MASS EFFECT 3 ENDING SPOILERS. Ok, there are MANY things that don't make sense in ME3 ending, and this is maybe the last one, but I find funny that you have to blow up the Crucible in order to make it perform the task that it was supposed to be designed for. I thought that maybe that part you have to shoot was added by some designer that contributed to the project cycle after cycle who attempted to change his function or sabotage it, them my remote stop working and while I was hitting it to put the battery back in its place I had a sudden revelation... Other "Mass Effect: Priorities" strips:
I wonder it mysefl when I finished ME3 for the first time. If this device was supposed to destroy the reapers, why the hell we had to shoot him in order to make it work ? No sense. Unless... we are indoctrinated and by destroying the crucible, we destroy every chance to kill the reapers...
Not necessarily. I guess the point is that every cycle assumes the previous one has their same goals and information, but destroying the reapers could be not the first purpose of the crucible design. For sure it was the goal of the Alliance and the Protehan scientists but the Innusans and all those who dominated the previous cycles back to the first civilization that designed them, probably added components with different goals: one civilization could have given into the temptation of seeking control of the reapers, others avoiding the menace by designing it as a battery to merge synthetic and organic life so the reapers wouldn't see them as a "threat to order"... and that would make sense since other components are unlocked through war assets, so the curcible is more "complete" when you reach the end of the game with high EMS (so you spent more time doing missions all around the galaxy and the various squads have more time to build the designed components). The part Shepard shoots could be a specific node that allows other functions but prevents firing to the "destroy" part.
Yeah, my first thought was that it was a part added, during the cycles, by one or more civilization that didn't wanted to destroy the reapers and tried to change the purpose of the device(perhaps the part that makes control/synthesis possible) or maybe some indoctrinated engineers that wanted to sabotage the project. After all the original purpose of the device is - in fact - unknown: Liara, Hackett and Cerberus assume that the crucible is a weapon to destroy them, and considering Javik attitude towards synthetics it's more than likely that the Protheans develop it in this sense, but we know nothing about the Inusannon and all the "endless civilizations" that came before them. If you think about it, one thing that the indoctrination theory got right was that the three choices are exactly the three way you can deal with the reaper that appear in the previous games: destroy them (the goal that your alliance tries to reach) control them (the goal Cerberus and the Illusive Man pursues) or change ourselves as biomechanic beings as "final stage of evolution of all life" (the ideal Saren pursued in the first game), so it's possible that some civilization, layering their contribute to the project, may have developed the crucible with other purposes, and the thing you have to blow up is the a remnant of those other functions that blocks the mechanism to work as a destroying weapon.
Still, "hit it to make it work" was a funnier explanation...
Indeed. I would have been fine with Synthesis as a choice if they had actually brought up Saren in the game.
That's what I didn't like as much, that Saren's dealing with the Reapers got side lined. I wish they talked about Saren and "synthesis" more because then it would make the option viable and not just some random thing from nowhere.
I also think it would have made a shit load of more sense if for Synthesis the Reapers are vaporized into nanonites that can breathed in and alter organics at a genetic level and alter synthetics by interfacing with their systems. That's why for the original ending back in March I chose Synthesis because that's what I thought it would do. All life gets an upgrade and the Reapers are gone... though if the cutscene to start the Synthesis ending didn't start I would have run back and chose Destroy. I was seconds away from going back then "bam" ending cutscene starts and I restart the game and choose Destroy.
Instead the Reapers just "left". Let's face it, breaking down Shepard to tiny bits is NOT enough to change an entire galaxy.
What option is not "some random thing out of nowhere"? I still have to force myslef to choose some ending that's not destroy (RP-wise, I mean, for testing purposes I did it) because with Anderson dying practically in your arms saying "destroy the reapers" and "you did good, son, you did good" in less than two minutes as last words, I can't bring my main Shepard to choose something else as much as I want to give EDI a Synthesis ending or the Galaxy a Control one. I can0t bring my Shepard to do something the illusive man or Saren pursued, I know the starchild is not lying but my Shepard isn't and in doubt he'd always choose "destroy", because that were his orders and the sacrifice is probably worth it. And this come from someone who honestly dislikes people who choose destroy only because "this way shepard-kun survives and s/he can be happy ever after with Kaidan/Garrus/Tali/Miranda/Ashley/Liara/Cortez/Samantha"... The best ending for the galaxy are for sure Control or Synthesis (synthesis is the best if you can get over the fact that you alter an entire galaxy genome without their knowledge...), but the game didn't convince me...
Eh as much as I wanted Shepard to live, and I spoiled the ending for myself before hand, I knew I wasn't going to have Shepard lived. I don't have Xbox Live Gold lol.
Shepard died for me and I was pretty okay with it... just not okay with the original fucking ending. Bleck.
I looked at Control like "HAHAHA! That's fucking adorable Catalyst." *Boom goes the Reapers.*
Well regardless of lying or not, fact is the main reason I don't like Synthesis because it doesn't kill the Reapers. They fly away. What in the hell would STOP THE REAPERS FROM COMING BACK AND DESTROYING FUCKING EVERYTHING.
Seriously, at least with Control you can get them to rebuild everything then fly them into the sun. Though Shepard isn't even organic in Control so no way "Space Jesus Shepard" would want that. In my opinion there should have been a hierarchy of endings.
Not enough ems? You can't just Destroy the Reapers without hurting synthetics. Lower than that then you can't Destroy the Reapers at all. Even lower and you have to resort to "Control" to get rid of them. Lower and lower then you have to Synthesize everyone to give Organics the chance to stop the Reapers.
There should have just been Destroy as the best option and everything else takes lower.
The endings have a hierarchy, and I can see why BioWare considers Synthesis the best ending. In fact, with synthesis you give reapers free will, that "understanding" the cathalyst talks about. You "free" them from their mission and the cathalyst and they start helping and uplift the galactict civilization. Contorl is somethin in the middle, because unlike synthesis you enslave the reapers forcing them to help the civilizations but you don't have any access to their knowledge and technology. Destroy leaves the galaxy pretty much like before, with no real improvement and the disadvantage of losing your synthetic friends, but gives you the chance to have your shepard survive the blow. If you consider the three main actors in the epilogues (galaxy, reapers and shepard) you have: Destroy: galaxy suffer losses, reapers die, shepard (may) survive Control: galaxy survives, reaper enslaved, shepard survives as conscience Synthesis: galaxy uplifted, reapers freed, shepard dies This makes the endings pretty much balanced, as there's only one "bad thing" out of three in each ending (galaxy damaged in destroy, reapers enslaved in control and dead shepard in synthesis), but this doesn't necessary give sense to how the endings (both the original and the extended) were written.
Yeah I guess you have a point. Still I don't trust the Reapers. Or the Catalyst, I may be wrong but that's just me.
In each ending I agree that there is one bad thing among all the good. I've only got issues with the Destroy ending with the Extended Cut. That's all.
Control and Synthesis were handled well. Maybe if the Indoctrination Theory wasn't in my head when I first beat the game then I would have chosen Synthesis. Then again I probably would have chosen Destroy anyway. Oh well.
I wondered that myself. O_o It still makes no sense to me. In fact. The whole thing is sh't. Why would anybody build a device to destroy Reapers by sacrificing something mortal or destroying parts or fuse with it. It's like irational O_O;