718 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

 

 

This is why the ending is bad. Period.

Exactly. Narrative coherence, which, for the record was partially fixed but not fully (and to some even made worse) with EC.

 

I admire the people who want to make the best out of it and use their own line of logic to fill the holes in here, and the delusional ones who still insist that this all made perfect sense from the start and that everyone else "just can't see it" well... they should realize that I think most people do see it, we just think it's incoherent to ME1 and stupid for the ending of ME3 and the trilogy.

[TheRevanchist]

"This is why the ending is bad. Period", that's what you said, isn't it ? You say that something is bad (implicitly you're saying that what you wrote is objective) then you say that art is "subjective" . Where is the "I think that..." "my opinion" etc...? Don't you see the problem ? I won't ask you question about art I know your answer. I know why you liked the videos.
It has nothing to do with open mind, ignorance is ignorance, if you accept wrong definition of notions, it's not open mind it's ignorance. What is "wrong" is wrong", it won't turn into "right" thanks to "open mind".

 

Just as I suspected. You keep insisting you know better, because you say you do. Thanks for proving my point. If your only possible counter to my statement which you basically ignored was to pick apart my words for basically not being politically neutral enough then I say that pretty much proves how flimsy your ground is. Yes, you know why I like that video, because it uses logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion that is different from your subjective opinion and as a result of that, you insist that it is factually incorrect. Try again. 

[TheRevanchist]

Here the thing....the video maker failed to even get the ending or why the Crucible is explained.

 

He misses the point entirely that the Catalyst helps you because his cycle is no longer feasible with the Crucible, because even if he destroys it now, the next cycle wins because organics are too resourceful at this point. That's how Shepard "altered the variables".

 

There is no abandonment of genre, in fact in confirms its universe based on the central conflict, which the video make truly doesn't get. Its more than just Reapers vs everyone.

 

Nevermind who built the Crucible....who cares? Due to the scope of the story and the cycles, it doesn't matter.

 

This ending is simply put, too complex for the Bioware audience.

 

Ah, hello, welcome to the "I know better because I'm smarter than all of you" club. Your reasoning for the Catalyst's changed variables are entirely on you. That is something you are assuming, based on the result of the next cycle. No where in that ending does it make it clear that is how the variables are changed. Nevermind that this cycle does not even HAVE the problem the Catalyst is supposedly trying to fix, and is in fact making the problem worse by assisting the only synthetic race in the galaxy to destroy it's organic master, which it says it's trying to stop by destroying them and making them goo. The Prothean cycle was even similar. They had the upper hand in their war with AI, and almost had them defeated. But the dumb logic of the Catalyst insists that Synthetic victory is inevitable regardless of how untrue his absoluteness is. The Reapers are perpetuating the problem they are meant to fix. All they have to do is stop harvesting and the problem is over. But no doubt you will either respond with "Who cares" or some other hand waving dismissal of this, because it supports a view you disagree with, which as we know makes us total morons, rather than equally respectful people with different opinions. 

[txgoldrush]

No, its based on piecing everything together, something bashers refuse to do. Please tell me this, why is the Catalyst mad at you with low EMS if my explanation isn't true? Why does he say that organics are more resourceful than he realized when talking about the Crucible? It adds up, you refuse to sum it up.

 

The cycle DOES have the problem the Catalyst is talking about. Play through the series again. Project Overlord. Hell, the Catalyst wasn't the only AI on the Citadel that has views that the organic and synthetic conflicts are inevitable. And please don't use the "gun to the head" peace that Shepard brokers, through coercion, with the Geth and the Quarians, as an argument against the Catalyst.

 

Is the logic of the Catalyst flawed? Well, he is the antagonist. Aren't Well Intentioned Extremist antagonist logic flawed? Can they be the monsters they are fighting?

 

Here is a hint: The logic flaws on the antagonist brings about its defeat.

[txgoldrush]

Exactly. Narrative coherence, which, for the record was partially fixed but not fully (and to some even made worse) with EC.

 

I admire the people who want to make the best out of it and use their own line of logic to fill the holes in here, and the delusional ones who still insist that this all made perfect sense from the start and that everyone else "just can't see it" well... they should realize that I think most people do see it, we just think it's incoherent to ME1 and stupid for the ending of ME3 and the trilogy.

Wrong.

 

What you don't see is that not only the ending, but the Reaper conflict is only part of the big picture, and the Catalyst is only representative of the conflicts and themes of the setting.

 

The Reapers aren't the problem they are only PART of the problem....the PROBLEM is that people want to control the destinies of others, either for good or ill, and are ignorant about the consequences and the dangers this poses. THAT'S Mass Effect.

 

The antagonist turns about to be an organic creation gone wrong. How is that not fitting the series?

 

Incoherent to ME1? Not true. In fact, ME1 failed to explain some things, thats on ME1.

[TheRevanchist]

No, its based on piecing everything together, something bashers refuse to do. Please tell me this, why is the Catalyst mad at you with low EMS if my explanation isn't true? Why does he say that organics are more resourceful than he realized when talking about the Crucible? It adds up, you refuse to sum it up.

 

The cycle DOES have the problem the Catalyst is talking about. Play through the series again. Project Overlord. Hell, the Catalyst wasn't the only AI on the Citadel that has views that the organic and synthetic conflicts are inevitable. And please don't use the "gun to the head" peace that Shepard brokers, through coercion, with the Geth and the Quarians, as an argument against the Catalyst.

 

Is the logic of the Catalyst flawed? Well, he is the antagonist. Aren't Well Intentioned Extremist antagonist logic flawed? Can they be the monsters they are fighting?

 

Here is a hint: The logic flaws on the antagonist brings about its defeat.

 

No, there is no problem. Because organics in this cycle are able to overcome every single synthetic threat that is encountered. Shepard defeats Overlord. organic death avoided. Quarians can destroy the Geth, Organic death avoided. This cycle was capable of handling synthetic threats that arise. The problem does not exist. It is not a problem unless organics are incapable of dealing with it. What you call "piecing it together" is nothing more than using your own opinions and imagination to fill in the blanks for yourself, like Casey and Mac wanted you to do because that clearly makes the ending more Artsy and Intelligent than actually following a logical train of thought to show and explain the results and reasons. How do I know this? Because "SPECULATIONS FOR EVERYONE!" was the underlined goal of the ending. They wanted us to fill it in ourselves, which you and others did. Good for you. Just because that's what they wanted us to do does not mean it is good, or logical. Your argument is basically to follow the same train of thought as Indoctrination Theory. Look at unfinished, half baked ideas and come to a conclusion of your own making and act like the evidence is as clear as day for all to see. Just because that is how your brain interprets the endings does not mean they are factually more correct than someone else's interpretations of it.

[txgoldrush]

Here is the thing you are missing. It only takes ONE example to prove the Catalyst's point. ONE incident, ONE Ai. That's it. Organics can destroy the synthetic race 345 times, but it takes ONE that views organic life as a problem that successfully wins, that spells doom.

 

The Catalyst does not say that it will ALWAYS happen, only that its the end result. Pay attention to the script. Words matter. You are adding new arguments for the Catalyst and than criticizing it, you can't do that. That's poor critique.

 

And its not using my own imagination, its called using what the game is giving me. The Refusal ending proves my point directly about why the Catalyst helps you.

[Iakus]

Oh I understand, as does most people with an open mind. Many people however just seem intent on talking down to and belittling anyone who dares to have a different opinion about something.

Wait, there are people who talk down to and belittle epoel who dare not like the ending?

 

The dickens you say!  

[Iakus]

Here is the thing you are missing. It only takes ONE example to prove the Catalyst's point. ONE incident, ONE Ai. That's it. Organics can destroy the synthetic race 345 times, but it takes ONE that views organic life as a problem that successfully wins, that spells doom.

 

The Catalyst does not say that it will ALWAYS happen, only that its the end result. Pay attention to the script. Words matter.

 

And its not using my own imagination, its called using what the game is giving me. The Refusal ending proves my point directly about why the Catalyst helps you.

 

Yeah, words matter.  The Catalyst claims an inevitability when such has never been proven.  It's nothing more than a hypothesis without evidence.  

 

HEck the Catalyst itself has doctored even the circumstantial evidence that exists.

[txgoldrush]

Or was it the Leviathans observations on how their subjects fell to their synthetic creations?

 

That played a role in its creation.

[TheRevanchist]

Here is the thing you are missing. It only takes ONE example to prove the Catalyst's point. ONE incident, ONE Ai. That's it. Organics can destroy the synthetic race 345 times, but it takes ONE that views organic life as a problem that successfully wins, that spells doom.

 

The Catalyst does not say that it will ALWAYS happen, only that its the end result. Pay attention to the script. Words matter. You are adding new arguments for the Catalyst and than criticizing it, you can't do that. That's poor critique.

 

And its not using my own imagination, its called using what the game is giving me. The Refusal ending proves my point directly about why the Catalyst helps you.

 

No, that IS what the Catalyst is saying. He insists it WILL always happen, 100% of the time. "it is inevitable" are his exact words. He has literally only 1 example to support this theory, and we in fact have proof that his assumptions are currently baseless in this Cycle, but are incapable of explaining this to him, because Shepard stops having a brain because the "art" calls for it. I HAVE been paying attention, I have listened to his words over and over hundreds of time. I know exactly what he does and does not say. Everything you insist are facts that I am missing are things YOU have decided yourself, on the grounds that you are "reading between the lines"(aka using your own mind to fill in the gaps) to come to these conclusions.  

[Dantriges]

Or was it the Leviathans observations on how their subjects fell to their synthetic creations?

 

That played a role in its creation.

 

I wonder if this problem they observed was of their own making. The whole galaxy was structured by enthrallment, a master - slave relationship and probably fear. This cold and dark feelings from the mind control don´t sound comforting. 

 

 

The Reapers aren't the problem they are only PART of the problem....the PROBLEM is that people want to control the destinies of others, either for good or ill, and are ignorant about the consequences and the dangers this poses. THAT'S Mass Effect.

 

We humans are fond of it, the Leviathan´s whole existence and culture was based on mindraping others. It´s the same want dialed up to 11. The Catalyst, a product of the ultimate organic masters, gathered his data from a galaxy which was probably dominated by a culture of domination and fear, the but the synthetics were out of the grasp of the Leviathan and their creators weren´t as experienced in keeping control.

[Monica21]

I love this analysis. It is intelligent, objective, informed, and shows the many flaws of how the storytelling and other things were handled. He also made another one which briefly focuses on the Extended Cut:

 

Good Lord that was depressing. Mostly because I didn't play Mass Effect at all until two months ago. I played Dragon Age and the ending controversy spilled over into those forums so I wasn't unaware of it, I just never had to live through the massive disappointment. I knew about Star Child and "who the **** is this kid?" but actually seeing a pre-EC analysis was, well, depressing. I guess for me, when Star Child showed up I just thought, "oh, here's that thing that happens now" because I was obviously spoiled to hell and back for most of the series.

 

The one thing that really did bother me was exactly the two lines he was talking about. "Who built the Crucible?" "You wouldn't know them and it would take too long to explain." At no point during any of that did I think that perhaps taking five minutes to tell me about a super intelligent species that existed a million years ago would take too much time. Why am I all of a sudden on the clock? Not to mention that in every other cycle it took generations to wipe out the organics and we have to defeat the Reapers in like, three weeks? Why?

 

And the Crucible should not have been introduced the way it was. We've had access to the archives for decades and then Liara just stumbles across it "by process of elimination" (not explained well at all either) as an archaeologist and not even as a cool and secret piece of tech she found as the Shadow Broker? Or maybe the Illusive Man had it and it was part of the data that you uploaded to the Alliance back in ME2. And if you didn't upload it then TIM had it and you had to find a way to get it. Either way is better than, "it's this thing I found."

 

And YES! WHY DO I FIND OUT THAT THIS IS AN ORGANIC VS. SYNTHETIC PROBLEM IN THE LAST FIVE MINUTES? Shouldn't I have had clues throughout the trilogy? Nothing leads me to that point. I even built a truce between the Quarians and the Geth that directly contradicts Star Child. The first time I talked to Sovereign and asked him who built him, and he said something like, "No one, I just exist" I knew that wasn't true. If it's a machine it has to be built and if it's an AI it has to be programmed. So Sovereign was either lying to me or wasn't programmed to know who his creators were. Either answer is fine, but the resolution to that is simple. It's to change the code or destroy the machines. And this can be done in such a way that it doesn't boil down to Organics vs. Synthetics, and really can just be organics vs. reapers.

 

So, I was going somewhere with all that and I don't know where, but there it is. Yes, the ending is bad BUT! The series itself is actually really, really good and I'll continue to play it for a long time, ending be damned.

[txgoldrush]

Good Lord that was depressing. Mostly because I didn't play Mass Effect at all until two months ago. I played Dragon Age and the ending controversy spilled over into those forums so I wasn't unaware of it, I just never had to live through the massive disappointment. I knew about Star Child and "who the **** is this kid?" but actually seeing a pre-EC analysis was, well, depressing. I guess for me, when Star Child showed up I just thought, "oh, here's that thing that happens now" because I was obviously spoiled to hell and back for most of the series.

 

The one thing that really did bother me was exactly the two lines he was talking about. "Who built the Crucible?" "You wouldn't know them and it would take too long to explain." At no point during any of that did I think that perhaps taking five minutes to tell me about a super intelligent species that existed a million years ago would take too much time. Why am I all of a sudden on the clock? Not to mention that in every other cycle it took generations to wipe out the organics and we have to defeat the Reapers in like, three weeks? Why?

 

And the Crucible should not have been introduced the way it was. We've had access to the archives for decades and then Liara just stumbles across it "by process of elimination" (not explained well at all either) as an archaeologist and not even as a cool and secret piece of tech she found as the Shadow Broker? Or maybe the Illusive Man had it and it was part of the data that you uploaded to the Alliance back in ME2. And if you didn't upload it then TIM had it and you had to find a way to get it. Either way is better than, "it's this thing I found."

 

And YES! WHY DO I FIND OUT THAT THIS IS AN ORGANIC VS. SYNTHETIC PROBLEM IN THE LAST FIVE MINUTES? Shouldn't I have had clues throughout the trilogy? Nothing leads me to that point. I even built a truce between the Quarians and the Geth that directly contradicts Star Child. The first time I talked to Sovereign and asked him who built him, and he said something like, "No one, I just exist" I knew that wasn't true. If it's a machine it has to be built and if it's an AI it has to be programmed. So Sovereign was either lying to me or wasn't programmed to know who his creators were. Either answer is fine, but the resolution to that is simple. It's to change the code or destroy the machines. And this can be done in such a way that it doesn't boil down to Organics vs. Synthetics, and really can just be organics vs. reapers.

 

So, I was going somewhere with all that and I don't know where, but there it is. Yes, the ending is bad BUT! The series itself is actually really, really good and I'll continue to play it for a long time, ending be damned.

It doesn't matter who first build the crucible. The scope of the story and its many cycles are so vast, this info would be irrelevant. It would not add to the story UNLESS it was the Keeper race who did it.

 

However the comic book Homeworlds Vol. 4 shows us how Liara got to Mars. There is a gap between ME2 and ME3, Liara fills it, just like she fills in the gap between ME1 and ME2 with redemption. She did not stumble on Mars, she got clues from Kajhe, the Hanar world. And it shows Cerberus following her. They know she is the Broker, they are the ones who give you key intel to give to Liara before you initiate Lair of the Shadow Broker. It was a Cerberus trap.

 

However, the same could be said with the evidence against Saren in ME1. It is also brought out of the blue to solve a problem. The Homeworlds series also covers this as well, focused on Tali.

 

You might want to play the side quest "Signal Tracking" in ME1. And really, organics vs synthetics was a running theme throughout ME1.

[Monica21]

It doesn't matter who first build the crucible. The scope of the story and its many cycles are so vast, this info would be irrelevant. It would not add to the story UNLESS it was the Keeper race who did it.

 

However the comic book Homeworlds Vol. 4 shows us how Liara got to Mars. There is a gap between ME2 and ME3, Liara fills it, just like she fills in the gap between ME1 and ME2 with redemption. She did not stumble on Mars, she got clues from Kajhe, the Hanar world. And it shows Cerberus following her. They know she is the Broker, they are the ones who give you key intel to give to Liara before you initiate Lair of the Shadow Broker. It was a Cerberus trap.

 

However, the same could be said with the evidence against Saren in ME1. It is also brought out of the blue to solve a problem. The Homeworlds series also covers this as well, focused on Tali.

 

You might want to play the side quest "Signal Tracking" in ME1. And really, organics vs synthetics was a running theme throughout ME1.

 

So what if it doesn't matter? Is there a reason the Catalyst can't tell me? That's my point. And you can let me decide if it will add to the story.

 

That's great that there's a reason Liara got to Mars. I assumed there was a reason, since she was there. That's not my point. My point is that we have no explanation for how we get the Crucible. Not to mention that if the Asari were the ones who were supposed to break the cycle then why aren't the plans near Thessia?

 

The Saren problem is a little "ehhh.. okay." I can more than live with it. I can also live with Liara stumbling on the plans. But there's no explanation for it. She says it's "process of elimination." Process of elimination based on what? On all the other ancient Prothean archives? On everything that's sitting in the Mars archives? I mean, really.

 

You know what wasn't a running theme throughout the series? That Shepard would have to be the one to solve a billion-year-old problem of organics vs. synthetics or that that's even what the cycle was built on. Again, what's wrong with organics vs. Reapers? It's a much simpler problem and avoids all the end-game shenanigans of, "You are the first organic to stand here."

[TheRevanchist]

It doesn't matter who first build the crucible. The scope of the story and its many cycles are so vast, this info would be irrelevant. It would not add to the story UNLESS it was the Keeper race who did it.

 

However the comic book Homeworlds Vol. 4 shows us how Liara got to Mars. There is a gap between ME2 and ME3, Liara fills it, just like she fills in the gap between ME1 and ME2 with redemption. She did not stumble on Mars, she got clues from Kajhe, the Hanar world. And it shows Cerberus following her. They know she is the Broker, they are the ones who give you key intel to give to Liara before you initiate Lair of the Shadow Broker. It was a Cerberus trap.

 

However, the same could be said with the evidence against Saren in ME1. It is also brought out of the blue to solve a problem. The Homeworlds series also covers this as well, focused on Tali.

 

You might want to play the side quest "Signal Tracking" in ME1. And really, organics vs synthetics was a running theme throughout ME1.

 

The use of ancillary material to explain away missing plot points in your game is a sign of poor writing. Redemption is excused because the game itself actually references and directly deals with it and it's consequences. But Homeworlds does not have that excuse. You may now proceed to explain why I am totally wrong.  

[Rhaenyss]

Of all the reasons to hate the ending, I don't know why you make it a problem that reapers destroy the cycle even if the organics have managed to resolve several AI problems? I mean, the whole point of the reapers is that they destroy civilizations before they manage to do anything, as a way to preserve the future. You can't expect them to just take you on your word, like "We promise really really hard not to destroy ourselves with the AI technology, pinky swear Mr. Reaper." You can say what you want, but reapers obviously don't work on promises and a hope something won't happen. The only time they are willing to step down is when they have some more permanent & concrete solutions (such as Synthesis, as dumb as it's executed in-game).

[TheRevanchist]

Of all the reasons to hate the ending, I don't know why you make it a problem that reapers destroy the cycle even if the organics have managed to resolve several AI problems? I mean, the whole point of the reapers is that they destroy civilizations before they manage to do anything, as a way to preserve the future. You can't expect them to just take you on your word, like "We promise really really hard not to destroy ourselves with the AI technology, pinky swear Mr. Reaper." You can say what you want, but reapers obviously don't work on promises and a hope something won't happen. The only time they are willing to step down is when they have some more permanent & concrete solutions (such as Synthesis, as dumb as it's executed in-game).

 

No, because it is all related. The Catalyst only has a single example to point to to prove his theory. As far as we know no other cycle has ever had this problem get out of hand. He has no way of knowing how correct he actually is, because he never leaves them alone long enough to see if this theory is actually correct. He uses one example to determine that all life in the galaxy, from now until the end of time, will always do the exact same thing and get killed by their creations over and over again. Yet he never actually let's these races live long enough to figure out if this is accurate or not. The mere existence of Synthetic life does not prove his train of thought. He just picked a random period of time for no particular reason and decided that was long enough. The Geth was a threat to no one. They never wanted to destroy organics, they just wanted to be left alone. Overlord? human error that was corrected. All problems that arose were corrected without Reaper intervention. He cannot possibly think it is inevitable unless he literally never bothered to check after the first time. In fact he takes it further, helping the synthetics of this cycle overcome their organic masters, who were incapable of doing so themselves. This is a direct contradiction to his purpose. This is not proof of how correct he is. It is proof that HE himself is the problem he wants to fix.

 

The ending is bad because the motives of the enemy do not use logic and reason, contradict their own purpose, and the fact that the entire problem was a fabrication of the last 10 minutes of the game. ME1 and 2 were not ABOUT this issue. You can ask Drew about this if you wish. The original problem was Dark Energy. the original ending was about Dark Energy. The synthetic vs organic thing was a thing that existed in the setting before of course, but it was not the primary plot and theme of the work, it was a B plot, to use a TV term. The A plot was above all else, the Dark Energy problem. The Reapers were stopping organics from destroying themselves because their technology creates Dark Energy build up, which would lead to suns going Supernova, see Haestrom. The human Reaper was being built because they were running out of time. The Rachni were the original attempt of the Reapers. The cycle went on too long and the energy build up was reaching critical mass. The Reapers were convinced the human Reaper could create a permanent solution to the build up problem, that is why they were the focus. The original ending would have addressed these issues.

 

Just because "organics vs synthetics" was a thing in the universe prior to the re-write, does not mean the original themes of the work were about this. That is not how stories work. The ending is bad for reasons that have been explained by far more articulate people than me. Look at the many videos that have been posted.    

[Monica21]

The dark energy problem sounds much more interesting than an ongoing organics vs. synthetics problem. They never did explain what was going on with Haestrom's sun, did they?

Is there any knowledge of how it would have been solved if they'd stayed with it?

[Vazgen]

The problem in question is an absolute one. It has to act before synthetics destroy all organic life. Leaving organics to figure it out on their own risks the loss of all organic life, a risk that it is not willing/able to take. That's the difference between organics and synthetics, the latter will never take such a risk. Its initial programming claims that synthetics destroy organics. It has seen examples of the conflict taking place in every cycle and who knows how many times before that. It is enough for it to extrapolate that the eventual result will be the destruction of all organic life. Our cycle too has that example - the geth who exterminated 99% of quarian population.

 

As for asking Drew, let's do that:

 

On organics vs synthetics (Source)

Of course, some of you are also pinging me to find out what the “original” ending of the series was when we started planning out the trilogy. Sorry, but that’s not something I’m even going to attempt to answer. The collaborative creative process is incredibly complicated, and the story and ideas are constantly evolving as you go forward. Yes, we had a plan, but it was very vague. We knew we wanted to focus on some key themes and bring in certain key elements: organics vs synthetics; the Reapers; the Mass Relays. Beyond that, we didn’t go into detail because we knew it would change radically as the game continued to evolve.

 

On Dark Energy (Source)

"Again it's very vague and not fleshed out, it was something we considered but we ended up going in a different direction."

 

Edit: Monica, read the source on the dark energy quote. Personally, I think it would've been much worse had they went in that direction.

[TheRevanchist]

The dark energy problem sounds much more interesting than an ongoing organics vs. synthetics problem. They never did explain what was going on with Haestrom's sun, did they?

Is there any knowledge of how it would have been solved if they'd stayed with it?

 

Yes actually, the entire original ending was laid out by Drew after the fact. You would confront Harbinger, not a Starchild, and he would present the conflict to you. it would be made aware to you that the Human Reaper would, beyond doubt, solve the problem forever. This requires sacrificing all of humanity, including yourself. The alternatives would be to tell the Reapers to ****** off and you'll deal with it yourselves. However there is no promise that you can do so because the galaxy only has about 100 years left to find a solution when the Reapers needed billions of years to find one.  

[TheRevanchist]

The problem in question is an absolute one. If has to act before synthetics destroy all organic life. Leaving organics to figure it out on their own risks the loss of all organic life, a risk that it is not willing/able to take. That's the difference between organics and synthetics, the latter will never take such a risk. Its initial programming claims that synthetics destroy organics. It has seen examples of the conflict taking place in every cycle and who knows how many times before that. It is enough for it to extrapolate that the eventual result will be the destruction of all organic life. Our cycle too has that example - the geth who exterminated 99% of quarian population.

 

As for asking Drew, let's do that:

 

On organics vs synthetics (Source)

Of course, some of you are also pinging me to find out what the “original” ending of the series was when we started planning out the trilogy. Sorry, but that’s not something I’m even going to attempt to answer. The collaborative creative process is incredibly complicated, and the story and ideas are constantly evolving as you go forward. Yes, we had a plan, but it was very vague. We knew we wanted to focus on some key themes and bring in certain key elements: organics vs synthetics; the Reapers; the Mass Relays. Beyond that, we didn’t go into detail because we knew it would change radically as the game continued to evolve.

 

On Dark Energy (Source)

"Again it's very vague and not fleshed out, it was something we considered but we ended up going in a different direction."

 

Edit: Monica, read the source on the dark energy quote. Personally, I think it would've been much worse had they went in that direction.

 

There is no doubt it was a key element. It was not, however, the primary element. It was the B plot. Patrick Weeks made it clear the ending was not peer reviewed. The other writers weren't even informed of it until it was already implemented. He was not happy about the final result anymore than some of the fans were. You are portraying a vague statement as an absolute proof of your insistence that the entire story was about this. It wasn't. Even if it was, it does not change the illogical nonsense that the ending entails. He is a computer, governed by logic. Everything he does defies logic, not follows it.   

[Vazgen]

There is no doubt it was a key element. It was not, however, the primary element. It was the B plot. Patrick Weeks made it clear the ending was not peer reviewed. The other writers weren't even informed of it until it was already implemented. He was not happy about the final result anymore than some of the fans were. You are portraying a vague statement as an absolute proof of your insistence that the entire story was about this. It wasn't. Even if it was, it does not change the illogical nonsense that the ending entails. He is a computer, governed by logic. Everything he does defies logic, not follows it.   

Whether it was a primary or secondary element is up for debate. I'd consider organics vs synthetics to be more "primary" since it was referenced in all three games. Dark energy was not. 

There was some article allegedly by Patrick Weeks that claimed the endings were not peer reviewed. IIRC later it was said that it was not written by Patrick. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the point at hand. We were discussing the supposed narrative incoherence of the endings, not the way they were reviewed. 

As for "portraying a vague statement as an absolute proof of your insistence that the entire story was about this" it is exactly what you do with dark energy. Drew said it himself that it was "very vague and not fleshed out" yet you claim that it was the main theme of the trilogy. 

The Catalyst's action do follow logic. A twisted one, but still a logic a machine can follow. It is quite incompetent but that's the bane of any villain. 

[Rhaenyss]

The dark energy thing sounds interesting, but as far as I know, it was only mentioned once on Haestrom, or did I miss something? Also, I don't get how a human reaper would help with that?

[Vazgen]

The dark energy thing sounds interesting, but as far as I know, it was only mentioned once on Haestrom, or did I miss something? Also, I don't get how a human reaper would help with that?

Veetor mentions it, Tali mentions it on Haestrom and later on the flotilla. There may've been other mentions but I don't remember, been too long since I last played ME2.