Mass Effect 3: It's not the endings, its the final battle (And synthesis)

GuitArchon

New member
Jan 20, 2011
45
0
0
Also, I think, at the very least, we could all probably agree upon one thing regarding the Mass Effect 3 ending:

Koobismo's Marauder Shields web-comic about how a more fleshed-out ME3 ending could have gone is A-MAZ-ING!!
If you haven't checked it out, I highly recommend it! --> http://koobismo.deviantart.com/art/Marauder-Shields-6-The-True-Catalyst-ME3-291069441
 

Archemetis

Is Probably Awesome.
Aug 13, 2008
2,089
0
0
Wasn't the ending sequence subject to a massive re-write before release because some jackass leaked it?
Could of sworn that was a thing.

Regardless, can we all stop talking about it now? It's been like 50 internet years since that happened. Gotta let go at some point.
 

King Billi

New member
Jul 11, 2012
595
0
0
CaptainKoala said:
Let's get one thing straight. The ending was bad, but not because of the lack of choice.

Think about the past ME games and the ending choices. Saving/Killing the council in ME1, Saving/Destroying the Collector base in ME2. All choices, not just the ones made at the end, have never affected the ending in ME games. About the most influence they ever had was the end mission in ME2, and even then you're not directly affecting how the plot is going to turn out. The choices don't (and never have) really directly change the overall story, it changes your journey along the way. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's just the way the trilogy is and I'm pointing it out.

Then ME3 comes along, and the ending follows the formula of the past two games, where the choice affects your journey but not the overall plot. And what happened? ONE OF THE BIGGEST SHITSTORMS IN GAMING HISTORY. People were expecting something out of it that was completely uncharacteristic of the trilogy up to that point.

Also, I said this before on this site (just yesterday, actually) but I'll say it again. ME3 had more great moments than either of the first two games. The Quarian/Geth conflict, the Citadel assault, the Thessia mission, Mordin and the genophage cure, even the beginning mission on Earth. To completely write these things off and focus on the ending is doing a huge disservice to how great the game really was.
I agree with this.

The more I think about it and hear other peoples opinions about Mass Effect 3 the more I feel peoples attention is directed on the wrong aspects of the game and indeed the series as a whole.

I mean what did people honestly find most compelling about these games in the first place? I know that for me it certainly wasn't the Reapers and the whole "cycle of extinction" thing which was supposed to be the entire point of it all... Honestly I've always felt the whole thing was just stupid and uninteresting. It's just such a cliched conflict(For this type of game) designed to raise the stakes to the highest level in hopes of getting people invested... and I just never cared for it.

The greatest appeal for me was always the individual characters and the universe they inhabit that was created in these games, it was such a rich setting with so many possibilities that I never understood why it needed to have such a big all encompassing "threat" especially when most of the smaller side stories were so much more compelling such as the Quarian/Geth conflict or the Genophage all while the Reapers were just a looming threat in the background.

While it was undoubtebly lesser than Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 still gave due attention to most of the things I always appreciated most from the series in the adventure leading up till the final conflict and after that I frankly ceased to care as I was never that invested in the Reapers and I couldn't care less how they were ultimately dealt with...

They were always much better at looming anyway.
 

CaptainKoala

New member
May 23, 2010
1,238
0
0
And as far as the indoctrination theory goes, sure it makes sense (pre-EC DLC, you can still argue for it post, but you'd really be stretching) but making sense and being canon are two entirely different things. Nobody argues that it's an extremely clever theory, the real issue, although people don't usually realize it, is whether or not Bioware intended it to truly be the ending. Which to their credit, and to further drive discussion, they refuse to comment one way or the other on.

And speaking of stretching, people who say that this is the ending Bioware intended all long is doing just that. Think of the implications of Shepard being indoctrinated. The Reapers win, the cycle continues, and you just spent 3 games and 100+ hours of your life working towards something that you are completely incapable of achieving. Have a nice day.
 

AD-Stu

New member
Oct 13, 2011
1,287
0
0
CaptainKoala said:
And as far as the indoctrination theory goes, sure it makes sense (pre-EC DLC, you can still argue for it post, but you'd really be stretching) but making sense and being canon are two entirely different things. Nobody argues that it's an extremely clever theory, the real issue, although people don't usually realize it, is whether or not Bioware intended it to truly be the ending. Which to their credit, and to further drive discussion, they refuse to comment one way or the other on.
*ahem*

I argue that indoctrination theory is not clever. In fact I argue that for anyone to believe in it, at best they've got to play very fast and loose with the established lore. And at worst they're just making stuff up or attaching meaning to things like simple texture mapping shortcuts. And I know I'm not alone.

That's right, I'm the kind of nerd that even bought and read the novels.

Archemetis said:
Wasn't the ending sequence subject to a massive re-write before release because some jackass leaked it? Could of sworn that was a thing.

Regardless, can we all stop talking about it now? It's been like 50 internet years since that happened. Gotta let go at some point.
Apparently yes, there was a rewrite after the script leak (of all sorts of stuff, not just the ending). But I don't think there's ever been anything to suggest that we got a massively different ending as a result - it's not like they switched from happy Hollywood to downer as a result of it.

On your other point, people still talk about the problems that KOTOR2 had or the mess that was Ultima IX, and they happended hundreds of internet years ago (millenia actually, when we're talking Ultima - and seriously if you think Mass Effect fans are holding a grudge over this, ask an Ultima fan about that game literally decades later). It's not like the topic is taking up every other post on the front page any more, like it was at the time the game came out, so...
 
Feb 14, 2013
5
0
0
King Billi said:
I agree with this.

The more I think about it and hear other peoples opinions about Mass Effect 3 the more I feel peoples attention is directed on the wrong aspects of the game and indeed the series as a whole.

I mean what did people honestly find most compelling about these games in the first? I know that for me it certainly wasn't the Reapers and the whole "cycle of extinction" which was supposed to be the whole point of it all... Honestly I've always felt the whole thing was just stupid and uninteresting. It's just such a cliched conflict(For this type of game) designed to raise the stakes to the highest level in hopes of getting people invested... and I just never cared for it.

The greatest appeal for me was always the individual characters and the universe they inhabit that was created in these games, it was such a rich setting with so many possibilities that I never understood why it needed to have such a big all encompassing "threat" especially when most of the smaller side stories were so much more compelling such as the Quarian/Geth conflict or the Genophage all while the Reapers were just a looming threat in the background.

While it was undoubtebly lesser than Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 still gave due attention to most of the things I always appreciated most from the series in the adventure leading up till the final conflict and after that I frankly ceased to care as I was never that invested in the Reapers and I couldn't care less how they were ultimately dealt with...

They were always much better at looming anyway.
I believe what you said is the reason why so many people, including me, didn't notice that ME2 didn't do anything to advance the main plot. It had some great characterization and also improved visuals and gameplay, nothing else seemed to matter.

The way the Reapers were build up raised red flags in my mind from the very start. Sovereign and his whole shtick about how their motivations couldn't be understood was too ridiculous for me to swallow. Everything that followed, like Sovereign breaking through the entire citadel fleet and Legion raving about their unfathomable intelligence, painted a picture of an invincible enemy.
Without giving them any flaws, the only means to defeat them was through a magical off-switch. There couldn't be a satisfying battle with them. The only reason why the galactic forces were able to put up a fight at all was that the Reapers, despite what we kept hearing about them, were behaving like raging morons throughout the series.
 

King Billi

New member
Jul 11, 2012
595
0
0
LeoTheUnprofessional said:
I believe what you said is the reason why so many people, including me, didn't notice that ME2 didn't do anything to advance the main plot. It had some great characterization and also improved visuals and gameplay, nothing else seemed to matter.

The way the Reapers were build up raised red flags in my mind from the very start. Sovereign and his whole shtick about how their motivations couldn't be understood was too ridiculous for me to swallow. Everything that followed, like Sovereign breaking through the entire citadel fleet and Legion raving about their unfathomable intelligence, painted a picture of an invincible enemy.
Without giving them any flaws, the only means to defeat them was through a magical off-switch. There couldn't be a satisfying battle with them. The only reason why the galactic forces were able to put up a fight at all was that the Reapers, despite what we kept hearing about them, were behaving like raging morons throughout the series.
I suppose thats why I personally consider Mass Effect 2 to be the best game in the series, because the Reapers are pushed so far into the background. I know the Collectors are supposed to be their minions or something and it all probably ties together with ME 1 and ME 3 somehow but from a basic standpoint its just a simple story about alien abductions serving as an excuse to explore the galaxy and meet all its different races and experiencing all their own personal stories... again this is probably just in my case.

The best thing in my opinion that the Reapers contributed to the whole thing was Harbingers awesome "Dr Claw" voice. :p
 

El Danny

New member
Dec 7, 2008
149
0
0
Alek_the_Great said:
El Danny said:
Lily Venus said:
The ending is made so much worse by the realisation that they never intended to have satisfying payoff to your choices
Because of my choices, the krogan have a bright future ahead of them, the quarians and the geth have ended their hostility, the rachni have survived, and countless other people have been saved from death.

But if all those choices don't have a specific impact on the war for and activation of an ancient alien superweapon at the end of the game, then obviously those choices never had any impact.

BioWare shouldn't feel bad for disappointing people like you. You've deliberately adopted a completely illogical mindset disconnected from reality simply so you can have an excuse to complain about the game. They really should not have bothered with people who try their hardest to come up with pathetic reasons to cry about the ending.
THANK YOU!

Been saying this about ME3 since I finished it. They never promised varied endings based on your decisions though out them game, only that the decisions you make will make an impact on how the story plays out, and that's certainly true.
Actually they DID promise many varied endings with all of your previous decisions affecting it. Hell, there are multiple quotes of Casey Hudson along with other developers saying this EXACT THING. They promised wildly different endings, pre-extended cut. Before anyone says anything, yes, the endings were wildly different in CONCEPT but in execution they looked practically the same. They didn't go beyond what the Catalyst said word for word. Synthesis: Green explosion, everyone is part synthetic, the end. Control: Blue explosion, the Reapers are being controlled, the end. Destroy: Red explosion, the Reapers are now destroyed ans possibly earth, the end. That was literally ALL the variation you saw so I wouldn't consider that wildly different.
I always find people talking about these 'quotes', yet they never seem to surface, wonder why.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
"What's this, an unresolved issue? What are you doing you mad bastard?!? Don't you know that it is forbade by the great god of the Escapist to reopen a conversation?"

Whenever I see someone post the words "Not this thread again" I think to myself "Not this comment again". Complaints of beating a dead horse have themselves become a dead horse, and some kind of terrible cycle of pretentious dismissal has been created, lo and behold our inevitable doom.

Oh yeah, Mass Effect. Yeah the last mission was kinda shit, I still hold that the ending was worse, but the whole last battle was underwhelming, the best parts of the ending came from the little character interactions, if you ask me.

I think this problem could have been avoided if instead of having earth be the last mission, the last MISSIONS consisted of earth. The last 4-6 hours of the game would be one long, detailed, involved struggle spanning days or weeks, with the arrival of the Diablos/Deus/Confusion Ex Machina (The Crucible, which was stupid and unnecessary) as the final battle.

Ironically, I think ME3's frantic pacing is the source for most of it's problems. Say what you will about how unfocused ME2 was, every character got their due and every major plot point was closed (Except for the whole star thing(The fuck was that?)). This was because ME2 was the only game in the series without some kind of ticking clock, it was just Shepard setting up the strike on the collector base whenever the fuck he felt like it; it was for this reason everybody got their own little vignette.

The "Catch Saren before he fucks something up" and "HOLYFUCKHOLYFUCKHOLYFUCKWE'REALLGONNADIE!!!" plots of ME and ME3 respectively mean that Shepard doesn't really have time to do things like blow up a ruin or look up family just to make his buds feel better, and it also means that those friends don't get to express themselves in such personal ways, because the looming threat of annihilation demands everybody behave a certain way, and it takes a great deal of narrative back flipping and face-heel turns to make it even remotely plausible that someone would still argue against that behavior(*cough*TIM*cough*).

This is also why Saren worked better as a threat, because only the player and his immediate circle were aware of the danger, so it wasn't so jarring when nobody else wanted to help.

It was all kind of inevitable, though. This is why Bioware needs to change up their formula, because as they seek to tell more complex stories it's going to become a burden; I'm not convinced the Mass Effect series had to be about galactic destruction, but Bioware just kind of defaulted to it, and as a result we have games whose concept details and thematic undertones are often more engaging than the overarching stories that support them.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
El Danny said:
Alek_the_Great said:
El Danny said:
Lily Venus said:
The ending is made so much worse by the realisation that they never intended to have satisfying payoff to your choices
Because of my choices, the krogan have a bright future ahead of them, the quarians and the geth have ended their hostility, the rachni have survived, and countless other people have been saved from death.

But if all those choices don't have a specific impact on the war for and activation of an ancient alien superweapon at the end of the game, then obviously those choices never had any impact.

BioWare shouldn't feel bad for disappointing people like you. You've deliberately adopted a completely illogical mindset disconnected from reality simply so you can have an excuse to complain about the game. They really should not have bothered with people who try their hardest to come up with pathetic reasons to cry about the ending.
THANK YOU!

Been saying this about ME3 since I finished it. They never promised varied endings based on your decisions though out them game, only that the decisions you make will make an impact on how the story plays out, and that's certainly true.
Actually they DID promise many varied endings with all of your previous decisions affecting it. Hell, there are multiple quotes of Casey Hudson along with other developers saying this EXACT THING. They promised wildly different endings, pre-extended cut. Before anyone says anything, yes, the endings were wildly different in CONCEPT but in execution they looked practically the same. They didn't go beyond what the Catalyst said word for word. Synthesis: Green explosion, everyone is part synthetic, the end. Control: Blue explosion, the Reapers are being controlled, the end. Destroy: Red explosion, the Reapers are now destroyed ans possibly earth, the end. That was literally ALL the variation you saw so I wouldn't consider that wildly different.
I always find people talking about these 'quotes', yet they never seem to surface, wonder why.
"Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome."

"[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."

"There are many different endings. We wouldn't do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can't
say any more than that?"

"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it."

They aren't that hard to find.
 

El Danny

New member
Dec 7, 2008
149
0
0
sumanoskae said:
El Danny said:
Alek_the_Great said:
El Danny said:
Lily Venus said:
The ending is made so much worse by the realisation that they never intended to have satisfying payoff to your choices
Because of my choices, the krogan have a bright future ahead of them, the quarians and the geth have ended their hostility, the rachni have survived, and countless other people have been saved from death.

But if all those choices don't have a specific impact on the war for and activation of an ancient alien superweapon at the end of the game, then obviously those choices never had any impact.

BioWare shouldn't feel bad for disappointing people like you. You've deliberately adopted a completely illogical mindset disconnected from reality simply so you can have an excuse to complain about the game. They really should not have bothered with people who try their hardest to come up with pathetic reasons to cry about the ending.
THANK YOU!

Been saying this about ME3 since I finished it. They never promised varied endings based on your decisions though out them game, only that the decisions you make will make an impact on how the story plays out, and that's certainly true.
Actually they DID promise many varied endings with all of your previous decisions affecting it. Hell, there are multiple quotes of Casey Hudson along with other developers saying this EXACT THING. They promised wildly different endings, pre-extended cut. Before anyone says anything, yes, the endings were wildly different in CONCEPT but in execution they looked practically the same. They didn't go beyond what the Catalyst said word for word. Synthesis: Green explosion, everyone is part synthetic, the end. Control: Blue explosion, the Reapers are being controlled, the end. Destroy: Red explosion, the Reapers are now destroyed ans possibly earth, the end. That was literally ALL the variation you saw so I wouldn't consider that wildly different.
I always find people talking about these 'quotes', yet they never seem to surface, wonder why.
sumanoskae said:
"Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome."
Totally true, when I've talked to other people about their playing experience it's sound like some of us played completely different games based on the choices we made throughout the game.

sumanoskae said:
"[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
While I don't remember the Rachni in the final battle itself, it's totally possible that in the EU or lore of Mass Effect they do.


sumanoskae said:
"There are many different endings. We wouldn't do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can't
say any more than that?"
Also true, there are far more 'endings' as in on-going plots being resolved throughout the entire game.

sumanoskae said:
"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it."
Notice the use of "up to the final moments"...
"So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things" No it's not, I consider the ending everything that happens in Sol and I certainly saw plenty of my previous choices and actions over all previous 3 games so up.
They aren't that hard to find.
Looking though the major collection of 'promises' I see plenty of vague hints but nothing concrete, nothing enough to justify going "SEE! SEE! THEY PROMISED THIS!".
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
The Reapers were millions of years old, they came to there decision that organics/machines cant live together and decided on the best course of action to save them. So every 50,000 years they jump through the gate, kick ass, grab the most advanced races to turn into a reaper and leave. They dont talk to anyway, not take interest in whats happening. They are single minded.

Now the argument that the geth/quarian did it, well thats the ONLY time it has happened in millions of years....it means nothing. Its a fluke. Its like if a person survives shooting themselves in the head, doesnt mean i would survive it nor the other 100 people after me. Also thats dependent on whether you actually managed to make the geth/quarians friends on your play through.

Although i agree with the final battle though, it mostly made no different who you saved or didnt. I saved the Rachini (ignoring the fact i killed the last one in ME1) and i expected to have rachini running into battle with me. Oh well, still an enjoyable game, even with its little issues. I look forward to other ME games, maybe those games will be set furthur in the future than ME3 and we can read a more indepth account in books etc in the game. :)
 

Megalodon

New member
May 14, 2010
781
0
0
El Danny said:
sumanoskae said:
sumanoskae said:
"Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome."
Totally true, when I've talked to other people about their playing experience it's sound like some of us played completely different games based on the choices we made throughout the game.
I'd agree with this about most of the "experience" of the game, say having Wrex and Mealon's data is pretty damn different to no data and Wreav. But the outcome isn't "completely shaped" by your decsisions. Whatever you do throughout the game, the crucible is always built, you meant the catalyst and get to choose your colour of explosion. This was mitigated somewhat by the EC, as that did give each ending a different feel.

sumanoskae said:
"[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
While I don't remember the Rachni in the final battle itself, it's totally possible that in the EU or lore of Mass Effect they do.
Even if the Rachni played a role in EU or lore, that doesn't change what role we see them play in the game itself,they don't play a role in the final battle of ME3, so the latter part of the claim is wrong, and the choice of the Rachni queen living or dying only changes which emails you get and which category of EMS goes up. That isn't what I'd decsribe as "huge consequences".


sumanoskae said:
"There are many different endings. We wouldn't do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can't
say any more than that?"
Also true, there are far more 'endings' as in on-going plots being resolved throughout the entire game.
This looks like semantic argueing over the nature of "ending". It is not unreasonable it expect that a quote talking about ending is referring to the ending of the entire game, not resolution of individul plot points. Would you say that KOTOR had 7 or so "endings"? Because events on Taris, Korriban, Manaan, Kashykk, Tatooine and the Leviathan all resolved before the big dark'light choice and showdown with Malak. Just like in ME3, where the Tuchanka, Rannoch, and Cerberus base segemnts conclude theor individual story components, but for the purpose of feeding into the final confrontation in the game's finale.

sumanoskae said:
"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it."
Notice the use of "up to the final moments"...
What about "be different for everyone who plays it". Obviously there's an element of hyperbole to this kind of statement, but I don't think it is particularly unreasonable to expect more difference in the endings than a colour filter swap (pre EC) after comments like this.
"So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things" No it's not, I consider the ending everything that happens in Sol and I certainly saw plenty of my previous choices and actions over all previous 3 games so up.
They aren't that hard to find.
If that's how you define the ending then some of your choices can undeniably be considered to feature, what with Wrex/Wreav/Kirrahe's speech and the different allies you have appearing as the fleets report in (note the lack of rachni there). However, it appears that most people (myself included) consider the ending to be the events following Shepard being hit by Harbinger's beam, and after that all your choices aren't referenced, only the EMS score to determine the effect of the crucible.
Lily Venus said:
Addendum:

of course you do not get to actually WIN
Hooray, more ignorant rhetoric that makes it blatantly obvious that someone knows nothing about the ending!
Who are you even quoting here? I can't recall that being mentioned at any point in this thread.
 

votemarvel

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 29, 2009
1,353
3
43
Country
England
Lily Venus said:
What foreshadowing was there?
Right from when you learn about the Crucible, you get theories on how it might be some sort of weapon to destroy the Reapers. That's followed up by the Illusive Man telling you that he seeks to control the Reapers. (He also mentions that he believes it to be the secret of advancing humanity's evolution, which turns out to be quite ironic.)

Don't forget the Reaper-Destroyer on Rannoch as well, which further alludes to the Reapers "saving" organic life and has the Reaper mention organic/synthetic conflict.

Most notably, there's Vendetta, who tells you that the Reapers appear to be the servants of the cycle rather than its creator and who tells you more information on the Catalyst and the Crucible.

Then there's Horizon, where you learn that Cerberus has indeed made breakthrough in controlling husks, showing that controlling the Reapers may not be so far-fetched.
It's amazing what a fresh pair of eyes can see. I'd never really connected those together.

Thanks for the new insight.
 

PirateRose

New member
Aug 13, 2008
287
0
0
I've said it before and will say again, without big long post explaining it cause I feel like I've posted that enough.

The game sucks.

Gameplay was good, the game looked good, I'm sure Bioware worked really really hard, but they made a lot of bad decisions to work hard on when it came to story and characters(example: the female characters had to be sexy, while male characters had personality and experience incorporated into their appearances).

I want to start another game up with a fresh, fan hoping it will get better, serious look at it. After not touching it in a year and that my brain is clear of the shock, I can work together a proper essay as to why Bioware screwed everything up.
 
Feb 14, 2013
5
0
0
Lily Venus said:
What foreshadowing was there?
Right from when you learn about the Crucible, you get theories on how it might be some sort of weapon to destroy the Reapers. That's followed up by the Illusive Man telling you that he seeks to control the Reapers. (He also mentions that he believes it to be the secret of advancing humanity's evolution, which turns out to be quite ironic.)
The problem with the Crucible is that it is a very poorly conceived plot device. Nobody knows how or even if it works. It just so happens to be the right tool to achieve TIM's megalomaniacal delusions, change all organic and synthetic life on a molecular level, and destroy the Reapers. However, in order to do those things we need to get the greenlight from a hitherto unknown force. Every assumption about the Crucible's capabilities is completely baseless, but the Catalyst conveniently makes them all to be true. That's a very cheap way of foreshadowing something.

Don't forget the Reaper-Destroyer on Rannoch as well, which further alludes to the Reapers "saving" organic life and has the Reaper mention organic/synthetic conflict.
But that happens after Legion shows us that the Geth never wanted to fight the Quarians and right before we can end the conflict between them. A conflict for which the Reapers were largely responsible, at least in its recent incarnation. And it was Sovereign who made them fight us in the first part of the series. The Geth were never hostile towards organics before they were brainwashed.

Most notably, there's Vendetta, who tells you that the Reapers appear to be the servants of the cycle rather than its creator and who tells you more information on the Catalyst and the Crucible.
This is one of those 'how the hell could they have possibly figured that out' cases. Why would they think that? Is it because they follow certain patterns? That might just as well be Harbinger commanding them around. Vendetta makes no good argument for a possible external influence.

Then there's Horizon, where you learn that Cerberus has indeed made breakthrough in controlling husks, showing that controlling the Reapers may not be so far-fetched.
I'd say it's very far-fetched to extrapolate from controlling husks to controlling the Reapers. After all, husks are mindless drones with no free will to speak of. Reapers, on the other hand, are each a nation composed of billions of minds. There's no reason to think that you could take control over them.

I mean is it so hard to believe that Legion just periodically linked into the Geth consciousness and backed up his files up until the suicide mission where he was destroyed?
And why do you think that Legion had access to the Geth consensus or a means of "backing up" its programs? Legion is a unique geth platform after all, designed to operate independently from other geth.
There is no way to make a perfect copy of an AI. As soon as you load it into a new blue box, you create a new personality. That's part of the ME lore. But what makes you say that Legion wouldn't contact his fellow Geth once in a while? Controlling the Reapers is much more unlikely, yet you give that a pass.