Mass Effect 3 endings [SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY]

[cjlr]

The collectors make some amount of sense, as a backup... Keep an eye on things while the other Reapers are maxing and relaxing in the intergalactic void. Though, is it even clear they're anything beyond Harbinger's pet project? Those first few thousand years of the cycle must have been pretty boring, poor dude just needed a way to keep busy. But it makes perfect sense - even ignoring the dark energy stuff, once Harbinger found out that Sovereign had bought it, it'd be damn keen on finding out why, and either making sure it wasn't a real threat to them, or neutralizing it if it were.

However - unless I missed something - that raises the other matter: Sovereign and Harbinger had absolutely no coordination. That seems like rather a missed opportunity for team reaper. Stopping just the one barely worked in ME1, the tag team would have cleaned the Council's clocks and the galaxy would have been sunk three years earlier. Just goes to show how making it up as you go along almost invariably tends to mess up earlier installments when reconsidered in light of the later ones.


Now. That ending. I mean, it was somewhat spoiled by knowing about the shitstorm going in. But I'd avoided any specific spoilers...
Starchild McSpaceghost - sure, it's the kid, and I did naturally assume it was taking a form from Shepard's memory, but that only makes one wonder why that form, instead of, say, anyone else Shepard has lost, even in just this game; sure, because children are ever so evocative of pathos, but the game was so damn belabouring of that point it was jarring - anyway. Starchild McSpaceghost says a bunch of stuff that kind of sort of explains the situation and Shepard plays the galaxy's worst ever game of three card monty, trying to guess which door has the least shitty epilogue hiding behind it.

I can sort of understand where it's coming from. It fears the creation of some sort of synthetic life that will destroy organic life. To forestall that, it prevents, via Reaper liquification, organic life from reaching a point where it will create such a synthetic life, by incorporating and somehow preserving some of their essence while nonetheless removing them from the galactic picture. Less advanced species keep on trucking until the next cycle.

But why should it believe that to be inevitable? If we presuppose the original creators of the Citadel and/or the Reapers and/or the Relays were themselves organic (seems reasonable enough) then such a thing has obviously never happened in their experience - or they wouldn't be around to worry about it. Perhaps it was threatened - but it didn't happen. Just as it didn't happen to the Protheans, and didn't happen with the Geth. Conflict, yes, but annihilation (kill, not just all humans, but all organic life!) doesn't (and obviously didn't) happen.

Why, furthermore, should it assume only organic life is capable of wiping out all other organic life? What if someone wants to blow up some stars? Tailor one mean-ass virus (like in ME2, but it kills everything). Plain ol' warmongering (tweak the breaks and the Krogan might've been able to, the Rachni might've been able to, hell, the Yahg might've been able to, and that's just the latest cycle). This has some sideways logic in that the harvesting prevents nova devices proliferating into the hands of small enough groups with big enough grudges, but this isn't anywhere mentioned as part of the justification.

There is an out to this - the Crucible. Which has been passed down for who knows how long, and has been blithely built by the current races with little idea of what it actually does, let alone how. Hell, maybe the initial preliminary design was planted along with the first cycle, and the plan all along was for a slow accumulation to finally force a change of methods when enough time had passed and the galaxy as a whole had progressed far enough by cumulative design (now THERE'S a Xanatos gambit!). But in any case we literally have no idea what Starchild was like before we stuck the Crucible (aka "that Forerunner science thing we don't know what it does") to the Citadel (aka "that other Forerunner science thing we don't know what it does"). It says it changed him, and supposing we take its word, we don't know how. If only we could ask the damn kid a few questions.

What the choices actually are, and actually entail, well - that's a problem. It just doesn't fit together. And that's sad, since apparently we're stuck with it.


It'd've bothered me more, only just a few days prior I got around to watching the last episode of The Prisoner, after managing about one a week for the last... 17-plus-a-few-extra weeks, I suppose. Now THAT was an ending. Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones...

[DarthBenedict]

The logic presented by the spirit of hamfisted storytelling present is irredeemable.

Question 1: Are the reapers synthetic?
If Yes > They didn't wipe out organic life, therefore sythetics don't necessarily wipe out organics.
If No > Next question: Did they ever fight against synthetics?
If Yes > Organics beat synthetics, therefore synthetics don't necessarily wipe out organics.
If No > They're basing their entire system on a random hunch with no evidence whatsoever.

To save the ending, they'll have to either change that or explicitly present the reapers as idiots wielding technology they could never understand (who often make great antagonists, eg: 40ks imperium and Halos covenant).

[Kadayi]

Why are you obsessed with the Bioware forums? And why do you want me to post there?

Because you're increasingly coming across as little more than a tourist at this point. You seem more interested in disagreeing for the sake of it, rather than actually presenting some solid counterpoint to the many criticisms levelled at the ending by others. If you're so confident in your position, why not go convince the fan base?

There's a lot of valid criticisms that can be aimed at the ending, but it certainly wasn't a cop-out ending. The fact that it was so risky and out of left-field is half the problem.

A poorly written and ill conceived ending is not a cop out or risky, it's just a creative failure. You can say that 'Signs' was a risky film, but that doesn't make it any better as an experience. On paper Inception was a risky film, however it delivered not only in terms of box office, but also in terms of both critical & audience reaction. Certainly most people left the film perplexed as to understanding it. However the film on the whole makes narrative sense upon reflection (within itself it possessed consistency) and people can piece it together accordingly. The same can't be said for the ending of Mass Effect 3.

[deano2099]

Because you're increasingly coming across as little more than a tourist at this point. You seem more interested in disagreeing for the sake of it, rather than actually presenting some solid counterpoint to the many criticisms levelled at the ending by others. If you're so confident in your position, why not go convince the fan base?

You're right, I'm more interested in the discussion than changing peoples minds. When was the last time you heard of someone changing their mind on an internet forum?

A poorly written and ill conceived ending is not a cop out or risky, it's just a creative failure. You can say that 'Signs' was a risky film, but that doesn't make it any better as an experience.

It can be both, they're two entirely separate metrics. Quality and level of risk are entirely un-related. You can have a risky, bad ending (Signs or ME3 if you want), a risky good ending (Usual Suspects, Sopranos arguably), a non-risky good ending (DA:O) and a non-risky bad ending.

The link is that risky good endings are more likely amazing, and risky bad ones are more likely to bomb horribly. Saying ME3's ending was risky is me offering no comment on its quality whatsover. But given as everyone has noticed, had it ended just before the Star Child bit with the Reapers blowing up, that's a non-risky ending. They went a step further. I don't think it worked, though nor do I think it was awful.

My only point is that this backlash won't make Bioware more likely to make amazing endings, it'll make that less likely, because they'll take the less risky option. And so they'll be more likely to produced mediocre-to-good endings.

[archonsod]

Because they stand more to gain from harvesting the Quarians - who invented the Geth - than the Geth themselves. Hell, the Geth were not even a speedbump on their path.

Neither were the Quarians. Point is however they're not that selective; anything capable of a space program when they turn up gets harvested and processed.

Otherwise they covertly collect things that the Reapers were going to collect by the end of the cycle anyway. That's the point that I'm making; their presence makes perfect sense for Shepard, but they're largely redundant and pointless prior to that.

I still don't see how they're redundant and pointless. When studying a species you tend to dissect it; that's the job of the Collectors. It's pretty much necessary for how the Reapers function - be a bit hard on them if they turned up for the harvest and then found out the biology of the organics prevents their husk implants from working properly.
And that's just on a base biology level. Given the Collectors are Protheans, if they retain the Prothean ability to read memories they'd also be highly useful for interrogation and the like; after all, it's a lot easier to harvest a colony when you can simply deactivate it's defences prior to your arrival.

near as we know the Reapers only ever process organics and just destroy synthetics (or use them as tools, as they did with part of the Geth). They have nothing to gain from other synthetics, but they do from their creators.

They have nothing to gain from organics either really. What they do to synthetics isn't completely explained, although given the upgrades they do on the Geth I doubt they destroy them. I suspect the only difference is that the harvesting is slightly more straightforward given they can simply hack the AI.

Sovereign and Harbinger had absolutely no coordination. That seems like rather a missed opportunity for team reaper. Stopping just the one barely worked in ME1, the tag team would have cleaned the Council's clocks and the galaxy would have been sunk three years earlier.

Sovereign was difficult to destroy because he had the element of surprise on his side rather than being overpowering. An early attack by the vanguard elements would probably be far more dangerous to the Reapers than simply waiting (i.e. a distinct threat for the races to rally against meaning a united galaxy is waiting for the main fleet in three years time).

But why should it believe that to be inevitable? If we presuppose the original creators of the Citadel and/or the Reapers and/or the Relays were themselves organic (seems reasonable enough) then such a thing has obviously never happened in their experience - or they wouldn't be around to worry about it. Perhaps it was threatened - but it didn't happen. Just as it didn't happen to the Protheans, and didn't happen with the Geth. Conflict, yes, but annihilation (kill, not just all humans, but all organic life!) doesn't (and obviously didn't) happen.

We don't know what happened to the creators, except for the fact they're no longer around. In fact it's possible they were wiped out by the Reapers and the harvest is a response to that to attempt to prevent it occurring again. Also it's not necessarily genocide it's looking to stop; it says it's solution is a means of keeping the peace, not preventing synthetics from wiping out organics. So it's asserting that conflict is inevitable, which both the Geth and the Protheans can attest to. With that in mind you might actually be in the right ball-park with the idea that there was some kind of pre-programmed event which would cause it to recognise that organics had finally advanced to the point this would no longer be an issue.
Another item for consideration of course is that it seems to require the crucible to activate in the first place. So it could equally be possible that even if the problem it was designed for was only applicable to the first cycle, it's been in no position to do anything about it (assuming of course it was aware and not 'switched off') since.

[Kandon Arc]

My only point is that this backlash won't make Bioware more likely to make amazing endings, it'll make that less likely, because they'll take the less risky option. And so they'll be more likely to produced mediocre-to-good endings.

My hope is that they'll realise the problem isn't that they tried a risky ending, it's that two people wrote the ending by themselves and no one else checked it. Moreover, risky endings are best when not attached to big projects. Make a standalone game that a risky ending feels justified in. Don't make a Darren Aronofsky ending for a Michael Bay series.

[Kadayi]

You're right, I'm more interested in the discussion than changing peoples minds. When was the last time you heard of someone changing their mind on an internet forum?

I'm pretty sure it happens all the time. Certainly I've read things that people have written on forums or articles or made youtube videos of that have altered my viewpoint on a subject. I'd say opinions are malleable. Maybe I'm just open minded though.

My only point is that this backlash won't make Bioware more likely to make amazing endings, it'll make that less likely, because they'll take the less risky option. And so they'll be more likely to produced mediocre-to-good endings.

Because it's entirely safe to assume that all Bioware, a company made up of hundreds of people see is that the fan base disliked the endings and that they collectively lack the ability to comprehend the reasons why they hated the endings? That somehow despite the myriad pages of feedback they themselves have asked for from the fan base in threads like this one: -

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/to...index/10098213

They possess seemingly no ability to on any level to mull over, digest and come to the same conclusions as to why the endings failed to deliver, and that it had nothing to do with their riskiness and everything to do with their substandard implementation?

If that's the idea you're trying to sell I'm afraid I'm not buying it.

[deano2099]

No, I just think Bioware know full-well that if this happens again with their next game they are in major trouble vis-a-vis their reputation. They can't afford to have another ending blow up in their faces. So they're make one that can't possibly be considered awful, but also can't be great either.

It doesn't matter if avoid all the supposed errors in ME3, because any risk taking involves potentially making more, different errors. They have to take the safest option because they'd basically be betting the company on anything risky. It's just not worth it.

[Kadayi]

No, I just think Bioware know full-well that if this happens again with their next game they are in major trouble vis-a-vis their reputation. They can't afford to have another ending blow up in their faces. So they're make one that can't possibly be considered awful, but also can't be great either.

It doesn't matter if avoid all the supposed errors in ME3, because any risk taking involves potentially making more, different errors. They have to take the safest option because they'd basically be betting the company on anything risky. It's just not worth it.

I'm sorry but the idea that the writers of Dragon Age (whom are their own team btw) are going to deliver a vanilla ending to their game as a result of Hudson & Walters from the mass effect team making a dogs dinner of their game makes zero sense. You're seemingly inability to think beyond the most binary of options without due consideration as to the broader realities is getting kind of tiresome tbh Dean.

Also given that Bioware aren't going to address the ending of ME3 in any meaningful way despite the fan protests, I don't really think they care that much about their reputation going forward as much as you think. They've effectively blown most of their goodwill already.

[Godwhacker]

I can sort of understand where it's coming from. It fears the creation of some sort of synthetic life that will destroy organic life. To forestall that, it prevents, via Reaper liquification, organic life from reaching a point where it will create such a synthetic life, by incorporating and somehow preserving some of their essence while nonetheless removing them from the galactic picture. Less advanced species keep on trucking until the next cycle.

But why should it believe that to be inevitable? If we presuppose the original creators of the Citadel and/or the Reapers and/or the Relays were themselves organic (seems reasonable enough) then such a thing has obviously never happened in their experience - or they wouldn't be around to worry about it. Perhaps it was threatened - but it didn't happen. Just as it didn't happen to the Protheans, and didn't happen with the Geth. Conflict, yes, but annihilation (kill, not just all humans, but all organic life!) doesn't (and obviously didn't) happen.

That's pretty much it- the fundamental problem with the ending is the line "the created will always destroy the creators". It's a flat assertion, there's no argument behind it, and if you've been playing the game right you'll have some sound rebuttals to it. The Geth didn't start the fighting- they can even make peace with the Quarians- and EDI turns out lovely. Moreover, even if we assume that he's right, surely there's a better solution to this than turning everyone into soup every 50,000 years and pouring them into giant squid? Especially as that's a rather wasteful process, given how many people don't even get to the squid stage and just end up dead, or zombified, or with their torso stuck to a Cannibal's arm and used as a gun.

The ending is always going to be bad if they keep that line and don't fill in the missing steps in the logic:

1. AI can be created.
2. ??????????
.....
3: Therefore, AI will always murder whoever created it.

If BioWare can convincingly fill that in I'm sure the UN would love to hear about it. And then someone is going to turn around and say, "Hey, have you guys ever heard of the Three Laws of Robotics?". Everything else that's bad about the ending goes back to that line. You're forced into the three silly endings because you have to find a new solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Maybe little Johnny Godtits' logic was supposed to come across as something to say 'fuck you' to, but it's still not very satisfying.

[cjlr]

And with the element of surprise, Sovereign nearly pulled it off. With Harbinger for backup, they'd have had all the same element of surprise (it'd be trivial for Harbinger to join up with the armada just prior to the Citadel assault) and instead of scraping by with a victory, the Citadel would have fallen and the reapers would have arrived in force. Sovereign wasn't an early attack, it was the actual planned attack. In the Prothean cycle a similar move worked: the Citadel was the first to go. The Citadel itself is left to be a nexus for the next cycle's races; they obviously don't need to get here (the drive from dark space only took 3 measly years), so the decapitation strike is standard MO. Why, then, wouldn't they make sure it succeeds?

We don't know what happened to the creators, except for the fact they're no longer around. In fact it's possible they were wiped out by the Reapers and the harvest is a response to that to attempt to prevent it occurring again. Also it's not necessarily genocide it's looking to stop; it says it's solution is a means of keeping the peace, not preventing synthetics from wiping out organics. So it's asserting that conflict is inevitable, which both the Geth and the Protheans can attest to. With that in mind you might actually be in the right ball-park with the idea that there was some kind of pre-programmed event which would cause it to recognise that organics had finally advanced to the point this would no longer be an issue.
Another item for consideration of course is that it seems to require the crucible to activate in the first place. So it could equally be possible that even if the problem it was designed for was only applicable to the first cycle, it's been in no position to do anything about it (assuming of course it was aware and not 'switched off') since.

Right. They're not around anymore, and we don't know what happened to them. Suppose they were the first harvest. The reapers wiped them out. Then the reapers are self-motivated, and presumably must have constructed (or altered) the Citadel (and Catalyst) and the Relays. But then their motive makes little sense. The plan is to harvest organic races in order to prevent their creating a race of synthetics that wipes them out. This DOES make a good case for why they see it as inevitable - they've done it to their creators! But it seems rather a failure of imagination to suppose things must always end in such a manner. So to spare organic races from total annihilation, they harvest them, and add some of their biological and technological distinctiveness to their own. They're the solution to the problem presented by themselves. The only reason this makes any sense at all is that the harvesting grants some meagre continuity of existance to the harvested. Otherwise it's just killing on an external schedule as opposed to an internal one. And this is something they just keep going with, despite having all of eternity to work on their methods?

Either that or they're just... gone... somehow. Maybe they went stagnant, had a dark age, and speciated off. Seems pretty darn unlikely. Maybe they... what? Ascended to a higher dimension, to play Brockian Ultra-Cricket till the end of days? Leaving that aside.

If it's conflict they seek to prevent then the whole thing is ludicrous. They're assuming conflict is inevitable between different types of life? Space Racism! Conflict is always inevitable insofar as goals conflict and communication is imperfect. Perhaps the communication between organics and synthetics is more different, and perhaps their goals more likely to be divergent, but then the difference is one of degree and not kind. Those wet, squishy things seem pretty inclined to violence all on their own - which was bloodier, the Morning War or the Krogan Rebellions?

Edit - forgot a paragraph:
That's actually the best explanation I could come up with. The crucible was intended all along. Perhaps the creators thought it would be easier to put together - they obviously designed it, maybe they didn't realize it would be so hard to duplicate. Many of the improvements to it from subsequent cycles may be as the ones 'we' added in-game - a tighter power coupling here, a more efficient switch there, nothing that really alters the design. The catalyst was dormant without the crucible, and has only the example of its own cycle, or, perhaps, some later ones before it was switched off for whatever reason, to to judge the situation by. Hence its seemingly rock-solid certainty of what is anything but. The point of the crucible/catalyst system was to effect a change (that's pretty god-damned obvious from the names!) and that was to happen once a race got to a point of similar complexity - to wit, to alter, perpetuate, or abolish the harvesting cycle, based on the history of the galaxy in the intervening cycles.

Of course that's not really what the choices are in-game. And the means of choosing is imbecilic. The follow-up is ridiculous. The epilogue is nonsensical. So there's still lots wrong with the ending, but a little hard work could turn it into something interesting.

[Lambchops]

I don't know if my opinion was temepered by being prepared for a bad ending having seen relentless headlines about it beforehand but I still thoroughly enjoyed the game.

Was I disappointed by the end? Yes.
Was it an absolute clusterfuck that would drive me to apoplectic rage? No.

My main problem with it (aside from having a mystery ancient race taking the form of a small boy from Shep's imagination drily make a sort of explanation and then asking me to press a button) was that the none of the choices made sense for my Shepard. Yes, obviously big stakes, negative consequences and so on; but surely the inevitable destruction of the Mass Relays was enough of a negative consequence to be getting on with (in fact I was quite impressed Bioware were willing to force that sort of bleakness on you after the cop out of the "suicide mission that everyone can survive" in the previous game) without having to compound it.

But for me my thoughts on the endings were thus:

Destroy: Well I've just spent ages brokering a peace between the Geth and Quarians so genocidally wiping them out now is not something my Shep would do. Still i've always wanted to destroy the reapers and this is my chance. Of all the ending this is the only one that wasn't utterley daft and actually gave something compelling to wrestle with in terms of whether to go for it. If I'd stood against the Geth only EDI would make me hesitate and in the end one AI wouldn't have stood in my way in the goal of destroying the Reapers, considering the other sacrifices I've had to make. So I can't claim too many problems with that ending but it wasn't the one for me.

Control: This would have been the ending i'd have gone for. It had the right amount of self sacrifice and the chance to let everybody be. Of course there would have been the problem of whether anyone (even Shep!) should have this sort of power. It would have been an interesting thing to wrestle if the game hadn't forced you to tell off the Illusive Man for even contemplating such a thing. You didn't get a single option to suggest that he might be on to something even if he/his methods were abhorrent and that maybe you could handle it. So it could have been an option but it wasn't internally consistent with the character of Shep, not just my Shep but any Shep as you didn't get the option to do anything but say what a stupid idea it was. So I couldn't choose that.

Synethesis - I chose this as the others weren't for me/didn't make sense but the whole thing was just silly wasn't it. While it fitted with my Shep's desire for peace and that's why I went for it (plus glorious self sacrifice) it was essentially just doing the Reaper's job for them (the only way I could try and prevent it adding to the bleakness was assuming that being organo-synthetic hybrids didn't actually remove any individuality from the races). However this ending could never have existed if it wasn't for the introduction of silly catalyst ancient race thing and that alone keeps it heavily within the utterley daft camp.

So yeah, they've provoked discussion for sure and some of it quite interesting (and I disagree with some of the main criticisms of the ending) but there's too many flaws to make it a good ending and while I thoroughly enjoyed the journey and the characters I can't help but feeling a mite disappointed - but then that's nothing new when it comes to game endings is it?

[Phantoon]

Also given that Bioware aren't going to address the ending of ME3 in any meaningful way despite the fan protests, I don't really think they care that much about their reputation going forward as much as you think. They've effectively blown most of their goodwill already.

You have way too much faith in Bioware fans.

They'll slap together an ending with the DLC pack they were already putting out, and people will hail them as saints and all will be forgiven. It happens every time.

[cjlr]

What made the synthesis ending particularly stupid IMO was that it didn't actually change anything. Woo, the leaves have microcircuitry on them. Lolwut? The crew who stumbled out of the ship don't seem any different. Joker glows a bit. EDI looks the exact same. Not even a little skin like Data had in First Contact! I didn't get a good look at Ash. The biosphere of that planet is indistinguishable once the camera pulls back. So if synthesis was supposed to mean anything other than "oh, your skin is a circuit board now, have fun next time you get a static shock" it failed completely.

Destroy at least gives you the satisfaction of having committed genocide.

[Phantoon]

Destroy at least gives you the satisfaction of having committed genocide.

When you put it that way, it sounds a lot better than it actually was.

[cjlr]

When you put it that way, it sounds a lot better than it actually was.

What I mean by that is that is seems to be the one that has the biggest actual effect on the galaxy. The reapers are gone in all three. The relays are gone in all three. Control leaves everyone else the same. Synthesis leaves everyone else the same.

Destroy, on the other hand, puts the kibosh on EDI and our Geth buddies (assuming we can take Spaceghost's word on this, but if we can't, ALL of the endings become SO MUCH shittier than they already are). Along with killing who knows how many people with some degree of cybernetic implants (limbs to organs to whatever). It's the biggest change of the three.

[Godwhacker]

Destroy, on the other hand, puts the kibosh on EDI and our Geth buddies (assuming we can take Spaceghost's word on this, but if we can't, ALL of the endings become SO MUCH shittier than they already are). Along with killing who knows how many people with some degree of cybernetic implants (limbs to organs to whatever). It's the biggest change of the three.

Well, you have to take Johnny Godtits' word on a lot of things, the big one being that 'the created will destroy the creators'. Pretty much everything rubbish about the ending flows from that statement.

What I really don't understand is how they missed that their biggest fans are probably going to have the biggest problem with this, because the biggest in-game contradiction to that statement comes from making peace between the Geth and the Quarians. It requires a high Paragon score. It might also need either Legion or Tali. And you won't have all of that unless you've just imported a save from ME2.

So... when Starchild pipes up with that gem, he's directly pissing off the people who've spent the most time and money on the game. Maybe it is just the ranting of a senile God and you're supposed to see just how wrong he is, but the game doesn't let you say anything about it- Shepard just mutely accepts it.

You then get three ways to solve a problem that doesn't exist. And they wonder why people are unhappy.

I would quite like "clarity" of the logic behind 'the created will always destroy the creators'. They just need to fill in the missing step here:

1. AI has been created.
2. ????????????????????
3. Therefore, AI kills all organic life.

For one thing, various Computer Science departments will be interested. Also the UN, presumably.

[Nalano]

snip

You know what would have been funny, pertinent, and savvy?

If they'd depicted nothing after you sacrificed yourself by any of those three choices. Control, Destruction or Synthesis, you die, game over. You don't know what happens after, because you died. They would have sidestepped this whole issue, and the players would have been forced to extrapolate from nothing.

The thought alone makes me grin.

[cjlr]

You know what would have been funny, pertinent, and savvy?

If they'd depicted nothing after you sacrificed yourself by any of those three choices. Control, Destruction or Synthesis, you die, game over. You don't know what happens after, because you died. They would have sidestepped this whole issue, and the players would have been forced to extrapolate from nothing.

The thought alone makes me grin.

Based on the reaction, I was actually expecting something like that.

It would upgrade a frowning "this is stupid" reaction to a grinning "now THAT took balls".

[Lambchops]

You know what would have been funny, pertinent, and savvy?

If they'd depicted nothing after you sacrificed yourself by any of those three choices. Control, Destruction or Synthesis, you die, game over. You don't know what happens after, because you died.

Now that would have been ballsy! I shudder to think how much rage an ending like that would have generated. Personally I think I would have liked it (providing you got the choices in a less naff way!), I can't think of a game that's actually treated heroic self sacrifice with the uncertainity it entails in that you'll never know whether it had all been worth it.

Hah, that would have been near simultaneous agreement with cjlr if i hadn't been distracted by Match of the Day!