258 réponses à ce sujet

[macrocarl]

Justin2k wrote...

maaaze wrote...

-snip-

Firstly good writing doesn't require you to ask questions and make up your own answers.  Good writing gives you the answers to all the important questions.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, you cannot tell me that this ending resonated with the millions of fans of the series.  So many people were disappointed.  And that in itself makes it bad as the first rule of writing is to connect with your target audience.  They weren't writing Mass Effect for their own benefit, they were writing it to sell to customers.

You seem to believe you are superior or smarter than everyone else because you "got" the ending.  The truth is you invented stuff that wasn't present in the text so that it made sense to you. 

By written poorly do you mean structurally or that you didn't like what you experienced?

Good writing doesn't mean anything set in stone. That includes unanswered questions. There were  lots of people who didn't like the ending and lots who did. To focus just on the ones who didn't isn't seeing the whole picture of who played the game. I know you want this to be untrue but it's just not. Internet rage does not equal a majority.

to be clear, I'm not saying you didn't 'get' the ending, I'm saying you didn't 'enjoy' the ending. But to say someone is coming up with stuff that's not in-game to enjoy it is just plain old fashioned not true if you speak of IT. Sorry.

[JamesFaith]

macrocarl wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

Firstly good writing doesn't require you to ask questions and make up your own answers.  Good writing gives you the answers to all the important questions.

 

By written poorly do you mean structurally or that you didn't like what you experienced?

Good writing doesn't mean anything set in stone. That includes unanswered questions. There were  lots of people who didn't like the ending and lots who did. To focus just on the ones who didn't isn't seeing the whole picture of who played the game. I know you want this to be untrue but it's just not. Internet rage does not equal a majority.

Good said.

When OP said that good writting gives you answers to all important questions, I must think about F. Herbert's Dune series. This is excelent example of story where only something is explained and still it's literal masterpiece. In fact when Herbert junior and Anderson started explaining a giving these answers in sequels, quality of series fell down.

So OP, giving answers on everything isn't sign of good writting, it's just one type of writting. Claiming that this is only good one is same like claiming, that only good writing is story with happyend.

[I_eat_unicorns]

 
At this point, currently believeing that the writers "secretly intended the IT to be correct" after the release of the EC DLC is exactly equal to believing that the thing in the box at the end of 'Seven ' was a ham sandwich, or that Obi Wan Kenobi was meant to be Luke Skywalker come back from the future to guide himself. 

You can believe anything you want if that's how you derive entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if there can be a "truth" about the structure of a fictional work it is that that which the author intended is the actuality. ME's writers do not intend IT to be the valid end. 

[JPN17]

Bad writing explains everything that was wrong with ME3. The plot shouldn't make me wonder what the hell the supreme invincible space robot gods were doing in the previous games. It's quite a feat for a third part of a story to destroy not only itself, but the first two as well.

[CronoDragoon]

macrocarl wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

maaaze wrote...

-snip-

Firstly good writing doesn't require you to ask questions and make up your own answers.  Good writing gives you the answers to all the important questions.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, you cannot tell me that this ending resonated with the millions of fans of the series.  So many people were disappointed.  And that in itself makes it bad as the first rule of writing is to connect with your target audience.  They weren't writing Mass Effect for their own benefit, they were writing it to sell to customers.

You seem to believe you are superior or smarter than everyone else because you "got" the ending.  The truth is you invented stuff that wasn't present in the text so that it made sense to you. 

By written poorly do you mean structurally or that you didn't like what you experienced?

Good writing doesn't mean anything set in stone. That includes unanswered questions. There were  lots of people who didn't like the ending and lots who did. To focus just on the ones who didn't isn't seeing the whole picture of who played the game. I know you want this to be untrue but it's just not. Internet rage does not equal a majority.

to be clear, I'm not saying you didn't 'get' the ending, I'm saying you didn't 'enjoy' the ending. But to say someone is coming up with stuff that's not in-game to enjoy it is just plain old fashioned not true if you speak of IT. Sorry.

There were plenty of long essays written by very intelligent people about why the endings are bad. I have yet to see the same by people who think the endings work with the rest of the story, despite their claims to superior intellect and understanding.

The EC made the endings tolerable, maybe even satisfactory. But they are still a poor conclusion to the trilogy.

[crimzontearz]

Dark knight Rises

That is all

[JamesFaith]

CronoDragoon wrote...

There were plenty of long essays written by very intelligent people about why the endings are bad. I have yet to see the same by people who think the endings work with the rest of the story, despite their claims to superior intellect and understanding.

The EC made the endings tolerable, maybe even satisfactory. But they are still a poor conclusion to the trilogy.

So here is list of such essays, so your waiting could finally over.

http://social.biowar.../index/11268753

[CronoDragoon]

JamesFaith wrote...

So here is list of such essays, so your waiting could finally over.

http://social.biowar.../index/11268753

I hope you realize that compendium is a mess. It links to pretty much everything and anything, including anti-ending threads. There are some links to pro-ending analysis though, so you proved my exaggeration incorrect.

[AngryFrozenWater]

No, OP, we can't. It seems that BW thinks that keeping the ending vague is their idea of fun. It is supposed to give us the ingredients for all kinds of endings. Some valid and some not. If you do not like that then simply do not read it.

[macrocarl]

CronoDragoon wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

maaaze wrote...

-snip-

Firstly good writing doesn't require you to ask questions and make up your own answers.  Good writing gives you the answers to all the important questions.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, you cannot tell me that this ending resonated with the millions of fans of the series.  So many people were disappointed.  And that in itself makes it bad as the first rule of writing is to connect with your target audience.  They weren't writing Mass Effect for their own benefit, they were writing it to sell to customers.

You seem to believe you are superior or smarter than everyone else because you "got" the ending.  The truth is you invented stuff that wasn't present in the text so that it made sense to you. 

By written poorly do you mean structurally or that you didn't like what you experienced?

Good writing doesn't mean anything set in stone. That includes unanswered questions. There were  lots of people who didn't like the ending and lots who did. To focus just on the ones who didn't isn't seeing the whole picture of who played the game. I know you want this to be untrue but it's just not. Internet rage does not equal a majority.

to be clear, I'm not saying you didn't 'get' the ending, I'm saying you didn't 'enjoy' the ending. But to say someone is coming up with stuff that's not in-game to enjoy it is just plain old fashioned not true if you speak of IT. Sorry.

There were plenty of long essays written by very intelligent people about why the endings are bad. I have yet to see the same by people who think the endings work with the rest of the story, despite their claims to superior intellect and understanding.

The EC made the endings tolerable, maybe even satisfactory. But they are still a poor conclusion to the trilogy.

There's a bunch of essays to read why they're good as well. Again, while you're entitled to your opinion (of course!) to only focus on the negative is skewing the overall picture on how ME3 is perceived. And by doing so you run the risk of understanding why their are 'pro-enders'.
Please don't think I'm saying anything about being smarter or something. I'm just saying, look at the whole picture before claiming one view being more correct or generally accepted than another.

[CronoDragoon]

macrocarl wrote...

Again, while you're entitled to your opinion (of course!) to only focus on the negative is skewing the overall picture on how ME3 is perceived. And by doing so you run the risk of understanding why their are 'pro-enders'.
Please don't think I'm saying anything about being smarter or something. I'm just saying, look at the whole picture before claiming one view being more correct or generally accepted than another.

Okay. I have no problem with this. To be frank, I have spent much of the last few weeks defending parts of the endings as they appear in the EC, so I think I am someone qualified to speak for those who want to look at the whole picture.

[BatmanPWNS]

Of course it was poor writing, they just wanted some "EMOTION" out of us. They weren't thinking of no theories or how it would effect everyone.

[CronoDragoon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

To be fair, the writing in ME3 shifted from the sublime to the ridiculous. If only the writers responsible for the great work across 3 terrific games could have validated the 'artistic' vision of the two men who cobbled together that ending. Such a pity.

I can point out ridiculous writing in all three games, especially concerning the main plot. The only writing I would classify as sublime would be character dialogue and arcs, which were still excellent in ME3.

[XqctaX]

Justin2k wrote...

Thread after thread after thread about the ending, the extended cut and everything else.  What if the indoctination theory was true, what if they really mean this, what if this is the real ending.

It's all rubbish.  You have hope and faith in Bioware I get it.  But the obvious plain truth is that Starchild was a joke, Bioware realised it was a joke but rather than rewrite it, they didn't want to offend their writing staff so they "expanded" on it.

It's just poor writing, nothing more or nothing less.  A five year old child could have finished the story better.  Defeat the reapers, save the galaxy.  There, done.

There is no clever hidden underlining meaning, there is no theory.  It was just a stupid contrived ending and the writers should have their work reviewed in future before releasing it to the public.  Just imagine if Luke Skywalker had walked in to face the Emperor and Darth Vader only to be faced with a little child telling him that the empire exists because people rebel or something.  Lucas would never had found work again.

I agree with every word. and i have been saying so for a long time,
heck i warned about me3 beeing a ****ty game, when it comes to the story/writing ever since i heard drew left and f'KKin deitz was writing deception,

heck deitz is famous for beeing a ****ty writer and that says alot lol.
ever since drew left the rest of the writers have beeing messing up everything from characters to huge lore-elements.
the only guy with real talent left, and look how the others did by themself....

[XqctaX]

macrocarl wrote...


There's a bunch of essays to read why they're good as well. Again, while you're entitled to your opinion (of course!) to only focus on the negative is skewing the overall picture on how ME3 is perceived. And by doing so you run the risk of understanding why their are 'pro-enders'.
Please don't think I'm saying anything about being smarter or something. I'm just saying, look at the whole picture before claiming one view being more correct or generally accepted than another.

i havent seen any essays that claim the mass effect 3 ending is good from any writing point of view.
if you have link please post them, i would very much like to read them?

if we look at the big picture of the game theres many flaws but also many awesome stuff aswell
But those are subjective opinions and well not really why the writing of for example the end
has been critizied in several post. but rather the painfully obivous mistakes any literature proff
would point out right away.

and the lack or writing skills and creativity and not to mention
the unability to stick to the theme and established narrative not beeing throw out of the window the last part of the game. those are not really opinionbased arguments.

and thinking of the big pictures only meens that someone would have the opinion that the good overweight the bad in the game. many do not and that standpoint is not lesser than the other.

or did you just meen that one must know the other sides opinions?
becouse im pretty sure both sides of this knows the other side very well on this forum

personally I see the writing overall droping in quality in me3 compared to previous game
this for me is the obvious effect of drew leaving.

[CronoDragoon]

XqctaX wrote...

personally I see the writing overall droping in quality in me3 compared to previous game
this for me is the obvious effect of drew leaving.

No, I have to stop you here. Besides the ending I feel ME3 had by far the best writing of the series. The romances in particular have writing only approached by LotSB romance scenes. They certainly outclass the ME1 romances. And what about the Liara's capsule scene? The obviously excellent Rannoch and Tuchanka? Grissom Academy? Liara's gift? The writing overall in ME3 is excellent.

[Klijpope]

I just don't get how some folk will claim that organics-vs-synthetics was never the main them of ME.

It is quite literally the first theme introduced in the whole trilogy, in the opening scene of ME1. It is reinforced across the whole game in secondary missions like the Luna VI or even tertiary stuff like the Signals Tracking side mission. The whole theme is restated when we learn that Sovereign is a Reaper and we conclude it is a synthetic lifeform - therefore, synthetics destroyed the Protheans.

That theme is then returned to in ME2, albeit from the PoV of the synthetics, in the form of EDI and Legion (in fact, much of ME2 is from the PoV of antagonists in ME1). This can (depending on the player) create a character arc in Shepard, from initial distrust of EDI to eventual trust and acceptance (as this is entirely in the purview of the player through dialogue choices this lets us decide what Shepard's conclusions are). This muddying of the waters continues when we discover that the Reapers are some form of hybrid between synthetic and organic.

Some people are saying that the overall theme was "succeeding despite impossible odds". This is not a theme - it is simply the structure of a story. How many stories do you know of that are about "succeeding in the face of no apparent adversity whatsoever"?

[Vox Draco]

Oh, another thread about the poor/bad writing? Why not...

The more I look away solely from the ending and at the trilogy as a whole I have to agree: The writing is poor, or better: The construction and coherence of the trilogy is poor, very poor, up to the point where the events of ME2 are so scarcely refered to in ME3 that it feels like ignore ME2 and you haven't missed anything. If the second part of your trilogy is nothing but filler and everything in its story mostly pointless and never much referred to in part three, you went wrong somewhere...

But I doubt it is to blame on the quality, talent or supposed incompetence of the writers. I think the problem is rather that Mass Effect is a videogame, and this medium isn't right to tell a single story with a sole protagonist and expand and evolve it up to a conclusion over the course of three games...

Mass Effect is often compared to Star Wars, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, but how many videogame-trilogies are out there that have one protagonist and one overlaying storyarc that is featured in every title? The only one comeing to my mind is Biioware's own Baldur's Gate Series. And even here you see soem problems in BG2, with Irenicus not really being a great villain that is personally attached to the Bhaalspawn-storyline...

A videogame is not the work of a single writer, but many. There is a "lead writer" I guess, but he was changed over the course of developement. That's a little like replacing Tolkien after he wrote "Fellowship" with R.A. Salvatore (Drizzt, Forgotten Realms etc). Of course you migh tend up with Frodo suddenly dual-wielding magical daggers and Aragon dueling Sauron on top of Barad-Dur...doesn't actually sound so bad, but in regards to "Fellowship" does it fit? I doubt it...

Reading a book you follow one wo/man's vision all along, up to the end. Videogames are all made by various members of a team, and cost absurd amounts of dollars now. A book-author does not have to care so much to please everyone and company-authorities, as the developement of a book doesn't cost as much. An author can carry his vision through, from the very beginning to the end. I fail to see this in videogaming-development...

ME1 was a stand alone story mostly, with a loose end to continue upon. ME2 tried to be the middle chapter of a supposed trilogy, but at the same time tried to stay open as much as possible to new fans and new customers not familiar with MAss Effect 1. And Mass Effect 3 is even advertised as the perfect entry point to the trilogy, again avoiding many direct references to the previous titles, or making past decisions really matter in the end. 

If you want to tell a coherent story over the course of three titles, you have to take the risk to leave some people behind or "force them" to buy the first part or at least read about what happened there in detail. If you try to please everyone by leaving the games mostly open, this inconsequence will at some point hurt the story badly as it jsut falls apart, mostly punishing the firtst-hour-fans...
 
Just my view on it. As I have no insights in videogame-production I might be horribly wrong. People with more knowledge are free to correct me

[XqctaX]

CronoDragoon wrote...

XqctaX wrote...

personally I see the writing overall droping in quality in me3 compared to previous game
this for me is the obvious effect of drew leaving.

No, I have to stop you here. Besides the ending I feel ME3 had by far the best writing of the series. The romances in particular have writing only approached by LotSB romance scenes. They certainly outclass the ME1 romances. And what about the Liara's capsule scene? The obviously excellent Rannoch and Tuchanka? Grissom Academy? Liara's gift? The writing overall in ME3 is excellent.

some things are done well yes. but over all the story isnt that great.
what about the other LI's, those that got pretty much nothing.
rannoch and tuchanka were good. but what about the rest not so great.

characters so out of character its just horrible, and the main story arc isnt close to ME1
find crusible plan, get assets to build it, build it, fire it, end game.
do i need to talk about the pics of deux ex machina that casey hudson posted on his twitter
b4 me3 was released.

You might think its better writing in me3 but that isnt the case in the ending whitch is what we are talking about.
and its not the case with the rest of the game either. some part stick out becouse they are good.
but the game is mostly mediocre at best when looking at the writing skill.

[SpamBot2000]

Klijpope wrote...

I just don't get how some folk will claim that organics-vs-synthetics was never the main them of ME.

It is quite literally the first theme introduced in the whole trilogy, in the opening scene of ME1. It is reinforced across the whole game in secondary missions like the Luna VI or even tertiary stuff like the Signals Tracking side mission. The whole theme is restated when we learn that Sovereign is a Reaper and we conclude it is a synthetic lifeform - therefore, synthetics destroyed the Protheans.

That theme is then returned to in ME2, albeit from the PoV of the synthetics, in the form of EDI and Legion (in fact, much of ME2 is from the PoV of antagonists in ME1). This can (depending on the player) create a character arc in Shepard, from initial distrust of EDI to eventual trust and acceptance (as this is entirely in the purview of the player through dialogue choices this lets us decide what Shepard's conclusions are). This muddying of the waters continues when we discover that the Reapers are some form of hybrid between synthetic and organic.

Some people are saying that the overall theme was "succeeding despite impossible odds". This is not a theme - it is simply the structure of a story. How many stories do you know of that are about "succeeding in the face of no apparent adversity whatsoever"?

"The Major Theme?" Hardly. "A Theme"? Sure. It was dealt with throughout the series alongside other themes. Then at the end, the little ghost boy just drops it on the player like some revelation, insisting on nullifying our very handling of this theme all through the 3 games. This is ridiculous game design. It's understandable that many players react to such crude dismissal of the very games they have played with anger and denial.

[Mazebook]

Arken wrote...

maaaze wrote...
Raising Questions and adding Points to it is the main porpuse of any kind narrative structure.

I think I understand where you're getting confused.

You're confusing Mass Effect's ending with an ending that gives the audience a question rather than an answer.

This actually isn't as common as you're making it sound since most authors love to preach to their readers, and try to have a very clear message in their story.

Although other authors prefer to end the story with a question. The question isn't a question of the events of the story, but a question of what these events mean to the reader. When the audience is asked to find their own meaning it doesn't mean the audience is asked to make up their own ending.

It means the audience is meant to ask themselves what this means to them on a personal level. 

This isn't literally leaving the audience without an answer. All of the important aspects of the plot should be fully resolved upon the completion of the story unless they in some way where meant to be left unresolved to make the audience ask themselves a question.

An example of this is a story that ends with a man being held at gunpoint. The entire story was about the man who is about to be shot. The story made the reader learn more about them, and care about their struggle. Though the story also focused on the man's guilt and the things he had done in the past. Throughout the story, the reader is expecting for the conclusion to be when the man finally makes peace with his past.

The story ends with the man being at the mercy of someone whose life he destroyed beyond repair. The story ends without letting the reader know whether or not the man lived or died. Instead it ends by asking the reader a question, "Did he deserve to be forgiven?"

All other plot points are completed, and resolved. The falling action tells of how everyone else who the man made peace with is now better off, or how their lives have gotten worse. But the reader can't be told whether he lived or not, because that ultimately depends on whether or not the reader believes he truly deserved to live.

This doesn't exactly mean that the man's death would be a bad thing. In a situation like this, death could be seen as the ultimate act of retribution. In death, the man is finally free of the horrible things he had done. If he dies, he is finally free from his past sins.

Catharsis is still achieved whether the man lives or dies. It's ultimately a question of what the reader believes about redemption.

Inception, Old Boy, the Prestige, and many others all had endings like this.

The audience is ultimately left with a question of what they think is the best resolution to the story, and is then expected to dwell on what this means for them on a personal level.



Mass Effect 3 didn't do this. At all. You can't even pretend that it did. It doesn't leave the player with anything. It doesn't even reflect on the main message of the entire series that was paramount in Mass Effect 2.

"Our greatest strength is what makes us different."

This is even brought up again in Mass Effect 3 when Javik explicitly states that the reason the protheans fells is because they had focused too much on assimilation rather than letting different cultures breed.

Firts of all...great reply...

I guess we differ because I very much think that Mass Effect did exactly that...

The audience is ultimately left with a question of what they think is the best resolution to the story, and is then expected to dwell on what this means for them on a personal level.

You are given the means to end the reaper thread in 3 different ways...each of these ways have huge implacations not only for the rest of the galaxy but also how you view yourself.

What is worth sacrificing over the thread of the reapers?

In destroy you have to admit to yourself that the Synthetics have to be sacrificed to ensure the destruction of the reapers....ergo synthetics are not as much worth as the thread of the reapers / as giving up your humanity and continue with absolut power (control)  and as eradicating the different and unique traits of synthetics and organics (synthesis)... 

The consequences of your actions can hunt you...through every game...you can dwell on thinking if you made the right decision for yourself...what does it say about you...

The nature of the ending are tough and thoughtprovoking...

the interesting thing about the ending is what it says about you and your shepard.

Modifié par maaaze, 19 juillet 2012 - 05:14 .

[Mazebook]

Greylycantrope wrote...

maaaze wrote...

like i said..."or did not like the direction it was going"...which makes the ending not to your liking...but not badly written...

The flip side of this is some didn't like the direction it was going because it was bad writing. That's my grip with it anyway. The themes of synthetics/organic conflict and sacrafice were themes in the other two games but they weren't the main themes. Even for protions of ME3 they weren't always prevalent, to try and make them such because the writer really wanted to push a bittersweet ending on the audience as the only possibility outcome is bad writing. It disregards the audiences participation up to that point, and abandons every other theme explored in the series.

So you would like the Catalyst in concept if it were better written or written in a way that you liked or established earlier on in the series ?

I thought the bittersweet came quite natural...it is established throughout the game that you can´t save them all and sacrifices have to be made.

[Kamfrenchie]

maaaze wrote...

Arken wrote...

maaaze wrote...
Raising Questions and adding Points to it is the main porpuse of any kind narrative structure.

I think I understand where you're getting confused.

You're confusing Mass Effect's ending with an ending that gives the audience a question rather than an answer.

This actually isn't as common as you're making it sound since most authors love to preach to their readers, and try to have a very clear message in their story.

Although other authors prefer to end the story with a question. The question isn't a question of the events of the story, but a question of what these events mean to the reader. When the audience is asked to find their own meaning it doesn't mean the audience is asked to make up their own ending.

It means the audience is meant to ask themselves what this means to them on a personal level. 

This isn't literally leaving the audience without an answer. All of the important aspects of the plot should be fully resolved upon the completion of the story unless they in some way where meant to be left unresolved to make the audience ask themselves a question.

An example of this is a story that ends with a man being held at gunpoint. The entire story was about the man who is about to be shot. The story made the reader learn more about them, and care about their struggle. Though the story also focused on the man's guilt and the things he had done in the past. Throughout the story, the reader is expecting for the conclusion to be when the man finally makes peace with his past.

The story ends with the man being at the mercy of someone whose life he destroyed beyond repair. The story ends without letting the reader know whether or not the man lived or died. Instead it ends by asking the reader a question, "Did he deserve to be forgiven?"

All other plot points are completed, and resolved. The falling action tells of how everyone else who the man made peace with is now better off, or how their lives have gotten worse. But the reader can't be told whether he lived or not, because that ultimately depends on whether or not the reader believes he truly deserved to live.

This doesn't exactly mean that the man's death would be a bad thing. In a situation like this, death could be seen as the ultimate act of retribution. In death, the man is finally free of the horrible things he had done. If he dies, he is finally free from his past sins.

Catharsis is still achieved whether the man lives or dies. It's ultimately a question of what the reader believes about redemption.

Inception, Old Boy, the Prestige, and many others all had endings like this.

The audience is ultimately left with a question of what they think is the best resolution to the story, and is then expected to dwell on what this means for them on a personal level.



Mass Effect 3 didn't do this. At all. You can't even pretend that it did. It doesn't leave the player with anything. It doesn't even reflect on the main message of the entire series that was paramount in Mass Effect 2.

"Our greatest strength is what makes us different."

This is even brought up again in Mass Effect 3 when Javik explicitly states that the reason the protheans fells is because they had focused too much on assimilation rather than letting different cultures breed.

Firts of all...great reply...

I guess we differ because I very much think that Mass Effect did exactly that...

The audience is ultimately left with a question of what they think is the best resolution to the story, and is then expected to dwell on what this means for them on a personal level.

You are given the means to end the reaper thread in 3 different ways...each of these ways have huge implacations not only for the rest of the galaxy but also how you view yourself.

What is worth sacrificing over the thread of the reapers?

In destroy you have to admit to yourself that the Synthetics have to be sacrificed to ensure the destruction of the reapers....ergo synthetics are not as much worth as the thread of the reapers / as giving up your humanity and continue with absolut power (control)  and as eradicating the different and unique traits of synthetics and organics (synthesis)... 

The consequences of your actions can hunt you...through every game...you can dwell on thinking if you made the right decision for yourself...what does it say about you...

The nature of the ending are tough and thoughtprovoking...

the interesting thing about the ending is what it says about you and your shepard.

the big problem if that if you consider the synthesis option, the price of destroy doesn't make any sense. You can rewrite the entire galaxy on the molecular level with a sockwave, without killing or badly harming them, but you can't just target the reapers instead of all synthetics ? Please. It's like an athlete able to lift 20kg is somehow unable to lift 10.

Also, control has been  the wrong way since the beginning of ME3, Vendetta even says it. Th moment the illusive man tell you about his plan o control th reaper everyone knows it's wrong, stupid and is gonna fail.

And o course, th absurdity of synthesis, which th catalyst says isn't forced while it is, as no one but shepard get to choose whther or not he wants synthesis, and everyon is threatened with a horrible death.

A though choice isn't neccessarily deep, especially when it is forced.