Mass effect 3 kill reapers ending relationship

Get the Perfect Ending (Shepard Lives) in Mass Effect 3 | LevelSkip

mass effect 3 kill reapers ending relationship

Mar 23, For as much controversy as Mass Effect: Andromeda has courted in recent days, with any options, either; the only thing Shepard can do is destroy the Reapers. And then, the relationships having their little endings. For Mass Effect 3 on the Xbox , a GameFAQs Answers question titled "I screwed up the So the path to the right, that destroys the Reapers and the Geth ?. For Mass Effect 3 on the PC, a GameFAQs message board topic titled of their journey they find out that the Reapers killing all advanced life is one of Their relationship goes beyond a mere relationship, and is as strong as.

Shepard does warn them to stay away from Council territories, but that is because one they would be a disturbance, and two it works out for both parties if they were never encountered again.

This is why Paragon Shepard was highly critical of Mordus's work on the Genophage. Paragon Shepard disagreed from a moralistic view arguing that assuming the Krogan would rebel was not a good enough reason to justify sterilizing them. Because Shepard believes in peace, understanding, and the capacity for all life to co-exist.

Arrival shows us just that, when Shepard crashes a space station into a Mass Relay JUST to stop the reapers from coming in hind-sight that ended up being pointless some could argue they were willing to sacrifice one group to save the others.

Why Destruction is the True Ending. - Mass Effect 3 Message Board for PC - GameFAQs

He tells Shepard he cannot see any other option and Shepard says it all comes down to the "Ruthless Calculus of War. But their decisions always are joined at the hip with the belief of self-determinism.

With the belief that peace can exist, and conflict can end through dialog. Because they are always willing to risk their life for a potential ally, because they actually care about the plight of others.

This is my belief. Razard86 Razard86 Topic Creator 3 years ago 3 Now I believe the choices in Mass Effect were purposely skewed to not give you a perfect ending. Even the worst ending, where the cycle continues has a good result. You see even though your cycle ends in failure and death, others are able to succeed because of the evidence you leave behind. So I believe the developers made the choices the way they did, to force you to make a "ruthless calculus" of war decision.

Do people still hate the Mass Effect 3 ending? (Spoilers) : truegaming

Their relationship goes beyond a mere relationship, and is as strong as the bonds of a close-knit family. Even in the end, Anderson says "You did good child," like a father would tell their child. So what are your thoughts? Post it below and thank you for your time! Delta Delta 3 years ago 4 It's kinda up to the player so I I'm not sure it's helpful to argue which is "True".

I'm not sure I fully accept your reasoning though. I'd argue that in a sense the Synthesis ending is actually most in fitting with the Paragon Sheperd. Yes you're taking a massive risk by taking the Reapers at their word, but the Paragon path is defined by idealism, placing trust in people despite the risks involved you still preserve the Rachni and Krogan despite the risk of betrayaland always choosing the harder path even if killing would be safer and easier. What could be a greater culmination of that than in making peace with the Reapers themselves, building a world when all those voices can coexist at the cost of Shep's own life?

Now the Synthesis ending has its problems, and they are big. The Star Kid shows ridiculous troll logic they'll destroy themselves if I don't destroy them first! However it can also be seen as an act of reckless idealism, of placing trust in spite of the risks and pushing others to make the concessions needed to coexist paragon Shep has repeatedly pressured people to let go of grudges or make concessions, sometimes with threat of force.

Like I said though, given that Shep's attitudes depend a fair bit on the player's choices and their perception of what those mean I'd argue a case could be made for any ending, and that it's not clear one is signifcantly "more true" than others.

My Shep was a broken and exhausted idealist, desperate for a permanent end to the conflict, so it was in keeping for her to gamble everything on a permanent solution to synthetic conflict, regardless of the risks. It may not have been the best decision, for the reasons above, but it was right for my Sheperd. So why can a Marauder roll but a multiplayer Turian can't?

You are fighting female turian husks. You have reach but they have flexibility. Razard86 Razard86 Topic Creator 3 years ago 5 I seriously don't understand your logic. You say if they didn't destroy the mass relays the Reapers would have still destroyed the Batarians? That is a given, that is not why Shepard made that decision. If I know a terrorist is gonna blow up a city, I wouldn't try to stop them by destroying the city myself.

So your logic on that makes no sense, Shepard only sacrificed that colony because the Reapers were a galactic threat, and don't even get me started on why Synthesis is not the most Paragon choice. One you forcefully mutate everyone, they don't get a choice, and foolishly believing that just because you've taken away some differences doesn't mean conflict will end.

The Star Child was a creation of organic beings, they are only a program, a program that even killed their creators. As such they do not necessarily have the best logic, in fact I'd argue they are the real cause of the conflict.

Secondly the Quarians and Geth only got along because Shepard unified them The Paragon version without Shepard's input they would have never had peace unless the writers make another potential character with a similar influence.

The truth of the matter is Synthesis is actually the one ending that prove you don't trust them at all. In fact Synthesis is the choice the Star Child though was best.

Because they believe Organics and Synthetics will always fight because they are different, so why not just fuse them against their will.

mass effect 3 kill reapers ending relationship

Something that Paragon Shepard is against. Remember Paragon Shepard is against modifying the D. One the geth can be remade as they are synthetic, and it also gives a chance to wipe the slate clean from the dark quarian path with the geth. Would they like to avoid this? Because I said a kind thing, rather than a cruel thing to Liara, she felt good in a moment, rather than bad.

Characters I almost ignored, like James Vega and Ashley Williams, still were impacted by my presence in their lives, and mine was impacted by them. I encouraged Vega to join the N7. I teased Ashley when she was hungover, rather than admonished.

And while all those things may have made no difference to whether the Reapers were defeated, of course they had consequences on my game. Consequences in those instances, affecting my story and toning my experience. But what about those final three choices. Yes, of course, they were a strange way to finish.

But to suggest that they were out of the blue is absolutely untrue. The Catalyst appearing as that small boy could hardly have been more established by the game, via three separate dream sequences that demonstrated quite what a devastating effect his death had had on Shepard.

He came to represent all the terrible deaths on Earth, and indeed throughout the galaxy, that Shepard was unable to stop. He haunted her dreams because he was the catalyst for her fear and drive. Although you could argue that he himself did get used up in the reaction.

Mass Effect 3: Control The Reapers Ending

For the Catalyst to choose his form to appear to Shepard made sense — it was designed to create an emotional reaction in her, to represent the potential for gain after so much loss. And then the choices themselves. There was certainly a failure to properly define that it all comes down to the creation of Synthetics, and their eventual destruction of Organics, and I am confused by how an apparently ancient Synthetic race is the one arguing this.

But as Shepard herself appeals, this is the result of an ancient race having lost its way.


I had seen the potential, the evolution of the Geth into a race capable of independent choice, the relationship between an AI and a human, and the possibility of a massive uniting step forward from a repeating pattern that had gone on for countless aeons. Which is one of my main issues with it. You don't have to accept the Catalyst's logic - you can shoot at it, or refuse to make a decision, and bear the consequences. But I understand that's probably not what you meant.

So, yes, you do have to accept its logic, in the sense that you are limited to the options presented to you. Would have been nice to be able to argue more with it, to disagree more?

mass effect 3 kill reapers ending relationship

I didn't feel this way but I can definitely see why people were disappointed by that. Would that mean that, if only you were allowed to, you would be able to persuade the Catalyst, to show it the err of its ways?

Get the Perfect Ending (Shepard Lives) in Mass Effect 3

That's a hypothetical questions, but given that I have yet to see a argument of why the logic of the Catalyst is faulty that does not rest on faulty logic itself, I doubt it. What I meant by "accepting the Illusive Man's argument resp. With Control, you do, in the end, what the Illusive Man has always wanted from you, and what you have rejected all the time before.

With Synthesis, you agree that there can be no peace between Synthetics and Organics and that's why the only solution other than extinction is to eradicate the distinction. Consider it this way. The entire story the third game especially pretty much revolved around or heavily featured the theme of confronting the differences between different peoples and lifeforms of which synthetic life was just one category and resolving them with rational discussion and the forging of interpersonal relationships.

Unless you play like a diehard racist, the game shows over and over and over and over that the various denizens of the galaxy aren't all that dissimilar and are entirely capable of getting along just fine, while becoming all the more powerful for the variety among them. The one exception to this is the Reapers, who are of course uncompromisingly hostile.

That's weird, but I suppose we can explore the issue and discuss this