718 réponses à ce sujet

[steinvegard]

*Shepard*. 
 
I don't really see how a darker setting makes a happy ending hollow. You survived. You persevered. Despite the costs, you overcame adversity and now have an ability to move forward and even evolve to a higher state of being. 
 
The Catalyst nor the Reapers was not fascism. I don't think you really understand either what BW was going for or what fascism is if you're labeling it as such. 
 
The concept was based on the ideology of order over chaos, and how to overcome it. It was about transcending our condition and moving past our nature. Organics and synthetics will always compete, and thus always come into conflict. The Catalyst had a mandate to prevent this and preserve life. It accomplished that via the Reapers, even if Synthesis is viewed as the ideal solution (which it is).

There are many permutations of fascism and it is difficult to nail down what it exactly is, but the catalyst and the reapers ideology certainly match up with many of the central tenets of early-and mid twenthieth century versions of it. Listening to the catalyst is almost like listening to a caricature of the "rebirth myth" that is central to most european fascist, historically speaking, for justyfing their aggression.

The idea that organics and synthetics will always compete and always come into conflict is also clearly a mirror of the neofascist idea that different civilizations i.e. Christians and muslims, will always compete and always come into conflict. Again the catalyst with its " super intelligence" uses fascist ideology to justify aggression.

[prosthetic soul]

There are many permutations of fascism and it is difficult to nail down what it exactly is, but the catalyst and the reapers ideology certainly match up with many of the central tenets of early-and mid twenthieth century versions of it. Listening to the catalyst is almost like listening to a caricature of the "rebirth myth" that is central to most european fascist, historically speaking, for justyfing their aggression.

The idea that organics and synthetics will always compete and always come into conflict is also clearly a mirror of the neofascist idea that different civilizations i.e. Christians and muslims, will always compete and always come into conflict. Again the catalyst with its " super intelligence" uses fascist ideology to justify aggression.

I wouldn't bother debating with him.  He's already pulled the "I don't think you understand what you're talking about" card without actually having any proof that you don't.  And it seems to me you DO know what you're talking about. 

[Dantriges]

That the catalyst is an artificial superintelligence and can´t be judged by our morals, because he is an amoral agent and he´s offering something incredible, transhumanist crap. All fallacies in execution are because BW hasn´t reached that transcendant state yet, stupid organic monkeys they are (no insult intended, because we all are compared to ASI). I for one am happy that I am old enough to probably/hopefully not experience this incredible transformation and die as a plain human, thanks a lot.

[Rhaenyss]

I understood the Reaper logic in this way -- they are not malicious or evil, they just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to preserve a life (because they are not organic & their thought patterns are more mathematical and logical, getting from point A to point . So in a way they ARE preserving life, by breaking it into its basic components (DNA) and encasing it into a Reaper structure, along with all the knowledge of the civilization (probably copied on a USB stick somewhere in the Reaper brain). To them, it's the perfect solution, because this particular civilization never got as far as too create an AI that could wipe all life out & now they're warm and cozy inside a Reaper, preserved. Somebody should've told the Leviathans to be careful with how they word things, because their faulty AI understood it too literally. 

[Vanilka]

I don't think Shepard dying is what people have problem with. Hell, with the high EMS Destroy ending, Shepard doesn't even die, so this takes this argument and throws it out of the window. If somebody were so desperate to have Shepard alive, they can always go that route. So having Shepard alive and well in fanfics is not a stretch in the slightest. It's one of the possible endings you can achieve. That's a simple fact. There are, technically, several other scenarios where Shepard can die, so everybody can pick.

 

Now, I played the games for the first time a few months ago and I'm probably going to beat a long dead horse here... if there's anything left of it at all... so in case you're already sick of it, just skip this or proceed at your own risk. This is what I was absolutely and totally unhappy with:

 

Spoiler

I don't know, but does anybody really think that 10 or so minutes long rap battle between Shepard and TIM and then 10 or so minutes long information dump from the Catalyst, then crawling to pick red, blue, or green with subsequent slideshow is an appropriate ending for an action sci-fi RPG? Are there really people who play through it for the second... third... fourth etc. time and think, "This is so epic! This is so much fun! So much variation!" Because if yes, then I honestly envy them. Big time. I've replayed the games three times so far (and I love them) and ME1 and ME2, even if flawed, always make me feel like, "Hell, yeah!" at the end. I wanted to like ME3's endings so much, but I ended up most disappointed I've ever been over a game's ending when I got there, and they just keep feeling meh.

 

When I played the first time, I expected to be blown away. I expected something along the ME2's suicide mission where everybody would come together to kick some Reaper a*s*s. The companions have always played a big role in ME. It's one of the things BW does so, so well. So why were they left out? And this was to be the end of the trilogy. It was supposed to be epic. It was supposed to be fun.

 

Instead, I was confused (What's going on? Why is there a new and omnipotent character introduced in the last minutes of the game? It's lazy. It reeks of the writers grasping at straws and not knowing what to really do with the ending.), frustrated (I couldn't call the Catalyst out on any of its bull***t and there was a lot that needed to be addressed. Many times I wanted to say, "Well, that's simply incorrect." Not a chance.), bored (WE. STAND. THERE. FOREVER. AND. GET. INFORMATION. DUMPED. ON. US. IN. THE. LAST. FEW. MINUTES. OF. THE. TRILOGY. Right after we spent ages talking to TIM, talking to Anderson, with just some cutscenes thrown in between. So very epic... not.).

 

I wanted to talk back because we basically proved the Catalyst wrong in many ways throughout the games, not to even mention its logic is rather erratic, and yet we can never bring it up, pretty much. Shepard called out Harbinger and Leviathan on their bull, why not now? Why trust it at all? I don't want an awesome button. I don't want a button that solves all my problems. I just want stuff to make sense. I want a super ancient über intelligent AI to act the part. (It actually compared fire, a thing, to sentient beings. The hell? It actually dared to tell me there is no war, yet the only thing we see the Reapers do in the game is turn everything into either dust or abominations that shoot at us. We don't even see any harvesting. Hell, the Collectors did much better job at harvesting than the Reapers ever did. CERBERUS on Horizon did a much better job at harvesting than the Reapers ever did. EDI once brings up some slave camps which we never get to see. The asari in the hospital mentions something. That's all. The Reapers just destroy stuff. And they develop troops to do so. Their beams pretty much vaporise people so there's nothing left to harvest. If that's not warfare, then I don't know what is. This is completely brushed off by that very poetic "Like a cleansing fire..." line that makes me want to facedesk and knock myself unconscious.) I want Shepard to act like Shepard. I don't want the ending to break our character, the game's lore and step on what we've learnt throughout the game.

 

Real people wrote that ending, so blaming it all on "Reaper logic" is an excuse. Some of it? Sure. But those people decided it was appropriate to present synthesis as the "ideal" solution (Strongly indicated by the writers as the best option because it's only available with high EMS, so it's meant to be a reward for all your hard work.) while the theme of ME3 is overcoming differences and uniting the galaxy without ever needing to erase those differences. It is insulting and inconsistent, and it shows they weren't capable of keeping their stuff together. (BTW, I also love how the Catalyst tells us it's already failed a few times but, hey, it'll totes work this time.)

 

Also, if it's the synthetics who always turn on their organic creators, why not just collect the bad guys? What? Too simple?

 

Plus, space magic. Somehow, three buttons weren't cool enough, so we were provided with three pretty absurd ways to turn the Crucible on. I'm really glad I don't have to turn my coffee maker by shooting it... or dissolving in it... Like, okay, I miiight believe the Control thing. Shepard turns into an AI SOMEHOW and takes control over the Reapers. Because having a console or something to do that is too lame. Because telling the AI, which just told us it controls the Reapers, to cease the attack is too lame, as well. (It is willing to help us Destroy them, so nobody can pull the "But.. but... that wouldn't be a permanent solution to the organics vs. synthetics conflict." The AI tells us that with Destroy, the conflict will continue and it allows us to do it anyway. It cannot stop you from throwing the controlled Reapers into the sun later, either.) However, SOMEHOW dissolving to provide the Crucible with "our energy" and then SOMEHOW overwriting the DNA of existing beings that are in no way connected to the Catalyst or the Crucible... What? WHAT? Activating the Crucible by shooting a magic glass barrel is cool, too. It's even cooler that Shepard walks right into the explosion for some reason. Because, you know, people normally do that.

 

 

^^ That gesture expresses perfectly how I felt and still feel when I think about it.

 

Plus, why does the kid look what it looks like? Can it actually read people's mind or what? This made sense in the geth consensus. Here? Why? But, okay, let's say it can really read Shepard's mind, but then if it was done by the team to stir an emotional response, why pick the kid that Shepard saw that one time for like a minute? Why not pick Shepard's love interest? Or their friend? Anderson? Or copy Shepard's appearance? Same with the dreams. Did anybody actually care about the kid? I mean, it's so forced. We have zero connection to the child. We see so many people die, why should that one be special? Oh, no, wait, I forgot - it was the only child on the whole planet...

 

But the worst thing is that they had a wonderful place to stop right after Anderson died, which is exactly what many ending mods work with. The Crucible could've just fired and the results would have been decided according to the decisions we made in the game, just like ME2 handled it. But no, they decided to drag it for further 10 or so minutes for some obscure reason and give us a little glowing kid that dumbs the Reapers down. Sovereign was right in the end. That's really beyond my comprehension.

 

And that's just a few things off the top of my head right now. I could probably come up with more stuff with some time, like how we get to see Jacob, Jack, Samara, Zaeed and some ME2 crew post-war doing their stuff, but the last we see of our current crew it's them being all sad during a "funeral". The fact that if Shepard survives, it's pretty much not at all addressed. Etc. But I'm probably long past the good time to stop myself. I hadn't really had much chance to vent about this much. But I think I'm somewhat done for now...

 

Sorry for the long post. However, see what I mean? Whether Shepard lives or dies is the smallest problem we could possibly have and I can't believe some people are still hell-bent on this "They didn't like it because Shepard died and there were no unicorns."

 

I'm gonna hate myself in the morning. I just know it.

[God]

There are many permutations of fascism and it is difficult to nail down what it exactly is, but the catalyst and the reapers ideology certainly match up with many of the central tenets of early-and mid twenthieth century versions of it. Listening to the catalyst is almost like listening to a caricature of the "rebirth myth" that is central to most european fascist, historically speaking, for justyfing their aggression.

The idea that organics and synthetics will always compete and always come into conflict is also clearly a mirror of the neofascist idea that different civilizations i.e. Christians and muslims, will always compete and always come into conflict. Again the catalyst with its " super intelligence" uses fascist ideology to justify aggression.

 

Not true at all. I see no rebirth philosophy behind the Reapers agenda. They seek to preserve and maintain a specific status quo of indeterminate length until their ideology of synthesis (aka merging, combining, joining, etc.) is achieved. This is the exact opposite of maintaining a rebirthing in fascism (namely the rebirth of a nation under one predominant group, with all minorities marginalized, ostracized, discredited, and, in extreme cases, eliminated.) 

 

The idea of organics and synthetics competing and always being in conflict does indeed draw parallels with the ideology that religious differentiation will cause such conflict, but altogether is bound to a separate notional idea of biology vs technology, hence the organic and synthetic. It's referred to in many a different status in other fiction, such as the Terminator franchise. You can draw a reflection between a modern and historical religious conflict, but there is no technical correlation to it.

 

As well, the Catalyst outright states its purpose and intent, which is dissimilar to what you stated it to be. The Catalyst defines that its purpose is to facilitate peace between organic and synthetic life, and that it has, over the eons, pondered an ideal solution (synthesis), while enacting the practical solution of combining and assimilating (through force, since no sapient species is going to be content to be assimilated in such a manner.) It achieves the mandate of ensuring peace by keeping synthetics from catastrophically overdeveloping beyond any organic rate, while ensuring that the galaxy is viable for organic and synthetic life to exist. If anything, it's taking an extreme form of utilitarian ethics by placing the good of the entire quantity of organic species above that of any individual race, ensuring that the genetic and cultural data of a species is preserved via Reaper while also ensuring that no synthetics grow to the point of being unable to be contained.

[God]

That the catalyst is an artificial superintelligence and can´t be judged by our morals, because he is an amoral agent and he´s offering something incredible, transhumanist crap. All fallacies in execution are because BW hasn´t reached that transcendant state yet, stupid organic monkeys they are (no insult intended, because we all are compared to ASI). I for one am happy that I am old enough to probably/hopefully not experience this incredible transformation and die as a plain human, thanks a lot.

 

I honestly can't think of any valid reason to not want to be a transhumanist or achieve a tech singularity.

 

You have the capacity to be meta-human, to evolve at will, to be something more than or greater than human. To have no limitations instead of what we have as a finite and fragile species.

[God]

I wouldn't bother debating with him.  He's already pulled the "I don't think you understand what you're talking about" card without actually having any proof that you don't.  And it seems to me you DO know what you're talking about. 

 

Going by the likes I tend to get in my posts, and the amount of criticism your own get, I generally think that your view isn't really applicable to me. 

[Dantriges]

I honestly can't think of any valid reason to not want to be a transhumanist or achieve a tech singularity.

 

You have the capacity to be meta-human, to evolve at will, to be something more than or greater than human. To have no limitations instead of what we have as a finite and fragile species.

 

I am ok with being just human. Immortality is just being greedy. And thanks for living an eternity with the loss of the people before us who weren´t so "lucky."

 

If we ever reach this state the please on our own terms, not because some alien AI handed it to us. And in the case of ME it flows both ways. AI will get what it´s like being organic. Wanna see how the amoral starchild processes Asari, human, turian, krogan, quarian morality and realize what it did in the eyes of its new companions in utopia. If Shep was still alive, talking it into suicide would be easy .

[God]

I am ok with being just human. Immortality is just being greedy. And thanks for living an eternity with the loss of the people before us who weren´t so "lucky."

 

If we ever reach this state the please on our own terms, not because some alien AI handed it to us. And in the case of ME it flows both ways. AI will get what it´s like being organic. Wanna see how the amoral starchild processes Asari, human, turian, krogan, quarian morality and realize what it did in the eyes of its new companions in utopia. If Shep was still alive, talking it into suicide would be easy .

 

That's fine for you. I disagree entirely with your assessment, and I do indeed hold your opinion on a lesser level as you have no practical or rational explanation for such, but I won't pursue it (this isn't me being a jerk, this is me being a coldly logical and objective. I don't think you can construct an inductive argument on how it is superior to be lesser without making an emotive appeal that takes less rational considerations into being. And as for a deductive argument, if it's to be had, to be blunt, you'd be incorrect to say or interpret otherwise.) It matters not how we achieve a goal, so long as it is achieved. Exitus acta probat. 

 

I don't think that's how sophisticated AI (or any other truly rational being) with logical or rational capability views things. In all honesty, it does go both ways, but not at all in the way you're describing. Amoral isn't the word you're looking for by the way. If it is, then you're using it incorrectly. Amoral is no morals. I believe you're looking for immoral. Amoral for the Catalyst is applicable, but you have to accept that it exists beyond our own morality and ideology of justice and fairness.

 

I entirely doubt that having the 'moral perspective' of any race of organic beings would change its own rational perspective. And, if it was a rational, logical being of objectivity and empiricism over a more... deontological standpoint, it would be immune to such a differentiation.

 

I for one hold no qualms or problems with what I have to do to achieve a pseudo transcendentalist future (I hesitate to say utopia, as that implies an entirely different set of ideology that is very often misused and misrepresented, but I won't get into that here). If I have to throw such and such beings under the bus to achieve a greater end, so be it. Utilitarianism to an extreme, but there you have it. We survive, thrive, and evolve in ways beyond compare for any other state of being, hence the singularity.

 

I don't think Shepard would change the Catalyst's view in any meaningful way.

 

Rather, I think we'd collectively come to the same conclusion of the Catalysts mandate as the Catalyst itself. Which I think is preferable. It's more objective and clinical, rather than subjective and emotive. 

 

Greatest flaw of humanity? Our humanity. 

 

Think of what we could be if we learned to stop being human.

[dreamgazer]

The idea of Shepard's verbal kung-fu changing a billion-year-old AI's mind is worse than dark energy and the shipped ending combined. 

[God]

The idea of Shepard's verbal kung-fu changing a billion-year-old AI's mind is worse than dark energy and the shipped ending combined. 

 

A smart enough Shepard that would engage such a construct in the context of the ending would likely have already arrived to the same conclusion once presented with the same conundrum/mandate of the Catalyst.

 

Also, your post is a TL:DR Laconic edition of my post.

[dreamgazer]

A smart enough Shepard that would engage such a construct in the context of the ending would likely have already arrived to the same conclusion once presented with the same conundrum/mandate of the Catalyst.

 

Also, your post is a TL:DR Laconic edition of my post.

 

Brevity is the soul of wit. 

 

[God]

Indeed. I'll stick to killing people with bigger words and longer sentences. It just makes them more upset.

 

Which is rather funny. And it's not even trolling. That's what's great about it.

[Monica21]

I honestly can't think of any valid reason to not want to be a transhumanist or achieve a tech singularity.

 

You have the capacity to be meta-human, to evolve at will, to be something more than or greater than human. To have no limitations instead of what we have as a finite and fragile species.

 

Really the only problem I have with Synthesis is making the decision for trillions of organics. Transhumanism in its current form is the support of technology to enhance humanity into a posthuman condition. (Loosely defined, of course.) While I do think the Synthesis choice is what humanity is actually moving toward, I have a difficult time with an RP justification for that choice for the galaxy.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Really the only problem I have with Synthesis is making the decision for trillions of organics. Transhumanism in its current form is the support of technology to enhance humanity into a posthuman condition. (Loosely defined, of course.) While I do think the Synthesis choice is what humanity is actually moving toward, I have a difficult time with an RP justification for that choice for the galaxy.

 

The main problem I have is that it's not exactly certain what Synthesis does in any practical sense. Like, for example, at one point the Catalyst states that organics gain perfection through Synthesis by being able to fully integrate with synthetic technology. Is the Catalyst being redundant here or is it saying that organics can only integrate with stuff built by something like the Geth and not their own races?

[God]

Really the only problem I have with Synthesis is making the decision for trillions of organics. Transhumanism in its current form is the support of technology to enhance humanity into a posthuman condition. (Loosely defined, of course.) While I do think the Synthesis choice is what humanity is actually moving toward, I have a difficult time with an RP justification for that choice for the galaxy.

 

I don't see the problem with doing as such. If I had the choice here and now, I would indeed do it, as I feel, nay, know, that the collective benefits of such an event would outweigh any such negative aspects or consequences (if they exist at all). 

 

I'm in the position to choose, and I have the power to choose. I'm not going to throw that away to reach a democratic consensus which I may or may not agree with. I also don't believe that the collective mediocrity (the trillions of organics) has any need or say in what their future ought to hold.

 

I'm giving them a purpose and gift that goes beyond their personal and individual interests. I'm giving them freedom from choice. It's an idealistic future, to be sure, and one I don't intend to subvert. 

[God]

The main problem I have is that it's not exactly certain what Synthesis does in any practical sense. Like, for example, at one point the Catalyst states that organics gain perfection through Synthesis by being able to fully integrate with synthetic technology. Is the Catalyst being redundant here or is it saying that organics can only integrate with stuff built by something like the Geth and not their own races?

 

There's where the issues of synthesis start to become more prevalent.

 

I realize I'm sounding a lot like a synthesizer here, which isn't true. I fully embrace and idealize the concept and philosophy of synthesis, but I reject the actual execution and termination of it as presented in the games. It doesn't make narrative sense, and it isn't scientific. 

 

It's more to do with the ending itself. It's a great concept, but its just poorly written. A good song with a bad voice, if you will.

[Linkenski]

"Choices didn't matter", "The dark energy ending would've made everything better"

 

and last but not least.

"Shepard dies no matter what. If he survived and Liara and him got blue children together it would've been a great ending"

[Dantriges]

That's fine for you. I disagree entirely with your assessment, and I do indeed hold your opinion on a lesser level as you have no practical or rational explanation for such, but I won't pursue it (this isn't me being a jerk, this is me being a coldly logical and objective. I don't think you can construct an inductive argument on how it is superior to be lesser without making an emotive appeal that takes less rational considerations into being. And as for a deductive argument, if it's to be had, to be blunt, you'd be incorrect to say or interpret otherwise.) It matters not how we achieve a goal, so long as it is achieved. Exitus acta probat. 

 

I don't think that's how sophisticated AI (or any other truly rational being) with logical or rational capability views things. In all honesty, it does go both ways, but not at all in the way you're describing. Amoral isn't the word you're looking for by the way. If it is, then you're using it incorrectly. Amoral is no morals. I believe you're looking for immoral. Amoral for the Catalyst is applicable, but you have to accept that it exists beyond our own morality and ideology of justice and fairness.

 

Doesn´t sounds like rational and cold logic but more like blind faith. We must follow the ASI because it´s beyond our comprehension as it executes its motivation which may be relevant to us or not, beneficial or not.

 

And yes I meant amoral, not necessarily beyond ours, just that our morals won´t be relevant to it. Like a spider which doesn´t care about human morality.

[steinvegard]

Not true at all. I see no rebirth philosophy behind the Reapers agenda. They seek to preserve and maintain a specific status quo of indeterminate length until their ideology of synthesis (aka merging, combining, joining, etc.) is achieved. This is the exact opposite of maintaining a rebirthing in fascism (namely the rebirth of a nation under one predominant group, with all minorities marginalized, ostracized, discredited, and, in extreme cases, eliminated.) 
 
The idea of organics and synthetics competing and always being in conflict does indeed draw parallels with the ideology that religious differentiation will cause such conflict, but altogether is bound to a separate notional idea of biology vs technology, hence the organic and synthetic. It's referred to in many a different status in other fiction, such as the Terminator franchise. You can draw a reflection between a modern and historical religious conflict, but there is no technical correlation to it.
 
As well, the Catalyst outright states its purpose and intent, which is dissimilar to what you stated it to be. The Catalyst defines that its purpose is to facilitate peace between organic and synthetic life, and that it has, over the eons, pondered an ideal solution (synthesis), while enacting the practical solution of combining and assimilating (through force, since no sapient species is going to be content to be assimilated in such a manner.) It achieves the mandate of ensuring peace by keeping synthetics from catastrophically overdeveloping beyond any organic rate, while ensuring that the galaxy is viable for organic and synthetic life to exist. If anything, it's taking an extreme form of utilitarian ethics by placing the good of the entire quantity of organic species above that of any individual race, ensuring that the genetic and cultural data of a species is preserved via Reaper while also ensuring that no synthetics grow to the point of being unable to be contained.

I dont doubt that your explanation of things is what Bioware was going for. My point however, is that the writing is to clumsy to convey this. There is nothing wrong with the concept, but the execution is terrible. In the Terminator franchise, God doesnt suddenly appear and say "Conflict is inevitable, so mass slaughter is justified"(I havent seen the last movies, but I assume this doesnt happen)

Despite what Biowares intention might be, the Catalyst is for all practical purposes "God" in the ME universe the way it is presented. So while analysis might reveal otherwise, that is a lot of time and effort asked of the audience to find out if Bioware is embracing cryptofascism or not. Competent writing would leave you wondering about more interesting stuff than wether the writer(s) likes to fantazise about "Hard men making hard decisions" or are just not very good at presenting their ideas.

[angol fear]

Competent writing would leave you wondering about more interesting stuff than wether the writer(s) likes to fantazise about "Hard men making hard decisions" or are just not very good at presenting their ideas.

That's what they they have done. It's only here that people can't go further than that. As long as people will stop the discussion by saying "the ending is badly written", there will be no interesting point developed. The problem is always the same, you can't blame Bioware when they succeed to do what almost no game has done. An analysis of the circle could be done, another about the poetic and philosophical perception of the body etc... But all of these analysis can be done only when the fake discussion about the ending will stop. But it's easier to say that something is stupid (if everyone can't understand then it's stupid or badly written like philosophy or poetry which aren't popular).

[exile1478]

My issue with the ending was never whether Shep gets to live or die, although the option would have been nice. Self sacrifice is nothing new to darker fiction in movies, games or books.

 

My issues are.

 

1) This is a game, not a book or movie so really should have something of a more climactic end not half an hour of annoying and contradictory narrative( If all AI will destroy all organic life why doesn't the freaky space kid. Flawed logic)

 

2) Bioware's lazy story telling. After years of telling us every decision matters only that last one does.  different endings depending on which button you press or don't press.

 

Look at Witcher 3 made by a company much younger and smaller than Bioware, 37 different endings depending on your decisions made over all 3 games. 

 

That is making every choice count.

 

I understand the ending, I just think the logic is flawed, star kid does contradict his own argument just by existing let alone several times in his explanation of the Reaper's purpose.

 

It wasn't a BAD ending just a disappointing one that is so out of context with the rest of the game.

[AlanC9]

Despite what Biowares intention might be, the Catalyst is for all practical purposes "God" in the ME universe the way it is presented. So while analysis might reveal otherwise, that is a lot of time and effort asked of the audience to find out if Bioware is embracing cryptofascism or not. Competent writing would leave you wondering about more interesting stuff than wether the writer(s) likes to fantazise about "Hard men making hard decisions" or are just not very good at presenting their ideas.

In what sense is the Catalyst "God"? It has lots of power, sure. Is that the only criterion?

[AlanC9]

2) Bioware's lazy story telling. After years of telling us every decision matters only that last one does.  different endings depending on which button you press or don't press.

This is silly. Whatever button you do or don't press, everything you did up to that point still happened. Exterminated quarians don't magically reappear, for instance.