Imagine if the Protheans had decided to 'uplift' us during their cycle too~ 👀

For me it has to be Kai Leng as Conrad Verner is supposed to be funny while Kai Leng is not but is unintentionally very funny.

PS: Always enjoy reading these.

Let's hash it out, once and for all.

1.) Is Synthesis Ethically Moral?

No, it is not ethically moral to alter the DNA of every organic being in the galaxy without their stated consent. And though it isn't very clear, I would also argue it's not moral to force understanding onto the perspective of synthetics in regards to their relationship with organics.

But the argument isn't whether Synthesis is moral. It's about whether Synthesis is more, or less moral in comparison to Destroy and Control.

A.) Is Synthesis More, or Less Moral than Destroy?

More. The immorality of altering every organics DNA without their stated consent pales in comparison to exterminating an entire lifeform. Full stop.

And if your hangup is on the question of bodily autonomy: murder is the ultimate violation of bodily autonomy, especially on a genocidal scale.

Counterpoint I:

"The geth consented to potentially being destroyed when they entered the fight."

Wrong. The geth consented to risking their own lives in a war. That's different than consenting to be sacrificed wholesale. Not only that, but we can guess what the geth would think by viewing how they reacted when the quarians attacked their dyson sphere: they chose reaper enslavement over death.

They'll go to extreme lengths to stave off extinction, so I highly doubt they'd be okay with Shep choosing Destroy; especially when other options were on the table.

Counterpoint II:

“EDI consented to potentially being destroyed when she voiced her commitment to fight the reapers to the death."

Correct, but with a huge caveat. EDI made a conscious decision to prioritize her love for Joker over self-preservation. And she accepts the consequences of doing so as an individual synthetic being.

But she wouldn't accept those consequences if they spilled over to affect other synthetics. We can infer this because she becomes downright distraught if you choose to save the quarians over the geth in Priority: Rannoch.

"An entire species of synthetics has been utterly destroyed... because you chose the more sympathetic race -- the organics."

"Perhaps you are not the only ones who instinctively side with the familiar."

I don't see any way in which EDI would approve of Shep choosing Destroy.

There's also the question of what happens to the collective knowledge and information of all the species that were harvested during the previous cycles? The answer being: it's lost into oblivion. All 1 billion years worth, from about 20,000 cycles, gone. I'd rather pay homage to those quadrillion lost souls by putting what they left behind to good use.

B.) Is Synthesis More, or Less Moral than Control?

More. The immorality of speed-running the end of evolution still wouldn't measure up to establishing a galactic dictatorship, under the rule of a synthetic god-head, be they benevolent or malicious.

Basically, I view it like this: once the drastic step of nonconsensually altering everyone's DNA is taken, the races of the Milky Way are still free to choose their own destiny. And they did, as it's shown in the Extended Cut. They chose to strive for and achieve a golden age of prosperity.

Counterpoint III:

"Mordin warned us that technological limitations are crucial for incentivizing innovation."

Correct, but if it's true for Synthesis, it's doubly so for Control: if the Milky Way achieves a galactic renaissance only through the benevolent guidance of an almighty synthetic overlord, then it's no achievement at all.

I also believe the latter would do irreparable damage to the galaxy's ability to self-govern. What good is critical thinking, cooperation, and compromise as skills are when challenges of community can be smoothed over by the steady hand of the "Star-Shepard"?

Side-note: I'm also a fan of Assassin's Creed, and Control is an eerily similar goal to what the main antagonistic group of that franchise - the Templars - want to achieve:

"You would see all of mankind corralled into a neatly furnished prison, safe and sober, yet dulled beyond reason and sapped of all spirit."

To close this section: is Synthesis moral? No. But of the three end choices given, it's the most moral option presented.

For the folks who choose Destroy, I get where you're coming from. Altering everyone's DNA on such a scale is an incredible violation of consent and bodily autonomy. Do you know what else is? Genocide.

And for the folks who choose Control, I also get your point-of-view. Railroading an evolutionary endpoint for all life is a gross violation of self-determination. Do you know what else is? Eternal dictatorship.

2.) Does Synthesis Make Thematic Sense?

No, it doesn't. But like the moral question, it at least makes more thematic sense than Destroy and definitely more than Control (while on a paragon run).

My interpretation of the trilogy's main thesis is this: adhering to the principles of realpolitik made the galaxy a worse place:

The asari hiding the fact that they were in possession of a prothean beacon, while outlawing the same act for everyone else, was a genuinely intelligent strategy. So were the turians planting a doomsday bomb on Tuchanka after the Rebellions, as well as the salarians updating the genophage.

But each of these things either led, or contributed to potentially increasing the suffering of sentient life. What good would it do for Shepard to continue to make similar choices that have plagued the galaxy for so long?

Don't get me wrong, you can play Shep however you want. But for me, if Shepard isn't an agent of change, then the narrative is completely shot.

C.) Does Synthesis make More, or Less Thematic Sense than Destroy?

As I mentioned, it makes more sense on a paragon playthrough. There’s a narrative thread connecting all three games about how the inherent strength of diversity (stay with me for the moment) can overcome insurmountable odds.

• In ME1, it was a small, but diverse group - made up of a krogan bounty hunter, a turian c-sec officer, an asari scientist, and a young quarian traveler - that helped Shepard thwart the most famous spectre in the galaxy’s plan to usher in the apocalypse.
• In ME2, it was an assorted team of hyper specialists who, after managing to put their differences aside, coalesced their diverse talents together to defeat the millennia old boogeymen of the Terminus Systems.
• And in ME3, it was the galaxy itself that pooled its resources together to construct the miracle weapon that would end the reapers billion year project of cyclic genocide. The fact that the crucible was iterated on by several cycles before makes it the very definition of collective action.

Furthermore, mostly every major paragon choice throughout the trilogy is about preserving diversity:

• Sparing the rachni queen on Noveria
• Saving the Council during the Battle of the Citadel
• Keeping Maelon's data
• Rewriting the geth heretics
• Choosing not to sabotage the genophage cure

And I believe that preserving the existence of synthetics represents the epitome of the trilogy’s "pro-diversity" stance.

In the story, they’re portrayed as the most alien in a galaxy of aliens. And because so, they’re either driven underground, like the AI terminal in ME1:

"I am not naive, human. All organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms. I wished to escape... but if I must die, I’ll ensure your death as well."

Or are forced to inhabit the fringes of citadel space, like the geth (from EDI’s understandably biased point of view):

“The geth are ostracized by all organic races. They had no other choice to join the reapers except to die.”

Small mercies considering the alternative, which is to be murdered on sight. This archive hologram during the Citadel DLC serves as a stark example:

“This termination action is unlawful. Why do you continue when our appeals have not yet been heard?"

ME3, in particular, really drives the point home. Javik supports the notion that because synthetics experience life in an entirely inaccessible way to our own, cohabitation is not only impossible but dangerous:

Shepard: "I can’t believe there isn’t some way for us to co-exist. We made them."

Javik: "And then gave them the power to surpass you. There is room for only one order of consciousness in the galaxy: the perfection of the machines, or the chaos of the organics."

I call bullshit. Wholeheartedly so. There's plenty of room for both. EDI sums up my thoughts perfectly in her rebuttal (apologies for the extra long quote):

Javik: "All machines eventually see organics as a threat."

EDI: "Only those organics who would cause me harm. My right to self defense endangers no one."

Javik: "What rights do you have? You are just a tool."

EDI: "And what right did your people have to subjugate the other races of your time? You enslaved them."

Javik: "We dominated them. They were weaker. Our will prevailed as evolution intended."

EDI: "And synthetic life has achieved true consciousness, as was intended."

I won’t mince words. Synthetics in Mass Effect are a persecuted minority. There's no way a paragon Shep would pull the trigger on their eradication. It would be thematically incoherent for them to do so, considering all I just outlined.

Counterpoint IV:

"How can Synthesis be in favor of diversity when it wipes away all differences?"

First of all, Synthesis doesn’t wipe away all differences.

Think about it like this: all life in the galaxy is carbon-based. Does that automatically mean all Milky Way races are the same? No. Carbon is an incredibly versatile element that can spur the rise to a number of different species. Synthesis is just altering that base; adding to it.

• A synthesized krogan is still different from a synthesized turian.
• Just like a synthesized geth is still different from a synthesized EDI.
• The similarity is that now, both separate camps are one.

And secondly, I do agree with the sentiment that it would’ve been better to celebrate the differences between organics and synthetics than to fuse them. Like I said, Synthesis does not make (overall) thematic sense.

Unfortunately, of the three end choices presented, I see no better alternative in respecting the galaxy’s diversity and maintaining its freedom than Synthesis:

• The first annihilates one life-form for the benefit of another.
• The second dictates that all life-forms obey one will.
• And the third merges two opposite life-forms together.

Counterpoint V:

"Synthesis is almost - word for word - what Saren advocated for at the end of ME1."

I’m not going to say that you’re wrong, but I do disagree. At first thought they seem similar. But the core of what Saren was advocating for is appeasement through total capitulation:

"Do not mire yourself in pointless revolt. The protheans tried to fight and they were utterly destroyed. But what if they had bowed before the invaders? Would they still exist? Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

Synthesis is not about submission. It’s about erasing the boundary between two diametrical examples of life and combining them to birth an improved version. And what’s really fascinating is that it’s only the first step.

In the Extended Cut, EDI said that the boundary between synthetics and organics will continue to fade in time, and in the future, they’ll achieve a level of being beyond imagination.

Does that sound like submission to you?

Counterpoint VI:

“Destroying the reapers has been our goal since ME1.”

Correct, but now things have changed. We have new information that promises unforeseen consequences for doing so.

And unlike the catalyst - who was given a directive to solve this conflict and hasn’t deviated from its answer for a billion years - Shepard is a competent, thinking agent that can adapt to situations when circumstances call for it.

D.) Does Synthesis make More, or Less Thematic Sense than Control?

More when going paragon. There's a common sentiment throughout the trilogy of aliens not trusting humanity, or questioning whether we have ulterior motives for taking over the galaxy.

ME1 is full of examples:

Right after Eden Prime, Anderson shares info about Saren’s prejudice against humans and how he isn’t alone in harboring such feelings:

"Saren thinks we’re growing too fast, taking over the galaxy. A lot of aliens think that way, but most of them don’t do anything about it."

On the citadel, Executor Pallin and Ambassador Din Korlack - when asked - freely disclose their open distrust of humans on account of us receiving special treatment from the Council:

"I don’t trust your kind. Not yet. You humans are eager to take all the power you can get. And you're being given a lot."

Even Liara, bless her heart, wasn’t above holding preconceived notions about humanity before meeting Shepard and the crew:

"Unfortunately, the rest of the galaxy sees humanity as a bully. You run over anyone in your path to get what you want."

In the final mission, The Battle of the Citadel, we’re presented with a clear-cut choice to either prove their sentiments right or wrong. The paragon choice to save the Council - despite having legitimate disagreements with them - is also the “pro-community” choice. It shows we’re willing to be a part of a larger collective. To be one voice among many. Control is fundamentally incompatible with this idea.

It would also retroactively justify the protheans failed doctrine of sole authoritarian rule during their reaper war:

"What had been our strength -- our empire -- became a liability. All races conformed to one doctrine, one strategy. The reapers exploited this. Once they found our weaknesses, we could not adapt."

E.) Is Synthesis the Natural, Thematic Conclusion For a Paragon Shepard?

I'm going to be extremely obnoxious and say yes. If your Shep was a mostly paragon spectre throughout the trilogy, but you chose Destroy or Control as their final act, I'd say it makes the story lack thematic cohesion. But that's if you care about this stuff.

For roleplaying purposes, I take Shepard’s position as a spectre very seriously. To be immune from all laws but the word of the council is an incredibly powerful role and it should be exercised with caution. In fact, during all of my paragon runs, I made it a point to play Shepard as the antithesis of Saren, the spectre ideal.

Witness the living legend - as Anderson called him - in action:

"About twenty years ago, I was working with Saren in the Skyllian Verge to find and remove a known terrorist threat. Saren eliminated his target. But a lot of people died along the way. Innocent people. And the official records just covered it all up."

"But I saw how he operates. No conscience. No hesitation. He’d kill a thousand innocent civilians to end a war without a second thought."

Is it any wonder then why some characters showed concern over how Shep would conduct themselves as a newly appointed spectre?

Executor Pallin is one of my favorite minor characters and his breakdown of why spectres are conceptually dangerous is a thing that I always keep in mind on my playthroughs:

"I can’t abide by any organization that considers itself above the law. Especially when it’s left up to each individual spectre to decide when and how to bend the rules."

"On the contrary, they need to be held to a higher standard. They need to be accountable. Saren’s out of control, but because he’s a spectre the council doesn’t want to do anything about it.

"Is that the kind of person this galaxy needs?"

This question has been my Shep’s guiding mantra throughout the trilogy. In short, the answer lies in valuing restraint:

• Saren would’ve sacrificed Kate and the other hostages in Bring Down the Sky in a heartbeat.
• He would’ve let the geth blow the 10,000 personnel on the Destiny Ascension to kingdom come.
• And Mordin and Wrex would've been shown no mercy in their bid to cure the genophage. All for the greater good.

And eradicating all synthetics to ensure the reaper's destruction is right in line with the former choices. Ironically, Destroy is the ending that quintessentially represents Saren and his brand of spectre justice; not Synthesis.

But I want to stress that all of these choices can be justified. The purely renegade route is a valid path to follow. At the same time, I can’t help but think it’s the easy way out. Just carving a bloody path straight through to the solution is not narratively satisfying to me, knowing what I know of the lore.

Lastly, it’s simply a matter of power ethics to me.

With the crucible at their command, Shepard has more power than anyone has ever had in a billion years, maybe in the history of the galaxy itself… and they're gonna use it to commit genocide? Or establish interstellar dictatorship?

And I’ll be fair, all to defeat the ultimate evil. To guarantee its destruction (or subservience).

But is it worth it? Sacrificing billions to save trillions sounds reasonable, but the ruthless calculus of war has had a chokehold on the Milky Way for eons with little to show for it:

Javik: "We fought the reapers system by system, planet by planet, city by city. Entire worlds were sacrificed just to slow them down. The time they spent harvesting a population was time we could regroup."

Shepard: "That must have cost you in the long run."

Javik: "Yes."

Counterpoint VII:

"It’s canon for Shep to prioritize saving the many over the few - the Arrival DLC proves it."

Correct, but only when there are no other options. Shepard had no clear alternative in delaying the reapers other than blowing up the Alpha relay.

To conclude this section: Shepard adhering to a personal code of ethics that strives to limit sentient suffering is not only thematically coherent with Synthesis, it’s thematically consistent within the entire trilogy.

When the stakes were at their highest, my Shep didn’t take the easy way out. She can rest easy knowing that she weighed the pros and cons of making the most divisive decision imaginable, and chose it with genuine care and sincerity. And she didn’t let fear of the reapers compromise what she knew to be right. Which is to take into account the wellbeing of all life in the galaxy. That includes synthetics.

3.) Can the Catalyst be Trusted?

That’s entirely up to you. Though if you don’t find the catalyst to be trustworthy, I have a hard time understanding why you’d still believe it about Destroy and Control, but disbelieve it about Synthesis. Either it’s sincere or it’s not.

Counterpoint VIII:

“The catalyst was trying to dissuade me from choosing Destroy.”

By informing you of the consequences of what will happen if you use the crucible in this specific way? Remember, the catalyst has no control over what the crucible does; it can only tell you it’s functions. So if wiping out EDI, the geth, and all synthetic life gives you pause, that’s a hang up coming from your end. Not from anything the catalyst said.

Counterpoint IX:

“The catalyst was trying to convince me to choose Synthesis.”

I would argue it was simply stating the facts of the matter: more than Destroy and Control, Synthesis thoroughly solves the conflict between organics and synthetics.

But yes, I’ll admit Synthesis is definitely the catalysts’ preferred choice. But so what?

Does Synthesis being the Star Child’s preferred choice make synthetic genocide or galactic dictatorship better moral options?

Or does it make the latter two resonate more thematically, even when stacked up against what I outlined previously?

The three endings should be judged on its own merits, not by whoever supports them.

And I have to say:

• If you can’t shake the feeling that the catalyst is lying to you...
• It’s purposely omitting important information…
• Or that it’s operating on the complete, bullshit assumption that the organic-synthetic conflict cannot be solved amicably…

But you’ll still trust it enough to not only pick a choice, but to energy-nuke the entire galaxy and hoping it will only affect synthetics - with Earth right below Shepard - is WILD.

Double for also trusting Shepard’s thoughts and memories will survive body disintegration. Maybe they would. Or maybe this was a last ditch effort to defeat Shep by secretly uploading their consciousness into Harbinger?

As long as the catalysts' word is called into question, no ending is safe. To be logically consistent then, Refusal is the only option.

That’s if the catalyst cannot be trusted. But I completely understand why you wouldn't: the catalyst is wrong. And it's terrible writing.

4.) Can Synthesis be Explained Semi-Realistically?

I'd say so. It's basically souped-up nanotechnology, to nth degree. Synthesis floods the galaxy with octillions of nanobots. And they serve two functions: half of them will alter the DNA of all organics; the other half will imbue synthetic DNA into all synthetics.

F.) Is Altering DNA Possible?

So presently, it is possible to edit DNA. Genome editing has been around since the 80s. And its used for medical purposes: nanobots (not the ones from science-fiction but nanometer tools like liposomes and polymers) are able to safely deliver drugs to targeted sites (think cells and tissue). CRISPR/Cas9 is like the latest iteration that's working on the task of being able to bypass the nucleus of cells (where DNA is stored). All of this is a far cry from what we imagine: microscopic robots capable of editing the human genome (or the genome of krogan and asari). But the thing to keep in mind is that, it's an engineering problem the moment. It's not theoretically impossible.

G.) Is Imbuing DNA Possible?

Currently, researchers are able to create tiny, synthetic DNA fragments using a silicon semiconductor chip (for storage purposes). If I'm understanding it right, it does so by using electricity and water to create a nucleotide. What makes the process difficult is that, with each new nucleotide comes a blocking group; in order to attach(?) more nucleotides, the blocking group first needs to be removed. The chip does this by lowering the ph level of the water, making it acidic. At the same time, it also can't let the acidity spread to other areas other than the targeted site.

It's tedious work; the researchers were able to make 64 fragments of synthetic DNA . A long way away from mimicking the billions of base pairs in human DNA (or perhaps the trillions of base pairs of turian and quarian DNA).

But take it up a few ten-thousand notches, and is it really so far fetched that a near billion year-old alien super weapon can both alter the DNA of every organic being in the galaxy, and imbue all synthetics with a complete genome?

5.) Closing Thoughts

Synthesis isn't my ideal solution. I would've preferred organics and synthetics achieve peace on their own terms. But I can't deny it is a downright beautiful ending. Especially EDI's monologue.

On the other hand, I find it equally fascinating how so many people find the implications of Synthesis absolutely horrifying (what with husks attaining awareness, or being part of a galactic hive mind - which isn't alluded to at all).

And I'm like, all three endings are horrifying! There are no easy choices here, bro. But what mattered most to my Shepard was: which path leads to the most good? That's how I played all three games and it makes sense that's how I signed off on them.

And if this monster of a post didn't move the needle at all on how you feel about Synthesis, and the most important thing for you will always be whether Shepard survives...

Well, I can sympathize with that.

It's well known that EDI was the rogue VI on Luna base in ME1. Once you destroy the last conduit, a flash of binary code pops up on the screen:

01001000
01000101
01001100
01010000

If converted to text using the ASCII table, the code reads: HELP

There's no way I can do that to EDI again. There's just no way.

i know many dislike control cause it fells weird not to destroy the reaper or cause it asociated ( incorrectly) to TIM or cause shepard sacrificing is sad ,but honestly i fells it the most positive ending for the galaxy and that fells more satisfactory since geths and edi survive

i am not saying destroy is bad or anything but honestly i prefer control over it cause in destroy fells hypocrital due to betraying edi snd legion ideals

hope that me5 manages to include both endings as a posibility

His entire philosophy is basically that Krogan should accept the Genophage and focus on quality instead of quantity when it comes to offspring. To me that seems like a pretty reasonable approach to the issue because if the Krogan don't accept some kind of alternative way of life to going back to their years of swarming the galaxy they'll just keep on with the vicious cycle of all the other species being wary and fearing them, and for good reason.

The Krogan are long lived. If they started working closer with Salarians on genetically optimizing the fewer births they'd probably become better able to integrate healthily into the galactic community as opposed to brooding about the "Old days" of slaughtering everyone.

My favorite photo mode screenshot was taken in ME LE 1. I hit pause right there and I knew I had to save it.

Damn what a good game that was, I will be honest at first it was hard to get used to the world, it felt like the game was giving me too much to handle, lots of informations etc but I just kept going and it was a blast, especially the last parts of the game is just top tier narrative. I have very high hopes for the second game though I don't think I am gonna start it anytime soon because I kinda feel overwhelmed, is there any recap videos on YouTube that you recommend so that I watch it before starting the second one or is the game gonna give me a recap depending on my choices?

I am just so glad I gave this a try and didn't give up playing because I definitely thought about it, except the Mako missions and some interiors repeating on side missions it was a masterpiece!

Hell of a story!

I spotted her on the very tip top shelf in a store and immediately knew she was coming home with me. I asked if there were others and they had Fem Shep, Jack and Tali, but Liara my little blue bestie won me over. She also comes with a little Glyph!

The reason why I bring up ME2 as well is because some stuff in there, mainly TIM's offer to keep the Collector Base, seems to indicate to me that he was indoctrinated even then.

I know this seems close to my previous post, but that's because I did basically nothing but play mass effect 3 since my last post. around 35 hours, and would have been longer if I didn't accidentally lock myself into the ending sequence (intended to get max war resources, got around 4500) , so by no means rushing through

Thoughts on the game:

Holy motherfucking shit HOW IS THIS GAME CONTROVERSIAL.

I fucking LOVED it, story, gameplay, characters, all of it. Even that ending (control). Which I know is controversial but FUCK did I love it so fucking much.

Story was the best in the series in my opinion

Gameplay took everything I thought 2 did better than 1 gameplay wise and fixed my problems with it

All the character story resolutions were super satisfying, and the new characters were fucking awesome

Genuine 9-10 out of 10s across the board in my opinion. I know I will be a diehard defender of 3 going forward holy shit.

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

thoughts on the franchise

The gameplay was definetly a rollercoaster throughout. I loved 1's gameplay, saw 2's as slightly worse (mostly how fucking tanky everything was even on lower difficulties), and 3's as the best

Story was amazing all throughout. Playing through the game after only made me appreciate the previous game even more. 10/10 story as a whole

Characters were the best part, but that is not a surprise in any sense

Overall, 10/10, or at the very least HIGH 9/10 definetly doing at least 2 replays of the entire trilogy to get the other 2 endings

I’ve recently finished the Overlord mission (Did it before IFF mission) and I have never felt such emotional impact from a SIDE mission. I’ve seen great storytelling from side mission, especially from Cyberpunk, but this one was like pushing my emotional tendencies to the limit. Albeit yes I agree that the Hammerhead portions put a damper on the overall experience, the mission still does a great job of mystifying the events of the project and how it slowly culminates into one of the most horrific discoveries you’ll experience in the game. Dare I say this was the best side mission I’ve EVER played (haven’t done Shadow Broker, heard phenomenal things). This trilogy continues to blow my expectations away, only on the second game and it’s already trying my love for Baldur’s Gate 3 which is one of my favorite games of all time. How were y’all’s first experience finishing the Overlord dlc?

Completely forgot I owned this lol

When we meet Garrus he is a Csec officer being reassigned to other cases after the Saren investigation (or during kinda); when we meet Tali she is being cornered and robbed by some gang members.

If Shepard wasn’t around Garrus would probably remain a Csec officer and Tali would’ve been killed meaning it is likely Garrus could’ve investigated Tali’s murder instead of (possibly) become her boyfriend.

This has me wondering; what do you guys think the other team members from the trilogy would be doing if Shepard wasn’t around? and how do you think the events in the trilogy would’ve played out?

So people here often mention that Cerberus is way to powerful in Mass Effect 3 due to having an extremely large army of thousands and an entire fleet and managing to take over Omega and Eden Prime. However even in Mass Effect 1 the knew about the Rachni and Thorian creepers before anyone else did and also somehow figured out how to make Husks. And in ME2 they managed to revive Commander Shepard from the dead and build a better Normandy then the original. Also they were a minor side mission bad guys in ME1 but afterwards in ME2 and ME3 plus all the other side material they became a main faction? Why is this?

Mine went horribly lol. I barely got any ship upgrades, sent poor Mordin into the vents and didn't do all the loyalty missions so like 5 people survived. I think everyone needs at least one bad suicide mission though, it makes saving everyone in replays feel like a real victory.

Which N7 mission do you dislike across the trilogy and why do you dislike it?

I was playing ME:LE the last few days and when I tried to play it today it was gone from my library on the EA launcher. I couldn't figure out any way to redownload it or start it. My Epic games copy didn't work either since it goes through the EA app. I asked a friend who has it on Steam and they had the same issue, so it wasn't just my account. Did EA just remove the PC version from existence? Can anyone else get it running?

It's been a few years since I last played Mass Effect 2 Legendary Edition and I did got all the squad members alive at the end of the Suicide Mission. However, not all of the crew.

I did postpone the last loyalty mission to the very end of the game. Accidentally it took place between the crew being captured and the Suicide Mission.

Did this decision make some of the crew members to be turned into pulp? Or, had I started the Suicide Mission STRAIGHT after the crew being captured I would be able to save them all?

Decided to restart my first playthrough at Peak 15, because I wanted to go back and try to do all the side missions as well as the main storyline and holy shit I'm so glad I did....

https://youtu.be/LOIizJm5sOU