Poll: The Consequences of The ME III Endings

[Rack]

I'm not sure you can say, in the original cut all of them destroyed all life in the universe, the edited versions didn't really provide room for that not to happen it just said it didn't. As far as I'm concerned the originals are still canon, If I imagine they aren't then there isn't enough there to hang an opinion on.

Does Shepherd go mad with power? Does Synthesis make the least bit of sense at all?

It's a crap shoot.

 

[AD-Stu]

And its not 'debunked' its just one more plothole that Bioware piled on

Even in the pre-EC ending you can choose Destroy and see Tali (suit and all) alive and well afterwards, plus Shepard taking a breath at the end. Then the Extended Cut made it explicit: quarians survive, pretty much all technology survives, the mass relays can be rebuilt, etc.

I think you're just reading too much into the Starchild's speech.

 

[wulf3n]

And its not 'debunked' its just one more plothole that Bioware piled on

plus Shepard taking a breath at the end.

I think this is the part that hasn't been debunked.

Shepard isn't the only one in the galaxy with N7 armour, hell it could even be Conrad.

the "one more plothole" refers to the idea that Shepard could once again survive unprotected atmospheric re-entry.

 

[Britishfan]

Synthesis sounds like exactly what Saren thought he was fighting for in Mass Effect 1. Destroy is what you had been fighting for most of the time and whilst control is what the Illusive Man had been fighting for it is my personnel favourite. Defiance sounds cool (in a badass kinda way), until you realise that destroy with high war assets (which really are not that hard to get)is just a better option all round.

So, synthesis feels like it's the worst simply because it grates me the wrong way.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Synthesis is the worst for story points. It makes no sense whatsoever; and Mass Effect is not supposed to be Deus Ex.

Defiance is the worst for the actual outcome of it. More people die than in any other ending, as the galaxy is annihilated one again. Then the society that rises up almost certainly had to be fascist socialists. Forcibly recruiting into their army as well as forcing people into factories to build ever bigger weapons to fuel their gigantic military machine. Then they got into a gigantic slugging match with the Reapers, resulting in presumably hundreds of millions more dead. Defiance is the ending that racks up the highest body count by far, and almost certainly results in a military distopia of forced labor.

 

[Kingjackl]

Why is Defiance (the one where everyone dies) being beaten by Synthesis (the one where everyone lives)?

 

[Nikolaz72]

Why is Defiance (the one where everyone dies) being beaten by Synthesis (the one where everyone lives)?

Maybe people thought the thread as as good a time as any to voice their protest at the 'Worst Ending' rather than the 'Worst Consequences' and I agree that while Synthethis was probably the best choice in terms of long-term survival and everyone living and the reapers being boom and all that.... The extend of the merge was just everyones eyes glowing green like 'wat'

 

[Vykrel]

i have to say that Defiance is the worst, mainly because Bioware only added that option as a big middle finger to the fans who were upset about their crappy endings.

 

[UrinalDook]

I always saw Destroy as the worst option, as it destroys all technology available to the galaxy.

Destroy doesn't wreck all technology. Not even close. EC shows the Normandy taking off after presumably not very long at all. The exposition slide show spectacular also shows Hackett and co in what I can only assume are the same ships they were in during the battle, still working fine.

Plus, with the extent Bioware went to assure us that much of the widespread death implied by the original ending didn't happen, I like to assume that things like life support systems of people in space, or medical equipment didn't just stop working.

At it's worst, Destroy just wrecks everything using mass effect technology. Which, yeah in the setting is pretty much everything cool, but it wouldn't be too hard to fix. Even then, as I said above, the Normandy is able to take off, and that thing ain't flying without its drive core. So maybe the 'absolute' worst is that everything mass effect-y is simply taken offline by the pulse, but easily fixed straight after. Yeah that means that any poor sod unlucky enough to be flying in one of those aircairs, or shuttles or gunships is probably going to fall out the sky. But hopefully there's enough safety equipment that not too many people die.

Technically, while we could rebuild the Geth, we wouldn't be able to rebuild EDI as the reason she was a full fledged AI was because she had Sovereign parts in her (which is why she was affected by the Destroy Ending, along with the reaper code in the Geth). So, a non-reaperized EDI would just be the simple AI that you met on the moon, far far removed from her ME2-3 self.

Gah! Why have I never been able to make that connection before? Destroy was the only option I really accepted as making any sense. The Crucible is just a massive reactor and control box for turning the Citadel into a massive broadcast array, and giving it enough strength to reach across the galaxy. The red space magic in Destroy is just a visual representation of a kill code being sent to the Reapers 'programming' centres, for lack of a better term. So I accepted it killed EDI, because it's made very clear that she was not only created with elements of Reaper tech, but also integrated that Reaper IFF.

The geth always bugged me, though. I didn't like the idea that the Crucible couldn't be made discriminate enough to only target Reapers. But of course, the only way to get the geth as an ally as to let them use the Reaper code. So finally it makes sense to me why losing the geth was unavoidable. Thanks

A couple of people have mentioned the Starchild's warning that anything vaguely synthetic will also be affected, the most damning line being 'you yourself are part synthetic'. Indeed, a small detail though it may seem on the scale of some of ME3's perceived missteps, the only thing that bugs me more than that one line are the ghastly ethical implications and incomprehensible violation of logic and science present in Synthesis.

Look, Shepard's implants aren't all that spectacular in the grand scheme of transhumanism. Yes, there's a strong argument they keep him alive, but the game also takes great pains to stress that Shepard is still Shepard after the Lazarus Project. Still his/her own mind, still functioning completely normally biologically speaking (with the possible exception that Shep doesn't need to eat or take a crap, we've seen him/her do pretty much everything else). To me, that makes those implants pretty mundane. They're just life support. Where does one draw the line between that and, say, pacemakers? Or respirators? What about biotics? They use implants in their brains, after all. If Shepard is at risk of dying from the Crucible, the death toll of using Destroy would be vast.

So I'm comfortable in ignoring Starchild's chat about anything vaguely synthetic being at risk. After all, Destroy is the only ending that completely wrecks his 'plan'. To Starchild, Destroy means a return to the 'chaos' he's convinced himself he was built to prevent. Destroy, to me, is the only option Starchild has a vested interest in discouraging you from. I don't think he's above lying, or even simply being downright wrong. Certainly the fact that Kaidan, Miranda, Jack, and any other non-asari biotic you care to mention is shown as being completely unaffected by the Destroy ending (should they have survived up to that point, of course) is evidence enough to me that Destroy doesn't play havoc with anyone who happens to have a synthetic implant. Oh yeah, and isn't Garrus said to have got some implants after taking a rocket to the face? Presumably life supporting to a degree, and he can make it out okay.

Short version. Don't buy Starchild's line about potentially killing 'part-synthetics'. There's nothing to say he couldn't be wrong about it, intentionally or otherwise, and a bunch of evidence supporting the opposite view.

I also don't think the galactic military scale is in the billions. I don't think the entire galactic population exceeds more than 100 or 200 billion.

The Citadel is explicitly said to have a population of trillions of individual beings. They never specify exactly how much, but it's at least 1x10^12

Not even close. Map description explicitly says 13.2 million. Even if it didn't, use a little common sense. You've seen the Citadel right next to Earth, how small it is in comparison. Do you really think a station that small could possibly support a thousand times the population barely supported by a planet?

plus Shepard taking a breath at the end.

I think this is the part that hasn't been debunked.

Shepard isn't the only one in the galaxy with N7 armour, hell it could even be Conrad.

the "one more plothole" refers to the idea that Shepard could once again survive unprotected atmospheric re-entry.

From a backstory point of view, yes you're right that Shepard isn't the only N7. But from an imagery perspective, N7 is Shepard. Everything from the very first scene of the first game, to the 'KIA' teaser for the second, the covers of both collector's editions, the fact that ME2 went out of it's way to drop the palette swap armours of the first game and keep you in N7 branded gear the whole time. Every single time it is used, N7 is intrisically linked with Shepard and Shepard alone.

And that 'take a breath' scene is pure imagery. There is no one else it could be. Besides, why would they bother showing some random guy in N7 armour taking a breath, especially in the circumstances through which it happens (essentially 'hidden' ending you only get for putting enough effort in).

I won't argue if you tell me that scene is stupid. It feels like it has been put in to give the fans something to speculate on, something to interpret. But like most of these 'stingers', the mere fact it exists allows for one interpretation alone. If it was not meant to represent Shepard surviving, they would not have put it in. Simple as. But that just raises the question of why bother with the pretense. Just give us a scene of Shepard crawling out of the wreckage, with a brief shot of his/her face. Maybe even smiling, it would be a nice if spectacularly cheesy bookend to the first game.

As for the 'plothole', I don't buy that either. People seem adamant that the rubble means it's London. I really don't get that sort of detail from it. To me, it could quite easily just be debris from the Citadel half blowing up. And even if it is London, surely the implication is that during the pretty magic light show cutscene, Shep was staggering back to the Conduit and hopping back down to Earth, finally passing out at the bottom before waking up. There is no reason whatsoever to conclude it could only be Shepard if he/she somehow survived freefalling back to Earth. It's patently stupid, you said it yourself. So why jump to it when there are far easier explanations available?

 

[AD-Stu]

I think this is the part that hasn't been debunked.

Shepard isn't the only one in the galaxy with N7 armour, hell it could even be Conrad.

the "one more plothole" refers to the idea that Shepard could once again survive unprotected atmospheric re-entry.

*snip*

Took the words right out of my mouth - Shepard isn't the only N7 in the universe, but Shepard is absolutely the only N7 that scene could possibly be depicting. The only alternative is that Bioware are not just incompetent, but massive trolls to boot.

And yeah, I've never understood the people who've said that scene "clearly" happens in London. I always assumed it happened on the Citadel. I could be wrong, and we've got pretty much nothing to go on, but there's no evidence for London either and the Citadel does make a lot more sense...

 

[Mikejames]

Needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few eh?

And its not 'debunked' its just one more plothole that Bioware piled on

Considering that the needs of the few here end up killing the few anyway?

I didn't really call that aspect a plothole either, as it was always implied that a higher EMS equates to less collateral damage. Still wish that there could have been an implication for saving the A.I. but I suppose the idea was that the choice would have been too easy then..

I think you're just reading too much into the Starchild's speech.

Which was full of it anyway.

 

[Asita]

Synthesis is easily the stupidest ending. At the end of the day you're jumping in an arbitrary beam of light to disintegrate yourself[footnote]Oddly enough, despite the beam being a constant feature of the area this results in an automatic activation of the Crucible, whereas the other two options require some form of [very odd] manual activation[/footnote] and thereby create a human/cyborg template to merge organic/synthetic life[footnote]And let's be honest here...you can't justify that as an intended function when no race had ever even encountered the catalyst, much less learned its motivations[/footnote]. This hits an added level of ridiculousness when you realize that not only is the biology of the various races vastly different[footnote]Suffice to say that we have transplant rejection problems within our own species. How exactly do you figure we'd fare with organisms with a fundamentally different genetic code like Turians or Quarians? For that matter how could a humanoid template even translate to a Hanar?...And how exactly does the inverse work? You know, adding fleshy bits to synthetics to somehow give them a fundamental understanding of organics?[/footnote], but the tech translation is at least as nonsensical[footnote]The tech makes an odd leap straight from cybernetic implants to - as illustrated by the EC - Nubots, directly altering and combining with DNA[/footnote]. Worse still, it presents a fundamental betrayal of the series' running theme of diversity providing strength[footnote]This is reflected in many aspects, from the composition of your crew, to the portrayal of Cerberus (which is notably only presented as sympathetic at a time coinciding with its [temporary] abandonment of its "human-only" policies), to the diversity of the council, to your very mission to gain allies for ME3. From Ashes further highlights this by having Javik note that his cycle's uniformity was one of their greatest downfalls, eventually contrasting this with Shepherd's success in uniting the galaxy[/footnote] by enforcing a stringent uniformity on the grounds that positive relationships can't be formed between different beings. That it's bears a passing similarity to the Reapers goals (and ultimately echoes Saren's indoctrination-induced logic in the climax of Mass Effect 1) only serves to add further insult to injury, as does its apparent presentation as if it were a utopian solution. Canonically this is practically the writer's baby, but thematically it's an absolute nightmare in the context of the story.

I would say the destroy ending, because you are flat out murdering Geth, Quarian and the majority of the Volus.

Atleast if you chose Defiance they got a fighting chance.

Not sure I understand - how does the destroy ending murder the quarians and the volus? They're not AIs, their suits don't rely on AI technology, they shouldn't be affected.

ALL synthetics die, including shepard due to his cybernetic bits, and the volus and quarians are partialy cybernetic and use advanced life support systems.

(jump to 7 minutes 23 seconds)

"Many who rely on synthetic technology will be affected, some will even be destroyed." And dont forget suits, ships, damn near everything has VIs in it, which would be targeted as synthetic. And thats the best possible, if you have less more will be destroyed

Oddly enough, despite making a point of stating that Destroy is an outright genocidal option (at least if the geth were still alive on that playthrough) the EC showed that the devs really weren't willing to commit to the broader implications. Ships were still flying (despite the series making it plain that they relied on VIs which should have been caught in the crossfire), the Quarians (if you didn't wipe them out on Rannoch) rebuild on their homeworld and so on and so forth.

 

[AT God]

Destroy is the worst by default since it is the only one that doesn't tell you what happens to the MAIN CHARACTER.

I don't know why Bioware thought it was okay to leave the beloved main character of 3 critically acclaimed games without explaining what happens to him or if he is even alive.

 

[Agayek]

I would really like a source. I have all three games, so if it's in one of the games, you can direct me there. If it's in a book, I have most of them, so you can direct me there. If it was in an online wiki, I'd like to see if the source is reliable. Etc.

It just doesn't make sense to me. only hundreds of worlds, maybe in the low thousands have been colonized, and the largest of the colonies have populations in the low billions, while most are in the millions (in humanities case, I don't remember going to a single colony with over 100 million people). Earth has a population of 11 billion, and the homeworlds have populations ranging around that same amount (the homeworlds being the most populace of all worlds).

So I'm just not buying it. I also distinctly remember it being implied that they did not have trillions of people.

REGARDLESS, the force present on earth was not in the billions. Most militaries are not that big. Humanity it self has around 500 million troops, and it's the 3rd largest military in the galaxy. I think that is a good way to measure the other galactic militaries.

It's said in either ME1 or ME2 by the asari Councillor when explaining why they didn't believe Shepard about the Reapers. I don't remember the exact conversation (but I think it was when trying to talk them into sending the fleet to Ilos), but her words are along the lines of "Please understand Commander, we are responsible for the entire Citadel. Trillions of lives hinge upon our decisions. We will not risk them idly."

As for the rest, humanity has an incredibly low population (only ~12 billion total). The vast, vast majority of humanity lives on Earth, while the Alliance controls dozens, if not hundreds, of colonies, most with less than a million people living on them.

The Citadel as a whole is a very different matter though. They've been around for three thousand years as a unified government, even longer as individual peoples. They have a massive population.

But you're right in that the militaries in Mass Effect are comparatively small. I'd chalk that up to the writers not quite realizing the full impact of the numbers they were dealing with, but there could be other reasons.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Synthesis although I voted for Defiance and here is why:

Synthesis is the literal "crime" of changing everything in the world with a push of a button, or in this case sacrificing yourself and changing the genetic code of everyone in the galaxy. This decision shouldn't even be an option, it was wrong when Saren did it, it is wrong now.

Defiance on the other hand, wether I enjoy the fact that you can refuse the Star Child, the thing that bummed me is that they cop out and make you lose instantly without any chance to fight it out and see the outcome from the EMS you have.

Control makes you a God over men with the control of the reapers. If you notice that ending it seems that Shepard is no longer there and is merged with the Reapers to be the "guardian of the galaxy" as it claims to be. What you don't know is that "Power corrupts absolutely" and how can you know this so called guardian won't decide to enslave everyone after being rid of the Shepard "influence" from the merger throughout the millenia.

My canon ending is still Destroy, because it was the goal from the beginning no matter the cost. Although I feel bad for the fact that EDI and the Geth get wiped out I still have the mentality of "sacrifice millions so that billions may live". Same thing happened with the Arrival DLC when you had to destroy that batharian colony of 300.000 people to post pone the reapers.

The fact that you only get the breath scene in the Destroy ending only proves my point that it was the best decision I have made.

 

[Korzack]

Destroy was the only one that made sense to me, frankly - also, by the time it came to that point, the end-game was starting to irritate me greatly + just wanted to throw the damn reapers into some pan-dimensional Food-blender until all you got was sci-fi Battery acid, along with the whole "Deus Ex Machina" thing of that damn kid combined with the human revolution style way of doing the endings... Ugh.
On a purely pragmatic level, synthesis pretty much sounded like "Doing exactly what the reapers were trying to do, but in a more well-spirited, however more immediate and pan-galactic manner" which made no sense, and as for control, again that just sounds like letting the reapers win, as now they'll have Shepard's sub-concious within their systems, and how long before they break down his will + they come back for more? And as for defiance... Honestly didn't know there was one there, but sod it, only way I'll get to that point again is by starting from ME1 again + frankly I can't be bothered with having to rely on grinding the multi-player to see the best outcomes Just to see whether it was feasible to fend them off with "Screw you guys, I'm going home" logic, although I have to concede there's a few bits of dlc which look awesome like Omega and Citadel when I can get round to it. I ignored the breath scene anyway as all that seems to be is a ludicrous "Hey, here's our hook in case we have to retcon our arses into ME4 making sense"

 

[JamesStone]

And its not 'debunked' its just one more plothole that Bioware piled on

plus Shepard taking a breath at the end.

I think this is the part that hasn't been debunked.

Shepard isn't the only one in the galaxy with N7 armour, hell it could even be Conrad.

the "one more plothole" refers to the idea that Shepard could once again survive unprotected atmospheric re-entry.

Yeah, at least in the second one, you could go to the planet Shepard felt and read about it: The planet had almost no atmosphere, and as such, no air resistance, and Shepard wouldn't burn on reentry. What does Destroy has to explain Shepard surviving?