353 réponses à ce sujet

[Swordfishtrombone]

Why would they police when they can swoop in every 50k years, deal with the situation, preserve important genetic diversity, and come back 49k years later for a new cycle of evolution to monitor? Sounds far more efficient, and much more indicative of machine logic that isn't interested in anthropomorphic morality. Organic life is a periodic chore for them; policing organic life would be an around-the-clock chore.

 

Given that their creators were organic, it streches credulity to believe that the preservation of organic species - and not just their genetic material - wouldn't be a priority. 

 

And if it is too much trouble to be a "round the clock" police forms, fine - be a periodic police force. Emerge, as they did in the game, but only target any out of control synthetic races, eliminate them, and retreat back to your slumber. 

 

It is rather hard to come up with a reasonable path to total annihilation of all intelligent, technological life in the galaxy to achieve the goal of preserving organic life from the threat of synthetic intelligences. No matter how alien, if the reapers are intelligent, and moreover created by an organic intelligence for the purpose of protecting organic life, it is not believable that they'd conclude that DESTROYING the organic life along with the synthetic, and only preserving their genetics in a form modified for their purposes, would constitute a reasonable solution to the given task. 

 

If ease is what you are looking for, then surely destroying ONLY the synthetics makes your task orders of magnitude easier, as you would surely have organic species helping you, rather than fighting you? A small fight is easier than a big fight, right?

[dreamgazer]

Given that their creators were organic, it streches credulity to believe that the preservation of organic species - and not just their genetic material - wouldn't be a priority.

Why's that?
 

And if it is too much trouble to be a "round the clock" police forms, fine - be a periodic police force. Emerge, as they did in the game, but only target any out of control synthetic races, eliminate them, and retreat back to your slumber.

Then organics will make new ones shortly thereafter. The knowledge, and organic hubris, will always be there.
 

It is rather hard to come up with a reasonable path to total annihilation of all intelligent, technological life in the galaxy to achieve the goal of preserving organic life from the threat of synthetic intelligences. No matter how alien, if the reapers are intelligent, and moreover created by an organic intelligence for the purpose of protecting organic life, it is not believable that they'd conclude that DESTROYING the organic life along with the synthetic, and only preserving their genetics in a form modified for their purposes, would constitute a reasonable solution to the given task.

Why isn't it believable? Didn't you see the ending to ME2 and their methods of "reproduction"?
 

If ease is what you are looking for, then surely destroying ONLY the synthetics makes your task orders of magnitude easier, as you would surely have organic species helping you, rather than fighting you? A small fight is easier than a big fight, right?

Sure. It's also not thorough and puts an endless strain on the Reapers, instead of reaching a cold and calculated solution to the galaxy's problem that gives them 49k years to play with in between.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Why's that?
 

Then organics will make new ones shortly thereafter. The knowledge, and organic hubris, will always be there.
 

Why isn't it believable? Didn't you see the ending to ME2 and their methods of "reproduction"?
 

Sure. It's also not thorough and puts an endless strain on the Reapers, instead of reaching a cold and calculated solution to the galaxy's problem that gives them 49k years to play with in between.

 

What is easier - letting entire galactic empires form, and then going to war with them all simultaneously, or maintaining a small observing and occasionally intervening presence in the galaxy, nipping every problem with synthetics at the bud? They could even punitively wipe out and harvest the species responsible for creating a synthetic race, each time it happened. Would not take long for even the dumber members of the galactic community to learn not to do that.

 

If they need the genetic material of organic species, then add to that policing duty a periodic abduction of the needed numbers of members of intelligent species for their purposes. But given what they were created for, it seems to me that the use of the genetic material was the means selected for "preserving" organic life, and if they instead policed the galaxy, there would be no need for such elaborate means of preservation - as there would not be a wide scale wiping out of organics in their natural forms. 

 

There's no way periodic galaxy spanning major war is a more efficient way of "protecting organic life" than simple observation, and occasional small scale conflicts to put down a synthetic race, and their creators. The need for such intervention would not be frequent, and would be less and less frequent, as other races witnessed the consequences of creating a synthetic race. 

 

So if efficiency is what you are going for, policing action wins hands down. 

[Iakus]

Absolutely no one who played the ME series played an ordinary human. Shepherd was "heroic" in the Greek sense (i.e. larger than life) no matter what decisions you made.  And one of those decisions we all made was to give our life to rescue the pilot of our ship a the beginning of ME2.  

 

I did.  I played a Shepard who just wanted to get the job done and go home.

 

 

 

[Edit]
Despite the myriad choices one could make during ME1-3, there were some characteristics that applied to all Shepherds:
-He was a consummate leader able to get a diverse crew to follow him to the ends of the galaxy.
-He was indefatigable, pressing on when any sane person would have given up.
-A massive risk taker with virtually no fear; willing to take massive risks like going into the galactic core to stop a threat to human colonies.
-He was willing to sacrifice almost anything to save humanity(Renegade)/the Galaxy(Paragon).

So I'm not buying claims that "my Shepherd" wouldn't have sacrificed himself.  Any Shepherd in ME1-3 would have given their lives if it was the only way to accomplish the mission.

-Or a semicompetant leader who gets a lot of people killed leading them to the ends of the galaxy

-Or someone with nothing left to lose, since, you know he/she is one of the idiots living in the galaxy

-Again, nothing left to lose.  No identity, no country, abandoned by friends and support.  And one of the few people in a position to do something to keep the galaxy from DYING

-Wait, what?  

 

And why did it have to be the only way?  Answer:  plot railroad.

[wolfhowwl]

What is easier - letting entire galactic empires form, and then going to war with them all simultaneously, or maintaining a small observing and occasionally intervening presence in the galaxy, nipping every problem with synthetics at the bud? They could even punitively wipe out and harvest the species responsible for creating a synthetic race, each time it happened. Would not take long for even the dumber members of the galactic community to learn not to do that.

 

If they need the genetic material of organic species, then add to that policing duty a periodic abduction of the needed numbers of members of intelligent species for their purposes. But given what they were created for, it seems to me that the use of the genetic material was the means selected for "preserving" organic life, and if they instead policed the galaxy, there would be no need for such elaborate means of preservation - as there would not be a wide scale wiping out of organics in their natural forms. 

 

There's no way periodic galaxy spanning major war is a more efficient way of "protecting organic life" than simple observation, and occasional small scale conflicts to put down a synthetic race, and their creators. The need for such intervention would not be frequent, and would be less and less frequent, as other races witnessed the consequences of creating a synthetic race. 

 

So if efficiency is what you are going for, policing action wins hands down. 

 

The obvious problem here is that the initial Reaper concept tried too hard to be clever and ended up being stupid.

[AlanC9]

They are an ineffective safeguard against a more powerfull AI appearing in the milkyway itself. Since they would have to "reap"/check every single star system, planet, rogue planet, moon, asteroid, comet, flake of spacedust, cubic meter of space, where organic life might evolve and create aforementioned AI or is simply hiding from them. 

Leaving aside the rhetoric -- comets, really? -- this isn't a particularly hard problem. Humans had unmanned FTL drones during the FCW. How much better would the Reapers be at building them? Sure, you need them by the thousands to check everyplace in a reasonable number of centuries, but you've got time. Hell, the Reapers should have the tech for von Neumann probes, which would be free.
 
 

Njyah, reaper motivations would have been perfectly explained by "we taste like bacon to them", they be crazy/malfunctioning or that "they need us to procreate". Since the catalyst makes no sense... Crazy is still valid, but it's kinda sought without actual confirmation, unless you count his sisyphus solotion to a non problem.

"Taste like bacon" and procreation only work if the Reapers are flat-out stupid; the harvests are horribly inefficient as a method of production. Malfunction can work, since that's irrational by definition. I don't see how that's any better than what we got, though.

[Il Divo]

Note that this is a conceptual problem with the entire series rather than ME3 in particular.

 

In what sense? We don't really have any other point for comparison that can really compare to the Reapers in terms of mystery or scale in the ME series.

 

We do have other villains: Saren, TIM, etc. But they're not exactly built up to be "above us" in any sense and neither of them give us their revelations at the eleventh hour after 3 games worth of content.

​

[Il Divo]

Always a conflict, though, with complications throughout the entire trilogy.

 

 

Well, barring Joker and EDI, and high end Geth/Quarian resolution. Of course, even there this demonstrates a huge problem with their implementation. Our experiences with AI are limited to EDI and the Geth, but the game goes through great pains to emphasize how reliable they can both be. EDI, if I remember right, becomes a reliable companion, no matter what the player does, and the Geth, even if sided against, come off as sympathetic.

 

As Alan already stated, that's largely a trilogy issue and would've been a problem regardless. At least this conflict maintains a presence throughout.
​

 

 

I'd argue it's a Mass Effect 3 issue. We managed to go almost 3 entire games without a Reaper motivation, after all. The game would've sufficed just fine without adding one in the last ten minutes of the game.

 

Right, there's a very clear difference between "good guys" and "morally gray". Saving the galaxy from the spread of dark energy or WMDs? Good guys with an objective agenda. Lording over the balance between organic life and the synthetic creations that emerge from technological advancement? Morally gray with a disputable agenda. Also, the "philosophy" of this topic and the objectivity of other potential threats actually do make the criticisms apply less.
 

 

 

The base concept is the same as the Mass Effect endings, in their current form though. The technological singularity is no different than WMD's or the spread of dark energy, in its attempt at turning the Reapers into good guys, by stopping us from destroying ourselves. The prime difference here is that the actual reasoning presented by the Reapers is so far removed from the player's experience, if not directly contradicting the entire point of EDI and the Geth.

[AlanC9]

The design intent for the series was, apparently, always to have the Reapers' true nature and function be a last-minute surprise reveal -- such a surprise that Bio themselves didn't need to know what it was. This part of the design intent, FWIW, was completely fulfilled in ME3. While plenty of us could see the left-field reveal coming, I don't recall anyone predicting its precise nature, or anything close.

So Bio didn't feel any real urgency to settle the question of the Reapers' nature early enough to integrate it into the narrative because they never had any intention of doing that anyway. If I'm understanding your position correctly, the intent itself here was bad.

[Il Divo]

The design intent for the series was, apparently, always to have the Reapers' true nature and function be a last-minute surprise reveal -- such a surprise that Bio themselves didn't need to know what it was. This part of the design intent, FWIW, was completely fulfilled in ME3. While plenty of us could see the left-field reveal coming, I don't recall anyone predicting its precise nature, or anything close.

If I'm understanding your position correctly, the intent itself here was bad.

 

It's definitely possible that was the intent. But at least as someone who played the trilogy completely before learning anything about the design intent of the endings, there was never really a point in ME1, 2, or virtually all of 3 that left me with the impression "we have to learn about the Reapers". ​

 

This is largely why I look at it as an ME3 ending issue. As implemented, this feels like Chekov's gun without the writers showing us the pistol on the wall, if that makes sense. Neither ME1 or 2 really drove home that this was an issue that needed solving.

[AlanC9]

It's definitely possible that was the intent. But at least as someone who played the trilogy completely before learning anything about the design intent of the endings, there was never really a point in ME1, 2, or virtually all of 3 that left me with the impression "we have to learn about the Reapers". ​
 

The "we" here is the players, right? As opposed to our characters.

[Il Divo]

The "we" here is the players, right? As opposed to our characters.

 

Yeah, although I guess lemme be more conservative and just say "me" before I leave the impression that I think everyone feels the same way.
 

[AlanC9]

I did. I played a Shepard who just wanted to get the job done and go home.

-Or a semicompetant leader who gets a lot of people killed leading them to the ends of the galaxy
-Or someone with nothing left to lose, since, you know he/she is one of the idiots living in the galaxy
-Again, nothing left to lose. No identity, no country, abandoned by friends and support. And one of the few people in a position to do something to keep the galaxy from DYING
-Wait, what?

And why did it have to be the only way? Answer: plot railroad.

I'm tempted to play the usual "Shepard had a way out in high-EMS Destroy" card, but I'll save that for someone else. Instead, I'll point out that as written, this is in no sense a response to WillieStyle's point: "So I'm not buying claims that "my Shepherd" wouldn't have sacrificed himself.  Any Shepherd in ME1-3 would have given their lives if it was the only way to accomplish the mission."

What's your actual point?

[Obadiah]

...
This is largely why I look at it as an ME3 ending issue. As implemented, this feels like Chekov's gun without the writers showing us the pistol on the wall, if that makes sense. Neither ME1 or 2 really drove home that this was an issue that needed solving.

I don't think it would have mattered. The reveal is of a pretty straightforward trolley problem taken to an extreme, with a conservation and galactic wild-life reserve metaphor.

People would still be complaining about the theme, logic, and consistency, all because they couldn't get a happier ending with a more outright win.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, although I guess lemme be more conservative and just say "me" before I leave the impression that I think everyone feels the same way.

Gotcha.

I think it might depend on your genre associations. In SF, you usually have to explain stuff that you don't have to explain in fantasy. OTOH, ME can be easily read as fantasy in SF drag anyway.

[78stonewobble]

Leaving aside the rhetoric -- comets, really? -- this isn't a particularly hard problem. Humans had unmanned FTL drones during the FCW. How much better would the Reapers be at building them? Sure, you need them by the thousands to check everyplace in a reasonable number of centuries, but you've got time. Hell, the Reapers should have the tech for von Neumann probes, which would be free.
 
 
"Taste like bacon" and procreation only work if the Reapers are flat-out stupid; the harvests are horribly inefficient as a method of production. Malfunction can work, since that's irrational by definition. I don't see how that's any better than what we got, though.

 

The volume of the milkyway is 8 trillion cubic lightyears. A cubic light year is 10^39 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 cubic kilometers... Now multiply that by 8 trillion. 

 

Yes, you can technically built a trillion von Neuman probes, which will then use a giant amount of ressources and energy, which would have then been available for organics to develop. That would be stupid and probably more wastefull in organic life, than a god ai wiping all life out one more time and then leaving. 

 

Taste of bacon and procreation works fine, on the assumption that they want sentient organic life. They are machines and can limit their own growth stretching the finite ressource of sentient organic life as long as possible. If you kill all your pigs for bacon, then you won't have any new pigs, ever... Think of it, as enviromentally friendly hunting, you just cull the herd, here and there. 

 

There is no need for the wastefull expenditure of checking every square inch of the galaxy/universe. 

 

Malfunctioning is better too... 

 

Because what we got is... like going to a doctor: "Help I can't walk... My ankle must be twisted or broken even." Doctor: "Here's a bandaid and drink plenty of water for your split personality." You: "That... makes no sense, do you think I'm stupid?" Atleast baconsentients, procreation or malfunctioning, would be like twisted or broken angle. Plausible... 

 

 

...

 

 

Anyways... all of this have been explained, discussed, shouted and what not, over too many pages to rehash here, but I can sum up my universally applicable expectations/wants to "endings"  (in general): 

 

I prefer them with some bad assery, if the content thusfar contained action. 

 

I prefer them to make sense. Unless containing "crazy" in which case, anything the mind can think off goes.  

 

I prefer them to actually finish the story. If I wanted to make up my own story, I would have. I wouldn't have bought your book, game, movie to specifically have you tell me a story of your making. Dont skimp out on your damn job.  

 

I prefer "simple"... Quantum mechanics are complicated and makes for a poor story. Evoking basic human feelings like love, anger, jealousy, pride, sorrow and so forth... isn't complicated. We all have them (most) and it should be easy to speak to... Stories don't necessarily need to contain the meaning of life or ... quantum mechanical mindblownness... Evoke the emotions and you have a good story. 

 

It doesn't have to be a happy ending. It can be dark or grey, but for all I expect a good ending to emotionally engaging. Either leaving you elated, sad as hell or both at the same time. If you feel numb or disinterested... it wasn't a good ending. 

 

... 

 

That's MY taste... It doesn't have to apply to you girls and guys. 

 

How much is applicaple to ME: Andromeda only time can tell... but I look forward to more spacestuffs!

[Il Divo]

I don't think it would have mattered. The reveal is of a pretty straightforward trolley problem taken to an extreme, with a conservation and galactic wild-life reserve metaphor.

People would still be complaining about the theme, logic, and consistency, all because they couldn't get a happier ending with a more outright win.

 

That's definitely true. Granted, I'm speaking strictly from what would have made the game enjoyable for me, but you're right, there is a segment of fans who would take a happy ending, at the expense of everything else.

 

Gotcha.

I think it might depend on your genre associations. In SF, you usually have to explain stuff that you don't have to explain in fantasy. OTOH, ME can be easily read as fantasy in SF drag anyway.

 

While I agree with you regarding sci-fi being more exposition heavy, keep in mind this also more typically applies to the mechanics of how the technology works where the writers throw in some vague references to nanotech and other stuff.

 

Regarding character/villain motivation, sci-fi isn't really far off in terms of being required to explain (or not explain) the villain's motives. ​

 

In this case, Dream is saying that the Reapers' motivation ties back to the sub-plot of organics vs synthetics, from ME1. In theory, that should be a good thing. The problem is that ME3 spends so much time humanizing both EDI and the Geth. Not to mention, the Geth-Quarian conflict is treated more like a dispute between two disparate people than it does a statement about the ability to cooperate between organics and synthetics.  ​
 

[v0rt3x22]

The only problem I had with the ending is that it caused a split in the community.

I don't mind all the speculation that it caused, however I do mind being left in the dark about unanswered questions.

 

That said - I much prefer a Mass Effect 2 ending where a lot of factors determined your ending in terms of who survived and who didn't. I would much prefer an ending like that where we will see unforgiving consequences to our actions.

[78stonewobble]

I don't think it would have mattered. The reveal is of a pretty straightforward trolley problem taken to an extreme, with a conservation and galactic wild-life reserve metaphor.

People would still be complaining about the theme, logic, and consistency, all because they couldn't get a happier ending with a more outright win.

 

Then you, and everyone who liked this post, have a reading comprehension problem, if you're still narrowing all critique down to "all because they couldn't get a happier ending with a more outright win", that the rest of us simply cannot help you with. 

 

But I can illustrate that point with this theoretical reply: "Pft, non-sensical fanboys *handwaves every argument and post you ever made away due to fanboyism*" ... But not a fanboy? Doesn't matter... I'll choose to read it like that... 

 

In other words... No, it isn't just because there isn't a happier ending. It's because there are problems with theme, logic, consistency, implementation, visual and plot quality and emotional engagement. 

[Iakus]

The design intent for the series was, apparently, always to have the Reapers' true nature and function be a last-minute surprise reveal -- such a surprise that Bio themselves didn't need to know what it was. This part of the design intent, FWIW, was completely fulfilled in ME3. While plenty of us could see the left-field reveal coming, I don't recall anyone predicting its precise nature, or anything close.

So Bio didn't feel any real urgency to settle the question of the Reapers' nature early enough to integrate it into the narrative because they never had any intention of doing that anyway. If I'm understanding your position correctly, the intent itself here was bad.

 

If you're going to have a surprise reveal, you should have a surprise to reveal in mind.  And their actions throughout the trilogy should reflect it in retrospect.  That's what makes the Jade Empire reveal so good.  Upon replaying the game, you can see the hints dropped and how it all fits together.  Grabbing an overly simplistic trope and deciding to just run with it, when it wasn't a central issue and can be pretty well contradicted even in the game where it's introduced is pretty amateurish.

 

 

 

I'm tempted to play the usual "Shepard had a way out in high-EMS Destroy" card, but I'll save that for someone else. Instead, I'll point out that as written, this is in no sense a response to WillieStyle's point: "So I'm not buying claims that "my Shepherd" wouldn't have sacrificed himself.  Any Shepherd in ME1-3 would have given their lives if it was the only way to accomplish the mission."

What's your actual point?

 

Yeah, you'd do well not to say, that, given SHepard has no way of knowing it's survivable.  Especially given he/she's walking into a fireball like an idiot.

 

If WIlliStyle thinks his Shepard would sacrifice himself for one of the Catalyst's endings, that's fine.  That's his Shepard.

 

But his Shepard=/=my Shepard, who is not your Shepard, who is not Il Divo's Shepard, and so on.  

 

And that's my point.

[Il Divo]

If you're going to have a surprise reveal, you should have a surprise to reveal in mind.  And their actions throughout the trilogy should reflect it in retrospect.  That's what makes the Jade Empire reveal so good.  Upon replaying the game, you can see the hints dropped and how it all fits together.  Grabbing an overly simplistic trope and deciding to just run with it, when it wasn't a central issue and can be pretty well contradicted even in the game where it's introduced is pretty amateurish.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

I'm all for plot twists/surprise reveals, but the greater goal has to be kept in sight. ME1 drops us the organic-synthetic conflict and since then, Bioware did pretty much everything they could do to emphasize the "We're not so different after all" point. EDI always becomes more in touch with her humanity, the Geth are revealed to be sympathetic, even in scenarios where the Quarians are chosen via "Does this unit have a soul?".

 

If the big reveal was to be preventing the Organic-Synthetic conflict, then more time should have been spent emphasizing both ends of the spectrum. Javik/Leviathan is pretty much the only exposure the player has to this apparently inevitable conflict and that's optional dlc.

[Obadiah]

...
In other words... No, it isn't just because there isn't a happier ending. It's because there are problems with theme, logic, consistency, implementation, visual and plot quality and emotional engagement.

Riiiight... so as currently implemented pretty much everything is wrong with the ending, and if there was an ending option after the existing conversation with the Catalyst where you could somehow convince it, a billion year old entity with heretofore untold and unrevealed advances in technology, that it was wrong or broken, then destroy the Reapers without sacrificing anyone, including Shepard, and then have an epilogue where everyone is working together, those problems would still be worth complaining about 3 years later.

[Dantriges]

Shepard sacrificed themselves because some AI told a story which maybe true or not. And this AI was the self professed collective intelligence of all Reapers, but actually it´s some dude you just met. And then he tells you that all you have to do is do as he demands, while he´s still shooting at your comrades. Because it´s a solution to an abstract problem you have no evidence for.

Actually you have contrary evidence and no data if and how it wil lead to the situation the Catalyst is trying to prevent. The solution to your problem is presented by the guy who is a representation of your problem and the whole mess happened because he thought that harvesting DNA and knowledge is a great solution for preserving organic life. I am not really persuaded of his problem solving skills.

 

But yeah you do it, after a little bit of debating and asking some questions. For all we know the Catalyst and Harbinger could have had a bet running if starkid could talk you into killing yourself and you completely missed the real "Kill Reapers" button, because you listened to that kid. So if it´s necessary that Shepard has to sacrifice himself, it would be nice not to look like an idiot while doing it.

[AlanC9]

The volume of the milkyway is 8 trillion cubic lightyears. A cubic light year is 10^39 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 cubic kilometers... Now multiply that by 8 trillion.

Yes, you can technically built a trillion von Neuman probes, which will then use a giant amount of ressources and energy, which would have then been available for organics to develop. That would be stupid and probably more wastefull in organic life, than a god ai wiping all life out one more time and then leaving.

How do you figure you'd need a trillion probes? And why are you counting the volume of space rather than the number of stars? Anyway, this has to work or the whole premise of the series fails -- the Reapers managing all organic life in the galaxy is a fact whatever their motivations are. If you want to say that ME was always nonsense, I'll get out of your way.

Taste of bacon and procreation works fine, on the assumption that they want sentient organic life. They are machines and can limit their own growth stretching the finite ressource of sentient organic life as long as possible. If you kill all your pigs for bacon, then you won't have any new pigs, ever... Think of it, as enviromentally friendly hunting, you just cull the herd, here and there.

You really haven't thought this through, have you? We don't raise pigs by just letting them run around; we deliberately cultivate them, and the corn to feed them, and so on. We do raise deer by just letting them run around, but that's precisely because we don't depend on them for anything that we actually need.

I prefer them to actually finish the story. If I wanted to make up my own story, I would have. I wouldn't have bought your book, game, movie to specifically have you tell me a story of your making. Dont skimp out on your damn job.

What counts as finishing the story? How'd you feel about, say, KOtoR?

[AlanC9]

If you're going to have a surprise reveal, you should have a surprise to reveal in mind. And their actions throughout the trilogy should reflect it in retrospect. That's what makes the Jade Empire reveal so good. Upon replaying the game, you can see the hints dropped and how it all fits together. Grabbing an overly simplistic trope and deciding to just run with it, when it wasn't a central issue and can be pretty well contradicted even in the game where it's introduced is pretty amateurish.

I'd describe it a little differently. I think they got trapped by the stuff established earlier in the series. In retrospect, ME1 revealed too much about the Reapers; if they weren't prepared to think about why the Reapers operated in cycles, they shouldn't have established the cycles as a fact. It's a hazard of making it up as you go along, yes, but that's been made to work before (DS9 turned out a bit better than B5, IMO), and going from a master plan introduces its own challenges; you could find yourself yoked to a bad plan.

Yeah, you'd do well not to say, that, given SHepard has no way of knowing it's survivable. Especially given he/she's walking into a fireball like an idiot.

If WIlliStyle thinks his Shepard would sacrifice himself for one of the Catalyst's endings, that's fine. That's his Shepard.

But his Shepard=/=my Shepard, who is not your Shepard, who is not Il Divo's Shepard, and so on.

And that's my point.

So what would your Shepards do in that situation? Refuse? Didn't your position used to be that your Shepard would pick Destroy, and then eat his gun if he survived?

I think you've got an implicit assumption operating here about what kind of choices an RPG character is allowed to be faced with. Could you make it explicit?