Post your Mass Effect 3 ending theories (Spoilers of course.)

I have this here for anyone that want to compare and discuss. Also it's for me to refer to later if needed.I can go into more detail, but everyone has there own theories about the Ending: I'll throw mine in, but I'll try to keep it short. If anybody wants me to go into detail I can, but I can do just as much in summary. I want to hear everyones theories and I hope this is the Thread you use, so they can all be hear instead of making a buch of topics. (apologies if this was already done, but most of them were like "this is mine, what do you guys think of it?')

So, here's what I THINK is going on.

Topic 1: Indoctrination

1a. Shepard was some what indoctrinated, from very early even. The child Shepard watched die was not real. The reapers knew Shepard was determined, this was an attempt at breaking him.

1b. The dreams he had were effects of indoctrination as well, with the one he has right before London foreshadowing his death, again attempting to demoralize him.

1c. Shepard was resistent to becoming fully indoctrinated, whether through the Lazarus Project or sheer determination.

Topic 2: Reaper Age Tech

2a. The Reapers are remnants of a past cycle, that became self aware and rebelled. With their awareness came a deserve of self preservation

2b. The Citadel's main purpose is to monitor all the races on board, this determines what races are sentient enough to be targeted during a cycles purge.

2c. The Crucible was created by the same ones that made the Reapers, as a fail safe for them. The Reapers never knew of this.

Topic 3: The Ending

3a. When Shepard reached the Citadel the Reapers knew they could ether strike a deal or perish.

3b. The God-child is again the Reapers talking to Shepard, explaining why he looked like the Child from the beginning.

3c. The 3 Final choices represent the terms of a treaty. Left: Shepard have the Reapers leave, letting both sides live. Middle: Rather then fighting, both sides agree to an alliance. Creating a new hybrid race. Right: "F*** you guys, you're assholes," he uses the crucible killing all synthetic life as it was designed.

Topic 4: The Big Picture

4a. The Reapers were created long ago, as weapons. But they became too aware and knew that their power could end all life as they know it.

4b. They remained as well as all their tech as a way to police the galaxy to stop a cycle's potential to end "all" life.

4c. The Protheans are a prime example of this process; they enslaved all other races for the empire. This is why the Reapers came.

After Sorting through all this, it's what makes the most sense to me and explains a lot. Other people will find different things and this one is no way iron-clad. Still, it brought enjoyment when I came to this. Other wise I think the ending sucks, which is what the rumored "Truth" dlc may do. Not change the ending. It's all there just not explained well. Post yours below I'd love to hear them.

10 Comments
11 Comments
Edited by Farley_Lives

I have this here for anyone that want to compare and discuss. Also it's for me to refer to later if needed.I can go into more detail, but everyone has there own theories about the Ending: I'll throw mine in, but I'll try to keep it short. If anybody wants me to go into detail I can, but I can do just as much in summary. I want to hear everyones theories and I hope this is the Thread you use, so they can all be hear instead of making a buch of topics. (apologies if this was already done, but most of them were like "this is mine, what do you guys think of it?')

So, here's what I THINK is going on.

Topic 1: Indoctrination

1a. Shepard was some what indoctrinated, from very early even. The child Shepard watched die was not real. The reapers knew Shepard was determined, this was an attempt at breaking him.

1b. The dreams he had were effects of indoctrination as well, with the one he has right before London foreshadowing his death, again attempting to demoralize him.

1c. Shepard was resistent to becoming fully indoctrinated, whether through the Lazarus Project or sheer determination.

Topic 2: Reaper Age Tech

2a. The Reapers are remnants of a past cycle, that became self aware and rebelled. With their awareness came a deserve of self preservation

2b. The Citadel's main purpose is to monitor all the races on board, this determines what races are sentient enough to be targeted during a cycles purge.

2c. The Crucible was created by the same ones that made the Reapers, as a fail safe for them. The Reapers never knew of this.

Topic 3: The Ending

3a. When Shepard reached the Citadel the Reapers knew they could ether strike a deal or perish.

3b. The God-child is again the Reapers talking to Shepard, explaining why he looked like the Child from the beginning.

3c. The 3 Final choices represent the terms of a treaty. Left: Shepard have the Reapers leave, letting both sides live. Middle: Rather then fighting, both sides agree to an alliance. Creating a new hybrid race. Right: "F*** you guys, you're assholes," he uses the crucible killing all synthetic life as it was designed.

Topic 4: The Big Picture

4a. The Reapers were created long ago, as weapons. But they became too aware and knew that their power could end all life as they know it.

4b. They remained as well as all their tech as a way to police the galaxy to stop a cycle's potential to end "all" life.

4c. The Protheans are a prime example of this process; they enslaved all other races for the empire. This is why the Reapers came.

After Sorting through all this, it's what makes the most sense to me and explains a lot. Other people will find different things and this one is no way iron-clad. Still, it brought enjoyment when I came to this. Other wise I think the ending sucks, which is what the rumored "Truth" dlc may do. Not change the ending. It's all there just not explained well. Post yours below I'd love to hear them.

Posted by haggis

Sorry, but the game explains most of this pretty well as is--and does so without all the contradictions that your list introduces. I'm not happy with the ending of the game, but it makes more sense than ... this mess.

Posted by Napalm
@haggis said:
Sorry, but the game explains most of this pretty well as is--and does so without all the contradictions that your list introduces. I'm not happy with the ending of the game, but it makes more sense than ... this mess.
I disagree about the ending making sense. They retcon the franchise in a matter of minutes and provide far more questions than anything they can answer.
Posted by haggis
@Napalm: Could you be specific about what parts you think they retcon?
Posted by Napalm
@haggis said:
@Napalm: Could you be specific about what parts you think they retcon?
Really, it's just space child.
Posted by CaptainCharisma

I'm really going with indoctrination here. The destroy ending having Shepard BACK WITH FULL ARMOR ON waking up in STONE rubble is enough for me. Then you have Anderson being the Renegade option and The Illusive Man being the Paragon option. There's more info on the theory out there but those two things really stick out to me.

Posted by haggis
@Napalm: I don't see anything about the child at the end that's incompatible with what the game had done to that point. We all know that the Citadel played a special role--we just didn't know how. But I thought the mini twist of having an AI (of all things) ensuring that biological life survived (even at great cost) was a compelling idea. Even calling it the "Citadel" (this is something I think I mentioned a few years ago on this board, but it might have been elsewhere) has always suggested that it served a different purpose than what the reapers intended to use it for in ME1. I'm not saying it was a well-executed ending (it wasn't) but I didn't think the final conceit was all that objectionable.
Posted by Hector

The ending is as presented in the game. Is everyone happy with it...not really. No need for all these mumbo jumbo theories.

Posted by Jaytow

I can't wait for bioware to respond to the speculation going around, it has been entertaining.

Posted by haggis

I've gone back and read some of the wild fan speculation and ... well, it's a bit of a long shot. I can kind of understand the argument over indoctrination now (I was thinking of it in a more conventional way, as that's basically what we've seen so far) and if it's all a "halucination," well ... I suppose it gives BioWare a way out. I still think the ending works as is in terms of story. I still think it's a bit crazy--and even less satisfying. I will admit that the entire ending from the moment entering the light did have a bit of "dream sequence" about it. I'll be disappointed if it's true, though. I like controversial endings, and I love seeing gamers all up in arms about things. It's always good for a few laughs.

Edited by Farley_Lives

In a way it has been somewhat enjoyable talking about and coming up with theories. My big sticking point for this is that is ending's agency for story telling was drastically unlike anything in the series, vague and brief. So I guess in a way bringing myself to interpret everything I guess made my own ending the way I wanted it be. Similar discussions come up in things like film and fine art. It's been kind of cool, but the big issue is whether Mass Effect's fan-base was the right place for this.