6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Ithurael]

robertthebard wrote...

Why do you allow that to happen?  Because, quite frankly, my problem can be seen from the platform.  Reapers are tearing my fleets apart.  SC's ramblings are secondary to my goal.  I can't skip the conversation, I'd love to, when I allow myself to get over the contrivance of surviving a cruiser killer laser blast, to shoot the tube, but I don't have any problem with shooting the tube, no matter what my EMS is, because I don't lose sight of the goal, stopping the Reapers.  I don't suddenly go all ADHD with it now that I'm at the end, I play along with SC's "famous last words" and then shoot the tube.  Problem solved.  "but you'll kill the geth, and edi!!!  You're guilty of genocide, and should be tried for war crimes!!!"  Likely so, but do you honestly believe that, if Shepard survives, a jury of their peers is going to convict them?  Did Shepard even broker peace between the Geth and Quarians, and if not, did Shepard choose to save the Geth instead?  If no to either these, then EDI dies, and frankly, I find it amusing that EDI gets almost as much hate as the endings, until Destroy comes up, then it's "You're a murderer!!!1111!!!eleven"...  All to justify saying that all choices are bad.  Frankly, allowing yourself to get to the choices is bad, see my sig.  I find complaining about them to be humorous at best.

So let me get this straight, because I don't want to misunderstand you:  It is far better to allow everyone to die, than to sacrifice some to save them all?  I don't need to metagame to come to this conclusion.  The EC was in before I bought ME 3, let alone before I played it, and when I went to Earth, the galaxy map is, as somebody else called it, Reaperville.  How am I supposed to believe that, when I pull my entire force to Earth to deploy the Crucible, if they get decimated, which they are, take a look outside the platform, I'm going to have any chance to win w/out it?  If this force is decimated, all that's left for the Reapers are pockets of resistance, and harvesting until they complete the cycle.  If, as I believe you to mean, it's far better to commit genocide on a galactic scale, instead of sacrificing a few, comparatively, just to preserve your principles, how are you not worse than the Reapers?  Because quite frankly, despite all the kool-aid I'd have to drink to believe otherwise, you are doing exactly what the Reapers want; allowing them to complete the harvest and go back to dark space to await the next cycle.  The logic of "I'm not going to do what the Reapers want, so I'm going to let them finish what they started" doesn't sit well with me.  Garrus has the right of it:  Turians are taught from birth that if even one person is left standing at the end of a war, it's worth fighting.  Only Humans believe that you can save them all.  The funny?  Refusal saves none of them, and so goes against everything you've done since ME 1.

The point of my post was the the options given to you are presented by starkid and tie into his problem which takes center stage over yours. You can argue, headcanon, and reason all you want that you have in your mind to still kill the reapers, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter what that option still fits with starkids new solution of organics being destroyed by synthetics.

How does this fit with his logic?
synthetics will destroy all organics
geth are synthetic
geth will destroy all organics
Goal: Preserve organic life as long as possible
killing geth will keep them from killing all organics.

You can say that "the geth don't want to fight" etc and all that but the SC doesn't care. That is his view whether you like it or not. It is kind of beautiful in a warped sort of way.

I think your going a bit too much into headcanon mode personally so I cannot address everything. Do I personally see the death of geth and edi as OK - oh yeah. It sucks but if the point of this game was to end the cycle and give the galaxy a big reboot to allow the future races to make their own destiny - and to do that we need to destroy the synth - then it sucks but ok.

My problem is that the options do not seem to come from shepard's journey but rather the starkid. If starkid stated in destroy that all reapers and reaper tech would be destroyed it would make a bit more sense that the geth have to die along with edi - as they used reaper tech to acheive their level of life. However, starkid states that all synthetics will be destroyed - as he believes that no matter what synthetics will kill all organic life.

Bottom line: you can choose whatever you want, but the choices do not originate from your story - they originate from the catalysts story. and no matter what you do, you will never get an option or choice that comes from your story unless you choose refuse. (though renegade sheps may enjoy control - idk)

but yeah - I always shoot the tube:wizard:

[Justin2k]

Did you play Leviathan? They can't really undo anything now. The best thing they could have done was instead of the Extended cut, delete the whole ending from the game and make a conventional ending with the crucible destroying the reapers (a basic feel-good ending, but one way to salvage it given what was already in the game)

For whatever reason they decided not to do that. With Leviathan they further go on about synthetics organics yadda yadda and create even more plotholes.

Bioware aren't changing anything. The more threads like this exist, the more they'll charge for their next DLC that gives a little tiny bit more explanation as to why the ending sucked.

[Xellith]

They can charge whatever they want for more "explanation dlc". Ill just continue to watch youtube videos and laugh at the stupidity of the situation.

[Photonkun]

The devs do stop by every now and again.

twitter.com/GambleMike/status/241025204359413760

And they do know that people are still angry

twitter.com/EricKaluger/status/241026590069358592

LOL Mr. Gamble can't still face the uproar of the fans after 5 months of the game released.

[dreman9999]

Ithurael wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Why do you allow that to happen?  Because, quite frankly, my problem can be seen from the platform.  Reapers are tearing my fleets apart.  SC's ramblings are secondary to my goal.  I can't skip the conversation, I'd love to, when I allow myself to get over the contrivance of surviving a cruiser killer laser blast, to shoot the tube, but I don't have any problem with shooting the tube, no matter what my EMS is, because I don't lose sight of the goal, stopping the Reapers.  I don't suddenly go all ADHD with it now that I'm at the end, I play along with SC's "famous last words" and then shoot the tube.  Problem solved.  "but you'll kill the geth, and edi!!!  You're guilty of genocide, and should be tried for war crimes!!!"  Likely so, but do you honestly believe that, if Shepard survives, a jury of their peers is going to convict them?  Did Shepard even broker peace between the Geth and Quarians, and if not, did Shepard choose to save the Geth instead?  If no to either these, then EDI dies, and frankly, I find it amusing that EDI gets almost as much hate as the endings, until Destroy comes up, then it's "You're a murderer!!!1111!!!eleven"...  All to justify saying that all choices are bad.  Frankly, allowing yourself to get to the choices is bad, see my sig.  I find complaining about them to be humorous at best.

So let me get this straight, because I don't want to misunderstand you:  It is far better to allow everyone to die, than to sacrifice some to save them all?  I don't need to metagame to come to this conclusion.  The EC was in before I bought ME 3, let alone before I played it, and when I went to Earth, the galaxy map is, as somebody else called it, Reaperville.  How am I supposed to believe that, when I pull my entire force to Earth to deploy the Crucible, if they get decimated, which they are, take a look outside the platform, I'm going to have any chance to win w/out it?  If this force is decimated, all that's left for the Reapers are pockets of resistance, and harvesting until they complete the cycle.  If, as I believe you to mean, it's far better to commit genocide on a galactic scale, instead of sacrificing a few, comparatively, just to preserve your principles, how are you not worse than the Reapers?  Because quite frankly, despite all the kool-aid I'd have to drink to believe otherwise, you are doing exactly what the Reapers want; allowing them to complete the harvest and go back to dark space to await the next cycle.  The logic of "I'm not going to do what the Reapers want, so I'm going to let them finish what they started" doesn't sit well with me.  Garrus has the right of it:  Turians are taught from birth that if even one person is left standing at the end of a war, it's worth fighting.  Only Humans believe that you can save them all.  The funny?  Refusal saves none of them, and so goes against everything you've done since ME 1.

The point of my post was the the options given to you are presented by starkid and tie into his problem which takes center stage over yours. You can argue, headcanon, and reason all you want that you have in your mind to still kill the reapers, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter what that option still fits with starkids new solution of organics being destroyed by synthetics.

How does this fit with his logic?
synthetics will destroy all organics
geth are synthetic
geth will destroy all organics
Goal: Preserve organic life as long as possible
killing geth will keep them from killing all organics.

You can say that "the geth don't want to fight" etc and all that but the SC doesn't care. That is his view whether you like it or not. It is kind of beautiful in a warped sort of way.

I think your going a bit too much into headcanon mode personally so I cannot address everything. Do I personally see the death of geth and edi as OK - oh yeah. It sucks but if the point of this game was to end the cycle and give the galaxy a big reboot to allow the future races to make their own destiny - and to do that we need to destroy the synth - then it sucks but ok.

My problem is that the options do not seem to come from shepard's journey but rather the starkid. If starkid stated in destroy that all reapers and reaper tech would be destroyed it would make a bit more sense that the geth have to die along with edi - as they used reaper tech to acheive their level of life. However, starkid states that all synthetics will be destroyed - as he believes that no matter what synthetics will kill all organic life.

Bottom line: you can choose whatever you want, but the choices do not originate from your story - they originate from the catalysts story. and no matter what you do, you will never get an option or choice that comes from your story unless you choose refuse. (though renegade sheps may enjoy control - idk)

but yeah - I always shoot the tube:wizard:

1. The thing you missing is that the catalyst want to preserve all forms of life...Both organic and synthetic. KILLING OFF THE SYNTHETIC IS NOT AN OPTION FOR IT.

2. It sees that organics arethe cause of synthestics rebeling agenst them...So it's plan is to change organics.

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 août 2012 - 03:18 .

[dreman9999]

alleyd wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

3DandBeyond, you seek to deprive BioWare's freedom of expression by forcing them to do "the right thing", just like those radical Iranian muftis forced Salman Rushdie to end what was dubbed "blasphemous".

Congratulations  saracen16 for writing one of the most  ridiculous posts on this forum. I've read the O/P and nowhere has the author posted anything like the call for a Fatwa. There was no forcing in any of the author's posts, the O/P was an impassioned plea to engage in some dialogue with the producers or developers and a valid statement of someone's personal plea for Clarity and Closure

But he is right. The op wants bw to make dlc to have the ending go to a differnt direction bw doesnot want it to go.

[3DandBeyond]

saracen16 wrote...

3DandBeyond, you seek to deprive BioWare's freedom of expression by forcing them to do "the right thing", just like those radical Iranian muftis forced Salman Rushdie to end what was dubbed "blasphemous".

LOL.  Ok this has to be a joke.  If you ask someone to please do something is that forcing them to do it and is that the same thing as wanting to kill them if they don't?

BW can explore their freedom of expression all they want.  If they are in business to make money and I assume they are, then it just might be that things I and others have suggested will help them do that.  If their "art" was untouchable then there'd be no EC and no need for EC.  The reason why there was the EC was because they calculated somehow that the cost of doing it was outweighed by the risk and cost of doing it.  I'm not asking them to risk anything here.  I've asked for a few things that they are always free to ignore.  As a businessperson and someone who's taken plenty of management courses, I also am trying to point out where they've done certain things to their own detriment.

People here are telling them exactly, specifically what it would take for them to have the desire to give them their money.  BW can ignore that or BW can take another look and see if there are benefits to doing this  I asked them to look again and think about what people are saying even when they aren't expressing things here.  I asked them to go back and look at youtube again, for the things people shared about ME prior to the ME3 ending debacle.  I asked them to view those videos that focused on the character side of the story (ME was character driven) and then to see if indeed they maintained that focus till the end.  And I asked them to look again at the character I've no doubt they have loved, Shepard, and I want them to see if they maintained that character till the end.  I asked them to do things.

I also stated some of my thoughts and asked them to think about them.  And I gave them some suggestions that I think could make them money and encourage them to make more DLC that people would buy.  And I never asked them to change a thing-I asked them to add to what they have.  I haven't forced them to do anything, but thank you for thinking I have that kind of power.  I'm pretty sure I don't.

[Vigilant111]

dreman9999 wrote...

But he is right. The op wants bw to make dlc to have the ending go to a differnt direction bw doesnot want it to go.

Its just a compromise thing, other people may keep their original endings if they wish, hell, they could even make an IT DLC, talk about product diffrentiation and diversification...

Modifié par Vigilant111, 31 août 2012 - 03:25 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

3DandBeyond, you seek to deprive BioWare's freedom of expression by forcing them to do "the right thing", just like those radical Iranian muftis forced Salman Rushdie to end what was dubbed "blasphemous".

LOL.  Ok this has to be a joke.  If you ask someone to please do something is that forcing them to do it and is that the same thing as wanting to kill them if they don't?

BW can explore their freedom of expression all they want.  If they are in business to make money and I assume they are, then it just might be that things I and others have suggested will help them do that.  If their "art" was untouchable then there'd be no EC and no need for EC.  The reason why there was the EC was because they calculated somehow that the cost of doing it was outweighed by the risk and cost of doing it.  I'm not asking them to risk anything here.  I've asked for a few things that they are always free to ignore.  As a businessperson and someone who's taken plenty of management courses, I also am trying to point out where they've done certain things to their own detriment.

People here are telling them exactly, specifically what it would take for them to have the desire to give them their money.  BW can ignore that or BW can take another look and see if there are benefits to doing this  I asked them to look again and think about what people are saying even when they aren't expressing things here.  I asked them to go back and look at youtube again, for the things people shared about ME prior to the ME3 ending debacle.  I asked them to view those videos that focused on the character side of the story (ME was character driven) and then to see if indeed they maintained that focus till the end.  And I asked them to look again at the character I've no doubt they have loved, Shepard, and I want them to see if they maintained that character till the end.  I asked them to do things.

I also stated some of my thoughts and asked them to think about them.  And I gave them some suggestions that I think could make them money and encourage them to make more DLC that people would buy.  And I never asked them to change a thing-I asked them to add to what they have.  I haven't forced them to do anything, but thank you for thinking I have that kind of power.  I'm pretty sure I don't.

Adding a way out to end of the 3 choices to the game with out comprimise to Shepards life and morality is changing what they want to do. That is  the direction they want the ending to go. You seeing what you want as an add on. This would be a change. If there is was way to stop the reaper with out Shepard dieing or comprimising his morality then it makes the other 3 choices pointless and the direction of the stroy BW changes.

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 août 2012 - 03:31 .

[3DandBeyond]

Justin2k wrote...

Did you play Leviathan? They can't really undo anything now. The best thing they could have done was instead of the Extended cut, delete the whole ending from the game and make a conventional ending with the crucible destroying the reapers (a basic feel-good ending, but one way to salvage it given what was already in the game)

For whatever reason they decided not to do that. With Leviathan they further go on about synthetics organics yadda yadda and create even more plotholes.

Bioware aren't changing anything. The more threads like this exist, the more they'll charge for their next DLC that gives a little tiny bit more explanation as to why the ending sucked.

I don't think they base the price of DLC on what people request here.  And what I've suggested wouldn't require them to change too much at all.  The same endings would be intact, but there'd be minor extra content that you wouldn't be forced to even get.

They actually still need to fix things Leviathan makes questionable, but that's for them and others to think about elsewhere.

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But he is right. The op wants bw to make dlc to have the ending go to a differnt direction bw doesnot want it to go.

Its just a compromise thing, other people may keep their original endings if they wish, hell, they could even make an IT DLC, talk about product diffrentiation...

The issue here is what direction the creators wants the story to go. Adding this changes it. If there is a way to get out of the hard choice with out lose of life or compromise of morality, then the very thing bw is trying to do with the ending is pointless. The very thing bw is doing in the end is have the player go through moral conflict. If a get out of jail free choice comes up, the point oftrying to place the player in moral conflict is lost. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 août 2012 - 03:35 .

[3DandBeyond]

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But he is right. The op wants bw to make dlc to have the ending go to a differnt direction bw doesnot want it to go.

Its just a compromise thing, other people may keep their original endings if they wish, hell, they could even make an IT DLC, talk about product diffrentiation and diversification...

Yes, exactly.  I don't necessary follow or wholeheartedly agree with IT, but considering how many people that do, why not make DLC for it?  I wouldn't be forced to get it, but I might because if there was an ending I like enough, I'd probably buy all DLC, even weapons, just for fun.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But he is right. The op wants bw to make dlc to have the ending go to a differnt direction bw doesnot want it to go.

Its just a compromise thing, other people may keep their original endings if they wish, hell, they could even make an IT DLC, talk about product diffrentiation and diversification...

Yes, exactly.  I don't necessary follow or wholeheartedly agree with IT, but considering how many people that do, why not make DLC for it?  I wouldn't be forced to get it, but I might because if there was an ending I like enough, I'd probably buy all DLC, even weapons, just for fun.

The issue here is what direction the creators wants the story to go. Adding this changes it. If there is a way to get out of the hard choice with out lose of life or compromise of morality, then the very thing bw is trying to do with the ending is pointless. The very thing bw is doing in the end is have the player go through moral conflict. If a get out of jail free choice comes up, the point oftrying to place the player in moral conflict is lost. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 août 2012 - 03:34 .

[dreman9999]

alleyd wrote...

@dreman9999. Thank you for the opinion. So the O/P has written something that is a blatant death threat or call to arms to execute the authors and developers of the game? I didn't get that message anywhere and that is why the comparison was ridiculous IMO.

Also you seem very clued up with B/W's plans for the franchise, please enlighten us would you?

That not what I'm saying...
 The issue here is what direction the creators wants the story to go. Adding this changes it. If there is a way to get out of the hard choice with out lose of life or compromise of morality, then the very thing bw is trying to do with the ending is pointless. The very thing bw is doing in the end is have the player go through moral conflict. If a get out of jail free choice comes up, the point of trying to place the player in moral conflict is lost. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 août 2012 - 03:35 .

[Conniving_Eagle]

As much as I echo your sentiment, Dee, it pains me to say that it is very unlikely that Bioware will change the endings because it will be detrimental to their egos artistic integrity.

[Vigilant111]

dreman9999 wrote...

Listen, the issue here is what direction the crester wants the story to go. Adding this changes it. If there is a way to get out of the hard choice with out lose of life or compromise of morality, then the very thing bw is trying to do with the ending is pointless. The very thing bw is doing in the end is have the player go through moral conflict. If a get out of jail free choice comes up, the point of puting moral conflict of the player is lost.

I hear you, loud and clear

Get of jail free? you mean something like synthesis? yeah, apart from Shepard "dying", what else is it?

Look, all I am saying is, make the ending about the reapers, not random synthetics

[Kel Riever]

@Conniving_EAgle: It really is about the ego, and sadly, it is probably a flawed perception that it will cost too much money to be worthwhile. The second is so ludicrious it defies logic, yet is the entrenched viewpoint for a lot of corporate paper pushers. Namely because its like saying, "If we don't try our best to accomodate all our fans, then that will cost us money. And look, we tried before and failed."

Right, so if your past failures dictated your inability to turn something around, we could argue that making Mass Effect 3 in the first place was a mistake. Because, you know ME2 didn't outsell Halo: Reach (or whatever). And you know, we don't know how to make our fanbase happy and sell stuff, because you know, we actually did that in the past.

These guys, apparently, think that Alan Moore has all the right cards when it comes to 'Artistic Integrity.' Which is funny for two reasons. 1 ) Alan Moore is hardly a success from a financial standpoint compared to what he could be, and 2 ) At least Alan Moore is a f*cking good writer.

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Listen, the issue here is what direction the crester wants the story to go. Adding this changes it. If there is a way to get out of the hard choice with out lose of life or compromise of morality, then the very thing bw is trying to do with the ending is pointless. The very thing bw is doing in the end is have the player go through moral conflict. If a get out of jail free choice comes up, the point of puting moral conflict of the player is lost.

I hear you, loud and clear

Get of jail free? you mean something like synthesis? yeah, apart from Shepard "dying", what else is it?

Look, all I am saying is, make the ending about the reapers, not random synthetics

Synthesis imposes you will on everyone. It conflict with others free will. Italso leave the star childin charge.
Added, reapers are synthetics.

[Ithurael]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. The thing you missing is that the catalyst want to preserve all forms of life...Both organic and synthetic. KILLING OFF THE SYNTHETIC IS NOT AN OPTION FOR IT.

2. It sees that organics arethe cause of synthestics rebeling agenst them...So it's plan is to change organics.

Point 1:
Technically killing off synthetic life IS an option for it otherwise we wouldn't have destroy

The preservation of organic and synthetic life is a RESULT/SOLUTION of the conflict it proposes: "The created will always destroy their creators"

It wants to preserve life, but synthetics will destroy life via this conflict it is trying to solve. Keep life alive as long as you can and kill the synthetics so they don't kill off the organics.

Point 2:

To the point of changing organice- synthesis - which is lame.

To the point that organics are the cause of synthetics rebelling - incorrect.  Starkid states "Organics create synthetics to improve their own exsitstance. But those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition be allowed to surpass their creators. The result is conflict, destruction, chaos"

These "limits" are open to interpretation but what isn't open is that it is the syntetics trying to exceed the limits - surpassing their creators- and the resulting chaos.

And my point was missed by you.

I stated that the options come from the starkid's view and his journey - not shepard.

[3DandBeyond]

Kel Riever wrote...

@Conniving_EAgle: It really is about the ego, and sadly, it is probably a flawed perception that it will cost too much money to be worthwhile. The second is so ludicrious it defies logic, yet is the entrenched viewpoint for a lot of corporate paper pushers. Namely because its like saying, "If we don't try our best to accomodate all our fans, then that will cost us money. And look, we tried before and failed."

Right, so if your past failures dictated your inability to turn something around, we could argue that making Mass Effect 3 in the first place was a mistake. Because, you know ME2 didn't outsell Halo: Reach (or whatever). And you know, we don't know how to make our fanbase happy and sell stuff, because you know, we actually did that in the past.

These guys, apparently, think that Alan Moore has all the right cards when it comes to 'Artistic Integrity.' Which is funny for two reasons. 1 ) Alan Moore is hardly a success from a financial standpoint compared to what he could be, and 2 ) At least Alan Moore is a f*cking good writer.

And that's the point.  I'm merely asking them to take another unvarnished look at the whole thing and to try to detach themselves from all the rhetoric (theirs and ours).  It's a huge thing to try to do, but even that would do much to redeem them in light of how they are perceived by many.  Yes, perceptions can be wrong, but they exist so if you want your business to succeed you do what it takes to squash the misconceptions about you.  I am extending a hand of friendship and an olive branch.  I am asking them to meet me and anyone that thinks the same, halfway.  I'm asking them to move forward from this point:  we have what we have and many are unhappy with it.  Bioware, can you please take another look at all of this and remember that it is only because of the great product you made that a lot of feelings have run hot and cold.  That's what I'm asking and I'm doing this as one human being to other human beings.

[The RPGenius]

All the thoughtful, well-written pleas we've made for months have gone almost completely unheeded by Bioware, so don't get your hopes up--they've said and shown beyond any doubt that they do not care about their customers or their product. But for whatever it's worth, I agree with this, and add my voice to the plea.

[dreman9999]

Ithurael wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. The thing you missing is that the catalyst want to preserve all forms of life...Both organic and synthetic. KILLING OFF THE SYNTHETIC IS NOT AN OPTION FOR IT.

2. It sees that organics arethe cause of synthestics rebeling agenst them...So it's plan is to change organics.

Point 1:
Technically killing off synthetic life IS an option for it otherwise we wouldn't have destroy

The preservation of organic and synthetic life is a RESULT/SOLUTION of the conflict it proposes: "The created will always destroy their creators"

It wants to preserve life, but synthetics will destroy life via this conflict it is trying to solve. Keep life alive as long as you can and kill the synthetics so they don't kill off the organics.

Point 2:

To the point of changing organice- synthesis - which is lame.

To the point that organics are the cause of synthetics rebelling - incorrect.  Starkid states "Organics create synthetics to improve their own exsitstance. But those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition be allowed to surpass their creators. The result is conflict, destruction, chaos"

These "limits" are open to interpretation but what isn't open is that it is the syntetics trying to exceed the limits - surpassing their creators- and the resulting chaos.

And my point was missed by you.

I stated that the options come from the starkid's view and his journey - not shepard.

1.No, the catalyst did not design or control the destroy choice. It has no power over it. It just offers it.
It itself can't kill off synthetics. That's why it's asking you to choose.

2.Did you play leviathen or even pay attention to rennoch? Organics do cause synthetics to rebel. Sure we make them to help us, but we see them as tools and forcethem to be tools. This forces the aynthestic to think in absolute and go to the extremes to do orders or blindly fallow there programing to the point it causesthe death of their makes.
Look at every conflict with syntheitcs in ME as series. You'll find that every conflict is caused by organics.

[luchozuca]

Excellent OP, i wish Bioware really cared for the community as they say they do. Even as simple as getting to one of these posts and telling that they won't do anything about it would be enough, it will show that they care, nothing of that appears on these forums.