204 réponses à ce sujet

[fle6isnow]

Sepharih wrote...

Well it was more an observation than a question.  I'm pointing out that putting forth synthesis as the only solution to a proposed conflict between synthetic and organic life is thematically insonsistent with the series, because the series is about the beauty and strength of diverse species and peoples coming together and learning to respect their differences, yes?

Now...if the only way to resolve this newly established central conflict is to merge synthetics and organics together.....it stands in direct contrast to those themes.  

Homogenization between these two forms of life is not the solution within the mass effect universe anymore than it was the solution to resolve Turian and Krogan tensions by gene splicing them.

The solution is co-existance.

I'll point you to AtreiyaN7's blog to counter this point. In it she states that it's less erasing uniqueness, and more like leveling the playing field and erasing artificial boundaries between organics and synthetics. It's not like the synthesis ending will make people LESS diverse,as she states in the comments:

However, our diverse cultures and customs and ways of life aren't the product of our DNA - these things are not hardwired into our genetic code. We can have the same biochemistry and still be completely different from one another. And that's why I think Synthesis wouldn't even remotely destroy our diversity - not when who we are as people remains the same.

Sepharih wrote...

The fact that Saren discussed synthesis and it had been mentioned before isn't really a point in it's favor anymore than the Illusive man is a point in favor of control.  In both these cases, the only times synthesis or the idea of controlling the reapers are talked about at all it's almost always shown in a negative light......often by someone who is indoctrinated.

You know what other bad idea Saren had? He wanted to cure the genophage. It's presented as a horrible thing in ME1, yet Shepard is given the chance to choose to do so in ME3. Was that automatically bad because Saren wanted it? No, not really--the circumstances are very different. Saren wanted to cure the genophage to make Krogan slaves, but in ME3 Shepard does it to give the Krogans a chance for a better future. Same thing applies to synthesis in the final ending--it is not done to control or enslave anyone or to erase diversity, but instead to give everyone a better future.

The Starbrat thinks it is the only solution because that's pretty much what the Reapers have been doing--blending synthetic and organic. However, it is not necessarily right, and you can definitely disagree with it by picking one of the other options.

[TheCrazyHobo]

My thoughts:

Citadel AI: This can be attributed to the fact that he was created in an environment which if he was discovered, he would die. It was self-preservation for him to want to escape detection from organics and contact the Geth.

EDI: As EDI explained it, she woke up one day and found people trying to hurt/kill her. It was, once again, self-preservation.

Heretic Geth: They worshiped the Reapers as the their "gods" and would do anything they say so their opinion on organics is kinda null and void.

In the end, it was not foreshadowed that there is *always* an epic showdown between Organics and Synthetics. Quite frankly it is more likely for the Batarians to somehow blow up the universe that it would be for the true Geth to become homicidal maniacs and kill all their allies.

[ChildOfEden]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

My thoughts:

Citadel AI: This can be attributed to the fact that he was created in an environment which if he was discovered, he would die. It was self-preservation for him to want to escape detection from organics and contact the Geth.

EDI: As EDI explained it, she woke up one day and found people trying to hurt/kill her. It was, once again, self-preservation.

Heretic Geth: They worshiped the Reapers as the their "gods" and would do anything they say so their opinion on organics is kinda null and void.

In the end, it was not foreshadowed that there is *always* an epic showdown between Organics and Synthetics. Quite frankly it is more likely for the Batarians to somehow blow up the universe that it would be for the true Geth to become homicidal maniacs and kill all their allies.

The fact all of them had the near illusion of inevitability supports my own conclusion. Of course it wasn't always assumed a showdown between Organics vs Synthetics, it was however being foreshadowed that the choices were going to be there (in accordance to my recent update on the OP) Funny fact, the true Geth were dumbed down when the Quarians attacked and destroyed their attempt for a dyson sphere. So in order to survive they had to side with the Reapers. Fact is, when it comes down to it, the events that create mutual understanding in the game had an inevitible conflict before it would be achieved.

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 12 avril 2012 - 04:31 .

[DivergentZen]

To the OP:
It wasn't a foreshadow. Synthetic life vs. organic was one of many themes in the game. And like others have said, the game wasn't originally about this particular theme. It's the "Mass Effect" series and not the "Technological Signularity" series.

And if anything, some of your example just create more plotholes. Just think back to Mass Effect 1 and 2 (or go play them) and remind yourself who is currently residing in the Citadel for the duration of these games.

Could they have foreshadowed the heck out of the ending? Absolutely. For one thing, Shepherd's shop VI could have flicked to image of the Starchild, but no... The execution wasn't there.

[ChildOfEden]

DivergentZen wrote...

To the OP:
It wasn't a foreshadow. Synthetic life vs. organic was one of many themes in the game. And like others have said, the game wasn't originally about this particular theme. It's the "Mass Effect" series and not the "Technological Signularity" series.

And if anything, some of your example just create more plotholes. Just think back to Mass Effect 1 and 2 (or go play them) and remind yourself who is currently residing in the Citadel for the duration of these games.

Could they have foreshadowed the heck out of the ending? Absolutely. For one thing, Shepherd's shop VI could have flicked to image of the Starchild, but no... The execution wasn't there.

How does the Catalyst factor into anything in ME1 or 2? The Catalyst is supposed to be the originator of the solution, the solution being the Reapers. It was never implied the Catalyst could have done anything before the Crucible.
And if you read my OP and other posts (no pun intended) then you would've seen near irrefutable evidence for the foreshadowing of the current endings.

[leapingmonkeys]

I never played ME1. I started with ME2. During ME2 there was heavy foreshadowing regarding the dark energy issue and the importance of humans due to their "greater genetic diversity". The fate of the Collector Base also seemed like it was important.

All of that seems to have been completely dropped on the ground during ME3. That is one of the big problems with ME3 and why the ending in particular feels completely disconnected from everything that happened before. I really didn't feel like I was playing the continuation of ME2. Even various NPCs, such as Mordin, were now behaving differently (in ME2 he was adamant that the genophage was regrettable, but necessary - then in ME3 suddenly it must be cured - huh?)

So I guess I'd have to say that for me very little in ME3 felt like it was foreshadowed by the previous games, or even connected to the previous games. The ending, in particular, felt completely forced and disconnected. Starting at the final base in London where suddenly I switch from being the implacable hero who never says die to being the poor sap who is saying his final goodbyes and everyone just knows that I am going to die. That is where I suddenly felt completely disconnected from the previous flow of the game.

[FlamingBoy]

nice post, but i really don't think they can fix it with out a really annoying explanation cutscene

[DivergentZen]

I don't agree that the Catalyst needed the Crucible to act. That would mean the Catalyst needed multiple cycles of organic civilizations to develop the crucible so it could raise Shepherd up on an elevator. And I wouldn't be surprised if the writers originally intended to have an AI secretly running the Citadel (something was managing the Keepers and making them rearrange people's rooms), just not the mastermind behind the cycles. Why?

Aside from the Citadel's own communication equipment, I'll point to Shepherd's visions of the boy as the Catalyst being able to communicate with Shephard long distance on some level. This has to be the case in order for the Catalyst to even know what form to take in the ending. And if it has some method of long distance mindreading, mind manipulation, telepathy, or whatever then had to have been aware of what was happening in ME1 and ME2 (especially after Shep's implants?). So, I'm assuming you heard this before, but why didn't the Catalyst send out the call to the Reapers in ME1? Why did the Catalyst risk the potential destruction of the Citadel in that battle (certainly there was some risk the other races might blow the station up rather than cede it)? Furthermore, as soon as the Catalyst got wind of the existence of the Geth or even humanity's illegal AI project in that first Mass Effect novel, why didn't it call in the Reapers?

I'm not denying the elements for the organic vs. synthetic foreshadow are there, but I just don't think they were ever intended to be used the way they were. Again, the title of the series; that's the biggest clue.

[Sepharih]

fle6isnow wrote...
I'll point you to AtreiyaN7's blog to counter this point. In it she states that it's less erasing uniqueness, and more like leveling the playing field and erasing artificial boundaries between organics and synthetics. It's not like the synthesis ending will make people LESS diverse,as she states in the comments:

However, our diverse cultures and customs and ways of life aren't the product of our DNA - these things are not hardwired into our genetic code. We can have the same biochemistry and still be completely different from one another. And that's why I think Synthesis wouldn't even remotely destroy our diversity - not when who we are as people remains the same.

This does not counter my point.  As I have said before, whether or not there is still a diversity of life after synthesis (ie there are still presumably asari and turian synthetic hybrids and their cultures persist) is not the point I am trying to make.

The point is, if we accept that the central conflict of the series is now an existential tension between two kinds of life (synthetic and organic) than the putting forth that the ONLY way to resolve this conflict is to merge the two lifeforms together and remove their "artificial boundaries" is completely contrary to the themes of the series because you ARE removing the diversity between these two kinds of life (even if there is diversity in the result).

fle6isnow wrote... 
You know what other bad idea Saren had? He wanted to cure the genophage. It's presented as a horrible thing in ME1, yet Shepard is given the chance to choose to do so in ME3. Was that automatically bad because Saren wanted it? No, not really--the circumstances are very different. Saren wanted to cure the genophage to make Krogan slaves, but in ME3 Shepard does it to give the Krogans a chance for a better future. Same thing applies to synthesis in the final ending--it is not done to control or enslave anyone or to erase diversity, but instead to give everyone a better future.

Yes, obviously context is important, but the problem is that the context radically changes within the last five minutes of the game.

fle6isnow wrote... 
The Starbrat thinks it is the only solution because that's pretty much what the Reapers have been doing--blending synthetic and organic. However, it is not necessarily right, and you can definitely disagree with it by picking one of the other options.

One little problem with that:  the other choices are equally contradictory to the themes of the series and the Shepard character.  Control is the equivalent of Luke in Return of the Jedi randomely deciding that despite everything he's seen he can now suddenly use the darkside for good, and Destroy is a betrayal of Legion's Legacy and the idea that syntehtic life is as valueable as Organic life.  None of these endings are acceptable to me as conclusions to the story.

Modifié par Sepharih, 12 avril 2012 - 05:32 .

[ChildOfEden]

FlamingBoy wrote...

nice post, but i really don't think they can fix it with out a really annoying explanation cutscene

Unfortunately I agree. However, They said the EC DLC wasn't going to just be cutscenes, so I guess we just got to hope they can fix this. If not... well I'll get to that after the DLC comes out.

[ChildOfEden]

I1 Trust wrote...

Both Legion and EDI can be revived with medi-gel. Coincidence? I think NOT!


Joking aside, OP, most of these things really don't foreshadow the endings of ME3. I think you and the others are simply trying too hard, especially harder than BioWare bothered to.

Well, should I not try at all then? I'm doing this on my free time, I live with my boyfirend and I have a job in a hospital so I don't have much time to do anything really. Posting on forums is just my part time hobby
My full time hobby is my hubby :3

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 13 avril 2012 - 12:06 .

[blurr1985]

More foreshadowing from the Prothean VI on Thessia:

Shepard: "Why didn't you use the Crucible in your time?"

"We were sabatoged from within.  A splinter group thought we could dominate the Reapers rather than destroy them.  We later found out they were indoctrinated."

I have a very very interesting theory from the other things the Prothean VI says.  Search my profile.

[ryuasiu]

Ok, Ill bite after reading OP

-How was the crucible foreshadowed as not a weapon but a device to control the 'reaper leader'
-When was a reaper leader foreshadowed?

Most of the issues people have with the ending is not about why, its that it came out of left field. Throughout ME1-ME3 the actual reapers tell us we can not understand them and they are each independent. then at the last minute we are told in a sentience why they exist and they DO have a creator/leader.

[ChildOfEden]

DivergentZen wrote...

I don't agree that the Catalyst needed the Crucible to act. That would mean the Catalyst needed multiple cycles of organic civilizations to develop the crucible so it could raise Shepherd up on an elevator. And I wouldn't be surprised if the writers originally intended to have an AI secretly running the Citadel (something was managing the Keepers and making them rearrange people's rooms), just not the mastermind behind the cycles. Why?

Aside from the Citadel's own communication equipment, I'll point to Shepherd's visions of the boy as the Catalyst being able to communicate with Shephard long distance on some level. This has to be the case in order for the Catalyst to even know what form to take in the ending. And if it has some method of long distance mindreading, mind manipulation, telepathy, or whatever then had to have been aware of what was happening in ME1 and ME2 (especially after Shep's implants?). So, I'm assuming you heard this before, but why didn't the Catalyst send out the call to the Reapers in ME1? Why did the Catalyst risk the potential destruction of the Citadel in that battle (certainly there was some risk the other races might blow the station up rather than cede it)? Furthermore, as soon as the Catalyst got wind of the existence of the Geth or even humanity's illegal AI project in that first Mass Effect novel, why didn't it call in the Reapers?

I'm not denying the elements for the organic vs. synthetic foreshadow are there, but I just don't think they were ever intended to be used the way they were. Again, the title of the series; that's the biggest clue.

Well, every question you asked is all speculation or has been already answered, (BTW I am not a fan of the way the ending happened). For example, the Catalyst's inactivity in ME1. Well, there's speculation and explanation for this. On speculation there's theories that perhaps Shepard (funny you should misspell Shepard with Shepherd because my last name's Shepherd) wasn't really the first one to meet the Catalyst. There was a whole thread on this particular subject and it was very interesting, unfortunately I cannot find the link for it, and so thusly cannot provide one.
But to simplfy what it was about:
Proposed evidence of other meetings with the Catalyst were made in that the Prothean scientists that jumped from Illos through the Conduit had met it. It was never specifically mentioned how they jammed the signal of the keepers, so the catalyst would fill that plot hole. It was also mentioned that the artifacts Reapers had chosen to leave behind for the other cycles to examine were done so for a certain purpose, the sole surpose of organics being led a path that followed the Reapers' technologies. This can explain the reasoning behind Mars being intact and not destroyed, and Soveriegn's quotes about the cycle. Which however, meant that the Reapers had to have wanted organics to find the Curcible plan so that they can meet the Catalyst and restart the cycle once more, or something like that (I'm sure if you find the thread you'll get a better understanding. I for one do not 100% support it.)
As it was pointed by posters that the Reaper's had overlooked or were just that dumb about leaving behind the Crucible plans, which as Liara mentions, were made from various cycles.
However, my own speculation is that the Catalyst was not there to do any work, other than to have solution, which it did ala Reapers, and that it was truly honest when it said the Cruicble changed it. Though if the EC DLC changes it to the aforemention then I wouldn't mind (but seeing how they're not going to be retconning the Catalyst anyway, it's possible.)

As for the boy becoming the Catalyst hologram thing... I don't know, I guess BioWare has an explanation, probably not a good one, but really I believe they made it that way for familiarity, the Indoctrination Theory had explained this at least to me perfectly fine, but again, seeing how IT is now almost entirely not possible the familiarity makes the most sense.

[ChildOfEden]

blurr1985 wrote...

More foreshadowing from the Prothean VI on Thessia:

Shepard: "Why didn't you use the Crucible in your time?"

"We were sabatoged from within.  A splinter group thought we could dominate the Reapers rather than destroy them.  We later found out they were indoctrinated."

I have a very very interesting theory from the other things the Prothean VI says.  Search my profile.

Will do!

[blurr1985]

ChildOfEden wrote...

DivergentZen wrote...

I don't agree that the Catalyst needed the Crucible to act. That would mean the Catalyst needed multiple cycles of organic civilizations to develop the crucible so it could raise Shepherd up on an elevator. And I wouldn't be surprised if the writers originally intended to have an AI secretly running the Citadel (something was managing the Keepers and making them rearrange people's rooms), just not the mastermind behind the cycles. Why?

Aside from the Citadel's own communication equipment, I'll point to Shepherd's visions of the boy as the Catalyst being able to communicate with Shephard long distance on some level. This has to be the case in order for the Catalyst to even know what form to take in the ending. And if it has some method of long distance mindreading, mind manipulation, telepathy, or whatever then had to have been aware of what was happening in ME1 and ME2 (especially after Shep's implants?). So, I'm assuming you heard this before, but why didn't the Catalyst send out the call to the Reapers in ME1? Why did the Catalyst risk the potential destruction of the Citadel in that battle (certainly there was some risk the other races might blow the station up rather than cede it)? Furthermore, as soon as the Catalyst got wind of the existence of the Geth or even humanity's illegal AI project in that first Mass Effect novel, why didn't it call in the Reapers?

I'm not denying the elements for the organic vs. synthetic foreshadow are there, but I just don't think they were ever intended to be used the way they were. Again, the title of the series; that's the biggest clue.

Well, every question you asked is all speculation or has been already answered, (BTW I am not a fan of the way the ending happened). For example, the Catalyst's inactivity in ME1. Well, there's speculation and explanation for this. On speculation there's theories that perhaps Shepard (funny you should misspell Shepard with Shepherd because my last name's Shepherd) wasn't really the first one to meet the Catalyst. There was a whole thread on this particular subject and it was very interesting, unfortunately I cannot find the link for it, and so thusly cannot provide one.
But to simplfy what it was about:
Proposed evidence of other meetings with the Catalyst were made in that the Prothean scientists that jumped from Illos through the Conduit had met it. It was never specifically mentioned how they jammed the signal of the keepers, so the catalyst would fill that plot hole. It was also mentioned that the artifacts Reapers had chosen to leave behind for the other cycles to examine were done so for a certain purpose, the sole surpose of organics being led a path that followed the Reapers' technologies. This can explain the reasoning behind Mars being intact and not destroyed, and Soveriegn's quotes about the cycle. Which however, meant that the Reapers had to have wanted organics to find the Curcible plan so that they can meet the Catalyst and restart the cycle once more, or something like that (I'm sure if you find the thread you'll get a better understanding. I for one do not 100% support it.)
As it was pointed by posters that the Reaper's had overlooked or were just that dumb about leaving behind the Crucible plans, which as Liara mentions, were made from various cycles.
However, my own speculation is that the Catalyst was not there to do any work, other than to have solution, which it did ala Reapers, and that it was truly honest when it said the Cruicble changed it. Though if the EC DLC changes it to the aforemention then I wouldn't mind (but seeing how they're not going to be retconning the Catalyst anyway, it's possible.)

As for the boy becoming the Catalyst hologram thing... I don't know, I guess BioWare has an explanation, probably not a good one, but really I believe they made it that way for familiarity, the Indoctrination Theory had explained this at least to me perfectly fine, but again, seeing how IT is now almost entirely not possible the familiarity makes the most sense.

I am th OP for that theory, and I posted right above you, lol.

Here it is.

Enjoy!

[ChildOfEden]

ryuasiu wrote...

Ok, Ill bite after reading OP

-How was the crucible foreshadowed as not a weapon but a device to control the 'reaper leader'
-When was a reaper leader foreshadowed?

Most of the issues people have with the ending is not about why, its that it came out of left field. Throughout ME1-ME3 the actual reapers tell us we can not understand them and they are each independent. then at the last minute we are told in a sentience why they exist and they DO have a creator/leader.

Well I have a whole problem with the Reaper's explanation, but I can understand it, I wouldn't even had minded if the Reapers had remained enigmatic. However to answer your two questions.
1) The Crucible wasn't foreshadowed to be a device to control the reaper leader or to be a weapon. It was a device that was repeatedly been said to have no predicted intended results. Blame that on plot direction, or maybe even the necessity of a plot device for the story. Cause let's face it, even Deus Ex Machinas are plot devices.

2) Reaper leader was foreshadowed in Thessia, at least explictly vocalized, by the Prothean VI. You can find dialogue segments on the internet or on YouTube, which is also on the interent (redudancy.)
And 3) Even though you haven't asked a third question I' answering it anyway. BioWare games have a tendency of throwing out major plot devices and the like in many of their games' endings. Baldur's Gate at some points, Jade Empire with (SPOILERS) the captive dragon corpse, ME1 Saren's intention of siding with the Reaper's (alliance, synthesis, all that Jazz.) I fully expected them to do this again and I did not mind ME3's endings. It was perfect up until the Catalyst part, but even then I didn't mind it, no one minded it up until the story after your decision. Or lack there of. People are angry because we were expecting great cinematic epilogoues that shown how our decisions have shaped the universe, and whether or not Liara would have your babies (T_T)... which I'm sad to say I was hoping to find out.

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 13 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[ChildOfEden]

blurr1985 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

DivergentZen wrote...

I don't agree that the Catalyst needed the Crucible to act. That would mean the Catalyst needed multiple cycles of organic civilizations to develop the crucible so it could raise Shepherd up on an elevator. And I wouldn't be surprised if the writers originally intended to have an AI secretly running the Citadel (something was managing the Keepers and making them rearrange people's rooms), just not the mastermind behind the cycles. Why?

Aside from the Citadel's own communication equipment, I'll point to Shepherd's visions of the boy as the Catalyst being able to communicate with Shephard long distance on some level. This has to be the case in order for the Catalyst to even know what form to take in the ending. And if it has some method of long distance mindreading, mind manipulation, telepathy, or whatever then had to have been aware of what was happening in ME1 and ME2 (especially after Shep's implants?). So, I'm assuming you heard this before, but why didn't the Catalyst send out the call to the Reapers in ME1? Why did the Catalyst risk the potential destruction of the Citadel in that battle (certainly there was some risk the other races might blow the station up rather than cede it)? Furthermore, as soon as the Catalyst got wind of the existence of the Geth or even humanity's illegal AI project in that first Mass Effect novel, why didn't it call in the Reapers?

I'm not denying the elements for the organic vs. synthetic foreshadow are there, but I just don't think they were ever intended to be used the way they were. Again, the title of the series; that's the biggest clue.

Well, every question you asked is all speculation or has been already answered, (BTW I am not a fan of the way the ending happened). For example, the Catalyst's inactivity in ME1. Well, there's speculation and explanation for this. On speculation there's theories that perhaps Shepard (funny you should misspell Shepard with Shepherd because my last name's Shepherd) wasn't really the first one to meet the Catalyst. There was a whole thread on this particular subject and it was very interesting, unfortunately I cannot find the link for it, and so thusly cannot provide one.
But to simplfy what it was about:
Proposed evidence of other meetings with the Catalyst were made in that the Prothean scientists that jumped from Illos through the Conduit had met it. It was never specifically mentioned how they jammed the signal of the keepers, so the catalyst would fill that plot hole. It was also mentioned that the artifacts Reapers had chosen to leave behind for the other cycles to examine were done so for a certain purpose, the sole surpose of organics being led a path that followed the Reapers' technologies. This can explain the reasoning behind Mars being intact and not destroyed, and Soveriegn's quotes about the cycle. Which however, meant that the Reapers had to have wanted organics to find the Curcible plan so that they can meet the Catalyst and restart the cycle once more, or something like that (I'm sure if you find the thread you'll get a better understanding. I for one do not 100% support it.)
As it was pointed by posters that the Reaper's had overlooked or were just that dumb about leaving behind the Crucible plans, which as Liara mentions, were made from various cycles.
However, my own speculation is that the Catalyst was not there to do any work, other than to have solution, which it did ala Reapers, and that it was truly honest when it said the Cruicble changed it. Though if the EC DLC changes it to the aforemention then I wouldn't mind (but seeing how they're not going to be retconning the Catalyst anyway, it's possible.)

As for the boy becoming the Catalyst hologram thing... I don't know, I guess BioWare has an explanation, probably not a good one, but really I believe they made it that way for familiarity, the Indoctrination Theory had explained this at least to me perfectly fine, but again, seeing how IT is now almost entirely not possible the familiarity makes the most sense.

I am th OP for that theory, and I posted right above you, lol.

Here it is.

Enjoy!

Lol, what a coincidence and thank you!

[soulprovider]

I don't know I think the dark energy ending was a better Idea, also sovereign was a hybrid of metal and flesh

Personally I don't like the whole pick your evil ending just goes against my moral character in real life.

[ChildOfEden]

soulprovider wrote...

I don't know I think the dark energy ending was a better Idea, also sovereign was a hybrid of metal and flesh

Personally I don't like the whole pick your evil ending just goes against my moral character in real life.

Of course, I can respect a person's ability to form an opinion about the ending. I for one belive the ending could use a different choice other than the ones we've gotten. Regardless, though, is the fact that these choices were made in regards to the first two games. Not saying we should've expected these endings, just that the fans of ME should've expected anything, really...
Anyway, Cheers!

[The Protheans]

Dark Energy had more foreshadowing and was completely and utterly ignored in Mass effect 3.
In the end Bioware became so incompetent they had to make a rushed ending that made no sense and was lacking in any sort of content.

[pro5]

Oh yes, the "synthetics vs organics" theme was definitely there and somewhat foreshadowed... but it was never the dominant GOAL of the game to resolve it. The goal was to STOP THE REAPERS.

Elevating this one theme, the foreshadowing of which was done so sparsely as to necessitate this thread to clear it up, to be the final and most important theme of the game in the final moments...

... it's just absurd. 

[ChildOfEden]

pro5 wrote...

Oh yes, the "synthetics vs organics" theme was definitely there and somewhat foreshadowed... but it was never the dominant GOAL of the game to resolve it. The goal was to STOP THE REAPERS.

Elevating this one theme, the foreshadowing of which was done so sparsely as to necessitate this thread to clear it up, to be the final and most important theme of the game in the final moments...

... it's just absurd. 

I'm not going to argue otherwise. However, sythetics vs. organics is a justfiable theme and very pronounced central conflict which was made relevant since the beginning and throughout (just as many other themes.) However, stop the reapers isn't a theme within of itself, the theme (as presented) is synthetics vs. organics, however, stopping the reapers can be considered the conflict in which to provide it. Though I would've prefered the centralized conflict and theme as being stopping the reapers, however, then BioWare would have needed to keep the Reapers enigmatic. Something I believe they were going to reveal, as case in point "questions going to be answered in this final installment of the series." But, then again, I do believe that the delivery of this so called purpose of the Reapers is highly inadequate in regards to BioWare's quality of game makings... so, we got to just hope that they'll make good on the promise for the EC DLC, or else I might have to clock them into submission.
Anyway, thanks for letting me know what you think, cheers!

[ChildOfEden]

The Protheans wrote...

Dark Energy had more foreshadowing and was completely and utterly ignored in Mass effect 3.
In the end Bioware became so incompetent they had to make a rushed ending that made no sense and was lacking in any sort of content.

As of right now, with the amount of content presented from what seems like EVERY side, the endings could have been made in cognito of relevancy to the sequels as every possibility could have been made, (as stated in one of my posts, Tali remarked that Haestrom could have been just an isolated case as the situation at Haestrom was never repeated in-game or otherwise.) However, BioWare created a masterpiece of a game with a crudy showing of an ending that doesn't completely take any of your actions into account. As stated numerous times through this thread I've made a point of saying how the theme or centralized conflict was never really vocalized (or at least in a vocalized consistent manner) and so that any theme that existed within the game, or even the books (as they provide backdrop of information from the Universe) can be used indiscrimnately. The point is no matter the chosen theme the idea that fans' wanted from the ending was an answer to the reaper threat (how are we going to fight against them, which BTW, has inconsistencies as well and I might make a thread about it but right now is irrelevant to this) and how our actions would affect the ME universe (does Liara and Shepard get babies or not) epilogues, which were severly lacking.
And the completely stuffed cinematic of the Normandy crashing was just an insult to all these points of which fans' expectations were resting on. But everything from before that, I'm sure you or I or even any fan of Mass Effect, would contend that BioWare would be allowed the benifit of the doubt as long as those expectations (resolution, epilogue, etc.) were met.
Example: I wasn't phased about the Catalyst in my first playthrough, I was confused, but I really didn't care. I didn't care Shepard was going to die in all of the choices presented. I, unfortunately didn't even care about the Normandy crashing. Until it brought up the credits was when I finally cared, when I finally understood something was wrong, but it wasn't about the theme, or the conflict, or the end of said conflict, it was the expected examples above that were disregarded and manifested poorly in the Normandy Cinematic.
Cheers!