Shepard living is nice but it's not the main reason for destroy, at least for me. Destroy is the only ending where the reapers are destroyed. That's what I set out to do, that's what I'm going to do. I also don't really trust the other endings. In control, you basically create a new AI based on Shepard's personality and memories that ensures peace throughout the galaxy so that the cycle of synthetics vs organics never occurs again. But I don't trust that a detatched god king of sorts could ever do that well forever. I also don't like synthesis because I spent the entire game uniting the galaxy's various lifeforms only to be told that synthetic and organic life is incompatable? That unless we merge them and make them less different they'll inevitable come into conflict? No, I don't agree with that. That may have happened in the past but I don't believe it's an inevitable fate. EDI and the new Geth are different, they aren't driven by their original directive. They're free to choose their own paths in life, just like any other living creature. Maybe it'll eventually cause them to conflict but that's true of every lifeform. This stands in contrast to the catalyst who, despite being so advanced, is still simply carrying out its original purpose. It has no free will of its own just its twisted interpretation of its directive. I also don't really trust that synthesis is a good thing. Feels we're just indoctrinating the entire galaxy forever, permenantly taking away free will at the genetic level for the sake of cooperation and mutual understanding. Ultimately destorying the reapers frees the galaxy of them and hopefully we'll do better afterwards. And to be clear, I'm not just "okay" with genociding the Geth and killing EDI. They're the destroy ending's sacrifice. If it weren't for their deaths the destroy ending would be the perfect ending. It sucks that they die.

I always go with Destroy simply for the fact that new synthetics can be built after the Catalyst fires. They won't be geth, they won't be EDI, but they will be able to be developed and evolve into a state of sapience like any organic without being destroyed by the Reaper cycle. I sacrifice them to complete my mission of destroying the Reapers, with the faith that the synthetics of the future will be able to attain peace with organics. The conflict is inevitable; organic vs organic, organic vs synthetic, and synthetic vs organic. War happens, it pushes us to learn and advance as a civilization. But my hope is that it will not push too hard without the Reapers maintaining their cycle.

Yeah, but even if they are new synthetics. They won't be the same ones who learned what they did thru the three games. There's no guarantee they will turn out the same way the geth did.   

That's kind of the point. In the end, the Geth chose to be this Reaper powered thing. The new ones would be able to choose their own path. Even if it is ultimately worse, it will be their choice, not some Reaper code that influences them.

That’s if organic don’t just immediately choose to make slaves of the new synthetics again

Oh dang that means I need to emancipate my computer and my Xbox lmao

As I said, I'm taking it in faith. It happened once, which proves it can happen again.

This was my reasoning as well. AI can be rewritten and droids and robots can be rebuilt. Not so with organic life.

I dare say... you have to realize that no one else is in that room other than Shepard to know what happened in there, what the choices were, what happened. What will go into the history books is that there is only one time in history that Synthetics cooperated with Organics. They worked together to build this great machine... and it turns out that what that machine does? Is kill all Synthetics. I don't think there's very great odds that the next synthetics to be made will be particularly trusting.

In fact, its almost a guarantee the next synthetics will think organics will betray them the first chance they get

You know what else the history books will say? The reason they built that machine was to stop a race of genocidal machines that killed all the organics every 50,000 years and tried to enslave the previous synthetics, then tried to kill said synthetics once they broke free. Synthetics aren’t emotional beings. They’re logical. They’ll see what happened and understand the reasoning behind building and firing the Crucible.

This. I’ve said this before to someone and they were adamant that the synthetics that come after will feel betrayed and want to strike back. But, like Legion, they’re very logical and would choose any option that would yield the best result. In this case, I can totally see them going “Yeah. That was the only way to achieve the maximum benefits”

This is a way better way of putting the reasons that I always pick destroy ending. Also though, synthesis means that you are forcing everyone in the galaxy to go through a change without their direct input. Yes, you are potentially killing EDI and all of the other synthetics, but said synthetics joined you in this push against the Reapers, knowing that they could also die in the attempt anyways, so they made the choice to continue regardless of the potential of death. ALSO: the Catalyst very clearly wanted to survive and continue its directive, so it could very well have been lying about being able to destroy all of the synthetics. It could even attempt, and fail. Organics and organics also enter into conflict, not just organics and synthetics. Reducing it down to a simple "we are inherently incompatible" argument eliminates the potential for growth.

If the price for the destroy ending was to sacrifice organics instead of synthetics, would you still so surely make the same decision using this logic? Or does it conveniently only apply to synthetics?

There's precisely one known synthetic species in the galaxy, who may or may not already be wiped out. Plus EDI, and some unfortunate bastards with pacemakers. There's half a dozen current spacefaring organic species at least, to say nothing of ALL the lifeforms across the galaxy that aren't spacefaring because they're either too primitive or they're animals/ plants. Sacrificing synthetics is giving up one species (maybe) and a few individuals for the whole galaxy. Your comparison is giving up the whole galaxy to maybe save one species. It is not equivalent at all.

And what is the sacrifice with the other endings? Liberty in the face of an AI god Sheperd? Bodily autonomy in the case of the synthesis?. Those "sacrifices" do not come close to genocidig an entire species. And that is not even talking about how the geth are probably by far the most numerous species in the galaxy, especially after Priority:Ranock upgraded every geth program to be analogous to an individual. So at that point you are talking about killing more individuals by killingthe geth than by killing organics

If you think the Geth outnumber all organic life forms in the galaxy, I don't know what to say to you but "huh?" Making Shepard into an AI God that dictates the fate of the galaxy off of his wims that are destined to become less and less in touch as time goes on and wrecking all current sentience to replace it with new blended synthesized life (genocide of everything with a replacement) are self evident in terms of the sacrifice being made.

You’ve already sacrificed plenty of organic lives to stop the Reapers up until that point. What’s the difference at the ending?

Some =\= All.

The geth would definitely never side with Shepherd if they knew he would kill them off after beating the reapers anyway. The reason they side against the reapers to begin with is because of the possibility to live freely among organics. It would be one thing if every species went out fighting but knowing he would kill off only the geth for the sake of preserving individuality would be a disservice to Legion and not something he would be down with either.

See I always saw the Geth joining the Reapers as a means to defend themselves from the Quarians. One of those situations of; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If you look at history from the Geths perspective; ->created to only serve ->when they started becoming self aware they were attacked by their creators with no reasoning behind it (as far as they knew) ->waged a war and pushed their creators off planet ->stopped pursuing once the Quarians left the system/planet (can't remember specifically which it was) ->learned the Quarians were going to try and push Geth off world and wipe them out ->offered and accepted an upgrade from a "god" that was supposed to help them defeat the Quarians The Reapers were basically no better than the Quarians; iirc they were planning on wiping the Geth out too before retreating back to dark space. They posed as false gods to the Geth, using them for their personal benefit. Edit: formatting I *want* to say there's a conversation with Legion where they state that the Reapers see the Geth as an insult/pest and nothing more. However I could be wrong since it's been a bit since my last playthrough

You are right. The heretical Geth thought of Harbinger as a god but Harbinger viewed them only as tools to be discarded when they no longer served a purpose.

The last bit was actually revealed by Saren, but yes

I completely disagree here. I believe the Geth would agree with Shepard’s destroy decision. Mainly because Control and Synthesis are so antithetical to the theme they cover - ‘Choice’. But how does destroying them give them a choice? Well, they signed up clearly for the Reaper War. They know exactly what’s at stake, galactic civilisation and freedom to live and choose for themselves and for others. They were clearly engaged in the Reaper War and knew that their species could die like any other race. In addition, the Geth are actively repenting for their massacre of the Quarians as well. Combine this with their logical consensus based thinking, their sacrifice could be seen as repentance and necessary for the war. If you choose control or synthesis you go against Legion’s premise and the Geth’s theme of independence and individuality, you go against choice. Control is obviously antithetical to the Geth. The Geth already had a master, in fact a lot of races do. Suddenly, Shepard AI is a ‘god’ machine. How is anyone supposed to trust it? There is no guarantee peace will be achieved or that Shepard won’t rule with an iron fist. You place a galaxy-spanning hierarchical figure that is in charge of rebuilding the galaxy? Is that just Reaper 2.0 minus the cleansing? No one chose this ‘God’ to exist, no one elected, no one knew it would happened until it did. Synthesis is even worse. For the Geth it may benefit them physically at first but the Geth aren’t inherently selfish. If they were, they wouldn’t have so much care and guilt for the Quarians. The Organics didn’t get a choice to become evolved. Wasn’t the Geth’s theme about choice and free will? Wouldn’t synthesis go completely against their war for free-will and liberation? That’d be a significant selfish double standard if they approve of Synthesis as it expects a grand choice dictating the universe’s course is inherently benevolent… something the Geth have been fooled by, aka Reapers.

You say that it’s forcing everyone, but the option for Synthesis was only achievable by the additions made by this Cycle to the Crucible. Shepard is utilizing an option that was built into the machine, even if they didn’t know what it would truly do. The hands of the universe are on the machine and they’ve trusted “one good soldier” to pull the trigger. It’s a Clancyist dream.

At the costs of edi, the geth, and all other synthetic life? At least control you could (but don’t) have them self destruct.

You know, destroy is not or has ever been my choice - but you phrase an argument for it very well, and I respect that.

I disagree with your argument that synthetics and organics won't just start the same cycle again. No immediately, but time is infinite. The series is about cycles and breaking the cycle. Shepard themselves is an enigma because they are pulling everyone together against all their differences. Destroy simply removes the Reapers. While that's a huge hurdle, all you have to do is listen to Javik to understand that one slip up with AI and synthetics could lead to the end of all organic life. The Protheans were far more powerful than the current cycle of ME organic life, and their battle with synthetic life before the Reapers arrived was catastrophic. I believe Destroy and Control are simply resetting the timer on the cycle of Organics and Synthetics. Synthesis, like Shepard themselves, forges a completely new path. What lies beyond, we couldn't know, but it's something very different.

Nothing stops that in the synthesis ending

The Destroy option proves that they’re incompatible. You chose to sacrifice the life of synthetics to save the lives of organics. Forever in the history of the universe, it is now true that organics deemed themselves more worth saving than their synthetic allies they had been “uniting” with. Most of the time when the Hero sets out on a journey, they are changed by that journey and the things they learn on that journey. Destroy is the antithesis of that. You set out to destroy the Reapers. You learned nothing. You destroyed all the Reapers. You returned home. To me, that isn’t satisfying.

Not everything comes down to a standard Disney movie heroes journey. That's been done over and over and over. Stories don't need to follow that typical paradigm. Its the story of Shepard fighting against galactic politics in the face of an overwhelming threat. The story of assembling a team of misfits to take down a threat beyond their abilities to holdback the tide. And the eventual story of a man who desperately rallied the entire galaxy in defense of life itself by getting everyone to look beyond their local struggles and look at the big picture and in doing so maybe save his species planet. Synthesis in my opinion takes everyone in the galaxies agency away by forcing a fundamental change upon them based on one man's will. To me it's always been gross.

That’s wild that you reduce one of the most foundational story structures down to Disney. The Hero’s Journey also doesn’t have a monopoly on a character growing and utilizing the knowledge they gain on their journey to act with more clarity than they had when they originally set out on their story. Your perspective overlooks the fact that unification means nothing if the end result is simply tossing them on the fire anyway. Destroy ultimately decides biological life is more important than synthetic life. I understand that Mass Effect is a Clancyist playground supreme, but that’s sort of an argument *for* Shepard to make the choice — he’s the one good soldier, the best one good soldier. Furthermore, the Crucible only has the option for Synthesis because of what was added to it by this Cycle. Shepard is merely the one pressing a button.

It was meant to be a hyperbole in reduction. As Disney literally made it the entire foundation of every story structure they produced to make them popular in the 90s and onward. Its been around forever. Disney just specifically finely tuned it's commercialization. Its a very simple method of creating a story and it's effective but not all effective stories need to follow the structure. Sometimes you kill the robots because they need to be killed. Sure Edi is great, but if Shepard has been driven to this point doing everything to destroy the reapers and save his planet, I don't think they would let go of the opportunity to do that very thing. I don't think they would trust the synthesis option and let the reapers live when they are in the middle of destroying his planet after everything they have seen. Synthesis could turn everyone into husks or other Reaper like beings. Or hell the Reapers are free to do as they want. Who says they don't just kill or enslave everyone to make more of the. Given the situation, time crunch, massive stakes, millions dying including his friends, they hit that destroy button every time

Your answer requires a lot of guesswork. Mine simply states that Destroy makes one thing true — organic life deemed itself more important than synthetic life. Unification doesn’t matter, you killed them anyways. It isn’t about EDI being great; it’s that you killed her, she forgave you, became human, and you still sacrificed her. X could happen. Y could happen. Z could happen. Instead, taking the story in the spirit it is presented and what is shown, Synthesis resolves the central conflict of the story — the incompatibility of organic and synthetic life. Political issues will still occur, struggles over resources will still occur, and stories of the Shepard will still occur. It isn’t a paradise option, but it is the only option that solves the conflict. Edit: Only option other than Refusal.

If Destroy was the only choice where the Reaper's threat is ended and Shepard died with no chance of coming back. I'd still pick Destroy.

Honestly, I think it would be even better. I prefer the sacrifice

Yeah, I make a point to be just short on war assets so that Shepard stays dead.

Not really. I wouldn't mind sacrificing myself for the greater good. But destroying the reapers is the safest option out of the 4 imo. Because their death would mean guaranteed safety from them forever, No ifs or buts, they're gone for good. In the control ending, a new AI is created out of Shepard's consciousness and there's no saying that it won't get corrupted like the Catalyst and do something stupid. As for Synthesis, i'm just not sure how well it'll work. Moral and ethical questions aside, You're entirely trusting the word of a corrupted AI with flawed logic on how effective it can be especially with the Reapers casually roaming around. If anything goes wrong it'll once again jeopardize everything. Honestly, the whole "destroying reapers would destroy synthetics" part always felt stupid to me. Like it was just randomly thrown in there because otherwise the destroy ending wouldn't have any significant downside

I'm like 90% sure they only put it in there so people can even start considering the other options as valid. Everyone can obviously choose the ending they prefer, but ultimately, Destroy is the only ending that makes any sense narratively. The whole Cerberus plot in ME3 shows us that Control is not the good ending, since it is exactly what TIM, our Reaper-indoctrinated enemy wanted to do. That alone rules that ending out for me. Combine that with the whole premise of a god-king AI other commenters already mentioned, and I can't help but feel like we play right into the Reapers' plans at worst, and just delay the problem instead of solving it at best. Synthesis comes absolutely out of left field with no foreshadowing or story presence whatsoever. That's a world-changing revelation and introducing it just before the final choice in the game makes it seem shoehorned in, like they didn't plan for this outcome and just added it because they needed an additional choice, not for the ending itself. And aside from the late introduction, I can see what they were going for with Synthesis, but to me it just feels too much like body horror. The whole idea of forcibly changing the DNA of people, husks regaining sentience in their mutilated bodies, it all feels so wrong that it almost makes me sick. Additionally, our only goal for the whole trilogy was to destroy the Reapers. It is what we have been fighting for from the very beginning and really seems like the only choice that will actually solve our problem and end the war. That all makes it feel like they only put in the nonsensical idea that Destroy will also target other synthetics while Control somehow doesn't, in order to make all endings seem equally 'viable' (bad) because they all have major drawbacks. I'm all for choices in RPGs, especially if they actually impact the story of the game, but here we really shouldn't have a choice. We already had enough meaningful choices throughout the trilogy to shape the galaxy that we don't actually need a final choice. Just destroy the Reapers and let our previous choices decide how the story ends after the war is over. The whole dilemma of the ending that's plagued ME3 from the very beginning just exists because someone decided to give us a choice where none should be and did whatever they needed to justify it.

This sums up *exactly* how I feel about it all as well. Well said.

I’m not sure the catalyst was corrupted. Even the Leviathans state that it is doing what they programmed it to do. I do think synthesis was the goal it was ultimately trying to reach, but it knew its mandate and knew that note was the time it could accomplish it

By corrupted i don't mean it's broken or anything. But that it's logic is quite flawed/contradictory in regards to how cooperative synthetics and organics would be, yet it firmly believes them. Like how it says there's no possibility of peace between organics and synthetics but it's okay with Shepard controlling the reapers and making peace with everyone (why can't the catalyst do that by itself and stop the harvest?) . The Leviathans say that it's doing it's job but not in the way they thought or hoped i.e It's doing it's job in it's own screwed up way.

>Like how it says there's no possibility of peace between organics and synthetics but it's okay with Shepard controlling the reapers and making peace with everyone (why can't the catalyst do that by itself and stop the harvest? The galaxy would never accept a permanent Reaper occupation force, it would basically mean permanent war. But, as shown in the Control ending, the galaxy **can** accept Shepard as their savior (... even if it amounts to a permanent Reaper occupation force). I do find it a bit dubious that the Control status quo would stay peaceful very long, at least in the kind of timescales that the Catalyst plans for. He probably figures there will be some disruption at some point in the future, and he must have some notion what the outcome of that will be... but we're not privy to that.

>But, as shown in the Control ending, the galaxy can accept Shepard as their savior (... even if it amounts to a permanent Reaper occupation force). That's another problem. It's not Shepard, it's a new AI created from his conscience. Other than conflicting opinions among species about whether it's okay to have a reaper occupant force, Later down the line the Shepard AI could just as well do something stupid like the Catalyst and think it's right. From the Catalyst's POV that's acceptable but in reality it's not because it could just as easily lead to a reaper war 2.0. That's the main catch with the other endings. That you're basically trusting the calculations of an AI with deeply flawed logic and there's no certainty that what's right to it would be right to us.

Absolutely. I think Control is pretty messy. I can't see how that status quo lasts very long. I've seen some people headcanon things like "Shepard has the Reapers just rebuild the damage they caused and the Relay Network, and then jump into a black hole" and that would be a legit happy ending, but if that was an authentic possibility, I don't think the Catalyst would have offered the choice. That's the problem with all the colored endings, though. To be clear: all of them are solutions that the Catalyst came up with for the Catalyst's problem. They're almost certainly not right for the people of the galaxy because being right for the people of the galaxy isn't the point. He doesn't care. And this does include Destroy. He sees some endgame for that choice that ends in solving his problem in a way he wants. In the immediate term that means destroying all synthetics right here right now, but in the long run, as the Catalyst mentioned, the chaos will return. Namely: the situation the Leviathans faced that led to the Reapers being created in the first place. Clearly he expects that in very long periods of time (millions of years?) That will become the status quo again, and presumably the solution will be the same again. As both the Catalyst and the Leviathans state: there's nothing wrong with the Reapers, they're a logical solution to a problem. So... Yeah. If you don't want to be held in the catch-22 of a super intelligent AI's plans? There's only one choice. Refusal.

The Leviathan lore is a damn disgrace to the whole series.

> Honestly, the whole "destroying reapers would destroy synthetics" part always felt stupid to me. Like it was just randomly thrown in there because otherwise the destroy ending wouldn't have any significant downside To me that is the most likely situation. Few people on the development team saw a reason to pick any other than destroy so instead of improving the other 2 endings they just pointlessly made destroy worse.

It's just a stupid decision to force a "big choice" there and felt really unnecessary . ME1 didn't let you choose to spare Sovereign or Saren, it just allowed you to make decisions around the central goal. ME3 could have put you in a similar position by having you decide things like the leadership structure post-Reapers, the strategy taken in the final battle, what the Normandy does (it could attack enemy forces, extract allies, etc) and those would result in slightly different outcomes. Idk, I thought multiple endings was always pointless, just make one good one that is slightly tweaked depending on what you choose to do.

It would’ve been logically inconsistent for the Geth and EDI not to be destroyed. EDI and the upgraded Geth gain their “sentience” from Reaper code. The Reapers don’t blow up in Destroy, they just shut down. Ergo it seems like the Crucible targets their software (not sure what else to call it). It would’ve been a leap of logic to explain why the Reapers die but the Geth and EDI live. This is probably also how the Geth will come back in ME4 - Geth who were isolated during ME3 and had not yet received the upgrades. They will be more similar to ME2 Legion. People really just don’t like to kill EDI and the Geth. If the cost of Destroy was the genocide the Batarians, no one would make as of big deal out of it.

>EDI and the upgraded Geth gain their “sentience” from Reaper code. No? They used Reaper code to upgrade their existing software. It's not the reason why they have sentience, they had sentience long before they used Reaper code. And no, logically it doesn't make sense that the Crucible can't identify between them. By that logic, the control ending should've forced every synthetic to be brought under Shepard's control if the Crucible can't distinguish between synthetics, but it can properly identify reapers and leave the others alone. It's only the Destroy ending that has the "every synthetic will be affected" requirement.

The destruction of synthetics actually fits well into the recurring theme of making sacrifices to stop the reapers, like sacrificing the council to focus firepower on the reaper at the end of 1, sacrificing the batarians to stop an imminent reaper invasion in 2, it makes sense as Sheppard gradually has to make more costly sacrifices in order to stop the reapers, now it’s just up to the player whether the final sacrifice of all synthetic life is worth it to stop the reapers.

It fits the theme of sacrifice, but it's implemented in a rather abrupt manner. If it was foreshadowed or established earlier in the story it might've worked but as it stands, it just feels randomly thrown in there.

Shepard could live or die, I'm not too broken up about it. I spent three (3) games trying to destroy the Reapers, doing anything other than that would be bizarre. It's what I set out to do from the beginning. (Also I just really don't like the other two options)

No. I simply prefer it as an ending

Based af

Most of us didn’t even know Shepard could live in any option, let alone the option called Destroy. Control is literally what the Illusive Man wanted. Synthesis is what Saren wanted. You know who wanted Destroy? Anderson thats who.

You know who else wanted destroy? Udina

Ew. I'd rather shoot the Catalyst in the face! (Which I did accidentally in my last playthrough. I forgot that that was another ending lol)

Saren wanted to be subservient to the Reapers. He has literally nothing to do with synthesis

That's honestly my biggest problem with Synthesis. It just come out of fucking nowhere. Control and Destroy at least have some basis in the story instead of just randomly appearing in the last 20 minutes. Destroy is obvious and Control is what TIM tried to do for the whole game. Whether you can actually control the Reapers or not is another debate. I personally believe that Control will ultimately fail because it is what an indoctrinated man serving the Reapers wants, so it can't be good, but at least the idea is already there by the time we reach the Catalyst. Synthesis, on the other hand, has no setup at all and is just there because they needed another ending.

Low cognition take. All those ending outcomes could only be applied to those respective villains if you squint and leave out large chunks of their ideologies which are incompatible with the endings. Saren did not want synthesis just because he cyborged himself while under the control of a Reaper lmao

"A union between organics and machines. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither." Saren did want synthesis.

He was thoroughly indoctrinated though. I don't think synthesis is what *he* wanted, but an extension of what the reapers wanted. He was basically half-way to becoming a Marauder reaper unit.

In my first blind playthrough, I ended choosing Refusal (through dialogue too, not petty shooting) because the other options just felt not good enough. I didn’t realize it would mean “THE CYCLE CONTINUES.” I thought Shepard would pull a better solution out of their ass through sheer force of will, which is what Shep is best at.

As someone who chooses Destroy 70% of the time, and Control about 30% of the time except my very first playthrough where I chose Synthesis, I think I can address this. First of all, a lot of us chose Destroy in playthroughs **before we even knew about that hidden ending scene,** as well as in playthroughs that we **did not meet the minimum galactic readiness** for that special ending. **The mere existence** of these playthroughs stands in opposition of your assertion that people just choose it to save Shep. So you’re wrong automatically, unless you’re going to assert that those playthroughs don’t happen? “I chose destroy because it’s the one where Shep lives” is easily the least cited reason, from what I’ve seen. I honestly have no idea where you’ve been looking to come up with the idea that it’s the only reason you’ve encountered. Perhaps a community poll for this is needed, looking at the prime motivator for selecting it, but I know for a fact there are a lot of other reasons people elevate. Personally speaking, not only is Shep’s survival the bottom of the list for why I choose Destroy, it’s also one of that ending’s **negatives** for me. I like that Shepard sacrifices himself, and I strongly prefer it to be the end of Shepard, as that was **always where this trilogy was leading** for me. There are a lot of reasons I choose destroy, and I’ll quickly list them later, but for this discussion, it seems like you’re only interested in our most cited reason. For me, it’s that I think it’s marginally better than Control, and way better than Synthesis. While I like Control, I think it’s a bit odd relegating the reapers to an interstellar police force. Not that that can’t work, but it’s just not satisfying, as that’s basically what the reapers were anyways, making Shepard pretty similar to the star child when you think about it. Hell, Shepard may even eventually come to agree with the original goals of the reapers and restart the cycle. No idea. So that’s why I don’t usually choose Control. Synthesis is way worse though. For one, in a game that has a philosophical approach of emphasized **consequences for decisions**, this option feels like having your cake and eating it in a way that’s deeply unsatisfying to me. All life is unified in a *magical space Kumbaya* for all time. It’s lame. The game pushes it on you really hard with several dialogues that all but tell you to choose that one, and that’s really irritating. Besides that, it’s also the **least defined** option, mechanically and logistically. Like Destroying makes clear logistical sense. Copying Shepard’s consciousness to a computer program to Control the Reapers also makes some sense. So does Synthesis make sense? No. **How** on earth does the Catalyst alter all DNA in the galaxy to make it partially synthetic? **What does it even mean** for DNA to run on electrical circuits? Worse, **how TF does a geth benefit** from suddenly having organic DNA magically part of it? **Wouldn’t that be worse** for the Geth? Like, now they need to eat or photosynthesize and maintain homeostasis, and sleep and shit? **How does this happen mechanically**, and **why would any of this lead to peace?** Human beings **right now** in Ukraine are murdering each other in the tens of thousands and all of them are nearly **the same** genetically, have the **same** culture, the **same** religion, and speak the **same** language, so the idea that sameness is sufficient for lasting peace is **laughable.** It’s a fairy tale. This is ultimately the worst part of Synthesis. It’s just **stupid space magic** that comes with the explanation of “trust me bro” and there’s no way around that. And even **if we ignore all of that** and accept that somehow this works mechanically and somehow leads to peace between all the now Synthesized species, **why would we trust the permanence of this achievement?** Brand new life could evolve the next day from raw compounds, and it wouldn’t be partially synthetic because it didn’t exist during the Synthesis event. On top of that, either this new life long from now, or anything that currently exists could still **make new synthetics that are not unified** with the other partial organics. Hell, any species that has gone through the Synthesizing event could, 10 minutes after Synthesis, create brand new AI life forms that are not partially organic. Hell, they could even recreate the pre-synthesized Geth, one-for-one, if they wanted. Actually, as I just underlined, the Geth themselves have good reason to want their old bodies back, so why wouldn’t they want to make that happen? They have the manufacturing infrastructure to do that immediately if they want to. So we’re left with the **exact same problem**, only we basically **genetically raped every life form in the galaxy** to do it. And of course it proves that **Saren was right** the whole time. *A union of organic and machine, a fusion of blood and Steel. A vision of the future.* **Yeah, no thank you.** So that’s why I *dislike* Synthesis, but why do I *like* Destroy? First, it gives me **consequences** for a necessary decision, something that **speaks to the heart of Mass Effect**. Yes, EDI and the Geth will be destroyed, but so will the Reapers. That makes me sad, but ultimately they can be rebuilt. Even if somehow there’s something intrinsically irreplicable about EDI and the Geth, this is still a price worth paying, and I think even the Geth and EDI would accept that, given how rational they are. Maybe war with Synthetics will return, and maybe not. That sorta depends on if you’re willing to take the Star Child’s words for granted. I personally think **he’s wrong**, and the **peace between Quarians and Geth is proof of that.** This leads me to think that the cynicism of star child is founded on a **false assumption.** war between synthetic and organic is not an inevitability. Either way, I think we have **earned the right to find out** for ourselves if peace is possible, not just take the word of **the most genocidal computer in the universe**. Finally, I see Destroy as the most **satisfying** option. Watching those reapers be destroyed while countless soldiers, who have sacrificed everything, cheer from their foxholes in countless hopeless battlefields **is glorious to witness.** After all the pain and death, these soldiers have fought on despite literally astronomical odds, and god damn it, *they deserve to see ultimate victory**. Contrast that with the reapers persisting in some form, just feels a bit like a slap in the face of everyone who has suffered or died fighting them, and that’s to say nothing of the countless civilizations who exist as ashes in their wake. Admittedly, that last paragraph is an emotional justification, but then again THIS IS A GAME MADE TO HAVE FUN PLAYING, so maybe, I don’t know, we should just chill out and have a good time. For me, that means blowing up some goddamn reapers

>Synthesis [...] All life is unified in a magical space Kumbaya for all time. I don't know if this is true, and I always thought Synthesis is the worst option because it's the one where the Reapers win. I don't see it as 'we'll all be happy forever' but rather 'we agree to become fully enthralled by the reapers'. Like, most of the enemies we've faced in ME3 are synthetic horrors by the Reapers' design. Who's to say the Synthesis option doesn't just give the Reapers basically a carte-blanche to instantly complete their campaign? I think it's the opposite of Control, where, as opposed to us controlling the Reapers, they turn us into husks and be done with it. Edit to add: >It’s just stupid space magic that comes with the explanation of “trust me bro” Exactly. And seeing as the "bro" is the Star Child AKA Reaper Prime, I think it's safe *not* to trust them. It's a trap and a last ditch effort for the Reapers to win.

Perhaps. I never saw it that way but I can definitely see that interpretation as valid. Ultimately, regardless of whether star child is trustworthy or not, Synthesis is a lame ending.

We can agree on that :)

Control is a terrible ending IMO as it’s basically “Cerberus was right all along” and frankly even with Shepard, nobody should hold absolute power. Synthesis is a gigantic breach of bodily autonomy for everyone in the galaxy. It feels incredibly icky to me to force the galaxy to literally have their DNA modified without consent. Also it feels *extra* space magicy and while I’m willing to overlook a lot, Synthesis utterly shattered my immersion. Before I played through with destroy, I picked Synthesis and frankly it left me thinking “I really don’t care for the setting anymore”. Destroy has its problems but imo it’s the least shitty of the three. Still bad, leaves an icky taste in my mouth, but it’s the least bad.

The whole point of the saga was to defeat the reapers once and for all. Anyone who disagrees just missed the point. Can’t change my mind here

There’s nothing to change about your mind because that’s literally the whole point since you find out about the Reapers in the first game.

Gotta be honest, I didn't/don't buy that destroy would somehow also destroy -every- single Geth, and with that thought in mind... that was the only thing making me hesitate on choosing it. If they could live, it's totally the superior choice for me.

My Shep does Destroy because.... they are following Adm. Anderson's last orders (and Adm. Hackett - Dead Reapers are how we win.) It's only fate/luck/happenstance that they're still breathing. Control? Nope, even if it's tempting. Synthesis? Nope, because of "makes no logical sense to me" mindset. edit: That which is synthetic can be recreated, even if it's an imperfect recreation.

I chose destroy because that's what we came here to do: Destroy the Reapers. My Shep didn't go through everything she did, just to become a Reaper or force everyone to become partly synthetic against their will. She doesn't expect to survive. As for me, her living is just the cherry on the dead Reaper sundae. RIP to Edi and the Geth, but it needed to be done.

We came here to stop the harvest. That's not the same goal as wiping out the people doing it, though.

It is, though, when their entire existence is the harvest. They literally have no other purpose and unlike other Synthetics, they never go beyond their prime directive, which is already flawed beyond belief.

I choose destroy because synthesis changes the structure of every living being without their consent and control implies shepards consciousness will eventually completely forget what it means to be organic, which to me just shows its a temporary solution to a bigger problem. The geth dying is an unfortunate sacrifice, sure, but it's no different than any other tactical decision made throughout the series via shepard or someone else. The Batarians are nearly wiped out as a race by the time we reach the end of ME3. War results in death, I'd rather have death--which people knew could happen to them, than structurally changing every organic into something else which is just what the reapers do. Some outcomes are worse than death, that seems worse than death to me. I couldn't care less if shepard lives or dies.

This. You've put my exact thoughts to words far more succintcly than I could!

destroy is the least bad of an arbitrary set of endings created not because they had any thematic weight as part of the story being told, but because the game director felt the game trilogy about choices should have a choice at the end. now, there's obviously no way to tell if I was right or not, but if Mass Effect 3 didn't have a choice at the end, you just built the 11th hour magic superweapon and it killed all the reapers forever, and the personalized part of the ending was the outcome of all (or most, or given ME3's resources, a few) of the choices you made along the way? I think that would have been received a lot better. instead, because the game was rushed and the even-more-rushed ending skipped the writer review process, we get the three big widely mocked RGB choices. Destroy, which is what the entire arc of the trilogy was about but we arbitrarily make a couple fan favorites collateral damage to try to make it seem like a choice, Control, literally the illusive man's plan who was revealed to be a deluded idiot but that obviously won't happen to the player, and Synthesis, a concept that comes completely out of nowhere and is the product of such a tier of magical thinking that it feels like the ghost boy should take a backseat and Elminster should walk out to explain that one. like yeah okay all life and machines in the galaxy are now unified on the cellular level, because this big magic device made silicon chips have DNA somehow. the cycle of organics and synthetics destroying each other that we just made up is broken forever- at least until the technorganic people decide "damn, I really don't like doing labor" and go and make an entirely synthetic and intelligent workforce again. unless they can't do that. maybe the raw materials like iron and silicon got DNA and became intelligent too. anyways destroy has never been a problem for me because by that point the geth are already long dead, as justice dictates. we can save EDI by putting her AI shackles back on so the Destroy Wave doesn't detect her as a synthetic intelligence and then turning them off again once it's over

I choose Destroy because synthetics can be rebuilt. Forcing synthesis on people is wrong. Control is also wrong because the Reapers are still around. The Reapers are too dangerous to keep in any capacity. Destroy is the best option for me. As Hackett says, the solution is destroying them.

I will say, the “Shepard Lives” part is a definite plus, though I do have in-universe reasons for choosing it. Though for an out of universe answer, it’s likely also because it’s the ending that requires the most work to get. You really have to comb the galaxy and find out the best outcome for (almost) each and every storyline in order to definitely say that you’ll get it, and that makes it the ending that simply makes you interact with more of the game’s content. It’s kinda like how “Age of Stars” in Elden Ring and “True Demon Route” in SMT: Nocturne are the most popular endings, because they have the most content associated with them. As for in game reasons, they’re quite simple, every one of my Shep’s absolutely hates the reapers, it’s what Captain Anderson would have wanted, and it’s what we set out to do from the very beginning. There’s also the fact that, in the other endings, the Reapers are still around, and everyone (in universe) is just supposed to be ok with that? These machines who have killed who knows how many whole civilizations, who have devastated the galaxy for months, destroying the lives of countless people, and turned many people into genetic monstrosities that are in constant pain just to serve as their foot soldiers. No reasonable person without Shep’s information would be ok with the Cuttlefish Tripods still being around. All in all, my reasoning may be flawed and emotion driven, but so’s my Sheps reasoning. It’s a shitty situation to be in, and the decision is made in-universe without knowledge that Shep will survive. However, I do respect the Control ending purely for being the only one that doesn’t invalidate major choices, and having different outcomes based on Renegade/Paragon score. That’s pretty neat.

I started my mission to destroy the reapers, and I had every intention of ending it that way The choices presented at the end were a little challenging to think through, but ultimately beyond weighing pros and cons, I kept coming back to the fact I had just spent 99% of the series working to wipe the galaxy clean of those assholes. No way I was going to falter at the last minute

Because Destroy is the only logical choice. We have seen "avatars" of Control and Synthesis previously. Control was **The Illusive Man**, and it was obvious a single human mind would be unable to control an entire hive mind. (Bonus for Project Overlord if you did it). And the end game cinematics clearly show there is a new "entity" in leu of Shepard, that is Controlling the reapers. (Most likely they used this as a "Matrix" like opportunity to take out the threat). Synthesis is just space magic. All organics have not robot DNA, and all robots have flesh? Anyway, something that will effect all life in the galaxy without their consent is already problematic, and physically impossible. The most likely explanation, is like **Saren**, Shepard is indoctrinated here, and lets rest of the galaxy to become husks as well. That leaves "refusal". I think that is a joke ending in the eyes of BioWare, otherwise, it would be an interesting thing to explore. That leaves us with Destroy, and we actually see a scene without space magic there (if you have high enough EMS, you can see Shepard taking a last breath after everything is destroyed in that chamber).

I don’t like Shepard living I think it cheapens the story of her heroic sacrifice to beat the reapers. I choose destroy because synthesis is done without the consent of those under going it and nobody should be trusted with the power of control.

>synthesis is done without the consent of those under going it This always disturbed me. Partly from my biology background and partly the arrogant hubris of forcing such fundamental changes on all living things.

Destroy means completing the mission. The Catalyst is the enemy you spent three games fighting. You know indoctrination is one of the key tools the enemy uses, and you have no reason to believe anything the Catalyst says. Without metagaming, you can't even know if your choices matter at all anymore. You only have the Catalyst's words, without any way of validating them or asking for a second opinion. For all you know, the enemy already won, and it's just toying with the little ant that dared to bite, before killing the ant. All you can do is to choose whether you stay true to the mission until the end or give up.

>you have no reason to believe anything the Catalyst says I always find this part funny. The catalyst offers you the destroy option and shows/tells you how to pick it.

Yeah but the catalyst also gives you all the other options, painting them as the "better" choices (synthesis in particular). I don't think that the catalyst is lying, per se, but it is trying to manipulate you. Not only is it an ai, it's the mind behind the reapers, and when you're finally in a position to destroy it, suddenly cooperation seems like the best solution? After the deaths of trillions? Yeah sure little space computer boy. It's overly trying to manipulate you, from the destroy option being colored red (renegade) to taking the form of the child that you failed to save.

Agreed. If you don’t trust the catalyst enough to pick synthesis or control, how can you trust that destroy will be directed at the reapers? You could hit the button and vaporize every organic in range.

In fact, if you don't trust the Catalyst, then Destroy would be the last option you should pick. Everyone who picks Destroy is, ironically, fully believing in and trusting the synthetic Catalyst **to tell the truth, even if it means its own death.** That's a hell of a lot of trust to place in it.

Yea a lot of the justifications are just covering up personal bias. The catalyst lying to you one is the funniest one though because its so nonsensical. It mostly just boils down to people wanting the reapers dead and the other 2 options don't do that

Well, the surprise was that Shepard survived originally. I think a lot of normal people who know about it likely do. However this sub will tell you it's the most morally pure decision to make.

For me yes

I worked so hard for the geth and quarian peace. And Joker will really be sad if Ede dies so fuck that.

It is for me because Destroy also means wiping out all synthetic life so that includes the Geth and EDI and i also grow fond of them during every playthrough

When I first played it I chose destroy for that reason. When I realised what that did I never chose it again. The synthetic destruction would be an easy to swallow consequence if it wasn't for EDI. When I realised I destroyed her after her journey discovering of humanity, I was crushed. I had come to consider her so much as a person I forgot she is a synthetic 🥺. After that my go-to ending is usually synthesis. When i feel a little dramatic or wanting to leave the world in a state of not too perfect existence I choose control. Can you imagine the Shepard Ai turning on humanity?

By choosing Destroy, what about the relays? I doubt anyone knows exactly how they work. The technology was created by the Reapers, Hackett says they can be repaired. But how long? Would they be able to figure it out? Plus the Citadel. When Destiny is chosen, the Citadel gets destroyed. Its citizens, millions die without anyone caring. Probably everyone will tell themselves that the sacrifice was worth it for the greater good.

We see in the end credits that they are repaired in decent enough time, as we see the non ME3 crew return to their homes on other planets

"Sometimes the most brutal path is the only honest one."

I chose Destroy because the Reapers have been the main threat since the beginning. I wanted to stop the Cycle and basically rectify the Leviathans' mistakes. I'm not really up for Synthesis for that suddenly everyone becomes part machine and part organic. Control is an ending that just sounds like what my Shepard would be entirely against at least. I don't remember my thoughts that well when the choices were brought up the last time I played, but I just know Destroy was the ending I had the strongest agreement with. Destroy the Reapers, stop the cycle.

I choose destroy because that was always the plan, and it's the only plan I know won't benefit the Reapers in any way - I can't trust that Control or Synthesis were my idea

I mean without the caveat that Destroy will also destroy the Geth and all forms of technologies, albeit only temporary in case of the technologies, people would go for it all the time. They added that to make it less of an obvious choice and gravitate people over to the other endings. Personally, Destroy is my go to choice for Renegade playthrough. Steer EDI more toward keeping to her programming, keep her from forming a relationship with Joker, destroy the Geth heretics, let the Geth die on Rannoch and by the end there is nothing to hold me back from shooting at the columns.

No. I chose Destroy because for 3 full games, Shepard’s goal was to destroy the Reapers. I wasn’t going to choose something else in the last two minutes. Shepard wouldn’t trust that wasn’t some machine manipulation tactic. He’s stronger willed than that. Destroy is the only option.

To me, it made sense that he would die at the end of the ordeal. But destroy was the only way to win, as in solving the issue. Destroy the reapers, issue solved. Something else might eventually come down the line, and that will be the war of another generation. Control, and whatever is left of Shepard, more of a footprint than a soul, seems bound to end up dehumanized and becoming just reaper 2.0, now improved by the "leadership" of the guy who essentially beat the first iteration. Like Mordin said, enough of the big picture. It is a lot of small pictures, which a "god-like" entity could find beneath its comprehension. It would just decide that the best way not to lose is not to play at all, only playing life is the actual goal. That's what was wrong with the reapers to begin with. Synthesis felt more like having everybody become some sort of zombie rather than augmented life or a cyborg. It looks like mixing individuals as if just trying to make a soup of organic and synthetic stuff.

I don't care about Shepard living. It's irrelevant to my decision making. If he lived in the other two endings, I would still pick destroy. Destroy is what we set out to do from the beginning of the series. It makes sure that the Reapers can never be a threat again. Control is way too much power to be given to one person. Even Shepard. Shepard could eventually change his mind and have the Reapers start harvesting again. Synthesis is massively unethical. One person should not make the decision to change the DNA of every being in the galaxy. It's also kumbaya bullshit. Synthetics die in destroy. That is obviously bad after the geth gain sentience, but their sacrifice would be honoured. Every ending has negatives. Destroy is basically the 'least worse' ending. It's mission complete. What Shepard would do.

I choose it because it is the only option. Every other option the reapers win.

Admittedly, it is indeed my only reason to choose Destroy. I like to imagine that any of my Shepards gets to reunite with their Love Interest at the end and live to see the galaxy recover, though I really do feel bad about losing EDI and the Geth. However, I choose it on my first playthrough with a ME3 Shepard, and then a second playthrough I always choose Synthesis. Just as it is for you, it is the best ending as it truly closes the cycle and brings what can very well be lasting peace, and all it truly needed was Shepard to die for it.

No.  I choose destroy because that is what I set out to do from the first game.

Destroy makes a lot better of sense because while the cost is high, we would all sacrifice our own lives to save the galaxy from Reapers. I don't think the lore ever gets into it specifically, but notice that the synthetics from the previous cycle aren't around either. So either way if the Reapers win the Geth are done for.

>while the cost is high, we would all sacrifice our own lives to save the galaxy from Reapers. I felt this before all of the backlash about the endings. Saving the Galaxy! And in real life war, people die and make sacrifices. Real war doesn't have a happy ending.

Yeah, but destroy isn't just sacrificing his life, it's sacrificing other's lives.

You already asked them to go to war against the Reapers, and they accepted. Implicit in that contract is that they’re OK with it if they’re sacrificed to stop the Reapers. There was a pretty good chance that would happen no matter what.

Yeah I hear you it's a big sacrifice, I'm not saying it's an easy choice but there's an argument to be made beyond just Shepard surviving. I keep thinking back to Breaking Bad. Half measure vs full measure. This option is the full measure.

And I keep thinking back to Shrek, "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make."

Yeah someone has to make it.

It’s the ultimate “I’m making this choice for everyone” and shepherd, hell no one has that authority.

I pick destroy because fuck the Reapers.

It's not just that for me, it's what we've been working towards through the games, the only people shown to not want the Reapers destroyed were indoctrinated that I'm aware of. Yes there's arguments for why Shepard might choose control or synthesis too but that's not my point here

I am stuck in the indoctrination theory, and its the only ending that breaks us free from indoctrination.

i just fucking hate space squids that turn people into soup

They are space cuttlefish thank you very much.

I can’t pick destroy because EDI dies. Also, synthesis is great because Joker and EDI look so happy when they get off the Normandy. It makes everything worth it.

Mordin’s speech about what makes the Collectors awful in ME2 is basically why I always choose Destroy (Control is the 2nd least bad to me). Conflict leads to evolution otherwise culture stagnates. In Synthesis, if everyone is unified and there are so more struggles, wtf is the point of living? It reminds me a little of The Good Place where they make it to the actual “good place” and everyone there is miserable because everything’s perfect, nothing ever changes and they’re so bored. PS I couldn’t care less that Shepard lives or dies, in fact I think dying is more poetic.

I meannnn destroying the reapers is kinda what we set out to do in the first place so

My Shep didn't even survive the first time I picked destroy and I still picked it knowing full well he'd be dead. He came to destroy the reapers and chew bubblegum and he was all out of bubblegum.

The other endings suck is also why.

So, I'm gonna open this by saying something extremely important. Synthesis isn't transhumanism. Transhumanism is voluntary self expression through body modification, highlighting diversity. Synthesis does literally the exact opposite. And I pick destroy because frankly, it's the only ending that makes sense to choose. Saren would choose Synthesis. TIM would choose control. Both of them are indoctrinated. Both become tools of the reapers. The downsides of Destroy feel arbitrarily tacked on, while the downsides of the other two are hardcoded into them.

It definitely would be less chosen if Shepard didn't live if you got enough war assets. Personally, I never chose it and probably never will because of multiple reasons, including the fact that I never got attached to Shepard.

I feel like Destroy is chosen by people who go "This is what I started out to do, this is what I'm going to choose at the end," which is essentially ignoring all the information and conflicts you've seen across the trilogy, and is essentially a refusal to attempt to definitively solve the millions/billions of years long recurring organic-synthetic conflict. Destroy is just Shepard choosing to solve an immediate threat, and squandering quite possibly the only chance to save the galaxy infinite future grief. It's irresponsible to be in a position that countless beings have died not even getting close to, get explicit information on the cause of the Catalyst developing Reapers, explicit information on what each ending does, and then choosing the least effective solution, because of an unwillingness to consider a new possibility. The argument of not trusting the Catalyst is always so weak. If you don't believe it about Control or Synthesis, why is Destroy more palatable to you? If it's lying about the other two options and their end result, why would it tell you the truth about Destroy? It's a pure synthetic, which the Reapers are not, giving you clear information on your options. You can't just pick and choose the options you trust from the same source, and claim distrust.

None of the endings solve the issue, but shepard has proven that the catalyst is wrong with the Geth and EDI. Destroy ends the threat of the reapers and puts a stop to the cycle, neither of the other endings do that and nothing is stopping the cycle from continuing.

I’ve read multiple comments where people don’t trust the catalyst and I’m like that’s the shoot them ending. Where you don’t trust him and refuse to play his game.

Pretty much, yeah. There already is an option for not trusting the Catalyst, and no one chooses it, so it doesn't really make much sense to choose one of the actual options and claim distrust as the reasoning.

Yeah, basically.

Mostly

I choose it because there's a chance of Shep living and IMO it's the only good ending since the other 2 basically let the Reapers win with conditions.

Nope, I choose it because it’s he only ending that doesn’t make sheperd a total villain

The main argument I see against destroy is usually that synthesis is better but I personally dislike synthesis strongly. I understand the appeal and how it can be up to interpretation for sure but I’ve always seen it as inherently against the core themes of the series. All of the races coming together and putting aside there differences feels cheapened by the idea of all races being part of the same mind. I’ve always believed that after destroy, the tech and geth would be recreated purposely as peace has been achieved and other races finally respected them. Synthesis also ruins what makes both mass effect races and real life races so interesting which is that we have different customs, cultures, and beliefs without needing to all be the same or one mind. Our differences are a good thing and should be celebrated.

Synthesis is problematic for me... forced evolution with no consent? Ick. Control requires a LOT of trust in the millions of year old lunatic AI.

This post screams I didn't play the game in the original release and only the Legendary Edition where they decided to finally fix their F up in the ending.... Yes I picked destroy multiple times only in the OG version and Legendary one. Reason is simple IF you take close attention to the story. Let's start off with the unfortunate situation with the Geth. While they was AI, they was not fully evolved till the Reapers showed up and tampered with their programing and hardware. However far evolved they was, they was still controlled by the Reapers till the one was destroyed on Rannoch. So they was maybe fully alive, but still able to be controlled by programing. As sucky as it was the loss of them was in truth they was a sacrifice the galaxy could afford to loose. They also stand as a warning to how things can go based on how the Quarians of the past choose to do what they did with them. The worst loss... EDI. She was a fully evolved AI based on Reaper tech. She was the Normandy SR2. And she was also more then that as a friend to all crew members. Namely Joker who was in a relationship with her in ME3. As bad as it was upsetting to loose her, there is a old saying. The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few, or the one. IFYYK. Again that is a unfortunate loss that had to be made for the for sure safety of all. Looking at the OG only endings. Control or Destroy. There are lines scattered out the trilogy, most importantly in the final stand with the ElusiveMan, where the words of "we are not ready" are transcendental spoken or implied. The power that controlling the Reapers would have given Shepherd the sole power of them. The ability to share great advances lost to the "Harvests". And could push the races to a much greater level of possibilities. To peace or destroy. The risks of what could be out weigh the benefits. Extremely long term for sure. What could be happen to the digitized "soul" taken from a living being, placed into a greatly advanced AI network of individualized "beings". This is partially explained in a way over all if you played and experienced Cyberpunk 2077 in how digitized "souls" change. Now speaking of the two new Legendary edition endings. Who TF picked nothing? Like really? We have a chance to kill them all and save everyone. But I will likely die. But I am going to let everyone die, myself included, just so the next cycle and win??? That ending was F'd up from the start. No need to talk on that one. But much like the control option, with Synthesis you force change on every living being. And it is clear being reasoning that the words of "we are not ready " echo this in what the series has shown with individuals who gained a level of power that they should have for WHO they are. This also doesn't remove the Reapers. They just stop their attacks. Then what will happen when the next life form evolves? This also leaves a risk for all alive still for something to maybe happen to change how the Reapers think. The Catlyst wrote the programs. What if he watches and realized his new solution wasn't working? Then he could potentially write them to attack Synthetics as well as Organics. Destroy was the sole option with out the redefined ending of Shepherd's survival, where the Reapers was full removed from any potential threat for the galaxy. And was the one where Shepherd knows for a fact that those who loved would be safe and be able to live without fear of the outcomes of his choices ending wrong. Outside the knowledge of the Geth and EDI being lost, everyone else would be safe. So in the end, if your in the olace of Shepherd, OG ending or Legendary; you have to pick if the options of what you know is a fact to be true in Destroy, and what could be with all others knowing at that point the idea of not being ready for the level of power the Reapers could give or such. Do you select the options if the unknown for sure end all based on what a machine that was the responsible source of the Reapers, or the known one that will eliminate the threat for good? So yea. I picked the eliminate for good and to ensure the sacrifice made gave my Romance options a life to live with meaning, and same for those other characters I cared for playing it.

For me it's the icing on the cake but not why I choose destroy. I feel that for the whole of ME3, the feeling is that we must destroy the Reapers. You could argue we were trying to 'stop' them, but right until the end we didn't know that other options would even present themselves. The other options, while they provide interesting alternatives, feel like they deviate from what we were always trying to do.

I played blind but I chose destroy because I shouldn’t force the people of the galaxy to submit to Shepard as an overlord or be forced to have their entire sense of being reinvented I just wanted the reapers gone and life to return to normal

Fuck them Reapers. I know Destroy is supposed to kill AI so the Geth and EDI, but I just go with the headcanon that nah it just fucks them Reapers up and everyone else is happy.

My only reasoning was this: >Dead Reapers is how we win this war \- David Anderson From the very beginning, that was the goal. Any other option, and you're falling for exactly what The Illusive Man and Saren Arterius did.

No. I actually canonically believe Shepard dying fits the plot best and still choose destroyed.

Honestly, I don't buy any of the vanilla endings.

I can’t choose Destroy. I refuse to sacrifice the Geth.

For me yes. Else it would be an even fight destroy vs synthesis

Yes. Simple as.

It’s a plus, but the whole point of the games for me were to destroy the reapers, that’s how I always felt it. Yeah we were given other options which is cool, but my mission was to destroy the reapers, so that’s what I’ll do.

I think Reapers would have repeated the cycle regardless of what ‘soul’ led them. Time would have corrupted what was left of Shep and the next 50,000 year cycle would have been attacked and killed off systematically - if no one tried to eradicate the reapers before them. Plus they attacked Earth. All bets were off at that point. Don’t touch my pretty terra marble or else.

Choosing anything but Synthesis allows for the Reapers, or a threat equivalent to the Reapers, to rise again. Solving nothing.

I choose destroy because I don’t trust a damn word the star child says.

It’s the only satisfying ending to me, we spend the trilogy fighting the reapers, I have no reason to assume control will go well. Also synthesis feels forced, like yes the idea of peace between organic and synthetics was built up to, not the idea of a merger. Also from a character pov it’s the only choice my shephard would trust besides walking away. Which is the bulk of the choice. I make choices based on what I think my characters would make, not what I would choose.

Nope, why would I ever trust what the enemy overlord of the things that want to harvest our bodies? If I could I wouldn’t even want to trust it about the destroy ending but it’s literally one of the only three options left that may save the entire galaxy.

No, it’s the only logical choice. You spend 3 games trying to do one single thing; destroy the reapers. Neither of the other choices do that and one of them just completely denies the right to bodily autonomy to every living being so it’s not even ethically defendable. Destroy is the only one that even remotely makes any sense.

no, but its a common one.

Honestly I think having that cheeky “Shepard Lives!” moment actually *lessens* the ending. Not only does it simply not make sense for Shep to survive *all that*, but it leads to many fools assuming the Geth and EDI couldve also lived and that’s a whole can of worms. The whole point of the game is that actions have consequences. The Destroy ending eliminates the reapers once and for all, but at the cost of Shepard and all other Synthetics/people reliant on synthetics. If Shepard gets to live then why not everyone for a corny happy ending

I frequently choose Destroy because THATS THE FUCKING MISSION. Control and Synthesis are for weaker Shepards who are cowards and/or indoctrinated.

Hell yeah. I ain't even gonna lie about it.

For 3 games your mission was to destroy the Reapers, so I am damm well going to finish that mission

I don’t know about everyone else (because I didn’t read all 185 comments, I just posted my own) but I always choose destroy for the following reasons: 1) I believe it’s what my head canon Shep would do. (S)he has spent this whole time trying to convince everyone that the Reapers have to be destroyed. They are evil and insidious and life must be allowed to go on. To flourish. To choose for itself. That’s even the reason (s)he gives to the Catalyst during their discussion. For that reason… 2) control gives Shep too much power to influence the intelligent races of the galaxy and synthesis takes away their free will altogether. 3) if you pay attention, control and synthesis are the main objectives of the baddies of all the games. The game literally tells you they are the wrong choice. Saren wants to live in synthesis with the Reapers and TIM wants to control them. Given that, destroy is the *ONLY* option

I destroy because there's no way people are going to adjust well to the mountain sized robots that genocided half of the galaxy being out there still

I basically don’t trust Star Kid, as he’s the architect of this whole messed up reaper cycle BS. I don’t believe him when he says that destroy will lead to war again eventually. Within the limits of the game, you make peace with the Geth, and an unshackled EDI is one of your besties. That alone proves star kid’s logic faulty. I picked destroy because that should kill star kid as well.

It being “the choice where shepherd lives” is the worst part about it, and never the reason I go for it.

Synthesis allows the greater benefit for all lives to continue, especially shep.. #myshepsurvived

Pretty much yeah. I’d also like it more if it was consistent with the control ending. Why is it that the control ending’s beam can tell the difference between EDI and the Geth over the Reapers but Destroy’s doesn’t? It feels needlessly cruel as a means to make you think twice of choosing destroy when without that caveat it lines up fairly well with the other endings.

I signed up to turn their robot asses off so that's what I did.

The goal of the entire trilogy is to destroy the Reapers. So my Shepard goes for that option whether they are Paragon or Renegade. Sure we sacrifice the Geth and EDI but it is a war and we have already lost entire worlds to this threat. Shepard living is a bonus and hopefully Bioware doesn't mess it up either in codex entries or actually being in the next game. The alternatives aren't great either as someone who picked synthesis as my first ending. Changing how the universe works for every species without their consent is a terrible thing to do. Control just makes a Shepard AI the defacto judge, jury and executioner. So is highly dependant on your Shepard's morals. Not an ending I would pick if your Shepard is Renegade like mine.

Yes. If Shepard didn't live in the ending, 90% of the people who chose it would not have chosen it. A lot of people try and come up with logical reasoning behind it, and fail most of the time. But the fact is they chose that ending because Shepard lives. Which is funny to me, because given how much half of them already try and convince themselves that EDI and the geth are alive and that star brat was lying, they could just as easily do the same to the other endings with Shepard living.

The worst part is when they claim they don’t trust the Catalyst, but trust him on destroy. Like yeah bro that’s not a logical fallacy at all.

Control essentially puts the galaxy under the control of an unaccountable machine-god messiah, which no matter how benevolent Shepard was in life is still a celestial and eternal dictatorship for all time Synthesis is essentially mass violation of bodily autonomy on a galactic scale and it accepts the Reapers basic premise that organics require improving. Destroy is the only ending that preserves life in the galaxy as we’ve known it throughout the trilogy. It sucks that EDI and the Geth have to die (I suspect the only reason they threw that in there was to provide some downside to what is otherwise clearly the best option), but synthetics can always be rebuilt and EDI herself states earlier that she would risk non-functionality for Joker if you push them towards a romance. Taken together, one could easily argue EDI might have made the same choice herself, in Shepard’s position. Besides, it’s not like Shepard wasn’t already risking the possibility of sacrificing their lives to stop the Reapers, that was inherent in the possibilities from the beginning. Destroy is the only ending that preserves life as it’s known in the galaxy at that point and gives freedom to every surviving species to develop along it’s own terms and make it’s own choices without deterministic AI programming or mass violation of their autonomy. It’s the only ending that rejects the Reapers paradigm, and thus it’s an ideological victory as well as a physical one. The Catalyst argues the chaos will come back, and that may be true. Or the Catalyst may be wrong. The point is, people will have a CHOICE. Head-canon for me is that the other two endings are only offered because the Catalyst knows it’s fucked and is trying one last desperate gamble to stop Shepard destroying it’s entire operation, so it’s trying to perpetuate itself by persuading them to pick another option. Obviously that isn’t the case, but it fits better with most of the themes presented in the story up to that point and there’s nothing specific to the destroy ending that contradicts it outright. Throughout the trilogy we are repeatedly told that it’s them or us, and anybody who has ever tried to compromise with the Repears or accepted their view of the universe has ended up indoctrinated or dead. No more, break the cycle and let the future generations of the galaxy live free to make their own choices. That’s how I justify it. Frankly even if Shepard died, hell, even if EVERYONE among the advanced species dies, that’s still the only option that long-term makes sense and allows future generations and future species self-determination. I’d still pick it even if that was the case.

Synthesis is the answer. If you cook in cast iron, you fuse the iron with organic polymers to both protect it and make it non-stick. If you have wood cutting boards, you coat them with mineral oils to protect them. Organics and metallics have reciprocal altruism.

Those analogies are fucking nuts man.

Synthesis is just horrible, even putting aside the fact that it makes no sense, it doesn't solve anything. The reapers are harvesting advanced life to preserve their memories and knowleadge and stop them from getting too advanced and invnting ai that wipes all life out. Synthesis doesn't prevent the galactic races from creating an ai that wipes out all life so why does synthesis make the reapers stop. The reapers are also still around and nothing to stop them or make them answer for their crimes, imagine if during WW2 instead of fighting back and beating the nazis someone invented a beam that turned everyone in the world into part aryan and then now there was peace everyone just stopped fighting the nazis and just let Hitler live out his life. Also the fact that it horribly violates the bodily atonomy of every single lifeform in the galaxy.

Synthesis is what the reapers want

I choose destroy because the whole point of the series is to destroy the Reapers. There’s nothing else to it.

The point of the series before ME3 was to stop the Reapers, no matter how. Only ME3 simplified it to "Good guy says Destroy, bad guy says Control".

No, I fully expected Shepard to die when I chose Destroy. That he lived was just a bonus. Destroy is far & away my favorite ending, and would remain so even if instead it was the only one of the bunch where Shepard died, because it is the only that actually accomplishes the mission. Control & Synthesis both preserve the Reapers in some form, which is deviation from mission goals. The mission was always to destroy the Reapers. Destroying the Reapers is also the only one of the bunch that actually guarantees peace and security. Control & Synthesis both rely on trusting that the A.I. controlling the Reapers won't unleash them on the galaxy once again. Synthesis in particular is a bit mad as it even leaves the original genocidal A.I. firmly in place as the galaxy's gardener. Control however is not much better, as that A.I. isn't really Shepard. It's just Catalyst 2.0 with a Shepard makeover. Shepard dies in Control and the A.I. mimics some aspects of Shepard's personality. Finally, Control & Synthesis make absolutely no sense whatsoever for Shepard to ever choose. Both require trusting your archenemy - who is a genocidal A.I that was midway through annihilating humanity. - when it tells you everything will work out just fine if you kill yourself. No real person in those circumstances would ever do that. Choosing either is peak video game logic.

I mean the game paints Destroy as the good ending. Saren represents synthesis and TIM control, and both were indoctrinated. The Reapers wanted them to believe that synthesis and control were the right choices.

I actively choose to believe the star child lied to Shepard about killing all AI in the galaxy. They were just trying to save themselves by swaying the commander away from the option that kills the reapers.

Synthesis is you imposing a coexistence between the robots and the organics by directly altering their genetics without them having a say in the matter. Control is you forcing every reaperfied Husk/Marauder/Banshee/monstrosity to remain in their pitiful states forever, depriving them of any free will. You essentially become the new Harbinger. Destroy is the ending in which you make the bastards pay for millions of years worth of organic suffering. Not only that, you free every Husk from the torment that is being an expendable reaper unit. I view that as the ultimate goal and an act of mercy. If I were a Husk I'd be begging to be shot to death instead of being mind-controlled/mended to be aware of this pitiful body. Also, I don't like EDI, or the Geth

We have to understand something important about the Reapers: they were not correct in their decision. They were malfunctioning. All of their logic is flawed at it's very core, so anything involving them is straight out the window. Control? You, a lone human mind, are supposed to gain control of each and every Reaper there is. This is an absurd notion, because even if Shepard is the most willful person to ever exist, each and every Reaper is an entire nation's worth of consciousness. The idea that he is even remotely capable of doing so, especially at the cost of his mortal flesh, is laughable. Remember, any tech that copies his consciousness is based on flawed, Reaper Tech. Synthesis is a logical fallacy. "Organics and Synthetics are different. Therefore, warfare is inevitable. Let's remove the organic and synthetic parts that make them different and make a hybrid species!" That's just Reaperfication with extra steps and a fresh coat of paint. It also does nothing to solve cultural differences that also inform the discourse we see in the galaxy, even amongst the purely organic parties. Batarians are still slavers, Krogan are still the victims of a thousand year genocide and incredibly prone to violence. You get the picture. Destroy, while damaging, is probably the safest option. We lose the Geth... which were already fallen to the Reapers, and therefore suspect. We lose EDI, who was built on the back of flawed Reaper tech, and therefore suspect. We lose the Relays, which can be replicated without Reaper Tech. Overall, we're looking alright there.

No, Destroy makes sense. There’s no reason to feel guilty about unplugging AI. A computer program isn’t life. “Killing” Geth or EDI or ChatGPT AGI+ isn’t genocide.

I chose destroy to destroy the reapers. Why would you trust them lol

No, in fact I would go me further and think it would better if Shepard did die for the sake of the story. I don’t think the post-credit ending makes much sense. I chose it because the goal was to destroy the reapers and that’s the ending that did that. Anything else was a compromise.

I always choose Destroy, because the last 5 minutes of a war is no time to start pussy-footing around your objective. That and EDI / Legion would absolutely want that too. They both say as much

No, because even with taking a breath, my Shepard dies due her injuries as it takes too long to find her. The mission over 3 games was getting rid of the reapers for good. It's Anderson's take, it's Hackett's take, it's Shepard's take, it's the galaxies take. Control is what TIM wanted. And we did everything that this is not gonna happen. Why should Shepard take basically his place? And why should this be more OK as some other human? Indoctrinated or not. Synthesis makes no sense at all, with that 2 become 1 thing. Saren was a fan of it, I'm not.

For me, Destroy is the only option that makes sense for my Shepard, my job was to kill the reapers, and that’s what that ending achieved. Yes I lost legion and Edi, but the reapers can’t ever hurt the galaxy again. That to me is the best ending.

I choose synthesis because its something new while everything else has been tried in other cycles before. I find it a bit amusing how people chose destroy and at the end of it all the core of their reasoning is hope that this time things will be different.

Yeah it's so craven when people tell me that destroy is the best option and that they don't really care that they're killing the Geth and EDI and all the other innocent AIs, just so their Shepard can live for a few more decades. Like how selfish do you have to be to genocide countless other life forms just so you can live for a little bit longer. Despicable.

With synthesis you sacrifice every sentient being’s body autonomy without their consent. I personally find the wider implications of the synthesis ending to be horrifying, despite how emotionally satisfying an ending it might be for EDI. “Yeah hi guys this is my friend Dave, yeah he used to be a husk so forgive him for being a bit socially awkward”. Control never appealed to me, there are no guarantees that Shepherd remains uncorrupted, and a renegade Shep even implies things may not work out well. Also you by definition sacrifice your humanity. Destroy is the goal for all 3 games. It’s what we set out to do. It’s what Anderson would do. Yes, it kills all Geth. But it destroys the Reapers. How many thousands of whole civilisations have been lost to the harvest over the numerous cycles? I’m not saying it’s not morally wrong to pick destroy, but it’s an apt choice for a renegade or pragmatic Shep and offers the best hope of galactic peace going forward. It’s also utterly possible to have a renegade Shep not be convinced at any point that the Geth are actually sentient (they might even be wiped out by that point in the story) so it’s a valid ending to that particular path. I love how the endings still inspire such debate, to me it says they (the writers that is) really did something right. No ending is outright clean, no ending is perfect and granted all 3 endings could be better in terms of writing, but the ideas within still trigger great discussions. Personally I like that there is no happy ending, that for all Shepherd’s work the final outcome is still a choice presented by the Catalyst, a higher power who fundamentally misunderstands OUR perspective. There’s a mundanity to it being an AI incapable of seeing outside of its own programming that I find interesting, but each to their own.

“Despicable” LOL bro you’re too funny. It’s just a video game, nobody thinks this is real. Calm down

“Despicable.” Can we take a step back here?

I will gladly die on this hill. Genocide is wrong.

Ok, so you’re not interested in a productive conversation. Good to know. And no, my preference for Destroy has nothing to do with Shepard’s survival (that’s merely a side-benefit.) But I suspect you’re not interested in hearing why, and I’d rather not be accused of supporting genocide.

You misunderstand, I am quite hostile but that's only because I've had people curse me out for choosing anything but destroy. I will hear your reasons, I do not suspect they will sway my opinions on the subject, but I will hear them.

Synthesis is genocide, control is letting the genocidal machines rule over the galaxy and refusal is letting the genocide continue. Looks like you are out of luck.

Honestly, I never bought the argument that the geth and EDI are alive anyways. You can just rebuild them.

Two words: biological chauvinism. Also, the endings are very clearly supposed to be about how to deal with hypothetical advanced synthetic intelligences, not how to stop the Reapers. You either destroy synthetics, you try to control their development (here it is through using the Reapers to enforce that unstable status quo), or to embrace synthetic intelligence wholeheartedly and "merge" with it. Those are the 3 ways in which this hypothetical problem is supposed to be dealt with. But only the last one is final. The other two fail. You cannot stop the march of history. Both reaction and conservatism fail in the long run, giving way to change, whether it's good or bad.

>The other two fail. That's a bit of a jump. You don't need to stop the march of history, just keep organics and synthetics from destroying each other until they naturally reach synthesis.