Escapist Podcast: Bonus: Mass Effect 3 With Spoilers Part 2

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
6,132
335
88
Country
Australia
BanZeus said:
C) Synthesis is essentially finishing the reaper's job for them. Because of the way it's explained, I thought I would be killing everything in the galaxy in the process but turning them all into living machines against their will isn't much better.
Living machines... organic-synthetic hybrids... just like the Reapers are (didn't anyone pay attention to what Legion says about the Old Machines in ME2?). Potentially you're killing the current Reapers and turning everyone in the galaxy into seedstock for Reaper replacements to evolve from.
 

ChristopherT

New member
Sep 9, 2010
164
0
0
I greatly enjoyed Mass Effect 3 up until the ending. I let myself feel for my character and the world around them. I shed actual tears when Mordin died, and when Thane was dying, then when with Thane and his Son and the praying scene? it took a character from 2 whom I didn?t love, and just made me really miss his characters. Scene after scene of my Shepard?s friends dying, the game was really starting to feel like a major downer, and it felt like these characters where very much against the ropes. Then, when I was ready to destroy every Geth for the sake of the Quarians, Legion showed me the past, and everything changed, and I was too late to help, Tali killed her self and I had to stop playing, I had become numb inside. I, possibly like my Shepard was hollow inside, until I was on Earth and checked in with everyone, for as much as this Shepard and Jack didn?t get along, Jack looked so lost and alone?and the fight was back in us, destroy the Reapers. So, Shepard dieing I?m sure my character wouldn?t care, just as I don?t, as long as it was all over, as long as we won.

My problem with the endings is like many others, there?s no conclusion, there?s no information, I ?chose? to destroy the Reapers, but I have no idea what happened because of that, how many lives where affected. Destroy all synthetics is just too vague in a story like Mass Effect. Shepard is part synthetic? Because of Lazarus? I imagine no matter what they did they still had to use the same tech everyone else has, and then comes a question of how far does the term synthetic stretch? Prosthetics? Medi-Gel? Does any VI matter at all, they?re relatively stupid? How about ship parts? This super wave, does it affect any sort of micro chip? Would space suits to function? Or Space ships? People talk about people floating in ships in space, stuck their, what if they just died in an instant because of a synthetic micro-chip, or fiber?

I want to know about the Krogans, the Asari, all of the major species, and to an extent I can at least speculate, except for I have no idea what that super special miracle wave did other than ?destroy synthetics?. Yes the Relays are gone, stranding many lives, but I have no idea what they are even left with. All the ships over Earth, because of this wave, may have crashed into Earth, and I?d assume with those many ships, with the sizes some of them were, that might un-victory our victory. What good is winning, if everyone being held together by medi-gel goo suddenly falls apart?

Everyone may be starving, or everyone may already be dead, or maybe we have enough tech left we can science a synthetic food supplement for the Turians whom may or may not be trapped on Earth, or in Space, or on the moon, or, or, or?

Of course there is that nifty idea that after getting hit by the reaper death laser Shepard just dreamed everything else, which in any other situation is all kinds of bull shit, but here? Sadly, I hope it?s all a dream forced on by Reaper mind rape games.

(also, side note, did the Geth ever seek out and attack living people before the Reapers took them over? I can?t remember reading anything about it, I only remember the Geth staying on planet as the Quarians left, and then the ?bad? Geth working for the Reapers in ME1...I could be wrong of with that of course, but if not, then what the hell? )
 

Murmillos

Silly Deerthing
Feb 13, 2011
359
0
0
Agayek said:
1) The logic behind the Reapers is asinine. Anyone with half a brain can understand that "In order to stop robots from kill you, I built robots to kill you first" is bad logic. Computers operate solely on logic. It's a bit outrageous to not expect a machine older than I can comprehend to spot that flaw.
Its not asinine logic. You have to look at it in the context that the Reapers are telling it to you; in that they only kill/reap "evolved" lifeforms (thus why they left the cave dwelling humans alone). The "star child" was eluding that organics may one day create a synthetic form that would destroy ALL life, and just not rebel again their masters.

So in order for organic life to continue and flourish within the galaxy, the most advanced of organic life must be removed in these cycles before they have a chance harm all FUTURE organic life. Thats the logic.


But after speaking to Javik; the reapers were REALLLLY behind the ball on that cycle. And by the logic of lore/timeline, was that Sovereign was attempting to activate the Citadel back at the Quarian/Geth war 300 years ago. But thanks to the Proteans in the previous cycle, was delayed.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Murmillos said:
Its not asinine logic. You have to look at it in the context that the Reapers are telling it to you; in that they only kill/reap "evolved" lifeforms (thus why they left the cave dwelling humans alone). The "star child" was eluding that organics may one day create a synthetic form that would destroy ALL life, and just not rebel again their masters.

So in order for organic life to continue and flourish within the galaxy, the most advanced of organic life must be removed in these cycles before they have a chance harm all FUTURE organic life. Thats the logic.


But after speaking to Javik; the reapers were REALLLLY behind the ball on that cycle. And by the logic of lore/timeline, was that Sovereign was attempting to activate the Citadel back at the Quarian/Geth war 300 years ago. But thanks to the Proteans in the previous cycle, was delayed.
That's just it though, their solution to the problem is to cause the problem. It's flawed logic from the getgo. First off, the fact that the Catalyst is (supposedly) actively trying to help organic life directly contradicts its statement that all synthetic life will ultimately attack and kill organic life. It claims to be attempting to save organics, but its own logic says that it must try to kill them.

Beyond that, depending on how the game plays out, you directly contradict this by brokering a peace between Geth and Quarian. Even past that, EDI actively aids organics of her own free will, even going so far as entering a relationship with one. This is not the behavior of someone "fated" to kill all organics, and that's the logical conclusion if we accept the Catalyst's words as fact.

Furthermore, the logic of "I will save you from X by subjecting you to X" simply does not work. Especially when it comes from a computer, a being driven solely by logic. It's completely self-defeating to solve a problem by introducing the problem, and the motivation behind it is contradicted multiple times throughout the game.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
ChristopherT said:
(also, side note, did the Geth ever seek out and attack living people before the Reapers took them over? I can?t remember reading anything about it, I only remember the Geth staying on planet as the Quarians left, and then the ?bad? Geth working for the Reapers in ME1...I could be wrong of with that of course, but if not, then what the hell? )
The Geth have never initiated hostilities with any species, save for those who followed Saren/Sovereign.

The Geth drove the Quarians from Rannoch to save themselves and retreated into isolation, not being seen outside the Perseus Veil until ME1 happens, and even after that the vast majority of the Geth still stay home.
 

Murmillos

Silly Deerthing
Feb 13, 2011
359
0
0
On a separate note; I chose control the Reapers

TIM only wanted the Reaper tech for humanity ONLY, Shepard mostly has been about "everybody". Hopefully we can trust Shepard does fall to "Absolute Power Absolutely Corrupts".

I thought that would have been best for the following reasons.

1) With the "war" over, and the mass relays gone, I'm going to need a fuck ton and highly technological ships that can help get people around. Hell, in the short term, there is hopefully enough resources in those things to help get Earth/Mars going again as so not every body starves to death. And if the Reaper ships can travel from system to system at FTL speeds and not need to discharge (or perhaps can travel much longer distances at a quicker pace), then I'll need those ships to get everybody back to their home planets and a very basic network/trade system going again.

2) Also, with the reapers, and the found knowledge on Ilos with the Mass Relay that the Proteans build, perhaps we can even start to remake a few of them. Its not going to be fixed overnight, but if we can build The Crucible in a matter of "weeks", then we can perhaps build a few over the years to link the major star systems again.
 

Murmillos

Silly Deerthing
Feb 13, 2011
359
0
0
Agayek said:
That's just it though, their solution to the problem is to cause the problem. It's flawed logic from the getgo. First off, the fact that the Catalyst is (supposedly) actively trying to help organic life directly contradicts its statement that all synthetic life will ultimately attack and kill organic life. It claims to be attempting to save organics, but its own logic says that it must try to kill them.

Beyond that, depending on how the game plays out, you directly contradict this by brokering a peace between Geth and Quarian. Even past that, EDI actively aids organics of her own free will, even going so far as entering a relationship with one. This is not the behavior of someone "fated" to kill all organics, and that's the logical conclusion if we accept the Catalyst's words as fact.

Furthermore, the logic of "I will save you from X by subjecting you to X" simply does not work. Especially when it comes from a computer, a being driven solely by logic. It's completely self-defeating to solve a problem by introducing the problem, and the motivation behind it is contradicted multiple times throughout the game.
But again, its not about what you JUST did with the Geth/Quarians or EDI, which yes, does show that in some cases, organics/synthetics can live in peace, but that there may be a future, a time, that there will be a synthetic that will wage all out war again all living life., from single cell organisms and up.

He is saving organics, FUTURE organics. He views advanced organics as a threat to lower level organics (as being able to create synthetics) so the advanced organics must be removed.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Murmillos said:
But again, its not about what you JUST did with the Geth/Quarians or EDI, which yes, does show that in some cases, organics/synthetics can live in peace, but that there may be a future, a time, that there will be a synthetic that will wage all out war again all living life., from single cell organisms and up.

He is saving organics, FUTURE organics. He views advanced organics as a threat to lower level organics (as being able to create synthetics) so the advanced organics must be removed.
I get that, really I do. What you appear to not understand is that its whole supposition that advanced organics are a threat is predicated on the assumption that it is 100% inevitable and unavoidable for synthetics to rise against their creators. The Catalyst outright states that synthetics always rebel against their creators, and so to solve that problem it created the Cycle.

The problem is that the events of the game and the motivations/goals of the Catalyst itself prove that synthetic life will not inevitably wipe out organic life. The entire premise for the necessity of the Cycle is thus undermined, and the argument itself rings depressingly hollow. You can't make a rational argument out of an obviously flawed premise. The fact that they tried anyway is part of the reason the canon endings are so bad.
 

mootant

New member
Mar 16, 2012
1
0
0
It's clear that Susan is a bully all the time (or whatever you want to call it) and she's not exactly helping brain storming by blocking anything/anyone who disagrees with her. I wonder how much % of whole audio is her talking if you counted it, I guess a lot above 25%. :p
 

Cyneric

New member
Jul 11, 2009
10
0
0
But it isn't a heroic sacrifice for me, I did destruction shephard lived, there was no effing sacrifice.
 

Murmillos

Silly Deerthing
Feb 13, 2011
359
0
0
Agayek said:
The Catalyst outright states that synthetics always rebel against their creators, and so to solve that problem it created the Cycle.
Nor do I think the Catalyst is one to say, well, lets just wait and find out if these synthetics aren't going to become a total Galaxy organic wiping menace like the ~LAST~ cycle.

Since we are only looking at a very finite, limited history of time verses the Reapers millions of years of cycles: I'm sure their judgment on seeing some truly awful synthetics dictates that the Cycle must continue, regardless of current nature of the organic/synthetic playing field.

The risk waiting too long means they could no longer have the element of surprise/numbers on their side before its too late, with a galaxy wide organic hating synthetic is on the loose.

I find the flaw of just saying, ok, we "fixed" the Geth, the cycle is no longer needed and is flawed in itself too. The Geth are just ONE synthetic and as so, are not the basis of all future synthetics.

The Catalyst has one clear notation, at some point, in some future, an advanced organic life will create a synthetic that will wipe out ALL organic life. Regardless of the current cycle, they must be removed before they have a chance to prove the Catalyst right.
My notion is that the Catalyst would rather be infinity wrong, the proved right just once. Because being proved right once, means he didn't do his job he set out to prevent.

Its a Catch-22.

The problem is that the events of the game and the motivations/goals of the Catalyst itself prove that synthetic life will not inevitably wipe out organic life. The entire premise for the necessity of the Cycle is thus undermined, and the argument itself rings depressingly hollow. You can't make a rational argument out of an obviously flawed premise. The fact that they tried anyway is part of the reason the canon endings are so bad.
I get the problem with the ending is that NONE of your choices matter in making the decision or do we see any of the after effects of those choices. What happened between X and Y, A and B. Why should doing C over D matter when I don't know the difference of that choice and what later effects it had.
 

OManoghue

New member
Dec 12, 2008
438
0
0
I was fine with it, I saved the Galaxy and died heroically destroying the Reapers because no man should control them. I didn't choose Synthesis because who am I to decide that EVERYONE becomes a robot, so killing them was my only option. My Military strength was 3300 ish, so I managed to "save" Anderson, save earth and the galaxy, but not survive. I'm gonna grind the multiplayer and try to survive the ending. Which apparently you can live if you have between 4000 and 5000 military strength.
 

Loonerinoes

New member
Apr 9, 2009
889
0
0
Okay.

I decided to post this wall of text (not that I think it'll matter much in the end of all the opinions that will no doubt be presented in this form), because frankly I actually did want to find out some kind of cohesive summation of what people find dissapointing about the endings, that I could actually consider moreso reasonable than the usual forum game of 'selective logic argument' vs. 'selective logic counter-argument' that of course always devolves into an incomprehensible mess. In that regard the podcasts actually did a fine job.

----------

First up this segment deals with the validity of the endings.

As a quick aside - no I don't believe the indoctrination theory at all, because I know that it's just another form of rationalizing and trying to avoid these endings as being valid. Another form of wish-fulfillment on the part of those espousing it that tries to avoid any kind of meaning in the endings as they are now. (it's funny how people don't get that this kind of rationalizing is, ironically, the psychological bread and butter of indoctrination itself! It's elaborated very well in Mass Effect: Retribution. It doesn't matter how convoluted one's logic gets, you will justify and explain anything to yourself so long as your ego gets validated - that's the basis of it apart from the scientific level with the ultrasound and everything.

And I think the bottom line, that I do find valid for why the endings might not measure up to the rest of the game, is this:

The core issue, of why the endings are disliked, is because the most typical goal within an RPG, meaning the sense of closure and consequences of your actions being spelled out to you, is in this one case not given to you on a silver platter.

That is it I think. Sure, there's the much more ego-boosting "I want Shepard to be a badass to the end." argument, but given that ME3 as a whole is about Shepard actually no longer being presented as this invunerable legendary person, but rather as a human being (i.e. him/her failing right in the intro by not managing to save the kid, something that haunts him/her in their dreams throughout the entire game and beautifully gets this point across, or failing on Thessia - good point there), that argument for me falls flat on its face. Instead it is that lack of sense of closure that I find to be the most valid argument for why the endings did not feel good for most people.

Notice I said 'most'. Believe it or not, some people actually *did* feel something great from that lack of closure (including myself) PRECISELY because what this allowed us to do is to use our imaginations to form our opinions on what took place afterwards as a result of our choices and decisions. Whereas most players (quite unsurprisingly) want things to conclude neat and tidy - they want to be 'told' what happens...rather than using their imaginations to think on what could happen after this.

Still, I will admit that the number that were dissapointed was probably bigger than I had initially imagined. This, I think, ties into the fact that players of western civilization are such a goal-oriented society. Personally, I am incredibly interested in what Japanese players might think of ME3's endings, because that audience is not nearly as goal-oriented and I wouldn't be surprised if they actually find the endings *better* than the typical 'Okay, here's the text crawl on the consequences' approach that is standard fare for most RPGs.

Tying into this is the whole "How did Joker get to the Mass Relay in time" thing. I am almost 100% that was moreso intended metaphorically rather than literally. Some might say this betrays the rule of hardcoar sci-fi or such but...I managed to forgive it, though yeah I do agree that it'd be pretty damn hard for that to happen literally. As far as the other 'logic holes' though - isn't it possible Anderson got into the beam while Shepard had blacked out and the radio-comm team didn't see him enter, because of...you know...Harbinger obliterating and throwing up all that dust in the air? Just because the comm team didn't see Anderson enter, and thus automatically assumed that he died, doesn't mean he never did for pete's sake! Not everything that is said in a word of fiction by its characters is somehow automatically canon.

And wouldn't it be possible for the Catalyst to take the form of that kid, that represents Shepard's failures, through a technology not yet revealed to us? I definitely think it would be, but indeed if such a tech did exist it was not elaborated upon and we're pretty much forced to accept Arthur C. Clarke's axiom that "Any sufficiently advanced technology will seem magical." This, by the way, also goes for the synthesis choice at the end. But yes - the player is asked to accept a few things on faith here rather than logical justification...a big problem for western audiences as the rest of my post will elaborate on.

------------

And second this segment details what I did get out of the endings and why I like them just the way they are.

I didn't get the 'best' one, the one including the synthesis. I instead got the second best one I think...the one where you just have the blue control or red destroy option. I am amazed that no one caught the little line about how the control option actually *was* a good one - the one where Shepard says chuckling a bit to himself: "Huh...so the Illusive man was right." and the Catalyst saying: "Yes...but he could never control us, because we already controlled him."

It's a shame so many people missed out on this line and never thought about it heavily...because for me that was the moment that I just had my little moment of awesome in the ending. The same point that a dearly beloved and departed sci-fi author made in one of his last interviews at the start of this clip...


The point being: No! It will work out for the long run if Shepard DOES control the Reapers. Because power always attracts the corruptable (like the Illusive Man) as opposed to just automatically always corrupting absolutely. It also puts the Paragon/Renegade thing into a whole different perspective for me too! The Illusive Man is someone, whose goal actually IS a lot more that of a Paragon in the end, but in order to get there the means he uses are totally Renegade. Anderson on the other hand is someone, whose goal IS a lot more Renegade in the end (disagree with the Illusive Man as much as you like, I found his point very much correct: "Will you really just listen to a man who can only see life down a barrel of a gun?" which is ultimately what it boils down for a soldier), but who doesn't compromise his integrity to get there - he's always about being a soldier but for its noblest reasons: To save others if he possibly can.

And that's why that ending was so awesome for me, because your imagination can take you to two different outcomes if you pick that blue 'control' option. If you played your Shepard as mostly Renegade...then yeah, chances are that absolute power will indeed corrupt you. But if you played him/her as Paragon...then in my mind the Reapers (and all synthetics) leave organics alone and depart...possibly to another galaxy...possibly back to dark space...either way they try to find a way to coexist with organics, but seperate of them so that neither side endangers each other.

But an even moreso powerful reason for why the ending hit home for me. All those emotional moments the podcast listed (and many many more, I might add) make you incredibly attached to all life everyhwere. And throughout the game you see the Reapers inflict such devastation and horror on them. And now, here at the very end, I was being asked if I am truly willing to have my vengeance for all the lives lost, but potentially doom the galaxy for the cycle to repeat itself again...or am I willing to forgive the worst atrocities I've ever seen, because it might be the only way for both organics and synthetics to remain unique in their own ways...but to finally seperate them and stop the madness of the cycle?

It was a great question between vengeance and empathy for me. Would I be willing to kill every synthetic (even the Geth whom I adore to no end) if it meant that I would avenge all the loss of life in the galaxy and thus 'do them justice'...or would I be willing to empathize with both sides, forgive even these utterly horrid things if it meant that both organics and synthetics could continue to exist in their wonderful unique forms in seperate parts of the universe?

If you've payed attention enough to what I've written thus far...I guess you can guess which of the two options I chose in the end. And it taught me something very valuable too about what I believed in at my core - that quote attributed to Ghandi: "An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind." And even when dealing with galactic extinction...I still believed that. And all I had to do to get so much out of the endings was actually not rely on the developer to give me a 'pat on the back' or a sense of closure and use my own imagination to derive my own ending. And it was great.

I know this is not the way a vast majority of gamers percieve this game (or indeed most games), but for me at least - this open-ended ending was utter and complete proof that Mass Effect 3 was a work of art unlike any movie ever. It confronted me with what sort of person I was for making those choices, not because of the *results* of those choices...but because of the *context* within which I made those choices. Someone not choosing to control the Reapers does not matter as much necessarily, because it leads to some kind of 'best ending'. But it DOES matter, because they believe the adage that "Absolute power would corrupt absolutely." Just as me choosing it matters, because I believe that "Absolute power only attracts the corruptable." and that "An eye for an eye will only leave the galaxy blind to the cycle, which will inevitably repeat itself with future civilizations of this galaxy." and that I believed my Shepard (paragon) had proven himself to be incorruptible enough up to bear that burden till that point.

Bottom line? The endings are great because they shift the focus away from the goal and towards the journey. Because, for me at least, they shifted the question from "Which ending is the best." to "Why did you choose this?" It enriched my life moreso than any text-crawl or conclusion ever could, because my own imagination was given permission to explore these conclusions for myself based on what I believed in.

-----

And I guess that's about it. Don't bother to try and 'destroy' my arguments or such please...I doubt I'll respond in this thread again. So if you are trying to 'destroy my logic' or other such thing, know you're doing it primarily to validate your own egoes. It won't change the fact that I loved my Mass Effect 3 ending to the death. Even though I certainly see how people might want a DLC for 'amended endings' that give more closure and that's fine if people would like that.

But at this point I would say - if such a DLC does come out, let it *add* to the already existing endings, but please do not retcon anything. It is fine the way it is. Just add those closure endings if you must, or explain that final scene a bit better...but don't retcon it. Bioware did something here, for better or for worse, and what would be great is that they do stick to their guns about it. Having said that, I see no problem with them adding something more to make the ending moreso 'complete' for those who desire such endings.

I, for one, don't desire it. I won't say the ending was perfect (as I said, Joker escaping ala metaphor was really pushing it), but I will say - it was the most satisfying RPG ending I've ever had, precisely because it didn't end with the standard text crawl or voice over. And if you think that means I'm 'drinking the kool-aid', as is so popular with every single moronic counter-argument made on the internet these days about Bioware fans, then I'm fine with you thinking that. Because it shows to me that you don't have the imagination needed to insert your own ending based on the choices you made, rather than rely on some authority figure to spell it out to you.

Otherwise...please resume everything, especially the rage. Financially I suppose this incomplete ending thing is probably one of the best things they could've done, because I can only imagine how many people will fork over the cash for the DLC that 'completes' their ending. But I won't be one of them. Because I love the ending I got just fine. :) But by all means, if Bioware make a DLC that 'completes' the ending and doesn't retcon anything that's already in ME3 right now...I am totally okay with that. But it won't be my ME3 - in my ME3 I don't need that DLC and I don't need Bioware giving me my closure. My own imagination can come up with that just fine on its own.
 

Lord_Gremlin

New member
Apr 10, 2009
744
0
0
Just want to point out that ME3 has different lead writer then ME1 and 2. So this guy could just disrespect the series.
 

Loonerinoes

New member
Apr 9, 2009
889
0
0
Lord_Gremlin said:
Just want to point out that ME3 has different lead writer then ME1 and 2. So this guy could just disrespect the series.
Have to reply to this, because I think it's worth pointing out - it is not this simple, it never is when writing for videogames at the high-production level like Bioware is at right now. There's never a single authority figure as Drew Karpyshyn himself describes in his latest blog post:

http://drewkarpyshyn.com/c/?p=381

So hold what opinion you will about the ending. But don't try to say it's all Mac Walters' fault, because that'd mean it's also his fault for bringing those gut-wrenching moments of awesome during the rest of the game. Heck, Drew himself even said many times that he felt as if he got too much of the credit for the writing, because there's always a team doing that.

And frankly, the explanation of 'one writer does it all with superhuman strength' is so overtly-simplistic that I really think this game deserves better than that. Even though I know that on the internet especially, Jack's saying on the Collector Ship holds twice as true: "You get what you get. Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
 

T3hSource

New member
Mar 5, 2012
321
0
0
Leximodicon said:
Which apparently you can live if you have between 4000 and 5000 military strength.
You can live with the red anding if you have 5k Effective military strength,which is unachievable without multiplayer,I used file editing to go beyond that,took me 20 minutes :p
 

Ramith

New member
Nov 7, 2011
81
0
0
T3hSource said:
Leximodicon said:
Which apparently you can live if you have between 4000 and 5000 military strength.
You can live with the red anding if you have 5k Effective military strength,which is unachievable without multiplayer,I used file editing to go beyond that,took me 20 minutes :p
Ok, so Susan said I can get the best ending without multiplayer, is this true?

Because I did all I could do, and I hit 3500, a far cry from 5000.

I just want someone to finally set this in stone, because I am tempted to replay just to get the 5000 ending.

You didnt have multiplayer Susan, what score did you get?
 

T3hSource

New member
Mar 5, 2012
321
0
0
Ramith said:
Ok, so Susan said I can get the best ending without multiplayer, is this true?

Because I did all I could do, and I hit 3500, a far cry from 5000.

I just want someone to finally set this in stone, because I am tempted to replay just to get the 5000 ending.

You didnt have multiplayer Susan, what score did you get?
Go on YouTube search for mass effect 3 perfect ending,it's the red one BTW and it's the same one that Justin got.
I got the same one because I wanted Shephard to retire with Tali on Rannoch(selfish,I know but I wanted that for my char).

Here's my logic on the ending: F you cycle,F yo Reapers,they're nothing like Sovereign and you just gave Harbinger a single cameo of him failing to do his job.I'm going to destroy all synthetics and pressure Admiral Xen to recreate the geth.
I'm sure she somehow got their basic AI code including the Reaper upgrades,hopefully and even if not she can manage it.Why would the ***** do that: Because Shepard,backed up by Tali and the entire quarian race would like the geth back to help rebuild Rannoch in WEEKS.Afterwards they are going to help the geth create the ultimate consensus so that they have their place in the galaxy as sentient digital libraries.Now with the geth back,acceptance will come with time and they will integrate into society,while constantly trying to understand organics,they can help science immensely with their factuality and also philosophy.

Yes that's my story of how weak willed my Shepard becomes and chooses the easy ways.And this is what BioWare meant by "polarizing" the community with the ending.By now I thought it was rushed,but they also had the incentive with that: "Let's get the internet talking,let's see what the people can come up with in this universe.Who's up for it?"
Ah,social engineering,the best kind of hacking on the internet,so much that the internet itself can't deal with it.

PS: Yes,I'm talking only about the quarian/geth factions because that's the pinnalce of ME3 for me,after I got past that sub plot,my excitement to play the game somehow vanished...
That's also something BioWare is looking at right now,who comes up with what and what they choose to make up after the ending.