1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

I know. But that's not the only thing Liara left behind by a far shot. The Crucible is important to Shep's cycle yes because they (like the cycles before) didn't have a chance to defeat the Reapers conventionally. The Reapers had too many advantages. That isn't necessarily the case in the new cycle.

I'm not trying to rip it apart. Just agitated.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 11:49 .

[gmboy902]

This flaw exists all over gaming. When it comes to endings like this - Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and others besides - the protagonist always has to trust the entity offering the choice. If the entity lies, there is nothing they can do about it.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

If they waste time rebuilding it after Liara told them it didn't work they deserve to be killed.

Uhu, just like we deserved to be killed because we also build the Crucible even though it didn't work in the previous cycle, and the cycle before that, and the cycle before that, and the cycle before that, and the... yeah...

[incinerator950]

Ryzaki wrote...

I know. But that's not the only thing Liara left behind by a far shot. The Crucible is important to Shep's cycle yes because they (like the cycles before) didn't have a chance to defeat the Reapers conventionally. The Reapers had too many advantages. That isn't necessarily the case in the new cycle.

I'm not trying to rip it apart. Just agitated.

Unfortunately, you can speculate that as a Cycle, the technology of the Citadel, Mass Relays, and dark energy will still present the usual technological evolution on the next Cycle. 

[The Heretic of Time]

gmboy902 wrote...

This flaw exists all over gaming. When it comes to endings like this - Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and others besides - the protagonist always has to trust the entity offering the choice. If the entity lies, there is nothing they can do about it.

Except in Deus Ex you sought out your own options, instead of getting them presented on a plate by a Starbrat. 

Still, it doesn't make much difference. In the end there is always a decision with uncertainties. For Shepard's cycle, the only certainty we did have is that the war could not be won conventionally. Yet some people still choose to try it anyway...

[memorysquid]

Archonsg wrote...

Game wise, had Bioware made it such that Reject with a little higher EMS rating then "destroy breath scene" is required gets a victory result and write it so that it is plausible, then why not?

Because then there is no dilemma.  ME1 and 2 both ended with actual dilemmas.  You wanted to avoid this one, ok.  But you didn't write the game.

[Ryzaki]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

If they waste time rebuilding it after Liara told them it didn't work they deserve to be killed.

Uhu, just like we deserved to be killed because we also build the Crucible even though it didn't work in the previous cycle, and the cycle before that, and the cycle before that, and the cycle before that, and the... yeah...

We weren't told it was completed and didn't work. We were told it was missing a component (one that Shep's cycle looked for and found) and couldn't be completed without said component and the only reason the Protheans didn't finish it was because they ran out of time. So yeah...not the same thing.

incinerator950 wrote...
Unfortunately, you can speculate that
as a Cycle, the technology of the Citadel, Mass Relays, and dark energy
will still present the usual technological evolution on the next Cycle. 

Sadly yes. Thankfully you can also speculate that the knowledge led to a advancement unacheivable in the old cycles.


See I could've headcanon'd my own ending happily if not for that damn tweet. <_<

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:03 .

[PoisonMushroom]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

This flaw exists all over gaming. When it comes to endings like this - Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and others besides - the protagonist always has to trust the entity offering the choice. If the entity lies, there is nothing they can do about it.

Except in Deus Ex you sought out your own options, instead of getting them presented on a plate by a Starbrat. 

Still, it doesn't make much difference. In the end there is always a decision with uncertainties. For Shepard's cycle, the only certainty we did have is that the war could not be won conventionally. Yet some people still choose to try it anyway...

Probably but Refuse doesn't necessarily have to mean resorting to conventional warfare which seems to be something a lot of people are overlooking as well.

[vX-INSANIAC-Xv]

 Ok here we go;


Without meta gaming is easy to see that at the very least least destroy is a better option than rejection, if you look at what the Star Brat tells you then you know you'll lose all AI life if you choose destroy but you will save the Humans, Turians, Quarians, Salarians, Asari, Krogan, Hanar, Drell, and every other organic species out there that hasnt been destroyed by the Reapers yet. Now if you have payed attention at all during the ME games you will know from the course of the entire series that you have no conventional means of stopping the Reapers because they are simply too many and too strong, if you had another way of stopping them you wouldnt have wasted time, resources and effort on the Crucible.
The actual concept of the crucible is a desperate last hope for the Galaxy, no one knows if it will work or what it actually does until Shepard meets Star Brat and the fact that you are putting so much into it shows that there is no other solution. From this logic it's easy to see that by rejecting the Star Brat you have chosen to throw away the one thing that gave the entire Galaxy hope, the only chance you ever had of stopping the Reapers. Also if you reject the Star Brat then what stops the Reapers from fixing the Citadel back to the way it was once they wipe out all life because of your choice? You have just given the Reapers the Crucible and they already know that the design is not from your cycle so they know that somewhere out there in the galaxy is a blueprint for it. Now that they have the Crucible and the Citadel they can make sure the design never actually works meaning that you have not just killed everyone in your cycle but also potentially doomed multiple cycles to come.

[memorysquid]

elitehunter34 wrote...

humes spork wrote...

You're asking me to discharge an inductive argument simply by merit of it being an inductive argument. I will absolutely not concede to sophistry by doing so.

Falsify the claim by presenting evidence to the contrary -- as really, you are (and have been) expected to do as the counter-claimant to an inductive argument, given all that is sufficient to uphold my claim is the lack of evidence to the contrary -- and I will.

Is defeating the Reapers conventionally logically impossible?  Do you agree or disagree with this statement?  This question is entirely relevant because you stand behind your claim that defeating the Reapers conventionally is 100% impossible.  Therefore, you are arguing that defeating the Reapers conventionally is logically impossible. 

How do you arbitrarily assign probability value to an event for which you have zero evidence of it being practically possible?  In a Mass Effect universe with fabricators and the like, it is probably logically possible to turn a Reaper into a Belgian waffle.  Why would you arbitrarily calculate that into the outcomes of the Battle of the Citadel II, just because it could potentially happen without entaling logical contradiction? 

Maybe a proper definition of the current Reaper fleet would be something like "The fleet which is impossible for the Allied forces to defeat."  So it's logically impossible as well as practically impossible for the Reapers to suffer defeat.  All logical impossibility means is something entails a contradiction which is ultimately a function of your definitions.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...
See I could've headcanon'd my own ending happily if not for that damn tweet. <_<

What is exactly your problem with the next cycle using the Crucible exactly? Isn't it a littlebit silly to be so worked up about something so insignificant? Does it really matter how the next cycle defeated the Reapers?

Personally I see refuse just as a little easter egg. it's a gag-ending made by BioWare because so many of us joked about shooting the Starbrat, or refusing his flawed logic. Now you can, but you don't seriously think BioWare wanted to seriously end their trilogy this way, do you? Refuse is just a gag-ending, an easter egg, a joke.

[PoisonMushroom]

vX-INSANIAC-Xv wrote...

 Ok here we go;


Without meta gaming is easy to see that at the very least least destroy is a better option than rejection, if you look at what the Star Brat tells you then you know you'll lose all AI life if you choose destroy but you will save the Humans, Turians, Quarians, Salarians, Asari, Krogan, Hanar, Drell, and every other organic species out there that hasnt been destroyed by the Reapers yet. Now if you have payed attention at all during the ME games you will know from the course of the entire series that you have no conventional means of stopping the Reapers because they are simply too many and too strong, if you had another way of stopping them you wouldnt have wasted time, resources and effort on the Crucible.
The actual concept of the crucible is a desperate last hope for the Galaxy, no one knows if it will work or what it actually does until Shepard meets Star Brat and the fact that you are putting so much into it shows that there is no other solution. From this logic it's easy to see that by rejecting the Star Brat you have chosen to throw away the one thing that gave the entire Galaxy hope, the only chance you ever had of stopping the Reapers. Also if you reject the Star Brat then what stops the Reapers from fixing the Citadel back to the way it was once they wipe out all life because of your choice? You have just given the Reapers the Crucible and they already know that the design is not from your cycle so they know that somewhere out there in the galaxy is a blueprint for it. Now that they have the Crucible and the Citadel they can make sure the design never actually works meaning that you have not just killed everyone in your cycle but also potentially doomed multiple cycles to come.

I sort of agree with you that destroy still would have been a valid option but I'll argue with your logic anyway.

Shepard knew that Liara had made plans to warn future cycles. Shepard had every reason to believe that the Reapers could be beaten eventually, even if not in this cycle.

Destroy is still a massive unknown as it relies on the good word of the crazy star brat. For all Shepard knows it could lead to a worse outcome than death for this cycle/victory for a later cycle.

[Ryzaki]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
See I could've headcanon'd my own ending happily if not for that damn tweet. <_<

What is exactly your problem with the next cycle using the Crucible exactly? Isn't it a littlebit silly to be so worked up about something so insignificant? Does it really matter how the next cycle defeated the Reapers?

Personally I see refuse just as a little easter egg. it's a gag-ending made by BioWare because so many of us joked about shooting the Starbrat, or refusing his flawed logic. Now you can, but you don't seriously think BioWare wanted to seriously end their trilogy this way, do you? Refuse is just a gag-ending, an easter egg, a joke.

I have said my problem constantly in this thread. If it doesn't bother you that's great it bothers me. I'm allowed to feel however the hell I want.

And I see it as a FU ending and it's not cute or clever. Just petty and childish.

[The Heretic of Time]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

This flaw exists all over gaming. When it comes to endings like this - Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and others besides - the protagonist always has to trust the entity offering the choice. If the entity lies, there is nothing they can do about it.

Except in Deus Ex you sought out your own options, instead of getting them presented on a plate by a Starbrat. 

Still, it doesn't make much difference. In the end there is always a decision with uncertainties. For Shepard's cycle, the only certainty we did have is that the war could not be won conventionally. Yet some people still choose to try it anyway...

Probably but Refuse doesn't necessarily have to mean resorting to conventional warfare which seems to be something a lot of people are overlooking as well.

Euhm, what else are you planning on doing after Refuse? Conventional warfare is the only other option you have left after refusing the Starbrat.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

I have said my problem constantly in this thread. 

I can't remember you exactly telling us why you make such a big deal out of the next cycle using the Crucibe.

And I see it as a FU ending and it's not cute or clever. Just petty and childish.

Shooting the Starbrat because you don't like him is petty and childish. 

[Urdnot Amenark]

The Angry One wrote...

Disclaimer: If my opinions on the ending bother you, the back button should be to the top left of your browser.

When talking about rejection compared to the other endings, people often bring up how the Reaper threat is still ended one way or another and how selfish people are for rejecting and so on. That's debatable, but not the point here.
One important point that I think is often missed though pointed out many times before by various people - how does Shepard know that?

Every one of the 3 options is a leap of faith based on the word - and that alone - of the creator and controller of the Reapers. Shepard will not even survive to see these options pan out. Definitely so in control and synthesis, and at least a likely possibility in destroy (especially since Shepard tries to commit suicide by explosion).
From Shepard's perspective, all she sees is the head Reaper giving her an ultimatum, the logic of which is flawed. Why would the Reapers hand you the keys to their own destruction? The Catalyst does not adequately explain the reasons for this, other than the current solution no longer being viable for arbitrary reasons.

How is the Catalyst trustworthy? The Reaper's main tactic throughout all 3 games is corruption and deception.
Yes, Sovereign and Harbinger were honest. But they didn't WANT anything from Shepard, they were simply making proclamations as to their intent.
With others they have manipulated, lied and used up through indoctrination and such. Look at the Geth. The Geth were attacked by the Quarians, so the Reapers promised to upgrade and help them. Which they did... they also took total control and made them puppets, illustrating perfectly how the Reapers cannot be trusted.

This represents a fundamental flaw in the ending. Within the narrative Shepard basically can't take any of these options, they require a leap of faith far worse than the one needed to give TIM the Collector Base, for example.
The only way you know the endings are viable is because you already know what they'll do! This is in the EC of course - a first time player with the OE must simply blindly fumble into an ending because you have no other choice.
Now that you HAVE the choice to reject, no other ending makes sense internally. You can philosophise about sacrifice and brave new eras all you want. I'm sure some will immediately react and yell "DON'T SPEAK FOR MY SHEPARD". But I'm sorry, you see the appeal of destroy/control/synthesis because you are meta-gaming. Shepard doesn't see it because Shepard CANNOT see it.

The Catalyst is not a Reaper, but a VI created by the original society that conceived the Reapers. All the Catalyst does at most is give the Reapers a unifying purpose through the fulfillment of the "Solution" it preserves. Shepard does survive in Control, just not as an organic, since Shepard essentially becomes a demigod of sorts whose consciousness permanently influences the Reapers, essentially replacing the Catalyst. The only one in which Shepard truly "dies" is the Synthesis ending; I'm assuming that Shepard surviving in Destroy (since it is the optimal ending) is probably canon.

Avoiding the philosophical mudpile that the harvesting concept is, I would venture to say that giving Shepard these choices is not arbitrary since, as it notes, Shepard's success in reaching the Catalyst and the galaxy's creation of a working Crucible obviously proves that the current Solution at the very least is flawed in some fashion. An organic being as successful as Shepard is something that was never intended. Since the Catalyst alone has complete control over the Reapers, it's clear that they aren't "handing" over anything.

Also, potentiality doesn't equal causality. While we don't have to trust the Catalyst as a reliable narrator, in this case you should only distrust those who give you reason to. It's obvious that the Catalyst doesn't really want anything from Shepard either, apart from the choices made to "fix" the Solution it once followed. Your point, ironically, is rebutted by one of your examples: Harbinger makes it very clear numerous times that it wants Shepard's body, and even tried to collect Shepard's body after the attack on the Normandy, but noting this point would be irrelevant. At most, the Reapers simply want to control you when it comes to the power of indoctrination, and they don't need to lie nor have they ever; an indoctrinated person's mind will make the rest up for them.

Rejection also is probably the most poorly-handled choice out of them all. It's a choice that was certainly needed, but one that always ends in failure, regardless of how high your EMS is, which I find to be a bit arbitrary given how much EMS was stressed in the game. Definitely not the piece de resistance you're painting it as. 

Shepard doesn't have to know the future to be able to gauge the consequences of certain actions s/he makes. If someone - the Catalyst in this case - tells me that all advanced synthetic life will also be destroyed if I choose to destroy the Reapers, I don't need a crystal ball to give me a general idea of what effects my decision will have. The same is true for Control - something Shepard clearly understood through their conversation with TIM - and Synthesis. Thinking that another person can't because you don't believe it possible doesn't make your belief any more or less appropriate, and perhaps is a very sad attempt at an appeal to authority. I mean, sure, in the universe you created with your Shepard, resistance appears to be the only valid choice, but for millions of players and their own respective universes, other choices are just as valid, including yours, but for differing reasons most likely.

[Ryzaki]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I can't remember you exactly telling us why you make such a big deal out of the next cycle using the Crucibe.

Well then you'll just have to deal with guessing because I'm not repeating myself to someone who doesn't even care anyway.

Shooting the Starbrat because you don't like him is petty and childish. 

I'm not a video game designer however and I'm also not getting paid to make video games/game endings. So yes me being petty and childish (towards a fictional character no less) is fine. A professional however? Not at all fine. It makes them look foolish and unable to take criticism.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:20 .

[memorysquid]

Ryzaki wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I can't remember you exactly telling us why you make such a big deal out of the next cycle using the Crucibe.

Well then you'll just have to deal with guessing because I'm not repeating myself to someone who doesn't even care anyway.

Shooting the Starbrat because you don't like him is petty and childish. 

I'm not a video game designer however and I'm also not getting paid to make video games/game endings. So yes me being petty and childish (towards a fictional character no less) is fine. A professional however? Not at all fine. It makes them look foolish and unable to take criticism.

Oh bah.  That was pure fun.  Plus it is even in character.  The Reaper overlord, insofar as he had a personality, would probably be prickly about you pumping bullets into his hologram.

[wantedman dan]

I think I love you, TAO.

[elitehunter34]

humes spork wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

Is defeating the Reapers conventionally logically impossible?

Yes. You have at the fundament an inductive claim supported by existing evidence, and a lack of evidence to the contrary; moreover, repeated and canonical assertions in the context of the game itself, and independent verification of the truth-value of the claim upon selecting the refusal ending.

The overwhelming amount of evidence for the inductive claim, and lack of evidence to the contrary, elevates the probability the claim is true to such a point pointing out its inductive nature has nominal impact on the claim itself. Then you add the canonical arguments in favor of the inductive claim, which elevate it quite frankly beyond reproach. That is in part why it is irrational to refuse under any circumstance -- even if the Catalyst is lying conventional victory is impossible.

And as if that is somehow not veracious enough to be persuasive, independent confirmation of the claim after the fact demonstrates its overwhelming soundness. Again, if you refuse to accept that conventional victory is impossible, you must deny canon to do so. All of it, really, which brings me to my next points.

Never before have the Reapers had to fight an enemy where their leaders weren't instantly killed and could use the Mass Relays.

Can you prove this assertion? All that can be inferred by the fact the Reapers continue to exist is that they have never lost. The details of each individual cycle are not available.

Not only that, but as Javik said, the current cycle is much more diverse than the previous cycle.  So the current cycle has the advantage of being able to use the strengths of some races to balance out the weaknesses of the other races.

Yet, as of the actual activation of the Crucible that diversity has had no impact of merit on the war effort itself. The most to which said "diversity" has amounted are tactical victories that were still decisive strategic losses.

...the organic races have weapons and technology that can damage or destroy the Reapers.

So did whatever civilization that put down the derelict Reaper you visit in ME2. Did they win? Sovereign was destroyed, the Leviathan of Dis could very well have been disabled by an organic species, and the "current" cycle put down a large number of Reapers...all to no avail. The ability to destroy a Reaper is not equivalent to the ability to win the war conventionally. If it were, the Reapers would have been put down no "later" than 37 million years ago.

I brought up voluntarily, and answered these counter-allegations, in this post. At this point, you're retreading old ground to attempt to make a point that was long since addressed and discharged.

I wish I knew how to do the quote thing you did, but I don't so I'll try to address your points in a way that is easy to follow.

 "elevates the probability the claim is true to such a point pointing out its inductive nature has nominal impact on the claim itself"  "answered these counter-allegations, in this post. At this point, you're retreading old ground to attempt to make a point that was long since addressed and discharged"

I still disagree with that because I believe that you can't make a statement of 100% probability  because I believe that is fudamentally impossible (in this scenario).  I don't think I'm going to convince you on that and you're probably not going to convince me otherwise.  So I think it would be best if we just agree to disagree on this point.  Lets focus on the evidence.

"And as if that is somehow not veracious enough to be persuasive, independent confirmation of the claim after the fact demonstrates its overwhelming soundness. Again, if you refuse to accept that conventional victory is impossible, you must deny canon to do so."

Proof that something happened once is not proof that something always will happen.  Not only that, but you're point would be moot if we won in reject despite all of your evidence to the contrary.

"Can you prove this assertion? All that can be inferred by the fact the Reapers continue to exist is that they have never lost. The details of each individual cycle are not available."

  Watch from about 3:55.  This is canon.  This is undenably a massive strategic advantage that the Reapers have lost.  An advantage that just might let organics survive, and possibly win.  This is an advantage that we have no reason to assume was had by any other race.  There are a number of strategic advantages that come from this.  It is easier to move troops, supplies, and refugees from cluster to cluster.  The Mass Relays could be used to lead the Reapers into a trap, and then the Mass Relay is destroyed, killing hundreds of Reapers.  Those are just a couple of the things I have thought of.  It is possibly the strongest argument in favor of a conventional victory being possible.

"Yet, as of the actual activation of the Crucible that diversity has had no impact of merit on the war effort itself. The most to which said "diversity" has amounted are tactical victories that were still decisive strategic losses. "

Yes, but it is still an advantage.  How much of an advantage is unclear.  But still it's in favor of a conventional victory being possible.


I have more evidence in favor of a conventional victory being possible.  

One of the key advantages of the Reapers is their superior weapons.  They are more powerful and have a longer range than the weapons of organics.  However, it is stated here
http://masseffect.wi...com/wiki/Thanix that now the alliance fleets and other fleets now have these powerful weapons.  This is an advantage that we can presume no other cycle had, because the military infrastructure was already crippled in the Reaper's opening attack, so even if their weapons were copied, it would be on an extremely small scale.

If you have 100% Readiness it says "Allied forces are holding ground and winning in key locations."  I'll admit its a weaker one because whether or not this value is considered canon is shakey, but still, it exists in the game, and theres no evidence to suggests that the value is unimportant.  It is a multiplier of your war assets after all.

The Reapers have been defeated in a large scale conflict.  http://masseffect.wi.../The_Reaper_War The Miracle at Palavan.  So yes, using powerful weapons and clever tactics, the Reapers can be defeated conventionally on a relatively large scale.

The circumstances in this cycle are much different than previous cycles.  Given all of the evidence I would say that a conventional victory is at least weakly possible.

[Ryzaki]

memorysquid wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I can't remember you exactly telling us why you make such a big deal out of the next cycle using the Crucibe.

Well then you'll just have to deal with guessing because I'm not repeating myself to someone who doesn't even care anyway.

Shooting the Starbrat because you don't like him is petty and childish. 

I'm not a video game designer however and I'm also not getting paid to make video games/game endings. So yes me being petty and childish (towards a fictional character no less) is fine. A professional however? Not at all fine. It makes them look foolish and unable to take criticism.

Oh bah.  That was pure fun.  Plus it is even in character.  The Reaper overlord, insofar as he had a personality, would probably be prickly about you pumping bullets into his hologram.

He lets Shep kill him with little comment. I'm pretty sure his reaction to Shep shooting him is "you're shooting the wrong way."  I mean...if you're gonna let someone kill you why on earth is them shooting a hologram (that you probably can't even feel the shot) gonna bother you?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:34 .

[Urdnot Amenark]

Captiosus77 wrote...

capn233 wrote...

Without metagaming Shepard can realize that no antagonist has ever actually lied to him since he became a Spectre.

Thank you.

I doubt anyone here played the game "in character" as Shepard the entire time. The game has required players to meta-game many times throughout the series to progress the story. Damn near every morality choice required an evaluation of facts and conditions that may not have been known to Shepard but assumed by the player. Therefore this argument that reject is the "only" choice unless players meta-game is pointless because, no matter what, players had to meta-game many times simply to get to this point.

This.

[memorysquid]

elitehunter34 wrote...

The Reapers have been defeated in a large scale conflict.  http://masseffect.wi.../The_Reaper_War The Miracle at Palavan.  So yes, using powerful weapons and clever tactics, the Reapers can be defeated conventionally on a relatively large scale.

The circumstances in this cycle are much different than previous cycles.  Given all of the evidence I would say that a conventional victory is at least weakly possible.

The Reapers weren't defeated at Palaven, nor does the codex say they were.  The Turians nuked a couple, got whooped completely and fled and then the Reapers marched on to their homeworld and started destroying cities and dropping troops.  If you have any doubts about the outcome of a conventional war, just look at the final fight.  Shep has cherry picked the best of the best and everyone he could get.  The ground invasion force is wiped out almost to a man and you watch the space fleet getting worked over.   I just don't see the continued push for a possiblity that admits of no evidence at all.

[memorysquid]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Captiosus77 wrote...

capn233 wrote...

Without metagaming Shepard can realize that no antagonist has ever actually lied to him since he became a Spectre.

Thank you.

I doubt anyone here played the game "in character" as Shepard the entire time. The game has required players to meta-game many times throughout the series to progress the story. Damn near every morality choice required an evaluation of facts and conditions that may not have been known to Shepard but assumed by the player. Therefore this argument that reject is the "only" choice unless players meta-game is pointless because, no matter what, players had to meta-game many times simply to get to this point.

This.

Plus we all know the endings now so not meta-gaming to some degree is simply impossible, unless you ignore consequences altogether.

[Dark_Caduceus]

The Angry One wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I've always been a shameless meta-gamer, and that's never going to change.

I never said there's anything wrong with meta-gaming.
However if the story REQUIRES you to meta-game in order for your character's actions to make sense (unless the story is based around meta-gaming, with Mass Effect's is NOT), then that story has completely failed.

Pretty much. I keep coming back here, hoping to ecapture my love for the series; but every time I visit the forums I'm reminded how utterly broken the game series' plot is.