Mass Effect 3.5B: Taste the Rainbow (Story and Ending Discussion; Spoilers!)

[Luzahn]

I do wish shouting at the Batarians that they're going to go kablooie would have saved a couple of ships or something. I had a hard time with the choice to try to warn them; It's more logical to save Shepard, the important one.

[Anarion]

As incredibly awful as this sounds:

Destroy, with maxed assets, on the scale of the war so far, might not kill a lot of people. "Just" millions. (Maximum estimates for the number of Geth programs was a billion, and every platform tended to have at least ten or so. )Considering every world being reaped loses 1.86 million+ a day, and the war's been going on multiple worlds for months, 100 million doesn't sound that bad. Heck probably kills nobody, if Shep had to kill the Geth earlier. EDI can survive destroy.

Cold calculus of war. 10 billion die here so 20 billion over there can live.

And that's all taking the Starchild at his word. Which is part of why Synthesis is so awful.

You're taking marching orders from the inventor of the Reapers. That's a being who's evil on a scale that few can match. He's committed genocide hundreds, maybe hundreds of thousands of times. Not like Shepard or the salarians do it, either. They feel bad and try to make it as not-incredibly-painful as possible. Heck, the Krogan generally go for speed.

This guy takes the slow, painful route. Talking to Javik reveals the beginnings of how nasty things get late in a cycle.

Synthesis is what the thing wants. Even ignoring the whole totally-rewriting-everyone's-genetics-without-consent and the how-is-this-stupid-thing-supposed-to-work/stop-the-reapers factors, that's a good reason to stay far, far away.

Oh, and morally, I'm pretty sure the best option is doing Arrival. Either way, all the batarians are dead. Not doing it just gets a lot of good alliance marines killed and loses intel. Thing has to be done. No honor in shirking.

It's worse to wipe out an entire species though. If we're doing the cold calculus thing, if the galaxy had 100 billion beings total, I would prefer to kill 20 billion out of a race of 50 billion than kill 10 billion out of a race of 10 billion. Your mileage may vary, but that's what made destroy an unpalatable ending for me. At the time I basically said the following to myself
1. Can't do red, it will wipe out the Geth
2. green and blue seem like a coin flip. Do I go with the better but unreliable one or the longer-lasting scary one?
3. Eh, don't like TIM either, let's go with the longer-lasting scary one.

And as I've noted previously, the idea of synthesis itself doesn't hugely bother me. Nor does transhumanism in other contexts. Obviously, if it turned out I were making husks, then I got tricked badly and I would feel bad about that. But I think that what I did is keep individual life more or less the same while altering the way that most beings the galaxy reproduce and evolve, which I am okay with as a more reliable and permanent solution than the control ending.

[Luzahn]

It's worse to wipe out an entire species though. If we're doing the cold calculus thing, if the galaxy had 100 billion beings total, I would prefer to kill 20 billion out of a race of 50 billion than kill 10 billion out of a race of 10 billion. Your mileage may vary, but that's what made destroy an unpalatable ending for me. At the time I basically said the following to myself
1. Can't do red, it will wipe out the Geth
2. green and blue seem like a coin flip. Do I go with the better but unreliable one or the longer-lasting scary one?
3. Eh, don't like TIM either, let's go with the longer-lasting scary one.

And as I've noted previously, the idea of synthesis itself doesn't hugely bother me. Nor does transhumanism in other contexts. Obviously, if it turned out I were making husks, then I got tricked badly and I would feel bad about that. But I think that what I did is keep individual life more or less the same while altering the way that most beings the galaxy reproduce and evolve, which I am okay with as a more reliable and permanent solution than the control ending.

I look at the Geth as an extension of the Quarians; If they really wanted to, the Quarians could rebuild the Geth anyway.

I wonder what would happen to an inactive Geth (Like Legion, pre-squad) when the blast it.

[Xondoure]

I look at the Geth as an extension of the Quarians; If they really wanted to, the Quarians could rebuild the Geth anyway.

I wonder what would happen to an inactive Geth (Like Legion, pre-squad) when the blast it.

Legion presquad is totally unprecedented.

[BRC]

I look at the Geth as an extension of the Quarians; If they really wanted to, the Quarians could rebuild the Geth anyway.

They won't though. It's one thing to accept that the Geth are not enemies, it's another to restart the process that caused the Exile in the first place. I know that if I was a Quarian, and all the Geth dropped dead, "Well we know what we are doing this time" would not be enough to convince me we should bring them back. The Apologists would mourn them, the Millitarists would say "Good riddance", they might get a statue somewhere, but they would not be rebuilt. Maybe, somewhere a few guilt-ridden Quarians might try to rebuild the Geth, but they would get shut down.

Edit: legion Presquad was just a deactivated Geth Platform. Why would that be unprecedented?

[Zevox]

I really can't think of a politer way to phrase "what the hell" and "you people scare me".

*shrugs* And I can think of no response other than to repeat the question your quoted. I'm genuinely confused why that's some significant concern.

And that's all taking the Starchild at his word. Which is part of why Synthesis is so awful.

You're taking marching orders from the inventor of the Reapers. That's a being who's evil on a scale that few can match. He's committed genocide hundreds, maybe hundreds of thousands of times. Not like Shepard or the salarians do it, either. They feel bad and try to make it as not-incredibly-painful as possible. Heck, the Krogan generally go for speed.

This guy takes the slow, painful route. Talking to Javik reveals the beginnings of how nasty things get late in a cycle.

Synthesis is what the thing wants. Even ignoring the whole totally-rewriting-everyone's-genetics-without-consent and the how-is-this-stupid-thing-supposed-to-work/stop-the-reapers factors, that's a good reason to stay far, far away.

Yeah, again, I just don't see this. I wasn't assuming that his argument about organics and synthetics being in conflict is correct when I picked synthesis the first time, and I'm sure as hell not now. I'm assuming he's a total idiot because that makes no sense - I saw that immediately when I first went through the ending, and I'm someone who had to have all the possible galactic genocide stuff related to the destruction of the relays pointed out to me after the fact. All I'm doing is taking the actual information he gives - what your options are and what each will do - and deciding which one I personally think is the best decision, completely independent of his idiotic arguments. Whether or not that lines up with his preferences doesn't mean a thing.

Zevox

[Opperhapsen]

*shrugs* And I can think of no response other than to repeat the question your quoted. I'm genuinely confused why that's some significant concern.

Consider me on the "What the hell?" wagon too.

You're changing the very nature of the being of every single living thing on earth without their knowledge or consent.

You're doing this without knowledge of how it will work or what will happen.
You decide for them, and you have no right.

Edit: legion Presquad was just a deactivated Geth Platform. Why would that be unprecedented?

Because Legion was unable to turn himself on.
Basically he was a perfect test subject.

[Luzahn]

*shrugs* And I can think of no response other than to repeat the question your quoted. I'm genuinely confused why that's some significant concern.


Yeah, again, I just don't see this. I wasn't assuming that his argument about organics and synthetics being in conflict is correct when I picked synthesis the first time, and I'm sure as hell not now. I'm assuming he's a total idiot because that makes no sense - I saw that immediately when I first went through the ending, and I'm someone who had to have all the possible galactic genocide stuff related to the destruction of the relays pointed out to me after the fact. All I'm doing is taking the actual information he gives - what your options are and what each will do - and deciding which one I personally think is the best decision, completely independent of his idiotic arguments. Whether or not that lines up with his preferences doesn't mean a thing.

Zevox

That's one way to look at it, and pretty admirable in its own way. I was working to destroy the reapers, to defy their will. It's certainly not the most paragonly thing to do, but I always played my Shepard a bit greyer than that, and actively wanted to spite the reapers once it became clear that they couldn't be defeated in an ideal manner.

Personally, I subscribe to an individualistic and humanistic morality, so from my perspective changing something against its will is near the height of evil.

Good god, that sounds pretentious, doesn't it? Can't think of any other way to state it, though.

[Trazoi]

Synthesis is what the thing wants. Even ignoring the whole totally-rewriting-everyone's-genetics-without-consent and the how-is-this-stupid-thing-supposed-to-work/stop-the-reapers factors, that's a good reason to stay far, far away.

I don't know how synthesis is supposed to happen, even through the magic of mass effect relays or whatever. It's like a magic genie wish. And if that's what the Starchild wants, why the heck didn't it try to do that first instead of genociding the galaxy multiple times? So stupid.

I've been thinking about what I expected in the final level and how that would fuse with what we got. How many holes are there in this scenario? (I haven't played much of the DLC so I don't know if it holds up):

Spoiler

Show

• The Crucible/Citadel combo is actually a giant mind control device, adapted in design by the Protheans in an attempt to pacify/control Reapers.
• TIM knew this, adapted/planted the device on Mars, but it on the Citadel fusing it with Reaper tech to allow it to mind control everyone, i.e. classic "Rule the galaxy, mwahaha, for humanity (but really me)"
• But actually it's a trick by Harbinger. TIM's indoctrinated, and if TIM gets to the control pod Harbinger will assume control and indoctrinate the entire galaxy, game over. That's why TIM's allowed on the Citadel in the first place, and why the Reapers secretly want the Crucible to dock and will allow the final level to take place.
• Shepard gets aboard the Citadel, opens the arms and docks the Crucible with little resistence, then the trap is sprung. The final level is a showdown between Shepard (and team?) vs. TIM and Harbinger in some way, in a battle for the control pod. I'd like to have Shepard get a team aboard for something like ME2 but really anything to go in here as long as it's a satisfying final level. Shooting, stealth, diplomacy, whatever.
• The objective is a single control pod in the Citadel that controls the device (not three different doohickies, that was stupid). Due to the nature of the Crucible or some other Macguffin only a human with Prothean or Reaper mindwaves can use it, i.e. Shepard or TIM.
• There can be a Starchild VI at the pod in a form Shepard can relate with in order to infodump stuff - why not.
• The final choice is what Shepard decides to do with the machine. Once it's switched on the Reapers will know something's up and attack, so the amount of war assets determines how complex a tasks Shepard can do.
• Throw in analogs to the final choices here, or add something new. Destroying the Reapers is a relatively simple mental shockwave, controlling them takes more time, controlling everyone to be galactic dictator takes more (which breaks the theme but whatever), realising the true purpose of the machine and connecting everyone to a telepathic collective consciousness (or favourite insert sci-fi macgubbins) takes a lot more.
• Shepard can get out alive via pickup on the Normandy for some of these choices like destroying the Reapers or collective empathy or whatever if there's enough bonus assets. I'd probably make it not that hard to get out alive by destroying the Reapers unless this Shepard was a total doofus.
• Everyone gets back for metaphorical tea and medals, close with a "where are they now?" epilogue slideshow for everyone important.

It's still got a lot of holes and would be better with some foreshadowing, but I think that's what I'll imagine the final level is if I replay ME3 and quit before the end.

[Zevox]

Consider me on the "What the hell?" wagon too.

You're changing the very nature of the being of every single living thing on earth without their knowledge or consent.

You're doing this without knowledge of how it will work or what will happen.
You decide for them, and you have no right.

I have no right to wipe out the Geth or risk the Reapers getting loose again when I have more permanent solutions at hand either. I have to pick one of the three though (because the alternative is "let the Reapers win," which is worse than any of them) and of the problems, "some people might not like becoming part robot" falls far lower on my list of concerns than genocide or the Reapers being potentially merely temporarily stopped.

Personally, I subscribe to an individualistic and humanistic morality, so from my perspective changing something against its will is near the height of evil.

Good god, that sounds pretentious, doesn't it? Can't think of any other way to state it, though.

Individualim is something I value quite highly here too, and normally I'd certainly not do something like this, but given the circumstances I consider it the best choice. Besides, as it's described this is merely a physical change - it's not like brainwashing, which I would consider worse than genocide (I go for destruction rather than rewriting in Legion's mission in 2).

Zevox

[Anarion]

I have no right to wipe out the Geth or risk the Reapers getting loose again when I have more permanent solutions at hand either. I have to pick one of the three though (because the alternative is "let the Reapers win," which is worse than any of them) and of the problems, "some people might not like becoming part robot" falls far lower on my list of concerns than genocide or the Reapers being potentially merely temporarily stopped.


Individualim is something I value quite highly here too, and normally I'd certainly not do something like this, but given the circumstances I consider it the best choice. Besides, as it's described this is merely a physical change - it's not like brainwashing, which I would consider worse than genocide (I go for destruction rather than rewriting in Legion's mission in 2).

Zevox

This, but also that death has a certain finality to it. I rewrote the geth heretics in ME2 rather than destroy them for a similar reason. If you kill something, that's it. It's gone, it's not coming back. Shephard himself was an incredible (and incredibly expensive) exception, and even then it's not entirely clear that his whole body stopped functioning since Cerberus recovered him. Whereas even something as profound as altering another's being could be undone if that other is alive to make his/her own decisions. Maybe people won't like synthesis and scientists will spend the next thousand years figuring out how to undo it. Maybe they'll end up loving it. That unknown is just far better than wiping out an entire race of sentient beings. At least to me.

Oh, and to all the people that have said all the endings are the same, I'd like to take this moment to point out that the last couple pages of discussion show that no, they really aren't the same at all. They're just executed really badly and the cinematic is the same for all of them.

[Luzahn]

I have no right to wipe out the Geth or risk the Reapers getting loose again when I have more permanent solutions at hand either. I have to pick one of the three though (because the alternative is "let the Reapers win," which is worse than any of them) and of the problems, "some people might not like becoming part robot" falls far lower on my list of concerns than genocide or the Reapers being potentially merely temporarily stopped.


Individualim is something I value quite highly here too, and normally I'd certainly not do something like this, but given the circumstances I consider it the best choice. Besides, as it's described this is merely a physical change - it's not like brainwashing, which I would consider worse than genocide (I go for destruction rather than rewriting in Legion's mission in 2).

Zevox

Hm, I guess it's a matter of perspective then. Optimistically, it augments the current races and stops at that. However, the first time I heard the option presented I understood it as wiping out all current organic life, and causing any new life that develops to be the synthetic-organic hybrid.

Y'know, because it makes a bit more sense biologically.

I'm pretty sure this wasn't the intent, what with Joker and the crew surviving; It's just to point out how radically different it can be interpreted with a different outlook. I'd imagine massive social upheaval, as people aren't able to cope with the psychological stress of being warped in such a drastic way.

[Avilan the Grey]

I thought DA2 wasn't going for "artsy", just different. ME3's ending I agree is definitely going for "artsy".

...
Worse is that they apparently kept the ending secret from their own writing team. It wouldn't nearly be so bad if they built up to it with some heavy foreshadowing.

Hence the word "Creative".

Oh and I do agree with whomever posted this (not on this forum) advice for the Bioware higher-ups: Find ANYONE that objected to this ending and / or the process it came about, and PROMOTE them.

[Opperhapsen]

Hence the word "Creative".

Oh and I do agree with whomever posted this (not on this forum) advice for the Bioware higher-ups: Find ANYONE that objected to this ending and / or the process it came about, and PROMOTE them.

Won't happen, those in charge of the ending are also in charge of promotions.

[TheLaughingMan]

Won't happen, those in charge of the ending are also in charge of promotions.

"I'll just go ahead and promote myself for sticking to my guns in times of persecution! And a bonus for being so handsome!"

[Trazoi]

Hence the word "Creative".

Word and two quotation marks. The quote marks made all the difference.

Oh and I do agree with whomever posted this (not on this forum) advice for the Bioware higher-ups: Find ANYONE that objected to this ending and / or the process it came about, and PROMOTE them.

Yeah, this is why I'm going to treat any Bioware game with suspicion unless I know they've cleaned house to prevent this happening again (and I'll still be suspicious even then). The worst damage isn't to the game, it's to the reptuation of their creative process.

Edit:

Won't happen, those in charge of the ending are also in charge of promotions.

Until you get to the CEO of the parent publisher, there's always a higher up. And even then, you've got shareholders.

[Derthric]

I have no right to wipe out the Geth or risk the Reapers getting loose again when I have more permanent solutions at hand either. I have to pick one of the three though (because the alternative is "let the Reapers win," which is worse than any of them) and of the problems, "some people might not like becoming part robot" falls far lower on my list of concerns than genocide or the Reapers being potentially merely temporarily stopped.

True, its really a "which ending can you live with" choice. Which COULD have worked, if presented better and if the cold calculus of war was presented as harshly as it could have been. I honestly thought we would not be able to settle the geth-quarian conflict in a peaceful way. And if we had not it would make more sense that things are this dark that the only hope at the end was the least of these evils. However we can take noble and righteous stands. Cure the genophage, and still win in the end. Not just settle the geth-quarian war but possibly unite them into a new nation. But in the end no choice was possible, and it feels like it is only this way because of the writer's desires.

Also we have noright to do anything at the end. Its why I call the Catalyst the Abomination. Everything about him is abominable. Enslave the reapers, even temporarily, Sacrifice the geth or force a possibly meaningless* yet drastic alteration of life. All because he declares it must be done. He is a mad king. An obsessed Templar so fixated on his cause he cannot see the little pictures and in the end he steamrolls Shepard into his line of thinking. The game ends on his absolute terms, the galaxy is broken of one or two vicious cycles but not by any means other than tyranny.

*read the next part for more on that.

Individualim is something I value quite highly here too, and normally I'd certainly not do something like this, but given the circumstances I consider it the best choice. Besides, as it's described this is merely a physical change - it's not like brainwashing, which I would consider worse than genocide (I go for destruction rather than rewriting in Legion's mission in 2).

Zevox

The problem is that if it is merely a physical change then conflict can and will occur. Genocide and Xenocide will always be on the table. Therefore what was accomplished. The Catalyst has set out to prevent the complete destruction of all organic life but the massive destruction of life is still a possibility due to the nature of individuals and conflict. Its why Synthesis is such a borked idea. Physical difference CAN be the source of conflict, as can location, resources, religion, economics, pride, and your favorite baseball team. Synthesis removes one, which was only established as an absolute by the Catalyst. Leaving the others.

So Han'Gerrel is still an arrogant prig, the volus ambassador a self serving jerk, and Primarch Victus a noble soldier. But then what was changed? body chemistry? Without altering who we are at more than a physical level conflict and destruction cannot be averted. Perhaps this new life will grow as chaotically as the Catalyst says is needed for organic life. But will all life carry all forms of DNA? Therefore ensuring survival? Is life just DNA? According to the Catalyst it is. Then was Synthetic life ever life?

In my mind you just literally played God for nothing.

I am harsher on Synthesis than I am on Control or Destroy, for the very purpose that it was meant to be the third/better way. And in my mind is just as bad, before we get to my personal ethical hang ups.

[Zevox]

The problem is that if it is merely a physical change then conflict can and will occur. Genocide and Xenocide will always be on the table. Therefore what was accomplished. The Catalyst has set out to prevent the complete destruction of all organic life but the massive destruction of life is still a possibility due to the nature of individuals and conflict. Its why Synthesis is such a borked idea. Physical difference CAN be the source of conflict, as can location, resources, religion, economics, pride, and your favorite baseball team. Synthesis removes one, which was only established as an absolute by the Catalyst. Leaving the others.

In my mind you just literally played God for nothing.

This doesn't make sense to me. When did any of the endings become about stamping out all conflict for all time? It's just about stopping the Reapers. Further conflict afterward is of course possible no matter which ending you pick - heck, it's very likely knowing how often it happens both in the real world and the Mass Effect universe - but it won't involve giant mecha space Cthulus looking to destroy entire civilizations.

Zevox

[Derthric]

This doesn't make sense to me. When did any of the endings become about stamping out all conflict for all time? It's just about stopping the Reapers. Further conflict afterward is of course possible no matter which ending you pick - heck, it's very likely knowing how often it happens both in the real world and the Mass Effect universe - but it won't involve giant mecha space Cthulus looking to destroy entire civilizations.

Zevox

That's my point. Synthesis was meant to achieve peace. But it won't. All you have done is change one possible aspect of what will shape it. In the end it is meaningless to his goal of creating an order or peace that will last.

[Luzahn]

That's my point. Synthesis was meant to achieve peace. But it won't. All you have done is change one possible aspect of what will shape it. In the end it is meaningless to his goal of creating an order or peace that will last.

The kicker is that, if it lead to eternal peace, it would be even more repugnant than it is now. That would mean you've altered some fundamental nature of their minds with synthesis, taking away free will.

[Zevox]

That's my point. Synthesis was meant to achieve peace. But it won't. All you have done is change one possible aspect of what will shape it. In the end it is meaningless to his goal of creating an order or peace that will last.

Um, the Catalyst's stated goal was to prevent synthetics from "inevitably" wiping out all organic life. Not creating eternal peace. And in any event why do you care about his goals? Again, what matters is stopping the Reapers, and since synthesis renders their supposed purpose moot it does stop them. It's taking advantage of them having a goal that makes no sense, but as long as it stops them, that works for me.

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

Until you get to the CEO of the parent publisher, there's always a higher up. And even then, you've got shareholders.

If I recall, EA stock fell 10% in a week and a half after the ending fiasco. Bioware's stock is not open to the public, but EA's is.

This is also notewordy because all of a sudden the heavy duty economy papers, such as Forbes, suddenly became the spokespersons for the fans and not the computer magazines / sites. Both because they were not as heavily invested in the all-corrupting boys club that is the American game market these days (Like IGN, who on one hand gave an extremely high score and defended the ending to the death, and on the other hand had one of their high-profile eployees IN THE GAME), but because of this very reason: Forbes saw that the way EA and Bioware handled the storm was bad for business, and called them on it.

(Edit: as a sideeffect, it seems many, including me, will come back to Forbes because the guy they have that write their reviews is actually both a good writer, and seem to have my way of looking at things. Way to boost your reader numbers! )

[Derthric]

Um, the Catalyst's stated goal was to prevent synthetics from "inevitably" wiping out all organic life. Not creating eternal peace. And in any event why do you care about his goals? Again, what matters is stopping the Reapers, and since synthesis renders their supposed purpose moot it does stop them. It's taking advantage of them having a goal that makes no sense, but as long as it stops them, that works for me.

Zevox

You are right all 3 options will end the reaper threat. However they are just all as abhorrent as the next so might as well play rocks papers scissors with the Catalyst to pick one. But that's all from an in story perspective.

Out of story Synthesis frustrates me the most because it is by far the stupidest execution of the idea the writers could have cooked up. Battlestar Galactica, whose ending wasn't that well received either, did it better showing the merger of Synthetic and Organic over time and mixing both culturally and physically. But it had established the notion of a cylon vs human cycle throughout its arc. Not had one shoved in at the last second.

My point is that mass scale death and destruction of all life is not ruled out. Unless we are altered in a more robust way than physically then the things we used machines and synthetics for are still needed. Why use living Synganics when you can make drones? Or better yet can joker now sit with EDI and contemplate equations of a universe where 1+1=3? If Joker can't then we still need something hooked up to a Quantum computer. If we can't transfer our minds between hosts then death will be something that is avoided on the battlefield. But if we can do those things then are we still who we were? In fact this is effectively what the cycle in BSG was.
Spoilered for people who haven't seen the show.

Spoiler

Show

Eventually Humans make Cyclons, they fight near to genocide and seperate. The "12 tribes" Humans go on to make Cylons again and near genocide repeats. "13th tribe" is actually the first gen Cylons, they go to "earth" make Humanoid Cylons and then reach genocide stage as well

Why? Because why go into a murky 4 mile deep pit to mine up ore when a robot can do it. Or send in a squad of soldiers to scout when a drone can do it just as well. Without removing that need for machine assistance we are doomed to make it again anyway. If you remove the need for machine assistance are we who we were before that? This is why Synthesis does not work in my mind. Its the same as Destroy or Control, you are just forcing a change on as large a population as one can conceive. And given the last "solution" the Catalyst cooked up was the reaper cycle, I don't trust its judgement on anything, which puts more negatives on Synthesis than the other two.

This all has its roots in the very existence of the Catalyst and its insane troll logic. It works in absolutes, when absolutes rarely work. It tries to make you care about its perceived problem and empathize with its cause. Even in the original concept for the "Dark Energy" ending, its solution and actions are monstrous and it should have been addressed as such. Not put upon a narrative pedestal holding its pet "Synthesis".

[Opperhapsen]

How is destroy abhorrent?

The geth don't die.
You don't' die.
EDE doesn't even die.

The only people who die are the reapers.

[Derthric]

How is destroy abhorrent?

The geth don't die.
You don't' die.
EDE doesn't even die.

The only people who die are the reapers.

Hooray for Headcanons.

[Zevox]

How is destroy abhorrent?

The geth don't die.
You don't' die.
EDE doesn't even die.

The only people who die are the reapers.

Um, yes the Geth and EDI die. The destroy ending destroys all synthetic life, including them (quite explicitly including the Geth, who you get told point-blank will die - EDI is simply a logical extrapolation, but there's certainly no reason to believe she's exempt if Shepard is being affected by it). And Shepard only lives if you have a particularly high score.

Zevox

[chiasaur11]

Um, yes the Geth and EDI die. The destroy ending destroys all synthetic life, including them (quite explicitly including the Geth, who you get told point-blank will die - EDI is simply a logical extrapolation, but there's certainly no reason to believe she's exempt if Shepard is being affected by it). And Shepard only lives if you have a particularly high score.

Zevox

Nope.

Play a full game. Talk only to EDI. Only use EDI. Make friends with EDI. Then pick destroy with a full green readiness bar.

She trots out of the ship at the end, happy as a clam.

Saying she doesn't live flat out contradicts what the game shows.

Hooray for destroy!

[Avilan the Grey]

Um, yes the Geth and EDI die. The destroy ending destroys all synthetic life, including them (quite explicitly including the Geth, who you get told point-blank will die - EDI is simply a logical extrapolation, but there's certainly no reason to believe she's exempt if Shepard is being affected by it). And Shepard only lives if you have a particularly high score.

Zevox

WOG is that EDI lives. Only tech that has enough direct connection to Reaper tech is destroyed (mass relays, the newly "awakened" Geth, the citadel's Mass relay) is destroyed. Even if you do not see EDI walking out of the ship, she lives.

[Aeryr]

As I have pointed out before EDI survives in my Destroy ending. My Shepard survives in my Destroy ending. And I don't see any geth corpses (Actually I don't see any geth before or after the final fight) so why would they be dead?

Edit: Because the starkid say so is not a valid reason since he also said that EDI would die and that Shepard might die. So he is clearly lying.

[Zevox]

WOG is that EDI lives. Only tech that has enough direct connection to Reaper tech is destroyed (mass relays, the newly "awakened" Geth, the citadel's Mass relay) is destroyed. Even if you do not see EDI walking out of the ship, she lives.

Wait, so that isn't a bug? Bwah? But that explanation doesn't even make sense - even setting aside that it contradicts what the Catalyst tells you about how that will work (he specifically says that all synthetic life will die in that one, doesn't say anything about Reaper tech), EDI is directly connected to Reaper tech. Some was used in her creation if memory serves, and certainly her new body is definitely going to be Reaper tech related given that's what Cerberus was all about at that point.

As I have pointed out before EDI survives in my Destroy ending. My Shepard survives in my Destroy ending. And I don't see any geth corpses (Actually I don't see any geth before or after the final fight) so why would they be dead?

Edit: Because the starkid say so is not a valid reason since he also said that EDI would die and that Shepard might die. So he is clearly lying.

The Catalyst did not say EDI would die - as I mentioned in my previous post, he only directly mentions the Geth, EDI is just a logical extrapolation of his statements. And as you note he only says that Shepard might die in that one, which is true, as she will if you don't have a high enough military score.

And really, assuming that the Geth live through that ending just because you want them to and the (highly minimalist and much criticized for it) ending animation doesn't show them dying is as much fan fiction as the indoctrination theory. If you go assuming that the options presented don't do what the Catalyst tells you they do then you're left with absolutely nothing to the ending at all.

Zevox