449 réponses à ce sujet

[Torrible]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Let's have a spelling bee!!! Yay let's give cookies to the mongoose, he's feeling defensive right now....

 The irony...

[Cypher_CS]

ArchLord James wrote...
As an example, lets say I have a shepard who hates synthetics, is pro-human pro cerberus. Why then would this shepard be forced into the multiple arguments with Saren in ME1

Sorry, but I don't quite follow - cause ME1 was before Cerberus, really.
Also, you can still argue with Saren if you're pro Cerberus (or Ashley). I don't see your point here.

ArchLord James wrote... 
Sure you can give TIM the base at the end of ME2, but the final confrontation with TIM does not seem like a bluff to me. Shepard seems sincere when he tells TIM that he shouldn't be trying to control something so powerful. Are you saying shepard is just faking all this in order to get TIM to kill himself in some convoluted scheme to seize power?

And this is exactly what I was talking about.
I can like the endings, and still be aware of these "glitches" and still want to have a fix for such glitches.
It's again about absolutes.

I think that my ideas above (in bold) would solve this. More dialog to better fit previous choices.

ArchLord James wrote...  
So the idea that how you build your shepard and what beliefs you give him make the endings agreeable is still kind of broken to me. Shepard is still going against a set in stone, forced viewpoint, that ME has been establishing.

But you see? There's a big difference between "kinda broken" and the absolutes of NOTHING makes sense. No?

ArchLord James wrote...   
I would say for 99% of players it was. 

Let's not get to made up stats.

[Johcande XX]

Optimystic_X wrote...


Great, I can assume you know what fallacies are then.

 The explanation of the Reapers and the destroy (red) ending in particular might resonate if there were actually some ongoing tension about the latent danger of synthetics…except that everything we saw in the last two games teaches us exactly the opposite.  I'm not talking about what people imagine might, maybe, possibly could happen sometime in the future; I'm talking about what the game actually shows us.  They go to great lengths to establish that synthetics are alive and capable of growth and selflessness and friendship and individuality and love just in time for Shepard to murder them all.  It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper.

Spotlight Fallacy.

For one thing, there are dozens of such fallacies that they can be used to apply to ANY argument. 

Case in point: Spotlight Fallacy, (aka. Stereotyping) also applies to those that feel the destroy ending is justified.  

"Since all synthetics I came in contact with in ME1 tried to kill all organics; then that means that all synthetics everywhere will try and kill all organics for all time.  So I will ignore all evidence that contradicts that and obliterate all synthetic life everywhere."  - FAIL

[xsdob]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Why should anyone take this challenge?

Because it is each poster's responsibility to attempt to refute the people they disagree with. If you choose not to attempt to refute it, then stop posting in response against it. 

Basically its calling out the people that avoid to discuss the main points (on both sides in the end) in favor of arguing against straw men.

Well I had posted something detractorial, but I pulled it upon further thought, as you probably saw.

Also the points made above me seem to sum up my thoughts better than I could.

Just 2 things I'd like to add to this discussion though.
1. I hate the term pro-enders, makes it seem like I'm being lumped into all the other pro groups, like pro-life or pro-gun, I'm not a conservative and it bugs me from an associative standpoint. Like if someone spelled moxie like mozi, those 2 last letters make it look far worse than it actually is because of the closeness of the m to an n and how many letters it has. Or a better example would be 'not see' kola, it just looks and sounds wrong.

2. I don't understand the obssession with understanding the mentality of other posters, but I do know that I see a lot of absolutes being used by people who do not like the ending. I don't see the ending in absolutes because frankly I don't know what happend and I can accept that I don't know what happened. The other side seems to see it in absolute terms, the galaxy is 100% doomed, you are unequivically surrendering to the reapers by not picking destroy, the starchild is irrefutably wrong, these things I do not agree with because they are founded on just about as much evidence as any other speculation is, nothing. It even leaches into talking about the other posters, they 100% disrspect antienders, they absolutly are b.i.o.drones and believe artistic integrity is an excuse, proenders are all against having a new ending or any new ending content, none of these are true but I see them posted everywhere.

So for me, I don't see anything in absolutes, other people who do not share my outlook on the endings seem to see it in absolutes, and there in lies the fundamental divide between the fans. This is my own speculation on this topic, I may even be proved wrong by the time I write this up, but it's still what I think at this time.

Modifié par xsdob, 03 mai 2012 - 07:56 .

[xsdob]

shurikenmanta wrote...

ardensia wrote...
((Note: The term "pro-enders" has been placed in quotes because a lot of people who are more in the middle ground are getting tossed in this category simply because we don't find the endings incinerator-worthy. Sucks for us, I guess.))

Quoted for truth and sanity

Quoted because you don't know how right you are.

[UnstableMongoose]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Let's have a spelling bee!!! Yay let's give cookies to the mongoose, he's feeling defensive right now....

I was simply pointing out that if you're going to make the argument that you are more intelligent and rational than a "pro-ender," misspelling words is hardly the best way to go about convincing people of this.

It's free advice, you should take it. Education doesn't come cheap these days, sweetheart.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 03 mai 2012 - 08:01 .

[shurikenmanta]

Torrible wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

ardensia wrote...
((Note: The term "pro-enders" has been placed in quotes because a lot of people who are more in the middle ground are getting tossed in this category simply because we don't find the endings incinerator-worthy. Sucks for us, I guess.))

Quoted for truth and sanity

+1 Unfortunately, people who are actually pro-patience, pro-neutrality or anti-petulance get lumped together with pro-enders. Eventually it became commonly accepted that a pro-ender is anyone who disagrees with an anti-ender. I used to call myself a neutral-ender but then I took a BSN arrow to the knee.

Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times I've been accused of being a pro-ender - like I'm a Communist in the 50s or something. They tend to go rather quiet when I tell them I dislike the ending but hate hysteria

[tg0618]

Orange Tee wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

To the OP:

Janeaba- wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

Had to do it.... lmao

[Johcande XX]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

ItsNotMyProblem wrote...

Here's the difference I've noticed...

Pro-Enders can't answer the questions that have gone unanswered, and they agree that they are indeed unanswered questions that anyone would want answers to...even them.

The difference between us lies on how much that matters to us. It matters a lot to me. In fact, it made the whole ending crap. To a pro-ender, they might say, "Yeah, it'd be nice to know, but I'm ok with it. I like speculating".

The epitomy of hitting the nail on the head

Ardensia already made quite a point in reply to this.
But here's another one.

The major difference I see between most pro and anti enders, as you guys put it, is the absolutness of statements. Begining with the term itself Pro(or Anti)- Ender. I'm betting it was coined by an Anti-Ender

Further more, most anti end statements I've read - and I've been mostly involved with the various Synthesis arguments - are dead set on disproving the possibility of the ending by inventing various speculations about what it means basing their arguments on the Absence of Evidence.  But still claiming with the utmost certainty that there will be no free will and it will be all cyborgs and what not.

Never read too far into the synthesis threads, mostly because I never saw it as a viable resolution.  However, to your point, the lack of concrete evidence IS the problem that most of the critizicers I've seen have with the ending(s).  

I understand the fallacy on basing arguments on absence of evidence; however, people can certainly make educated guesses given the RELATED evidence the game does provide:

There are synthetic/organic hybrid like beings that ARE associated with the Reapers -  these beings are Collectors/Husks/Brutes/etc . . . it is only logical to draw SOME speculation that choosing a bonding of synthetic/organic ending from a being, whose associated with Reapers, that the outcome will be similar. 

It seems to me that believing the synthesis would be completely different is a FAR greater leap in faith/speculation.

Modifié par Johcande XX, 03 mai 2012 - 08:11 .

[AlexXIV]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Hey, that was actually easy, what do I win?

You don't even know what a debate is and you expect to win?

He didn't say rate my arguements. Hell I could argue against some of them but I am an anti ender. And the fact that pro-enders can't even if it is possible speaks even louder than the fact that they are simply wrong about things. They also couldn't make a point if they were right. That's laughable dude.

[xsdob]

shurikenmanta wrote...

Torrible wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

ardensia wrote...
((Note:
The term "pro-enders" has been placed in quotes because a lot of people
who are more in the middle ground are getting tossed in this category
simply because we don't find the endings incinerator-worthy. Sucks for
us, I guess.))

Quoted for truth and sanity

+1
Unfortunately, people who are actually pro-patience, pro-neutrality or
anti-petulance get lumped together with pro-enders. Eventually it became
commonly accepted that a pro-ender is anyone who disagrees with an
anti-ender. I used to call myself a neutral-ender but then I took a BSN
arrow to the knee.

Yeah, I've lost count of the
amount of times I've been accused of being a pro-ender - like I'm
a Communist in the 50s or something. They tend to go rather quiet when I
tell them I dislike the ending but hate hysteria

Pro-neutral fits me like a glove, I thought the endings were okay with a leaning towards liked, but still acknowledge the flaws hold it back from being good and would like to see improvements made.

But that's too complicated so I get shoved in with the rest. The funny thing though, I used to be a hardline pro-ender, but than I mellowed out and tried to help the anti-enders by becoming an officer in the hold the wallet movement, I was offered a leadership role but turned it down because of my pro-ending tendencies, as if this were some sort of penance or something. That's how insane the entire ending controversy had gotten for me.

But I snapped out of it when I saw how much hardline people were joining up, how much my advocacy for moderate dialogue was tossed aside and dismissed, and how everything I posted seemed to get edited on the front page to better fit the narrative of the group.

So now I'm a pro-neutral ender, I accepted how I view the endings and that they were in many ways bad. I wonder if there should be a group like this, the in the middle group for everyone who isn't hardlined and deadset.

Modifié par xsdob, 03 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[incinerator950]

shurikenmanta wrote...

Torrible wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

ardensia wrote...
((Note: The term "pro-enders" has been placed in quotes because a lot of people who are more in the middle ground are getting tossed in this category simply because we don't find the endings incinerator-worthy. Sucks for us, I guess.))

Quoted for truth and sanity

+1 Unfortunately, people who are actually pro-patience, pro-neutrality or anti-petulance get lumped together with pro-enders. Eventually it became commonly accepted that a pro-ender is anyone who disagrees with an anti-ender. I used to call myself a neutral-ender but then I took a BSN arrow to the knee.

Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times I've been accused of being a pro-ender - like I'm a Communist in the 50s or something. They tend to go rather quiet when I tell them I dislike the ending but hate hysteria

Officially I'm neutral about the ending.  I would have preferred they did not rush several segments of the game, cut a large portion to hurry a Deadline, and basically make a Halo 2 with an ending a large mass of Soap fans are upset about. 

Personally the concept of giving yourself up works, its just the rest of the execution is horrible.  It took over a month for people to realize why the Relays were destroyed, and because the game is more about Giant Stargates instead of space ships, the actual process of Mass Effect, and the power of sapients to overcome their problems by any means necissary, the amount of people going nuts over things is snowballing. 

However, they rushed it, and that does warrant negativity.  Specifically when a lot of the crap they're trying to sell is already on the Disc. 

[richard_rider]

ArchLord James wrote...

Another big problem is that you say shepard set out to stop the reapers and he DID. Wrong, and that is my biggest problem with the ending. Shepard set out to stop the reapers, and managed to meet the creator of the reapers, and the one responsible for all the death and destruction they caused. But did he really stop them? No he was helpless before this godlike being who basically said, "silly mortal, you were fighting against your own salvation all along. misguided fool, let me tell you what is really important. Killing entire civilizations, liquifying babies, is not bad shepard, its for your own good and the good of the galaxy! why were you fighting against that?" No synthetics are bad, thats all that matters. So even though, I have commited attrocities over the course of 3 games, just trust me because I am god. I will use my magic to deal with the synthetics in a different way, and as a consolation prize I will let you choose one of the 3 alternatives I (the reapers) have chosen for the galaxy. Then your pathetic powerless mortal body can watch in awe as I (god-king of the reapers) ends the cycle just before you die."

Shepards response to this? "okay just tell me what to do, oh reaper king. I am just going to put aeons of genocide in the past and trust you, the reapers, because that totally seems like something I would do!"

This is a huge problem for me, and my Shepard.

Starting in ME1, Sovereign talked s**t, I talked it right back and smoked his a**, in ME2, Harbinger couldn't stop talking s**t, I told him where to shove it and I smoked his a**.

Now the king/god/creator/problem solver reaper comes in, and my Shepard goes "Durr, okay. If you say so."

WTF is that...seriously...seriously.

I wish they would've just played it off the EMS, and leave out the crucible/catalyst completely out, they were just cheap plot devices that deter the story.

[shurikenmanta]

There is actually the option to tell Harbinger Junior to stick it. Just do nothing until the Crucible is destroyed.

If Shep's pride is worth more than all organic life for the foreseeable future, go nuts.

[Cypher_CS]

Johcande XX wrote...

It seems to me that believing the synthesis would be completely different is a FAR greater leap in faith/speculation.

When you have an explicit Control option, and Synthesis is presented, explicitly as an alternative to the other two options - then no, this does not seem logical to believe it.
Unless you assume It's lying. Which is a fair assumption to make, but again goes back to the whole "how YOU, the player, percieved the games".

[Dendio1]

Russalka wrote...

I wish people stopped misusing that gif.

DAT AVATAR...my eyes

[ArchLord James]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I know there won't be a single original argument in this thread, but anyway here goes.

Consider this a debate competition.

Great, I can assume you know what fallacies are then.

Sure.

 The explanation of the Reapers and the destroy (red) ending in particular might resonate if there were actually some ongoing tension about the latent danger of synthetics…except that everything we saw in the last two games teaches us exactly the opposite.  I'm not talking about what people imagine might, maybe, possibly could happen sometime in the future; I'm talking about what the game actually shows us.  They go to great lengths to establish that synthetics are alive and capable of growth and selflessness and friendship and individuality and love just in time for Shepard to murder them all.  It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper.

Spotlight Fallacy.
 

Nice straw man setup there. Notice how you dont elloborate at all for risk of exposing your own erroneous implications. The point of the above passage isn't that people who hate the red ending believe that synthetics are sentient beings entitled to life based on popular opinion. Sentient synthetic life isn't even an issue in real life so there is no "popular opinion." You might as well argue that people just assume the reapers are the "bad guys" based on "spotlight fallacy".  The real problem is that the game itself, in its fictional world, sends this clear message. Of course you can disagree with that message if you like, but you cant deny that is the implied undertone of the entire geth / EDI narrative. They didn't show the geth revolution sequences (inside the collective) to make us hate the geth. If you implying there is ambiguity in the message the writers were trying to send, well then you have  problems with story comprehension and that sounds like a personal problem.

The real argument is, why the game story builds up this message only to end with a conclusion that contradicts the previous narrative. This would be akin to watching a diversity training video that sends a message of tolerance and diversity, then in the last 60 seconds it says "having said all that, the real botom line is you cant trust minorities so the best solution, despite what this video has implied, is to destroy/remove/enslave them."  Contradicting pre-established themes of a story isn't art, its bad writing. If you think the story of the geth, and how the quarians attacked them for simply becoming self aware, was put in the game to make us hate synthetics, I cant help you.

 Then there’s the (blue) option to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of the Reapers.  This scenario requires us to ignore that (at least if you were a paragon) you just spent the entire previous game arguing with the Illusive Man that using the Reapers’ tactics of subjugation against them was morally abhorrent.  Shepard says outright that he will not sacrifice his soul for victory.  In fact, in the scene literally just prior to this we explained to the Illusive Man that attempting to control the Reapers is evil and insane and doomed to failure.  So persuasive was Shepard’s argument that the Illusive Man shot himself in the head to escape the horror of what he had become.  Now let’s just go ahead and try the same thing ourselves.  What could possibly go wrong?

Association Fallacy.
 

Assosiaction fallacy?  Out of all that was said,  thats all you took away? So basically when you read the above statement all you see is "Well TIM was for control, and TIM was bad, so control must be bad!"  Ok so you also have problems with reading comprehension, but again, that sounds like a personal problem. The argument is much more deep than your giving it credit for. Infact, it is again attacking contradicting themes, not TIM's morals. You really like whacking those straw men dont ya?
 

 The most horrific outcome of all is the synthesis (green) ending, which would have us accept that Shepard transforms the galaxy’s entire population against their will into man-machine hybrids, akin to the monstrous Reapers and their minions whom we just spent three games fighting.  You know, minions like Saren and the Illusive Man and the entire Prothean race who were turned into man-machine hybrids and thereby became slaves of the Reapers.  He does this based on the assurances of a mysterious entity who admits it is working with the Reapers and who hastily appeared out of nowhere just as Shepard arrived at the weapon that could potentially defeat them.  Sounds legit.

Repugnance Fallacy, with some more Association Fallacy thrown in.

Ok it is actually usually called Wisdom of Repugnance Fallacy, but anyways. I think most reasonable people would agree that forcing another living being, let alone the entire galaxy, against their free will,  to submit to your experiments is evil. You may not think so, but that only says something about your morals. It does not establish wisdom of repugnance. And yes, I plead guilty to assosiacation fallacy here. THe catalyst admits to being the creator of the reapers and therefore is responsible for their actions. For that very reason I consider him evil and dont trust him. If you trust the reapers afters playing 3 games of mass effect, that says more about you than it does to establish some kind of fallacious reasoning  on my part. Are you saying shepard should just disregard that the catalyst is the king of the reapers for the sake of avoiding a fallacy? Seems like pertinent information that shepard should consider before listening to word out of the kids mouth. But hey thats just me.

Hey, that was actually easy, what do I win?

A cookie? Must be easy to win when you use red herrings to slap around straw men eh?

[incinerator950]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Johcande XX wrote...

It seems to me that believing the synthesis would be completely different is a FAR greater leap in faith/speculation.

When you have an explicit Control option, and Synthesis is presented, explicitly as an alternative to the other two options - then no, this does not seem logical to believe it.
Unless you assume It's lying. Which is a fair assumption to make, but again goes back to the whole "how YOU, the player, percieved the games".

I don't know, what you see is what you get.  Its fairly straightforward.  You can interpret alot, but then alot of people get deniability cases like the IT people.  

[KingKhan03]

lol it was a bad ending it had it's decent parts but as a whole it was bad why delve into it any further?

[Cypher_CS]

Okay, back for the rest.

ArchLord James wrote...
Another big problem is that you say shepard set out to stop the reapers and he DID. Wrong, and that is my biggest problem with the ending. Shepard set out to stop the reapers, and managed to meet the creator of the reapers, and the one responsible for all the death and destruction they caused. But did he really stop them? No he was helpless before this godlike being who basically said, "silly mortal, you were fighting against your own salvation all along. misguided fool, let me tell you what is really important. Killing entire civilizations, liquifying babies, is not bad shepard, its for your own good and the good of the galaxy! why were you fighting against that?"

And was this not a theme all along?
Sure, you don't believe Harbinger when he tells you the very same thing in ME2.
Sure, you don't Saren when he tells you the very same thing in ME1.
But this is still there.
Was it abruptly presented? Yes.
Was it surprising or out of left field? No.

ArchLord James wrote... 
So even though, I have commited attrocities over the course of 3 games, just trust me because I am god. I will use my magic to deal with the synthetics in a different way, and as a consolation prize I will let you choose one of the 3 alternatives I (the reapers) have chosen for the galaxy. Then your pathetic powerless mortal body can watch in awe as I (god-king of the reapers) ends the cycle just before you die." 

Again, that's not what happens.
First of all, it's fine for a story to have you choose the lesser evil (even though I, personally, don't view one of them as being evil - but that's me). It's dramatic. Most dramas end thus. Or rather, most tragedies. Self sacrifice - the ultimate thing for Shepard, having sacrificed so much throughout the three games.

Secondly, these choices are not of the Reaper's doing.
And I'm sorry, but I personally saw them quite clearly as the creations of Man. The original Destroy which was created by the Crucible's original purpose and it's cyclic creators. The added Control which was created by the various cyclic splinter groups in each cycle that thought similarly to TIM and the group Javik or Vengence talk about regarding the Prothean's inability to use the Crucible.
And the added Synthesis, which seems to me as something Catalyst gleaned from Shepard's mind (obviously it can read his mind - that's the whole allegory of using the Child from his mind, from his nightmares, and even by the developers' use of both Male and Female voices in the VO), Shepard's accomplishment.

Again, would more talk and cinversational trees contributed to the ending? Yes, of course.
Hell, I'd even go as far as checking decisions and not allow Synthesis not based on EMS, but based on actual decisions from the three games.
Also, maybe not allow Control if you don't give TIM the Collector's Base and manage to maybe stop Cerberus at some additional Mission somewhere, where they find alternative plans for Control based on Prothean findings from the last Cycle.
But, again, the main point is more conversation.

ArchLord James wrote... 
I understand that in real life there are hard decisions "lesser of 2 evils blah blah" but this is a game and my idea of entertainment is not watching a protaganist struggle against unspeakable evil, only to have "god" come down in the final moments of the story and tell our hero, "your mistaken, we are the true heroes here to save the galaxy and our motives are more important than your pathetic mortal lives. 

See above.
But I hope you're not suggestion that you must have a happy rosey ending, are you?

[Cypher_CS]

ArchLord James wrote...

The real argument is, why the game story builds up this message only to end with a conclusion that contradicts the previous narrative. 

It doesn't, and I've already explained.
And others have as well.

[incinerator950]

I would have not included Synthesis. Added more factors into determining the ending, more like Silent Hill based on choices and your gameplay. Add more material to the two endings. Flesh out the Catalyst, improve the explanations and background, and emphasize less on it controlling the Reapers, just being the sapient Intelligence of the Citadel itself. .

I'd rather have a UFO ending where instead of a Giant Cuttlefish you found a Giant robot crab and a surprise birthday party ending with Alien Grays.

[ArchLord James]

Cypher_CS wrote...

ArchLord James wrote...

The real argument is, why the game story builds up this message only to end with a conclusion that contradicts the previous narrative. 

It doesn't, and I've already explained.
And others have as well.

First of all stop quoting me out of context. You tend to leave out  the important parts when quoting me and that is just disingenuous.

I always realized that the reapers had some motivation for their sick twisted actions. There almost always is some motivation behind genocide. Hell even Hitler had his reasons, that didn't surprise me. And when i heard harbingers taunts of "we are your salvation through destruction" I knew that the reapers motivations were likely going to be some misguided nobility hidden behind faulty logic. However, what I did not expect is for shepard's motivations, shepards cause, and what I believed ME was ultimately going to be about, to be hijacked by the reapers.  Don't you see that by the end of the game, the reapers ends are given more weight/importance and their means are justified? I dont know about you, but my Shepard was fighting against the reapers and trying to stop them not because of their ends, but because of their means of acheiving those ends. Honestly, whatever motivation they had didn't matter to me, because turning people into husks/reapers/brutes/banshees/scions/collectors etc. was abominable and attrocious. Self preservation demanded that we fight the reapers and stop them. I wanted to stop them to preserve the galaxy, the preserve the future of the races of this cycle. That was my theme all along, and it was the one the game alluded to all along. Sure I knew the reapers had their agenda too, but I never expected the final moments of the game to push the reapers agenda ahead of shepards. Basically, in the end of the game, the hero of the entire story is changed from shepard to the catalyst. The catalyst becomes the ultimate force and power for acheiving good (preserving the galaxy) and shepard takes a back seat. The genocides become a necessary evil instead of a horror because the reapers agenda becomes the main focus of the game in the last 5 minutes. For 150 hours we have the limited perspective of shepard who simply wants the reapers destroyed because they kill organics. Then after 150 hours of that, woops haha just kidding, shepard was a fool, the reapers motives are more important than the lives of organics. The reapers are justified in their actions. They simply change their solution because  according to the reapers "[harvesting organics every 50,000 years aka the cycle] wont work anymore." Personally I wanted to see the reapers burn for what they have done. However, the reapers are never brought to justice.

 Perhaps some synthetics during their time got out of control, and this led to their flawed logic and the creation of the cycle. However, isn't their failure to realize that not all cycles and all synthetics are doomed to repeat their mistakes. Aren't the reapers guilty of the ultimate prejudice? That all synthetics will ultimately try to seize power? This fear mongering justifies genocide? Do the reapers believe in some form of FATE? WHy cant they realize things can change? Perhaps because their programming and the catalyst are set in their ways/beliefs? Those were the questions I asked myself, that was my theme. Unfortunately, the BW decided to force the reapers narrow sided viewpoints on me and offer little explanation as to why. We find out our survival was misguided, all that matters is what the reapers are afraid of. And shepard agrees in the end. Regardless of their motives, they have just become an evil force who come to erradicate a cycle even when their signs that contradict their beliefs.  Sure its a tragedy that they were too strong to be stopped, but I would rather go down fighting them if thats the story, than become complicit in their "solutions."

No I didnt want a "happy ending." I really don't know anybody who did. I was expecting shepard and possibly the whole normandy and crew to be sacrificed. But I thought the sacrifice would have more meaning than a token gesture from the reapers.

[Phillips94]

ME 3 just fails to deliver on anything promised really, simple as that

[Cypher_CS]

I tend to...?
Really?
How did I take this out of context?

Again, how do you not see that you stick to the same mantra of some specific motivations or intentions of Shepard?
Saying that either you don't get the the other themes, or that they shouldn't be there.

Again, it's YOUR CHOICE.
Pick the one that suits you.

Sorry, but I really don't see how Starkid replaces Shepard, or the Player, as the hero.
Not seeing it.