Mass Effect 3 Ending Discussion

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Ginkasa

Just to clarify here (not that it really matters, I guess), but the "choice" that requires the most assets is synthesis. Being able to choose destroy actually requires the least amount of assets.

The reason its considered the "good" ending is because of an extra scene that can occur during the destroy sequence if you have uber amounts of assets. Basically, Shepard takes a breath back on Earth. Destroy is kind of interesting because it actually has a few versions of it depending on your assets. If you have few enough then destroy will be your only option and it will actually also destroy Earth along with the Reapers.

Okay, I was just going on what my wife was telling me when I was making my decision. She must have meant that destruction + surviving requires the most assets. That is the ending she got.

I debated a lot between synthesis and control. If I do the ending again I may choose synthesis - I watched the ending on youtube and I kind of like the moment with EDI and Joker at the end. I wasn't expecting everyone to look like the Illusive Man, I as expecting everyone to fuse together in weird robot/organic hybrids (basically turning them into reapers anyway).

.....in a series where there is no 'correct' plotline, and everyone has a different character - how can you "Know what Shepard would have actually done", especially when those are the only options given.
You know what your Shepard would have done.
You don't know what little Jimmy's would have done. Maybe little Jimmy's Shepard is a cunt and wants to destroy the entire Universe from day one. Then it makes complete sense.

Whether you played renegade or paragon Shephard your goal was still to stop the reapers and save the galaxy - that didn't change based on your decisions. The only thing that changes is your methods of doing so.

But doing something that destroys the galaxy regardless is out of character for both Shephards.

[Typhoid]

Whether you played renegade or paragon Shephard your goal was still to stop the reapers and save the galaxy - that didn't change based on your decisions. The only thing that changes is your methods of doing so.

But doing something that destroys the galaxy regardless is out of character for both Shephards.

So you're telling me that if I wanted to play the game with the goal of destroying the Universe and aiding the Reapers - my goal is still to destroy the Reapers and save the galaxy?

I'm just saying I don't think there is a "right" way to 'be' Shepard. Meaning there is no "correct" thing Shepard would do, and no base personality to compare the way you play to. Nothing is out of character for him, because there is no character of him/her.

The more I read your comment the more it makes me think (Because I was never angered by the end, it didn't make me feel 'good', I was simply content with the way the final chapter [third game] tied the previous games together, and really enjoyed the game itself) - but maaaybe the writers were going for the whole "even the best option is still horribly devastating" thing.
Like dropping nukes on Japan to stop the war, you know. Many people died - but how many did it save?
I found a lot of options in ME3 were "save this person, these people die"/"save those people, this person dies".
It's like they went out of their way several times to attempt to make you think about saving the herd, or saving a goat, and the tough choices involved with leaving people behind in war, or self-sacrifice in order to save other people. I remember so many scenes where people just needlessly die - or sacrifice their own life to finish the mission, and everyone has to just move on to complete the missions because if they don't, that person died for nothing in the larger scale of the Reaper attack.

That just sort of seemed like a pretty big theme to me - and that theme didn't seem to be lost in the final choice. I remember actually standing there for a good 3 minutes at the end choice because I had a "Jesus Christ, what the fuck do I do" moment.
The gravity of the choice seemed so large to me. It didn't matter to me if there wasn't a "save everyone, save the Relays, permanently Destroy the Reapers" option, because I wouldn't have viewed that as 'too realistic' in the Universe it's presented in, especially when the backdrop is currently Earth being blown up and invaded by Reapers.

And why must you constantly state that this is "pretend" or "fake"? Clearly you arent very deep into the Mass Effect lore.

Personal comedy. I usually throw a "fake" into things when talking about video games. I always refer to playing NHL 12 as "fake hockey". Yet I love hockey lore.

I find it funny to debate (in a serious manner) the capabilities of a spaceship that doesn't exist. So to ease my own nerves and make myself giggle at the dumb shit I feel like I am talking about, I throw a "fake" in there.

FTL and the Mas Relays are 2 different things. FTL is for like shorter ranges between stars in the same system. The mass relays are for longer jumps like across the entire galaxy. He wouldnt be crashing from the mass relays exploding if he wasnt using them in the first place.

I just wasn't sure if they jumped by the relays before they exploded, or just did a "Heys guys', lets getses outsa's heres'" type thing and just pressed the "panic" button.
Isn't it a possibility (I'm not saying I believe this, hence the 'possibility') that they'd randomly jump to a random point in space? Maybe it's 100% shown that it's the Mass Relay they take. I'm not sure if them flying away from the shockwave is them in the Mass Relay, or simply FTL-ing away from the shockwave. I just like factual clarification.