(Spoilers) Mass Effect 3 Ending is Evil

[kklawm]

So I just finished Mass Effect 3 for the first time recently and when I finished, more than anything I felt numb and a little bored. Bioware don't make great stories I feel. Regardless, there was something (surprise!) About the ending that just bothered me.

So I read about how bad it is in gaming, thematic and storytelling terms written and voiced by people who did a far better job outlining why its technically a terrible ending to the series. But then I thought about the three separate choices and I realized just how wrong those choices were morally. Now before I explain why each choice was terrible, I need to point out the overriding moral tone in each game is basically about equality and understanding. You have many intelligent alien species that think and act differently and Shepard basically goes around fighting people who are racially (specieally?) Intolerant like Cerberus, and those species that are dictatorial in nature, wishing to destroy or subjugate other races (reapers and originally the geth). Your ships crew is made up of a vast array of different people and different races who all fight for a different reason.

Now in the games there are some choices that could make Shepard Xenophobic and pro human and its fair to say that Shepard can if you play the games in a certain way become a pro human elitist who is only getting help from the citadel races to keep humanity alive. However that's hardly the typical way Shepard does things, as Shepard basically fights to save the galaxy, or intelligent alien and human life in most conversation choices.

Personally I felt that Mass Effect and X-Men were similar in that they both dealt with discrimination. Then the ending gave you three choices that all were essentially terrible.

1 - Destroy all Synthetics, basically the genocide option. This is the 'kill all jews' option, although it would be fairer to call it the 'kill all germans' option, where you're doing it to kill the nazis. This is terrible because doing this makes you no better than the reapers. Certainly nearly all the paragon options show a clear distaste for the Reapers methods and ideology.

2 - Mind Control the Reapers, which essentially subjugates the free will of all reapers and makes your will god. Funnily enough the least evil option since its the only one you could theoretically do a good act whilst keeping the people you care about alive. Maybe you could release control so long as they don't wipe out all intelligent life?

3 - Combination. Without thinking too hard about it this seems like the best option. Since nothing dies or is mind controlled. Until you realize you essentially bred out what made organics and synthetic life different. This reminds of the assimilation policy in Australia, where the kindly Australian Government decided it was best to breed out the blackness in the Aboriginals. This kills the diversity and validity of each separate way of life and is just a different form of genocide where all individuality is homogenized.

Now I don't like referring a games shitty ending to world history which had real and terrible things happen to innocent people. But even though it's fiction, stories can shape our moral code and our way on looking at life and people (hint: taken to the extreme they call it propaganda). What I realized is that every option given to you pre-DLC where essentially terrible actions, would be considered war crimes in reality and that the only valid option is shooting that little shit and consequences be damned.

It may cause everyones death and be the developers bitter petty reprimand to those who hated their ending, but at least it shows you are willing to fight against the tyranny of that little shitty kid and his morally reprehensible options. But then again 'Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical'... So I think all the options in the game are evil.

I thought it may be illuminating to share.

 

[Estelindis]

I agree that the endings were all morally problematic and that the least evil is the control one. I personally don't think control is actually that evil, since if the Reapers have free will then they're responsible for murdering trillions and have no moral right to exercise their free will to kill more people, and if they don't have free will then they're not losing anything. It's more a question of whether Shepard would be right to trust her/himself with the kind of power that would come of controlling the Reapers. I also think that (although the ending stupidly made the control option actually work) Shepard had no reason to believe that the control option would even work. When Saren thought he could limit the destructive potential of the Reapers, could control their actions to a certain extent, he was shown to be wrong and actually controlled by the Reapers. The Illusive Man suffered from Indoctrination as well but was convinced that he was in control. The control choice at the end is symbolically linked to him, yet just a couple of scenes ago Shepard defeated him, thus showing that he was completely and utterly mistaken. Yet, if chosen at the end, control works? How does that make any sense?

Actually I don't see why Shepard would even believe the Catalyst about anything. If you choose to believe one thing it says, that it created the Reapers, then nothing else it says is morally trustworthy... because it was capable of the monumentally stupid idea of creating the Reapers, whose defeat is pretty much your sole purpose in life at this point. (And if you don't choose to believe it about this, nothing else it says makes sense either.) "So you created the Reapers that I've made it my life's mission to destroy... and you say that the only thing I can do to change them in any way is one of three courses of action, each of which will probably kill me?" Yeah, sure. Why should Shepard kill her/himself at the behest of the thing that created the enemy of galactic civilization, a thing which never recognises how wrong it is or was about the whole synthetic vs. organic business, a thing that bases its three "solutions" on a premise with which Shep fundamentally disagrees? I have no problem with a heroic sacrifice, but given what Shepard knew at the time I find it hard to see it as anything but an idiotic sacrifice that, if the universe was actually internally consistent, either would not have worked or wouldn't have been presented as an option in the first place.

Bah.

Anyway, you'll probably get a lot of people telling you that you're late to the party and this has all been discussed a bajillion times, but it's the first time playing the ending for you and I think you're perfectly entitled to post about it if you want.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

You're right, ME3's ending sucked on multiple levels.

Just blame this arsehole and move on is my advice.

 

[Shocksplicer]

I picked Destroy, and chose to believe that the Reapers were the only thing that were destroyed, because thats the only way to get a good ending out of ME3: Believe what you want and ignore the more moronic elements.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Is everything run on the same code? So if AIs are destroyed, how does it tell between a true sentient AI and just a really well designed OS that learns and acts like a real person? Who can even judge? Its like AIs have a magically quality that well designed AIs don't.

This question is surprisingly well studied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

 

[Psych the Psycho]

Mass Effect 3 didn't feel like a Mass Effect any more (even before the ending), it became a Gears of War clone, it was dump downed to bait the shooter crowd, which I blame EA for, that's why the "Indoctrination Theory" couldn't work, it would be to clever!

What's the Indoctrination Theory?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I think the catalyst was the last ditch attempt of the reapers to persuade shepard into not destroying them, but in a much more subtle way, going all "Sure you could destroy us, but you'd destroy any sentient lifeform too, why not hold on to these exposed power spalks or throw yourself into this open energy beam?"

Thing is though, you never see EDI or the geth being wiped out, only the reapers, so they lied about that part, and it makes no sense either because synthetic lifeforms are basicly just tech with a smart program, so almost anything with a power coupling would be a target...
...Would be, but obviously not the case, so you could smell that lie a mile away.

synthetics and organics CAN live in peace, you proved that with the geth and quarians, so destroying them is ndeed the right choice.

 

[Launcelot111]

I only beat it last week as well, and aside from the bizarre and arbitrary and poorly established choices presented to you, why the hell was the final cutscene like four minutes long? Not only did it fail to wrap up any story moment from the previous three games, it didn't even begin to address anything involving the final choice you just made. If anything, it presented new and entirely meaningless questions (like wtf was Joker doing at any point during that sequence).

Mass Effect 3 was a pretty good game on the whole (aside from the fact that it led me to accidentally commit the genocide of the Quarian race), but I have a hard time calling that an ending. The game just stopped.

 

[Rack]

I think the catalyst was the last ditch attempt of the reapers to persuade shepard into not destroying them, but in a much more subtle way, going all "Sure you could destroy us, but you'd destroy any sentient lifeform too, why not hold on to these exposed power spalks or throw yourself into this open energy beam?"

Thing is though, you never see EDI or the geth being wiped out, only the reapers, so they lied about that part, and it makes no sense either because synthetic lifeforms are basicly just tech with a smart program, so almost anything with a power coupling would be a target...
...Would be, but obviously not the case, so you could smell that lie a mile away.

synthetics and organics CAN live in peace, you proved that with the geth and quarians, so destroying them is ndeed the right choice.

Which would almost work and sort of save the ending of ME3 a bit if you didn't activate the destroy option by walking into an explosion.

ME3s ending is so bad on so many levels it's hard to keep how terrible it is in your head. The fact that the rest of the game was similarly awful gets pushed out almost entirely.

 

[Talvrae]

Ah please for Pete sake, get over it, the subject have been debated over and over again... it's been one year and half now, can we move allong to another subject? wich by the way: http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/epd6xc/the-final-verdict-mass-effect-3-ending

 

[Winnosh]

For me Control was the only viable option. It Yes Shepard dies but the representation of all that he was his lessons and the thoughts and dreams of his friends spread out through the Reapers. Before now all they were doing in harvesting was taking on the knowledge and biology of the species they took

In Control you give them what was lacking througout the whole of their creation. You give them the essence of a soul and use that to guide them. Where before they only had the flawed logic of programming.

 

[Thomas Barnsley]

2 - Mind Control the Reapers, which essentially subjugates the free will of all reapers and makes your will god. Funnily enough the least evil option since its the only one you could theoretically do a good act whilst keeping the people you care about alive. Maybe you could release control so long as they don't wipe out all intelligent life?

3 - Combination. Without thinking too hard about it this seems like the best option. Since nothing dies or is mind controlled. Until you realize you essentially bred out what made organics and synthetic life different. This reminds of the assimilation policy in Australia, where the kindly Australian Government decided it was best to breed out the blackness in the Aboriginals. This kills the diversity and validity of each separate way of life and is just a different form of genocide where all individuality is homogenized.

Ok, I agree with you on destroy, I don't know why anyone would choose that unless they were intentionally Renegade.

I disagree with your assertion that hijacking the Reapers is a bad thing. They don't seem to have free will, they just come by every 50000 years and run apocalypse.jgp. So taking control of them isn't much worse than stealing a car.
The only way it could be evil, I think, is if Shepard used the Reapers for evil.

I personally picked synthesis, so I believe quite strongly it was the best choice. Here's why:
The thing about your example with the assimilation policy is that they did it simply because they were racist; they thought black people inferior to white, therefore black people should be removed. We know now we're all equal no matter what skin colour.
This is not true for organics and synthetics, as according to the starchild (I've probably lost all credibility for mentioning him but whatever) synthetics will ALWAYS destroy their organic creators. They can't coexist.
Therefore, synthesis of the two parties is the only way to ensure peace. And also, in a way, the only way to ensure diversity; because if synthesis does not occur synthetics will wipe out organics, resulting in only synthetics.
It also solves pretty much all social problems, I think.

 

[CloudAtlas]

There is no happy ending. That's the point. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but it's not a flaw of the game itself.

At the end, you are presented with four options. Some find the way those options are presented contrived, but that's another story. Let's assume here that other options are just technically impossible.


1 - Yes, Destroy means letting all synthetics die - provided they're still alive at all at this point in time. However, before you make a moral judgement at all, you need to answer deeper questions: What is life? Are the Geth alive? And if yes, is organic life as valuable as synthetic life?
There is no unambiguous answer to these questions.
If the Geth are not alive, or if their life is worth less than organic life, then that makes Destroy less immoral. But if they are, you can still justify letting them die. In war, a commander regularly faces choices to let some people die to save others. Now, is it morally right to let a person die to save two others? Different theories of moral philosophies give a different answer to this question. In war, utilitarian logic tends to prevail, and in total war, this is especially true. When the stakes are really really high, the ends justify the means more than they would otherwise. And here, the stakes are as high as they can be: extinction. And you commit something close to genocide before: just ask the Batarians.

If you choose Destroy, you let a smaller number of synthetics die - including, with some likelihood, yourself - to save a larger number of organics. This may result in genocide of the Geth, yes, but it is not a war crime in my opinion: You make a decision that countless other commanders had to do before you, just on a larger scale.
And you didn't make this decision lightly; as you said yourself, the other alternatives are not very palatable either.



2 - Control. I couldn't have said it better myself: When choosing Control, you make your will the will of God. You've been fighting all this time for the right of the species of the Milky Way to determine their own fate, and now you give yourself the power to decide it for them? Pretty much a fascist fantasy. Control is a disaster in waiting. What if, at some point, their ideas differ from yours? What if they decide they don't like an entity with such power over their lifes? If they demand to destroy yourself and the Reapers, will you be willing to cease to exist, will you be able to let go of the power you hold? Power corrupts, they say, and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. You might think you will always do good, but you can't be certain. After all, the Reapers of devised a solution to the problem for which they were created that is very different from what their creators had in mind - and, from their perspective, not exactly better.

And when this disaster does happen, then Shepard turns into the very thing she gave her life for fighting against.

Thematically, Control is the "Illusive Man's Ending": If you choose Control, you embrace the Illusive Man's argument after all, ideas that led to the Downfall of the Prothean Empire, and almost cost you the war: That the Reapers can be controlled, and that controlling them is the right thing to do.


3 - Combination (Synthesis). You are totally right, nobody dies, but you change everyone's life significantly, and probably irreversibly, and without asking. Other than killing someone outright, you can hardly infringe upon someone's fundamental rights more severely. And here, you infringe upon literally everyone's right.

Synthesis is the "Reaper's Ending": You accept their logic, you just have a different solution. Organics and synthetics can never be at peace, so the only way to ensure peace is to fuse them together. You homogenize all life, which is, like Control, something you previously fought against. Diversity is good, diversity is strength, that's certainly a core message of the game. One reason why the Prothean empire lost against the Reapers, it is told, is that they were homogeneous, they all followed the same doctrine, they were unable to adapt to the threat.


4 - Refuse. Not making a choice is making a choice anyway. It always is. Is committing genocide on all species preferable to committing genocide on one? Is killing everyone now preferable to potentially killing them later? Is killing everyone preferable to infringing heavily upon everyone's fundamental rights? If you can answer all these questions with yes, then indeed this is the best ending for you. And you also accept the Reaper's logic along the way, and the cycle continues.

_____

Personally, I always chose Destroy. The way I see it, Control means you accept the Illusive Man's argument, Synthesis and Refuse means you accept the Reapers' argument. Either way, one of your enemies wins. I always felt that the game was pulling me towards the Destroy ending. The other two endings did have some appeal, considering the severe consequences of Destroy, but if you chose them then you admitted, in a way, ideological defeat. And my Shepard, she didn't want to do that. She was fighting against the Reapers for so long, this war already cost billions of lives, but now, at the end of her journey, she had the chance to destroy them for good. And so she did. As Anderson put it: "Survival at any cost" - but not at the cost of giving up freedom.

______

Other people made different moral judgments, and gave good reasons for doing so. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them invalid. And that's the beauty of it all.

 

[Liam Guzzo]

Well you certainly have the right to your opinion on Mass Effect as a series and Bioware as a company I'm going to have to disagree. Bioware fumbled the ending to ME 3 yes (which they fixed in my eyes with the EC) and Dragon Age 2 was a flop but every one makes mistakes. The Mass Effect series where 2 and 3/4 amazing games with high level of story telling with excellent and character's you cared about. At least that's what I think. As for the endings themselves I'm also going to have to disagree. Well it may not be completly morally sound I wouldn't call it evil to destroy the reapers it's certainly the safest way to make sure they never hurt anyone again and it's not like we can't rebuild synthetics. I'm positive a good engineer could even restore the old ones. As for control I'll agree it's not "evil" but for different reasons. You say it's wrong to take the reapers free will and to control them but the as we learn they never had free will in the fucking first place. That's my thought on it at least.

 

[mad825]

Considering they ripped the ending(s) from Deus ex and Deus EX:HR I'm far from surprised.

There is no happy ending. That's the point. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but it's not a flaw of the game itself.

...Or perhaps you delude yourself into think so.

If they wanted to construct some meaningful way to conclude that there's "no happy ending" they could just rip-off Halo:reach. With the Destroy's hidden ending your argument is invalid as it's assumed Shepard lives. Also, the Forth is meaningless as the goal is achieved via the same means by a different time and generation.

 

[bug_of_war]

1 - Destroy all Synthetics, basically the genocide option. This is the 'kill all jews' option, although it would be fairer to call it the 'kill all germans' option, where you're doing it to kill the nazis. This is terrible because doing this makes you no better than the reapers. Certainly nearly all the paragon options show a clear distaste for the Reapers methods and ideology.

2 - Mind Control the Reapers, which essentially subjugates the free will of all reapers and makes your will god. Funnily enough the least evil option since its the only one you could theoretically do a good act whilst keeping the people you care about alive. Maybe you could release control so long as they don't wipe out all intelligent life?

3 - Combination. Without thinking too hard about it this seems like the best option. Since nothing dies or is mind controlled. Until you realize you essentially bred out what made organics and synthetic life different. This reminds of the assimilation policy in Australia, where the kindly Australian Government decided it was best to breed out the blackness in the Aboriginals. This kills the diversity and validity of each separate way of life and is just a different form of genocide where all individuality is homogenized.

While I'm all for people having their own opinions and what not, I think you got just a few basic things wrong.

Firstly, all the endings had to have sections of set backs to them, otherwise it's basically, "good guy, neutral guy, bad guy ending". With each ending not being entirely good, you actually have people have to decide which choice most suits them, which in the end is what the game is about, choice.

Secondly, the game is set during a war, a war where in which the main enemy is a bunch of synthetics that have flat out shown that they can hack into other synthetics and use them for their own purpose. Thus, the Destroy decision is actually an ending you could see people choosing, why go through the trouble of cutting the head of the snake when you can firebomb it's entire body. Is it somewhat heartless? Yeah, but only if you assume that the artificial intelligence can truly be considered as a real thing (but that's another whole philosophical personal issue right there).

Thirdly, one man and his own personal morals being in control of the most powerful weapons of the universe demanding that people follow his moral code is WAAY more evil than destruction, especially when that one man is making decisions for other intelligent species. Dictators are not good.

Other than that, your opinions seem quite valid. I disagree with them and still firmly believe that Mass Effect 3 is the best in the whole series, but that's opinions.

 

[CharrHearted]

Can we get over this topic already? I know I'm still furious about what happened but for the love of money IT'S BEEN A YEAR AND A HALF.

Sweet jesus, lets just drop that stain of a terrible end of a trilogy...

 

[Doom972]

You might've finished it recently, but this subject has already been debated to death in the two weeks following the game's release. Your points on the matter have also been debated. If you want to read the endless discussions about it, I recommend searching this forum or the official ME3 spoiler forum.