353 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Those individuals being the admiralty board and the captains and crews of all those ships (you know, the lawful government of the quarians)?  The people who would otherwise be fighting the and dying in battle with the geth? That select group of individuals?  

 

Check your facts. The Admiralty Board is only in power due to the quarians' state of martial-law, which has been in effect ever since they fled Rannoch. It is not democratically-elected entity (an oligarchical meritocracy, if anything). The Conclave is the elected body of the quarians' government. It is also practically powerless.

 

So, even if the Admiralty Board unanimously agreed on making peace with the geth, their decision is -- by the nature of their government -- not necessarily reflective of the will of the people, and an imposition onto them. Then we get to the fact that the Admiralty Board were not the individuals who made the decision either. It came down to two people: Han'Gerrel, and Shepard. Gerrel is the commander of the quarian fleet. It was his decision to have them cease fire. If he is not made aware of the geth powering back up, he orders them to charge. And guess what? All of those quarians whom you claim "chose peace" followed that order. Koris, even, since he remains an asset if the quarians wipe out the geth and is lost if the geth win instead. None are seen or mentioned as having retreated. And Shepard, of course, being the one who put Gerrel and the rest of the quarians in a situation where they had to surrender or be completely wiped out (which, again, was something you bashed about being the basis for peace in Control and Synthesis endings).

[teh DRUMPf!!]

More to the point, though, why do you care? I mean, I know why you care -- you do not want something you support to contradict your morality -- but why is it even an issue to you whether or not the coexistence was decided on by the populace or just their rulers? Do you believe it better that if the masses oppose peace, that their leaders simply bow to those wishes and allow intolerance to fester? I mean, it is fine if you do, your ideals are your own. I, personally, believe that a government that cannot impose its will on such things is a weak one and not worth replicating in any decent civilization -- no matter how free, transparent, or democratic that system may be.

 

Face it, peace on Rannoch only takes place if Shepard puts a gun to Gerrel's head, and Gerrel -- a man who calls coexistence with the geth, and I quote, "garbage" -- agrees to a cease-fire in spite of himself. Them's the facts. Do not twist it into something it is not just to make it fit your value system.

 

You have options, however: (1) hate it, like you hate the ending; (2) revise your value system.

[Reorte]

Yeah, the timing of that change is very controversial, but I think Bioware did it at that time in some attempt at a twist, to pull the rug out of players feet if you will. "You think you're gonna persuade your way out of this one like all the other times? I've got some really bad news for ya."
 
I agree with your theory though, I think it was the end for the insta win persuade options. I don't think we'll see them return in future games.

Never having the chance of an ideal (or near-ideal) solution is as contrived as being able to get one all the time. The problem with them isn't that they exist, it's that it's too easy to get them (although also there's nothing wrong with having a the odd thread that only a complete idiot could screw up).

[Linkenski]

You're wrong. It makes sense in context because Shepard just used several renegade dialogues to state that he rejects the function of the crucible. To his ideals he is very much doing all he can and thinks is right in order to stop them.

[Vazgen]

 

How does a synthetic become an unshackled AI?

Who has authority over an unshackled AI?
 

We aren't given any numbers, only the idea that some Quarians tried to protect geth.
 

Yes, and it also says:
Once the now-sentient geth realized what the quarians were doing, they retaliated. Initially only some geth began to take up arms in order to protect other units that could not defend themselves. The quarians placed their worlds under martial law, hunting down even those geth not participating in the hostilities, which was opposed by a large portion of the quarian people. They sheltered geth from the authorities, and were detained or killed as a result.

Their creators. Authority - the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Quarians had all that.

 

True

 

Your previous point makes me doubt the quote you bring. The "large portion of the quarian people" is never stated. We are shown one case of a quarian dying for protecting the geth which can be viewed as collateral damage - the quarian dies from an explosion (after being warned multiple times). And we are shown one case of a quarian being detained for protecting a geth. I find it very hard to believe that a conflict of this nature would've resulted in so many civilian deaths, especially since pro-destroy quarians are shown to be determined to minimize losses. 

The quote I brought is from Mass Effect: Revelation. Here is the original text:

"The quarians had neither the numbers nor the ability to stand against their former servants. In a short but savage war their entire society was wiped out. Only a few million survivors—less than one percent of their entire population—escaped the genocide, fleeing their home world in a massive fleet, refugees forced to live in exile."

 

We should also keep in mind the geth weren't even programmed to be AI in the first place. They technically aren't. They just a bunch of VI that, through consensus with other programs, gain the complexity to reach "AI-levels".

And thus there were no shackles on them. Probably part of a reason why the quarians attacked - they realized that they created a bunch of unshackled AIs which became necessary for a lot of tasks vital for the quarians.

[Iakus]

Check your facts. The Admiralty Board is only in power due to the quarians' state of martial-law, which has been in effect ever since they fled Rannoch. It is not democratically-elected entity (an oligarchical meritocracy, if anything). The Conclave is the elected body of the quarians' government. It is also practically powerless.

 

So, even if the Admiralty Board unanimously agreed on making peace with the geth, their decision is -- by the nature of their government -- not necessarily reflective of the will of the people, and an imposition onto them. Then we get to the fact that the Admiralty Board were not the individuals who made the decision either. It came down to two people: Han'Gerrel, and Shepard. Gerrel is the commander of the quarian fleet. It was his decision to have them cease fire. If he is not made aware of the geth powering back up, he orders them to charge. And guess what? All of those quarians whom you claim "chose peace" followed that order. Koris, even, since he remains an asset if the quarians wipe out the geth and is lost if the geth win instead. None are seen or mentioned as having retreated. And Shepard, of course, being the one who put Gerrel and the rest of the quarians in a situation where they had to surrender or be completely wiped out (which, again, was something you bashed about being the basis for peace in Control and Synthesis endings).

 

The quarian ships are crewed by, you know, quarians, not slaved to the will of the admiralty board.  they follow the admirals, and the captains of each ship of their own free will.  They could have disobeyed.  Fled from battle, kept shooting, or whatever.  SHepard was talking to the entire fleet, not just Han'Gerrel.  They didn't have green space magic screwing with their minds.  Just Shepard's voice, with Tali and possibly Koris backing him/her.

 

   They didn't "surrender"  They chose to stop shooting, to end the war.  WIll the peace ultimately hold?  Who knows?  That's up to them.

[God]

The quarian ships are crewed by, you know, quarians, not slaved to the will of the admiralty board.  they follow the admirals, and the captains of each ship of their own free will.  They could have disobeyed.  Fled from battle, kept shooting, or whatever.  SHepard was talking to the entire fleet, not just Han'Gerrel.  They didn't have green space magic screwing with their minds.  Just Shepard's voice, with Tali and possibly Koris backing him/her.

 

   They didn't "surrender"  They chose to stop shooting, to end the war.  WIll the peace ultimately hold?  Who knows?  That's up to them.

 

They chose to stop shooting, because they knew it was just going to end up with them dead.

 

They did not choose it because they want peace or believe they can coexist with the Geth. They chose it because they wanted to live.

 

So yes, they 'surrendered'. 

[Iakus]

More to the point, though, why do you care? I mean, I know why you care -- you do not want something you support to contradict your morality -- but why is it even an issue to you whether or not the coexistence was decided on by the populace or just their rulers? Do you believe it better that if the masses oppose peace, that their leaders simply bow to those wishes and allow intolerance to fester? I mean, it is fine if you do, your ideals are your own. I, personally, believe that a government that cannot impose its will on such things is a weak one and not worth replicating in any decent civilization -- no matter how free, transparent, or democratic that system may be.

 

Face it, peace on Rannoch only takes place if Shepard puts a gun to Gerrel's head, and Gerrel -- a man who calls coexistence with the geth, and I quote, "garbage" -- agrees to a cease-fire in spite of himself. Them's the facts. Do not twist it into something it is not just to make it fit your value system.

 

You have options, however: (1) hate it, like you hate the ending; (2) revise your value system.

 

I care because it demonstrates that coexistence can exist without space magic space Cthulhu playing Big Brother.  That a society is capable of overcoming its prejudices naturally.  That you don't need one person unilaterally deciding how the galaxy should be.  Even if the peace doesn't last, it was at least a step in the right direction.

 

Peace on Rannoch takes place only if certain criteria are reached.  Both Tali and LEgion must be there.  Koris's voice adds weight to Shepard's arguments, as does entering the geth consensus and learning about the geth's perspective of the Morning War.  Shepard isn't "holding a gun to Han'Gerrel's head".  Shepard can't force him to do anything from the planet's surface.  Only make an impassioned plea, which he (and the other captains also receiving the message) might or might not listen to.

[God]

I care because it demonstrates that coexistence can exist without space magic space Cthulhu playing Big Brother.  That a society is capable of overcoming its prejudices naturally.  That you don't need one person unilaterally deciding how the galaxy should be.  Even if the peace doesn't last, it was at least a step in the right direction.

 

Peace on Rannoch takes place only if certain criteria are reached.  Both Tali and LEgion must be there.  Koris's voice adds weight to Shepard's arguments, as does entering the geth consensus and learning about the geth's perspective of the Morning War.  Shepard isn't "holding a gun to Han'Gerrel's head".  Shepard can't force him to do anything from the planet's surface.  Only make an impassioned plea, which he (and the other captains also receiving the message) might or might not listen to.

 

But it can't. That's just it, peace cannot fundamentally exist without space magic space Cthulu playing Big Brother. The society is not capable of that naturally. You need more than one person, but you don't need everyone. More like a group of people with like minds making a unilateral decision. And if it doesn't last, then it probably wasn't a step in the right direction. Plus, there are more routes that are better than yours.

 

Your belief in this is not up for debate. You are canonically wrong here.

 

Shepard's not the one forcing him to do anything. You seem to be intentionally construing that Shepard himself is threatening the Quarians. He's not. He's telling them to stand down or be destroyed by the Geth, who are very much in the position to wipe them out. It's on them if they want to live or die. Shepard is just calling it how it is. There's no impassioned plea for peace, just a reminder that the Quarians idiocy has bitten them in the ass in the past, and is about to wipe them out if they don't stop now.

[Deathsaurer]

I'd also point out 64% of people didn't end that standoff without killing a race off and the way the narrative is structured with the import system and everything completely nullifies any potential impact it could have had on the ending. Can't let new people start ME3 and screw them over totally over something like that.

[Iakus]

They chose to stop shooting, because they knew it was just going to end up with them dead.

 

They did not choose it because they want peace or believe they can coexist with the Geth. They chose it because they wanted to live.

 

So yes, they 'surrendered'. 

Or they believed Shepard when he told them "Your entire history is you trying to kill the geth.  You forced them to rebel.  You forced them to ally with the Reapers.  The geth don't want to fight you.  If you could believe that for just one minute, this war would be over.  You have a choice.  Please.  Keela se'lai"

 

Heck it could be a little from each column.  But either way, their choice came form being cognizant of the situation.  Not Han'Gerrel or Shepard or anyone else forcing it on them.  Which makes this situation very different from the Crucible choice.  

 

But it can't. That's just it, peace cannot fundamentally exist without space magic space Cthulu playing Big Brother. The society is not capable of that naturally. You need more than one person, but you don't need everyone. More like a group of people with like minds making a unilateral decision. And if it doesn't last, then it probably wasn't a step in the right direction. Plus, there are more routes that are better than yours.

 

Your belief in this is not up for debate. You are canonically wrong here.

 

Shepard's not the one forcing him to do anything. You seem to be intentionally construing that Shepard himself is threatening the Quarians. He's not. He's telling them to stand down or be destroyed by the Geth, who are very much in the position to wipe them out. It's on them if they want to live or die. Shepard is just calling it how it is. There's no impassioned plea for peace, just a reminder that the Quarians idiocy has bitten them in the ass in the past, and is about to wipe them out if they don't stop now.

And that is where the captains and the admiralty board come in.  

 

In fact, I am not saying Shepard is threatening them.  HYR 2.0 seems to be the one thinking Shepard is holding a gun to Han'Gerrel's head.  

 

I do agree it's on them whether they live or die.  And Shepard is "telling them how it is"  THough we seem to be focusing on different parts of Shepard's message.  Perhaps it's because you play a stone-cold renegade, but the paragon choice is an impassioned plea for peace.  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The quarian ships are crewed by, you know, quarians, not slaved to the will of the admiralty board. they follow the admirals, and the captains of each ship of their own free will. They could have disobeyed.  Fled from battle, kept shooting, or whatever.

You are smart enough to know that militaries do not work like that.

In the process of joining the military, you actually give up your rights as citizens. Disobeying orders is called insubordination. Those who do it get in trouble, often more of it than if they would have just obeyed the order, which is why it does not happen much at all. In a sense, you basically are a slave to the admirals (or whoever ranks above you). It is not a democratic system for people to choose as they please.

You will notice that the fleet captains only ever do what Han'Gerrel orders them to. If he orders for them to stand down, they stand down. If he orders for them to charge, they charge, and either wipe out the geth or are get slaughtered trying to. We do not see or hear of a single instance where Gerrel's orders are disobeyed.
 

 

I care because it demonstrates that coexistence can exist without space magic space Cthulhu playing Big Brother.  That a society is capable of overcoming its prejudices naturally.  That you don't need one person unilaterally deciding how the galaxy should be.  Even if the peace doesn't last, it was at least a step in the right direction.

 
So, what if I was to get you to agree that the peace on Rannoch was merely the ruling of a select few individuals without any real regard for public opinion (or, if you prefer, imagine instead that we are clearly shown this being the case in-game)...

 

... would you consider it preferable that the quarians and geth live in a continued state of violence and intolerance if that was they agreed upon more democratically?
 

Peace on Rannoch takes place only if certain criteria are reached.  Both Tali and LEgion must be there.  Koris's voice adds weight to Shepard's arguments, as does entering the geth consensus and learning about the geth's perspective of the Morning War.  Shepard isn't "holding a gun to Han'Gerrel's head".  Shepard can't force him to do anything from the planet's surface.  Only make an impassioned plea, which he (and the other captains also receiving the message) might or might not listen to.

 
Were there any truth to your claim, then the people we know to be opposed to killing the geth (like Koris, Tali if Legion was met in ME2) would not have agreed to continue the attack on them, and the people we know to be opposed to coexistence with the geth (like Xen, Gerrel himself, and Tali if Legion was not met in ME2) would have kept waging war on them against Gerrel's orders.
 
Neither of those things happen in either case.
 
Your claim holds no water.

[God]

And before 'moral considerations' come into play on your part, you have to have demonstrable proof that your commander is outright being reckless and unprofessional to a degree that you can be justified in disobeying an order. That is no easy feat. I haven't seen it happen at all my entire time in the Army.

[God]

 

 

 

Or they believed Shepard when he told them "Your entire history is you trying to kill the geth.  You forced them to rebel.  You forced them to ally with the Reapers.  The geth don't want to fight you.  If you could believe that for just one minute, this war would be over.  You have a choice.  Please.  Keela se'lai"

 

Heck it could be a little from each column.  But either way, their choice came form being cognizant of the situation.  Not Han'Gerrel or Shepard or anyone else forcing it on them.  Which makes this situation very different from the Crucible choice.  

 

 

And that is where the captains and the admiralty board come in.

 

 

 

I really don't think that that is the case at all.

 

And yes, they're fully cognizant that they're about to get wiped out if make that decision. It's self-interest, not selflessness. 

 

And the Crucible choice is your own doing, not the Catalyst. There is not choice being imposed on you. The Catalyst already made that choice with the Reapers. Now you can make your own choice out of the routes you have constructed. 

 

Everything you do in the ending was caused by you. Not the Catalyst.

 

In fact, I am not saying Shepard is threatening them.  HYR 2.0 seems to be the one thinking Shepard is holding a gun to Han'Gerrel's head.  

 

I do agree it's on them whether they live or die.  And Shepard is "telling them how it is"  THough we seem to be focusing on different parts of Shepard's message.  Perhaps it's because you play a stone-cold renegade, but the paragon choice is an impassioned plea for peace.

 

 

 

HYR isn't saying that. You're implying that he is. You're wrong.

 

And as I said, it doesn't matter about the plea for peace, the Quarians most likely realized that to not die, they better stop shooting.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

And the writers of the game say that as well by info-dumping this on you during the ending and the Leviathan DLC, don't forget that.

Just because the plot is stupid doesn't mean that it isn't the actual plot.

I personally think it's beyond stupid that Shepard survives being hit by Harbinger (I seriously think that this is the most stupid part of the entire ending, maybe even the franchise as a whole), yet I have to acknowledge that s/he does.

 

I think it is beyond stupid that Shepard's brain survives decompression in space, freezing, atmospheric entry, and a hard landing on a planet with a corrosive atmosphere; and that Shepard's body is not simply cloned, but rebuilt from dessicated "meat and tubes" in a corrosive atmosphere. They somehow did this to make him into a cyborg. But the real amazing thing is the brain surviving intact. WTF? That is so far beyond stupid that the ending pales in comparison.

 

The entire purpose was so that they could get Shepard to work for The Illusive Man. A clone educated with Shepard's memories would have been more believable.

[Iakus]

I really don't think that that is the case at all.

 

And yes, they're fully cognizant that they're about to get wiped out if make that decision. It's self-interest, not selflessness. 

 

And the Crucible choice is your own doing, not the Catalyst. There is not choice being imposed on you. The Catalyst already made that choice with the Reapers. Now you can make your own choice out of the routes you have constructed. 

 

Everything you do in the ending was caused by you. Not the Catalyst.

 

 

 

HYR isn't saying that. You're implying that he is. You're wrong.

 

And as I said, it doesn't matter about the plea for peace, the Quarians most likely realized that to not die, they better stop shooting.

 

No, Shepard has to make a choice based on the options the Catalyst gives.  Which are all "solutions"  based on the Catalyst's "problem" which is largely imaginary to begin with.  

 

Ahem: 

:  Face it, peace on Rannoch only takes place if Shepard puts a gun to Gerrel's head, and Gerrel -- a man who calls coexistence with the geth, and I quote, "garbage" -- agrees to a cease-fire in spite of himself.

Care to rephrase? 

[God]

No, Shepard has to make a choice based on the options the Catalyst gives.  Which are all "solutions"  based on the Catalyst's "problem" which is largely imaginary to begin with.  

 

Ahem: 

Care to rephrase? 

 

No, Shepard makes a choice based on the options that the galaxy themselves built when building they completed the Crucible. The Catalyst is not the originator of these solutions, only the presenter of them. He's telling you what you have available to you. And yes, the solutions are designed to solve the Catalyst's problem, which is very much a real concern and issue. I'd tell you to ignore it at your peril, but I'll take the easier route and say that you're only trying to prove it to yourself, trying to convince yourself that your position isn't invalid. Which, it 100% is. BW confirmed it, the game confirms it, and from all official sources, you are wrong.

 

Fighting canon because you don't like it is like saying the sky is green because you don't like blue. Doesn't matter how right you think you are, you're not right.

[dreamgazer]

But the sky is apparently violet, as per this thread.  Or another.  I can't keep 'em straight anymore.

 

Any minds changed yet?

[Iakus]

No, Shepard makes a choice based on the options that the galaxy themselves built when building they completed the Crucible. The Catalyst is not the originator of these solutions, only the presenter of them. He's telling you what you have available to you. And yes, the solutions are designed to solve the Catalyst's problem, which is very much a real concern and issue. I'd tell you to ignore it at your peril, but I'll take the easier route and say that you're only trying to prove it to yourself, trying to convince yourself that your position isn't invalid. Which, it 100% is. BW confirmed it, the game confirms it, and from all official sources, you are wrong.

 

 

The choice is also based on "Pick a color or I'll kill you all" from the Catalyst.  Yo really think those are the only three choices the Crucible is capable of, given the three radically difference effects?

 

And given the game and Bioware utterly failed to make their case concerning the "problem"  yeah I think I will ignore it and take my chances.  

 

 

Fighting canon because you don't like it is like saying the sky is green because you don't like blue. Doesn't matter how right you think you are, you're not right.

 

the color of the sky is not a matter of "artistic integrity"

[Valmar]

The choice is also based on "Pick a color or I'll kill you all" from the Catalyst.  Yo really think those are the only three choices the Crucible is capable of, given the three radically difference effects?

 

It's the only three choices in the game. Could the writer's have does something else with it? Sure. I can think of a lot of things they could have done with it. What we have are those three, though. And it isn't because the catalyst forces us to only have those three. It's because Bioware only wrote three. Just because those are what we have doesn't mean the catalyst is forcing them on us.

 

What exactly do you expect the catalyst to do? Send all the reapers on a suicide run into the sun because Shepard doesn't want to let fear compromise who he is? If you refuse, the reapers just do what they were doing already. Shepard is the one with the choice here. The one being forced to accept a choice in this matter is the catalyst. Shepard isn't forced to do anything.  Everyone else other than Shepard is forced - forced to accept whatever choice Shepard decides on.

 

 

And given the game and Bioware utterly failed to make their case concerning the "problem"  yeah I think I will ignore it and take my chances.  
 

 

Failed to make the case for you, anyway. Though I honestly doubt they could have done anything that would have persuaded you otherwise. I'm skeptical you really want to there be any case in the first place.

 

the color of the sky is not a matter of "artistic integrity"

 

Tell that to abstract artists.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

So, what if I was to get you to agree that the peace on Rannoch was merely the ruling of a select few individuals without any real regard for public opinion (or, if you prefer, imagine instead that we are clearly shown this being the case in-game)...

 

... would you consider it preferable that the quarians and geth live in a continued state of violence and intolerance if that was they agreed upon more democratically?

 

Dying to get a response to this part, BTW.

 

Though, I suppose refusal to respond also says something.

[Linkenski]

No, Shepard makes a choice based on the options that the galaxy themselves built when building they completed the Crucible. The Catalyst is not the originator of these solutions, only the presenter of them. He's telling you what you have available to you. And yes, the solutions are designed to solve the Catalyst's problem, which is very much a real concern and issue. I'd tell you to ignore it at your peril, but I'll take the easier route and say that you're only trying to prove it to yourself, trying to convince yourself that your position isn't invalid. Which, it 100% is. BW confirmed it, the game confirms it, and from all official sources, you are wrong.

 

Fighting canon because you don't like it is like saying the sky is green because you don't like blue. Doesn't matter how right you think you are, you're not right.

At this point you need to ask yourself "who made the crucible to begin with" because if it was really some organic advanced race then how come they knew about the Catalyst? It simply makes no sense that the Crucible was designed by an advanced organic race who didn't know what their own creation would do at all.

 

The only explanation that makes sense is that the Crucible was a failsafe by the Leviathans when they created the Reaper solution or a desired solution they just couldn't finish at the time but they left it for the next cycles to find.

 

And if it is the Reapers who designed the Crucible then it's not really our cycle's 3 choices we get. Iakus is completely right. We're allowed to pick the choices the Catalyst offers because he or his creators made the Crucible (the Leviathan's messenger even looks away as if he's lying when he avoids the answer to Shepard. There are hints of this)

 

And sure if the future somehow devolves into a synthetic singularity because "bioware says so" then it's still cheap and stupid because if that's really the case they should've foreshadowed it before the ending. All foreshadowing we got was Vendetta VI saying there were patterns of synthetic singularity in previous cycles "but in different manners" and his statement does not change what we can see in our cycle: synthetics co-existing with organics... settling their conflicts which ends peacefully in our optimal outcomes. To make this growth devolve into a tech singularity is a 180 of the direction it's going.

 

It goes against principles of good storytelling, causality of plot, themes, subtext -- any writer who wants to make good storytelling should strive to make every single moment have significance or meaning to the overall plot, and ultimately the statement they're trying to make. this is what makes the Last of Us a great story, just to name a really good example. If synthetic tech singularity really happens in the future of Shepard's cycle if the Reapers hadn't been there then we have an insane amount of meaningless moments in the franchise... and that's on top of all the stuff people were already complaining about with Shepard dying and such.

 

Why do we have two entire character arcs in Mass Effect 3 where our choices make a synthetic or a synthetic race get along with us and Joker or the quarians respectively, if it doesn't matter at all? --Because it really doesn't if the Catalyst's logic is true and it's cheap, inelegant, shitty storytelling.

[dreamgazer]

Why do we have two entire character arcs in Mass Effect 3 where our choices make a synthetic or a synthetic race get along with us and Joker or the quarians respectively, if it doesn't matter at all? --Because it really doesn't if the Catalyst's logic is true and it's cheap, inelegant, shitty storytelling.

Elaborate on this. How would you have these things matter?

Remember: No "cheap, inelegant, shitty storytelling" allowed.

[Linkenski]

Elaborate on this. How would you have these things matter?

Remember: No "cheap, inelegant, shitty storytelling" allowed.

Without the whole "synthetic singularity" central conflict at the end the Rannoch conflict and EDI and Joker - and the subtext their arcs add - strengthen the premise of ME3 that is about a galaxy at war having to unite to fight the common enemy that threatens everyone. With the central conflict being changed to synthetic singularity at the finale the meaning isn't really lost but because there's a shift of central conflict the war-story and previous central conflict seems less important. I feel like the rannoch conflict loses significance because of the last 10 minutes and simultaniously they stand counterpoint to the theme we're supposed to believe in all of a sudden.

 

I don't know if that made sense or if there was something else you had in mind?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Given how many different series and tropes they ripped off to make this series, I'm sure with enough effort Bioware could have found something else to rip off that would have been more satisfying without cheap inelegant sh1tty storytelling.