Forum:Clues for why the ending makes sense

So when I beat Mass Effect 3, I was really confused as to why everyone was so upset about the ending - especially to the point of starting a petition and hurling threats towards the BioWare development team. The ending made sense to me, here's why.

The catalyst character was set up earlier in the game. Most people are acting like it came out of no where, but there is some foreshadowing in the games. It starts with some vague hints in ME1 and 2 saying that the Reapers are salvation through destruction. On Rannoch in ME3, the Reaper you destroy repeats this idea to you and alludes to a higher power orchestrating everything.

The Prothean VI expands a bit on this on Thessia. He tells you that the Reapers are servants, Shepard asks of who and the VI says that is unknown. By this point I thought it was almost obvious you were going to eventually meet up with some sort of "divine" like thing in control of everything.

So flash forward to Earth. BioWare does a good job throughout the final mission of really making you feel a sense of desperation and almost hopelessness. From the shuttle with heavy weapons that gets shut down to the missles that miss the reaper to Harbinger killing everyone - nothing seems to be going right.

That sets the stage for the ending. Shepard gets up after getting blasted by a reaper, armor torn off, he/she can barely walk and is barely conscious (the weird dream sequence behind him/her that people attribute to Indoctrination Theory).

Next, Shepard's almost there and its just the Illusive Man standing in his way of completing his mission. He convinces the Illusive Man to kill himself but uses every last bit of his energy to do so. That's made kind of obvious when he's sitting next to Anderson, exhausted, bleeding. Then the part happens that everyone hates- he meets the catalyst.

The catalyst in the form of the little kid tells Shepard about how organic life creates synthetic life which then destroys organic life. And the Reapers are its solution, as they harvest the organic life to preserve it before Synthetics completely destroy it (as the Geth do to the Quarians if you save them).

People point to that idea as not making sense. How is the Reapers killing everyone and indoctrinating them saving them? I think you have to understand that these are synthetics we're talking about. Haven't you ever talked to legion? Logic takes precedence over morals.

Logically, the Reapers are in a way saving the organic races by not allowing them to become completely extinct - instead preserved in reaper/indoctrinated form. The fact that they are massacring them to do it is just a means to an end, a necessary evil in their mind. As this would happen anyway at the hands of the synthetics the organics create, but they would not be preserved.

So the Catalyst gives Shepard the three choices. People have a problem with 1. the fact that Shepard doesn't argue with the Catalyst and 2. the choices themselves.

Shepard is exhausted, near death (dude just got blasted by a reaper), at a more desperate state that we've ever seen him/her before. How much energy does he/she really have here? The catalyst makes things simple for him/her. Destroy, Control, or Combine.

Now onto the choices. I've heard many have a problem with essentially, without using these words, the lack of a happy ending. There's no way to do what you sought out do do - save and preserve the galaxy. Each decision has a positive and a negative. Destroying the Reapers is the closest to your original mission- you kill them but you also destroy the mass relays, and you live. In the other decisions you don't kill the Reapers, but they stop killing everyone and you die/get turned into a husk.

I like that there's no perfect stereotypical ending. With something as massive and destructive as the Reaper invasion, its hard to imagine a way to get rid of them and have everything being able to go back to exactly how it was.

It's at this point (the catalyst part) that I start buying the indoctrination theory. When you talk to the Illusive Man you see the weird black things on the sides of the screen. The decisions you get are actually a way of you choosing whether to resist the indoctrination or not - with the destroy option being the only way to resist.

As for the problems with the lack of closure. What can I tell you? BioWare didn't want to make a 45 minute cutscene? A valid point but not valid enough to start a petition and threaten bioware team members.

-- Uncle Owen RIP--Uncle Owen RIP 21:14, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Felt like writing a response, if you have actual explanations for all the questions I raise, I would love to hear them. Really. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or everything, if someone can actually answer without using the word “space magic”, I would be extremely happy. (Oh and you should sign your posts.)

“It starts with some vague hints in ME1 and 2 saying that the Reapers are salvation through destruction.” - Sovereign also says that “organic life is just an accident” and that the reapers are each independent and a nation on their own. Which of course could be lie, though it's not really clear why he would lie about it. But overall, I would say the Catalyst wasn't foreshadowed enough in the games, and it could have used a much more emotionally painful form (like Virmire sacrifice), and not the kid. Honestly, as someone who played all three games numerous times, I think focusing so much on this child is bad. Shepard already lost many people either due to this war, or eve before, so one random kid giving him/her PTSD is unlikely.

''“So flash forward to Earth. BioWare does a good job throughout the final mission of really making you feel a sense of desperation and almost hopelessness […] nothing seems to be going right.”'' - My problem with the Earth part is that you don't get to see or use any of your War Assets. We spend so much time collecting them, doing people favors and all, yet we don't even have cut scenes about krogan forces fighting husks... well except for that one cut scene where a mixed race group dies horribly...but that's really not nearly enough. Though this isn't really a “problem with the ending”, I just thought I mention it.

''“I think you have to understand that these are synthetics we're talking about. Haven't you ever talked to legion? Logic takes precedence over morals.”'' - I agree with this. But if you take into account ME1, where Sovereign says that they built the mass relays and the Citadel, so that galactic civilization develops in the way they want it, then that means, the reapers technologically advance species into the direction of creating an AI on purpose. Why not try to advance them in a way that they won't create AI? Why not kill the synthetics that try to kill the organics instead? How can they be sure that synthetics want to always kill their creators? It certainly wasn't true in this cycle.

''“Shepard is exhausted, near death (dude just got blasted by a reaper), at a more desperate state that we've ever seen him/her before. How much energy does he/she really have here?”'' - Sooo, he/she has the energy to walk down the road and possibly shoot things, but not enough to mention that outside the geth and the quarians are working side-by-side and that the geth acted in self-defense, and the only time they actively tried to kill organics was when they were under Sovereign's (or some other reaper's) influence? It takes less energy to say things than walk at that state imho.

“I've heard many have a problem with essentially, without using these words, the lack of a happy ending.” - That's really not the issue. Most people are prepared for Shepard to die, and it fits their story perfectly. The problem with the endings is that none of the options is properly explained. Destroy: kills reapers and every other synthetic. Why does it kill other synthetics too, and not only the reapers? If the geth die, why isn't it shown? If Shepard is part synthetic, and should die due to that ending, why is Destroy the only ending where you can see the “Shepard takes a breath” 10 seconds cut scene? Control: Will Shepard be able to truly control the reapers forever? Or can Shepard order the reapers to fly into the nearest sun and die? How does control actually work? Does Shepard get uploaded into every reaper, or does he/she become the Catalyst? Synthesis: How does it work? How can you make a new DNA from something that doesn't have DNA? Does that mean that everybody is immortal now? Do objects become synthetics too? If they don't, what's to stop the new hybrid DNA people from creating true synthetics, who could possibly rebel against them? And once again, how in hell does it work?!

Also, you didn't mention, but I have too. Normandy running away from the blast and crash landing on an unknown planet. Why was Joker running from the fight? Hackett says in one conversation that the Normandy will be the “tip of the spear” in this fight, and he also says that in case the Crucible doesn't work, the plan is to fight until we die. So why is Joker flying away, and possibly doing a relay jump? If he actually does jump through the relay then it's even more unbelievable, cos that would mean, he started flying away while Shepard was making his/her choice since the relay is still there. Also there is no real reason for him to fly away, since he can not know what the blast is. Maybe in Destroy ending he tries to flee so EDI won't die, but it's doubtful that in the short time it takes for the blast to reach the relay they would be able to analyze that EDI would die. And more importantly, Joker is a soldier who served with Shepard since ME1, and who actually says in ME3 that he blames himself for Shepard's death. Would someone like that really just leave, without knowing if Shepard is alive? Doubtful.

And then there is the problem that your squad mates, who were all on Earth with you, suddenly appear on the Normandy after the crash landing. Once again: How? There is no beam-me-up technology in ME, and they were all fighting on the ground, hell two of them gets even blasted by Harbinger, like Shepard, yet the cut scene implies that they are not only unharmed but managed to get on the Normandy. Getting on the ship is really doubtful, the Normandy is much bigger than it was in ME1, so maneuvering in a place like London would be hard, that's why they use shuttles. So if your team gets on to the Normandy that would mean they are picked up by a shuttle around the time while Shepard is either still unconscious due to Harby, or when he/she is on the Citadel. In both cases, the fighting is still going on both in space and ground. Would they really leave the fight? I mean everyone in your squad pretty much says that they are prepared to die here, so why would they leave? And more importantly, none of them would be willing to leave Shepard behind. Yet, that cut scene happens...

“I like that there's no perfect stereotypical ending.” - While I love non-stereotypical endings too, Mass Effect always had a cliché ending. I mean both in ME1 and ME2 the hero gets a seen where he just walks away with a smug smile on his face, knowing that he won. Changing this formula for the last game is a bit stupid. But even if they want to change it, why not try to end it on an actual positive note? Like after Shepard and Anderson talks, and Anderson dies, Shepard looks at Earth, gives a tired smile, says “It is beautiful.” and dies, then the Crucible fires, reapers are defeated, mass relays blow up and credits. Sure we don't learn why the reapers are doing what they do, but is that bad? I mean throughout 3 games we are told that limited organics like us can not understand their purpose, so leaving it out completely would have been acceptable. Hell they could have made a new game with a new protagonist about finding out the reason.

''“BioWare didn't want to make a 45 minute cut scene? A valid point but not valid enough to start a petition and threaten bioware team members.”'' - They could have made it a text-roll instead of cut scene, and people would have liked it, since most Bioware fans like to read. They could have made it even skippable, so that if your not interested in Vega's future, you can just jump to the next part. And no, the “petition” isn't about the lack of closure. It's about all those things I mentioned, and more than anything, it's about the trust between Bioware and the players. Bioware officials repeatedly said that the ending won't be a pick between A, B, C, yet it was. They said that every ending is achievable through only singleplayer, and doesn't need multiplayer or other kind of extras for it, which isn't true, because the “Shepard lives” ending can be only seen if you have 5000 EMS and that number is not possible to get only through sp (though granted this could be a bug, however it won't be fixed in the next patch). They also claimed that we will get answers for everything, yet we don't, and the lead writer, Mac Walter's notes on the ending even say “lots of speculations from everyone”, meaning that they did not intend to answer our questions to begin with. Here, a thread about what BW said about the game, which didn't turn out to be true. So once again, it's not just about the lack of closure or happy ending, it's about faulty logic, trust between company and consumer.

Have to add though that Bioware will release a free DLC explaining the endings this summer. Will all the plot-holes be filled? I don't know. Will we have closure for our characters? I don't know. But I still stay pessimistic, because that way at least I can be pleasantly surprised.

PS: Bioware team members were not really threatened or bullied this time. That Jennifer Hepler thing was a totally different matter. I mean sure lot of people think that Casey Hudson is satan and stupid stuff like that, but it's not harassment level.--SunyiNyufi 18:21, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your response. I started this topic as someone who did not hate the ending and did not understand why people did. I am glad that you chose to respond to me in the manner you did, as to help me understand that and not just yell at me. So thank you again for taking the time to write.

'''"Sovereign also says that “organic life is just an accident” and that the reapers are each independent and a nation on their own." --''' I'll first start by saying plot holes will exist in any majorly epic fantasy canon (Star Trek, Star Wars both have them) I understand that you are talking about what you consider major plotholes but I just want to preface what I say with that.

Obviously you cannot take what Soverign says here at face value, given what happens at the end. That opens the door for other questions. Also are we ever given much insight into how Reapers think? For instance, I interpret what he says kind of like the opposite of how Legion explains the Geth. Legion says the Geth all share one mind basically, which is why he always refers to himself as "We". It's possible Sovereign is just stating in kind of a weird way that each reaper is its own synthetic mind, not connected to one big consciousness like the Geth are. Or of course Soverign could've just been lying, yes.

Organic Life is just an accident. So he means that just by a miracle of science organic life exists, but synthetic life is created methodically and intentionally. I'd really have to hear everything Sovereign says here again to put it all into context, but I think this statement is too ambiguous on its own to take anything from either way.

But overall, I would say the Catalyst wasn't foreshadowed enough in the games, and it could have used a much more emotionally painful form (like Virmire sacrifice), and not the kid.

I have to disagree on the first part, like I said, it was obvious to me the direction that this was heading. I even said to a friend of mine before beating it that I was worried the ending would have God in it and that is why people were getting mad about it.

As for its form, I can't argue. the kid was lame, but I think this is one of the more minor points here.

'''"Why not try to advance them in a way that they won't create AI? Why not kill the synthetics that try to kill the organics instead?" ''' We're given the understanding that the reapers have been doing this for billions and billions of years and many many different cycles before even the Protheans. You'd have to assume that synthetics killing their creators was a bit of a problem for millions of years before they even started this "solution".

Why don't they just kill the synthetics to save the organics? Well the Catalyst and Reapers are synthetics themselves, and based on the way the Catalyst would like you to choose at the end, they seem to favor their own kind a little bit. Even Legion favored his own kind over organics, as if you choose to save the Quarians he tries to kill you.

'''How can they be sure that synthetics want to always kill their creators? It certainly wasn't true in this cycle."'''

The Catalyst does say that the solution doesn't appear to be relevant anymore based on this cycle, this could have something to do with it. However, the Geth do wind up completing wiping out the Quarians if you side with them.

''' It takes less energy to say things than walk at that state imho. '''

Like I said I kind of viewed the last scene as Shepard being in a haze, and possibly being in the process of being indoctrinated. Obviously open for interpretation but the fact remains, he did not ask those questions. This is why I think he did not.

'''But even if they want to change it, why not try to end it on an actual positive note? Like after Shepard and Anderson talks, and Anderson dies, Shepard looks at Earth, gives a tired smile, says “It is beautiful.” and dies'''

I would loop Shepard just dying to save earth in with the streotypical sorry. This ending has generated A LOT of discussion, controvery, writing and interpretation. They went an unexpected route and I give them props for that.

'''Bioware officials repeatedly said that the ending won't be a pick between A, B, C, yet it was. They said that every ending is achievable through only singleplayer, and doesn't need multiplayer or other kind of extras for it, which isn't true, because the “Shepard lives” ending can be only seen if you have 5000 EMS and that number is not possible to get only through sp'''

I guess I never read any of their promises before playing so I'd have to agree with you here that they didn't deliver on that end of the bargain and I'd be disappointed had I been expecting that. Thought BTW I beat the game with under 5,000 EMS and I got the "Shepard lives" ending. Yet it does seem like multiplayer plays a big part. I did have 100% Galactic Readiness and had promoted one character.

Look forward to your response. Thank you! - Uncle Owen RIP --Uncle Owen RIP 21:14, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

I always try to be polite :) Also while I am deeply disappointed in the endings and in Bioware, I already passed the “anger stage”, so...

About Sovereign. Obviously we can't take everything he says at face value, and we really shouldn't. However, even Legion says (in ME2 I believe) that reapers are each a nation and that they are independent. Yet, now they are controlled by an AI God. Sure it could be true, if we are willing to accept that both Harbinger and Sovereign lie about their goals, but from a narrative point that would mean that they have sort of mislead as for 2 games. Not the best move.

“I was worried the ending would have God in it and that is why people were getting mad about it” - Well in all honesty, since the Crucible itself is a deus ex machina in the trilogy, including an actual God, once again not the best move from a narrative viewpoint.

''“You'd have to assume that synthetics killing their creators was a bit of a problem for millions of years before they even started this "solution". “''- My problem with this is that we only have Catalyst's word for any of this (and well Javik's, cos he comments on war with the synthetics, but I discount him, since he is racist). In a story like ME you really can't accept everything without proof, since most people (especially the ones connected to the reapers) lie and cheat all the time.

And to come back to my original point about reapers forcing the cycle on the galaxy: it's like treating the symptoms of an illness really. You can make those go away, but the illness will stay. In this case the proposed problem is that synthetics will always kill organics. So the best solution would be to create a situation where they can co-exist (not merge mind you). Actually you know what could have been brilliant? If you managed to get the geth and quarians to co-operate and the Catalyst would say that this was all they wanted, that they created the reaper threat so that all races in the galaxy organic and synthetic alike would unify, stand together against a common foe, and learn each other values in the process. Now that would be fitting for the series.

“Even Legion favored his own kind over organics, as if you choose to save the Quarians he tries to kill you.” - When he feared that all of his people will be wiped out? Yes, he will do everything he can, like any organic most likely. However in both games, ME2 and ME3, he is willing to kill a faction of his own kind in order to be able to bring piece and show organics that they are not all like that.

I also have to mention once again, that the geth did not start the war. Not the Morning War, and not the one in ME3. Both were initiated by the quarians, and geth acted mostly in self-defense. To quote Shepard: “Your entire history is you trying to kill the geth. You forced them to rebel. You forced them to ally with the Reapers. The geth don't want to fight you.”

But let's not focus only on the geth, there is EDI. An unshackled AI, who was made from a VI that tried really hard to kill Shepard in ME1. Now she is friendly, and willing to risk non-fuction so that organics can live. I mean, seriously, Shepard can teach her what love is.

So yeah, no, synthetics won't always rebel. If you treat them like slaves, then they probably will. Treat them with respect and they won't. And obviously if Shepard plays his/her cards right, this cycle is ready to treat them with respect. Yet you can't point that out to the Catalyst, not even once.

“However, the Geth do wind up completing wiping out the Quarians if you side with them.” - Which once again happens in self-defense, since the whole quarian fleet is trying to kill them. Also it's really really easy to make peace between them, unless you rush ahead and don't do any side missions.

''“Like I said I kind of viewed the last scene as Shepard being in a haze, and possibly being in the process of being indoctrinated. Obviously open for interpretation but the fact remains, he did not ask those questions. This is why I think he did not.”'' - The biggest problem with this is that it means we pretty much loose control over the player character at the most crucial moment in the entire series. If we believe the Indoctrination Theory (which we shouldn't, because it isn't true), then that would mean Control and Synthesys are bad endings, and Destory is the “good” ending. Then why are the cut scenes mostly the same for all three endings? If 2 of those choices are bad, then why isn't it clearly shown that they are indeed bad?  “They went an unexpected route and I give them props for that.” - Oh c'mon now! Everyone and their dog could see at the start of the Earth mission, that there is a 99,99999999% chance for Shepard to die. He/she was a mild case of Death Seeker throughout the whole of ME3. Still I think that there should have been an ending where Shepard clearly, I mean CLEARLY, lives and get's a happy ending, they should have just made it insanely difficult to get. So like 90% of the different endings have Shepard die one way or the other, but there would be that one ending where he/she lives, because you worked hard for it. But again, I could be ok with Shepard dying, if it's explained why it has to happen, and not just because “it's a cool ending to the story”. Oh and a lot of people have a problem with Shepard dying the way he/she does. They would have preferred that Shepard goes down actually fighting not while “picking favorite color”.

About the EMS stuff... I think you need 5000 EMS, if you let Anderson die, and 4500 if you didn't...or something. Anyway if you don't play multiplayer or use one of the iOS apps, then your war assets will always will be halved, which leaves most people somewhere between 3500-4100 EMS before starting the Cerberus base mission, which is not enough for Shepard lives ending, and you can't get more from the war assets, unless you edit some game files (which could get you banned from Origin).

I noticed you didn't even touch the Normandy crash landing subject. Sneaky ;P--SunyiNyufi 22:32, April 7, 2012 (UTC) --

First off, I just want to say it was really a bit of a relief to find a forum where the ending was actually being discussed instead of just bashed. I also rather liked the ending - it wasn't what I expected, and it could have been better, but it was very interesting nonetheless.

Anyway, these are just my impressions regarding a couple of the questions thrown around above:

Sovereign also says that “organic life is just an accident” and that the reapers are each independent and a nation on their own. My thoughts regarding the first bit is that Sovereign is referring to the fact that the Reapers are "perfect" - they are ageless, almost invulnerable, and by their own admission the "pinnacle of evolution and existence."They are debatably superior to organic life in every way, and they are the "end result" that every intelligent species arrives at via the Cycles. Ideally, at least in the Reapers' view, all intelligent life would be like them, as there would no longer be any war, disease, and certainly no rogue AIs taking over galactic civilization. As such, while I think Sovereign may indeed have been referring to the "accidental" nature of how organic life originates, he may have also been asserting that organic life is a minor, pointless detour that evolution inevitably must take before it can "ascend" (with the Reapers' assistance) to the perfection of the Reapers. As for the second bit, I'm pretty sure that Sovereign is referring to the fact that each Reaper is made up of billions of minds from a conquered intelligent species.

'''Synthesis: How does it work? How can you make a new DNA from something that doesn't have DNA? Does that mean that everybody is immortal now? Do objects become synthetics too? If they don't, what's to stop the new hybrid DNA people from creating true synthetics, who could possibly rebel against them? And once again, how in hell does it work?!''' Although I can't say that I know the answers to any of the questions above, here's how I think of it: The main traits of organic life include reproduction, evolution, and a variety of mental faculties that machines generally lack (creativity, emotion, irrational thought). Synthetic life, on the other hand, is characterized by flawless logic, functional immortality, and separation of hardware and software. I'm guessing that the Synthesis option blends these traits together so that all intelligent species live indefinitely, think with perfect logic but retain emotion and creativity, retain the ability to pass their genes on and evolve, and are able to meld their "software" (minds) with other software, such as that found in machinery or other bio-synthetic organisms. I haven't the vaguest idea of how that process works, but I'm guessing it doesn't involve DNA - "DNA" is just an analogy for the basic layout that all life will be based upon from here on out. Seeing as the Mass Effect universe makes use of solid "holographic" technology like omni-tools, I'm guessing the energy released by the Crucible becomes a similar holographic form that bonds to the tissue of organics and the circuits of synthetics; that would explain why Joker and EDI have a layer of green "holographic" circuitry over their bodies. As for why the new bio-synthetic races wouldn't face the issue of rebellious AI - the Synthesis option seems to convert every intelligent being into an AI, just one that also happens to have an organic body. As such, assuming that every intelligent being in the galaxy has the same capabilities as an AI, fighting back against one wouldn't be as difficult. Also, if everyone were to have the abilities described above, creating an AI wouldn't be necessary - you could just download your own mind into a computer instead of create an artificial mind from scratch. OperativeKlause 22:39, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer: sorry if my English isn't that good right now. I just woke up...sipping coffee takes time...

“I'm pretty sure that Sovereign is referring to the fact that each Reaper is made up of billions of minds from a conquered intelligent species.” - My original point in mentioning that Sovereign part was meant to be, that both Sovereign and Harbinger claim that while they are each a nation (consisting of millions), they are independent from each other. Yet in ME3 it turns out that they are controlled. Sure Vigil said that they appear to be “servants of the cycle”, but the fact that both the Catalyst and Shepard can control them, no matter what the reapers actually want, is more akin to slaves than servants. Also every reaper we hear talk very clearly looks down on organic life, yet the Catalyst claims that their purpose is to save organic life. Meaning that they save organic life in way that will more than likely make organic hate other organics. And I think it's worth to mention that they don't use every organic for the future reapers, since they also create husks or force genetic mutation on them, and turn them into Collector-like beings. So why are hey allowed to decide who get the “happy reaper ending” and who will be turned into a mindless shell?

Okay, I can sort of agree with what you said about synthesis. If it's actually possible to do, then this is probably what it's effects would be. However, this still doesn't answer a lot of technical questions, like how the machine part will be passed down to future generations. Also if we take the omnitool holograph thing as a base, we have to remember that the omnitool is created through implants, which most people in the galaxy have, but which is obviously not present in a new born baby. So yeah, I would say that synthesis raises way too many questions for a sci-fi story, and gives no answers. And I have to mention, that personally I dislike synthesis mostly because of the moral implications. Shepard basically decides in that ending that “we are all reapers now”, even though most people in the galaxy do not want that. Not even the geth. You are basically forcing a genetic change on everyone in the galaxy against their will. So unless they really become as logical as AI, and can deduce that this was “the best option”, it would create a much bigger problems than reapers and synthetics together.--SunyiNyufi 10:28, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

While there is no explanation given as to how synthesis works in the Mass Effect universe, we can look to modern Eukaryotes for a less implausible explanation than "space magic." In recent years scientists have discovered that the mitochondria, and I believe that the chloroplasts in plants, in all eukaryotes has its own DNA within its membrane that is different from the rest of the cell. One of the leading theories as to why this is the case suggests that mitochondria originally existed as a prokaryote on its own, and that a good number of these mitochondria diffused into the larger eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells. This resulted in a mutual relationship where the mitochondria would allow for respiration to occur within the cells, and the mitochondria had protection. Upon the host cell's replication, the mitochondria was also replicated, and since then the two have always replicated together as a Eukayotic cell. Now synthesis may have introduced a similar synthetic organelle into our cells that reproduces in a similar manner as our own as the cell replicates. Now I don't understand why a microscopic mechanical part would reproduce, or how these mechanical organelles would be introduced into our cells. I don't think that this specifically would be the explanation that Bioware had in mind but the idea of synthesis ins't totally implausible. Especially in Sci Fi. --Mand&#39;alore te Kote 21:27, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Didn't know about that stuff, since I'm not into that part of science much. It could certainly work in a ME-like sci-fi, since we allow mass effect fields to work, this could be allowed too. Then synthesis ending wouldn't make sense from a (imho moral and) narrative view point, since nowhere in the three games anybody ever mentions this as a possibility for the future. Well except for Saren, but I think we can agree that his idea of “union of flesh and machine” was just an excuse for having implants that gave Sovereign more powers. So yeah, if they wanted to do something like this, they should have at least made a Codex entry regarding the science behind it...or well maybe that's what they will add in the Extended Cut DLC? Who knows...--SunyiNyufi 10:20, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

At this point it should be obvious to any reasonable observer that the current ME3 ending does have significant problems. Even BioWare was finally forced to face the truth of the adage, where there's smoke there's fire. The fact that BioWare will need months to "clarify" the ending admits the extent of missing material needed to achieve a proper ending.

The OP makes a number of thoughtful observations and comments about the ME3 ending. Nevertheless, it isn't enough that one can make sense of the current ending. An ending must stand on its own and on the plot that precedes it. A proper ending must make objective sense as presented.

The ME3 ending is nothing more than a collection of unconnected dots. The dots of the ME3 ending are too few and far between to suggest a definite picture founded on objective logic. Sure, one can draw numerous lines between different ones of the dots in the ending to formulate a picture based on speculation. But the picture drawn by the ending isn't a picture; its a Rorschach inkblot without objective meaning.

The DNA synthesis ending is one example. Without some explanation, DNA of a synthetic makes absolutely no sense. DNA is a component of cellular organisms, but synthetics are not cellular. Synthetics aren't constructed of cells and don't grow or reproduce by cellular division. Compare ME3's complete failure to explain synthetic DNA to the detailed presentation of DNA in Deus EX HR. In Deus Ex HR, DNA was an important plot element throughout the story. The need for DNA modification allowing for human mechanical implants without biological rejection was supported and explained by the plot.

Problems also abound in the Starchild. For example, Starchild claims that Shepard's presence means that his solution will no longer work. But that doesn't make sense because Admiral Hacket has just told Shepard that the Crucible isn't firing; i.e., isn't working. Hence the Reapers are still wiping out organics and Starchild's solution is indeed working despite Shepard's presence.

Another Starchild problem lies in his rule that synthetics will always destroy their creators. But we have just learned that Starchild is the creator of the Reaper synthetics. Hence the Reapers should be destroying Starchild. Reapers have had millenia of millenia to go after Starchild, but they haven't destroyed Starchild and aren't trying to do so.

In short, the ME3 ending doesn't make sense standing on its own, and isn't supported by the ME3 plot. Starchild is a gimmick, and a poorly constructed one at that. WarPaint 20:00, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

I know I’m jumping in late, but here are my two cents:

It’s not really about the kid. It’s about what the kid represents, which is the vulnerability and innocence of natural organic life. The child doesn’t know killing, greed, or abuse of power. The child just wants to live and be happy. Shepard is fighting for a galaxy in which life can be just that. He/she is not just worried about losing lives; he/she is worried about losing what makes life worth living. That is what is on his/her shoulders. That’s what weighs so heavily on him/her. When he meets the catalyst, I think that’s just the image he sees. It’s just one of those cases where the image of the catalyst would be different to everyone who speaks to it. The reason the image is not of a person that was killed in the war that’s close to Shepard is because we as the player have been allowed to feel however we want toward these characters. Who knows, some people might hate Mordin and had their Shepard treat him like crap. So seeing Mordin wouldn’t have worked for that player. Whereas, while you might not like the child, it’s clear how Shepard is supposed to feel about what the child represents means to him/her.

I do agree that I wanted to see more of the war assets. There was that cut scene where all the races are listening to the speech and preparing for the attack on the Reapers so the crucible can go inside the Citadel. But I wish there was a bit more.

I think the reason that the plot devise of synthetics always risinging against their creators is really a statement about humans always leading themselves to their own destruction. The inevitable synthetic uprising represents humanity’s destruction of itself. Our history is littered with war. We are constantly coming up with new ways to kill each other. I think Bioware created a story that asks the question of what it would take to keep humans from eventually killing ourselves off, and the irony that it might take a great sacrifice and loss of life to keep that from happening; much like the pruning of a tree.

I think we're missing the point is we argue whether synthetics really will destroy organic life and why that is. We just need to accept that in the universe that Bioware created, they just will. That rule is needed to tell the greater story. Yes, the Geth were fighting alongside the Quarians at the end, and the Geth were only acting in self-defense, but who’s to say that lasts forever? Who’s to say that another synthetic won’t be created that will wipe out life? Bioware gets to set the rules of their own galaxy. If eventually synthetic life will always eventually destroy all organic life, then those are their rules.

The story of Mass Effect is bitter sweet one. It makes the point that accomplishing a goal is often only a done with great sacrifice. Shepard made the ultimate sacrifice (in my ending) in destroying the mass relays, essentially wiping out many planets, stranding millions away from their homes, killing himself (?), and setting the galaxy back thousands and thousands of years. But he/she did so to keep organic life from ever creating the means of their complete destruction again. He was able to save what the child represented, but it took far more than anyone thought it would. To end the story with Shepard walking off into the sunset, everyone lives, and everything is great would have been a great disservice to the story being told.

No, Mass Effect isn’t perfect. There are issues like why is Joker running away or why wasn’t there more of an epic fight with all my war assests, but when I step back and look at Mass Effect as a whole and what the story had to say about being a leader, sacrifice, and (cliché, I know) the will to live, I think Bioware did a fantastic job. The fact that I can write what I just did about a video game…a freaking video game!, speaks volumes about the bar that’s been set by Bioware with narratives this medium. --Brian4Turner 21:36, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's true that the developers have claimed that the ending is "bittersweet". But as you acknowledge, there's actually no way to know based on the ending, itself, what the outcome of Shepard's choice might be. The ending added nothing regarding self-sacrifice, the will to live, etc. Those have been elements of Mass Effect throughout the series (suicide mission, Shepard's death, etc.), and were fleshed out with greater detail and clarity in numerous other instances. The lack of clarity on these aspects in the ending actually undercuts their overall value in the game.


 * Although I don't fully understand why you believe that a happy ending would undercut the value of the story (a hero is still a hero even if they live after risking their life, after all), the point here is that the ending is unknown. Happy, sad; who knows? Lack of ending clearly does a major disservice to the story. The unclear and unexplained ending we now have clearly does an injustice to the story by decreasing its clarity and meaning. WarPaint 23:25, April 11, 2012 (UTC)