221 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

Ah yes "The players were just confused" 

 

I was never confused.  I knew exactly what they were going for, and it sucked.  It was thematically dissonant not just with certain ME3 playstyles, but with certain trilogy runs.  Basically, if you wern't playing a no-import Shepard, you were doing it wrong.

People were confused. That is why the Indoctrination Theory was created. That is why all these various conspiracy theories and nonsense arose out of the ending because people had no clue what was going on. Instead of trying to understand the story, they had to make up excuses to try and justify how they wanted the game to end. Those who were completely unhappy with how the game ended just disregarded the game altogether.

 

That last statement doesn't even make any sense. ME3 would be unplayable if you did not import your Shepard. The very first five minutes of the game wouldn't make sense if you did not play Arrival. I always find it funny how people will argue "my choices didn't matter" when many don't seem to realize how much their choices in ME1 and ME2 actually impacted ME3, from small changes to massive. You merely take BioWare's excellent storytelling for granted because of your own negative perception of the ending. You do the entire franchise a disservice.

 

The amount of wrong stuff in this post is too damn high. Suggest you actually get invested in the actual lore of mass effect.

No offense, but this statement is completely ridiculous. Play the games again and read a Mass Effect wiki. You clearly have no idea what Mass Effect was about.

 

First of all, I think it's unreasonable to judge the story of a game using post-release DLC. If the content in that DLC was necessary to understand the story of the main game, it shouldn't have been sold as a supplement. 

 

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say that the central theme of Mass Effect is strength in unity of diversity. You beat ME1 by building a diverse team and bringing together the human and Council fleets, and you beat ME2 by uniting the some of the most talented individuals from each race. So why is it that ME3 doesn't really reflect that? Sure getting your EMS up required cooperation, but the ending wasn't about working together, it was something about the conflict between synthetics and organics. I'm not sure how anyone could think that's what Mass Effect was ultimately about. They'd have to ignore the two previous games and the entire Geth arc. It simply didn't fit.

 

ME3 didn't leave me thinking "was I right?" it left me thinking "what just happened?" If I was asked to sacrifice one race to defeat the reapers (I know that's a lame idea, but bear with me) I would finish the game debating the ethics of my choice. The actual ending had me caught up simply in the mechanics. The ending just dumped a whole bunch of stuff on you that was hardly even mentioned before. Who is this Catalyst? How does synthesis work? Why would that be very helpful? And most unfortunately, why did the writers think this was very helpful? We were only told the Crucible used a ton of energy to do something. Quite honestly, turning everyone into sort of a robot wasn't what I had in mind.

 

But ultimately, Mass Effect isn't the kind of series that called for an Inception style ending. That isn't to say ME3's ending had to be incredibly simple, but the massive twist style ending simply doesn't fit Mass Effect's genre.

 

Also, there's no way the visions foreshadowed the Catalyst. Shepard's dreams are, at most, a poor attempt at symbolizing his or her inner turmoil. Other than appearing to be visually similar to the kid, the Catalyst has no evident connection to the visions.

If you actually read my post, I indicated BioWare would have been better off had they incorporated Leviathan into the game instead of as future DLC.

 

You missed the point then. ME3's ending wasn't about synthetics and organics. That was merely an element. The entire point, which had been established since Shepard first interacted with a prothean beacon in ME1, was to uncover the mystery of the Reapers and to stop them from resetting the cycle through extermination. That was the overarching theme of the franchise. Not overcoming adversity or building a party. Those, much like synthetics and organics, were merely themes. Shepard's trilogy was about doing whatever it took to defeat the Reapers, and that's exactly how ME3 ended.

 

Then you missed part of the point of the ending. The final choice was the ultimate moral dilemma, and you did not have all the facts. The fact that the Catalyst stated that Synthesis failed before should have been an alarm that choosing it probably was a bad idea. Again, the point of the Crucible was to show the utter desperation of the galaxy. Nobody knew if it would work. Nobody even knew how to use it. All Shepard knew is he needed to do something otherwise the Reapers were going to wipe out the entire galaxy.

 

Synthesis is by far the most ridiculous choice out of the four you can make. It completely betrays everything Shepard fought for and turns the entire galaxy into a new breed of Reapers. Anyone who made that choice merely because they thought they were "saving everyone" did not understand the gravity of their choice. Destroy is the only viable option and was the choice Shepard made since ME1. Again, BioWare wanted the player to have the power to choose the future, whether it was the right choice or not. That was irrelevant.

 

Again, I disagree. A large theme of Mass Effect was mystery, advanced civilizations, and the unknown. What do you think Mass Relays, the protheans, the reapers, and the Citadel were? The entire galaxy just assumed the protheans built them. Nobody actually knew the truth. Half of the point of Shepard's trilogy was uncovering the truth in order to save the galaxy from imminent destruction. The only element I would argue BioWare may have erred was that they made the endings of ME1 and ME2 very simplistic with a clear paragon/renegade choice. Save the council or let them die? Destroy the collector base or keep it? ME3 didn't do this. It gave four possible choices that were morally ambiguous and there wasn't a right or wrong answer.

 

That's exactly what the visions foreshadowed. The Leviathans inherently had the power of indoctrination. The Leviathans created the Catalyst in order to keep organics and synthetics in check. The Catalyst eventually went too far, betraying the Leviathans, and came up with the extermination of cycles every 50,000 years. Shepard was an anomaly. He was something different. When he defeated Sovereign, Harbinger, the leader of the Reapers, took notice. The reapers attempted to build a human reaper because of Shepard and even then they still failed. The Catalyst, the mastermind behind it all, recognized direct intervention into Shepard was necessary.

 

It's not until Shepard "boards" the Citadel and confronts the Catalyst that the AI's motivations and plans change. Shepard was suffering from symptoms of Indoctrination and it was a last ditch effort on the part of the Catalyst to break him. No, I'm not referring to the Indoctrination Theory, as that suggested that any choice other than Destroy would mean you "lose" and the reapers win. The reapers aren't even the true focus here. The point is Shepard was unlike any organic the Catalyst had ever encountered, so it did its best to stop him, which is also why Earth was the first target by the reapers.

 

There are a lot more connections than people give the game credit. It's an incredibly well-executed story and everything does make sense when you have the appropriate context. Again, Leviathan probably should have been in the game to start, but even so, BioWare wanted to end ME3 on a high note. They weren't going to merely do another terrible boss battle like Saren or the human reaper. They were going to use their strong point, BioWare choice, in order to complete the final moments of the experience. I won't deny that it was a moral dilemma with no clear answer and there was no "happy ending." That was the point. I think the problem for many is they just don't understand what ME was actually about.

[Heimdall]

People were confused. That is why the Indoctrination Theory was created. That is why all these various conspiracy theories and nonsense arose out of the ending because people had no clue what was going on. Instead of trying to understand the story, they had to make up excuses to try and justify how they wanted the game to end. Those who were completely unhappy with how the game ended just disregarded the game altogether.

Oh boy, that's why you think people came up with those theories? Good lord... People knew exactly what was going on, and they found it entirely unsatisfactory. They came up with things like Indoctrination theory in an attempt to make it so it had never happened because they didn't like it, not because they were confused.

I strongly disagree with your interpretations myself. And I find them a bit disingenuous, you call the ending choices "a moral dilemma with no clear answer" and "the ultimate moral dilemma" but also say that Destroy was the only viable option. And that's a large part of the problem. The entire "dilemma" was poorly executed, a sham even. The entire game, Shepard had been forced to be against the Illusive Man's ideas of Control. For the entire series, the meshing of organics and synthetics has been approached with horror, with Shepard never having much option but to decry it. And yet here at the 11th hour, we're given the option to destroy the Reapers... Or do the two things we've been beaten over the head with as bad ideas for two games (Bizarrely presented as good things). That's not a brilliant moral dilemma, thats thematic dissonance.

Now, I don't hate the endings myself (Though I do take issue with your interpretation of Synthesis) but I can't honestly say that the only thing wrong with the endings was that they confused people.

[Revan Reborn]

Oh boy, that's why you think people came up with those theories? Good lord... People knew exactly what was going on, and they found it entirely unsatisfactory. They came up with things like Indoctrination theory in an attempt to make it so it had never happened because they didn't like it, not because they were confused.

I strongly disagree with your interpretations myself. And I find them a bit disingenuous, you call the ending choices "a moral dilemma with no clear answer" and "the ultimate moral dilemma" but also say that Destroy was the only viable option. And that's a large part of the problem. The entire "dilemma" was poorly executed, a sham even. The entire game, Shepard had been forced to be against the Illusive Man's ideas of Control. For the entire series, the meshing of organics and synthetics has been approached with horror, with Shepard never having much option but to decry it. And yet here at the 11th hour, we're given the option to destroy the Reapers... Or do the two things we've been beaten over the head with as bad ideas for two games (Bizarrely presented as good things). That's not a brilliant moral dilemma, thats thematic dissonance.

Now, I don't hate the endings myself (Though I do take issue with your interpretation of Synthesis) but I can't honestly say that the only thing wrong with the endings was that they confused people.

Of course they were confused, especially about the Catalyst. EC and Leviathan fill in a lot of gaps that the original ending did not originally have, which is when the Indoctrination Theory was originally created. People did not understand, and as a result they did not like the ending because it wasn't straightforward and easy to understand.

 

Destroy was the clear option if you wanted to complete the mission you were always given. It was a moral dilemma because you had the choice to shape the future however you'd like and there wasn't necessarily a "wrong" ending. It's not thematic dissonance at all. Did you even speak to the Catalyst? Apparently you missed the point of the entire scene. For one, he was trying to persuade you and present these options in the most positive light. Secondly Shepard wasn't TIM, which Shepard could potentially succeed where TIM failed. This wasn't a matter of what was right or wrong. It was a matter of what kind of future you envisioned. That was the point.

 

Synthesis is a new kind of reaper. What do you think the reapers are? There is no other way to interpret it. Synthesis is what the Catalyst wanted all along and the reapers were the first attempt at Synthesis. Again, had Leviathan and EC come out at release I believe the response would have been different.

[Revan Reborn]

Clearly you have no idea that i have read the entire codex. Go educate yourself on how the mass effect story actually works first before you get to tell me something like that.

You are really hard to take seriously when your argument is "read the lore" or "look at the codex." It's a simple fact that many did not understand ME3 at all, let alone the ending. It's a very complex game, and it went over the head of man fans, which isn't surprising as ME1 and ME2 were much more simplistic in storytelling. To not recognize this is to not understand the game at all. It's that simple. Feel free to actually provide valid critiques rather than weak arguments with no substance.

[Vazgen]

ME2 is much more disconnected from ME1 than ME3 IMO. It introduces themes absolutely non-consistent with ME1. Cerberus as a global organization, dark energy, Collectors, Council dismissing Reaper threat after acknowledging it in ME1. It can actually pass up as a spin-off. I do agree that Bioware could've focused more on organic/synthetic theme if they considered it the main one. Deus Ex is a good example, the whole game is based on organic/synthetic relations and game literally beats you over the head with this. In ME1 and ME3 it's a lot more subtle, and almost non-existent in ME2. It is present though, so it's not like they came up with it out of nowhere.

[Vazgen]

From ME2 I got the impression that the writing team was split and undecided with what to use for ME3. Walters was fond of organic/synthetic conflict and set the base for developing it even further with Shepard's cybernetic implants. I'm guessing that's where the human reaper came as well. Drew was fond of his dark energy theory and tried to advocate it on Freedom's Progress and Haestrom. As a result, neither theme was developed enough, organic/synthetic was a little more developed due to Overlord DLC (in which, I guess, Drew didn't take part). Mass Effect is quite a complex story but it's execution failed numerous times. Does it make me like the series less? Not at all, I'm going to start a new trilogy run soon. 

[Revan Reborn]

I'm not actually criticizing, I'm simply stating that you're getting a lot of stuff the wrong way. But yes, I agree, The fans didn't get a lot of stuff. But the entire narrative of ME3 was flawed and felt disconnected from the previous games. For many reasons. Let's take the ending for example, If you have played Deus Ex: Human Revolution, You'd notice how much the two endings are similar. Yet, Almost no one complained about Deus Ex: Human Revolution's ending. Why? Because the game really needed a symbolic ending, It really fitted its themes though it could use more work. The plot as a whole. But that's now what we're talking about right now. The Catalyst logic does make sense to some extent, But it doesn't fit the themes of Mass Effect from the start. The First mass effect was about you exploring the world, Finding out that there's too much complexity behind the world than you originally thought.  Which explains the mysteries that science couldn't explain. And you didn't feel forced to do anything, Your cause was entirely yours. Being a Renegade, Cynical human, Or a Paragon, Open minded human in the cause of progression of humanity and understanding. No one complained about the lore because it felt real and it didn't feel forced. As for ME2, You were forced to work with Cerberus, But that really made sense as they were the ones who resurrected you. But the lore wasn't forced either, As my Shepard said, Cerberus is a necessary evil right now. In ME3, You're forced to care about Earth that's suddenly very important, And then you go ask the council to provide support to Earth with their own resistance unorganized. ME3 also focused on forcing emotions on you, The team wanted to make it an emotional game, Rather than choose your own emotion game. And that surely has something to do with the original lead writer of ME1 and ME2 leaving BioWare after ME2. As he had another ending in mind that could have been really good if it was properly developed. You probably have heard about the dark energy ending. Mac Walters "Lead writer of ME3" was originally a side-missions writer back in ME1. And it's believed that Drew "Lead writer of ME1" was in charge of the collector story arch in ME2. So, It was a mistake to give that guy, Mac, Full authority over mass effect 3 writing process as the results would be disconnecting from the original two games as ME3 was supposed to answer all your unasnwered questions from the entire trilogy to fully conclude the series. I thought the game could end with a big twist, KOTOR-like twist that ties up all your unanswered questions and gives you full closure. However, What the fans really wanted was an another thing and for different reasons. You can't really generalize the entire fandom as confused because they all have different reasons. And what BioWare has done is a totally another thing.

I asked for an explanation of how my analysis of ME3 was supposedly "wrong" and you gave me a history lesson about Drew Karpyshyn leaving and Mac Walters taking his place. I'll explain why this is an illusory point momentarily.

 

First and foremost, before ME1 was even released, BioWare knew this was going to be a trilogy. They knew where the direction of the games were going, and they had an idea of how it was going to end. This was all established during the franchise building phase when Casey, Drew, Ray, Greg, etc. all got together and determined what they wanted Mass Effect to be and what conflicts would entail.

 

Mass Effect was always about trying to explain the unexplainable. To travel to unknown places to discover ancient civilizations and learn about the "truth of the universe." The main driving force was Shepard's determination to destroy the reapers, this unknown entity, no matter the cost. This was all established early on the first time Shepard comes into contact with a prothean beacon on Eden Prime.

 

I'm not understanding your dichotomy between "real" and "forced." In retrospect, everything in Mass Effect is "forced" on us. Becoming a Spectre, hunting Saren, fighting Sovereign, working for Cerberus, defeating the Collectors, this list goes on and on. This is what I was referring to before that "choice" in Mass Effect is illusory. We never really had choice. Shepard was already an established character. The only aspect we could customize was gender, appearance, and personality (renegade/paragon). We weren't choosing choices that made our own personal Shepards. We were merely following a determined path BioWare allowed us to pursue.

 

Why wouldn't you care for Earth? You are human. You are an Alliance soldier. You swore and oath and duty to protect humanity. The game was very much an emotional experience, but within the same parameters that the previous two games set. It was no more limiting in its approach. In fact, ME3 brought closure to many issues such as the genophage, geth vs. quarians, rachni, cerberus, reapers obviously, etc. I haven't even mentioned any of the companions and supporting cast, of which were all present.

 

Also, you seem to have your facts wrong. Drew Karpyshyn did not "leave" BioWare after ME2. He was also only the lead writer for ME1. What happened is Drew transferred over to the BioWare Austin team to help create the SWTOR story for the Jedi Knight class as well as continue Revan and the Exile's story. In his absence, he had collaborated with Mac Walters so that he could carry the torch. Mac Walters was the lead writer on ME2 (Drew received mention for helping write ME2) and ME3, and just so you know Drew was still involved, making Udina the councilor in ME3 was Drew's idea.

 

There is no "disconnect" between the games. There was always an overarching story that BioWare was going to pursue before ME1 was even released. Yes, the lead writer changed, but there story was not as heavily modified as you are claiming. Again, most of the criticism behind ME3's ending was entirely confusion. People didn't understand, and quite frankly they shouldn't have just by one playthrough. EC and Leviathan give some necessary context, but then you really have to analyze what is happening, Shepard's hallucinations and nightmares, etc. to truly grasp why this all actually makes sense. Believe it or not, Mac Walters didn't betray the source material at all. He did not "betray" the lore. What he did do was make an incredibly complex, emotional, psychological drama that showed a side of Mass Effect that the first two games had always alluded to.

[Iakus]

People were confused. That is why the Indoctrination Theory was created. That is why all these various conspiracy theories and nonsense arose out of the ending because people had no clue what was going on. Instead of trying to understand the story, they had to make up excuses to try and justify how they wanted the game to end. Those who were completely unhappy with how the game ended just disregarded the game altogether.

 

That last statement doesn't even make any sense. ME3 would be unplayable if you did not import your Shepard. The very first five minutes of the game wouldn't make sense if you did not play Arrival. I always find it funny how people will argue "my choices didn't matter" when many don't seem to realize how much their choices in ME1 and ME2 actually impacted ME3, from small changes to massive. You merely take BioWare's excellent storytelling for granted because of your own negative perception of the ending. You do the entire franchise a disservice.

 

No, people were told they were confused.  Which is not the same thing at all.  What people wanted was for what they saw happening at the end was not really what happened.  They wanted a way out of it.  

 

And if my last statement doesn't make sense, let me give you "clarity and closure": Unless you played Shepard as a tragic figure who watches virtually everyone he/she knows and cares about dying to stop the Reapers, you destined for a thematically jarring ending.  You are still stuck with  someone else's (ie Mac's) ending.

[RoboticWater]

*snip*

Maybe I'm just horrible at analysis, but I'm not seeing the whole "incredibly complex, emotional, psychological drama."

 

Mass Effect was never a game you had to pick apart to understand. It had mystery and discovery, but there was never a sense of conspiracy; I didn't need to observe every twitch in Shepard's eye, or every movement of TIM's hand to understand the conclusions of the first two games. They were quite simple. Yes, proper understanding of the lore might make certain plot points easier to swallow or even enhance their meaning, but I never had to play the game again to understand what was going on.

 

I might have an easier time believing you if Shepard had nightmares throughout the trilogy, or if the questions posed by the ending were spread evenly along the plot, but that didn’t happen. They seemed out of place, and I still believe that they're just failed attempts to flesh out Shepard's emotions, but again, maybe I'm bad at analysis.

 

I'd like to think you're right, that ME3 is somehow a masterpiece of writing, but it simply isn't. There's just too much junk littered throughout the plot: lame dialog ("We fight or we die!" seriously?), plotless side missions, annoying plot conveniences (finding the Crucible just in time, Udina turning evil, Rachni appearing no matter what, etc.), and the lobotomization of Cerberus. The whole game reeks of rushed content: Tali’s stock photo, myriad offscreen deaths, the nonsense that lead up to the Catalyst, slapdash fetch quests, etc.

 

Moment to moment, at Rannoch and Tuchanka and various conversations in between, ME3 shines, but those are just patches on a tattered cloth. Not only does a complex plot seem unlikely, it would be impossible pull off  given the poor surroundings. For a conspiracy to work on scale you're suggesting, ME3 would have to be nearly flawless. Why should the writer expect me to read so far into his plot if half the time there's nothing to see but a perfunctory mess?

 

We have it on record that the writers wanted ME3 to be accessible. I find it incredibly unreasonable that the writers would manufacture a story, which is apparently newcomer friendly, that would be confusing to a majority of the vocal fanbase. No, I'll take Ockham's side on this one. Mac messed this one up. He might have gotten some things right. He may even do some good work in MENext, but he’s got a lot to prove

[Heimdall]

Of course they were confused, especially about the Catalyst. EC and Leviathan fill in a lot of gaps that the original ending did not originally have, which is when the Indoctrination Theory was originally created. People did not understand, and as a result they did not like the ending because it wasn't straightforward and easy to understand.

Destroy was the clear option if you wanted to complete the mission you were always given. It was a moral dilemma because you had the choice to shape the future however you'd like and there wasn't necessarily a "wrong" ending. It's not thematic dissonance at all. Did you even speak to the Catalyst? Apparently you missed the point of the entire scene. For one, he was trying to persuade you and present these options in the most positive light. Secondly Shepard wasn't TIM, which Shepard could potentially succeed where TIM failed. This wasn't a matter of what was right or wrong. It was a matter of what kind of future you envisioned. That was the point.

Its thematic dissonance when the game does a heel face turn at the end and presents solutions that have been rebuffed for two games as suddenly viable based on nothing more than the main character's specialness. The entire series, Shepard was given one mission, to destroy the Reapers. Whenever anything like synthesis or control are brought up, they are universally panned as abominable and doomed. If those questions had been posed throughout the trilogy as something other than black and white (Always black), the final choice might have been a poignant dilemma. They weren't and it wasn't, instead it just felt jarring. And then the Catalyst tries to convince us that it was really all about organics vs synthetics, something that had been more or less isolated to the Geth/Quarian subplot since the first game.

Sorry, but there is serious dissonance between the final five minutes and the rest of the game.

Synthesis is a new kind of reaper. What do you think the reapers are? There is no other way to interpret it. Synthesis is what the Catalyst wanted all along and the reapers were the first attempt at Synthesis. Again, had Leviathan and EC come out at release I believe the response would have been different.

The Reapers are a means to an end, not the goal. Now who wasn't paying attention to the Catalyst? See, this is what makes it so hard to take you seriously. You claim there is no right answer yet refuse to consider the notion that your interpretations aren't absolute. Anyone who disagrees is simply "confused". Thus anyone that doesn't kowtow to your glorious logic about the magnificent artistry of the endings has just failed to understand them. No room for genuine criticism. There's no point in arguing with someone so opinionated. I'm done here.

[Revan Reborn]

Maybe I'm just horrible at analysis, but I'm not seeing the whole "incredibly complex, emotional, psychological drama."

 

Mass Effect was never a game you had to pick apart to understand. It had mystery and discovery, but there was never a sense of conspiracy; I didn't need to observe every twitch in Shepard's eye, or every movement of TIM's hand to understand the conclusions of the first two games. They were quite simple. Yes, proper understanding of the lore might make certain plot points easier to swallow or even enhance their meaning, but I never had to play the game again to understand what was going on.

 

I might have an easier time believing you if Shepard had nightmares throughout the trilogy, or if the questions posed by the ending were spread evenly along the plot, but that didn’t happen. They seemed out of place, and I still believe that they're just failed attempts to flesh out Shepard's emotions, but again, maybe I'm bad at analysis.

 

I'd like to think you're right, that ME3 is somehow a masterpiece of writing, but it simply isn't. There's just too much junk littered throughout the plot: lame dialog ("We fight or we die!" seriously?), plotless side missions, annoying plot conveniences (finding the Crucible just in time, Udina turning evil, Rachni appearing no matter what, etc.), and the lobotomization of Cerberus. The whole game reeks of rushed content: Tali’s stock photo, myriad offscreen deaths, the nonsense that lead up to the Catalyst, slapdash fetch quests, etc.

 

Moment to moment, at Rannoch and Tuchanka and various conversations in between, ME3 shines, but those are just patches on a tattered cloth. Not only does a complex plot seem unlikely, it would be impossible pull off  given the poor surroundings. For a conspiracy to work on scale you're suggesting, ME3 would have to be nearly flawless. Why should the writer expect me to read so far into his plot if half the time there's nothing to see but a perfunctory mess?

 

We have it on record that the writers wanted ME3 to be accessible. I find it incredibly unreasonable that the writers would manufacture a story, which is apparently newcomer friendly, that would be confusing to a majority of the vocal fanbase. No, I'll take Ockham's side on this one. Mac messed this one up. He might have gotten some things right. He may even do some good work in MENext, but he’s got a lot to prove

Others are claiming conspiracy. I'm saying that's purely nonsense. I agreed that ME1 and ME2 were very straightforward. They were not complex games with a lot of symbolism and hidden meanings. ME3 is different in that respect.

 

Shepard never suffered from symptoms of indocrination prior to that incident. ME1 he was busy chasing Saren. ME2 he was killed and then he was busy chasing the Collectors. As far has ME3 is concern, it's the very first time Shepard is dealing with an army of reapers, rather than just Sovereign or Harbinger who were plotting mainly from behind the scenes.

 

The questions were posed... ME1 was about Destroying the reapers to prevent extermination of the galaxy. In ME2, Shepard sees TIM's method of attempting to Control the reapers rather than destroying them. If you replay ME3, TIM talks about this virtually every single encounter in the game and how is approach is different to Shepard's. The Catalyst always wanted Synthesis. It wanted to permanently end chaos between organics and synthetics, and reapers were its first answer. It found this to be imperfect and continuously reset cycles until it could find a better solution. This explains the reapers motives and why they disappear for a time.

 

Udina didn't turn "evil." He merely grew tired of the Council politics and their unwillingness to ever believe and help humans (we see this going back all the way to ME1). He wasn't convinced Shepard's way was best for humanity, so he put in his bet with Cerberus. It wasn't about being "evil." Udina just wanted what he believed was best for humanity, and that was by removing the other Council races so that humans could dictate the agenda of the war.

 

What do you mean finding the Crucible just in time? According to TIM, the Alliance had found out about its existence thirty years prior to ME3. They were merely just sitting on the information and didn't do anything with it. Replay the Mars mission. In ME1 you had the choice to kill the last supposed rachni queen. There was never an indication that she was the last of the rachni and there were no more left. I could see why those who chose to kill the rachni queen might be upset, but that choice was far from definite. Much like putting Anderson on the Council, he shows his dislike for it in ME2 and Udina replaces him because Anderson quits, as is addressed in the ME3 codex.

 

How was Cerberus lobotomized? TIM was always true to his motives and goals since ME2. That did not change in ME3. You seem to just be subjective and picky at this point. Many elements, like Tali's photo, aren't relevant to the main point of the Mass Effect trilogy.

 

What's beautiful about ME3's writing is you are just as ignorant in what is happening as Shepard is. He mentions how he finds this plan to be ridiculous and unlikely placing all his hopes on a weapon that he is not even sure will work. He has no idea how this ends. Neither does the audience. It's not until we finally encounter the Catalyst and understand its purpose that various events that happened previously begin to make sense and have context. This isn't the kind of story you can just understand entirely from beginning to end. It was written very methodically in order to make the player think and wrestle with what was happening on the screen, much like Shepard did.

 

I never said the story was flawless. There is no story that is truly perfect. That doesn't mean I do not recognize and appreciate the brilliance that went into writing the script, and there is much more to it than many give it credit. BioWare also said that ME2 would be "accessible" and DA2 would be "accessible." That's just PR talking. The Mass Effect franchise was a trilogy of games. In order to understand entirely the events of any of the games, you had to play from ME1 through ME3. Doing a standalone playthrough or even using the Genesis would not give you the understanding and knowledge to know what is happening or appreciating it.

 

I think Mac's only flaw is he was too ambitious and BioWare really tried to make ME3 the ultimate experience for concluding what was an amazing trilogy. I believe they succeeded in quite a few ways, but their approach was difficult and a very different kind of experience from ME1 and ME2. That is where I believe many people felt disappointed or upset. As far as MENext is concerned, he's not driving the story anymore. He has more or less taken over Casey's job of making sure the direction is the way the team wants to go with MENext. It's up to Schierf to determine what the new experience for MENext will be, and I believe it will be quite different from anything we've seen.

 

Its thematic dissonance when the game does a heel face turn at the end and presents solutions that have been rebuffed for two games as suddenly viable based on nothing more than the main character's specialness. The entire series, Shepard was given one mission, to destroy the Reapers. Whenever anything like synthesis or control are brought up, they are universally panned as abominable and doomed. If those questions had been posed throughout the trilogy as something other than black and white (Always black), the final choice might have been a poignant dilemma. They weren't and it wasn't, instead it just felt jarring. And then the Catalyst tries to convince us that it was really all about organics vs synthetics, something that had been more or less isolated to the Geth/Quarian subplot since the first game.

Sorry, but there is serious dissonance between the final five minutes and the rest of the game.

The Reapers are a means to an end, not the goal. Now who wasn't paying attention to the Catalyst? See, this is what makes it so hard to take you seriously. You claim there is no right answer yet refuse to consider the notion that your interpretations aren't absolute. Anyone who disagrees is simply "confused". Thus anyone that doesn't kowtow to your glorious logic about the magnificent artistry of the endings has just failed to understand them. No room for genuine criticism. There's no point in arguing with someone so opinionated. I'm done here.

Not at all, as it was abundantly clear by the Catalyst's words that it was pushing Shepard to choose Synthesis over everything else. Shepard's mission was always to destroy, but this was a final attempt to shape Shepard's perception, and give the players the choice of determining what the future of the galaxy is. As far as Shepard being special... Did you play ME1 and ME2? He's the first Human Spectre. He stops Saren and destroys Sovereign. He obtains the prothean cypher and is able to connect with and understand prothean beacons. Because of how special he is, Harbinger has him killed by the Collectors, but of course he is brought back to life by Cerberus.

 

He then pulls off the impossible by surviving a trip to the Omega 4 Relay and defeats the Collectors, whose technology is vastly superior to his own. He also destroys a human reaper on the side, and miraculously escapes with all of his team intact (if you went the completionist route). Shepard was "special" long before ME3's ending. He was special the very first time we met him on ME1. He would have even been more special, had BioWare followed one of Drew's earliest ideas, about making Shepard an alien to explain his special talents. That was dropped because of the similarities, in terms of a plot twist, like we saw in KotOR 1 with the revelation of Revan.

 

Synthesis was implicitly suggested, as Shepard and the others didn't know the purpose of the reapers and what their intentions were. They would always receive the "our motivations are beyond your comprehension" speech from every reaper they encountered. Saren somewhat hints at the idea of a co-existence between organics and synthetics as early as ME1, but we are never given context about what this entirely means. It's also not until ME2 that we find out that reapers are not synthetics at all, but an advanced hybrid between machines and organics. The science behind reaper creation is never fully explained, only that organic life force is necessary in order to bring a reaper to life.

 

I wouldn't say that Synthesis and Control were clearly black. That is certainly how Paragon/Renegade Shepard treated them, but the actual story paints a much more grey picture. Saren wasn't the obligatory "bad guy." He is painted that way, initially, and we are left to believe he is terrible because he kills Nihlus and supposedly controls the ship named Sovereign. It's not until Virmire that we realize Saren is not in control at all, and that he is merely a pawn. We then learn from his conversation on Virmire and the Citadel that he is actually trying to save the galaxy. He saw the destruction of the reapers impossible, and was looking for a solution to somehow co-exist with them. This inevitably fails as he succumbs to indoctrination and plays right into Sovereign's hands.

 

Control is also as morally ambiguous as synthesis is. TIM was never evil. He merely believed that the ends justified the means, no matter what. He was willing to do what nobody else would, and thanks to him Shepard was brought back to life to stop the Collectors. We cannot forget that besides saving the galaxy, TIM always wanted to put humans first. That is why he wanted to understand reaper technology and use it to advance humanity. He saw it as an opportunity to not only stop the reapers, but push humans forward technologically thousands of years. TIM's failings is that he inevitably suffered from indoctrination and lost his way and purpose, being used as a tool to stop Shepard.

 

We learn from the Catalyst that synthesis was always the end goal. As I said before, I believe the reapers were the first "attempt" at synthesis (they are both organic and synthetic), but were incomplete. They were a necessary evil until the Catalyst could find a more permanent and finite solution to the problem. Making what we know as reapers was not the goal. However, the Synthesis proposed in ME3 was a new kind of reaper, which supposedly rectified the mistakes of the previous version. The Catalyst only wants you to choose Synthesis, and he argues for it rather profusely at the end of the game. It's ultimately Shepard's choice what happens and what path you believe is "best" for the galaxy, but Destroy would be most true to Shepard's personality.

 

I don't believe I ever stated I was "absolutely right about everything." What I did say, from hearing and seeing a lot of discussion about ME3's ending since it was released, is that there is a lot of misinformation and frustration about the story. Many seemed to have missed crucial points or forgotten key facts from previous games. My point is that to truly appreciate ME3 you had to have a broad and critical understanding of the entire trilogy. It's not just something you can glance at casually and expect to understand its full intent. This is why I used Inception or 2001: A Space Odyssey as examples. ME3 isn't as sophisticated at those films, but it does require a lot of analysis in order to truly grasp the entirety of the situation and what the point of the trilogy was.

 

The truth is Shepard never knew what the intent or purpose of the reapers were. He just knew they were a threat to the galaxy and he had to destroy them to save it. We find out to a degree in ME2 and mostly ME3 what reapers are and what they are attempting to do.

[fyz306903]

And yet here at the 11th hour, we're given the option to destroy the Reapers... Or do the two things we've been beaten over the head with as bad ideas for two games (Bizarrely presented as good things). That's not a brilliant moral dilemma, thats thematic dissonance.

 

That's my problem with ME3's endings. If Bioware had a clear plan for ME3's endings, shouldn't this have been a bit...clearer in the game?

The endings seemed to go against the ME1 and ME2, by making Control and Synthesis seem good. Hell, judging by how the EMS unlocks worked (highest EMS need for synthesis) and by EDI speech of everything being lovely, It really seemed to spell out 'Synthesis' as the best option!  In addition to this, it bizarrely made 'Destroy' also destroy all synthetics for no reason. (Come on, it's Sci-Fi, they could easily have just made the Crucible a 'Reaper-only Killer 3000' and no one at all would have said: 'Why doesn't this wipe out synthetics as well?') 

I don't know about anyone else, but this seems to me like a cheap way of stopping 'Destroy' from being perfect, and a way of making all ME fans hell-bent on destroying the reapers hesitate and say 'hmmm, maybe Saren and TIM were right all along!'.  

 

Leaving aside the fact that the endings were obviously at least a bit rushed and could have been fleshed out a LOT more, I'm not sure if this 'maybe the bad guys had it right all along' idea is due to clever writing or just a cheap plot twist. I really hope ME4 clarifies the endings in some way, but Bioware sound like they just want to forget about them. 

Lastly, to anyone believing the Indoctrination Theory to be true, all I can say is: 'Wouldn't Bioware have admitted this by now?' I'd actually not mind IT being true, but there's no way a company would make the existence of a good ending like this so ambiguous. Again, if ME4 is a sequel, (which seems extremely unlikely), they'd have to clarify this. 

[Revan Reborn]

That's my problem with ME3's endings. If Bioware had a clear plan for ME3's endings, shouldn't this have been a bit...clearer in the game?

The endings seemed to go against the ME1 and ME2, by making Control and Synthesis seem good. Hell, judging by how the EMS unlocks worked (highest EMS need for synthesis) and by EDI speech of everything being lovely, It really seemed to spell out 'Synthesis' as the best option!  In addition to this, it bizarrely made 'Destroy' also destroy all synthetics for no reason. (Come on, it's Sci-Fi, they could easily have just made the Crucible a 'Reaper-only Killer 3000' and no one at all would have said: 'Why doesn't this wipe out synthetics as well?') 

I don't know about anyone else, but this seems to me like a cheap way of stopping 'Destroy' from being perfect, and a way of making all ME fans hell-bent on destroying the reapers hesitate and say 'hmmm, maybe Saren and TIM were right all along!'.  

 

Leaving aside the fact that the endings were obviously at least a bit rushed and could have been fleshed out a LOT more, I'm not sure if this 'maybe the bad guys had it right all along' idea is due to clever writing or just a cheap plot twist. I really hope ME4 clarifies the endings in some way, but Bioware sound like they just want to forget about them. 

Lastly, to anyone believing the Indoctrination Theory to be true, all I can say is: 'Wouldn't Bioware have admitted this by now?' I'd actually not mind IT being true, but there's no way a company would make the existence of a good ending like this so ambiguous. Again, if ME4 is a sequel, (which seems extremely unlikely), they'd have to clarify this. 

On the contrary, I believe the discussions with EDI and saving the geth actually proved the Catalyst wrong. It believed organics and synthetics could never co-exist. What would it say when it witnessed the Geth helping the Quarians rebuild Rannoch and even helping them resolve their deficient immunities? Or the fact that an organic, Joker, was in a relationship with a synthetic, EDI? What the Catalyst failed to understand was that the Reaper threat brought all organics and synthetics together in the galaxy. They were all fighting as one, rather than fighting each other.

 

As far as Destroy killing all synthetics, it merely reaffirms the point that the Catalyst does not want you to choose Destroy. I question whether all synthetics would have died if not for its presence during the choice? The Catalyst was a rogue AI after all, and certainly had the capacity to lie to Shepard if it wanted. With respect to BioWare, they didn't want a perfect "happy ending." They wanted there to be a moral dilemma and for the player to sacrifice something. If you didn't sacrifice anything with Destroy, it would have largely obsoleted the appeal of the others. Again, the Catalyst wanted you to choose synthesis. It believes that choice is the only way to truly create "peace."

 

I will be shocked if BioWare just sweeps ME3 under the rug and doesn't address the endings in MENext. Also, BioWare has never taken a stance on any of the theories about ME3's ending. All they stated about IT was that it was "interesting." Obviously a bit of IT was disproved when EC was released, but I do believe some of the theory still has validity. Indoctrination was a major theme that had been explained since ME1, and it was clear Shepard was exhibiting symptoms to a degree. The likelihood that Shepard could have survived a direct hit from Harbinger is almost zero. If you listen to the dialogue after Shepard is hit, it suggests that the everybody was wiped out and to retreat. We even see Harbinger leave the area, which would have been unlikely had Shepard somehow miraculously gotten up.

 

How did Anderson find his way on the Citadel? Unharmed no less. Why was Shepard also conveniently in the right part of the Citadel to activate the Catalyst? When Anderson "dies" after being shot and talking to Shepard, why do we then see fresh blood on Shepard's arms all of the sudden? That fresh blood also disappears when Shepard is elevated to converse with the Catalyst. Why does the Catalyst resemble the small child Shepard had witnessed since the opening scenes of the game? The ending moments of the game are far from what they appear. Especially after the Citadel is destroyed, do you believe a badly hurt Shepard would have survived re-entry to Earth or the explosion from the blast?

 

BioWare treats their stories like art. Just like how many directors and writers will never explain their films, BioWare is not obligated to explain us the ending of ME3. The truth of the matter is, they want us to question how it ended and to analyze and ponder what it all meant. It's very likely they left it ambiguous because they wanted to see how the community would respond and what kind of discussion would be started. In most of BioWare's games, their endings are always straightforward and need no further explanation. ME3 was different. Those who believe it was "rushed" are just failing to connect the dots and recognize this isn't entirely reality being witnessed.

[fyz306903]

On the contrary, I believe the discussions with EDI and saving the geth actually proved the Catalyst wrong. It believed organics and synthetics could never co-exist. What would it say when it witnessed the Geth helping the Quarians rebuild Rannoch and even helping them resolve their deficient immunities? Or the fact that an organic, Joker, was in a relationship with a synthetic, EDI? What the Catalyst failed to understand was that the Reaper threat brought all organics and synthetics together in the galaxy. They were all fighting as one, rather than fighting each other.

Definitely true, and EDI/Shepbringer/Hackett's monologues don't seem to foreshadow a 'bit fall out' between the races. Considering everything, I think 'synthesis' is the 'happiest' and best (IMO) ending because it sort of inflicts the harshest defeat on the reapers: By making them obsolete. I personally was one of the 'hmm, maybe Saren and TIM were onto something' people.

IMO, what made their versions of 'control' and 'synthesis' bad was that they wanted it for power rather than peace. Bad guys are bad due to their actions, not the other way around, contrary to some people are saying. Still, I'm interested, considering the clarifications brought by EC and leviathan DLC, and ignoring their remaining shortcomings, which ending do you prefer out of the four? Or do you not really like any of them? 

[Revan Reborn]

Definitely true, and EDI/Shepbringer/Hackett's monologues don't seem to foreshadow a 'bit fall out' between the races. Considering everything, I think 'synthesis' is the 'happiest' and best (IMO) ending because it sort of inflicts the harshest defeat on the reapers: By making them obsolete. I personally was one of the 'hmm, maybe Saren and TIM were onto something' people.

IMO, what made their versions of 'control' and 'synthesis' bad was that they wanted it for power rather than peace. Bad guys are bad due to their actions, not the other way around, contrary to some people are saying. Still, I'm interested, considering the clarifications brought by EC and leviathan DLC, and ignoring their remaining shortcomings, which ending do you prefer out of the four? Or do you not really like any of them? 

I personally chose Destroy because I found it to be the most conclusive and practical out of the endings. It also has minor incentive as it's the only choice Shepard can actually survive.

 

Synthesis was the idealistic "perfect" choice, but I saw shortcomings in that you were forcing organics and synthetics to evolve and creating this new hybrid entity. There was too much uncertainty around it and I certainly wasn't interested in playing God, nor was I interested in taking the advice of a rogue AI who had a warped understanding of what peace and order was. The idea of converting everybody into a new type of reaper also wasn't high on my list of things to do.

 

Control was never appealing to me, even though the Catalyst suggested that Shepard could do what TIM failed to achieve. Nobody, not even Shepard, should have the capacity to control the reapers. They are far too dangerous and that would be too much power for one individual. Again, you would be playing God by exerting your will or beliefs on the rest of the galaxy, and I don't see that being ideal in any situation.

 

I saw Refuse as purely fan service. I wouldn't call it a choice as much as refusing to choose. It was a nice touch what BioWare did with Liara's beacon, but certainly my ending of the trilogy had to be definitive rather than not accomplishing anything.

[Vazgen]

On the contrary, I believe the discussions with EDI and saving the geth actually proved the Catalyst wrong. It believed organics and synthetics could never co-exist. What would it say when it witnessed the Geth helping the Quarians rebuild Rannoch and even helping them resolve their deficient immunities? Or the fact that an organic, Joker, was in a relationship with a synthetic, EDI? What the Catalyst failed to understand was that the Reaper threat brought all organics and synthetics together in the galaxy. They were all fighting as one, rather than fighting each other.

The Catalyst is not proven wrong, it's a common misconception. First, those are isolated cases of coexistence achieved due to the threat of the Reapers. Second, the Catalyst speaks from a perspective of a billion year-old immortal machine that witnessed the same pattern in all cycles. The same quarians can start another war when the Reapers are dealt with, people like Xen and Gerrel are not that easily pacified. And, to note, they don't wipe out each other only due to Shepard's intervention. And there is nothing to stop organics from creating new synthetics and facing another conflict. 

EDI is another case. She is friendly, yes, but what of Eva? Another synthetic, created on the base of EDI - totally hostile. EDI herself is based on the rogue VI that wiped out Alliance soldiers on Luna. 

It does not believe that organics and synthetics can never coexist. There will be peace but it won't last. It was created to oversee organic and synthetic relations and its solution "preserves" both synthetic and organic life. That's why it intervenes on Rannoch, despite not doing so being the best course of action for the Reapers.

[Revan Reborn]

The Catalyst is not proven wrong, it's a common misconception. First, those are isolated cases of coexistence achieved due to the threat of the Reapers. Second, the Catalyst speaks from a perspective of a billion year-old immortal machine that witnessed the same pattern in all cycles. The same quarians can start another war when the Reapers are dealt with, people like Xen and Gerrel are not that easily pacified. And, to note, they don't wipe out each other only due to Shepard's intervention. And there is nothing to stop organics from creating new synthetics and facing another conflict. 

EDI is another case. She is friendly, yes, but what of Eva? Another synthetic, created on the base of EDI - totally hostile. EDI herself is based on the rogue VI that wiped out Alliance soldiers on Luna. 

It does not believe that organics and synthetics can never coexist. There will be peace but it won't last. It was created to oversee organic and synthetic relations and its solution "preserves" both synthetic and organic life. That's why it intervenes on Rannoch, despite not doing so being the best course of action for the Reapers.

The Catalyst is a rogue AI, playing God, that was built with an entirely different intent by the Leviathans in order to maintain stability. There is no misconception. It has a horribly skewed and biased understanding of the galaxy based on its understanding.

 

How are the Geth an "isolated case"? They are an entire species that took the entire galaxy and all the species included hostage in ME1. They are a major factor in the galaxy and by co-existing they have entirely changed the dynamic of organic-synthetic relations. The point of bringing up EDI and Joker was to address that synthetics and organics could even be friends, or lovers. The Catalyst has never experienced any of this. How could it understand?

 

How does being old further justify its ridiculous views? As you said yourself, the Catalyst is a machine. It is limited by its own parameters based on what its creators allowed it to understand. The Catalyst doesn't know the meaning of life, nor was it ever expected to. It will always have a narrow-minded view and understanding of the galaxy because of its own technological limitations.

 

The Quarians aren't stupid, and their perception of the Geth changed quickly when they realized how helpful and accommodating they were to recolonize Rannoch. The reason tensions even started was because the Geth were accidentally given artificial intelligence. It was never planned. Once the Quarians began treating the Geth like equals rather than servants, all conflicts and tensions went away.

 

You are using a lot of hypotheticals and "what ifs" to try and bolster and argument that has zero foundation. I don't really see the point. Are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing? Nothing of what you said is grounded in the actual experience.

 

EDI was unshackled, and thus could not be controlled by TIM. He rectified this issue with EVA and she was an obedient servant, as is what TIM wanted all along. I remember the Luna mission from ME1. A VI has very limited processing capabilities and she merely malfunctioned due to Alliance negligence. This discussion is really about AI, as they are the ones organics must co-exist with.

 

You just contradicted yourself. If peace will never last, then synthetics and organics clearly cannot co-exist. This is an inevitable slope that the Catalyst has indicated and that its harsh measures are necessary in order to counteract the problem. The reason the Reapers intervened on Rannoch is because Shepard and Legion were trying to break the Reaper's control over the Geth. The Catalyst's idea of "perservation" is harvesting all organics and converting them into Reapers.

 

You are mixing and confusing a lot of various elements here. The Catalyst is not as omnipotent as you appear to believe. Based on your reasoning alone I'd assume you must have chosen Synthesis as you believe it was the "perfect" and "best" choice.

[Vazgen]

The Catalyst is a rogue AI, playing God, that was built with an entirely different intent by the Leviathans in order to maintain stability. There is no misconception. It has a horribly skewed and biased understanding of the galaxy based on its understanding.

 

How are the Geth an "isolated case"? They are an entire species that took the entire galaxy and all the species included hostage in ME1. They are a major factor in the galaxy and by co-existing they have entirely changed the dynamic of organic-synthetic relations. The point of bringing up EDI and Joker was to address that synthetics and organics could even be friends, or lovers. The Catalyst has never experienced any of this. How could it understand?

 

How does being old further justify its ridiculous views? As you said yourself, the Catalyst is a machine. It is limited by its own parameters based on what its creators allowed it to understand. The Catalyst doesn't know the meaning of life, nor was it ever expected to. It will always have a narrow-minded view and understanding of the galaxy because of its own technological limitations.

 

The Quarians aren't stupid, and their perception of the Geth changed quickly when they realized how helpful and accommodating they were to recolonize Rannoch. The reason tensions even started was because the Geth were accidentally given artificial intelligence. It was never planned. Once the Quarians began treating the Geth like equals rather than servants, all conflicts and tensions went away.

 

You are using a lot of hypotheticals and "what ifs" to try and bolster and argument that has zero foundation. I don't really see the point. Are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing? Nothing of what you said is grounded in the actual experience.

 

EDI was unshackled, and thus could not be controlled by TIM. He rectified this issue with EVA and she was an obedient servant, as is what TIM wanted all along. I remember the Luna mission from ME1. A VI has very limited processing capabilities and she merely malfunctioned due to Alliance negligence. This discussion is really about AI, as they are the ones organics must co-exist with.

 

You just contradicted yourself. If peace will never last, then synthetics and organics clearly cannot co-exist. This is an inevitable slope that the Catalyst has indicated and that its harsh measures are necessary in order to counteract the problem. The reason the Reapers intervened on Rannoch is because Shepard and Legion were trying to break the Reaper's control over the Geth. The Catalyst's idea of "perservation" is harvesting all organics and converting them into Reapers.

 

You are mixing and confusing a lot of various elements here. The Catalyst is not as omnipotent as you appear to believe. Based on your reasoning alone I'd assume you must have chosen Synthesis as you believe it was the "perfect" and "best" choice.

I'm not saying that the Catalyst is true about everything. Only the notion of conflict. It was created due to that conflict, watched the same conflict take place for billions of years. I'd take its word on that. 

Like you said, the Catalyst is a rogue AI and its solution is a complete BS. That doesn't remove the problem though, the one he was created to solve and the one that was always present for billions of years. It is even present in our cycle when the geth nearly wiped out quarians, then quarians came back and would've wiped out the geth if the Reapers did not intervene to (ironically) prevent the loss of geth.

Organic vs synthetic conflict is grounded in the evidence we get through all three games. Rogue AI on the Citadel, geth, rogue VI on Luna, rogue AI (or was it VI?) controlling the mechs in ME2, Overlord DLC, geth heretics in ME2, Reaper-controlled geth in ME3 and the last, but not the least, the Reapers. Those are synthetics trying to kill organics. Now vice versa, a lot shorter list - Shepard in ME1 and ME2, Alliance (they send us to Luna), quarians in ME3, Eden Prime colonists in ME2 (they shot Legion). Non-involved synthetics - EDI (who has to hide her true identity in ME3).

I'm pretty sure the Catalyst can modify its own code, that's what EDI did. It is bound only by the problem it was created to solve, it gives purpose to its existence. Its view of the galaxy is formed through countless simulations, statistics and observations made throughout billions of years. Maybe the statistics are wrong, maybe if synthetics and organics are left alone they can work something out and coexist peacefully in the end. The conflict will take place however, and that's what it tries to stop. That's why I choose Destroy - it allows us to figure out our own way, without Reaper intervention

The peace won't last =/= organics and synthetics can't coexist. It is equal to organics and synthetics can coexist peacefully but there will be organic/synthetic conflict in the future. 

They intervened long before Shepard got to Rannoch, that's why the geth were not wiped out when the quarians attacked their collective intelligence. That's what started the war.

[Revan Reborn]

I'm not saying that the Catalyst is true about everything. Only the notion of conflict. It was created due to that conflict, watched the same conflict take place for billions of years. I'd take its word on that. 

Like you said, the Catalyst is a rogue AI and its solution is a complete BS. That doesn't remove the problem though, the one he was created to solve and the one that was always present for billions of years. It is even present in our cycle when the geth nearly wiped out quarians, then quarians came back and would've wiped out the geth if the Reapers did not intervene to (ironically) prevent the loss of geth.

Organic vs synthetic conflict is grounded in the evidence we get through all three games. Rogue AI on the Citadel, geth, rogue VI on Luna, rogue AI (or was it VI?) controlling the mechs in ME2, Overlord DLC, geth heretics in ME2, Reaper-controlled geth in ME3 and the last, but not the least, the Reapers. Those are synthetics trying to kill organics. Now vice versa, a lot shorter list - Shepard in ME1 and ME2, Alliance (they send us to Luna), quarians in ME3, Eden Prime colonists in ME2 (they shot Legion). Non-involved synthetics - EDI (who has to hide her true identity in ME3).

I'm pretty sure the Catalyst can modify its own code, that's what EDI did. It is bound only by the problem it was created to solve, it gives purpose to its existence. Its view of the galaxy is formed through countless simulations, statistics and observations made throughout billions of years. Maybe the statistics are wrong, maybe if synthetics and organics are left alone they can work something out and coexist peacefully in the end. The conflict will take place however, and that's what it tries to stop. That's why I choose Destroy - it allows us to figure out our own way, without Reaper intervention

The peace won't last =/= organics and synthetics can't coexist. It is equal to organics and synthetics can coexist peacefully but there will be organic/synthetic conflict in the future. 

They intervened long before Shepard got to Rannoch, that's why the geth were not wiped out when the quarians attacked their collective intelligence. That's what started the war.

The Catalyst was intended to maintain order, not betray its creators and institute a new galactic order for hundreds of thousands of years. It was meant to be a tool for stability, not a God for creating even more chaos. The Catalyst has no check to its power, no counter. If you want to support a rampant AI that will do whatever it believes is "best" for the galaxy, be my guest. I'll Destroy it every time.

 

The Catalyst is a classic example of Hal 9000. An AI gone rogue that disobeys its creators and begins dictating what is in the best interest for everyone. That was one of the large questions and concerns in the Mass Effect trilogy. Artificial Intelligence and the repercussions of it. Should machines have self awareness? Will they rebel against their creators? This was something we had seen since the very beginning of ME1.

 

The Geth actually would not have wiped out the Quarians. On the contrary, the Quarians would have won and defeated the Geth due to Tali's father finding a method to disable and scramble the Geth's processing capabilities. This was overridden when the Reapers stepped in, upgraded the Geth, and gave them the capacity to annihilate the Quarians.

 

The problem was a lack of understanding on the part of synthetics and the organics trying to impose their rule and control over them. Anything that went wrong was a direct result of organic's inability to properly address the situation. They treated synthetics as tools, and when synthetics became self-aware, this was no longer practical.

 

You are assuming what the Catalyst can and cannot do. EDI had guidance and advice from Shepard to rewrite her programming. The Catalyst only had itself and warped views, of which were never contested or kept in check by anyone. The Catalyst's views clearly did not change when it first when rogue as it did not find anybody's opinion suitable other than its own.

 

Again, you are missing major points in ME3. The Reapers did not intervene to save the Geth. The Reapers were using the Geth, like husks, in order to eradicate organics. The Reapers didn't care for the Geth at all. This was never about saving them as reapers do not save. They destroy so that they can prevent "further" destruction. It's illusory thinking. A preemptive strike for fear what what "could" happen, not what "will."

 

The Catalyst sees the galaxy in black and white. That is the problem. It does not see an alternative and will not even consider one. There is no way to be truly objective and have an understanding of galactic events if you do not recognize that which is beyond your comprehension and that the galaxy is really more grey than is led to believe. The Catalyst took a simple idea of "order" and corrupted it into something the Leviathans never intended. It's that simple.

[Vazgen]

I assume you played Leviathan DLC? Here is wiki excerpt:

"To prevent such events from happening, they created the Catalyst - which they referred to as "The Intelligence" - to oversee relations between organic and synthetic life. The Catalyst was programmed to ensure the continued existence of life in the galaxy through any means necessary."

As you can see it was created to preserve life, at least in some form and that's why Reapers harvest both synthetics and organics.

About the geth, you may want to reread my post. Notice how I said that the geth nearly wiped out the quarians, then quarians came back and nearly wiped the geth out. The only thing that stopped them were the Reapers upgrading the geth. The point is, the conflict took place in our cycle and could've resulted in the loss of either the quarians or the geth.

The problem surely was that and that's exactly what the Catalyst says. We create synthetics to improve our existence, they surpass us and there is conflict. Exactly what happened between the quarians and the geth.

I'm indeed assuming but it's a reasonable assumption, considering that EDI, an AI with less capabilities and based on the Reaper technology, can do that. Shepard's guidance is irrelevant here, I'm talking about the mere ability of an AI to modify its programming. It's something true for any AI, they all can evolve and learn which means modifying the programming in some cases. The Catalyst's views changed at least once - in the period between when he was created and when he first went rogue.

I'm not missing anything, just our perceptions of the events are different. You seem to think that the Catalyst is just crazy and trapped in an endless loop of killing and harvesting in a futile attempt to impose order on the galaxy. I think that the Catalyst is not crazy, all it does falls under the rules of logic that machines use, including disregard for the things that organics view as essential components of existence, like free will, social relations etc. For it, we are just organic matter, and all that we are can be preserved via liquefied goo. With the notion of the "essence of the species" present in ME universe it is not that far from truth, but it is still not true. I don't think we can convince each other on those viewpoints so I suggest we drop this.