Adam Jensen said:
I saw EC endings on YouTube, and now I'm here to vent.
Endings didn't fix any of the major problems. Plot holes that retroactively destroy the trilogy are still there. These endings were designed to satisfy emotional players who wanted character closure and who don't give a flying fuck about logic behind it all. BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOGIC! It's still the same shit it was before. It's still A, B, C, and now D ending based around the assumptions that synthetics will eventually kill all organics even though I spent 3 games proving that little retard wrong.
Why are so many people happy with this? Did you all forget that the existence of starchild practically turns the entire plot of Mass Effect 1 into one giant plot hole? Why did Sovereign need Saren to fix the Citadel signal if starchild was always there? How did the protheans manage to sabotage the Citadel if the starchild has the ability to get into your head? Should we simply assume that a bunch of protheans were able to do all that and there was nothing the starchild could have done to stop them? We shouldn't assume that, because most people know by now what the original plot was supposed to be. And there was never any starchild in it.
Who created the starchild? Organics? Then why doesn't he simply protect the organics against the synthetics? Why don't the Reapers simply destroy the synthetics? Why are they waiting in dark space? Wouldn't it be easier for them to just roam around the galaxy making sure we don't create A.I.? Seems like an easier solution. And a more logical one.
What if synthetics created the Catalyst? That's even dumber. Synthetics created an A.I in order to protect the organics against the synthetics by killing organics.
Well, with the Rejection ending's revelation that the Star Child is in reality a projection of Harbinger (which makes his claim to be the Catalyst a lie, and the Prothean VI's explanation that the Citadel itself is the Catalyst true by default) some of the problems are sort of straightened out.
Adam Jensen said:
What about the Crucible? It's still space magic. It still doesn't make any god damn sense.
Can't you see? As long as the starchild exists, the entire plot of Mass Effect makes no sense. And it's not like Bioware didn't have the easy way out. Jesus fuckin' Christ what a mess.
The poll is broken for some reason. Third option should say "I don't care anymore"
While the Synthesis ending is definitely still space magic, the remaining endings work well enough.
Destruction is some sort of killswitch for all technology driven by Reaper code, which includes EDI and (by the end of ME3) the Geth. It doesn't affect any other synthetics, to my knowledge.
Meanwhile, Control... I suppose... uploads Shepard's consciousness into the Reapers and puts him/her in control of them.
Rejection lets the cycle continue, killing most everyone off, but instead leaves the following cycle with the knowledge needed to defeat the Reapers for real.
With the knowledge that the Star Child was in reality Harbinger, a lot of the natural assumptions made about the Crucible and the ending have to be questioned. At this point I put no faith in him being truthful about their intentions, and figure the Crucible may be a Reaper device intended to (for some reason or another) identify a species or cycle "worthy" of determining its own fate. The Conduit in London was set up by the Reapers as a goal post for Shepard, and Shepard didn't die in front of it because Harbinger let him/her live to face off against the indoctrinated Illusive Man.
I... I'm not saying this is the ending the trilogy deserves. But it's an ending I'm fairly content with, considering how absolutely awful the original ending was. I didn't think I was going to like it, but it even has me thinking about playing the game again, and contemplating which endings would best fit my various Shepards.