Why Mass Effect 3's Ending is Perfect 

This just became my favorite holiday. And yeah. Destroy is the best option. No matter how much it hurts in the moment.

Replayed it at least 10 times, 2/10 would`t recommend, all jokes aside destroy is the best ending, especially with the extenden cut, I only feel sorry for Joker, poor Joker ;(

"Red" ending is the only ending where Shepard live, so... xD

I vehemently disagree with this video, but you are not a terrible person for having an opinion.

and on top it is the only ending, if you tryed to get teh best results accross the bord, wive a hint that shappered may some how survived that explosion and following crash to earth...., btw. anyone else thought that at the synth ending it looked like shappered turned into 1 of those husks, wile flinging him/her-self into the energy beam?

Exactly , i thought about this line of line of him when i wondered which ending to choose. So i chose Destroy , i know that the Geth and EDI would die , but my Shep was ready to take this guilt if it meant a secure future for all other people

@@podlodialgilap3490 until AI comes about again...

@@kennethfharkin that would be a long time since the galaxy is in ruins and will take time to rebuild, even then it is proven that organics and synthetics can coexist peacefully if both sides respect each other, something that everyone will follow after remembering that the Geth fought alongside them

@@podlodialgilap3490 its not like any future AI would look at history and say "hey, these meat bags eliminated ALL of us once before to save their asses!"

@@kennethfharkin they will understand that there was no other option. either that or forceful singularity for the entire galaxy which leaves everyone with no purpose. even attempting to control the reapers is highly likely to result in Shepard AI going mad and turning into starchild 2.0. Also i believe the geth are not entirely dead , they live on the very edge of the galaxy, and probably have programs uploaded in stations in deep space where the EMP pulse can't reach them

"Mass Effect has a good story because the music emotionally manipulates you."

@@ginge641 what piece of media doesnt use music lol

@@redfive8486 Why exactly did your dumbass think this was a relevant question?

@@ginge641 lyrical indoctrination!😵

We see a great deal about what happens to the characters. Depending upon the ending you receive, Zaeed might be kicking back drinking a beer in semi-retirement, while Samara spends time with her daughter at the monastery. What more do you want? Knowing every last detail wouldn't improve the ending, it'd make it worse.

@@slow17motion He's talking about the original endings but that is a moot point since the endings haven't been like that in almost 10 years.

People still don't get this. I swear people subconsciously think they love the mass effect world, when they truly just love the characters.

The concept of me3’s ending was too grand and went over most everyone’s head as people are easily suggestible. I completely agree with the soft indoctrination theory that is exactly the way I perceived all the endings which weren’t destroy. Just about every way that the reapers possessed to keep existing after the crucible is docked.

EDI is afraid to die. The Geth are afraid to die. You see this in both of their storylines. So why would the Reapers be any different? But here's the thing; the Reapers have no remorse. How can we forgive them as machines just following orders while also recognizing the free will of sentient synthetic lifeforms? That's why my Shepard wiped them out. It's the Genophage all over again, except with that, there was debate, there was remorse. The Reapers believe they are right, that they know what's best for the galaxy. But...they don't. Even when we've proven them wrong, they refuse to change. To evolve. And so they must be destroyed for the galaxy to grow. And that's why Shep takes a breath in perfect destroy. It's the galaxy finally being able to breathe freely now that the Reapers are gone.

@@jepe4537 i get incredibly annoyed when people argue ME3 had a high concept ending and people complaining are too stupid to understand. Mass Effect 3 was released a year after Mass Effect 2. They didn’t have time to write a good (or even just sensible) ending that didn’t boil down to pressing 1 of 4 buttons. The end. The ending was bad, it presented a new concept 5 minutes from the end of the game, took agency away from the player, and 1 of its 4 options straight up didn’t make any sense.

@@WinstonKillDeath Mass Effect 3 was released 2 years after Mass Effect 2.

@@blakemorris2328 mass effect 2 was still being worked on until 2011 because of the DLC’s. Meant to say “a year after the last DLC.” It absolutely had a shorter development time than either of the first 2 games.

Four of 'em!

True, now burn the heretic who liked the ending of this game! Kappa

@@zenteck4950 ahh! you beat me to it, I was about to say he's got a Quad

Well spoken!

@@logosofgame4273 I have the pile ready and good to use. Just throw him in!😄😆

I agree with this.

Tbh this sums it up pretty well.

Thank you, couldn't put my thoughts into words. You did it and more.

IMO there should have been an option to feint with the crucible and destroy sol in its entirety.

I love how Spacedock is loving comments that agree with him, no matter what or how short they are, and ignoring ones that don't agree with him regardless of what they say.

I was looking for "ruthless calculus" but maybe that's my memory and emotion filling the phrase. But either way you were 2nd comment so w.d.

Fyi etymologically ruth probably/maybe comes from rue. Like you'll rue (regret) the day... that helps me think Garrus was all about making sacrifices WITHIN moral constraints, just with moral confidence.

IE if your counter attack is going to kill the enemy's slaves, not avoidable, being regret less, ruthless, is merely acknowledging that the enemy is morally responsible for those deaths. Ymmv

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos I think I remember Garry's saying something of loosing thousands in order to save millions, and that those were the ruthless calculations of war, and that he wouldn't like being the one making them. By the way, what's with the response a year later. And what are the odds that I just watched this video again a few days ago because youtune recommended it

@@michaelandreipalon359 agreed having both of them would’ve been devastating

@@michaelandreipalon359 saren was widely considered to be the best specter the council had plus with the reaper upgrades he had he had an equal footing with the reaper soldiers There’s a couple more but it’s 4 am and I just woke up lol

@@ACrazedGaming the entire premise of Saren is that he could not be saved, only made to realise the stupidly of his actions and what needed to be done to correct them (aka kill himself). He was almost fully indoctrinated (which allowed him to have “some” degree of free will, which brings back to the previous point) and he could of turned into an highly advanced Reaper troop of its own type (as seen in the boss fight) at any time even if he somehow been saved and Sovereign defeated (which only happened cause Sovereign was too busy trying to both unlock the Citidel's relay and control/possess Reaper Saren, When Reaper Saren died that caused a massive feedback effect on Sovereign, allowing the Alliance to defeat Sovereign (which is why Harbinger piggybacks off the signal produced by the Collector General to its troops in order to possess them and suffers no feedback effect when they die). With Nihlus, Nihlus would have been the main character as he would of been the one to make contact with the Beacon (as he was in charge and babysitting Shepard for his evaluation). The rest of the story would have been the same except for Tali dying as if Nihlus lives, both Nihlus and Shepard would have never needed Tali to provide the evidence needed to convict Saren. Other than Liara; Wrex, Tali (as she is dead) and Garrus would have very unlikely made it aboard the Normandy as crew/teammates(as Nihlus is a “Renegade but by the books” sort of being) even though Shepard would still own the Ship (Anderson would still have to step down to keep an eye on thing at the Citidel as he stated), Nihlus is running the operation as Shepard’s mentor and evaluator and thus has final decision over everything. (Reason for Liara getting a pass is because she’s crucial for the story to progress as she helps to make the Beacon's vision make sense and Nihlus would most likely keep her as a potential hostage against her mother

@@kanewilson8624 true I agree with you It’s just a what if dream

@@kanewilson8624 in other words without nihlus dying the series wouldn’t be a thing

adan daniels Someone else agrees, yay lol. You really do need the reapers for protection, the leviathans being the biggest concern as well as potentially hostile Ais or organics the galaxy will face in the future.

Agree, ironically I think control as Paragon is actually the best ending since a super benevolent protector controlling god machines to preserve the right for all organic life to exist and stop any major threats is a pretty good way to go. You don't even need defense spending anymore since the "shepherds" could protect Citadel space.

@Carlos Chagas that is exactly the opposite of what is explained about that ending. As the explanation goes it's Shepard's morals and conscience that will guide the reapers from that moment onward.

@Carlos Chagas the different endings between paragon and renegade shows opposite, Shepard and the catalyst converge into a new being their morals are bonded. I think that the reapers needs to exist, they're the only force in the galaxy that can bring balance, soon or later other organics will create the next reapers or worse, at least the reapers created a balanced cycle where every race has an opportunity to exist. Evolution cannot be stopped, technology is only a form of evolution the reapers must exist.

People who think like thanos do not avenge and would have no issue with pulling an illusive man. Control is viable for those who do not trust a self regulated council of civilizations.

Being able to unite both the Geth and Quarians on Rannoch proves the Catalyst wrong

I'd say Saren was control, because he thought he could control them only to be indoctrinated and now think being a slave is better. Illusive Man was destroy until his greedy ass saw the Collector tech. The running theme of the villains is they think they can control the Reapers until they are indoctrinated.

TheVerySeriousLewis totally wrong. Saren always preached synthesis, he wanted to merge with the reapers as to survive, he literally became part machine/merged with the reapers at the end of me1. The illusive men on the other hand was always talking about controlling the reapers, simply using them so humanity can survive. Have you even played the game?😅 that was all he was talking about in me3... so yeah, destroy is the right ending

@@shepardcommander5174 So... How is he wrong again? You just repeated all he said, simply taking longer.

@@irishspartanstudios are u dumb? He said that Saren was control and i said he was always about synthesis. Learn to read

@@shepardcommander5174 Okay, okay, let's cool it down. Let's agree to disagree with them. Hyped for legendary? I am totally worried about ME4...

But the consequences are so mind-glowingly different that if you only see three colours it really isn't the writers fault I'd say! Still, to each their own, I prefer more suggestive and less descriptive endings.

What would have been better, would be to remove the three options, and leave the player with two based on their actions leading up to the end. Either you proceed down the path that your actions dictated, or you walk away. But that would have been much harder to code and might have upset fans even more since to get there would require replaying the whole trilogy in much different ways.

@@mella4376 I disagree. significant parts of the footage are the same. In all three the Normandy effectively deserts from the battlefield (questionable in itself), crashes on a supposedly unknown planet and a number of people crawls from the wreck. The fact that they couldn't be arsed not to copy and paste so much footage across the endings is what bothers so many people - including myself.

@@ranekeisenkralle8265 Good point on the Normandy, such a ship should have at least fired upon the enemy in the "Final battle."

This

funiest thing is that he didnt even play the game you can tell by him not knowing that you dont need to chose between tali and legion .......

@@TheGUARDIANOFFOR Ummm he said that there is no choice to safe both and that is absolutely true. Legion dies no matter what. What he is talking about is the choice of simply not giving the Geth the reaper code to safe Legion. That would safe both but it isn´t there

Stfu that statement is trash. Nothing is perfect

@@nomejest5919 that's the point he saying this guy could get f'd up for saying that. This guy is wrong in his video. The endings are trash

@@JBasilix not accurate. You didn’t choose one over the other. Legion sacrificed itself. He’s implying there was no choice in saving them both. Implying the choice between siding with the geth or the quarians. Which clearly you don’t have to.

Exactly! Thank you

Except he survives if you achieve the perfect ending

@@blacknoiz3757 no, he doesn't. It's just a stupid easter egg that doesn't mean anything. It could be a random soldier on earth, it doesn't mean anything. Mass effect is over. It ends with Shepard sacrificing himself and millions of other individuals to save sextillions more, that's how it ends and has remained ended for over 10 years. It's a contained story that is over, there should never be another mass effect game ever, not even a spin-off or a fucking prequel or any of that garbage. Mass effect is sacred, it should be left alone in a museum. Not fucking made into a stupid fucking product that keeps shitting out sequels, spin-offs, rip-offs, prequels, sequels tradequels whateverthefuck-teequels. Even if the new one does go that route, it already failed. Not to mention Bioware is long dead anyway, if anything the next mass effect will probably make andromeda look good.

Or, she could have just say immediately commanded then to self destruct. Thus getting the best ending.

When you have something that large facing you, it kind of washes out some insignificant things. When faced with a civilization ending threat, it doesn't really matter if you helped Chad in me1 or let him believe he was n7 in me2 where he subsequently died, or helped him with the orphans in 3. It's so big that the little things don't add up enough to matter.

The out comes of your choices are seen through out the game, which negates them being needed in the ending itself. as was already said, the ending was too big to make something as small as whether or not the krogan are cured of the genophage for example, is relevant in comparison.

Why couldn't have added a orb or created a new alien well a hologram of it but a child take about lazy or stupid

I’m thinking you’re right about the “control” ending having different outcomes depending on Shepard’s character. My Shepard was *technically* Renegade, but went Paragon on most of the “Big Decisions” throughout the series and did a heel-face turn to almost full Paragon by the end of ME3. Picked the “Control” option, and while it was sad that Shepard turned into an emotionless God AI, the implication I got was that she uses the Reapers to help rebuild and afterwards uses them as a means of guarding the galaxy from external threats and preventing the other races from starting wars with each other. Sure, that’s a little 1984ian, but not nearly as bad as the ending mentioned in this video.

Exactly. The will lead to extinction of many Planets and Colonys in the Galaxy since the gates are gone and they cant sustain themselves. Not to mention how much damage the Gate explosions do.

In the destroy Hackett states that the relays are damaged but can be repaired so civilization would be temporary hampered by a downed relay network

I'm pretty sure they rebuild the Mass Relays or just repair them since they only shut down when the Red Wave hits.

The mass relays aren't fully destroyed with the best possible endings so the galactic civilisation could easily repair them

From available material in the ending, repairing mass relays after the ending is not only possible, it doesn't even take more than few months or years. If Wrex and Eve are alive, you can see a picture of Wrex (and Grunt, if he's alive too) exiting shuttle after returning on Tuchanka while Eve is holding his child, which means that only relatively short time passed between the battle of Earth and restoration of some of the mass relays (at least in high EMS endings).

@D Yes, when I said "the Reapers control organics" I didn't mean control in the same sense as Shepard controlling the reapers. In the control ending, Shepard sorta becomes a demi-god, and controls the reapers like puppets, however, the creator of the video argued that the epilogue when you pick that ending implies that Shepard and the reapers then go on to become the overlords of the organics, which I think is a mental leap.

Bugs Money I prefer the freeze frames rather than a New Vegas voice-over because it leaves more interpretation on behalf of the player rather than the game telling you Goodsprings is screwed no matter what your character can do after the game ends.

Why would you choose to control the reapers when you spent two games fighting the person who literally wants to do this?

@@MattRowland I assume you're talking about the Illusive Man? Not sure because you really only fight him for one game, but that's beside the point. Some people might choose Control because they believe Shepard is worthy to control them and the Illusive man is not or, going back to my main point, more importantly they believe that the Shepard they played would deem himself worthy to control them. There are people who genuinely believe thoughts like that, right? They're called authoritarians or totalitarians. Totalitarians love when they're in power and hate when people they don't agree with are in power. That might not be what you think *your* Shepard fought for, but that's the whole point of a role-playing game, isn't it?

@@bugsmoney1264 could be, like you said, that's what makes role playing so amazing. My Shepard would never control the reapers, because he spent way too much time as an idealist who wanted to rid the galaxy of them. I ultimately believe this is why Andromeda failed. Not because of the bugs, not because of the story, but because Mass Effect IS Shepard to all of us, especially our version of Shepard. When we don't have that, we resist, even unconsciously. Shepard is just an amazing, dynamic hero that it's hard to separate the universe of this story without him/her.

toadofsteel wow... perfect. Dare anyone to make an argument against that lol. also don’t forget our protagonist’s last name... paragon definitely makes the Ai. Out to be a shepherd. They don’t enslave sheep... they guide and protect them like paragon Shepherd, or Jesus if you wanna get into the shepherd savior metaphor.

@@guardiantree8879 The only people got Shepard where the players.

The "paragon" control ending doesn't work as it's what the Reapers push for. The green ending breaks established lore and resorts to essentially magic in hard science sci-fi, and the destroy ending also killed Shepard unless you reach a specific threshold. Another thing you want to look at is the fact that the Reaper AI smiles rather creepily if you pick either control or synthesis while it scowls before fading with destroy. Since you're looking at past events to justify the control ending allow me to do the same with the destruction ending. Mass Effect 1. Saren preaches the idea of coexisting with the Reapers to preserve life all whilst undergoing extensive cybernetic implantation with Reaper Tech to the player. Turns out to be a puppet. Mass Effect 2 and 3. T.I.M preaches about harnessing the power of the Reapers (and the Collector base) by controlling them, using them to benefit mankind and lead the galaxy to great strength. Turns out that he got the idea after being completely indoctrinated by the Reapers. Now why would the Reapers push for two out of three options? Both of which get an almost rapey grin from the Reaper AI? Why does the "Renegade" option that every character that is established as trustworthy pushes for get a negative reaction from the literal embodiment of the Reapers minds? Food for thought.

or the one.

toadofsteel Shepard doesn't pick the destroy ending to save himself, where did you get that from? The star child even tells shepard if he chooses destroy he will die aswell as he is part synthetic, shepard had no idea he would survive so yeah shepard was willing to sacrifice himself in the destroy ending. If you want to start bringing up what the villains wanted then let's talk about how the illusive man wanted to control the reapers and he was indoctrinated, saren wanted synthesis and once again he was indoctrinated. Anderson, shepard and all of the good guys in mass effect wanted the reapers destroyed and they were not indoctrinated. Also if you're trying to say shepard isn't willing to sacrifice others to get the job done then you're wrong, he sacrificed an entire system to delay the reapers in mass effect 2, do you really think he wouldn't go 1 step further and sacrifice synthetic life if it meant stopping the reapers permanently? Also why would shepard even want to control the reapers? It's not a life worth living, it was never his goal throughout the series even when the illusive man tried to persuade him to and I'm pretty sure shepard is against mind control anyway, he's conflicted about rewriting the geth, disgusted by batarians using control chips in slaves brains and he tells miranda it's better to be dead than be controlled so it is hypocritical for him to then mind control the reapers no matter how much he hates them especially when he can just kill them outright. Also Shepard would be putting the galaxy in danger choosing control, he has no idea if the star child is lieing or if he might start up another cycle of genocide due to no longer being in full control of his actions as he will basically become like an AI. Destroy ending is the best and safest ending, on top of that it's exactly what shepard wanted from the start throughout the series, no point changing his mind in the last 5 minutes because the greatest enemy shepards ever faced tells him to.

Jordan Beeney Then why acceept any of the star childs options, refusal is the only choice.

@@thedarkmaster4747 Refusal to me is definitely more valid than synthesis though, so no argument here. The Reaper's themselves by being subject to the Catalyst's control are tools; the Geth can still deviate from the 'hive mind' and make somewhat independent choices and thus, qualify for sentience and independence more than any reaper we've met. In destroy, you're essentially giving up most of the universe's technology in exchange for freedom and the chance to build a new future on our 'own terms' (Legion's ME2 perspective). It's one of my least favourite options, but creates a lot of possibilities. In control, the Reaper's fall under the control of Shepard. Under the assumption of a paragon Shepard, the Reapers serve as the replacement fleet and guardian's for the galaxy, restoring the relays and society back to Pre-ME3 levels. Individuals still have the capacity and freedom to change, explore new technologies and there's still diversity amongst the galaxy and innovation can still occur. This is my personally favourite one if the Shepard is paragon: if not, then it turns into the second worst option behind Synthesis, with Reaper-Shepard hinting at a military dictatorship. With a paragon Shepard, It allows the galaxy to focus on rebuilding society rather than just the military initially, unlike the Destroy ending and prevents a possible internal power struggle occuring. Worst-destroy ending is also better than Synthesis in my eyes as some individuals survive and start rebuilding, even with catastrophic damage, whilst retaining the individual freedom I've championed so far. Synthesis essentially has the benefit's of control in terms of technology but removes elements of individual freedom: non-consensually turning everyone into bio-synthetic hybrids is one of the main things you're aiming to prevent. If by rewriting everyone's entire genetic makeup without their consent turns everyone co-operative, is it even truly life? Refusal still allows for the Destroy and Control options to occur in future cycles and whilst tragically phyrric, it thematically fits into the story.

Jordan Beeney It is a phyrric victory, but also a moral victory and an ethical vicrory. But its also a mo-ral annihilation as the reapers essentially just win the war in the face of the futility of shepherds defiance. "Control" is equally as bad irreguardless of shepherds morality or allignment, ultimately they would've inevitably of shared the same fate as thee illusive man. Because as stated in the first game by sovereign, the reapers are beyond human comprihension. Infact the only race that could've attempted to control the reapers would've been the leviathans - as we have actional proof of such agency, in the game. Not that i'd bet on them, given how badly they lost to the reapers/the star child/the intelligence/citadel the first time around. Thematically you have the whole man creates god in the form of machine trope, but here it's more god creates c'thulu in a vain attempt to save man from himself. Control is a bad ending because if anything your only making the reapers even smarter. "Destroy" is equally awefull for the same core under lying reason, the star child/citadel states that it will not allow you to only destroy the reapers and thus achieve your military victory condition. "BUT" and this is a big but, it Will destroy all synthetic life and E.M.P. all technology, E.D.I. & her replicants, the geth and numerous other A.I. across the galaxy down to every single street light, aswell as it's reaper armies. Which ofcourse when you think about it, citadel being a being without compassion, reverence or sentiment. Makes no difference to it whatsoever, infact, just as with control, in destroy citadel has an advantage - if anything. Even the husk of a dead reaper as we experienced in the mission to recruit legion in mass effect 2 can indoctrinate. There is no reason to assume that in this way - citadel cannot ressemble itself faster than the milkyway can advance to a point of sufficient military opposition. And given citadels intellect, comprising of every civilization that it has harvested, it is perfectly possible that it could of calculated this exact strategem:"The experiments will continue." And "synthesis" is essentially the borg, citadels end goal, but as it has stated, this cannot be "forced", not to imagine tha citadel hasn't tried numerous times, repeatedly. Given the state of the krogan turian hybrid reaper form that breaks the current in universe understanding of biotechnology. We do achieve "synthesis" through the geth and quarian alliance or reunification. Citadel is ofcourse aware of this, and has not desisted the current harvest. Neither had citadel stopped the harvest of the countless other civilisations, given what - you can imagine, being the various other responces to the inevitablity of the reaper hollocaust. Which is why the only option is refusal, and thus, conventional defiance.

The Dark master Refusal is a terrible ending aswell, you're dooming the whole galaxy to extinction which is much worse than destroy which only dooms synthetic life. Sure technology will be damaged but if you have a high ems hackett said it is possible for everything to be rebuilt, it's low ems destroy which is much more of a problem. Also if shepard doesn't destroy the reapers the next cycle will anyways, the difference is shepards cycle gets wiped out because shepard would have been too weak willed to have done it himself, and in return would have wasted everything that shepard ,his cycle and the protheans cycle fought for. Shepard sacrificed a system to slow down the reapers, so shepard shouldn't have a problem going one step further if it meant stopping the reapers permanently especially If the other alternative is just letting everyone die. Quite frankly I hate the refusal ending aswell, it felt like a slap in the face from bioware that was thrown in there out of spite because of the negative reaction the endings got. I don't think it's the worst ending (synthesis is the worst for multiple reasons), but it is still really bad. I think all the endings are bad, but the destroy ending is the least worst.

Emmanuel 49 Refusal is what would've happened anyway, naturally. ME 1 & 2 were essentially shepherd perpetually chosing the refusal option. Refusal is a fight, a hypothetically futile one

We didn’t need any of this crap. We destroy the reapers and then we win. Then we deal with the consequences.

Wasn't it that in the perfect ending without mods EDI and the Geth get to live?

The ending was good in theory, they fucked up the execution which was why so many people (including me) missed the point when they first played it. To be clear, that's on Bioware and EA for not putting enough time into it, but it was still a good concept on paper.

il say ending was rushed but they always had this kinda of ending in my and i liked then again i played it with all dlc and extendet cut but overall i loved the ending. And yes i want another ME game that is set after 3 let's 10 years later

Leviathan fixes most of this. In my opinion the leviathan subplot should have been in the base game and the cerberus part should have been a DLC, as no one cares about it.

Yes, well said. Green is good.

This. In all 3 Games but especially in the third you have the Choices to transform the Civilization into something new. The Green Option is just the Final Step to that Goal.

In my opinion synthesis is great because it combines the view points of the protagonist and antagonists. Yes civilization is changed greatly but as ghost in the shell put it, you have to evolve or die.

You let Anderson death in vain.

Yes, but transform it into what? Within the context of the franchise, synthesis didn't actually mean anything. A "new DNA" equals glowing green eyes? What? If synthesis were to be a legitimate option, then ME should have expended some effort prior to the finale to establish what synthesis was and how it could be accomplished. They had the perfect opportunity, too. A conjoining between the Geth and their creators - to the mutual advantage of both - could have established this. They didn't develop this, however. Of course, there would still have been a MAJOR issue. Synthesis could have only replaced the old paradigm if EVERY species participated in it. And they would never do that voluntarily. You'd end up replacing the Reapers with the Borg. So much for that feel good ending.

Well said.

Excellent rebuttal and, as far as it goes, I agree.

I'm on the same page. I will only had that synthesis has also the evolution aspect to it. People tend to believe that evolution is only a biological process, it is not, there is a technological and even a social aspect to it. Synthesis is when this 3 aspects of evolution stop being disjointed and start to merge. The synthesis ending is the natural next step to any advance civilization evolution. We can already see it in our world. Biological - The mingling of different people, the passing traits like skin color, bone density and frame, eye color. Technological - The argumentation of the body like prosthetics, pacemakers and in the future electric prosthetics like eye capable of seeing infrared and zooming. And Socially the creation of social networks like Facebook.

Excellent argument. The control ending is the least damaging with Commander Shepard being the only one to pay a price( which isn’t really out of character if you played paragon like I did).

THIS. I feel like adding, interpretation-wise, that in the control ending you stop the reaper assault. You do not stop the galactic navy from finishing the job. So it can be surmised that society willingly chose, through fear or lack thereof, that they would not continue to fight the reprogrammed reapers which have chosen to halt the reaping. I quite like the idea that given the opportunity the reapers are ultimately reduced in numbers to nothing or close to in paragon control, not allowed to keep the military strength they started with. Because who in their right mind would agree to that except the geth, cerberus, and perhaps renegade shepard. Like the quarians murdering helpless geth, I find it likely the reapers were still pulverized the moment the opportunity arose. But I too will never diss on destroy ending lovers, considering how it's exactly what everyone wanted, and achieves in the short term immediate results, although it does perpetuate the cycle of violence against synthetics, reapers, that ages all the way back to the era of Leviathan. Synthesis really does just seem like galaxy-wide indoctrination with extra steps, though.

Yes, exactly. You get to shape how things turn out given premises that you can only change to a certain extent, it would be crazy to think you could alone shape very aspect of the story.

Mass effect 4 could have been what you are talking about. But I wont get into that. I completely agree though. Your idea would have made at least an excellent DLC.

Depends on your Renegade/Paragon status. Shepard goes pretty nuts if you are Renegade.

At least, that is what the reapers want you to believe ;)

@@Y0G0FU I'm always Paragon. My Shepard is a nice person untill you piss her off, then she throws people out windows

@@channonikelman2041 I would be a little concerned having a Reaper that is being controlled by the consciousness of the person who once threw someone off windows(for pissing them off). My point is, there is still a risk of a Control-ending future to be not-so-bright.

Honestly perfect paragon shephard ... not much a chance of that Ai going bad. It’s main priority to me Would be not allowing any race to go completely extinct, considering what a paragon Shepard would do for the Krogan and Rachni. Besides with destroy you’re assured that synthetic life would cause wars in the future...especially if they knew an organic chose to wipe them all out. Peace with them would be near impossible at that point.

they also admit it was two of them locking themselves away and getting drunk to write it. It was the ramblings of the two worst writers bioware has ever employed, whilst drunk.

I don't think that inherently makes it a bad ending in the same it lending itself to the best headcannon ending in gaming history doesn't make it a good ending. I think what we're given is good, it maintains a theme that's been going since the beginning; organic life vs synthetic life, are they really alive and if they are, are their lives worth less than a organic life? Interpretation is just as meaningful as intent. I think an ending that can inspire such debate and thought is worthy of some sort of merit, even through flawed execution.

One writer admits that another writer says it was on the table from early development to do a bitter sweet ending. The only issue is people were let down by the fact that the ending cutscenes were too similar depending on your choice but the fact that they don't even show the geth or Edi dying is something to keep a close eye on.

@@gibster9624 geths dying is bittersweet. The whole fleet strangled on the earth, destruction of the world as we know it (relays), many strangled worlds... that's not bittersweet, that's shitting on the whole property. PS: the rest of the series wasn't really bittersweet, so it didn't tonally fit. You are playing pretty standard blockbuster story right up till the end of the last game. This is not the time to turn bitter.

@@MartinJab I think that's the heart of my issues. In the last two games you can get a flat out good ending, everyone lives and it's very happy. Then in the last minutes of the final game they just pull this "oh yeah the good ending means killing every synthetic and Shepard dies". To me it just doesn't fit tonally. If the "no-win" ending was being hinted towards or pursued in the last two I wouldn't have an issue, but its just sour as is.

Because we didn't have the extended cut when we first played through. Imagine 100+ hours of gameplay, we get some literal Deus Ex Machina where we couldn't ask any questions, get a silly ending. Then you reloaded it, chose a different, and get the same ending with a different color.

@@TheDancerMacabre That's not why most people hated the endings. They hated the endings because, no matter which three you choose, and extended cut or not, it is a blatant, open, bold, LIE. Starting in 2007, BioWare said that "Your choices matter." Really? They matter? No... They fiddle with your War Readiness Rating, but there are ways to hit every mission in the final game and get enough points. None of the decisions from the previous games matter. What color explosion do you want? Pick it now, at the final decision point, and make nothing else you've done across 3 games relevant... Even after the extended cut, all you get is still shots. Shep, in the end, at the Crucible, is who BioWare wanted him/her to be. He/She isn't who I built over 90 hours of game play. They could have cut down the play time in 3 to half what it is, and instead demonstrate how each pivotal decision from the 3 previous games creates the ending to this game, and I would have applauded it. Instead, save the Rachni Queen 3 times, and get a codex entry about her being a war asset. Turning the Collector Base over to Cerberus or Destroying it is a matter of getting the Reaper Heart or the Reaper Brain as a codex entry of being a war asset. Save the heretic Geth or Blow them up? Oh, look, another codex entry of being a war asset. My decisions were points to be tabulated in a future game, not something that mattered.

@@TheDancerMacabre The extended cut still didn't fix that much.

@@GetDaved At least it fleshed out the endings. Original endings had two major problems, they felt out of place and were too short, barebones literally. We made a decision that supposedly changes the whole galaxy for the rest of time and we didn't know shit about what happened later. Extended Cut, well, extended it, thankfully. The overall conclusion is still somewhat disappointing in grand scheme of things but at least we with the DLC we know roughly what happened next. Original ending was abrupt, out of nowhere and created dozens of questions with no answers. That ending was the single biggest disappointment I've ever experienced on screen. Extended Cut didn't "save" the ending but at least it saved the trilogy and made it worth the time after all. What happened in March 2012 was not overreaction, we weren't "crybabies". Fans were rightfully disappointed and had the right to demand more after something like this.

@@TheDancerMacabre the extended cut sucked aswell

Do tell, because as far as I know, Tali kills herself if you save legion

You have to have a high enough paragon or renegade score to open up a speech option.

I saved both first try...

Even if you save Tali and Legion, Legion sacrifices himself to upgrade the Geth

There isn't, people are misremembering. Legion sacrifices themselves to upload the code.

The clip in his video showed a husk suddenly acting human again after Shepard takes over, clearly Spacedock mistook the meaning of that.

This hits on the Indoctrination Theory a bit. That the Control option, being both Saren and The Illusive Man, is succumbing to indoctrination. It's important to note that also, in the Starchild sequence, the Illusive Man is shown taking the "Control" option and Anderson is shown taking the "Destroy" option, but there is no hallucination for Synthesis because it hadn't even occurred to the Reapers before.

Uh no, synthesis has been done by the reapers like 20,000 times before by their own admission. All those other times they wiped the galaxy out every 50k years. They saved the genetic and scientific materials of alllllll those other merged species. In an unfulfilling-to-us-humans way, they all still exist in the reaper horde. Destroy is the only one that's never been done successfully before.

The RED RENEGADE Anderson makes little sense, same for BLUE PARAGON Illusive Man. Also award-like for picking what they really want, new bio-synth reaper constructs. They confused you into telling the galaxy to lay down their arms and "merge" like all other 20,000 cycles. Amazing really, you spent so many hours fighting that same end and then immediately championed it instead. Superior species I guess.

Also re control, it showed Shep doing exactly what Saren was doing, blue f'd up eyes and all. Sorry it's late and meta but you and the galaxy died, please reload an old save.

Thank God he came back for Doom: Eternal.

Do you guys not have Reapers?!

lol

@@robertwsaul Do you want Reapers, cuz this is how you get Reapers.

@@robertwsaul Oh God, you had me rollin' with that. Well played.

relevant meme +1

There is no outcome where both Tali and Legion survive. If you save both the geth and quarians, Legion still gives his life.

It's never shown the next cycle will win, only that they find the box left by Liara as far as I remember. Also you screwed over all advanced species in the galaxy and let them be harvested, so to say it's a hopeful ending is a bit of a stretch.

@@Lucifer_26 Refusal is basically just bioware giving everyone the middle finger not wanting to believe in anything the catalyst says. Like would you believe in anything in a being who controls robotic abominations with the powers to manipulate and brainwash people to thinking there way is always the right way? This is basically what happened to Saren when he believed what Sovereign was saying after he was successfully indoctrinated.

You learn the next cycle wins via different Stargazer scene dialogue. Refusal ending has a female (instead of the male voiced by Buzz Aldrin) telling a child how Shepard's cycle is why they have peace.

He... didn't talk about the Geth and Quarians. He talked about Tali and Legion.

@Rising Horizon Gaming sure, but if you don't trust the Catalyst, why believe any of the endings work the way it says.

The Star Brat is similar to KoToR 2's G0-T0. Only G0-T0 knew he was broken, but was slaved to his directives regardless. The Star Brat was given an impossible task within the confine's of his allowed parameter's, so he broke them to achieve his solution. As a result, the Star Brat is not a good end game mouth piece. He's just a broken machine that couldn't say, "Unable to comply".

Synthesis is bad because you are forcing the whole galaxy to become a new life form against their will.

@@cannon26ify I agree, I don't think the synthesis choice is good for several reasons. I just think the dialogue is saying it's the best, and only good, choice.

@@rngwrldngnr Control is exactly what the illusive man wanted and refusing to act at all is damning everyone alive in the galaxy to death so that leaves Destroy as the only option that is right. Shepard set out from the start in the first game to destroy the reapers and yes the cost is high but that's the point ,to give weight to your decisions. Old school Sci-fi has always been bleak and rather gritty.

@Genoy B "every choice matters" this is what was said in the promotional material for ME3. But at the end you choose what color of explosion kills or dooms to starvation most of the galaxy. If they had been intending to make a story about the horrors of war like Spec Ops The Line, then this would have been brilliant. But that is Bioware what they setup or advertised. Or even something Lovecraftian, but that is not what was setup or advertised. They setup the premise of Shepard determining the fate of the galaxy, then advertised that. Then, depending on who you believe either never had a coherent overarching story and were making it up as they went, or changed it at the last minute when the plot was leaked. This video is like the Indoctrination Theory. It would be brilliant if it were true, but the way ME3 was written in such a self contradictory way to both itself and the rest of the series means that the creators could not possibly have put that much thought into it and this is just the desperation of the people who love the series not wanting the ending to suck as badly as it did so they are reading things into it that were never there.

Lmao

That was actually pretty similar to how I played my shep actually

I played mass effect for the first time and thought destroying all reapers was the most logical option. True Geth and EDI are dead and with the mass relays gone, the universe was probably setback to square one BUT I still think it's the best option out of 3 already terrible options.

So many people forget that the Catalyst is the Leviathan AI that turned against them. It created the Reapers and sees the harvest cycle as perfection. Which begs the questions...why would it allow someone else to take control? And, why would it want to synthesize all synthetic and organic life together? Before the Extended Cut dlc changed the endings, choosing Control or Synthesis showed Shepard's eyes turn blue and their skin burn away to reveal the blue/black husk flesh underneath...implying that both of those choices were tricks to indoctrinate Shepard; just like Saren and the Illusive Man. But the Destroy choice was also a lie since if your rating was high enough, Shepard would survive. The Catalyst tries to make you sympathize to save Edi and the Geth by not choosing Destroy.

Control is definitely my favorite of the three, assuming a suitably Paragon Shepard.

100% agree...I’ve noticed no one tries to argue with people that chose paragon control...

RXdash78 - That ending could have been better. Different tones and narrative based on the Renegade/Paragon mix of the player at that moment.

I believe that was probably the designers intent, given the colour of destroy option is red same as renegade, and control is the paragon blue. I like both I just hate the control ending ugh

very surprised of the confusion on the subject myself.. even without the extended cut, it was VERY clear to me what each ending represented.. with the extended cut being out i really don't see how people don't get this.

I personaly think the ending would be better received, if starchild's place would be given to Harbinger, that character was almost completely forgotten in ME3 and never truly appeared in the trilogy, despite ME2 was picturing Harbinger as a reaper with special significance.

Shep actually survives if you have high enough EMS and pick destroy. There will be a short cutscene on Earth where you can see Shep lying in rubble and suddenly taking a breath.

@@DarthJane I know. But maybe its her last breath. That's why i headcanon that she survives

@@wickiei4556 of course he/she survived. Its fucking shepard, not some normal human beeing

Shepherd living is stupid, as the troupe of "the hero saves the day, and lives" is outdated, and very unrealistic. It is literally asinine to be able to save the entirety of the galaxy, and be able to walk away in the end. The hero dying in the end, not only shows the scale of what they were up against, but it also goes to show that they were truly willing to lay down their life for others. Heroes are not defined by their actions, but by their will to recognize, and yes I'm quoting star trek, that the needs of the many, out weight the needs of the one.

Sure, except those making the argument that control or merge are good have realistically been asleep for almost all of the previous trilogy. Indoctrination is coming indoctrination is coming indoctrination is coming... believe everything that *confirmed telepathically derived child* says is true and up front with you despite your fleet obviously ultimately losing outside to a billion year scientific and military buildup.

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos Oh you're in the indoctrination theory camp, that explains all the nonsense you've been spamming around here. Cope harder. ME3 was great and you people missed the point.

Also, Holden gets a lot of shit for following his ideals as he tend to fuck things up by doing it

Agree, most of ME3 just doesn't tie to the other two. What was the point of the conduit and the big reveal of the citadel as a mass relay in ME1, when all along the Reaper hivemind was controlling it all along? What, it just decided to let the Protheans hack the thing after they were supposed to be dead? Why did the Reapers make new Reapers look like the race they harvested in ME2, only to put it in a shell that looked like Sovereign? so visual effects artists had to use fewer assets? Why did the crucible have literally no lead up in either previous game, and just come out of thin air? And why didn't Vigil tell us about it when we talked to him before? Why did the Reaper AI have circular logic about its mission that makes zero sense? I preferred the cosmic space horror to an AI that ran rampant and did exactly what it wanted to prevent. What's the point in all these weird war assets we collect over the series, when all they do is fill up a status bar? Why couldn't we see a rachni swarm help us in the final mission, or one of the smugglers we helped do a boming run on an enemy strong point or something? So many things that just made the game and the ending feel really lazy and not well thought out after the epic buildup from the prior two.

@@JCDenton3 I think you folks a being a little harsh, yes no doubt the ending of ME3 was rushed and didn't have as good of a payout as it should have and the entire ending concept could have had a lot more tact, but calling the ending lazy is a bit disingenuous, giving an ending that would be satisfying to everything is a superbly impossible task, most popular TV shows struggle with this too. The ending was sound in theory it's just a shame it didn't come out as well as it could have, ultimately they could have spent the time to tie up every single choice you've made over the series in the ending sequence but the game would have to be half the size it is to achieve that, the game has to ship at some point and the ending does a much better job at tying up the themes than people give it credit for. (plus the indoctrination theory caps off Shepard's story really well in my opinion and I really wish the game put more credence into that idea, but that's beside the point)

@@Meandery It’s an ending that I didn’t particularly enjoy at the time. No final boss fight, no satisfying final showdown with the Illusive Man (killed in a cutscene) or Harbinger (messes you up and then disappears to presumably share the same fate as the other reapers), the final piece of proper game play is that horrible horde battle, filled with banshees that set my teeth on edge whenever they scream (appreciate that this is just me, but it is difficult to enjoy a segment of game play when you have to mute to get through it), that has all the hallmarks of a final test before the finale. Instead you get what amounts to a binary choice which leads to the effectively the same outcome: the reapers are defeated but you are dead. To be clear I don’t care that Shepard dies. Dying to save the galaxy is an ideal ending for the character (IMO). What irked me was how the choice was presented. We speak with the mind behind the Reapers and see that it is nothing more than a child with a flawed world view, this could have been fine if you then get the opportunity to challenge its view point but you don't, you are forced to accept its view that synthetic and organic life are incapable of living together. There is no opportunity to challenge this viewpoint, you can’t point out that you have managed to broker peace between the Quarians and the Geth, or that EDI is one your most loyal companions despite being a synthetic among organics. You lose your agency in the very final moments in a series which always put your choices front and centre. Since I’ve had an opportunity to dwell on it I have grown to appreciate what it represents so much more. I do now consider it to be exactly the ending that Shepard deserved: sacrificing himself in order to save everyone (whichever choice you make, I accept them all equally valid, I personally went with control). The above still annoys me to some degree but not to the extent it used to.

heck, it wasn't even brought up until the second game except as lore fluff. unless you count that random aim side quest, or the moon training facility. If only we *knew* that's wasn't just something to keep the main storyline from being repetitive. That was the storyline.

It absolutely does show you the results of the other choices. It shows the aftermath of the krogans, quarian/geth, etc. It also shows a brief scene of what happens to your crewmates. What more would you want?

Commander Shepherd Yeah, listen to the elitist who dehumanizes anyone who likes ME3. Great idea.

Commander Shepherd “Everybody who likes this is a fucking idiot!” Why can’t he say: “I respectfully disagree and here’s why.” Way more polite.

Commander Shepherd His Extended Cut analyses videos start off with calling people who like ME3 idiots. Has he gone out and said he’s sorry for that yet?

Commander Shepherd Well he better clear things up because it’s people like him that give the Mass Effect fandom a bad image. Mass Effect is a story about accepting and respecting different people for the greater good. But the way he goes around saying very rude things to people who disagree with him, I can’t help but wonder why he even likes Mass Effect to begin with.

Commander Shepherd Well Mother’s Basement did a much better job saying ME2 was the declining point. But at the end of the day, he said ME2/3 are good games but the stories pale in comparison to 1. I pity Smudboy’s obsession that makes him look like an elitist asshole when he could be good friends with people if he changed his ways to not be consumed by petty hatred.

Killing a couple million to around a billion souls vs the wrath of *the senate* himself? _I'd pull the trigger._

That may be so (the red option leading to future org-synth wars), but that will be for us (or rather our descendant to decide. That's what the meaning of choice and freedom are. The other options take away that freedom in exchange for security. Some may be fine by it, some may not.

That is the Star brat's own circular logic and desire to continue the cycle talking.

They can retcon him---he's the collective AI of Reapers who've shown no care or regard for the will of organics, or understanding of what motivates them. Synthesis need not even be a literal merging of technology into organics, either, but something else entirely that allows these forms of life to co-exist. I think BioWare shouldn't run from making a choice with aspects of the universe that doesn't go along with player's choices. I mean, look, you can still be a Renegade Shepherd, but does anyone think the canon should be that Shepherd guns people down for no reason and is practically genocidal at times? Or should BW just go with a mostly-Paragon outcome? I don't think the stories have to end but BW is going to have to grapple with 'canceling' out player choices to an extent to continue making stories in this universe.

legion dies no matter what you do. he cant be saved.

Niko Aroketo he obviously cannot be saved, but you as the player have an option to not directly kill either Tali or Legion. Legion consciously chooses to sacrifice itself if you are able to compromise with both the get and quarians or if you choose the get over the quarians. My initial point in my essay was that this RU-vid content creator clearly did not do his research before making this video due to his allusion that you cannot save both the quarians and the get as an extension from his original statement. If he were to respond and say"that's not what I meant at all(or something like that)" then he failed to communicate his true thoughts and arguments on the ending throughout the video which is rather lazy in my opinion; and if that's the case then there a lot of nitpicky things that need to be addressed in his video.

While I agree with most of what you said, you really need to just take the L on there being a decision which aaves both Legion and Tali. Acting as if it's the video creator's fault that you took a relatively clear statement to mean something very different from what was said does a number on the perception of credibility in your comments. With that out of the way, I fully agree with calling bullahit on the ending and disagree vehemently, as you say, with the fundamental thesis of this video. Good points made succinctly.

Star child was the reapers dude, he wasn't some AI separate from them. Spacedock also states there's no way to save both Tali and legion, not "Quarians or geth".If you're gonna write a novel on why someone is wrong, make sure you are right.

A great video And He Said well!

Nah.

@@balabanasireti yea

@@HalfTangible i played leviathan before seeing the ending so for me it came off as way less bullshit, though i woulve liked to be able to talk back

At least it will quench the flames they burn him with. XD *whispers*... AsHeDrownsInTheDepravedDepthsOfHisOwnHereticalSins...

aaaaand it collapsed hard

Not true. You can totally come out like roses other than two instances: Virmire and the Ending.

@@geofff.3343 And Tuchanka (Mordin), the Citadel (Thane), and Rannoch (Legion).

All solutions are temporary. There's no such thing as an omnipotent, eternal solution. After WWI, the world thought the sheer size of the conflict and the generations of families lost would stop further wars: it didn't. After WWII, the formation of the United Nations was supposed to bring an end to all conflict, just like the League before it. It didn't. In the end, all we have are temporary solutions. Synthesis and Control are no more a permanent solution than Destroy and Refusal are.

Red Centurion perhaps not, but it certainly a) reduces the risk of such things happening and b) at least makes them smaller in scale, in some cases. Regardless though, I feel like that's a moot point. In the case of synthesis, it completely eliminates the problem at hand. Sure, there still might be war after a synthesis ending as groups begin to re-organize themselves and as new factions and problems spring up--that's probably a certainty. But will those wars be over the understanding of artificial intelligence, or how organics feel threatened by synthetics? I very much doubt it. There will always be other issues to fight over, but this won't be one of them.

@@SultanOfAwesomeness 😌😌😌 Synthesis is the way to GO 👍👌

If I could give this a thousand thumbs up, I would. Well said sir!!

Wow, this opens up old wounds lol. It's been a fair number of years since ME3 disappointed me with pick your color, but even after such a long time has passed I still have to agree. I would also like to add that the control and synthesis endings completely contradict everything your character has done in the past 2 games regardless of your choices between Paragon and Renegade. Synthesis is what Saren wanted in ME1, we actively resisted and killed him in the end to prevent that, only for ME3 to give us the option of basically doing exactly what Saren had aimed to do from the very beginning. Control isn't any different as the Illusive Man wanted the same exact outcome, but we kill him whether we like the idea or not only minutes before giving us the choice to end on control. Not only does this make Shepard a hypocrite in both of these endings it also contradicts his/her established character in any Paragon play through. It also brings up the question why we even left the Illusive Man in ME2 if we were bound to follow his path anyway. Destroy is the only logical choice, but it is also the most illogical in terms of the lore lol. The ending is just a giant mess with no thought put into it. And somehow Bioware was able to make two games arguably equal to, or worse than ME3 lol.

@@cooljim1376 Holy fuck, I never thought of the choices that way in terms of contradictions. No wonder I felt in my gut that destroy was the best option.

It's just a giant cluster fuck in story telling lol. This is amateur level stuff, coming from people who made the previous games without much of a hitch. I always hear EA is responsible for rushing the game and only giving Bioware a year to make it, but given how the writers defended their work to the last man and were proud of what they had done, I can only assume this was something the writers were perfectly consent with. They even gave us a "fourth ending" which is basically no ending at all as, once again, your choices throughout the franchise have no impact on it and everyone just dies.

He also said "Mass Effect 3's ending was MOSTLY praised," Then like 2 seconds later "MOST FANS hated the ending."

Steven Gerrish how could you keep both Tali and legion? It’s not possible

@@Spider-PunkOffical he probably meam having both fleets , saving legion is impossible

@@Spider-PunkOffical Sorry I meant both fleets. My bad

@@Spider-PunkOffical I think he meant that he saved both the Geth and Quarians and ended their war peacefully.

EXACTLY

Yes and lets face it they did give us solutions which was generous given the magnitude of the threat and that we actually had no clue at all what the crucible was.

Except he disproves that point in his own argument if this is what he's saying: Because according to him and the wider part of the internet Destruction is the hero winning.

Love Wheel of Time...skeptical about the upcoming series.

Jeez someone who knows this masterpiece, finally.

@Beese Churger ain't a game, it's a fantasy book series named "The Wheel of time" by Robert Jordan (last 3 or 4 books were written by Sanderson due to Jordan's death). It really is a great series and a TV show is about to come up (let's hope it is as good as the books...)

Are you willing to take that risk? The only source of info about this thing specially goes out of the way to tell you that this will happen.

@@r1cosito The AI that is in the crucible is a fully evolved AI as stated in the game. That means it has a measure of self preservation so it can continue its cycle of reaping. So I think I will take that chance.

Partially got it right but dramatically got it wrong. Have you guys played Mass Effect 1 into all the way? Many times over? I'm going to strongly believe no. Cuz if you did especially to the best game of all time not 3 by Longshot. There's this thing called dark matter and dark energy in the game. And the main reason and the main story line that got shit canned which is why Mass Effect 3 became a ship mess at its ending. Was the reason why they had to kill Advanced life was supposedly they weren't smart enough to figure out that kept using dark matter and dark energy and work drives it was going to collapse the universe or the Galaxy. It was a unique and better overall explanation why they were wiping out Advanced civilizations. But overall both reasons are really retarded and ultimately quite insulting towards the Advanced civilizations and their intelligence... if they're intelligent enough to enhance and use the Hi-Tech. Then obviously they're intelligent enough to understand or have it explained to him the future and adverse effects of it. And that's just talking about that you over use of dark under and dark energy current the original plot are the Mass Effect storyline. But if we go at the slam bam thank you ma'am Mass Effect 3 altered ending which is what we got in the game which was AI becomes aware and does Terminator mode on all living Organics. Which by the way can never happen. There's no way to electronically create a computer to have feelings and fear the key word is fear cuz I'll say it again the key word is fear of Extinction fear of not having all the resources fear of Organix wiping them out. The key word is feelings and fear cannot be program into an AI computer not now not never. But Mass Effect or in imaginary Fairy Tail world somehow they can. Well the Catalyst and the Reapers can just simply talk to the advanced civilizations High Intelligence consoles and explain this threat. Instead of just doing the retarded caveman thing and just wiping everyone out. So ultimately you look at this logically and with intelligence you'll see both endings the original Dark Energy dark matter and the AI becoming alive are both terrible low intelligent endings and reasons to wipe out High Intelligence in Cycles. It would actually been better off if the storyline was in order to keep the Reapers and there synthetic organic organisms alive they need to absorb millions and millions of organic life energy forces they keep all their huge robotic machines operating for eternity. And every so many 50,000 or 50 million years they go around the Galaxy and wipe out the high intelligence to absorb their souls as energy. That would be evil but to the Reapers it's life and how they go about hunting and eating. Just like a lion hunts a deer or antelope current the Reapers would hunt down Advanced civilizations and absorb the population high intelligence energy form of Souls. And I would also wrote in the story that the Reapers are doing this continuously it just takes that long in millions of years from going from one galaxy to another. or hopping back and forth between Andromeda and our galaxy. All right this was talk-to-text hopefully my words are not messed up that badly. But I disagree that Mass Effect 3 was great Terry Mass Effect 2 was much better current but overall the ending story line for both were terrible. I hope my idea would have been better. Hell my idea can still be incorporated into the game if they ever made a mess of it for and I think they could financially make a lot of money off a Mass Effect 4 if they made it like a destiny type format. But instead used indoctrination Theory and my theory wrapped into it. If I got to been lied to and tricked that they're there just kill and absorb high intelligence energy Souls... and the Mass Effect 4 game would be in phases and you will go planet to planet fighting off Reapers and a liberating planets per update and slowly eradicating the galaxy of the Reapers. And W many many Mob bosses.. obviously Reaper bosses or some kind of another per planet. I believe there's plenty of material in the Mass Effect genre to accomplish a 10-year even a 12-year game. If it was set up a lot like destiny but if you was my storyline it would be 10 times better. And make a boatload of money

The logic of the Reaper cycle was based on the notion that synthetics will destroy all organic life when they are created, but in ME3 we see the Geth and the Quarians learning to live alongside one another in a direct refutation of this idea. If the reasoning on which the Reapers' modus operandi is based is flawed, then so is the reasoning of the synthesis option since it only exists to address the problem asked by the Reapers.

@@bjorntheviking6039Exactly! if you put in the work the game is proof that the central agreement of reapers is false. It is also ridiculous. Organics turn on each all the time but the idea of reaping each other to avoid war is beyond flawed.

I highly disagree with the motion that the reapers are not evil. You give that out in game 1 talking to sovreign. "You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it." + "You will not escape your room" + "I am the vanguard of your destruction." The funniest thing is that there reapers insist they are the pinoccle of life and evolution but in terms of AI they are the least advanced. They are still essentially just really smart computer programs attached to a mobile platform. They were made to reap organics and that is all they really have the ability or even will to do. Meanwhile we have Edi and the geth. With them were cross the barrier between Artificial intelligence and Artificial life. Both of them broke through that and became more than the sum of their programming. They felt emotions, they explored the arts, and they have done things off their own coding for which they were not designed to do

I agree with your critiques of this video. He makes giant logical leaps about the repercussions of the other endings based on what he interpreted as "implications" from the narration at the end, and then ignores the literal warning about the destroy ending that the developers add as well. NONE OF THEM ARE THE RIGHT ANSWER. *There is no right answer* . There is only the answer you choose, the answer your Shepard chooses, and whether or not you can live with it. All of them have possible downsides, *none of them have confirmed downsides* . There's a reason Bioware didn't have the narrator say "And they all lived happily ever after" or "And then society crumbled" at the end.

So it is a "Get out of Jail for free card" just as he stated in the Video

"I still think this would be better then enslavement or genocide" And yet in deciding synthesis you do both, by eradicating what was there and deciding for everyone else that synthesis is right, subjecting them to your will without their consent...

@@corwinhyatt519 i guess you could say that the lifeforms that were there don't exist any more, at least not the way they used to be. but the difference to simple genocide or enslavement is that you create a new and ultimately better way of living for everybody, if some people like it or not.

@@schoggo3407 "difference to simple genocide or enslavement" There isn't a difference. By making the decision for them you removed their free agency, enslaving them to your will. The synthesis kills who they were, genocide. Your assumption that what results will be better is disturbingly on the same level as the "True Believers" who adhered worshipfully to genocidal pogroms in our own history...

@@corwinhyatt519 as i said, maybe that is genocide and enslavement. but i'm fine with that because their death/enslavement leads to a better society, which may not be very good but better than let their deaths be useless. you have to kill at least one faction anyways, so why not kill everyone but make their deaths be good for something?

To say all large-scale conflicts would cease to occur simply because organics and synthetics now have what they want is a bit silly. Its the same logic that led to WWI being deemed the "war to end all wars". It'll never stop. New conflicts will arise with different reasoning, and before you know it, civilizations will be waging war once again. Also, how exactly is it 'good' to force an evolutionary process upon trillions of people without their consent?

@@Omega4Productions I'm not saying there'll be no more wars, if there's free will, there'll always be wars, I'm saying there'll mostly be no more Large scale wars. Infact, a more accurate comparison would be to World War 2. Before the war, the major powers were fighting each other basically every year and large scale, costly wars were common. However, after WW2, Major wars have largely been replaced by proxy, small scale wars, usually only between 2 single nations or a counter-terrorism conflicts. There's still wars, just alot scaled down and less cost to life. That same could be asked for the other options. How is it good to sacrifice an entire group of life and thousands of organic life just to destroy a single enemy and how is it good to let a single man control the most powerful military at will without any checks and balance? Synthesis is the least bad of all the options because it saves the most lives. Plus, it's the evolutionary process that's gonna happen anyway, however it's the matter of time and the Organic/Synthetic war halting the process every time, all we did was accelerate it and bypass the war.

@@HawkTheRedYour comparison misunderstands the key reason for why WWII wasn't followed by larger conflicts. It was because of the age of nuclear weapons. Every country having nuclear weapons by the 80s and 90s ensured that no country would want to wage war on another, for fear of provoking a nuclear exchange or starting a nuclear war. The fear of the weapon proved to be more effective than its actual deployment. It kept countries in line. It stopped all out war from breaking out, and its the same reason large-scale wars aren't waged anymore. Synthesis is not remotely the same. It "saves" lives, sure, but it also forces an evolutionary directive upon them without their consent. It "eventually happening" is, no offense, a bullshit argument. Of course its eventually going to happen: doesn't mean we should do it straight away. That's like saying we should give nuclear weapons and machine guns to stonemen because "they're eventually going to get it anyway". The point is that none of the endings are good. Destroy wipes out the Reapers, but it commits mass genocide. Control places Shepard as the new leader of the Reapers, but it doesn't actually solve anything because the inherent problem hasn't been dealt with. Synthesis makes everybody sing kumbaya around the bonfire, but only because a biological change has been forced on them just so they can create this false notion of Pax Galactica.

@@Omega4Productions True, the reason is different, but the result will be the same. While after WW2, we stopped fighting out of fear. In Mass Effect, we stop fighting because we don't really need to anymore. Since the organics gotten the Synthetic enhancements, they live longer, they don't need as much, and they can more efficiently work out solutions. Resources aren't a issue as a galaxy would have enough to sustain everyone. Now the only reason they fight wars is for personal reasons or personal gain. As I said, so long as there's free will, there'll always be wars, however none would really be on the scale of the Reaper War again. The difference is that the Mass Effect universe is ready. As the Catalyst said (paraphrasing) "everyone, even Shepard is already partly Synthetic" and we already seen Synthetics already on the edge to being Organic, as we saw with EDI and Legion. Plus, there is no downside as far as we can see to the Synthesis (I really would like more information) and, I feel this should be hammered more, no one dies and every still keeps their free will.

Synthesis is the best out of the three

This is simply a childish way of looking at the ending. Lemme break it down for you. The Reapers and God Child are inevitable, you had a nice journey, made friends, and did your best but they are the true power.. in the end Bioware wanted you to know this by giving you a seemingly lazy ending, when in actuality it was telling you that it was always destiny for it to end badly no matter how hard you worked to get to that point. I applaud Bioware for having the balls all those years ago to give players a dose of reality and humble them to the point where they delude themselves into believing that what they did could be enough to defeat fate itself.

​@@JayJKG so then what was point of the all of the choices you made or all the effort you went through to do things right. If BioWare is saying that everything will suck no matter what I do, then they are basically saying that I just wasted all my time for nothing. I don’t care what the writers are trying to say or what point they are making. If all you do is waste my hard earn time then I can careless about their message and just say they are being pretentious and forcing a reaction to the audience. It’s bad writing no matter how hard you try to make it “deep”, it’s all the same with Game of Thrones subverting expectations does not make your story or ending better it just means your writer is trying to hard.

@@brandonlyon730 Yes that was the point Not every game must end great, the important thing is that while they ARE inevitable, you can still try to save everyone and that was Shepard's goal.. but the red and blue and green ending is actually The God Child saying "It doesn't matter what you want" I love the new ending too but the old one made sense to me even as a kid because I was smart enough to understand the story and how the Reapers are simply too powerful to defeat if they ruled over everything 50,000 years ago anyway. Is the new ending better? Obviously! I love that we can change fate and even Shepard survived but the old one is a grim most plausible ending to your fight to change destiny itself.

@@brandonlyon730 Listen man you can say what you want and have the opinion that the ending was bad writing but personally for me I thought it was the balls-iest ending in gaming history and Bioware literally did something unforgettable that we still talk about to this day. I still prefer the newer ending though, I do love that we get to save our alliances and Shepard so don't get me wrong.

The ending was trash. Why? Because destroyer was a renegade exclusive that sucked. Control was ominous and the complete opposite of the trilogies objective. Synthesis was forced and didn’t make any sense. BioWare screwed up with ME3’s ending and it will forever remain bad.

Good point, as someone who really loves the ending I do think you're right that it could have done with a bit more drama and emotional content that involves your team & past decisions

It didn’t matter? Do the Krogans live in your ending? Do the quarian live in your ending? Was your Cruicible built well enough to focus its power, or did it burn the Earth down? Considering the fact that this is NOT an RPG, but an action game, your choices mattered quite a lot. Of course it is always your final choice which matters the most, however some choices are not even available based on your earlier decisions.

Yes but none of those choices change what ending you could get, everything results in the same decisions. While that is what video games do, the promises and vision for the game we kept getting told made at least me feel that we’re going to payoff all your renegade and paragon choices over the trilogy.

@@Death36669 They do. You can or cannot see happy Krogan baby in the ending video, for example. Also some of the ending can be completely unavailable based on your choices before. It is not an RPG, though, but an action game. Don’t measure it like an RPG, where the ending can be completely different. It is not. And it never was. You didn’t get completely different ending in ME1 or ME2 either.

@@juzoli the endings in both me1 & 2 are far better, hell just look at the suicide mission, the results of that mission depends of the choices of the player. The examples you gave us don't matter for the ending they just there to show you the outcome of a few of your decisions through the game but not the ending itself. You can literly have the worst possible war assets and you still get the same 4 endings.

@@nikolasferreira3247 ME2 ending is good? Wtf? Yes, the mission itself is amazing. But the ending has little relation to the overall storyline, as it is not about the reapers, and also we have ZERO effect on the ending. We either beat the collectors, or mission failed. That’s all. If they could somehow merge this mission with the Arrival DLC, which is much more connected to the story, it would’ve been a good ending. ME1 is the best storywise, I have no argument against that. And no, you can’t have all endings with low war assets, and also your renegadeness can affect it.

Indoctrination Theory, there you go, it is all explained now

They could just do it how Dragon Age: Orgins does it. It has a funeral cutscene.