Question about an element of Mass Effect 3 ending and the hatred towards it.

[Savagezion]

No.

a) "Organics vs synthetics" was arguably a present theme, but the inevitable destruction of organics by their own synthetics was most certainly not. It was made abundantly clear in ME2 and most of ME3 that the organic-synthetic situation was not a simple case of us-vs-them and did not have one inevitable outcome.

b) The Geth were a secondary subplot to the Reapers threat. A subplot that was entirely resolved in ME3. In fact, that resolution potentially makes the Catalyst's bullshit even more nonsensical. You do not supplant the central conflict with an already resolved subplot in the final ten minutes of a story.

c) "Being destroyed by reaching too far"? That's not relevant to the catalyst space-child garbage.

A). Even if the current cycle wouldn't end in destruction, the Reapers had already mobilized and begun their cleansing. They couldn't be called off, regardless of how much evidence Shepard had to convince them otherwise. The Star Child says as much. Thats why he gives you the big choice: Dominate the Reapers at the cost of your own life, wipe them out at the cost of synthetics, or merge the two with unknown consequences. If you played a Paragon Shep who spared the Geth because "Synths are people too!", then destroying the Reapers would be hypocritical. You'd be wiping out an ancient sentient race because they threatened you; aka exactly what the Star Child was talking about. Synths and Organics work on entirely different levels.

B.) They are a subplot, but indicative of a much larger whole. EDI is part of it too; that the AIs in Mass Effect are beginning to gain true sentience. Its all foreshadowing to the revelation that the Reapers are also sentient beings, and the moral question of "is it ok to genocide them just because we are fighting? Especially if there is another option? What if they can be persuaded to be good, like the Geth or EDI?"

C.) It's exactly what the Star Child is talking about. Every cycle has it's examples of civilizations who grasp too far with technology and end up shooting themselves in the foot. It's in the nature of organics to keep pushing like that. The inevitable Synth war is simply the climax of these actions, which is what the Reapers are trying to prevent by blasting all galactic civilization back to the stone age. The Quarians, Krogan, Salarians, and even Humans are all examples of civilizations who have gone hog wild with their tech and caused galatic level crisis as a result. Can any of them be trusted with sentient AI?

SEE ASITA? THIS IS A SMART ****ING POST! THIS POST MAKES MY BRAIN ROCK-HARD!

Honestly, this, this, this, and all of this. I think we disagreed earlier or you were one of the ones I ignored, don't care. This post is exceptional. It's actually a SOLID defense of Catalyst and how the choices did matter. Point "A" pretty much states "you had to make them matter" which is perfect because if you don't care or expect the game to spell it all out for you, that's not how life works.

So the post that supports your love of the end is fucking smart and the others aren't?

A) Bolded part - If "the star child said so" was considered reliable, we wouldn't be in this mess. I am more prone to believe he could call it off but won't no matter how much proof you give him.

B) The star child basically says that synthetics will kill organics because it is in their nature. (paraphrasing) As it is in organic's nature to push against them. (Your implied sentiment not the star child's) How the hell do we know this? This "part of nature" was directly contradicted with the geth-quarian war being able to be resolved peacefully AND as the war beginning over the geth trying to save their organic creators. Further contradiction comes when EDI shows up and decides to help Shepard for no other reason than compassion for organics from an AI. To top it off, none of the end choices solve this "inevitable crisis". Being given the Destroy option contradicts it even further by allowing organics to wipe out the system of cycles, all synthetics and many organics. This ultimately leads us to an "inevitable doom" in ~60,000 years. Synthesis could be seen as a genocide of organics or at least a slow genocide as we begin to "upgrade" towards immortality. Control pretty much allows everything to go on the way it was but now the reapers are friendly synthetics. (Basically, he "called them off" See A) However, under control synthetics still exist so the will inevitably wipe us out at some point.

C) Bolded part - Says the Star Child. Again, not evidence. As well, the star child does say that AI has never turned on organics and as Jim Sterling would say, "Thank God for him". The synth war isn't necessarily inevitable nor is the victor. To claim it is, is nonsense. Especially on the grounds that "the star child said so".
As for the last two sentences: So the answer is a re-occuring galactic crisis? What happens if a cycle doesn't have any AI when the reapers come next time? What constitutes AI? Technically AI is just algorithms used for processing a logical programmed outcome. Maybe the next cycle the organics have alarm clocks as the only AI in existence and they get wiped out because the reapers are afraid that alarm clocks will destroy humanity. Or what if the robot revolution happens early by 20k years due to a breakthrough? The whole idea of the cycle is convoluted. Simply harvesting organic material for survival as the supreme synthetics who planted life on other planets to harvest would have made them a much more epic monster. Hell, just simply they eat peple would have been better. This cycle to save organics nonsense is just stupid.

I am not saying this to be mean. The end is junk and it stings a bit more because it had WAY more potential than this. This ending didn't deliver a quarter of the potential the trilogy held. That isn't mean, its just the way it is. Take my word on it, I am probably older than you and that is all you guys needed to hear believe the star child. (JK, couldn't resist)

 

[Savagezion]

I do? I didn't see that in the rules. I'm pretty sure I can very well say "You're wrong." and leave it.

It's a key principle of civilized debate. Points and counterpoints require support.

Careful, logic doesn't bode well in this thread. He got a brain woody from someone supporting their argument with "star child said so" and he called it an intelligent response.

 

[worldruler8]

I don't have much to add that wasn't already, and I'll try to leave my emotional appeals out of it (because apparently others haven't done that, though I didn't really see that)

1. There were no references or allusions to him in the previous two games. You can pull of a Deus Ex Machina if it's a variety known as "Chekhov's Gun", where allusions and foreshadowing are made that the player (or reader) won't pick up on, until it reaches the "magic point", when everything comes together. However, this doesn't happen, and we only see any reference to him when we actually do see him. Now, Bioware has the right to do this, just as I have a right to call them out on making such a literary mistake. The end of Sixth Sense was good because there were details that alluded to something about the main character, and it wasn't apparent until that "magic point". The ME3 endings didn't have this with the Star Child, and as a result, it comes off as very odd and out-of-place.

2. It goes against everything we know of the Reapers. And we DO know a bit about them. Bioware did a good job explaining them in both cryptic messages, implied concepts, as well as their actions. For example, when we speak with Sovereign, he describes the Reaper ways as "incomprehensible", which implies that our human mindsets would find their motives unethical, illogical, as well as mysterious. The very act of calling them unexplainable actually explains a lot about their motives. Also, we can understand more about why the Reapers are doing what they're doing by their actions. And their actions are pretty apparent, and not at all mysterious (why they're doing it, however, is). They roam around the galaxy every 50,000 years and harvest civilizations. The very term "harvest" (a term THEY THEMSELVES use) implies that they aren't killing these civilizations all willy-nilly, but are indeed farming them for their own gain. This actually makes sense (as long as you keep it out of focus and don't pay attention to the details) and makes the Reapers a common threat to every civilization. They don't care if that civilization is war-like, or peaceful. They will harvest indiscriminately. Sovereign also said "each of us are a nation", implying that they are NOT a collective, but beings of individualistic minds, all working toward surviving. This makes them more like Lovecraftian beings than "galactic vacuums" clearing the way of Synthetics. The Protheans also never had the issue with AI. Well, actually, they did, and their defense mechanism was to control the Galaxy as a whole, so if an AI outbreak did happen, they would be more powerful than them. When the Reapers came, well, synthetics suddenly got the upper hand. So in this case, if the Reapers were never involved, Synthetics never would have defeated them. If what the Star-Child said is indeed correct, then everything we know about the Protheans is wrong.

3. He negates everything Sovereign was supposed to do. Sovereign was the messenger, the one who would activate the Mass Relay in the Citadel and start the Reaper Invasion. The Keepers rebelled against him by not listening to his orders, so he had to do it manually. However, all of this is irrelevant if the Star-Child was indeed an AI inside the Citadel. Why did Sovereign need to activate the Mass Relay if the Star-Child could do it for him? The very act that Sovereign did implied that there *wasn't* any other pro-Reaper forces at the Citadel. How does that make any sense when suddenly there was? Why use Sovereign in the first place? Why didn't Sovereign just tell the civilizations "Yeah, we're doing a purge of the Galaxy, sorry", if the Star-Child was already there?

Any other points I could make have already been made, and I hope I didn't come of as "mad" or any other variant of anger. Bioware has every right to do this, but I have every right to call them out on it.

 

[AD-Stu]

In my book, a deus ex machina ending is ALWAYS a bad/lazy/stupid ending - if you have to use the device then you've done something wrong. Some games may have gotten away with it, but it still doesn't change the fact. And Mass Effect 3 definitely didn't get away with it...

 

[Innegativeion]

Okay, spoilers, yadayada, blahblah

So it's come to my attention that a lot of people dislike Catalyst in the Mass Effect 3 ending and... I don't actually QUITE understand why.

Yes, a random omnipotent and cryptic character appearing at the end of something can blow.... or it's been done a ton and usually raises the most interesting questions and theories in the most interesting games.

I mean, G-Man did it in both Half-Life and Half-Life 2, the Anti-Spiral appeared out of nowhere at the end of Gurren Lagann as an omnipotent and rebellious presence as opposed to the giant fighting force we were led to believe the Anti-Spirals were, the end of Deus Ex comes to mind, and even the Moon Children at the end of Majora's Mask.

All of these aren't just critically acclaimed in whatever medium they are, they're some of the best around.

So, why is it when Mass Effect 3 did this, the character is deemed horrible, too spontaneous, and a blight on the entire franchise? I really just want some clarification here.

I'm going to systematically explain why all of those things were done to each of their game's benefit, in regards to the games I've played/seen; Half life-Half life 2:ep 2, Gurren Lagann, and Majora's mask

HL

The G-man is, NOT, thrown in at the end of the game. He is also, NOT, omnipotent.

In fact, there are nearly a dozen instances in the original half life in which you can catch a glimpse of the G-man spying on you. It's obvious that he's watching you, and planning something. Even in the endless swirling hell-hole you're trapped in he doesn't lift a finger to help while most scientists/guards you meet will at least speak to you. He was even present before the resonance cascade, and as it's later revealed, is partially responsible for it by bringing the crystal that caused it! He plays an integral, instrumental part of influencing the plot, and has been doing so, visibly, since before you could obtain a gun.

In Half Life 2, he unleashes you knowing you'll help rebel against the Combine. He obviously has some sort of beef with the Shu'ulathoi, but as the HL series has yet to culminate, much of this motivation is left unsaid thus far. In the end he tries to retrieve you to influence events in a certain way. This originally caused a major section of fans to be upset at the abrupt ending.

In Episode 1, he is shown to not be omnipotent at ALL. His teleportation/time freeze powers are disrupted by a bunch of random vortigaunts invoking their life-energy powers. The G-man is cunning and manipulative, but he manipulates instead of using direct intervention for a reason.

His nature is thus far unrevealed, but we do know how he operates and how he's affected events.

Gurren Lagann

Spoiler: Spoiler'd because this series is so great it should be seen first hand. Half Life is as well, but most know the general idea by this point

The anti-spiral is also not thrown in at the end. He is mentioned several times prior to the final episode as "The Anti-Spiral" in the singular. As for the giant fighting force you were expecting, did you skip a handful of episodes? There WAS a giant fighting force. The digital-looking things and the giant space heads? Yeah, that was them.

The Anti-Spiral himself is technically not one person. He is the physical manifestation of the anti-spiral master race, which had sealed themselves away. He is used to communicate with, and inspire despair in spiral races. Given his nature, it's safe to assume he's some kind of hologram made from the anti-spirals' collective subconsciousness, or barring that, a creation of the anti-spiral's artificial universe.

The Anti-spiral is omnipotent in the artificial universe, but he is not used to resolve the conflict. That's what makes a deusex machina unbearable; it does creativity's job by solving the problem for our heroes. The Anti-spiral created the problem. Regardless, he intentionally limits himself to being no stronger than the spirals, believing his cause is meaningless if he can't win via despair.

The starchild can be assumed to be a hologram too, but unlike the Anti-Spiral, who's origins are clearly and directly addressed, we've no idea what he's capable of or where he even came from, and he's used to swiftly and decisively end the conflict with little-to-know input from Shepard.

Majora's Mask
Granted, the moonchildren were WEIRD. But they really... didn't... do anything. They also were most certainly not omnipotent. Even the greatest extent of Majora's power was just turning into her demon form. If she was omnipotent she wouldn't turned Link into dust on the spot.

I think they were supposed to be the tribe that created the Majora's mask, Majora being an evil entity from the moon people sealed in it, but this is up for debate. In the end, the moonchildren are there more for just poetic, philosophical, self-study (done better than by the starchild to boot), and have barely any affect on the plot at all. They can be skipped altogether and you don't really lose anything from the narrative.

Additionally, they serve to intentionally unnerve the player. Majora is an entity of completely alien destructive malice. It's an eldrich abomination; insane, sadistic. It wanted to blind you with innocence, in a sense.

And that's my 2 cents.

 

[him over there]

Majora's Mask
Granted, the moonchildren were WEIRD. But they really... didn't... do anything. They also were most certainly not omnipotent. Even the greatest extent of Majora's power was just turning into her demon form. If she was omnipotent she wouldn't turned Link into dust on the spot.

I think they were supposed to be the tribe that created the Majora's mask, Majora being an evil entity from the moon people sealed in it, but this is up for debate. In the end, the moonchildren are there more for just poetic, philosophical, self-study (done better than by the starchild to boot), and have barely any affect on the plot at all. They can be skipped altogether and you don't really lose anything from the narrative.

And that's my 2 cents.

After replaying Majora's Mask recently I have to say that the moon children seemed to serve absolutely no purpose, in fact I would say that their only purpose is to add to the surreality of the moon. They really just exist to question why they exist. I've heard people question why they wear the four fiends masks or why they appear to be younger versions of the happy mask salesman but it doesn't amount to anything. They really don't seem to be intentionally symbolic but rather weird for the sake of weird and similar to other entities prior just to instil and add to the confusion of

Spoiler

A fucking meadow inside a tree

 

[Innegativeion]

After replaying Majora's Mask recently I have to say that the moon children seemed to serve absolutely no purpose, in fact I would say that their only purpose is to add to the surreality of the moon. They really just exist to question why they exist. I've heard people question why they wear the four fiends masks or why they appear to be younger versions of the happy mask salesman but it doesn't amount to anything. They really don't seem to be intentionally symbolic but rather weird for the sake of weird and similar to other entities prior just to instil and add to the confusion of

Spoiler

A fucking meadow inside a tree

Oh yes, definitely.

But they don't TAKE anything from the narrative either. The one kid is implied to somehow be majora, or a representation of Majora, or a moonchild possessed by Majora, but it doesn't really matter since she loses the form as soon as you speak with her, and the children are never mentioned again.

They served no purpose beyond surreality, which is far better than serving the purpose of violently wrenching the plot away from the hero/destroying established canon.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Fourth, he supplants the central conflict of the game ("stop reapers") with an almost entirely new one ("saving organics from their synthetic creations"). You do not introduce and then resolve an entirely new narrative conflict in the final ten minutes of a bloody story... not unless you're a gibbering idiot anyway.

"Organics vs. Synthetics" has been a key element of the Mass Effect world since the first game. That was the entire purpose of having the Geth be the bad guys in ME1, and going deeper into their war with the Quarians in ME 2 and 3. Not to mention the contrast between the two "bad" AI in ME1 with EDI in 2. People getting destroyed by reaching too far is a common theme in Mass Effect: It happened with the Quarians, the Krogan (and by extension, the Salarians), and even the Protheans. Heck, the Protheans were actually in the middle of their own Organic/Synth war when the Reapers showed up.

My main question about the reapers is: Then why not kill synthetics every 50k years?

Cause that just leaves a bunch of confused organics with the ability to screw things up again. By their logic, cleansing organics and synths every 50k years solves both problems.

 

[Booze_Hound]

I always assumed the catalyst thing wasn't supposed to make sense since it's part of a dream sequence...

 

[pilouuuu]

I think that the ending for HL2, without considering that there's an Episode 1, is even worse than Mass Effect 3. The difference is that ME3 is the ending of a trilogy. It deserved better!

 

[Innegativeion]

Cause that just leaves a bunch of confused organics with the ability to screw things up again. By their logic, cleansing organics and synths every 50k years solves both problems.

But they still leave organics... it's not like they're eliminating the source of the problem, in fact, they allow the source of the problem to remain!

Why not just use the allegedly invincible reapers to, like, police the galaxy for AIs?

Not saying it'd be morally right, but it just makes more sense. I mean, the organics ALREADY had laws against it. Then, giant invincible war machines offer to enforce it. Ba-zing, problem solved.

 

[Booze_Hound]

The difference is that ME3 is the ending of a trilogy.

Not if the franchise is still profitable

 

[ElPatron]

OI mean, G-Man did it in both Half-Life and Half-Life 2

That's right.

G-Man was expected. The Mass Effect 3 ending wasn't. It looked more like a quick fix than anything else.

I mean, 14 lines of dialogue?

Also, the G-man in in place. The Catalyst is out of place and doesn't make sense in the ME lore.

 

[Savagezion]

Fourth, he supplants the central conflict of the game ("stop reapers") with an almost entirely new one ("saving organics from their synthetic creations"). You do not introduce and then resolve an entirely new narrative conflict in the final ten minutes of a bloody story... not unless you're a gibbering idiot anyway.

"Organics vs. Synthetics" has been a key element of the Mass Effect world since the first game. That was the entire purpose of having the Geth be the bad guys in ME1, and going deeper into their war with the Quarians in ME 2 and 3. Not to mention the contrast between the two "bad" AI in ME1 with EDI in 2. People getting destroyed by reaching too far is a common theme in Mass Effect: It happened with the Quarians, the Krogan (and by extension, the Salarians), and even the Protheans. Heck, the Protheans were actually in the middle of their own Organic/Synth war when the Reapers showed up.

My main question about the reapers is: Then why not kill synthetics every 50k years?

Cause that just leaves a bunch of confused organics with the ability to screw things up again. By their logic, cleansing organics and synths every 50k years solves both problems.

But the purpose of the cycle is to leave organics around to inevitably screw things up again. The big question is what do they do for 50,000 years?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Cause that just leaves a bunch of confused organics with the ability to screw things up again. By their logic, cleansing organics and synths every 50k years solves both problems.

But they still leave organics... it's not like they're eliminating the source of the problem, in fact, they allow the source of the problem to remain!

Why not just use the allegedly invincible reapers to, like, police the galaxy for AIs?

Not saying it'd be morally right, but it just makes more sense. I mean, the organics ALREADY had laws against it. Then, giant invincible war machines offer to enforce it. Ba-zing, problem solved.

The Reapers don't want to destroy organics. Their entire purpose is to "protect" organics by keeping them from destroying themselves. If the Reapers do the culling, they can leave enough Organics to repopulate the galaxy in a few thousand years, rather than a robot apocalypse killing everything. Its like tending a garden. You grow up the bushes, then trim them back when they get too big so they don't strangle themselves and other plants.

 

[370999]

As others have said a complete and utter lack of foreshadowing, making him very much a deus ex machina.

Also bear in mind from what I've heard about HL, part of the point of that game is that you are a pawn being moved on a chess board that you can't see but are ware of it's presence, feeling hopeless is part of what the game is trying to do.

I would also raise the point about ME 3 ending in that it actually complete reverse an important them of the series, that of determining one's own place. A huge part of ME 1's plot was about what position humanity would have in the galaxy, the tragedy of the Krogan was how they weren't given the chance to develop but instead used as a brunt instrument of war, the real atrocity of the Quarians to the Geth was how they decided they wouldn't even give them the chance and part of the horror of the Reapers is how they pervert this developmental process to suit their own needs. Hell you even have Drell/Hanar and a huge variety of other stuff like the Thorian or Prothean uplifts in the background.

Determination matters in Mass Effect. And the ending says "No we won't let the specesis do it their way but we will do it according to what this enemy AI says"

 

[luckshot]

well others have said because he comes out of nowhere and is not essential to the ending itself.

but i also think he changes the entire purpose of ALL the me games.

in me1 you were trying to stop saren and then to stop the reapers
in 2 it was the collectors and the reapers
in 3 it was the reapers...until the last 5 minutes where in 14 lines it is explained that the goal you thought you had (stop the reapers) was wrong and that the real goal was resolving the inevitable war between synthetics and organics...which may be contradicted by your game itself

also some other problems with the starchild were that i could not really question it, and it gave no justification for why my character that i spent three games building would trust it

 

[him over there]

After replaying Majora's Mask recently I have to say that the moon children seemed to serve absolutely no purpose, in fact I would say that their only purpose is to add to the surreality of the moon. They really just exist to question why they exist. I've heard people question why they wear the four fiends masks or why they appear to be younger versions of the happy mask salesman but it doesn't amount to anything. They really don't seem to be intentionally symbolic but rather weird for the sake of weird and similar to other entities prior just to instil and add to the confusion of

Spoiler

A fucking meadow inside a moon

Oh yes, definitely.

But they don't TAKE anything from the narrative either. The one kid is implied to somehow be majora, or a representation of Majora, or a moonchild possessed by Majora, but it doesn't really matter since she loses the form as soon as you speak with her, and the children are never mentioned again.

They served no purpose beyond surreality, which is far better than serving the purpose of violently wrenching the plot away from the hero/destroying established canon.

I think that Mass effect would have benefited from Surreality in this scenario. The catalyst is obviously meant to be some kind of higher thinking bullshit rather than to be plain old crazy. In fact I sometimes wonder if the catalyst despite ruining any tension, canon and ending all conflict without player input was intended to be surreal. Maybe I'm projecting because I really want more surreality in the games I play, especially because I feel that there are a lot of games (well most media really) that have their small amounts of strangeness ruined because people are looking too hard for a deeper meaning.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

So the post that supports your love of the end is fucking smart and the others aren't?

A) Bolded part - If "the star child said so" was considered reliable, we wouldn't be in this mess. I am more prone to believe he could call it off but won't no matter how much proof you give him.

B) The star child basically says that synthetics will kill organics because it is in their nature. (paraphrasing) As it is in organic's nature to push against them. (Your implied sentiment not the star child's) How the hell do we know this? This "part of nature" was directly contradicted with the geth-quarian war being able to be resolved peacefully AND as the war beginning over the geth trying to save their organic creators. Further contradiction comes when EDI shows up and decides to help Shepard for no other reason than compassion for organics from an AI. To top it off, none of the end choices solve this "inevitable crisis". Being given the Destroy option contradicts it even further by allowing organics to wipe out the system of cycles, all synthetics and many organics. This ultimately leads us to an "inevitable doom" in ~60,000 years. Synthesis could be seen as a genocide of organics or at least a slow genocide as we begin to "upgrade" towards immortality. Control pretty much allows everything to go on the way it was but now the reapers are friendly synthetics. (Basically, he "called them off" See A) However, under control synthetics still exist so the will inevitably wipe us out at some point.

C) Bolded part - Says the Star Child. Again, not evidence. As well, the star child does say that AI has never turned on organics and as Jim Sterling would say, "Thank God for him". The synth war isn't necessarily inevitable nor is the victor. To claim it is, is nonsense. Especially on the grounds that "the star child said so".
As for the last two sentences: So the answer is a re-occuring galactic crisis? What happens if a cycle doesn't have any AI when the reapers come next time? What constitutes AI? Technically AI is just algorithms used for processing a logical programmed outcome. Maybe the next cycle the organics have alarm clocks as the only AI in existence and they get wiped out because the reapers are afraid that alarm clocks will destroy humanity. Or what if the robot revolution happens early by 20k years due to a breakthrough? The whole idea of the cycle is convoluted. Simply harvesting organic material for survival as the supreme synthetics who planted life on other planets to harvest would have made them a much more epic monster. Hell, just simply they eat peple would have been better. This cycle to save organics nonsense is just stupid.

I am not saying this to be mean. The end is junk and it stings a bit more because it had WAY more potential than this. This ending didn't deliver a quarter of the potential the trilogy held. That isn't mean, its just the way it is. Take my word on it, I am probably older than you and that is all you guys needed to hear believe the star child. (JK, couldn't resist)

A) I believe the Star Child because he's a several hundred thousand year old AI with no reason to lie to you. That's like asking why did you believe Vigil on Ilos in ME1? The Reapers have no reason to try and trick Shepard: the fight is at a stalemate. The Reapers have "won", but Shepard has them by the balls and will ultimately decide their fate. No reason not to lay it all on the line.

B) Yes, they are contradictions. Thats the whole point of the game, is proving the Reapers wrong. It's a moral victory. However, being factually correct doesn't change anything when you can't stop your enemy from killing you anyway. The Reapers were on the move, and could not be stopped. Maybe that's the only reason the SC gave you a choice at all: He saw the potential of this cycle, and decided to throw the dice by offering synthesis. By killing the Reapers, you are only proving his point: Organics, when facing Synthetics, will not attempt coexistence. Nothing about Synthesis implies immortality, simply that organic and synthetic life have merged. We don't even know what that means, but given the tone of the ending its certainly not doom and gloom. If anything, it implies that the inherent differences that kept Organics and Synths from understanding one another have finally been removed, and now true coexistence is possible. Destruction is you basically telling the Reapers to fuck off and that you'll take your fate into your own hands. Admirable, but what if they are right? That is why its Renegade. Remember, its only an "inevitable crisis" because the Reapers say so. To their credit, they have perspective and experience, but if you think this galaxy can prove them wrong then by all means, blow the shit out of the Reapers.

C)Again, I trust the Star Child because he is a near omniscient AI that is hundreds of thousands of years old. He's seen countless cycles rise and fall, and according to him, the impending danger of the rise of synthetic life is cause to take drastic action. Take him at his word or not; he's a computer, not the Illusive Man. He's got no reason to lie to you. Heck, the evidence is stacked in his favor. The Protheans themselves were locked in bitter war with their synths before the Reapers arrived, and the Quarians nearly exterminated themselves trying to kill the Geth. And that is two cycles, back to back. Who knows how many other times this situation has played out, especially without a Shepard to unite the galaxy.

You have to understand, this ending is what you make it. You are looking for literal, factual closure where there is none. It's open-ended. I choose to believe Shepard gave his life to send the Reapers away, with the parting message "come back in 50k years, we'll have proved you wrong" because, in the end, it was just as wrong to exterminate the Reapers as it was for them to exterminate us. You may believe the Reapers are lying and Shepard should destroy them all and be the hero the galaxy needs etc. etc. That's the beauty of it. The game series, the entire experience, has been personalized to ourselves, including the ending.