I still think its weird that so many nerd ragers get actually legit pissed off when you suggest that the ending isn't that bad. The nerds are still frothing at the mouth over at BW, I have only seen worse nerd rage from one group... nutball Ron Paul supporters. And the people at the BW forums are not that far off.

Look, we are sitting here discussing it still. It has created all sorts of different "theories".. generated tons of analysis. Was it poorly executed? Maybe... but to suggest that it is some god awful writing is just being dramatic.

@pweidman said:

@selbie said:

@selbie:

From what I gathered from the ending, the Citadel AI kind of implied that it is incredibly ancient. It talks as if it were from the perspective of a "first" race because it talks about its experience with synthetics over the cycles. That ancient race probably created the Catalyst to counteract the repeated creation of rouge synthetics by each cycle of races. The existence of the Citadel as the Catalyst certainly explains the role of the Keepers. This structure has probably existed for billions of years, created by this First Race and constantly maintained by the bio-engineered caretakers. Constantly unleashing the reapers based on the First Race's fear of losing all biological life.

Very plausible take. I always kinda assumed the Keepers were Prothean related, but after all that Citidel AI says, this interpretation makes more sense. I gotta save at the tower, and I'll have to go back and listen to all the dialogue again. Fascinating business for sure.

You didn't catch that the Keepers pre-dated the Protheans in ME1?

Maybe you didn't play ME1. If not, this may help:

Short version, here you go: The Keepers were "created" by the Reapers to run the Citadel, so that when a new species finds it, they are able to use it without knowing much about how it works. This, along with having the Mass Relays in most every system, allows the Reapers to ensure that once any form of organic life achieves FTL travel, they find the Mass Relays and incorporate that technology into their own. This helps to ensure that when the Reapers invade, they already have a good idea of the weapons that will be used against them (Mass Effect field-powered weaponry), and know how to defend against it.

The Keepers were originally "programmed" by the Reapers to signal the Citadel relay to open to dark space, where the Reapers wait, at an appointed time. The Protheans learned of this, and reprogrammed the Keepers so they would not send the signal. Therefore, the Protheans delayed this cycle's Reaper invasion by a few years, giving Shepard & Co. time to prepare for the invasion.

@Potts:

Awesome video and explanation too duder, thanks. I played ME for sure, but it's been a while and really appreciate that reminder. Followed.

@N7 said:

@TheHT: But that's the entire problem with that logic is they are killing everyone. Not just Synthetics. So the logic at this point is:

Humans create synthetics.

Synthetics may one day overcome organics.

If unchecked, they may kill all organic life.

SOLUTION

Kill everything so that doesn't happen.

At that point, I'm not even arguing about the Geth anymore, it's the problem that all organic life is guilty by association, and needs to die(Except the radically underdeveloped species). The Asari are the most advanced race in the galaxy, and they haven't made any form of insane Synthetic life. The Protheans were so advanced in their time, they were able to uplift other species so much so that these other species thought they were gods. They had the technology to create V.I's, but not enough to create insane synthetic life.

The idea is, yo dog, I herd you didn't want to be killed by synthetics, so to save you, I will create synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you won't be killed by synthetics. Um, how about you maybe give us a chance and, gee, I don't know, see what happens? If we hadn't killed ourselves in 50,000 years, and instead are trying to SAVE ourselves, I just don't think it's gonna happen, and with the lengths we were willing to go to take a chance on Geth, proven problems causers, turned them into a lifelong friend. They were the ones who decided to help rebuild Rannoch, no one made them.

The point is no one should be condemned by the sins of their fathers, and Legion sacrificed himself to bring the Geth to a higher point in their life, to get them to "grow up" if you will. And it just makes no sense as why that wouldn't matter.

I just don't get why synthetics are the ones who are supposed to rise up. It's not even like this guy knows this will happen, he just figures, eh why not.

It doesn't matter who created the synthetics of a cycle, what matters is that intelligent life at that point of the cycle has exhibited the ability to do so.

Killing the synthetics of a cycle instead of the organics who created them doesn't protect that cycle from organics just creating synthetics again. Thus, the threat of synthetics remains without solution.

Again, by killing organics that are capable of creating synthetics, it nullifies the threat, for a time. They do not kill all organics. They only kill those that are capable of creating synthetics, which in a cycle constitues all intelligent organics. That's why they created the Mass Relays and the Citadel. To keep an eye on the development of the intelligent organics, so that when the time came (when the acquired and exhibited the appropriate technological skills) those intelligent organics would be killed.

Lesser organics are left alone to evolve and flourish, until they too reach that point at which time they too are harvested, and any lesser organics of that cycle are left alone.

All intelligent organics must be harvested, whether or not they in particular have created synthetics, because they have the technological capability to do so. This is key in understanding the harvest and its cyclical nature.

The Catalyst was not created to give chances, it was created to solve a problem. And the harvest is its solution. Even if you could try and talk it into give this cycle a chance, it has existed for an unknown number of cycles, each lasting approximately 50,000 years, and would likely not be swayed by anything Shepard might think of. Each harvest would only strengthen its resolve. It certaintly did with the Reapers.

Legion's sacrifice in that grand scrope of the Catalyst's problem does little to change its outlook. An individual geth unit who was designed from the get go to exhibit individuality does nothing toward making the Catalyst consider alternative solutions.

The purpose of the Catalyst is to protect organics. Organics rising up against organics is of no concern to it. It was designed only to consider synthetic domination and to prevent it.

Now, why it was designed with that focus is an interesting question. Given the grandoise nature of its stated purpose, it is reasonable to assume its creators were experiencing a synthetic rebellion, and fearing the galaxy-wide repercussions whatever mistakes they had made would have, they created the Catalyst, or at least gave it its current purpose. They are other possibilites of course.

Anyways, that's why the Catalyst only considers synthetics rising up. It doesn't mean organics would not rise up against anything, ever. The Catalyst simple has no concern with that, well at least until Shepard reached it, in which case it had to think of a new solution. I've stated this, and also how it could say with certainty that the creation will always rise up against the creator:

The difference between saying war between organics is inevitable and the Catalyst not doing anything about that is because its purpose is explicitly to deal with the synthetic vs. organic problem. Not organic vs. organic, not synthetic vs. synthetic. It was created to eliminate the possibility of synthetics destroying all organic life that it believes is inevitable. Given the enormous amount of variables when considering the creation of synthetics and their development (which only explodes in quantity when individuality is developed) it's not at all difficult (or wrong) to see how an AI could weigh probabilities and come to the conclusion that x will happen instead of x can happen.

The ending is literally Deus Ex Machina.

@N7 said:

@TheHT: Right, and that is all well and good, but there's also the thought that the Crucible has never been built before, and the Catalyst is what makes the Crucible work. The Catalyst has been out of commission for at least, ever. Or maybe the secret behind the Catalyst is HE was one of the races who managed to get it built, but instead he took control over the Reapers? As said above, the ending is literally a Deus Ex Machina, and nothing is explained well enough to even guess this dudes motives. As long as we can sit here and argue against it, what's even the point? Because we'll never know at this rate.

What about the Crucible not having been built before?

Yes, the Crucible is designed to modify the Catalyst.

Why do you think the Catalyst was out of commission?

That's an interesting suggestion, though I don't see anything that would support the Catalyst actually being someone who has done what Shepard could do in the Control ending. There are however points to the contrary. The designs for the Crucible have been added to, cycle after cycle. We know it was never built and used because they Catalyst clearly did not know about it and had it been used would have had to alter its solution. But the harvest has continued unabated until the current cycle. It's only upon Shepard's arrival that the Catalyst tells you that a new solution is needed because of how far organics have come, and the threat it poses to its solution.

We know its stated goal and we know it wasn't lying about the outcomes of the final choices. These, coupled with its appearance, abilities, and mannerism are all enough to reasonably assume it is an AI and isn't lying to Shepard.

The Catalyst seemed to me to be presented exactly as I expected an ancient AI who initiated this system of harvest cycles to act. Not like something there to answer every little question Shepard has about who, what, where, etc. It had a problem, had a solution, and Shepard screwed that all up. That coupled with the Crucible means it needs to find a new solution and has new options. So it says who it is and responds to Shepard while immediately focusing on its purpose by trying to find a new solution.

It goes over the new options from the Crucible with Shepard because the Catalyst is incapable of executing any of them. That doesn't mean that those are its only options of course. If Shepard chose none of the three final decisions, the Catalyst would probably just think of some other way to deal with the progress organics had made in overcoming its solution.

@N7 said:

@TheHT: The whole thing of it just collapses under it's own weight. It's almost as saying "What if, at the end of Metal Gear Solid 4, as Snake and Ocelot were fighting it out on top of Outer Haven, Jesus came down from the heavens and told them that their fight against the Patriots has taken a toll on them, and for that, they must be banished to hell". All of the sudden, the fight is over, certainly, but everything we know about the series has been betrayed. Everything it told us we were doing, everything we've done, it doesn't matter, because it's a Deus Ex Machina. There's nothing we can do anymore, because an omnipotent force is present. No longer is it a space epic set to unite everyone against the odds and fight the ultimate evil. No, now, the entire focus is on this outdated A.I saying we don't have a choice in the matter and that we have to do these three ridiculous decisions that come so far out of left field people are willing to believe that the whole thing was a dream.

If it was so obvious, this fight against the Reapers being an avatar for the whole ordeal that synthetics can maybe sort of kind of one day maybe end up being the new ultimate evil, despite the fact that the Reapers are ALREADY the ultimate evil, then it should have been stated once or twice. Instead of "Shepard! You have to bring these sworn enemies together, cure society destroying diseases and end wars between eternal enemies and take back our galaxy", it should have been "Shepard, fuck the Geth, fuck EDI. Don't get too attached to them because synthetics are sort of kind of somehow maybe once in a time can be maybe the new enemy to life".

It is the exact same as a bank robber coming in and shooting a bunch of people, and then when asked why he said "I wanted to kill them for myself so a bank robber wouldn't have killed them". Naturally, you would assume he's BANANAS. But that's the only option in front of us. And somehow it makes total sense, since the whole war was about stopping these clerks from being killed by bank robbers. It wasn't obvious in any way, but that's the way it is.

But, the fact of the matter is, we do have a choice. This kid makes so little sense, so very little sense that he goes ahead and contradicts NOT himself, but what WE have done, that the decision to destroy the Reapers is the obvious one. I'll take a chance and kill an entire race of, robots who are now people.

Which, by the way, how does the synthetics ending even make sense if the entire point of this is the kid saying that synthetics will overrun us? So our decisions is to essentially kill all organics by making them as much of a synthetic as possible, or to kill all synthetics?

It's not bittersweet, as intended. It's bitterbitter. There is no sweet part in that decision because we don't even get to see the thing pay off. We don't see the Geth all break down and die, we don't see anything. For all we know, the little jackrabbit was lying and destroy does nothing to them. I mean, they are ALIVE and all, now.

There are too many questions. There are waaaay too many questions.

Well, then that ending to MGS4 would be nothing like the ending to Mass Effect 3. Everything you've been doing in Mass Effect has been leading up to a conclusion to the problem of synthetics vs. organics. Unfortunately the space epic part is going on outside, and BioWare doesn't show nearly enough of it.

I don't see why you would want the game to frame the geth and EDI as evil, to be more in line with the way the Catalyst views things. As a character, the Catalyst has a viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it or disagree with it, and the world you've experienced thus far doesn't have to correlate to it either.

It's nothing like the bank robber analogy. In order for that to be similar, the Reapers would have to kill all organic life, which, again, they do not do. Nor is it the option in front of you. All of the final choices end the war with the Reapers.

The Synthesis ending doesn't kill organics or synthetics. It hybridizes their DNA so the threat of 'no more organics, only synthetics' is gone. It's essentially a way to cheat the problem, an out.

Something has been bothering me about the ending. So we all know that the Illusive Man appears on the Citadel out of nowhere and tries to convince Shepard to control the Reapers. It's fairly obvious that Shep and Anderson don't really expect to see the Illusive Man at this point; we can assume that he has the element of surprise over these two.

So why the hell doesn't he just shoot them both in the back then use the Crucible to control the Reapers as he so blatantly wants to? Up to this point Shepard has been resistant to the Illusive Man's stated plan. Why now of all times does the Illusive Man try to talk Shepard into making a choice he could so obviously make himself? Again, he could just kill them both without saying a word.

I don't even know how the Illusive Man being indoctrinated due to his Reaper implants plays into this scenario. So the Reapers are controlling him, presenting Shepard with the option of Shepard controlling them? Why would they do this when their goal is to eradicate organic life...? I don't know man, this shit don't make no sense to me.

@kingcopper said:

Something has been bothering me about the ending. So we all know that the Illusive Man appears on the Citadel out of nowhere and tries to convince Shepard to control the Reapers. It's fairly obvious that Shep and Anderson don't really expect to see the Illusive Man at this point; we can assume that he has the element of surprise over these two.

So why the hell doesn't he just shoot them both in the back then use the Crucible to control the Reapers as he so blatantly wants to? Up to this point Shepard has been resistant to the Illusive Man's stated plan. Why now of all times does the Illusive Man try to talk Shepard into making a choice he could so obviously make himself? Again, he could just kill them both without saying a word.

I don't even know how the Illusive Man being indoctrinated due to his Reaper implants plays into this scenario. So the Reapers are controlling him, presenting Shepard with the option of Shepard controlling them? Why would they do this when their goal is to eradicate organic life...? I don't know man, this shit don't make no sense to me.

Because at this point, TIM only exists as an aspect of Shepard's partially-indoctrinated mind. His viewpoints (control) were presented to Shepard in an attempt to dissuade her from destroying the Reapers.

Think of it this way: With the Control & Synthesis options, the Reapers live on (in one way or another.) So they don't need to convince Shepard to stop her campaign against them, they just need to subtly manipulate her thought process to convince her that there is more peaceful option.

@N7 said:

@TheHT: Synthesis isn't an option because it turns everyone into some half robot half organic abomination. Homogeneity is not the answer. Control isn't an option because he doesn't explain it at all. How long does it last? Will they ever break free of my control? In what way are they under my control? Can I tell them to go dick off or can I make them rebuild Earth? I mean, after all, it is "control". I will be "controlling" the Reapers. So they will do what I say from here on out. I could tell them to rebuild the Mass Relay's and help fix the damage on Earth and every other planet. Or not? It doesn't explain the bounds of my control, so who am I to say? And if the Catalyst doesn't know the bounds, then what's the point of even listening to him?

Destroy is the only ending that keeps with the theme of, you know that they will die, for certain. This thing will happen. The Geth and all synthetic life will die too. The actions I took with the Geth are proof that I value their life just as anyone else, but I'm not going to force everyone into being high-tech husks just to satisfy the Reapers, and I'm certainly not going to risk losing control over the Reapers when I do not know the very bounds of what it is I'm doing. Destroy is the only logical conclusion. It's not only the only ending you survive from, but it was never about that anyway. It was about sacrifice. Sacrificing Ashley for Kaidan. Sacrificing all of those soldiers to save the Destiny Ascension, sacrificing the Collector Base to keep whatever evil in there from The Illusive Man. Sacrificing the Geth to ensure unity through diversity, and strengthening a bond for the entire Galaxy(Despite the Mass Relay's totally being destroyed and all but whatever) by standing together and fighting to the death.

But hey, if it turned out to be some sort of struggle between computers and people, great. That's almost as epic, if not a little more. I'm pretty sure I already saw this though, in the movie "Office Space". That damn printer man, that was the sign.

Synthesis doesn't turn life-forms into husks. The husks and marauders and cannibals are more in line with being an 'abomination' as they're hacked together parts of species and Reaper tech.

Those are all perfectly valid questions about the Control ending. But then all of the endings are not without their own set of risks. While the immediate reaction is peace, long term ramifications are debatable, as we've been doing.

But at this point you seem more focused on justifying your own final decision, which is great. The choices aren't nearly as simple as just choosing 'different coloured explosions'.

The ending didn't bum me out as much as it did all those cupcake bakers. The game does a very good job of informing you that all of your decisions in the first two chapters result in little more than a palette-swap. Why should the ending be any different?

As a whole, the series eventually turned out to be a fairly entertaining third person shooter.

3/5.

@N7 said:

@TheHT: And what I mean by husks is by taking people against their will and turning them into something that, chances are, they don't want to be. That's why, when you look at how Shepard came to every conclusion he has, by means of logic and reason, integrity and such, it's just not viable. Also it adds a new dimension of paradox to the already existing paradox by making everyone a synthetic. So, by doing that, you essentially remove the organic category all together and turn everyone into the doomsday device that the Reapers were already worried about. Is it really safe to say that we will NEVER build synthetic life again? See? It makes no sense. It takes all existing organic life and splices it with enough synthetic life to make the Reaper doomsday scenario possible, but what happens when people start building Loki mechs and YMIR mechs? What happens to those purely synthetics? When do we get around to building V.I's again? There are too many questions that cannot be reached via logical conclusion at this point.

Except husks are the mindless cannon fodder of the Reapers, but after synthesis everyone remains as they were, save for the nature of their DNA. Considering consequences beyong ending the Reaper threat like actually giving the geth and other synthetics no reason to be segregated by organics, uniting all life under a single nature, it's the most idealistic ending. Whether the races actually view the geth differently is up to them, but they, being made the same, couldn't really argue against it.

There is no paradox because the worry the Catalyst had was of synthetics destroying all organics. Synthesis hybridizes all organics and all synthetics. Nothing dies, the categories are all unified.

If the reach of synthesis is on every single thing in the galaxy, any life build by robotic parts would carry in it that same nature, and would be a hybrid too. If the reach is only on life-forms already developed, then since everything still exists, they could probably perform synthesis again. Though the Catalyst speaks of synthesis as a way out of the problem of synthetics vs. organics, so if the reach of synthesis wasn't on every single thing in the galaxy, it wouldn't really be a true way out.

In order for the Reapers to control a being, there has to either be indoctrination or severe Reaper tech-implants. Synthesis is neither.

Mechs and VIs are machines, and are not sythentic life, so that wouldn't be a problem. That distinction, made in Mass Effect 1 particularly when you learn of the geth's history, is one between mere machines and syntheticlife.

@kingcopper said:

Something has been bothering me about the ending. So we all know that the Illusive Man appears on the Citadel out of nowhere and tries to convince Shepard to control the Reapers. It's fairly obvious that Shep and Anderson don't really expect to see the Illusive Man at this point; we can assume that he has the element of surprise over these two.

So why the hell doesn't he just shoot them both in the back then use the Crucible to control the Reapers as he so blatantly wants to? Up to this point Shepard has been resistant to the Illusive Man's stated plan. Why now of all times does the Illusive Man try to talk Shepard into making a choice he could so obviously make himself? Again, he could just kill them both without saying a word.

I don't even know how the Illusive Man being indoctrinated due to his Reaper implants plays into this scenario. So the Reapers are controlling him, presenting Shepard with the option of Shepard controlling them? Why would they do this when their goal is to eradicate organic life...? I don't know man, this shit don't make no sense to me.

On Kronus Station, the prothean VI tells you the Illusive Man has told the Reapers about the Crucible and is on the Citadel. So Shepard at least knows.

The Illusive Man needed Shepard to believe he was right. He respects Shepard, and wouldn't shoot him in the back. Despite being indoctrinated, he's still headstrong, and wouldn't be forced to shoot him like that. He does shoot you (potentially) at the end of the conversation. But before that, he tries one last time to convince you he's right (just like Shepard always has the opportunity to try and talk him down, on Thessia and on Kronus Station and throughout Mass Effect 2).

At that point, after all the Illusive Man has done, he's alone with the Reapers. Outside all of the galaxy fights them. He needed validation that everything he's done was right. That was pretty much that last bit of resistance in him, and was enough to free himself from indoctrination (with Shepard's help).

@N7 said:

@TheHT: Right, but the difference between synthetic life and mere machines is where it gets real rocky. What's the difference between an artificial intelligence and a living machine? How come EDI falls into this category of synthetic life? She's not alive, not in the way the Geth are. She's just a fantastically smart A.I that's capable of making her own decisions, usually with the help of Shepard.

The difference is exemplified by the difference between AI and VI.

An AI is an open system, capable of developing itself, thinking for itself, becoming a unique personality; it has life. A VI is a closed system, just a collection of pre-programmed responses.

An artificial intelligence is a living machine just like an organic is a living machine. But a mere machine is an object without the above capabilities. Guns, blenders, VIs, ships. These are all just machines. There is no life in them.

The entire geth conflict throughout Mass Effect is centered on the question of what consititues life. By the end, the evidence that EDI and the geth are alive is incontrovertible. They're alive all the same as organics are alive. Their physical makeup is the only difference.

And that is what equates synthetic life to organiic life and distinguishes synthetic life from being mere machines.

@N7 said:

@TheHT: But the problem there is they state that the Reaper code has somehow created life inside of the Geth. No longer are they just really smart machines. It's not about this metaphorical "what is life?" discussion, it was straight up said that BECAUSE of the Reaper code. They are pretty much people now.

So, is that all for naught? If they were always "alive", then what difference does the Reaper code make? It's not even a matter of "The Geth are true artificial intelligence therefore they are alive", it's a matter that, now within the universe somehow life can be defined to a point that we can see what actually has life in it. I'm not sure how, but they straight up say that.

The Reaper code in particular was just a massive upgrade that resulted in actual individuality for all geth. The way the geth were created, as a collective, they were all only as intelligent as the group was large. With each geth destroyed, the species was less capable. After the Reaper code upgraded all geth though, this was no longer an issue. Instead, they are actual individuals, unbound to the collective (but still privy to it). That's why the comparison is made to 'being people'. They all have individual personalities.

So it certainly wasn't for naught, especially when the quarians were hot on their ass, but as far as just life goes, they were alive the moment the question that started the purge was asked. That doesn't mean they were already exactly like humans. A species can be alive and still develop. The same is true in the case of the geth who continued to evolve in their own way, sometimes with help (Reapers and quarians) and sometimes without.

I don't remember anyone in the game explicitly saying the Reaper code would give the geth life but I do remember it being said they would be given individuality. If it was in fact said it would give them life, it would fly in the face of EDIs development (she actually says she feels alive) as well as the question that started the purge ("does this unit have a soul") and all that it meant for the geth.

"If the fans knew what was in store, the reaction would be different!" Mass Effect 3 twitter.

Also new indoctrination theory video with new points.

@Oldirtybearon: Only in one scenario does the Citadel survive. All the mass relays get destroyed. The thing is, the Citadel IS a mass relay. Also "the conduit" inside the Citadel is another, smaller mass relay.

@N7 said:

@TheHT: It happens a few seconds after you can decide to let them keep the Reaper code. Legion says something like. "Look... Life".

I looked at it again, and this is how that line goes:

Legion: Our upgrages, with the old machine dead we could upload them to all geth without sacrificing their independence.

Tali: You want to upload the reaper code? That would make the geth as smart as when the Reaper was controlling them!

Legion: Yes, but with free will. Each geth unit will be a true intelligence. We would be alive, and we would help you.

However during the mission where you meet Legion again (on the geth flagship) he says "The creators attacked. The geth wished to live. The Old Machines extended an offer" when asked how the Reapers got control of the geth again.

And again, when Legion and Shepard are looking over the upgrades the Reapers made to geth processing signal, Raan calls it a fully evolved AI, and Legion says it is indicative of life. Shepard replys that the Reapers only sped up the process and the geth were always headed that way.

So, the geth were alive before the Reaper upgrades, but after the Reaper upgrades are indicative of life. Sounds complicated, but considering what I previously said about a species being alive and still developing, not so much. The geth, upon becoming an AI, became alive. But, again, they were not immediately just the same as humans. Just as there is evolution of an organic, so to is there evolution of an AI. You wouldn't say that the ancestors to humans weren't alive, just as you wouldn't say the geth upon becoming AI aren't alive.

But once the AI develops fully, it becomes just like highly evolved organic life: true intelligence.

I should also note that becoming an AI is conditional for synthetics to be alive for the reasons I presented before, comparing synthetic life to mere machines.

I am still amazed people give a shit about this.

and I am amazed I am again commenting on the people giving a shit about this.

@LiquidPrince: From the behind the scenes video "The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3:

"And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped because the GAMEPLAY MECHANIC proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices)"

Shepard was meant to be indoctrinated, it's not a theory. Casey Hudson wanted the ending to be a confusing shitpile so people would keep talking about it.

@Mike76x: Yeah I'm aware. But some people still dispute whether that will end up being canon or not. So I like to present information supporting both sides of the argument.

@N7 said:

@TheHT: That's the part that doesn't make sense about the destroy ending. How does it destroy the Geth? You can't just present this choice and then play it down of "Eh, just do it I don't have time to explain". How do you just wipe out all synthetic life? And where does that end? What about biotic implants? People who need things like artificial limbs and the like. Shepard has synthetic bits inside of him, yet when you choose the Destroy ending, Shepard lives, so clearly it doesn't bother those guys.

But doesn't that go against the theme of synthetics vs organics? If there was supposed to be this huge thing by Shepard being brought back to life by the use of synthetics, how come it ends up not bearing any impact? It just doesn't seem to add up.

I can think of two ways that might work.

a) the Crucibles energy, when combined with the destruction of that console, becomes destructive to all synthetics. After all, it was designed to destroy the Reapers, who are synthetics. To avoid killing all synthetics, you would have to specifically target Reapers. How could the Crucible do this? We know it is a simple design, so it's unlikely that its affects would be so complicated and refined. Targeting all synthetics is the simplest way to target and destroy the Reapers.

b) The Catalyst has available at its disposal a fail-safe in case it and the Reapers are destroyed. A last ditch effort to protect organics from at least the synthetics of that time. The problem with this is how could the Catalyst do this? It didn't know about the Crucible, so it couldn't have created a protocol tailored to utilizing its energy. It's possible that, being an AI of such calibur, it was able to create this fail-safe upon learning of the Crucible and what it does (when it joined with the Citadel), but this is a stretch. a) is a much simpler and more reasonable explanation.

You might think that since the Catalyst warns you about Shepard's implants, they would be affected, and all other implants too. But the difference between the implants and the geth are that one supports life and the other is life. Shepard, despite all of his cybernetics, is still an organic.

This would mean that the Crucible could distinguish between synthetic life and mere machines (such as Shepards implants). How? We see characters from the series specifically recognize AI in various ways, so there are certainly observable features that discriminate synthetic life from mere machines. The Crucible is attuned to that difference, and targets synthetic life (to consequently target the Reapers).

I don't see how the destroy ending goes against the theme of synthetics vs. organics. It's a theme. A subject, present throughout the Mass Effect series.

It's been beat to death at this point, but since I just finished it and was waiting to read any forum posts on the topic to avoid spoilers, I feel like I have to chime in.

In a nutshell, I see what everyone's bitching about, but I didn't think the ending was all that bad. They were clearly trying to push hard for a particular note and feeling as opposed to neatly tying up every expository thread, and the nebulous final shots, despite falling out of some clunky pacing and dialogue, were still effective for me. They went for something that, in their minds at least, could supersede the myriad A to B plot consequences--trying to convert the games many intellectual ideas into a meaningful, poignant theme.

Fine. My problem with it is that they didn't do much to herald this conversion, or find a way to, indeed, tie it in with those A to B plot choices we all made along the way. It does feel a little like a cheat, like they didn't want to muster up twenty different tailored endings so they just fired off into an open field. Fuck, even Chrono Trigger, 17 years ago, had more endings, with more personalization, coming out of a game with far fewer cascading choices.

So I do see what many of the problems are, but I must say, and probably at risk of being severely lambasted, that I did like the feel of the ending. It had a morose but hopeful kind of fatalism that struck a chord with me. Flawed, no doubt, but not complete garbage.

I agree that the ending isn't great and has a lot of plot holes but Mass Effect 3 was still a great game. I think the criticism has just snowballed into this behemoth that has 'ruined' the game for a lot of people. The game itself though was great up until that point and even the ending doesn't detract that for me.