6432 réponses à ce sujet

[CitizenThom]

dreman9999 wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Maybe somebody already pointed this out, maybe not, but I don't feel like reading 42 pages to find out so here it goes.

TC points out that he has several family members that fought in WW2, and his main complaint about the ending of the game is the methods that you must use to end the war that are very undesirable. Have you forgotten what it took to end WW2? The Americans and Russians carpet bombed the crap out of most of germany, decimating the country and then split it in two to be run by puppet governments. Japan had 2 nuclear bombs dropped on major population centers, killing many and causing radiation poisoning and cancer to generations.

War sucks. To end wars, particularly very bad wars, you often have to make terrible decisions, and there is almost never a way to totally prevent collateral damage. You just have to make what you believe to be the best available decisions that will be the best for the most people.

I feel that the ending of Mass Effect 3 shows the reality of war in the best way it can. I'm sorry that the decisions it presented you were so hard for you TC, but maybe now you will be able to sympathize a little bit more with the people who actually have to make those types of decisions in real life.

Best statement in the topic.

If you know your history, you also know that:
 
France didn't have to be firebombed in order to fire bomb Germany. China didn't have to have a nuclear bomb dropped on them in order to nuclear bomb Japan. (Destroy)

America and England didn't have to become (National Socialist)s in order to pacify Germany and Japan. (Control)

America and England didn't have to force all the world's population to become (National Socialist)s in order to pacify Germany and Japan. (Synthesis)

The only ending that is at all reflective of history is Refuse... and we saw where that got Neville Chamberlain.

(edit: Apparently the shorthand for National Socialist is a filtered naughty naughty, so I used the long hand version)

Modifié par CitizenThom, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:04 .

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

if you don't find the choices conflicting then moral conflict isn't there. I don't understand your logic in the bolded text above

[Benchpress610]

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Good point. I didn’t need to think twice to choose destroy. I didn’t have any qualms about exterminating the geth even though I got them to make peace with the quarians. I’d been fighting the dammed things since the first game. Hell, I’m still fighting them in MP. Not much love for EDI either. It was a small price to pay to destroy the REAL threat; the reapers. So, no moral conflict here.  

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

if you don't find the choices conflicting then moral conflict isn't there. I don't understand your logic in the bolded text above

It means if you didn't, others did.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

your not listening, it cannot cause moral conflict in general because not everyone plays the same, I did have moral conflict in the choices in ME1 and ME2 except Virmire and the Collector Base, but I had none in ME3. Your trying to use it as a strong base when its not in some RPG type games because the players roleplay their Shepard, Mass Effect is/was an aRPG key letters RPG and it only works when the character is Vanilla.

this exchange is over

[dreman9999]

Benchpress610 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Good point. I didn’t need to think twice to choose destroy. I didn’t have any qualms about exterminating the geth even though I got them to make peace with the quarians. I’d been fighting the dammed things since the first game. Hell, I’m still fighting them in MP. Not much love for EDI either. It was a small price to pay to destroy the REAL threat; the reapers. So, no moral conflict here.  

You point is exactly my point.

The catalyst issues is not your issues, You don't have to belevie him at all or take it at heart in you final choice. You can just ignore his statement and pick what ever you want.
 In the case of moral conflict, it's still based on the morality of the preson being that it is subjective. It up to the person how much conflict they go throguth the choices in hand. Just because you did go through such conflict does not mean other did

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:12 .

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

your not listening, it cannot cause moral conflict in general because not everyone plays the same, I did have moral conflict in the choices in ME1 and ME2 except Virmire and the Collector Base, but I had none in ME3. Your trying to use it as a strong base when its not in some RPG type games because the players roleplay their Shepard, Mass Effect is/was an aRPG key letters RPG and it only works when the character is Vanilla.

this exchange is over

And as I said before just because you did not go thoguh it doesnot mean others did not.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

if you don't find the choices conflicting then moral conflict isn't there. I don't understand your logic in the bolded text above

It means if you didn't, others did.

others may have had moral conflict, yes

but you are trying to make it seem like everybody has moral conflict. Not everybody plays the game the same, in one playthrough if I did everything bad to the geth so choosing to destroy them along with the reapers did not cause any moral conflict. then again if you loved the geth but had to destroy them there is conflict. It all depends on the player.

So let me ask you this, if a player hates the geth and all synthetics and they choose to destroy them with the reapers and they believe the breath scene means shepard lives, there is no moral conflict which means they had a "happy ending". So do you believe that this is wrong because you previously said there shouldn't be a happy ending in ME3? Just wondering.

Modifié par KENNY4753, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:16 .

[Moirai]

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...



Bioware..?

Control and destory is not based on the catalyst logic nor control by him. He just telling you what the crucible does.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not directly pertinent to the point I was making. Which was, Bioware effectively yanking the rug out from under the player at the last moment in the worst possible way, based on flaky evidence which the game had already shown was not the case. That's not good story-telling. That's just cheap story-telling...in my personal opinion.

The catalyst issues have nothing to do with your choice. It's just telling you how it started. It's beleif have no real ground on your choice to control it or destroy it. If you don't belieive it, destory it.

But on it's points, their 2 ancient alien being that did say the conflicts happend...Javik and the Leviathens.

Wrong. The Catalyst's 'issues', as you call them, have everything to do with the fact that the choices are even presented as options in the first place. The choices are only contextually valid themselves provided that the premise behind the 'harvest' is fundamatally valid and intact.  It can be shown otherwise, using information clearly available in the game.

On that basis, an option to explain the current invalidation of that core premise to the Catalyst is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and situation.

Yes, it can be ignored. If you don't beleive his issues are a real problem, you pick destory. It 's as simple as that.
The catalyst issue are just the cause. It does not have to be related toyou issuse with the conflict with the reapers.

Also, you clear don't understand that the catalyst is a shackled AI doing what it's programed to do.



Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Leviathan: ]perserve life at any cost.[/color]

That basicly means  they made a shackled  AI to solve a problem with no limit ever given to how. 
It's shackled. 
The catalyst is  shackled. 

The Catalyst has a mandate, and that is to preserve life at any cost, and that is the only stated restriction, or 'shackling', placed on the Catalyst. How it achieves that is left entirely up to it itself. Hence why it could arrive at the conclusion it did, and all but wipe out its creators. Clear evidence that it wasn't restricted or 'shackled' within the bounds of that very openly defined mandate.

If you have a list of specific operational parameters for that mandate that I've somehow missed, which clearly show how the Catalyst was 'shackled' within the confines of the stated open mandate, then please feel free to post them.

The point is that, given that its only stated purpose is to preserve life at any cost, something it has clearly misinterpreted, that does not, and should not, exclude the possibility of 'discussing' that misinterpretation with the Catalyst, within the confines of its madate, and helping it see that its perceived methodology is intrinsically flawed and that the requirements for validating its core programming are not in evidence.

The only reason for not letting you do so is that Bioware didn't want you to, and wanted to enforce the choices at the end. That's staggeringly obvious. Everyone gets that. It's pretty simple stuff.

The point I'm personally making is the fact that it is enforced and basically ignores the very opportunities of choice that the game itself goes to so much trouble to present to you as possibilities.

[Vigilant111]

@Dreman and AlanC9, I guess I am just picky because unfortunately none of the endings was acceptable to me, it is great that you guys can seek solace in such choices but other people don't

You guys talk like as if the trilogy was prepping you up for the final decision in ME3, its like the whole run was about making you more confident in doing awful things...just saying this is my impression from you, that you are the stoic hero that was capable to rationalise the end justifies the means

The ME3 endings were largely based on cold hard rationalisations, morals are way too complex to be factored in into such decisions, I simply chose one so I could finish the game, if you think that this is the ending of MY ME story, then you are mistaken, this is BW's story

It is cool that you find the endings acceptable thematically, or morally, or logically, whatever it is, but many of us don't

Modifié par Vigilant111, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:16 .

[dreman9999]

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...



Bioware..?

Control and destory is not based on the catalyst logic nor control by him. He just telling you what the crucible does.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not directly pertinent to the point I was making. Which was, Bioware effectively yanking the rug out from under the player at the last moment in the worst possible way, based on flaky evidence which the game had already shown was not the case. That's not good story-telling. That's just cheap story-telling...in my personal opinion.

The catalyst issues have nothing to do with your choice. It's just telling you how it started. It's beleif have no real ground on your choice to control it or destroy it. If you don't belieive it, destory it.

But on it's points, their 2 ancient alien being that did say the conflicts happend...Javik and the Leviathens.

Wrong. The Catalyst's 'issues', as you call them, have everything to do with the fact that the choices are even presented as options in the first place. The choices are only contextually valid themselves provided that the premise behind the 'harvest' is fundamatally valid and intact.  It can be shown otherwise, using information clearly available in the game.

On that basis, an option to explain the current invalidation of that core premise to the Catalyst is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and situation.

Yes, it can be ignored. If you don't beleive his issues are a real problem, you pick destory. It 's as simple as that.
The catalyst issue are just the cause. It does not have to be related toyou issuse with the conflict with the reapers.

Also, you clear don't understand that the catalyst is a shackled AI doing what it's programed to do.



Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Leviathan: ]perserve life at any cost.[/color]

That basicly means  they made a shackled  AI to solve a problem with no limit ever given to how. 
It's shackled. 
The catalyst is  shackled. 

The Catalyst has a mandate, and that is to preserve life at any cost, and that is the only stated restriction, or 'shackling', placed on the Catalyst. How it achieves that is left entirely up to it itself. Hence why it could arrive at the conclusion it did, and all but wipe out its creators. Clear evidence that it wasn't restricted or 'shackled' within the bounds of that very openly defined mandate.

If you have a list of specific operational parameters for that mandate that I've somehow missed, which clearly show how the Catalyst was 'shackled' within the confines of the stated open mandate, then please feel free to post them.

The point is that, given that its only stated purpose is to preserve life at any cost, something it has clearly misinterpreted, that does not, and should not, exclude the possibility of 'discussing' that misinterpretation with the Catalyst, within the confines of its madate, and helping it see that its perceived methodology is intrinsically flawed and that the requirements for validating its core programming are not in evidence.

The only reason for not letting you do so is that Bioware didn't want you to, and wanted to enforce the choices at the end. That's staggeringly obvious. Everyone gets that. It's pretty simple stuff.

The point I'm personally making is the fact that it is enforced and basically ignores the very opportunities of choice that the game itself goes to so much trouble to present to you as possibilities.

The shackle is that is has to solve the problem given.  A machine does what it's programed to do, an AI does what it's programed to do as it see fit. Even nowit's still doing what it's creators ask it to do.
The shackles is solving the problem.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:32 .

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

your not listening, it cannot cause moral conflict in general because not everyone plays the same, I did have moral conflict in the choices in ME1 and ME2 except Virmire and the Collector Base, but I had none in ME3. Your trying to use it as a strong base when its not in some RPG type games because the players roleplay their Shepard, Mass Effect is/was an aRPG key letters RPG and it only works when the character is Vanilla.

this exchange is over

And as I said before just because you did not go thoguh it doesnot mean others did not.

thats the point, it is not general because it isn't there for everyone. Your trying to use it as a stronger base for your pointless arguement and its invalid because not everyone has one for the choices they make in the game.

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@Dreman and AlanC9, I guess I am just picky because unfortunately none of the endings was acceptable to me, it is great that you guys can seek solace in such choices but other people don't

You guys talk like as if the trilogy was prepping you up for the final decision in ME3, its like the whole run was about making you more confident in doing awful things...just saying this is my impression from you, that you are the stoic hero that was capable to rationalise the end justifies the means

The ME3 endings were largely based on cold hard rationalisations, morals are way too complex to be factored in into such decisions, I simply chose one so I could finish the game, if you think that this is the ending of MY ME story, then you are mistaken, this is BW's story

It is cool that you find the endings acceptable thematically, or morally, or logically, whatever it is, but many of us don't

The ending is based on morality vs 
rationalisations aka the things youhad to do to get you goal.

The theme of ME always was what lenghts the palersis will to do to stop an unstoppable force. Morality and ligic is always queSTION. Not morality or logic alone.

[robertthebard]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Seival wrote...

Did you even play ME3 with EC installed? I don't think so...

Did the EC get rid of the deus ex machina? Nope.

Instead of a finely crafted story where we can see that choices made throughout the series somehow effect the outcome we get a literal deus ex machina that drops down out of nowhere and gives us choices that have nothing to do with how we played the three games.

Nope, all you have to do to get one is start ME 2.  Oh, you probably didn't mean that one, since it doesn't fit in with what you want to say, eh?

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

your not listening, it cannot cause moral conflict in general because not everyone plays the same, I did have moral conflict in the choices in ME1 and ME2 except Virmire and the Collector Base, but I had none in ME3. Your trying to use it as a strong base when its not in some RPG type games because the players roleplay their Shepard, Mass Effect is/was an aRPG key letters RPG and it only works when the character is Vanilla.

this exchange is over

And as I said before just because you did not go thoguh it doesnot mean others did not.

thats the point, it is not general because it isn't there for everyone. Your trying to use it as a stronger base for your pointless arguement and its invalid because not everyone has one for the choices they make in the game.

It doesn't become 
invalid   because you don't go through it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[Almostfaceman]

dreman9999 wrote...
So ems has nothing to do with what choices you get in the end of the game?

Get low ems and beat the game with that. Then say you choices don't matter.

I have, and I'm saying my choices don't matter, for the reasons I've already stated, which you are ignoring. 

The deus ex machina is a lazy way to wrap up the story. Instead of giving us widely diverse endings based on our choices they took the easy way out. And it shows. 

Now, you're either going to realize that the world is made up of people who don't all agree with you, or your head is going to explode. I prescribe a dose of two "reality" pills for ya there because you need your cranium. 

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dreman pls stop trying to use moral conflict for your arguement, that is completely invalid since it depends on how the Players play the game. Mass Effect is an aRPG so it has roleplaying, if the player doesn't have a problem with those choices there is no Moral Conflict, the endings are no different.

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

if you don't find the choices conflicting then moral conflict isn't there. I don't understand your logic in the bolded text above

It means if you didn't, others did.

others may have had moral conflict, yes

but you are trying to make it seem like everybody has moral conflict. Not everybody plays the game the same, in one playthrough if I did everything bad to the geth so choosing to destroy them along with the reapers did not cause any moral conflict. then again if you loved the geth but had to destroy them there is conflict. It all depends on the player.

So let me ask you this, if a player hates the geth and all synthetics and they choose to destroy them with the reapers and they believe the breath scene means shepard lives, there is no moral conflict which means they had a "happy ending". So do you believe that this is wrong because you previously said there shouldn't be a happy ending in ME3? Just wondering.

1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

[dreman9999]

Almostfaceman wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
So ems has nothing to do with what choices you get in the end of the game?

Get low ems and beat the game with that. Then say you choices don't matter.

I have, and I'm saying my choices don't matter, for the reasons I've already stated, which you are ignoring. 

The deus ex machina is a lazy way to wrap up the story. Instead of giving us widely diverse endings based on our choices they took the easy way out. And it shows. 

Now, you're either going to realize that the world is made up of people who don't all agree with you, or your head is going to explode. I prescribe a dose of two "reality" pills for ya there because you need your cranium. 

The way the game end is based on you actions. The catalyst has nothing to do with what he crucible does out side of synthesis. The condition of the crucible does. And what contols the condition of the crucible is your ems score. The ending you get is based on ems, not the catalyst.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[Cathey]

Meh. Endings are fine since the EC.

Modifié par Cathey, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:34 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...


1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

Well, yes you did, but apparently now you want a happy ending as long as it's the one you want, just not anyone else's.  Please explain to me the word selfish again.

Morality is only partly subjective.  In real life do you think it's right to do just anything you want to achieve your goals?  Do you think that if you do something society considers morally wrong in order to obtain some acceptable outcome, you are exempt from consequences?  And do you not understand that consequences in conflicts can involve far more sacrifice from the living than even the dead have already performed?  Live heroes live through things that are often as harsh as those that took their dead compatriots, but I'd still rather have them live.

Since a moral dilemma is not truly always in existence it cannot have been Bioware's intent.  Since you also keep stating I don't understand a moral dilemma, please do tell me one example of one you've faced in your life-you are the expert and seem to indicate I'm just a complete idiot (even though I have had to make life and death decisions in my life).  Please give me an example of this in yours.

And then tell me if it would be better that all wars just end with choices that pop up out of the enemy's nether regions (his home)-oh, right they aren't his choices at all.  They all temporarily solve his problem, but they have nothing to do with him at all. 

Tell me what kind of sporting event you go to that you would rather neither team had the chance to win-tell me how manyof them you'd prefer ended with one team having 3 choices to pick from.

And then tell me how an optional ending would hurt you personally or mess up your game.  Tell me just how unselfish you are being in saying what matters is only that you are happy while others are not.

[3DandBeyond]

Cathey wrote...

Meh. Endings are fine since the EC.

Hmm that's a ringing endorsement.  Somewhat better than ok.  I feel the love.<3

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

1. A Reapers only die, shepard lives ending would be a happy ending, and you said you wouldn't want a happy ending because of your usual arguement anout moral conflict. Therefore any happy ending for any player shouldn't be possible.

dreman9999 wrote...
They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

 
2. Yes how they feel about it is their choice therefore you can't say moral conflict is there for everybody in general

3.but if it is a happy ending for that person there is no moral conflict. as i quoted you above you said that EAware wants moral conflict and therefore a synthetic hater killing all synthetics would negate that concept making it an ending that goes against what EAware wants

Modifié par KENNY4753, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[Jere85]

Cathey wrote...

Meh. Endings are fine since the EC.

Thats your opinion, let others have theirs

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

thats the point, it is not general because it isn't there for everyone. Your trying to use it as a stronger base for your pointless arguement and its invalid because not everyone has one for the choices they make in the game.

It doesn't become 
invalid   because you don't go through it.

for **** sake you will listen and read, I said you using it by saying its general is invalid because not everyone goes through it. If everyone has a moral conflict for each choices then its general but its not

[robertthebard]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@Dreman and AlanC9, I guess I am just picky because unfortunately none of the endings was acceptable to me, it is great that you guys can seek solace in such choices but other people don't

You guys talk like as if the trilogy was prepping you up for the final decision in ME3, its like the whole run was about making you more confident in doing awful things...just saying this is my impression from you, that you are the stoic hero that was capable to rationalise the end justifies the means

The ME3 endings were largely based on cold hard rationalisations, morals are way too complex to be factored in into such decisions, I simply chose one so I could finish the game, if you think that this is the ending of MY ME story, then you are mistaken, this is BW's story

It is cool that you find the endings acceptable thematically, or morally, or logically, whatever it is, but many of us don't

So do you quit in London, or do you play enough MP or gather enough assests so that you get the breath scene looking for a happier ending?  The trilogy actually had me thinking I was going to die trying to save the galaxy, and be unable to.  Rational thought about what happens at the Citadel in ME 1 bears this out.  Unless, of course, we use the standard "but we beat a reaper" logic, anyway.  Yeah, we beat a Reaper, and 2 years later, at the start of ME 2, Anderson tells us that it's going to be at least 5 more years before all the repairs to the Citadel are complete.  This doesn't account for the ships we lost, or that the Council races lost, time to rebuild them, resources to rebuild them, and all the time they spent pretending it wasn't real.

You don't find them acceptable, and yet you have a sig that supports one.  You can rationalize it all you like, but flying a flag means you support whatever the flag represents.  In your case, it represents an ending that you say you don't support, even though you support it every time you post.  If you play past London, why complain about the endings?