machines, Krogans are no longer Krogans, Turians are no longer Turians, Humans are no longer Human. This is worse than the Reapers winning, at least if we die we die as ourselves but with this everyone survives by surrendering that which makes us who we are.
I'd rather die as me, a human being, than continue to live as something else.
"If you screwed with my head and make me nod and smile at everything, I'd rather you blew my head off. Let me die as me" - Jack
It's almost as bad as what happened to the Protheans.
You make very valid points, many which are easy to agree with. Synthesis may seem like giving in to the Reaper's endgame; but, when we look at Javik and his snobbish loathing for 'primitives' and the Prothean belief that all primitives are too barbaric to rule themselves, and must then be ruled by 'higher' beings who somehow 'know' what is best for them and their individual futures... it's no different than Admiral Xen's zealous pursuit of remaking synthetics to serve the Quarians, and her inability to view that as a form of slavery. The Turians had a similar viewpoint of Humans, which is what led to the First Contact War. Eventually, many of the other races began to look at Humanity as the red headed stepchild of the galaxy, always causing trouble, and ruining everything. The Salarians nearly wiping out the Krogan for fear of the Krogans' superior strength. And of course the Turians stepping into the shoes of the Protheans offering to help wipe out Krogans in the name of control through 'benevolent' means. And the Asari, who fancy themselves peacemakers, but spend more time wringing their hands and doing nothing all while thinking they're making peace.
In closing, I see your point and it is, sadly, accurate. Synthesis is the ONLY choice that will put an end to all ham-handed hostilities between the races. It is true oneness, true peacemaking, true cooperation. The Milky Way Galaxy needed a sound spanking! Hell, they collectively earned it!
Spoken like a true indoctrinated fellow, that is the brilliance of the endings. They break the 4th wall.
You my friend fell for the reaper trap
The real ideological debate in the endings comes down to freedom vs saftey. The destroy ending insures freedom and also insures that conflict will later arrive. The synthesis and control ending both ensure saftey but take away the freedom to choose for all the individuals. I personally would rather live free then safe with no real will of my own.
You also loose freedom with the destruction ending. You either replicate the problem once more or you are aware of it and have to work against the beginning of a new cycle. Either way you have no real choice.
With synthesis everyone surpasses the need for a new cycle. However is not a free choice itself it give way all the choices thereafter....
The sentinent and peaceful geth will disagree on your definition of freedom. oh wait, they can't because you committed genocide to preserve your "freedom".
@@Andy_from_de The geth aren't really sentient, at the end of the day they are computer programs, they don't have emotions or irrational thought, only logic and numbers. And the geth are literally slaves to the reapers for 99% of the trilogy so they would be freed finally.
Yeah, you are really stretching things here. First of all, the Geth didn't turn on the Quarians, the Quarians turned on the Geth. Second of all, the Leviathans were not interested in the petty wars between organics, that was never an issue and that was not why they created the Reapers. They were specifically worried about the fact that Synthetics killed their Organic creators. Thats why they made the Reapers and that is why 'Synthesis' is the solution to the problem Reapers were trying to solve. If there is no distinction between Synthetics and Organics, Synthetics cannot kill Organics, therefor problem solved. The Synthesis ending does not in any way guarantee an everlasting peace between any of the races as they otherwise remain distinct politically and culturally. Its still possible for a war to break out over resources, territory, etc after you pick the Synthesis ending.
The Reapers themselves are a preservation measure. Each Reaper is the essence of a harvested culture. A nation as Sovereign says. However, preserving a culture like Reapers do is effectively killing them. They can no longer grow, evolve, learn, improve and are stagnant until the Reaper structure is finally destroyed. And while Sovereign claims the title of Sovereign, its clear that the Reapers are in fact not free to chose their own path. The Star Child controls them, so the cultures they represent are also enslaved and forced to repeat the cycle.
Picking destroy is not only a thorough rebuke of the Star Childs logic, its also a mercy kill to the harvested cultures locked away in the Reaper bodies.
exactly. very good comment!
He's truly indoctrinated.
There are no evidence that synthetics will ALWAYS rebel against organics, it’s just a baseless claim Leviathans used as a premise when they created Reaper AI. By choosing Synthesis you solve the problem that only exists within the Reapers programming, not in reality, whereas the Red ending actually solves the real problem of cycles of the Galactic genocide by destroying the primary cause of it. I’m not raping the whole galaxy to fix the imaginary problem Reapers tried to solve because they were told to by Leviathans
Didn't know Saren had a youtube channel.
😂
reaper trying to convince you for 11:05 mins
What’s funny is I picked the green ending simply because I wanted the geth and the organice to understand each other
To me it felt like every problem in the game and between people boiled down to “you can’t see my view point”
Not the reapers. The Catalyst. It is the created VI tasked with solving the problem. Reapers are Catalyst's creation.
Is anyone gonna tell him you can broker peace between the Geth and Quarians?
Ya I know! Wish I had included thoughts there was in the original script lol but to me that doesn’t show anything multiple synthetics and organics in our timeline and dozens of past ones came together or fell apart but it always resulted in a never ending conflict which is what I see as the main theme of mass effect really, thanks for watching by the way!
I never comment, but as a superfan I'll make an exception bu I'll keep it brief.
You spend 3 games, understanding the vast differences between the races, between there own cultures, past wars, influences, etc. The whole plot of the 3rd game is setting aside those differences to combat a greater evil for the good of all. By choosing synthesis you are choosing to forgo ALL that makes all the races from the Geth to the Krogan unique and plaster everyone exactly the same. There are 4 options and you chose to not only pick the most illogical one story wise, but then defend it lol
how did you make it to however old you are with that ammount of fear of change... astounding... and arrogant on top of it... stagnation is the absence of logic...
@@bloodfoxtriberc fear of change? That's not change. Synthesis is literally erasing what made everything and everyone unique.
And even then morally the reapers have genocided countless trillions and now we storyboard mcguffin into frolicking through a field of flowers with the enemy we spent a franchise fighting. Forget any lessons the series has taught us. Because "one love mannn" lol
Did you miss the part where the Leviathans created the AI that reaped them first as the largest threat to organic life?
Didn't expect to watch Reaper propaganda in 2022, but here we are lol
Videos like these is why I personally like Synthesis Ending the most.
The Destroy Ending is a short term victory. Sure the races will have very strict rules about creating Artificial Intelligence again.
(So did the Council and look what happened with the Quarians and the Geth. And with The Leviathans and the Catalyst/Reapers before)
and that may last for a while, sure…But it’ll only be a matter of time before someone, somewhere, maybe not for another 500 years or so, they create another A.I. Thanks to organics nature and hubris, we’ll think “we’ll do it better this time”. Lol, no we won’t. It will happen.
As Leviathan explained, organics have a natural urge to create synthetics. And the created will always rebel against their creators. Thus, either
A) we create an A.I that will wipe all organics out.
Or B) another harvesting cycle will begin.
Mind you, you also destroy the history of all those countless civilizations that came before as they’re preserved in the Reapers. You also kill all synthetic life. EDI and the Geth that helped you fight against the Reapers included. (if you chose to save them along with the Quarians like I did)
It’s a short term victory only for us to repeat it all over again and in a couple thousand years. Meaning all those deaths would’ve been for nothing. Not exactly the smart ending to chose, now is it?
So bravo👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Destroy fanboys, bra👏🏻vo👏🏻. What a victory 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 Let’s all give it up for their short sightedness and short term victories. Only to back at square one 🎊🎊🎊👏🏻👏🏻🍻🍻🍻
The Control Ending, after putting more thought into it, I think it could be good option.
Shepard guiding the Galaxy and rebuild it by controlling the Reapers, could work. Of course that’s assuming he doesn’t become corrupted by all that power and/or doesn’t lose himself somewhere in there. After thousands of years. That’s pretty big gamble.
The Synthesis Ending, I personally like this ending the most.
It solves the problem that the Leviathans and Catalyst had with preserving life in the Galaxy all those countless eons ago. Erasing the organics need to create synthetics, bringing a complete understanding with one another, and ensuring everlasting peace.
At least in that form. And with the code changed within the Reapers, we’ll have access to all the knowledge “lost” from all the civilizations that came before. Creating a utopia across the Milky Way.
Lol, I love how Synthesis haters try to say “bU-bUt wE’Ll bE a hIvE mInD aN-aNd tHeRe wiLl bE ciViL wAr. aN-aNd cUltUrE wiLl nO lOnGeR eXiSt! aN-aNd wE lOsE oUr fReEdOm!”
…really? -_- how does a hive mind have a civil war with itself, exactly? I’ll wait…
No, you’re misunderstanding the Synthesis ending. What it means is that we combine organics and synthetics into one. Perfecting both worlds into one. Bringing understanding to one another. We’re not collecting every being “under a hive mind” and losing our individuality, we’re still our own individual selves. We just have access to all the information in the Galaxy at anytime. Kinda like how we have with our iPhones. Just much, much more advanced.
@TheProtoPaul That was my problem with the synthesis ending was, is this everyones choice? Or was it one big green indoctrination wave that brainwashed everyone into accepting this outcome?
Absolutely love this video!
As a kid I went through a stage where I read a bunch of those "years best" anthologies from various sci fi magazines like Astounding Stories and Analog Science Fiction, etc. The magazines may be gone but, luckily, those anthologies are still on library shelves. Those collections had stories from all the big names in science fiction: Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Heinlein, Delany, Niven, etc. It's a long list, with a lot of different types of writers, writing in a lot of different styles, but one thing they all had in common were Big Ideas that made you look at the universe with new eyes and a sense of wonder.
The first time I played Mass Effect and was presented with the Synthesis option, I felt everything you talked about gel together for me, though I couldn't express it nearly as eloquently as you have, and, for the first time in a long time, I again felt that sense of wonder at a "big scifi idea" the way I did when reading a story by a great sci fi master. Now, for me, the Synthesis ending is what makes Mass Effect such a great story and one that transcends its medium as a video game.
Interesting points! I personally always go Destroy since it's the simple answer that has for better or worse been the main goal of the game. Synthesis was the first ending I chose but it made me feel pretty gross when everyone was glowing with green runes as it's very similar to being a proselytizer-- that being changing people by force. I have a very hard time imagining that even half the universe would be okay with being changed at a microscopic level-- the psychological side alone could even be traumatic. Benefits or no. Similar to the bizarre notion that the organics that fought in the war would ever feel safe around any Reaper-- even if it were controlled. If anything I believe that organics would lick their wounds, build up a force, and begin the war again. Just a new "cycle."
I don't really see Destroy as the "best and only" choice, more the one I have more understanding of. It's the similar reasoning I used when it came to the Geth during Legion's loyalty mission.
I'd say you could apply the same argument against Control as you did against Synthesis. Forcing genocide by what you deem necessary. The Geth seemed eager to live, but by choosing Destroy, we rip that choice out of their hands.
@@joshuagross3151 Shepard destroyed an entire solar system with hundreds of thousands of Batarians to delay the reapers. If it was the solar system containing Kharshan the Batarian Homeworld, Shepard wouldn't hesitate to destroy that too. Similarly Shepard can choose to let the council + 10000 Asari die by not saving the Destiny Ascension in ME1. It is called the the price of war. It's called sacrifice. Go learn the meaning of Genocide instead of throwing it so freely in an argument.
@@ibraheemahmad7404 Genocide is wiping out an entire race, which is what you do to the geth by choosing Destroy. Spare me the pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
@@ibraheemahmad7404 Genocide is the extermination of a specific group. The group in question can be anything from an ethnicity, to a religion, to a culture, to a nationality, and the method of extermination can also vary (E.G. forced sterilization, and even just forced conversion if the group in question isn't defined by an innate biological trait, can be considered genocide as well, even if no one is being directly killed), but no matter how you slice it, if you consider synthetic beings to be "alive" in a meaningful way (Which the narrative of the trilogy, at least, pretty clearly does), then the Destroy ending is, by definition, genocide of between one and three species', depending on how you count.
And yes, the destruction of the Batarian system also counts as genocide. The difference is, that scenario was a pretty binary trolley problem - Either the Mass Relay is destroyed, killing all life in the System, or the Reapers come through it, killing all life in the Galaxy. There was no option that didn't involve genocide. In ME3's ending, on the other hand, there _are_ other choices that, as presented to you, don't involve genocide. You can argue that those options are invalid or traps by the Reapers/Catalyst, sure, but that's your subjective interpretation of the game.
Honestly, the ending in general could have been better, but after playing the series for the first time recently in the legendary edition, and after hearing people say that the ending was dog shit, I just gotta say that everyone was blowing it out of proportion. It was NOT that bad. Hell, the destroy ending (my preferred one) isn’t bad imo. So what if Shepard dies? It happens, Shepard was human, not a god. And the AI can be rebuilt. The Geth have souls, and those souls may have left the bodies, but the species can continue. As for EDI, I just wish we got a lil cutscene where she kisses Joker and dies, then not only is Shepard’s name added to the memorial wall, but her’s as well
Ya I agree completely I thought the ending wasn’t nearing as bad as people make it out to be, I think it’s just hard to end a series with this much buildup in a trilogy in general.
Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment it really helps support my channel!
I can say as someone who just recently finished the trilogy for the first time. Through the Legendary Edition. The ending is not that bad like dear lord. I walked into it thinking it would be bad. I walked out thinking it was perfectly ok. Yeah, people blew this waaaaay out of proportion. Do I think the endings could’ve been better? Yes, I think they could of rapped up the trilogy in a more comprehensive way. Do I think it is as bad as everyone says it is? HELL NO. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but still. It isn’t that bad in my opinion. Still I thoroughly loved the trilogy.
@@demolishers473 ya the older I’ve gotten the more I’ve just realized I don’t share so many opinions other gamers do hha. Mass effect ending is fine, cyberpunk hate was overblown (just made a video on it), etc etc. thanks for watching and supporting the channel!
@@FranklyGaming Ayy no problem. I will probably check out more videos. But yeah, you seem like one of the most level headed people I can find about the ME3 ending topic. Also I just picked up Cyberpunk 2077 to give it another try for the next gen update. So I can say I’ve been quite enjoying it. Point is I agree with what you have to say and I will most likely check out more of your content.
you played the legendary edition first? you have to see the ending before they added the extra stuff there was no goodbye to romance option, there was no explanation for why your friend ditched you there was no explanation for what happened after the three choices, there was no extra dialogue with the catalyst explains the options in a lil more details, there was no explanation for how Anderson even got to the beam before you though it was stated everyone died, there was no clips of your decisions and its effects like curing the genophage or making peace with the quarians , there was not citadel dlc, literally there was just the three options three colors all mass effect relays explode (which based on previous info made it seem like a super nova occurred killing everybody anyway) and then the credits rolled with your crew either dead or stranded on a random planet or glowing green if you chose synthesis.... the legendary edition has all the dlc and stuff added in for free the original did not play out like that...I remember the first time I beat the game I thought I did something wrong lol like I went to the last save and replayed the ending and got the same ending and I was mad as hell at first I thought it was only me then the wave of criticism poured out on the internet then they released the ending dlc and eventually the citdael
Totally - Synthesis was my choice as well.
Centuries of extermination - ended
Saren's vision of lasting peace between organics & synthetics - fulfilled
Self-awareness of the Reapers - achieved
Dangerous consequences of expanding the capabilities of unfeeling AI - averted
Shepard's fate which was thematically sealed when they left a squadmate on Virmire - comes full circle.
It's like poetry.
Couldn’t agree more exactly how I see it it’s the most “poetic” ending. Thanks for supporting the channel!
Summed it up perfectly.
Galaxy enslaved
People continuing on in a living hell good job
Man, Faunts m4 part 2 just hits different after all those years
The primary directive from the Leviathan for the A.I is not to save, but to preserve. Preservation of something does not need for that something to be alive.
ExActly and that is why I see them as good, because they have a higher directive to actually protect us against ourselves, also thanks for supporting the channel!
@@FranklyGaming Dude, they are NOT evil, but that doesn't make them inherently good. They are machines, and even though the reapers are part organic (the proto-reaper inside) they only follow their programming. There is something that goes against that, and I consider it to be a pretty big plot hole; the fact that even though the reapers have a master (the intelligence created by The Leviathan) they are true A.I, and a true A.I is beyond any original programming, so I quote "My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. You can not even grasp the nature of our existence" They KINDA follow their original programming but they are now far above and beyond the original goal they were created for. They are not protecting organics, they only came to a faulty conclusion because they are machines incapable of truly understanding organics. It's simple, the intelligence came to the conclusion "if they are contained inside a reaper, they can't get destroyed by their own creations", and considering their objective is to "preserve", they just make people into paste and preserve their genetic makeup so it wont be lost.
@@ezequielmorales4221 i hope they never mention leviathans again its a stupid lore piece that was scrapped up from a few lines and was made to cover up a terrible ending.
@@ezequielmorales4221 even the leviathan admits the reapers are doing their job. They just didnt foresee that in order to do their job, it meant for the leviathans to be destroyed as well. The way i see it, the reapers are destroying advanced life in order to prevent an uncontrolled synthetic life from completely destroying organics in the future with nothing left over to evolve.
5:31 I said this exact thing almost verbatim in defense of the Sythesis Ending. All destroy did was push the problem down until someone else created the Geth all over again.
I can see both sides…synthesis honestly doesn’t seem like a bad ending BUT there’s always an exception especially in the mass effect universe in defense of the destroy ending. Next playthrough I’m going synthesis because honestly besides shepherd dying it seemed like a net positive.
I’ve liked the green ending best this whole time.
A man of class I see lol, thanks for supporting my channel!
Reminds Deus ex - artificial evolution of organoids. Additional to mechanical evolution, there is gene editing branch. "X Com:Enemy within" explores it more gameplay wise.
@@copiumkiller I have got to play that series, been on the radar just keep never getting to it!
@@angel8fingers Deus ex is 50/50 for me. There is better ones. X com - that is the stuff. Each reveal of new alien is an event. You growing stronger and getting ultimate skill is so empowering. Xcom 2:war of chosen dlc is great.
@@copiumkiller I’ll check it out man, thanks!
YESSSSS FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT. I've always thought this way and my friend who introduced me to Mass Effect (and all Bioware's games) has always said that the red one is the best. The green ending is perfect because of 3 reasons.
1: The green ending is the perfect solution to Mass Effect main plot which is the reapers, which were created by the leviathans to stop intelligent species from creating IAs. And the reapers fulfil this task perfectly. The only problem is that they realize that organic species kept creating IAs no matter what they do. So the most logical thing to do is to destroy organic life before it can create said IAs because IA always destroy its creator and is a danger for life it self and it could never coexist with organics. And the green ending fix this by merging both organic and inorganic into one being.
2: If you choose the red ending it means that all the geth are destroyed and the quarians will have a more difficult time back in Rannock because thanks to the geths they could improve their body defenses quicker and whatnot.
3: If you choose the red ending Edi dies. And if you're ok with it you're a monster
Yeah and we saw the end result of Synthesis in ME2. The Human Reaper. It is such a bad ending.
@@jerm70 nah. The Human reaper is just a normal reaper with the form of a human being. Redundant I know
@@absolutemalkavian4974 Yes. You are right. What is a Reaper? The product of Synthesis. Organic material mixed with synthetics. What is a Collector? The product of Synthesis. Organic material mixed with synthetics. What is a Husk? The product of Synthesis. Organic material mixed with synthetics. What was Saren? The product of indoctrination and Synthesis. So much so that when Saren died his lifeless corpse lived on through his synthetic side. That is the problem with the Synthesis ending. It doesn't address how the Reapers themselves are a product of this very Synthesis. This is why people assumed and still does assume that Shepard is indoctrinated at the end of Mass Effect 3. The writers thought it was so clever to create such a scenario but it backfired as they didn't address any of this. It reeks of "True Synthesis hasn't been tried yet. If Commander Shepard took over it would be great."
@@jerm70 Yeah, I get what you mean but I don't think I'm explaining myself correctly. The reapers, tho created with both organic and inorganic materials, are still machines, for they do not possess any sort of organic feelings or even free will, for their only reason to exist is to avoid the creation of IA, ironically they are the most advanced IA ever created. That's why the geth treat them like gods and dubbed them as The Old Machines. As for the husks, collectors and every creation tgat has come from the hands of the Reapers are mere puppets, no free will, more machines than flesh. The same with Saren, that motherfucker was more implants and tubes than Turian at some point. That why I think it's the best ending, for it merge both synthetic and organic in one being, without losing free will. Also yeah the indoctrinated Shepard thing was stupid and annoying, every time dreaming about chasing some kid around a forest and before catching him, he lits himself on fire. Honeslty I thought Shepard was secretly a very disturbed pedophile with so many dreams like that.
@@absolutemalkavian4974
"Honeslty I thought Shepard was secretly a very disturbed pedophile with so many dreams like that."
All your other commentary is well-founded and your interpretations valid yet somehow you managed to conclude with such an poor, and myopic, take (Your quote above.). How did you fail to recognize that the child in Shepard's dream sequences resembles--nay, is an exact match for--the child who Shepard tried but failed to save during "The Fall of Earth" opening cut scenes? He's even wearing the exact same hoodie. Shepard witnesses the rescue shuttle shepherding the child to safety get blown out of the sky by a Reaper beam. The interpretation is pretty clear. Shepard is the savior figure but failed to save that child. As a orphan himself, that event struck him close to home, and so his perceived failure now haunts his dreams.
There are so many valid interpretations that come out of the Mass Effect series and certainly more than just one for the dream sequences but that final interpretation of yours simply isn't one of them. Please, do yourself a favor and go rewatch the opening cut scenes to ME3, which can be found by "The Fall of Earth".
Fuck synthesis. The entire mission this whole time has been destroy and destroy is the only thing that might save Shepard's life. My Shepard loves his Jack enough to sacrifice everything to be with her.
Personally, I'd take control because that's just the kind of person I am.
Yeah, fuse everyone's minds together without their consent...
THIS MAN IS INDOCTRINATED
LOL he’s on to me, thanks for watching man haha
@@FranklyGaming of course man, great video. I never thought about that ending in the way you presented it and I've only done Destroy ending whenever I've played so I might just do Synthesis next playthrough.
@@zgamer1154 ya I think mass effect is awesome cause you can really do any ending and have a good reason, I have a theory video coming out Tuesday I think you will really love too
@@FranklyGaming well then I look forward to seeing it
The only true endings in mass effect 3 was either Destroy or Let the next cycle do it themselves
After i had a long talk with leviathan and the starchild, and giving a deep thought about it, i felt indoctrinated.. Their logic made me actually believe that the genocide of all humankind seems sensible (in mass effect). And this is scary, because an indoctrination (in real life) works just like this.
For me the theory of indoctrination has always been wrong. The Reapers saw in Sheppard an organic being who could finally make up his mind. The loop would restart if the reapers were destroyed, there are limits to organic beings so the AIs would always respawn and at one point everything would restart. and finally the reapers do not need to convince you through dialogue. It is known that not all the reapers even went to war. Perhaps the Sheppard cycle was the only one where several species joined to fight the reapers and that made them see us as the cycle that could finally decide what would happen. Destruction or Union. but I do think it was the right ending.
Ikr! Agent Smith's speech in Matrix about humankind being a virus to Earth made so much sense, too!
"reapers are necessary"
You were the chosen one Shepard. You were to destoy the repaers, and bring balance to the galaxy...not leave it shrouded in darkness
Yeah, no, I’m fine with no reapers around, and trying to control them is a fool’s errand.
What right does AI have to decide for Organics, if they are so smart, why didn’t they just offer them the choice of “ascending”, instead of trying to destroy them!
Yeah turning everyone into the Borg is the right ending 🙄
Stroggification if you will
If reappears were in control, why would they even give Sheppard a choice? It's most likely all a lie. Every 3 choices. He could be indoctrinated all the way, and maybe the only 'right' choice was the 4th one: shooting the little bastard (the ghost kid). The cycle was going to continue anyway =)
(This was not my chosen ending, but it's an hypothesis I'm now raising)
My thoughts are similar, about the choices of "Control" and "Synthesis," being a complete lie and that they are most likely traps.
I think if you chose either of those two options, Shepard become indoctrinated by the Reapers and all the events you see happening after either choice is completely fabricated and is a lie.
Though I don't think shooting that little artificial asshole was the right choice, the "Destroy" option was. Seeing as how the form you were seeing was merely some sort of hologram and shooting it wouldn't really damage the A.I. but would merely piss it off instead.
I think "Destroy" was actually the correct option, as if you pay attention to the A.I. when you talk to it, it really likes the idea of you going with the "Control" option.
It's a bit hesitant for you to go with "Synthesis" one, but it is down right against the "Destroy" option. You can even hear its open hostility to Shepard even entertaining the idea of going with that option.
If you pick the "Destroy" option, you will even hear the things voice actually change to sound EXACTLY the way a Reaper's does.
I think it was actually trying to influence and manipulate you, by getting you to choose those other options, and by you going with the "Destroy" option, the one it didn't want you to go with, you effectively resisted its manipulation and broke any sort of control it had over your mind and freed yourself.
@@mr.chaosvicious5968 but why would they even give him a choice? Specially one that could destroy them? The endings raise many questions, but few answers =p
The part that gets me is that you can ask Admiral Hackett what the weapon will do to your synthetic allies and he tells you straight up that it is specifically tailored to target the Reapers only and will not affect EDI or the Geth.
ME3 explicitly and repeatedly states that it's unknown *how* the crucible works or *what* it will actually do, and that you're risking building and deploying it anyway because you have no hope of defeating the reapers through conventional means. This happens over literally about a dozen different cutscenes with Hacket, Liara, Anderson, and others. The alliance *speculates* that it was designed as a weapon, and perhaps this is even its original intention -- but the text from the game never says anything about there not being collateral damage... until the final conversation with the star child, who specifically warns you that its destruction will be indiscriminant, affecting all synthetic life.
This video is damn near incoherent and out right contradicts things that can be experienced and learned in the games themselves. Whoever wrote this script ought to be disappointed in themselves.
The only problem with your thesis is you CAN broker peace between the Geth and the Quarians DISPROVING the premise of the Reaper. Other than that I agree with your conclusion and most of the points that bring you to your conclusion. I personally chose the Green ending "Actually I prefer the Happy ending mods" but of the vanilla endings, I like the synthesis one.