88 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Divulse456 wrote...

6.) Contains an "Epic Catalogue".  Good god, can you imagine how boring that would be?  Who even reads the catalog of ships in the Iliad?  Nevertheless, the purpose of the Epic Catalogue is partially satisfied by the inclusion of the Galactic Codex as well as many short conversations that take place throughout the trilogy.  Nobody (I think) would claim that BioWare did a poor job fleshing out their universe.  The amount of info and lore is quite staggering.  The type of data presented by the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad is presented in ME, but not all at once (unless you sit and read the whole codex in one go) and in a palatable form.

Wouldn't the War Assets come close to this?

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 avril 2012 - 11:16 .

[Divulse456]

SDW wrote...

So you think the theme of the trilogy is the theme of the ending?

Yes I do.  And that theme is organic vs. synthetic.  It permeates all 3 games.  Saren and his geth attack Eden Prime, this is where the theme is introduced.  The fact that there are many different reasons for synthetics fighting organics in the plot is not important when talking about theme.  The important thing is the fact that those conflicts exist, and there are references throughout.

Achilles' wrath is focused on Agamemnon at the start of the Iliad.  Due to a plot device, it is then transferred to Hector.  The wrath is directed elsewhere, but it is still Achilles' own, and it remains the theme of the epic.  The plot devices of an epic do not fundementally alter the theme. 

ME1 Citadel Races vs. Geth/reapers
ME2 Shepard/Cerberus vs. Collectors (culturally dead, "replaced by tech"), lackeys of the reapers. 
ME3 All galactic life vs. Reapers (with defectors on both sides)

At the end of ME3 there is no more fighting between synthetics and organics, the theme is therefore resolved.  The "How" is an element of plot, and therefore a spoiler, so I won't elaborate.  

[Divulse456]

Wulfram wrote...

Divulse456 wrote...

6.) Contains an "Epic Catalogue".  Good god, can you imagine how boring that would be?  Who even reads the catalog of ships in the Iliad?  Nevertheless, the purpose of the Epic Catalogue is partially satisfied by the inclusion of the Galactic Codex as well as many short conversations that take place throughout the trilogy.  Nobody (I think) would claim that BioWare did a poor job fleshing out their universe.  The amount of info and lore is quite staggering.  The type of data presented by the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad is presented in ME, but not all at once (unless you sit and read the whole codex in one go) and in a palatable form.

Wouldn't the War Assets come close to this?

Hah.  You know, I never thought of that.  I throw that in with the codex.  Something that fleshes out the context of the story.  Thust building the "in medias res" aspect as well as the "epic catalogue" re-tooled for a modern audience.  Nice call on that one.

[Callidus Thorn]

I can't agree with you saying that the theme is synthetics vs organics because of Eden Prime, because by looking at the event you've skipped entirely what prompted the events. The Geth didn't attack Eden Prime to wipe it out, they attacked for the same reason Shepard was sent there, to retrieve the Prothean beacon. To try and find out what happened to the Protheans.

[SDW]

Okay, sounds like we're hung up on different parts of the definition of "synthetics".
Yes! We fight against varying kinds of synthetics. And no! What the Catalyst states to be true is not what the story was about (since the Reapers who were at the heart of the conflict were not created by humans/aliens).

Yes, at the end, there are no more Reapers or they are under control or they have decided to leave us alone. Therefore the conflict with the Reapers is over. And yes, no organic-created synthetic will from now on think of going against organics because they're all either dead or fused with organic genes.
So effectively, there is no more organic/synthetic conflict.

My beef with this is that the latter conflict - organic-made synthetics versus organics - was not the main plot (as I said before, the plot neither treats this topic extensively nor tells us this is the thing we will have to find a solution to). So when we resolve it at the end, we're not resolving the core conflict.

Modifié par SDW, 21 avril 2012 - 11:49 .

[Divulse456]

SDW wrote...

My beef with this is just that the latter conflict - organic-made synthetics versis organics - was not the main plot (as I said before, the plot neither treats this topic extensively nor tells us this is the thing we will have to find a solution to). So when we resolve it at the end, we're not resolving the core conflict.

There is a fundamental difference between theme and plot.  The theme is what needs to be resolved in an epic.  The plot is the path the action takes as the theme plays itself out.  In many epics, the theme disappears for lengthy periods of time.  Indeed, Achilles is hardly mentioned at all in several books of the Iliad.  The other heroes have their own episodes and other emotions are explored.  But the main story is cyclical; it begins with Achilles' wrath, and ends with him letting go his wrath.

Mass Effect is also cyclical, not just in the plot (extinction cycles, etc.) but also in theme.  It is presented at the very beginning of the first game at Eden Prime, touched upon throughout, and resolved at the end of the third game when there is no more fighting between the 2 parties. 

Also, I said nothing about synthetics being created by organics.  All I said was the conflict between the 2 was the theme.  The fact of one party's creation by another is an element of plot, not theme, and therefore has no place in a discussion of theme.

[Divulse456]

Callidus Thorn wrote...

I can't agree with you saying that the theme is synthetics vs organics because of Eden Prime, because by looking at the event you've skipped entirely what prompted the events. The Geth didn't attack Eden Prime to wipe it out, they attacked for the same reason Shepard was sent there, to retrieve the Prothean beacon. To try and find out what happened to the Protheans.

But the battle between the 2 happened.  The specifics of the battle, how it played out, are plot elements.  The theme is conflict between organic and synthetic.

[hippanda]

How does the Geth being the 2nd unit you can kill in the game (credit for first goes to the floating gas bags) translate into organics vs. synthetics being the primary theme of the series? It isn't even the first "conflict" you're introduced to (humanity's place in galactic civilization, introduced by the conversations you have aboard the Normandy prior to launching the mission). This is the foundation for the overarching diversity theme that also permeates through all 3 games.

[frypan]

Greetings OP, just finishing my doctorate in classics too. Did my honours in Statius with a lot of work on the Aeneid so its good to see a post looking at epic. Been a few years though so my knowledge is a bit rusty.

My interest is specifically in the conclusion and have been trying to contrast The Aened, The Iliad and Me3 to draw any contrasts or parallels. The Aeneid ends abruptly, with the killing of Turnus and a failure of clementia, something I think reflects Virgils problematic view of the price of Empire, wheras The Iliad has a much longer conclusion that startes being resolved as early as Book 23.
 
If you regard the entirety of ME3 as a conclusion then you get a closer parallel between ME3 and the Iliad, but if the conclusion to ME3 is the catalyst scene, it seems more troublesome as it is so abrupt and reminds me more of the Aeneid.  To be clear, I worked under Peter Davis, who adopts an "un-Augustan" view of parts of the Aeneid.

What are your thoughts on the contrasts or similarities?

Modifié par frypan, 21 avril 2012 - 11:58 .

[Callidus Thorn]

Divulse456 wrote...

Callidus Thorn wrote...

I can't agree with you saying that the theme is synthetics vs organics because of Eden Prime, because by looking at the event you've skipped entirely what prompted the events. The Geth didn't attack Eden Prime to wipe it out, they attacked for the same reason Shepard was sent there, to retrieve the Prothean beacon. To try and find out what happened to the Protheans.

But the battle between the 2 happened.  The specifics of the battle, how it played out, are plot elements.  The theme is conflict between organic and synthetic.

The organic vs synthetic angle was coincidental. If Saren had hired Batarian mercenaries to stage the attack, would you say the theme was humans vs batarians? Of course not. The theme was stopping the reapers, and Eden Prime was where that theme was introduced. The beacon was the reason for the attack, and the vision from it implies that the reapers killed the protheans.

[SDW]

The plot is the vehicle that supports the theme. The plot conveys what the theme is. While not the same, they are mutually dependant.
The plot up to the last 10 minutes conveys a theme that is different from the plot within those 10 minutes. A difference is made in the plot between the Reapers and all other synthetics in the MEverse. The Reapers are the big bad, they are "too big for your comprehension" (not verbatim, but that's the gist of it). Whatever other synthetic race there is in this universe is not on one level with them. Plus all other synthetics are not the central adversary. Therefore, "created by organics" does matter. Those created by organics are not who is fought when it's all summed up.

[frypan]

Just another thought - the theme does not seem to be synthetics vs organics any more than the theme of the Iliad and Aeneid are the wars between the two sides.

The theme of ME3, if we want to look at it, starts in the prologue with Anderson and Udina discussing Shepherd - the proponents of two views of humanity being introduced and their sway over Shepherd being strong throughout the games - often reflected in the paragon vs renegade choices. (Udina often replaced by IM as well) The first present day scene is then Shepherd on the Normandy and the tracking shot of both commmander and crew, who are integral to this examination.

These seem more important for establishing the themes than the combat on Eden prime or even the fight against the reapers - all of which I think of as the plot. This is a personal journey and examination of humanity more in line with classical epic. The synthetics vs organics appears throuogh the series, but is not introduced at the start, which seems the modern equivalent to the invocation of the muses.

Modifié par frypan, 22 avril 2012 - 12:16 .

[Divulse456]

frypan wrote...

Greetings OP, just finishing my doctorate in classics too. Did my honours in Statius with a lot of work on the Aeneid so its good to see a post looking at epic. Been a few years though so my knowledge is a bit rusty.

My interest is specifically in the conclusion and have been trying to contrast The Aened, The Iliad and Me3 to draw any contrasts or parallels. The Aeneid ends abruptly, with the killing of Turnus and a failure of clementia, something I think reflects Virgils problematic view of the price of Empire, wheras The Iliad has a much longer conclusion that startes being resolved as early as Book 23.
 
If you regard the entirety of ME3 as a conclusion then you get a closer parallel between ME3 and the Iliad, but if the conclusion to ME3 is the catalyst scene, it seems more troublesome as it is so abrupt and reminds me more of the Aeneid.  To be clear, I worked under Peter Davis, who adopts an "un-Augustan" view of parts of the Aeneid.

What are your thoughts on the contrasts or similarities?

If you work with the same Peter Davis who did Ovid and Augustus: A Political Reading of Ovid's Erotic Poetry as well as an edition of Seneca's Thyestes, I'm familiar with his work.  Without derailing this thread too far, you're right aboput the ending of the Aeneid, it is slightly problematic.  But then, Aeneas is alway "pius Aeneas" or "ingens Aeneas", never "Aeneas clemens".  Furthermore, it is possible that Vergil died before completing the end, but I'm not sure we will ever resolve that one conclusively.

For me, the conclusion of the Iliad's theme begins and ends in Achilles' tent with Priam.  He begins the verbal sparring match as an "animal, flesh eating and faithless".  Only by thinking of his own father does he finally take pity on the Trojan king. 

As far as ME3 goes (and this addresses you as well as a few other posters),  the Catalyst ending is indeed abrupt.  Abruptness does not make it a "bad" ending.  The Catalys claims to be controlling the Reapers.  He is therefore a synthetic using other synthetics to kill organics; just as Sovereign used geth to do his bidding in ME1.  His use of the "galactic extinction cycle" as a tool to keep organic chaos in check is the ultimate attack on organic life, and it was introduced by sovereign himself on Virmire.  There is no inkling so early on, however, that Sovereign and the other reapers were just tools. 

For all the people claiming that synth vs. organic is not the theme, fine by me.  In the epic model, the theme is usually introduced near the hero and amidst expository material that propels the story in medias res.  The beginning on the normandy does this exposition, and the mission on Eden Prime introduces the theme.  

The professional authors at BioWare, some of whom have educations in literature and composition, have drawn on the classical epic form as part of their inspiration; indeed, they must, in order to compose a lengthy narrative structure.

I'm looking at the ME trilogy in the context of classical epic.  In doing so it seems to fit the model of a form of literature I hold dear to my heart and profession.  I therefore find the ending satisfying, and look forward to the DLC only because it is more of the universe that I have grown to love since 2007.  

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 12:26 .

[MrSuperCrazyAwesome]

Now if only I put this much effort into my term paper about To Kill a Mockingbird...
Good read, thanks.

[Divulse456]

frypan wrote...

Just another thought - the theme does not seem to be synthetics vs organics any more than the theme of the Iliad and Aeneid are the wars between the two sides.

The theme of ME3, if we want to look at it, starts in the prologue with Anderson and Udina discussing Shepherd - the proponents of two views of humanity being introduced and their sway over Shepherd being strong throughout the games - often reflected in the paragon vs renegade choices. (Udina often replaced by IM as well) The first present day scene is then Shepherd on the Normandy and the tracking shot of both commmander and crew, who are integral to this examination.

These seem more important for establishing the themes than the combat on Eden prime or even the fight against the reapers - all of which I think of as the plot. This is a personal journey and examination of humanity more in line with classical epic. The synthetics vs organics appears throuogh the series, but is not introduced at the start, which seems the modern equivalent to the invocation of the muses.

Shepard is the protagonist.  If we want to focus the theme closer to him we can say that the theme is his specific humanity.  But if we do this, then how does the ending of the trilogy resolve his humanity?  I'm not sure that even makes sense.  If we look at his humanity in the context of contrast with synthetic life, then we're essentially back to the organic vs. synthetic argument, which I think has a clear climax and resolution in the ending. 

I have to admit, most of my literary training is a blend of structuralist and post-structuralist, and plugging ME's events into the "Narrative Form" of classical epic seems like a really good fit to me.

------Late Edit-----------

Also, the Aeneid starts "arma virumque cano", the theme is the battles fought by Aeneas.  Resolved when Turnus' spirit flees wailing to the underworld.  Aeneas can then put down his arms, set up his gods, and found Alba Longa, none of which are narrated in the poem itself. 

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 12:40 .

[Divulse456]

MrSuperCrazyAwesome wrote...

Now if only I put this much effort into my term paper about To Kill a Mockingbird...
Good read, thanks.

Good book.   I know some people dislike it, but I think it's fantastic for teenagers to read.

[Khwarezm89]

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

It was epic for me too .

Probably the best game I've played since Planescape: Torment.

+1<3

[Icinix]

Ahh look, another ' you don't like the ending, you must be ignorant of ancient history / literature / insert another topic of your choosing here'

They brought a starchild out of nowhere, the two higher tier options were things we directly fought against for a trilogy of games, the lack of dialogue control of our Shepard (a staple of the Mass Effect games), the lack of our choices having an impact (visual or otherwise), the lack of explanation as to why certain events are happening (Joker and the Normandy getting swallowed by a galactic arse hole chasing them), the mystery and majest of the Reapers being turned into remote controlled radio shack toys - doesn't require an understanding of anything to see the issues, in fact the more knowledgeable you are on things the more obvious the errors appear.

It was a bad way to end a hundred hours of game time.

[frypan]

Divulse456 wrote...


If you work with the same Peter Davis who did Ovid and Augustus: A Political Reading of Ovid's Erotic Poetry as well as an edition of Seneca's Thyestes, I'm familiar with his work.  Without derailing this thread too far, you're right aboput the ending of the Aeneid, it is slightly problematic.  But then, Aeneas is alway "pius Aeneas" or "ingens Aeneas", never "Aeneas clemens".  Furthermore, it is possible that Vergil died before completing the end, but I'm not sure we will ever resolve that one conclusively.

For me, the conclusion of the Iliad's theme begins and ends in Achilles' tent with Priam.  He begins the verbal sparring match as an "animal, flesh eating and faithless".  Only by thinking of his own father does he finally take pity on the Trojan king. 

As far as ME3 goes (and this addresses you as well as a few other posters),  the Catalyst ending is indeed abrupt.  Abruptness does not make it a "bad" ending.  The Catalys claims to be controlling the Reapers.  He is therefore a synthetic using other synthetics to kill organics; just as Sovereign used geth to do his bidding in ME1.  His use of the "galactic extinction cycle" as a tool to keep organic chaos in check is the ultimate attack on organic life, and it was introduced by sovereign himself on Virmire.  There is no inkling so early on, however, that Sovereign and the other reapers were just tools. 

For all the people claiming that synth vs. organic is not the theme, fine by me.  In the epic model, the theme is usually introduced near the hero and amidst expository material that propels the story in medias res.  The beginning on the normandy does this exposition, and the mission on Eden Prime introduces the theme.  

The professional authors at BioWare, some of whom have educations in literature and composition, have drawn on the classical epic form as part of their inspiration; indeed, they must, in order to compose a lengthy narrative structure.

I'm looking at the ME trilogy in the context of classical epic.  In doing so it seems to fit the model of a form of literature I hold dear to my heart and profession.  I therefore find the ending satisfying, and look forward to the DLC only because it is more of the universe that I have grown to love since 2007.  

That's the right Peter Davis. My postgrad work is in history, but a grounding in epic was fundamental and something I still love.

While I've adopted an interpretation of ME3 that focuses on Shepherd, the Synthetics vs organics theme was powerful - i just felt it was resolved on Rannoch, and the final section of the game seemed to undermine that with the compulsory conflict idea. The point can be argued both ways though - just as the ineviytability  conflict was an issue in the resultion of the Krogan storyline.

The end did do the right thing in bringing the story back to Shepherd and theconflicts that drove his or her decisions throughout the game. Just not sure it was done so well. While classical heroes didnt do a lot of internalising, the authors did allow characters such as Aeneas and Achilles more agency in their final decisions - as you mentioned with Achilles and his father, and also Aeneas remembering Lausus.

I guess it is harder in a game to do that, I would have preferred it if Shepherd appeared to be more the agent of the decison - the catalyst seemed to weaken that decision making by imposing the choices.

Guess I was never a fan of the divine aspects of epic - the gods in the Iliad were petty and unreliable (think B4 and the seduction of Zeus, or Juno throughtout The Aeneid) I liked it when humans had the decision making role and had hoped for that at the end.

its probably pretty clear I dont like the end, but can respect what I think was being attempted. Could have accepted it but wanted more closure - thinking of the time spent in both the Iliad and Thebaid on closure with funerals, reconciliation and the like. Good thing is the EC will probably do that - even if it is a funeral scene like the end of Serenity that has me in tears!. 

[Divulse456]

Icinix wrote...

Ahh look, another ' you don't like the ending, you must be ignorant of ancient history / literature / insert another topic of your choosing here'

They brought a starchild out of nowhere, the two higher tier options were things we directly fought against for a trilogy of games, the lack of dialogue control of our Shepard (a staple of the Mass Effect games), the lack of our choices having an impact (visual or otherwise), the lack of explanation as to why certain events are happening (Joker and the Normandy getting swallowed by a galactic arse hole chasing them), the mystery and majest of the Reapers being turned into remote controlled radio shack toys - doesn't require an understanding of anything to see the issues, in fact the more knowledgeable you are on things the more obvious the errors appear.

It was a bad way to end a hundred hours of game time.

1+1=2 / 1+2=3

I'm not trying to insult anyone.  Is anything I've said patently false?  I don't much care about some of the things you've listed in your post, namely, game mechanics, flashy graphics, revelations late in the game (Holy smokes, how did the Trojan king end up in my tent in the middle of the night!?!?)  For me, these are non issues.  The theme and plot of the trilogy cohere well to the narrative structure of a classical epic, and are therefore as satisfying to me as any other. 

If you don't see the story in the same context, you certainly don't have to agree with me, but at least point out something wrong that I've said.

[Icinix]

Divulse456 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Ahh look, another ' you don't like the ending, you must be ignorant of ancient history / literature / insert another topic of your choosing here'

They brought a starchild out of nowhere, the two higher tier options were things we directly fought against for a trilogy of games, the lack of dialogue control of our Shepard (a staple of the Mass Effect games), the lack of our choices having an impact (visual or otherwise), the lack of explanation as to why certain events are happening (Joker and the Normandy getting swallowed by a galactic arse hole chasing them), the mystery and majest of the Reapers being turned into remote controlled radio shack toys - doesn't require an understanding of anything to see the issues, in fact the more knowledgeable you are on things the more obvious the errors appear.

It was a bad way to end a hundred hours of game time.

1+1=2 / 1+2=3

I'm not trying to insult anyone.  Is anything I've said patently false?  I don't much care about some of the things you've listed in your post, namely, game mechanics, flashy graphics, revelations late in the game (Holy smokes, how did the Trojan king end up in my tent in the middle of the night!?!?)  For me, these are non issues.  The theme and plot of the trilogy cohere well to the narrative structure of a classical epic, and are therefore as satisfying to me as any other. 

If you don't see the story in the same context, you certainly don't have to agree with me, but at least point out something wrong that I've said.

When you said that most arguments against the ending are only because people don't have an understanding of literature.

[Divulse456]

frypan wrote...

That's the right Peter Davis. My postgrad work is in history, but a grounding in epic was fundamental and something I still love.

While I've adopted an interpretation of ME3 that focuses on Shepherd, the Synthetics vs organics theme was powerful - i just felt it was resolved on Rannoch, and the final section of the game seemed to undermine that with the compulsory conflict idea. The point can be argued both ways though - just as the ineviytability  conflict was an issue in the resultion of the Krogan storyline.

The end did do the right thing in bringing the story back to Shepherd and theconflicts that drove his or her decisions throughout the game. Just not sure it was done so well. While classical heroes didnt do a lot of internalising, the authors did allow characters such as Aeneas and Achilles more agency in their final decisions - as you mentioned with Achilles and his father, and also Aeneas remembering Lausus.

I guess it is harder in a game to do that, I would have preferred it if Shepherd appeared to be more the agent of the decison - the catalyst seemed to weaken that decision making by imposing the choices.

Guess I was never a fan of the divine aspects of epic - the gods in the Iliad were petty and unreliable (think B4 and the seduction of Zeus, or Juno throughtout The Aeneid) I liked it when humans had the decision making role and had hoped for that at the end.

its probably pretty clear I dont like the end, but can respect what I think was being attempted. Could have accepted it but wanted more closure - thinking of the time spent in both the Iliad and Thebaid on closure with funerals, reconciliation and the like. Good thing is the EC will probably do that - even if it is a funeral scene like the end of Serenity that has me in tears!. 

Sweet, my degree is in history.  Republic from 133 down to about 27 (I know, it's been done to death, but I'm old fashioned and we don't know as much as we could, despite the size of the wissenschaft.)

I can generally understand the things that people don't like about the ending, but I  just don't feel the same.  And I have to disagree with anyone that says the ending does not resolve the theme.  If you plud ME into the epic structure, it seems to do it well.

The lack of choices is a gripe I can definitely understand, but in all 3 games, are there ever more than 2 or 3 things to choose between?  I can't really recall offhand.  I'm realy looking forward to the EC.  For me, more ME is always better!

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 01:02 .

[Divulse456]

Icinix wrote...

When you said that most arguments against the ending are only because people don't have an understanding of literature.

Enough people who commented on my post seemed to have trouble with the distinction between plot and theme to suggest that it was an accurate assessment.  In fact, I think it was most of the people who posted. 

------Late Edit------

That may have come off as snippy.  Art is a 2 way street, artist and audience.  If they don't jive with one another, less enjoyment is had.  I think ME fits the bill as an epic, and therefore I am satisfied. 

Modifié par Divulse456, 22 avril 2012 - 01:07 .

[Icinix]

Divulse456 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

When you said that most arguments against the ending are only because people don't have an understanding of literature.

Enough people who commented on my post seemed to have trouble with the distinction between plot and theme to suggest that it was an accurate assessment.  In fact, I think it was most of the people who posted. 

Away from plot and theme there is also gameplay. No matter how artistic, or woven the story can be, if the game fails to end in line with the established game and gameplay - then the ending is poor.  You can't stamp a flat out view of literature on it and say it was good, its not literature, its a game. As such it has its own set of rules, some of which are unique to the game - and as each game is different, the rule sets change from game to game.

[frypan]

Divulse456 wrote...

Shepard is the protagonist.  If we want to focus the theme closer to him we can say that the theme is his specific humanity.  But if we do this, then how does the ending of the trilogy resolve his humanity?  I'm not sure that even makes sense.  If we look at his humanity in the context of contrast with synthetic life, then we're essentially back to the organic vs. synthetic argument, which I think has a clear climax and resolution in the ending. 

Good point about Shepherd being the protagonist. Shepherd is really just the avatar for the gamer to explore choices, which I then saw as the themes, primarily defined in the first game in terms of unity and co-operation vs force or dominance. These then carried through in the second game in the manner the crew would either be forged into a team through positive behaviour or coerced/disposed of - depending on how Shepherd was made to behave. This finally came together on a galactic scale in the third game, and I saw the final scene with the Illusive man as representing similar paragon vs renegade choices of dominance vs co-operation. 

That was my feeling, and why up to that point I was happy with the resolution. The Illusive Man's final words as he lay dying still resonate with me as while I rejected his ideas, his conviction was admirable and gave the dominance choice some internal valiudity for those who believed in it.

I didnt try and contrast Shepherds humanity with synthetic life, as I thought EDI served that role in the second and third game - as she explored those ideas in conversation with Shepherd or Joker. Up until the end I felt the choice of co-operation or force applied to the synthetic storylines as much as any other.

I just thought the message got confused at the end when we were asked to wipe out the geth and EDI, which suggested the co-operation idea was actually not possible, effectively undermining the paragon choices I had made in following that particular tchoice as part of the cooperation theme. Choosing synthesis seemed the best resolution for that issue, so there was an out.

All these are personal feelings - if I wasnt invested in a more pleasant ending I think I could accept the end better. The list of deaths and suffering in ancient epic is pretty grim after all but we still lve those stpries. I felt for Hector and Turnus, Tydeus, Capaneus and others but still accept their deaths as part of resolving the thematic issues in their epics.

Might get there later with ME3 too, but not right now (2000 years from now perhaps)