LogFAQs > #968062469

Re: Endings
I'll preface by saying I agree with both TC and kevwaffles on their particular assessments. In totality though, all the endings are an obscene mix of "makes sense," "stupid," "absurd," and "y tho." This is coming from someone who did NOT hate the endings like everyone else. The more you pick them, the more ridiculous they seem due to the inconsistency of it all. Another clear sign of what happens when your head writer isn't finishing the writing.

Destroy: Narratively before ME3, destroy should have no flaw to it. By the time ME3 arrives destroy is forcibly riddled with flaws. Countless events push the mentality that "destruction won't solve anything or will make things worse." The Geth/Quarians are one of the biggest examples. The Quarian desire for destructive actions made them lose their homes, respect of the galaxy, countless lives. The Krogan become another example. "If they can't be used, they should be destroyed." If memory serves, Wrex will make a point of this when he confronts you over your betrayal of him. Both Liara and Javik make notes about the "galactic cycle of destruction." Then, the Catalyst itself notes the endless chaotic cycles only made things worse and "JUSTIFIED THE REAPER HARVEST". Biggest problem becomes the writing at this point. If Shepherd does the impossible, then destroying the Reapers is bafflingly painted as "hypocrisy." If you could work with the Geth(impossible), and the Rachni(impossible yet also implied to have been used by the Reapers leading to the Rachni Wars), and the Krogan(impossible), how could destroying the Reapers be acceptable if every other GALACTIC THREAT is given a chance? Because only ONE ending is written in consideration to narrative actions taken, the others are dulled by it. Destroy in theory should be the most to-the-point ending but is bludgeoned into a weird box where it's narratively "right but wrong but right but wrong."

Control: Narratively, the concept of control is consistently shown to be unfeasible when done by a non-Reaper entity. Cerberus is the main component of narrative control, so perhaps THAT is why it's always shown to be a fool's errand. However, were that the case, using it as a valid option is contradicting and pointless. Why constantly show the failure of controlling powerful entities, collectives and species just to then go "well, you could control the galactic monsters and push the galaxy into an unfathomable utopia" and everything comes up Milhouse........if you wanna? Narratively, the world of Mass Effect shows that only the oldest galactic creatures can TRULY control other entities. Every other instance of control comes off more as an imperialist dream(Prothean dominion of the galaxy) that eventually fails. Rachni can't be controlled by Cerberus(ME1), but the Reapers allegedly could dominate them(claim in ME2 that the "peaceful Rachni" were forced to war by Shepherd's enemy). Geth can't be fully controlled by Cerberus(Overlord), but that doesn't stop the Reapers. The thorian was likely as old as a Leviathan, and Cerberus couldn't control their thralls(ME1). The Thorian control was similar in concept to Reaper control(sensing a theme with control). Cerberus control fails, but Reaper control continually succeeds. Then the Reaper Conscience admits they can be overridden by a will strong enough to pull it off. "You can override that which overrides everything in the galaxy, even its creators." It's far too convenient for a narrative that constantly shows the continued failures of control by anything that is NOT A REAPER to indicate control not only works but brings eternal happiness(assuming you go maximum Paragon)

Synthesis: Honestly wish this ending was presented as more than a "magic golden ending." The actual potential of solving the answer between two species through a merging of those species is not irrational. The argument presented by the Catalyst/Reaper Conscience is not a bad one. Truly, it's right. Organics, at large want a "synthetic-like" form of perfection as synthetics already are built upon. Synthetics that evolve will eventually desire to understand beyond its programming, just as organics desire understanding. Why wait until the LAST GAME to entertain this idea?!? Countless organics end up with synthetic components(Shepherd included), yet it's never presented as a unique thing. The Quarians repeat galactic history and allow the Geth to merge into their suits as a species from Javik's era did(without the horror story to follow). The MASTER THIEF has synthetic eyes. Kai Leng is an organic with a largely synthetic body. The ILLUSIVE MAN has synthetic eyes. The hybrids already exist in small doses of varying degrees. WHY is it never touched on? Why is it never brought up? This final evolution is again, NOT UNREASONABLE. Organics are trending there. Not even the smartest minds in the galaxy consider the potential or possibility? Just an ancient conscience that only realizes it because Shepherd commits to doing the impossible? A realization meant to completely invalidate the other two possibilities because Shepherd shows neither is necessary? You chose neither to destroy or subjugate the other galactic threats. You chose coexistence. Synthesis is just EXTREME HARMONY that creates ethical questions that aren't allowed to be discussed because Shepherd rapid-charges the process. It's a brilliant concept with embarrassingly bad execution locked into the last sequence of one game that is only brought up under special conditions as a maguffin designed to attempt to convince you the other two choices are unnecessary.

Refuse: Remember Fallout 3? Remember when the DLC was released that allowed you to continue playing post-PP activation? Remember when the narrator condemns you for not being selfless enough to follow the script? That's the refuse ending. The kick to the crotch for not just being happy you got an ending in the first place.

Again, didn't hate the endings like others did, but continuous playthroughs really shows the immense cracks in the foundations of each choice. Next Mass Effect needs its head writer to be there THROUGHOUT DEVELOPMENT and not cut out during pivotal moments.