989 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

Virmire survivor in ME2, Vega/Captain Riley (perhaps?)  in ME3? 

 

Instead of Vega, maybe Major Coats? 

Conrad Verner and the female version would be Jane Verner

 

 

Legion's death, on the other hand, pretty much came outta nowhere and served no purpose that couldn't have been done another way. Now, if he jumped in front of a bullet to save admiral Gerrel and end the Rannoch war harvest conflict, then okay, now we're talking. "Copying code insufficient." Wait, what? 

No reason for that death

 

Mordin didn't have to die. If the panel on the ground was able to detect a temperature malfunction, why couldn't it be fixed from that panel instead of having Mordin go up the shroud and die? If the player decides to sabotage the genophage, just have Shepard tell Mordin/Padok to step away from the panel or shoot him

 

Thane had no reason to die. After Leng is thrown to the ground, he gets up and runs away leaving Thane alive, a little winded, and able to show up in the Citadel dlc

[KaiserShep]

Mordin didn't have to die. If the panel on the ground was able to detect a temperature malfunction, why couldn't it be fixed from that panel instead of having Mordin go up the shroud and die? If the player decides to sabotage the genophage, just have Shepard tell Mordin/Padok to step away from the panel or shoot him

 

Technically, Mordin didn't have to die anyway, but if you can't convince him, that's kind of what you get for giving Wrex the benefit of the doubt and convincing him to save Maelon's data.

 

I liked the circumstances leading to Mordin's death, and I thought it was more interesting that the possibility of his survival through this arc was dependent on choices made through the previous games.

 

Anyway, if I recall, Shepard asks something similar at the shroud. I don't suppose any technical explanation is really necessary other than that the STG's sabotage of the facility took away any chance of some quick and easy route to disperse the cure properly.

[Iakus]

Here's why I didn't like the ending.

The game pushes "synthetics are people" hard and suggests learning to coexist is akin to cultural existence. As late as Priority: Earth we have EDI affirming her aliveness and the geth promising to help us rebuild. But the Catalyst asserts quasi-divine intervention is required. Natural response to that is to tell the Reapers to take a hike. Which you can only do by killing the very group you want to prove can live with us.

 

Indeed.

 

Then throw in players wanting the option to have Shepard live in the galaxy he created, you just add insult to injury.

[Daemul]

There are countless reasons people "said" they didn't like it. I don't really believe them.

 

I can see why you think this tbh. When I see people bash Mass Effect 3's writing and ending in one breath, then hear them declare Mass Effect 2's writing and ending as, and I quote,  "a masterpiece", with another breath, my BS o'meter starts going off the charts. Talk about giving yourself away. 

[angol fear]

I don’t see you being a real logic teacher, maybe a tutor, because a real logic professor or teacher would not be trying to move the goalposts as you are doing. Pleading me to drop logic, and buy a pencil from your cup. Don’t insult my intelligence.

This is the last that I will write about this.

 

You're wrong, I am a (real?) teacher, not a tutor. And I do many more things that will surprise you, if you try to have a idea of what I am, based on the way I write on this forum.

But, yes, I will stop here too.

[Bakgrind]

@Daemul  (quoting not working)

 

I think what it boils down to is that no matter how "cheesy" to some people that  ME 2 was  most people would agree that the game made you feel good at the end.Really pumped up and stoked just like first game in the series Mass Effect. While ME 3 game was understandably low key and depressing since  there was destruction going on across the galaxy.  But what ME 3 does that the others didn't was muddle the ending by having the player come to grips while tying up  loose ends one after the other at the end of the game within the span of 5 mins.

 

First was the scene with TIM (who really should of been dealt with long before)  followed by Anderson dying on the Citadel ( and really the game should of ended there with beam firing ). Then finally the Catalyst which comes completely out of nowhere  try to explain the purpose and origin of the reapers as well as it's own purpose. I think we all can ignore or move past scenes and writing in a game that you personally found lacking but if it occurs at the end, well that's what you are left with and it's hard to forgive all the missteps along the way.

[ImaginaryMatter]

This ladies and gentlemen is why you shouldn't try and do mathematics after a 16 hour shift and a few beers.

Ends up being somewhat....off.

 

I know the feeling.

[SporkFu]

Conrad Verner and the female version would be Jane Verner

No reason for that death

Mordin didn't have to die. If the panel on the ground was able to detect a temperature malfunction, why couldn't it be fixed from that panel instead of having Mordin go up the shroud and die? If the player decides to sabotage the genophage, just have Shepard tell Mordin/Padok to step away from the panel or shoot him

Thane had no reason to die. After Leng is thrown to the ground, he gets up and runs away leaving Thane alive, a little winded, and able to show up in the Citadel dlc

Well yeah, nobody had to die. Just meant that Mordin's death, although sad, didn't seem to come right out of left-field. Legion's did. At least to me.

[Obadiah]

The Catalyst espouses a worldview that is almost diametrically opposed to most players.
- It doesn't hold the same view of the rights of individuals, freedoms, or life
- Evaluates the diverse individuals and races of organics as one entity, that it is trying to protect, hence it can kill/murder some individuals, but still think of "ascending" the race to Reaper form
- Evaluates actions in a somewhat severe and extreme form of Consequentialism (ie, if I hadn't killed them to save these others, they'd all be dead anyway; all life will be in Synthesis anyway IF you survive, do it now and avoid an almost certain total loss at the hands of your own creations)
- Uses language eerily reminiscent of racial supremacists like "perfection" (indicating that we need to be better beings), when in fact removing defects (or perfecting) is what we do with medicine right now
- In making its prediction, it implicity validates a form of Determinism that almost invalidates our free will
- Implies that its actions are the only reason Shepard and this cycle is even alive

And the player is stuck with dealing with it as a partner at the end whether they like it or not. Its disturbing, and players had different reactions. Some players hated it, and have been trying to justify that feeling ever since by criticizing every story element they could find; or just empowering their position by claiming the Catalyst is just a trick; or characterizing it as "mistaken", "broken" or "poorly/badly coded" - all just horribly misplaced terms when talking about an entity that defeated its creators, and essentially ruled the galaxy for a billion years.

I think of the story now more in somewhat mythical terms - a standoff of cosmic patterns of behavior, or forces of nature (artistically, we were basically attacked by a biblical plague of giant robotic locusts). I don't expect something like that to end pretty.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The Catalyst espouses a worldview that is almost diametrically opposed to most players.
- It doesn't hold the same view of the rights of individuals, freedoms, or life
- Evaluates the diverse individuals and races of organics as one entity, that it is trying to protect, hence it can kill/murder some individuals, but still think of "ascending" the race to Reaper form
- Evaluates actions in a somewhat severe and extreme form of Consequentialism (ie, if I hadn't killed them to save these others, they'd all be dead anyway; all life will be in Synthesis anyway IF you survive, do it now and avoid an almost certain total loss at the hands of your own creations)
- Uses language eerily reminiscent of racial supremacists like "perfection" (indicating that we need to be better beings), when in fact removing defects (or perfecting) is what we do with medicine right now
- In making its prediction, it implicity validates a form of Determinism that almost invalidates our free will
- Implies that its actions are the only reason Shepard and this cycle is even alive

And the player is stuck with dealing with it as a partner at the end whether they like it or not. Its disturbing, and players had different reactions. Some players hated it, and have been trying to justify that feeling ever since by criticizing every story element they could find; or just empowering their position by claiming the Catalyst is just a trick; or characterizing it as "mistaken", "broken" or "poorly/badly coded" - all just horribly misplaced terms when talking about an entity that defeated its creators, and essentially ruled the galaxy for a billion years.

I think of the story now more in somewhat mythical terms - a standoff of cosmic patterns of behavior, or forces of nature (artistically, we were basically attacked by a biblical plague of giant robotic locusts). I don't expect something like that to end pretty.

 

And that's why I killed the Geth on Rannoch. Letting the Quarians kill off the Geth before they reach AI status and become "people" gets you out of that dilemma. It left only the sacrifice of EDI in the end because Bioware completely forgot about Cerberus Daily News and the Virtual Aliens which I only know about because I was once doing a rewrite of ME3 and pulled all of the CDN posts.

 

So sacrifice EDI and send tell Starbrat to shove it. Aria makes up for the lost war assets making sure you get over the magic number necessary for survival. With the EC the death of technology got retconned anyway so it doesn't matter. According to various tweets and stuff everything was back in working order in about a year even with Destroy. Don't ask me to look. There's too much s*** to pour through to find them.

[Iakus]

The Catalyst espouses a worldview that is almost diametrically opposed to most players.
- It doesn't hold the same view of the rights of individuals, freedoms, or life
- Evaluates the diverse individuals and races of organics as one entity, that it is trying to protect, hence it can kill/murder some individuals, but still think of "ascending" the race to Reaper form
- Evaluates actions in a somewhat severe and extreme form of Consequentialism (ie, if I hadn't killed them to save these others, they'd all be dead anyway; all life will be in Synthesis anyway IF you survive, do it now and avoid an almost certain total loss at the hands of your own creations)
- Uses language eerily reminiscent of racial supremacists like "perfection" (indicating that we need to be better beings), when in fact removing defects (or perfecting) is what we do with medicine right now
- In making its prediction, it implicity validates a form of Determinism that almost invalidates our free will
- Implies that its actions are the only reason Shepard and this cycle is even alive

And the player is stuck with dealing with it as a partner at the end whether they like it or not. Its disturbing, and players had different reactions. Some players hated it, and have been trying to justify that feeling ever since by criticizing every story element they could find; or just empowering their position by claiming the Catalyst is just a trick; or characterizing it as "mistaken", "broken" or "poorly/badly coded" - all just horribly misplaced terms when talking about an entity that defeated its creators, and essentially ruled the galaxy for a billion years.

I think of the story now more in somewhat mythical terms - a standoff of cosmic patterns of behavior, or forces of nature (artistically, we were basically attacked by a biblical plague of giant robotic locusts). I don't expect something like that to end pretty.

And you don't see a probloem with all this?  That forcing the player to go along with such a monstrosity might have been a Bad Idea for ending a five year trilogy?

[Valmar]

@Valmar, if they were warned about it, maybe. They were not, however. It's like rendering 60% of your code (if not more) non-functional. Seeing how extensive the code inclusion is (single geth unit vs Reaper upgrades as shown by Legion) that causes the geth to "die". Quarians might even be able to modify the geth code to "revive" them in their previous state by removing Reaper function calls from the script.

 

My point was that there is ample room in the story to come up with an excuse to let them survive, it doesn't feel written in stone that they MUST die. Also, removing the code cannot be that dramatic. You turned off their reaper code twice in the game. It was the same principle, the geth all had reaper upgrades. Just not free will. There's even a mission where Shepard goes into the geth mind and wipes out the reaper code. Clearly the reaper stuff can be targeted independently as the rest. Having the reaper upgrade suddenly ripped out from under them only cripples them momentarily. They can recover, as we've seen in the narrative several times. I see no reason why they suddenly cannot come back this time around.

 

 

I liked the circumstances leading to Mordin's death, and I thought it was more interesting that the possibility of his survival through this arc was dependent on choices made through the previous games.

 

Personally I hated the circumstances leading to Mordin's death. He always defended the genophage but now cannot be reasoned with and is driven solely by emotions unless Wrex and Eve are dead. The "I made a mistake!" line seemed more like drama for sake of drama to me. Which is out of character for Mordin's personality, imo.

 

 

The Catalyst espouses a worldview that is almost diametrically opposed to most players.
[snip]

 

I actually agree with you. Personally I have no problem with the cataylst's logic or perspective. It's the catalyst's mere existence that bothers me, not what its motives are. It destroys the very foundation that the reapers were built upon. It retcons everything and contradicts much. Not because what it says but by its very existence. Removing it would solve a lot of problems.

 

 

And you don't see a probloem with all this?  That forcing the player to go along with such a monstrosity might have been a Bad Idea for ending a five year trilogy?

 

You are not forced to along with it. Also it shouldn't be a surprised that you find the REAPERS logic to be monstrous. Would it be better if they just turned out to be misunderstood pacifists looking for love and acceptance?

 

If you are against its logic that strongly you can just end the cycle right then and there and destroy the reapers. Or control them and make them adhere to YOUR logic and reasoning by becoming the new reaper god.

 

Sure, destroying the reapers kills the geth and Edi but did sacrifice stop you from blowing up the relay in Arrival? You make the sacrifices necessary to end the reapers. Though I still feel that the geth and Edi shouldn't /HAVE/ to die. Seems like pointless drama to me. Yet people act like sparing them would somehow take away from the drama and sacrifice that the reaper war brought with it. As if up until that moment it had all been peaceful and calm.

[Iakus]

 

You are not forced to along with it. Also it shouldn't be a surprised that you find the REAPERS logic to be monstrous. Would it be better if they just turned out to be misunderstood pacifists looking for love and acceptance?

 

If you are against its logic that strongly you can just end the cycle right then and there and destroy the reapers. Or control them and make them adhere to YOUR logic and reasoning by becoming the new reaper god.

 

Sure, destroying the reapers kills the geth and Edi but did sacrifice stop you from blowing up the relay in Arrival? You make the sacrifices necessary to end the reapers. Though I still feel that the geth and Edi shouldn't /HAVE/ to die. Seems like pointless drama to me. Yet people act like sparing them would somehow take away from the drama and sacrifice that the reaper war brought with it. As if up until that moment it had all been peaceful and calm.

If I can't say "Screw you, we'll solve our own problems" without Biwoare going "ROCKS FALL, EVERYONE DIES" then yes I am forced to go along with the monster.

 

And blowing up the erlay in Arrival is a pretty sore point with players, and probably should have been an early warning sign about what a train wreck ME3 would turn out to be. 

[Vazgen]

@Valmar, the Reaper signal is turned off once, on Rannoch. Cutting the dreadnought signal does not remove short range signal from the Reaper base. And after Reaper signal is removed the geth are annihilated. Noticed how geth "die" during the server mission when the code is removed? We don't know how extensive Legion's code rewrite was but it had to be more extensive to remove the possibility to get under Reaper control. It comes to headcanon, if it was extensive enough, then Reaper code theory works, if not, it doesn't. I prefer first option, it seems more logical to me that a transfer from VI-like intelligence of a single geth unit to a full fledged AI would require extensive code rewrite.

[Iakus]

@Valmar, the Reaper signal is turned off once, on Rannoch. Cutting the dreadnought signal does not remove short range signal from the Reaper base. And after Reaper signal is removed the geth are annihilated. Noticed how geth "die" during the server mission when the code is removed? We don't know how extensive Legion's code rewrite was but it had to be more extensive to remove the possibility to get under Reaper control. It comes to headcanon, if it was extensive enough, then Reaper code theory works, if not, it doesn't. I prefer first option, it seems more logical to me that a transfer from VI-like intelligence of a single geth unit to a full fledged AI would require extensive code rewrite.

Just a bit of clarification:  I don't think the geth were "dying", they were joining with Legion, who downloaded them into the Primes.  It was a deception of Legion's part.  One of several, actually.

[SporkFu]

They weren't dying, but Legion saved them from death; like the kid who runs into the street after a ball and doesn't see the car bearing down on him. If someone doesn't pull him back to the sidewalk, he's gonna die. 

[KaiserShep]

And blowing up the erlay in Arrival is a pretty sore point with players, and probably should have been an early warning sign about what a train wreck ME3 would turn out to be. 

 

Arrival is littered with problems in its plot, like the whole take-Shepard-alive nonsense, but I can't say that I ever had a problem with the forced destruction of the relay. Partly, it's because I thought that scene was pretty cool, but also because I thought that this was a sensibly drastic measure in the story to prevent the reapers from using their back door contingency. And it's not like those deaths are arbitrary. We know exactly how they died and why. That we couldn't save them, to me, is not a bad thing. It and of itself, I don't see how it would be any indication of how Mass Effect 3 would play out.

[Lyrandori]

If they knew that they wanted to "end Shepard's journey" with ME3, and if they knew they wanted to (or "had") to kill Shepard at the end of Mass Effect 3, then why bother creating one specific ending with Shepard gasping for air while covered by debris. That scene could have been extended, showing Shepard trying to breath but ends up dying anyway, at least then it'd have been crystal clear that he or she's dead. But... NOPE... nope, instead they create that scene to start with, and then before anything is clear it cuts and Shepard's fate remains "up in the air" for us to interpret as we see fit. Oh, he/she COULD have survived, it MIGHT have been indoctrination, he/she MIGHT have been hallucinating part of what happened. Sure... MAYBE...perhaps... probably.... it's possible... you know what? Just make your own ending, we at BioWare are too lazy to make things clear.

 

Why bother giving us a 'false hope' when, internally (in the minds of the writer(s)), it is clear and acknowledged that Shepard is effectively dead since it was "the plan" for ME3. That, BioWare (well, ME3 team, specifically) was cruel. If you wanted him/her dead, then leave him/her dead! Don't spend time creating an essentially useless scene in which Shepard gasps for air, what was the point? What. Was. The. Point. Trolling us for a couple of years until ME4?

 

I just never understood the point of that scene, if the condition was "By ME3's ending(s) Shepard must be dead, it's canon, it's what we want, it's the end of Shepard's journey, it was a trilogy, now it's over, the end.". By the way, some people disliked ME3 in general, not just the ending(s), and not just the fact that Shepard would die by the end of the third game. I for one DID expect my Shepard to die (wasn't 100% certain, but I WAS prepared for that since ME2 was just released). Some people (like me) actually disliked ME3's beginning, many parts in "the middle", and the ending (which doesn't just including the very ending choices to take but also include the very anti-climatic London mission).

[Valmar]

If I can't say "Screw you, we'll solve our own problems" without Biwoare going "ROCKS FALL, EVERYONE DIES" then yes I am forced to go along with the monster.

 

I don't follow your logic here. How is essentially choosing to kill him the same as going along with him? Plus there is the control ending which again replaces the brat with Shepard. If you feel the kid is morally wrong and the reapers are wrong then just take change of them and make them do what you think is best. Or again, just blow them up.

 

A refusal ending that doesn't end with defeat would be ridiculous. They've done nothing but hammer home the fact that we cannot defeat the reapers and that we NEED the crucible. It is our only hope.

 

KaiserShep said all I could say about the the arrival sacrifice, though.

 

 

@Valmar, the Reaper signal is turned off once, on Rannoch. Cutting the dreadnought signal does not remove short range signal from the Reaper base. And after Reaper signal is removed the geth are annihilated. Noticed how geth "die" during the server mission when the code is removed? We don't know how extensive Legion's code rewrite was but it had to be more extensive to remove the possibility to get under Reaper control. It comes to headcanon, if it was extensive enough, then Reaper code theory works, if not, it doesn't. I prefer first option, it seems more logical to me that a transfer from VI-like intelligence of a single geth unit to a full fledged AI would require extensive code rewrite.

 

The dreadnought still removed long-range signals - it did do SOMETHING. The false assumption the quarians had was that geth no longer had reaper upgrades, period. That doesn't mean that removing the long-range signal had no effect. We have no reason to believe cutting off the reaper signal 'kills' them. If this was the case Legion wouldn't bother sacrificing himself on rannoch because the signal had already been destroyed which would mean, if the reaper upgrade truly is something that is necessary for the geth to survive then we effectively killed all the geth the moment we took down the reaper, which contradicts the entire premise of Legion's sacrifice and the results thereafter. All it seemed to do was cause a momentary malfunction. We're given no reason to think they geth cannot recover from the blow.

 

Yes, going from an AI to an VI would require a rewrite. However you have to keep in context the fact that the geth were originally VI anyway. It isn't like you'd be turning them into something they weren't already. They'd only be reverting to their older OS, basically. Back to what the geth were originally SUPPOSED to be in the first place before ME3 retconed the entire species with this upgrade nonsense.

 

 

It was a deception of Legion's part.  One of several, actually.

 

Those deceptions always bugged me. Teaches me to put my trust in the geth, I suppose. Though to be fair the Legion in ME3 is not the same as the one in ME2 so maybe its unfair for me to judge him harshly. The Legion I knew was already dead. Depressing.

[Vazgen]

Just a bit of clarification:  I don't think the geth were "dying", they were joining with Legion, who downloaded them into the Primes.  It was a deception of Legion's part.  One of several, actually.

I'm pretty sure the entire mission was a deceptive act to try to sway Shepard on the geth side. But I don't think geth "dying" was a part of it, simply because Shepard could not see it and their "death" was not required to stop the fighters. If you imply that those geth programs simply changed bodies and ended up in those primes, it's possible, though I don't think it's the case. There is no clear proof for it though, everyone just chooses what he/she wants to believe.

[Iakus]

Arrival is littered with problems in its plot, like the whole take-Shepard-alive nonsense, but I can't say that I ever had a problem with the forced destruction of the relay. Partly, it's because I thought that scene was pretty cool, but also because I thought that this was a sensibly drastic measure in the story to prevent the reapers from using their back door contingency. And it's not like those deaths are arbitrary. We know exactly how they died and why. That we couldn't save them, to me, is not a bad thing. It and of itself, I don't see how it would be any indication of how Mass Effect 3 would play out.

To me the one saving grace that had was allowing Shepard to at least try to warn the colony, and maybe save a few of them.  It ends up in failure, but it's a lot more than what ME3's ending gave us.

 

I don't follow your logic here. How is essentially choosing to kill him the same as going along with him? Plus there is the control ending which again replaces the brat with Shepard. If you feel the kid is morally wrong and the reapers are wrong then just take change of them and make them do what you think is best. Or again, just blow them up.

 

A refusal ending that doesn't end with defeat would be ridiculous. They've done nothing but hammer home the fact that we cannot defeat the reapers and that we NEED the crucible. It is our only hope.

 

KaiserShep said all I could say about the the arrival sacrifice, though.

Because destroying synthetics is going along with the belief that organics and synthetics inherently cannot coexist.  In removing the Reapers we remove all synthetic life.  It's pretty much doing what the Reapers do, only it's organics wiping out synthetics. Shepard becomes Reaper-lite.

 

And Control is still putting the fate of the galaxy in the Reapers' hands.  Yeah you've replaced Starbrat with the Shepalyst (not Shepard) but the galaxy still isn't free.  There's just gilding on the cage now.

[Vazgen]

 

The dreadnought still removed long-range signals - it did do SOMETHING. The false assumption the quarians had was that geth no longer had reaper upgrades, period. That doesn't mean that removing the long-range signal had no effect. We have no reason to believe cutting off the reaper signal 'kills' them. If this was the case Legion wouldn't bother sacrificing himself on rannoch because the signal had already been destroyed which would mean, if the reaper upgrade truly is something that is necessary for the geth to survive then we effectively killed all the geth the moment we took down the reaper, which contradicts the entire premise of Legion's sacrifice and the results thereafter. All it seemed to do was cause a momentary malfunction. We're given no reason to think they geth cannot recover from the blow.

 

Yes, going from an AI to an VI would require a rewrite. However you have to keep in context the fact that the geth were originally VI anyway. It isn't like you'd be turning them into something they weren't already. They'd only be reverting to their older OS, basically. Back to what the geth were originally SUPPOSED to be in the first place before ME3 retconed the entire species with this upgrade nonsense.

I didn't say it "did nothing". The geth were thrown off-balance for a short time, so short that Han'Gerrel's plan to attack the dreadnought costed them the chance to retreat. An individual geth is basically a combination of VI programs with the ability to interface with the other geth in proximity. To make an individual geth a fully evolved AI would require some extensive additions. Going with your OS analogy, upgrading is much easier than downgrading in most cases. Adding to that, what is considered "death"? Downgrading to the old OS and losing their self-aware status, they effectively die. Their memories and experience, acquired when they were sentient, are lost. That's why the upgrades are necessary for them to "survive". And about Legion's sacrifice, the geth are vulnerable when downgraded and are no match for the quarian fleet. That's why Legion uploads the code, to save his people.

 

I may sound contradictory to my previous posts on the matter, the reason is, I never really gave it much thought. I'm also going to go with Iakus's explanation for the geth platform's dying in server mission cutscenes. I think it's more fitting and explains the whole situation better without contradicting other quests (thanks Iakus). 

[Iakus]

I'm pretty sure the entire mission was a deceptive act to try to sway Shepard on the geth side. But I don't think geth "dying" was a part of it, simply because Shepard could not see it and their "death" was not required to stop the fighters. If you imply that those geth programs simply changed bodies and ended up in those primes, it's possible, though I don't think it's the case. There is no clear proof for it though, everyone just chooses what he/she wants to believe.

 

Legion:  While Shepard-Commander removed Reaper infection, we judged we could persuade hostile geth programs to reunite with ours.  We were correct.  These geth have renounced the Old Machines and will oppose the Reapers.  They are now us.

 

Shepard:  Why didn't you tell me any of this?

 

Legion:  We did not doubt you.  We doubted your allies.  The Creators' actions have placed their species in danger, but they are unsympathetic to what it has done to ours,  The quarians sanctioned this operation to save their people.  They would not have done so if they knew we wished to preserve geth as well.  

[Vazgen]

Legion:  While Shepard-Commander removed Reaper infection, we judged we could persuade hostile geth programs to reunite with ours.  We were correct.  These geth have renounced the Old Machines and will oppose the Reapers.  They are now us.

 

Shepard:  Why didn't you tell me any of this?

 

Legion:  We did not doubt you.  We doubted your allies.  The Creators' actions have placed their species in danger, but they are unsympathetic to what it has done to ours,  The quarians sanctioned this operation to save their people.  They would not have done so if they knew we wished to preserve geth as well.  

I rewatched the mission, see my post above. Basically, I agree with you. 

[Vazgen]

If they knew that they wanted to "end Shepard's journey" with ME3, and if they knew they wanted to (or "had") to kill Shepard at the end of Mass Effect 3, then why bother creating one specific ending with Shepard gasping for air while covered by debris. That scene could have been extended, showing Shepard trying to breath but ends up dying anyway, at least then it'd have been crystal clear that he or she's dead. But... NOPE... nope, instead they create that scene to start with, and then before anything is clear it cuts and Shepard's fate remains "up in the air" for us to interpret as we see fit. Oh, he/she COULD have survived, it MIGHT have been indoctrination, he/she MIGHT have been hallucinating part of what happened. Sure... MAYBE...perhaps... probably.... it's possible... you know what? Just make your own ending, we at BioWare are too lazy to make things clear.

 

Why bother giving us a 'false hope' when, internally (in the minds of the writer(s)), it is clear and acknowledged that Shepard is effectively dead since it was "the plan" for ME3. That, BioWare (well, ME3 team, specifically) was cruel. If you wanted him/her dead, then leave him/her dead! Don't spend time creating an essentially useless scene in which Shepard gasps for air, what was the point? What. Was. The. Point. Trolling us for a couple of years until ME4?

 

I just never understood the point of that scene, if the condition was "By ME3's ending(s) Shepard must be dead, it's canon, it's what we want, it's the end of Shepard's journey, it was a trilogy, now it's over, the end.". By the way, some people disliked ME3 in general, not just the ending(s), and not just the fact that Shepard would die by the end of the third game. I for one DID expect my Shepard to die (wasn't 100% certain, but I WAS prepared for that since ME2 was just released). Some people (like me) actually disliked ME3's beginning, many parts in "the middle", and the ending (which doesn't just including the very ending choices to take but also include the very anti-climatic London mission).

Why does "end Shepard's journey" equal to "Shepard must die"? Shepard's journey is ended, regardless if he survived or not. They will not make any more content featuring Shepard. You'll no longer play as him/her. The end. Whatever happed after high EMS Destroy is left to your interpretation, but it's not something that contradicts their statements.