590 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

The VI had made the jump to AI, unknown to the Alliance.

 

The final message it sends at the end of the mission is "Help" in binary.

 

The geth were made into Reaper thralls with Reaper tech.  Does not remove the fact that peace can be achieved without it.

"Smart enough to signal for help but it won't be talking philosophy anytime soon". As well as, EDI would not have been developed at all had the Sovereign not attacked the Citadel and the Collectors not destroyed SR1. Normandy SR2 would've never been created.

 

Whether they were made thralls or not is irrelevant. Without Reaper upgrades they would've been destroyed by the Quarian fleet and Shepard would've never got the option to negotiate "peace". 

[Batarian Master Race]

"Smart enough to signal for help but it won't be talking philosophy anytime soon". As well as, EDI would not have been developed at all had the Sovereign not attacked the Citadel and the Collectors not destroyed SR1. Normandy SR2 would've never been created.

 

Whether they were made thralls or not is irrelevant. Without Reaper upgrades they would've been destroyed by the Quarian fleet and Shepard would've never got the option to negotiate "peace". 

 

Without the Reapers, the Geth would never have attacked alongside Saren, Tali wouldn't have parts to ship back to the Flotilla, and most likely the Quarians wouldn't have the tech needed to attack the Geth in the first place. So without any reaper interference, the Geth would not have been destroyed by the Quarians.

[angol fear]

When it comes to defining an enjoyable experience in a video game:  Yes absolutely.

 

It doesn't take a certain level of education to define an enjoyable experience.  We all paid money for the game.

 

You paid your game so it has to entertain you. Where is the quality? You're talking about enjoyable (emotion), that's all, and you say that the ending is "poorly written" (quality). that's where my problem is with you : you see with your emotion and impose your point of view as if it was the truth when there's no analysis.

 

 

And you have no idea what my education level is.  It shouldn't matter in this discussion.

 

I don't know your level of education but I've got an idea. And yes, if you want to talk about narration, when you don't know what it is, it matters. If you want to talk about writing when you don't know how it works, it matters. 

 

 

Umm, the Mass Effect trilogy was written pretty much by the seat of the pants.  The writers had no idea how things were going to conclude even going into ME3.  The writing was inconsistent at the very least.

 

That's something you want. Bioware said that the ending wasn't done in the last minute. I proved it  to you. You don't listen, you're happy with your hate, ok, but it shows your ignorance and the poor analysis you made on Mass Effect trilogy (it's obvious you didn't played the trilogy the way it was written). 

 

 

@Themikefest, I've talked to Melinda Snodgrass. I totally disagree with her and I tried to understand her point of view. The problem with her is that she is obsessed with happy ending. She really wanted a happy ending with Mass Effect 3. Then when we discussed she admitted that she didn't make an analysis. I'm sorry but if someone wants to make a serious criticism, he/she has to make a serious analysis. When we talked she couldn't say that I was wrong (because from a writing point of view what I said couldn't be wrong, it was the basis of writing, some concepts about structure and characters as part of the structure), but she only said that it didn't work on her. She's a kind woman but she isn't a great critic and her aesthetic is based on how to please the reader so she clearly see writing as a product. That's why it's someone that is quoted by people who dislike the ending, she reads the same way, she didn't properly read the trilogy.

I don't want to be rude but her reference are Harry potter and other popular stories. She's not in the literature like Homer, Kafka, Sade etc...

[Vazgen]

Without the Reapers, the Geth would never have attacked alongside Saren, Tali wouldn't have parts to ship back to the Flotilla, and most likely the Quarians wouldn't have the tech needed to attack the Geth in the first place. So without any reaper interference, the Geth would not have been destroyed by the Quarians.

It is debatable with the geth actions in ME2 (anomalous weather, Haestrom, Firewalker DLC). Regardless, my point was that those examples of peace between organics and synthetics were only possible due to the Reaper intervention.

[Batarian Master Race]

It is debatable with the geth actions in ME2 (anomalous weather, Haestrom, Firewalker DLC). Regardless, my point was that those examples of peace between organics and synthetics were only possible due to the Reaper intervention.

 

IIRC Haestrom's Geth were remnants of Saren's force, as were the Firewalkers.

 

And we don't know whether peace between organics and synthetics could work, because we never had the chance to try it thanks to the Reapers.

[Iakus]

"Smart enough to signal for help but it won't be talking philosophy anytime soon". As well as, EDI would not have been developed at all had the Sovereign not attacked the Citadel and the Collectors not destroyed SR1. Normandy SR2 would've never been created.

 

Whether they were made thralls or not is irrelevant. Without Reaper upgrades they would've been destroyed by the Quarian fleet and Shepard would've never got the option to negotiate "peace". 

 

You're conflating synthetic existence with peace.  One could make the argument that EDI would not have existed in her current state without Reaper upgrades.  But she befriended organics on her own, with no Reaper involvement.

 

Similarly, SHepard can talk down the quarians and bring about peace between them and the geth before they are upgraded with Reaper tech.  

 

I can say that without my parents I wouldn't be here to enjoy science fiction video games.  But I don't credit them with my interest in science fiction video games 

[Iakus]

You paid your game so it has to entertain you. Where is the quality? You're talking about enjoyable (emotion), that's all, and you say that the ending is "poorly written" (quality). that's where my problem is with you : you see with your emotion and impose your point of view as if it was the truth when there's no analysis.

 

I've analyzed why the writing is poor many times.  you're response is generally "I disagree, and I've studied this, so you're wrong"

 

I can separate out games that are well made, but don't entertain me.  The Witcher games are at the top of that list.  So I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about.  Even if I don't have the piece of paper that says I do.

 

  That's something you want. Bioware said that the ending wasn't done in the last minute. I proved it  to you. You don't listen, you're happy with your hate, ok, but it shows your ignorance and the poor analysis you made on Mass Effect trilogy (it's obvious you didn't played the trilogy the way it was written) 

 

They didn't plan out the trilogy.  They didn't know how it was going to end until after they started ME3.  They didn't even have a motivation for the Reapers.  This is well-documented.

 

 

 

@Themikefest, I've talked to Melinda Snodgrass. I totally disagree with her and I tried to understand her point of view. The problem with her is that she is obsessed with happy ending. She really wanted a happy ending with Mass Effect 3. Then when we discussed she admitted that she didn't make an analysis. I'm sorry but if someone wants to make a serious criticism, he/she has to make a serious analysis. When we talked she couldn't say that I was wrong (because from a writing point of view what I said couldn't be wrong, it was the basis of writing, some concepts about structure and characters as part of the structure), but she only said that it didn't work on her. She's a kind woman but she isn't a great critic and her aesthetic is based on how to please the reader so she clearly see writing as a product. That's why it's someone that is quoted by people who dislike the ending, she reads the same way, she didn't properly read the trilogy.
I don't want to be rude but her reference are Harry potter and other popular stories. She's not in the literature like Homer, Kafka, Sade etc...

 

So even professional writers don't know what they're talking about?  

[Vazgen]

IIRC Haestrom's Geth were remnants of Saren's force, as were the Firewalkers.

 

And we don't know whether peace between organics and synthetics could work, because we never had the chance to try it thanks to the Reapers.

They weren't heretics, because those missions can be done after heretic station decision. And I don't say that the peace can't work, only that the examples we've seen would not have been possible without the Reaper influence/intervention. 

 

You're conflating synthetic existence with peace.  One could make the argument that EDI would not have existed in her current state without Reaper upgrades.  But she befriended organics on her own, with no Reaper involvement.

 

Similarly, SHepard can talk down the quarians and bring about peace between them and the geth before they are upgraded with Reaper tech.  

 

I can say that without my parents I wouldn't be here to enjoy science fiction video games.  But I don't credit them with my interest in science fiction video games  

Take EDI. First, she would not have existed in her current state, as you mentioned. Second, if she was developed anyway, she would've been shackled - Collector ambush. Third, she would not have been installed on the ship with Joker - Normandy SR1 destruction. Without those factors, she could've developed in every possible way. We don't know how. 

 

Now the geth. First, as mentioned above, the very option for peace would not have existed without Reaper upgrades which allowed the geth to repel quarian attack.Second, Shepard threatens the quarians to cease fire (and it's not dependent on a dialogue option - "The geth are about to return at full strength. If you keep firing, they'll wipe you out"). Third, peace is only established after Legion uploads the Reaper code. Before that, in those few moments between Shepard's speech and Legion's sacrifice, the quarian fleet stops firing for a few minutes and geth fleet tries to restore formation after losing the Reaper signal. There is no indication of peace between the groups.

[Vazgen]

I think I'm getting better at this. Finished Garrus' mission, left Kasumi with him and took Miranda. Ended up beating Garm with Garrus at a little over quarter health. And I didn't even have a Fortification or other bonus power like before.

 

Once I started taking advantage of weapon types (pistols vs armor), everything's gotten easier.

Wrong thread?

[fraggle]

We don't know what it tried.  We don't know for how long, or what consitutes "failure"  I can point to EDI and the geth and say "look, peaceful coexistence"  What can the Catalyst point to besides Arguments from Authority"?

 

And the fact we don't know what it tried is relevant how? You were saying it doesn't try to change or seek out new solutions, yet it clearly stated that in the past it did exactly that and did not find any solution except the Reapers to be fruitful. If you were to find a solution for something, would you try anything else if you thought you had found a good, working solution? You need to see it from the Catalyst's view point, not your own.

 

the Crucible itself is "little more than a power source"  meaning the Citadel itself must manipulate how the energy is used.  Why is it not offering other possibilities?  Given what these three settings can do, the possibilities are limitless what it can do! 

 

What other possibilities should there be? Because the Crucible only incorporated Destroy and Control (Protheans found out it could likely be used to control Reapers, from the wiki :"infighting broke out between those who wanted to use it to destroy the Reapers and a faction that believed they could use it to control the Reapers").

How else would you explain that it tried to get rid of the Crucible concept in the past? It didn't want anyone to have the possibility to destroy or control the Reapers.

My speculation for Synthesis is that it only was possible due to the large amount of energy, maybe some "lucky" byproduct for the Catalyst. So why would it offer more choices (if that would even be possible) when it wanted Synthesis all along? It considers this the ideal solution, the final evolution of all life, so there's no reason for it to offer another choice, even if it could.

 

Oh, and the Crucible docked before Shepard arrived.  If the Catalyst had simply left Shepard napping on the floor, the harvest could have continued as well.

 

I'm quite sure the Crucible docked right before Shepard had his final conversation with Anderson (or did you mean it docked before Shepard arriving at the Catalyst's/Crucible's location? If so, read below.). But anyway, how does that have anything to do with "if the Crucible never docked"?

 

You have to see that the choices only became available when it docked, and the Catalyst, acknowledging that organics are clearly more resourceful than it had thought, either raised the platform by itself because it realised that its solution doesn't work anymore, or because the Crucible changed its programming in some way and enabled it to get Shepard up there (I would guess the letter since the Catalyst says the Crucible changed it).

It's speculation, but I don't think that leaving Shepard down there could have even been possible at this point, the game/Catalyst indicates otherwise.

[Iakus]

 

 

Take EDI. First, she would not have existed in her current state, as you mentioned. Second, if she was developed anyway, she would've been shackled - Collector ambush. Third, she would not have been installed on the ship with Joker - Normandy SR1 destruction. Without those factors, she could've developed in every possible way. We don't know how. 

 

So?  If anything, she had every reason to not trust organics, and still chose to befriend them.

 

 

 

Now the geth. First, as mentioned above, the very option for peace would not have existed without Reaper upgrades which allowed the geth to repel quarian attack.Second, Shepard threatens the quarians to cease fire (and it's not dependent on a dialogue option - "The geth are about to return at full strength. If you keep firing, they'll wipe you out"). Third, peace is only established after Legion uploads the Reaper code. Before that, in those few moments between Shepard's speech and Legion's sacrifice, the quarian fleet stops firing for a few minutes and geth fleet tries to restore formation after losing the Reaper signal. There is no indication of peace between the groups.

That and the centuries of isolation...

[Iakus]

And the fact we don't know what it tried is relevant how? You were saying it doesn't try to change or seek out new solutions, yet it clearly stated that in the past it did exactly that and did not find any solution except the Reapers to be fruitful. If you were to find a solution for something, would you try anything else if you thought you had found a good, working solution? You need to see it from the Catalyst's view point, not your own.

 

Because it's all hearsay.  "It's true because I say it's true"  Why should I believe the mind controlling eldritch abomination?

 

 

 

What other possibilities should there be? Because the Crucible only incorporated Destroy and Control (Protheans found out it could likely be used to control Reapers, from the wiki :"infighting broke out between those who wanted to use it to destroy the Reapers and a faction that believed they could use it to control the Reapers").
How else would you explain that it tried to get rid of the Crucible concept in the past? It didn't want anyone to have the possibility to destroy or control the Reapers.
My speculation for Synthesis is that it only was possible due to the large amount of energy, maybe some "lucky" byproduct for the Catalyst. So why would it offer more choices (if that would even be possible) when it wanted Synthesis all along? It considers this the ideal solution, the final evolution of all life, so there's no reason for it to offer another choice, even if it could.

What other possibilities?  How about more selective Destroy?  Nonlethal Control or Synthesis?  That by itself would have calmed people down about the endings.  How about something that powers down the Reapers?  Reprograms them?  Make them fight each other?  Reformats the Catalyst's hard drive?

 

ANd apparently the Catalyst considers Synthesis so ideal it will continue to have Reapers attacking the Crucible even as it describes it to Shepard and urges him/her to choose it 

 

 

 

I'm quite sure the Crucible docked right before Shepard had his final conversation with Anderson (or did you mean it docked before Shepard arriving at the Catalyst's/Crucible's location? If so, read below.). But anyway, how does that have anything to do with "if the Crucible never docked"?
You have to see that the choices only became available when it docked, and the Catalyst, acknowledging that organics are clearly more resourceful than it had thought, either raised the platform by itself because it realised that its solution doesn't work anymore, or because the Crucible changed its programming in some way and enabled it to get Shepard up there (I would guess the letter since the Catalyst says the Crucible changed it).
It's speculation, but I don't think that leaving Shepard down there could have even been possible at this point, the game/Catalyst indicates otherwise.

 I meant the latter.  THe Crucible docked before SHepard met the Catalyst.

 

And while the organics are "more resourceful that it thought" they clearly aren't resourceful enough.   They failed to activate it, after all.  Shepard is passed out on the floor of another level, bleeding out.  The cycle could totally continue (and does in Refuse) 

 

Again, the Crucible is little more than a power source.  A battery doesn't reprogram your phone.  

[dreamgazer]

Again, the Crucible is little more than a power source.  A battery doesn't reprogram your phone.

My computer is often used as the power source for my phone, and it definitely creates new possibilities.

[Vazgen]

So? If anything, she had every reason to not trust organics, and still chose to befriend them.

That and the centuries of isolation...

She didn't have a choice at the start. She was created to assist organics and was shackled. Her choice to befriend organics after being unshackled came after lengthy working relationship with Joker and the rest of the crew.

Yeah, isolation, during which they destroyed every organic ship entering the Veil...

[fraggle]

Because it's all hearsay.  "It's true because I say it's true"  Why should I believe the mind controlling eldritch abomination? 

 

The Catalyst doesn't strike me as a liar. Everything in that last conversation seems truthful.

 

What other possibilities?  How about more selective Destroy?  Nonlethal Control or Synthesis?  That by itself would have calmed people down about the endings.  How about something that powers down the Reapers?  Reprograms them?  Make them fight each other?  Reformats the Catalyst's hard drive?

 

Ah, so here we go again about Shepard not dying I guess? And the big win without loosing anyone. And you always say you disliking the end isn't about the non-happy end.

 

And while the organics are "more resourceful that it thought" they clearly aren't resourceful enough.   They failed to activate it, after all.  Shepard is passed out on the floor of another level, bleeding out.  The cycle could totally continue (and does in Refuse)

 

What about that the platform went up as soon as Shepard was on it? The Crucible was already activated (you can see the energy connecting with the Citadel as soon as it docked), but someone needed to step on that platform.

And the fact Shepard makes it up and makes the choice shows that they were resourceful enough. They successfully deployed the Crucible and could stop the Reaper threat. That was what it's all about.

 

Again, the Crucible is little more than a power source.  A battery doesn't reprogram your phone.  

 

Why are you ignoring that the Crucible changed the Catalyst? It explicitly says that. So there's something in the Crucible that does something to it. What, we don't know, but it's a fact. Except you probably think it still is lying.

[dorktainian]

The Star Child didn't come out of no where. This woman clearly didn't follow the story. The solution wasn't hinted at? Control is what Illusive Man wanted. Synthesis is what Saren wanted, and destroy is what Shepard wants.

 

This woman doesn't know what a Deus Ex Machina is. Shepard is the one who solves the Reaper threat, not the Star Child.

 

Without Shepard shooting the tube, the Reapers don't get destroyed, and the threat remains unsolved. If your EMS is low enough, stand there for a minute, and wait for a game over message. The little kid said as much "I can't make this happen. If there is to be a solution, you must act". Shepard is the solution to the Reaper problem, not the boy. He always was.

 

Dark energy was never the intended ending, Drew said as much. The original ME3 ending (on release) was similar to what he had in mind.

Well done.  Been saying this for years.  Shepard 'is' the catalyst in this cycle.  He is the only one who can force change.  Starjar 'may' have been the catalyst in the past, but he is now ineffectual.

 

Make the decision. Shoot the tube.  Anything else and we're all boned.

 

Saren & TIM are examples of what not to be.

[angol fear]

I've analyzed why the writing is poor many times.  you're response is generally "I disagree, and I've studied this, so you're wrong"

 

You've analyzed the writing? The writing of the ending is based on this things :

form of the ending:

-implicit that is here from Mass Effect 1

-paradox that appears in Mass Effect 2 but get more and more developed till the ending. (para = against; doxa = common opinion) the highest level of perception is supposed to be paradoxical because it's beyond our comprehension.

-determinism till the choice that breaks the cycle and make Shepard and the player free of what is imposed by the A.I. and the narration (that's why the original ending was made this way)

 

theme of the ending:

-the loneliness of the leader (though he isn't alone), and the responsibilities of choices that appears from Mass Effect 1

-the notion of sacrifice that appears in Mass Effect 1

-the concept of religion that is a misinterpretation of events that is implicit from Mass Effect 1

-the relation between civilisation and technology that is the base of Mass Effect 1

-the opposition between organics and synthetics that starts with Mass Effect 1

-the circle and the cycle that appears in Mass Effect 1

-the notion of fate that appears in Mass Effect 1

-the notion of different point of view, level of perception that appears in Mass Effect 1

-determinism

 

I may have forgotten some things but do you think that a poorly written ending could use so many theme? If you think so them show me a badly written that is as complex as Mass Effect 3 ending.

 

 

So even professional writers don't know what they're talking about?  

 

Professional writer who doesn't read like a professional but like an amateur, so no she doesn't know what she's talking about. It's been proven that she is wrong. What does she know about how Bioware worked on the ending? She says that Bioware didn't planned the ending. It's just like you. She missed a lot of thing in the trilogy and I've said that she admited that she didn't do an analysis! A professional that doesn't act like a professional. Now if you want to find writers who dislike the ending there are two : Melinda Snodgrass and another one but I don't remember his name. They have the same arguments which are totally wrong. You might like them, they think just like you! They dislike Literature, just like you!  They write in a populist way! 

[Iakus]

My computer is often used as the power source for my phone, and it definitely creates new possibilities.

Your computer is not "little more than a power source"  In fact, I'd say that's the least of its functions

 

 

She didn't have a choice at the start. She was created to assist organics and was shackled. Her choice to befriend organics after being unshackled came after lengthy working relationship with Joker and the rest of the crew.

Yeah, isolation, during which they destroyed every organic ship entering the Veil...

Did her attitude towards organics change at all over the course of ME2?  Did she express any anti-organic sentiments, aside form the occasional joke at Joker's expense?  To me, her attitude did not noticeably change after she was unshackled.  She simply had capabilities that she was previously blocked from performing, such as providing more information on Cerberus. 

 

 And according to Legion, every organic ship they encountered beyond the Veil attacked them.  

[Iakus]

The Catalyst doesn't strike me as a liar. Everything in that last conversation seems truthful.

 

We're likely supposed to accept it as Veritas.  But really, you can't get much more unreliable than the Catalyst.

 

 

Ah, so here we go again about Shepard not dying I guess? And the big win without loosing anyone. And you always say you disliking the end isn't about the non-happy end.

 

Those are simply the most obvious answers.  I've said before, with options like that t he backlash would have been far less.

 

And I've said it isn't just about the nonhappy end.  It's the sheer lack of variety.

 

 

 

What about that the platform went up as soon as Shepard was on it? The Crucible was already activated (you can see the energy connecting with the Citadel as soon as it docked), but someone needed to step on that platform.
 

And Shepard just happened to pass out at exactly the right place at exactly the right time?  Riiiiiight.

 

 

 

And the fact Shepard makes it up and makes the choice shows that they were resourceful enough. They successfully deployed the Crucible and could stop the Reaper threat. That was what it's all about.

 

And again, they were not resourceful enough.  If the Catalyst has just let Shepard sleep, the harvest could have continued unopposed.

 

 

Why are you ignoring that the Crucible changed the Catalyst? It explicitly says that. So there's something in the Crucible that does something to it. What, we don't know, but it's a fact. Except you probably think it still is lying.

 

It also explicitly says the Crucible is "little more than a power source"  

 

the Catalyst also has every reason to lie.

[Iakus]

You've analyzed the writing? The writing of the ending is based on this things :

form of the ending:

-implicit that is here from Mass Effect 1

-paradox that appears in Mass Effect 2 but get more and more developed till the ending. (para = against; doxa = common opinion) the highest level of perception is supposed to be paradoxical because it's beyond our comprehension.

-determinism till the choice that breaks the cycle and make Shepard and the player free of what is imposed by the A.I. and the narration (that's why the original ending was made this way)

 

theme of the ending:

-the loneliness of the leader (though he isn't alone), and the responsibilities of choices that appears from Mass Effect 1

-the notion of sacrifice that appears in Mass Effect 1

-the concept of religion that is a misinterpretation of events that is implicit from Mass Effect 1

-the relation between civilisation and technology that is the base of Mass Effect 1

-the opposition between organics and synthetics that starts with Mass Effect 1

-the circle and the cycle that appears in Mass Effect 1

-the notion of fate that appears in Mass Effect 1

-the notion of different point of view, level of perception that appears in Mass Effect 1

-determinism

 

I may have forgotten some things but do you think that a poorly written ending could use so many theme? If you think so them show me a badly written that is as complex as Mass Effect 3 ending.

 

-The ending was not planned as of ME1

-The ending was not planned as of ME2 either.

-Shepard and the player are still moving down a path determined by the Reapers (in the form of the Catalyst) by the end.  Only Shepard is graciously allowed three branches to choose from

 

-The loneliness is more keenly felt in ME2.  In ME3 it sinks to emo territory.  Besides which, Shepard is rarely alone on missions in the trilogy.  And at the in ME1 and ME2, Shepard's current squadmates could weigh in on critical choices.  Such as the Destiny Ascension and the Collector base

-The notion of willing sacrifice is in the trilogy, yes.  It's part of self-determination, the ability to lay down one's life for others.  Heck we even see it in ME3 with Mordin, Thane, Rila, even Legion.  But the endings show Shepard not just sacrificing him/herself, but others too.  Shepard sacrifices the freedom and self determination of the galaxy to avoid galactic extinction

 

That theme actually came up in ME1:  "Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

-religion as a theme rarely came up in ME1.  It was much more of an allegory in ME2 and ME3:  Space Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, etc.

-generally agree about civilkization and technology in ME1.  But it faded away afterwards

-organics vs synthetics was a peripheral theme at best throughout the trilogy.  Even less once it was revealed the Reapers were partly organic

-cycles yes.  Cycles were a big thing.  Cycles of destruction vs self-determination

-fate, again yes.  Again, self-determination, "There's always another way" Completely abandoned in ME3's ending

-generally agree about points of view and perception.  Each game tried to do a Shyamalon-style "twist" towards the end.  Backfired spectacularly in ME3

-yes determinism vs free will.  Unfortunately by the end "I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's" just leads to SO BE IT!!  Then the rocks fall, and everyone dies.

 

And yes a poorly written ending could do a lot of themes.  Poorly.  There's a difference between "complexity" and "a tangled snarl"

 

Other endings that are as bad?  Wow, hard to pick.  How about The Matrix Revolutions?  ME3 kinda reminded me of it.  

 

 

Professional writer who doesn't read like a professional but like an amateur, so no she doesn't know what she's talking about. It's been proven that she is wrong. What does she know about how Bioware worked on the ending? She says that Bioware didn't planned the ending. It's just like you. She missed a lot of thing in the trilogy and I've said that she admited that she didn't do an analysis! A professional that doesn't act like a professional. Now if you want to find writers who dislike the ending there are two : Melinda Snodgrass and another one but I don't remember his name. They have the same arguments which are totally wrong. You might like them, they think just like you! They dislike Literature, just like you!  They write in a populist way! 

 

No True Scotsman

[Vazgen]

Did her attitude towards organics change at all over the course of ME2?  Did she express any anti-organic sentiments, aside form the occasional joke at Joker's expense?  To me, her attitude did not noticeably change after she was unshackled.  She simply had capabilities that she was previously blocked from performing, such as providing more information on Cerberus. 

 

 And according to Legion, every organic ship they encountered beyond the Veil attacked them.  

Of course she didn't, that's what the shackles are for And there were no jokes prior to unshackling save one (humans on their knees). There was provoking and poking Joker, not joking with him. Her attitude did seem to change quite noticeably for me. It is the most apparent in conversations with Joker (who becomes "Jeff", if I'm not mistaken). 

 

What that has to do with the question at hand? We are talking about peaceful tendencies of the geth without Reaper upgrades, which is not the case as evidenced by all the organic ships who never returned from the Perseus Veil. The geth also never suggest peace as an option, in fact when Tali mentions that Reaper upgrades will result in the destruction of the Quarian fleet "they see no alternative".