93 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

I had created this in response to the stupidest reason on why people shouldn't hate the endings. I thought it is time to just let loose and have at it.

 

 

 

 

Oh hell. Look i honestly can not stand people that stuck with Control and synthesis endings. I don't care if they thought it was just in their eyes. If you think controlling the dead that should have been put to rest, the colonist troops that became Cerberus army, to the husk Reaper forces that are slaves to idiotic AI Shepard, to the millions of  organics in just one Reaper, to the collectors still alive......you can HEAD CANON all you want about rebuilding the sending them into the sun but the FACT is Shepard uses the Reapers to his/her own desire. we HAVE no control over Shepard anymore thus our head canon is INVALID. Shepard is free to choose what he/she does thus that means in both Paragon and Renegade endings in control Shepard uses them for either "PEACE"  or " Military Police"

 

Then synthesis....... Rather pick Refuse over this ending if there was only Synthesis and Refuse. I mean come on how much bs can you get from that ending. We are all friends forever! B.S. Oh no Javik why are you not shown going all Rambo on the Reapers? Why isn't Hackett and the galaxy not rebelling like they SHOULD be doing. " Oh no they forgave the Reapers!" WHY THE HELL IS EDI. THE ONE WHO TOLD US THE REAPERS ARE REPULSIVE/ RATHER DIE than work with the Reapers ; IS  WORKING with the Reapers?!!!!

 

Oh yes there it comes 'Well if you don't like that endings bs lines" It is an INSULT to everything you have DONE in ME. Oh yes here is the argument "We are task to stop the Reapers and that means anything goes" NO we are task to stop the Reapers by KILLING them all! They have taken lives of so many, synthetics and organics being used as pawns for the Reapers and NO matter WHAT the  catalyst says about "My logic is right and yours is flawed since you are an organic"  This is coming from an AI who basically rebelled against his creators out of his excuse to solve a problem by creating synthetics in the form of his creators, and tear apart any chances of organics and synthetics working together since we are not perfect and conflict is bound to happen. Only to be the problem it is 'TRYING" to fix? I am starting to see something wrong here but you know "Catalyst has a point argument line with fire"

 

Yes fire burns but is it ALIVE???? Nooooooo. IS however,the catalyst alive, has voice, commands an army and is having acts of genocide like it is nothing more than doing what is was meant to do yet clearly his own forces have independent views/ treats organics? Also "Created to do...." It does realize that Fire has MANY ways to start up and is dependent upon the user or force that CREATES the fire" IT can bring warmth, happiness, or death and destruction so i don't think the catalyst is using the HAPPY kind fire but more of the " DEATH"

 

Honestly those two endings really make me mad that they were even considered to BE an ENDING. Destroy on the other hand i loved it up until the breath scene. YES i expected people to DIE. I EXPECTED friends dying along the way. I EXPECTED to kill the Reapers no MATTER the cost. Synthetics just had to be them. I know the players that supported the Geth and love EDI fought long and hard just to give them a chance for the galaxy ( That being me too). Yet everyone was in this to end the Reapers. Loses were bound to happen and honestly whether it was organics and synthetics that had to go then so be it. Doesn't matter the bonds of friendship and all the good times you all had. This is for survival no SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS like synthesis or I'm an idiotic leader for trying to control something that can't be controlled by an hybrid organic that should have died in the Destroy ending yet clearly doesn't since you know BECAUSE HE IS SHEPARD!

 

 Back to my point though is anybody or race could have been the targets of the wave and still i wouldn't hesitate. Sometimes the most moral choices are often things we have to swallow. This isn't a war for freedom, for greed or anything of that. It is kill or be killed. However what does ****** me off and many others is the breath scene. ALL of the hours, dlc, and playthroughs of fighting the Reapers and for WHAT!  Rubble, Smoke and hey a Shepard that MAY or NOT be dying! since Casey said " Could be taking his/her last breath" It is like they didn't give a care anymore about Shepard at all. " head canon it all fans" YOu can NOT HEAD CANON any endings EXCEPT REFUSE!

 

Synthesis and control have CLEAR motives in WHAT they SHALL be DOING. Destroy has this as well  BUT Breath scene just makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Shepard to live. He/she is on the Citadel if you take everything literal. There is NO help. Fleet is GONE, Normandy is far away, NOBODY KNOWS WHERE SHEPARD IS AT, Technology is affected, Shepard's synthetic implants are probably offline and thus he/she can't move since half of his/her bones have synthetic attachments! So yeah Shepard got screwed over badly and it feels a slap to the face to the fans that spent almost seven years on ME1-3..

 

And that is just that last 10 minutes. If you go back to the Normandy pick up scene and see ALL your squadmates back on the Normandy.....are you kidding me.....they were ALL down on Earth. BUT NOW they are back on the Normandy all because you didn't pick them!.........................

 

 

Now for the new lines: IF everyone that rallies to defend on why synthesis and control are right, then ask yourself this. Are you just telling yourself this all because of the way you head canon it,? Of all the times TIM wanted to control the Reapers HE himself was under their control. Shepard states this in Paragon option when the final conflict happens. " You've done exactly what the Reapers wanted". I mean come on that isn't a hint that everything in ME3 that TIM did was all for the Reapers to basically use Shepard and have him/her believe that he/she can control the Reapers because HE IS SHEPARD!

 

 

Controlling the Reapers was just to plant false hope in Shepard yes i know the EC but come on. This is basically Star Wars Episode 6. The Emperor aka starbrat converting luke/Shepard to the Darkside. Gave hope to the Rebellion, freaking risked everything just for this ONE chance to have Luke join the Darkside and if he didn't then Death would follow him.

I don't see why people do not think Shepard is worth going through all the trouble to have him/her join the reapers when. 4 billion credits, plus two years, Harbinger wanting Shepard ALIVE in Arrival, Shepard's body, All the talk about Shepard being this anomaly, Reapers see him/her as a threat, and yet people still wonder.

It's like Superman in the animated series. Darkside converted Superman to his side and used him. People were fooled by this Indoctrinated Superman and then they caught onto what was really going on. People just can't believe Shepard can be under going Indoctrination and the Reapers just messing with you.  I don't see why not. If TIM can control your body but not mind, If Leviathan can get into your Shepard's mind then come on Shepard can be breached and it shows he/she has weaknesses.

 

And yeah three great arguments against that notion is. EC disproved it, Shepard's squad should be feeling the affects, and the VI should have detected Indoctrination on Shepard.

 

First off EC made things even more out of place than solved anything.

Second Leviathan dlc shows that it is POSSIBLE that Indoctrination can be so, yet everyone says there is an intelligence. YES good on you for figuring that out BUT what it doesn't say it is on the Citadel, doesn't explain HOW OR WHY the child is in the form OF the REAPER LEADER

 

Onto Shepard's squad not being affected by Indoctrination. Indoctrination can be slow and it depends on the person will and period of time near a Reaper artifact. Even though Arrival is in fact a great way of Shepard falling under Indoctrination, people point out it is side DLC content BUT the fact THAT the events take place does show that story wise Arrival is canon either way just Shepard may or may not have done it. However things such as the derelict Reaper, picking up Reaper artifacts, Plus a good argument is just because the Reapers are there in force and the galaxy is near the Reapers all the time doesn't garante Indoctrination might happen right away.

 

We look that the Protheans and we see a good portion of them still fighting. Plus Indoctrination can just appear. Look at Rana. She was fine in ME1 and ME2, yet in ME3 she killed high ranking Asari. Also our squadmates frequently leave Shepard on and off. It is hard to say if they HAD stuck with us throughout the years without leaving all the time and depends on who we picked to go on missions. Then Indoctrination squadmates is hard to say. For Shepard, he/she has gone on every mission in non dlc terms.

 

All of this goes into the SIX months in solitude with out seeing ANYONE, and ALL ALONE IN A ROOM. Look at TIM/ aka jack Harper. He was alone in a prison for weeks and almost a few months. He heard the Reapers, the whispers, saw visions, and now sits in solitude as the illusive Man. We know Shepard is alone and this child that later haunts Shepard and then is the catalyst avatar really does through red flags in the area.

 

Finally on why the VI can't detect Indoctrination accurately. The Vi states that they were taken down from within the indoctrinated Protheans. Therefore, the thing that can detect Indoctrination was defeated by indoctrinated agents from within..... Plus Shepard is UNDERGOING Indoctrination NOT he/she IS. It seems the VI can only detect Indoctrinated agents that have FULLY go over to the Reapers side and NOT while in the early stages of. That is why we get the end run, where Harbinger is putting Shepard to the final test. It is either join us or die.

[angol fear]

So this is your view but you want people who like synthesis or control to think like you...

[AlanC9]

Yeah, this thread will go to good places.

[masster blaster]

So this is your view but you want people who like synthesis or control to think like you...

I said my my view on this. I find all of this highly wrong and with reason. Therefor think however way you want i am simply showing that that Control and synthesis have everything wrong with it and how it just can not be so based upon how I see it and yeah some others do see it like i do. However it is up to the person on whether they agree what i think or not.

[Dantriges]

I think that this whole "being near something with the tag Reaper results in being indoctrinated" is totally blown out of proportion. Like quarian health issues and Joker´s steadily progessing Vrolik.

[AlanC9]

What the hell. I'll play.
 
 

Look i honestly can not stand people that stuck with Control and synthesis endings. I don't care if they thought it was just in their eyes. If you think controlling the dead that should have been put to rest, the colonist troops that became Cerberus army, to the husk Reaper forces that are slaves to idiotic AI Shepard, to the millions of  organics in just one Reaper, to the collectors still alive......you can HEAD CANON all you want about rebuilding the sending them into the sun but the FACT is Shepard uses the Reapers to his/her own desire. we HAVE no control over Shepard anymore thus our head canon is INVALID. Shepard is free to choose what he/she does thus that means in both Paragon and Renegade endings in control Shepard uses them for either "PEACE"  or " Military Police"

Sending them into the sun is both stupid and evil anyway. My Control Sheps wouldn't do that.

And yeah, we don't have control of our characters after a game ends, ever. So what?

Then synthesis....... Rather pick Refuse over this ending if there was only Synthesis and Refuse. I mean come on how much bs can you get from that ending. We are all friends forever! B.S. Oh no Javik why are you not shown going all Rambo on the Reapers? Why isn't Hackett and the galaxy not rebelling like they SHOULD be doing. " Oh no they forgave the Reapers!" WHY THE HELL IS EDI. THE ONE WHO TOLD US THE REAPERS ARE REPULSIVE/ RATHER DIE than work with the Reapers ; IS  WORKING with the Reapers?!!!!

How, exactly, would you "rebel" against Synthesis? I suppose you could commit suicide. Yeah, that'll show 'em.
 

Oh yes there it comes 'Well if you don't like that endings bs lines" It is an INSULT to everything you have DONE in ME. Oh yes here is the argument "We are task to stop the Reapers and that means anything goes" NO we are task to stop the Reapers by KILLING them all!

Hey, if you want your character to mindlessly follow orders no matter what he learns about the situation, go for it. It's your character, and your choice. Or you can have your character weigh all the options and think Destroy is best anyway.

BUT Breath scene just makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Shepard to live. He/she is on the Citadel if you take everything literal. There is NO help. Fleet is GONE, Normandy is far away, NOBODY KNOWS WHERE SHEPARD IS AT, Technology is affected, Shepard's synthetic implants are probably offline and thus he/she can't move since half of his/her bones have synthetic attachments! So yeah Shepard got screwed over badly and it feels a slap to the face to the fans that spent almost seven years on ME1-3..

This is pure headcanon. You don't know any of those things. In fact, even in low-EMS conditions Hackett survives, and he's still on a ship. Therefore, ships will still work.

Now for the new lines: IF everyone that rallies to defend on why synthesis and control are right, then ask yourself this. Are you just telling yourself this all because of the way you head canon it,?

We don't need to tell ourselves anything. I've seen the endings. Those endings do what they were said to do. I've also read the leaked script, which reveals that those endings were always intended to do what they were said to do.

Look, I get that you're still in denial over this, but you're not making any positive argument here. If you want us to drink the kool-aid, this isn't the way.

[fraggle]

Rubble, Smoke and hey a Shepard that MAY or NOT be dying! since Casey said " Could be taking his/her last breath" It is like they didn't give a care anymore about Shepard at all. " head canon it all fans" YOu can NOT HEAD CANON any endings EXCEPT REFUSE!

 

Synthesis and control have CLEAR motives in WHAT they SHALL be DOING. Destroy has this as well  BUT Breath scene just makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Shepard to live. He/she is on the Citadel if you take everything literal. There is NO help. Fleet is GONE, Normandy is far away, NOBODY KNOWS WHERE SHEPARD IS AT, Technology is affected, Shepard's synthetic implants are probably offline and thus he/she can't move since half of his/her bones have synthetic attachments! So yeah Shepard got screwed over badly and it feels a slap to the face to the fans that spent almost seven years on ME1-3...

 

Shepard is on the Citadel, and devs have both confirmed that and stated that, after EC, that the LI or the friend who refrains from putting up the name plate has hope which indicates that Shepard is still alive and they will see him/her again. And that they're right (showing it with the breath scene).

Shepard did not get screwed badly. If you want Shepard to live, it's as easy as that (same as dying obviously; if you want Shepard dead, it can be the last breath). I'm not even sure about being partly synthetic, others have techy stuff as well and it doesn't seem to affect them. A common interpretation here on the boards is that it targets only Reaper tech, which Shepard would be fine with since there's nothing Reaper techy. Makes sense if you think about ships also still flying etc. Not every technology is affected.

 

Having your own opinion about it is all good, but you likely want people to respect your opinion, when you yourself say how much you hate 2 of the endings and insult people who pick it? Not the way to go if you want a good discussion.

I myself am not a fan of anything but Destroy, but you are reasoning with your own feelings and hatred against the others. Why not try and stay neutral? I've read some interesting reasons on here why people pick something else, and every ending is just, every ending can have reasons to be picked. And even though you don't need to agree with them, you could at least be open to them. There's no wrong or right choice at the end, only the choice which best suits your Shepard (if you RP to that extent).

Not to mention you highly meta-game, because you already know the outcome. Your Shepard doesn't. And your Shepard can still pick what he/she thinks is the best for the galaxy (without knowing the outcome obviously).

[DeinonSlayer]

Holy crap. I pop into the forum for once to see the same person still arguing indoctrination theory three and a half years after the game came out? I'd think that horse has been beaten to a thin paste and long since evaporated by now.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Holy crap. I pop into the forum for once to see the same person still arguing indoctrination theory three and a half years after the game came out? I'd think that horse has been beaten to a thin paste and long since evaporated by now.

 

Yep. We're all just a couple of North and South going Zaxes.

[CaIIisto]

I'd think that horse has been beaten to a thin paste and long since evaporated by now.

The horse died. Then it was brought back complete with Cerberus implants. This is horse 2.0, or Horse Jesus if you prefer....

[AlanC9]

That IT board masster blaster links to in his sig is pretty funny.

Hey, here's a question that 's been bugging me for years... does anyone know who was Patient Zero for the IT outbreak? This had to start somewhere.

[voteDC]

Holy crap. I pop into the forum for once to see the same person still arguing indoctrination theory three and a half years after the game came out? I'd think that horse has been beaten to a thin paste and long since evaporated by now.

I've never understood the folk who come into a discussion and try and end it because they think it has been talked about too much.

War and Peace was written nearly a hundred and fifty years ago and still people want to talk about the book. Why is it a shock that people want to discuss the ending of a pretty damn good trilogy of video games that is only three years old on the game's own discussion board?

[ImaginaryMatter]

That IT board masster blaster links to in his sig is pretty funny.

Hey, here's a question that 's been bugging me for years... does anyone know who was Patient Zero for the IT outbreak? This had to start somewhere.

 

 

This is the first video I remember seeing about it. It wasn't the first time the idea was on the internet, but I remember it being the one that got linked a lot.

[themikefest]

Holy crap. I pop into the forum for once to see the same person still arguing indoctrination theory three and a half years after the game came out? I'd think that horse has been beaten to a thin paste and long since evaporated by now.

Didn't you get the memo? There's a lot more horses that need a good beating. hahaha

 

Long time no see DeinonSlayer

[AlanC9]

@ImaginaryMatter: Thanks . I never actually looked at that one. Considering the date, it's decent work.

 

It occurred to me that a site search would work well enough to find old IT posts from this board., since threads are always date-stamped. Didn't spend more than a couple of minutes at it, but here's my contender for the earliest IT thread.

 

Figures it would be byne. A pity that we can't see the original content of post 1. Note that it's dated three days after release. I wonder if lack of sleep made IT sound credible to people.

 

Interesting to see just how early the derp started. A lot of people talk about how the ending we got was something Bio whipped up because of reaction to the leaked ending, but anyone who actually read the leak would know that there was no difference. (Unless they're talking about the dark energy plot, but I can't find any reference to that plot earlier than Drew K getting into it some days after IT was already a thing.) 

[Monica21]

@ImaginaryMatter: Thanks . I never actually looked at that one. Considering the date, it's decent work.

 

It occurred to me that a site search would work well enough to find old IT posts from this board., since threads are always date-stamped. Didn't spend more than a couple of minutes at it, but here's my contender for the earliest IT thread.

 

Figures it would be byne. A pity that we can't see the original content of post 1. Note that it's dated three days after release. I wonder if lack of sleep made IT sound credible to people.

 

Interesting to see just how early the derp started. A lot of people talk about how the ending we got was something Bio whipped up because of reaction to the leaked ending, but anyone who actually read the leak would know that there was no difference. (Unless they're talking about the dark energy plot, but I can't find any reference to that plot earlier than Drew K getting into it some days after IT was already a thing.) 

 

Just my opinion as someone pretty new to Mass Effect, considering what a confusing mess the pre-EC endings were (even if you don't take into account how bad the end choices actually are) and then the levels of downright encouragement on social media from devs specifically when responding to IT, I'm really not surprised that it was so popular.

[AlanC9]

No, but throwing your brain out wasn't the answer.

 

A minor correction about the leak -- news that there had once been a dark energy ending was also leaked prerelease. Apparently some journalist picked it up in idle chatter in the Bio offices a few weeks before release. (It's somewhere in the SomethingAwful archives) But this leak can't have caused a rewrite, obviously.

[Ieldra]

Hey, here's a question that 's been bugging me for years... does anyone know who was Patient Zero for the IT outbreak? This had to start somewhere.

I did some archive research. Probably it was byne, the originator of the first thread "Was the ending a hallucination" (this was originally the whole title - Indoctrination Theory was added later), which popped up four days after ME3 came out. I recall it well because it seemed like an obvious ploy to make Destroy appear as the only valid ending option. 

 

The irony is, it started with a very true observation: "Is it just me, or does the entire ending sequence not feel like it fits in with the overall theme of the ME universe?" - yeah, that it didn't. Where it went from there, though, was far less astute.

[angol fear]

The irony is, it started with a very true observation: "Is it just me, or does the entire ending sequence not feel like it fits in with the overall theme of the ME universe?" - yeah, that it didn't. Where it went from there, though, was far less astute.

 

No, it was a wrong observation. Then the denial, the fact that many people refused to accept the ending and refused to understand the ending turned into a theory that didn't make sense, that went against the writing of the ending and the entire trilogy. Bad reading (to create a meaning people wanted with quotations without context and many wrong questions) created that theory. When people don't accept something they create that kind of theory.

To go against the writing just because of expectations (wrong expectations because not based on the writing of the game that gave clues and foreshadowing ignored by many people who still refuse it because they would have to admit that they didn't pay attention to the game, they ignored it), that's being a bad reader.

[dorktainian]

i don't get peeps dissing the OP.

 

Start from the viewpoint that the reapers are absolutely evil.  Count the number of sentient creatures they have murdered all in the name of some problem that isn't really a problem unless you are a reaper.  There is no denial at work here.  The reapers are bad. We are shown in game that we are going to be obliterated in no uncertain terms and now people want to either control them (which as they say is impossible..... see indoctrination) or join with them in perfect harmony (see..... collectors / protheans).

 

After the stuff they done, they do not deserve to be allowed to exist in any way shape or form, and anyone who chooses synthesis or control is accepting that the reapers should be allowed to exist, therefore agreeing with starjar, saying that the reapers solution of murdering countless civillisations was a good idea.

 

The reapers are the problem, and getting rid of them is the solution, not playing happy families or trying to enslave them.

 

Ask yourself why Bioware gave you the chance to what is in effect to side with the reapers.

[Ieldra]

No, it was a wrong observation. Then the denial, the fact that many people refused to accept the ending and refused to understand the ending turned into a theory that didn't make sense, that went against the writing of the ending and the entire trilogy. Bad reading (to create a meaning people wanted with quotations without context and many wrong questions) created that theory. When people don't accept something they create that kind of theory.

To go against the writing just because of expectations (wrong expectations because not based on the writing of the game that gave clues and foreshadowing ignored by many people who still refuse it because they would have to admit that they didn't pay attention to the game, they ignored it), that's being a bad reader.

You know, I understand perfectly well where they wanted to go with the ending. The thing is, as a writer one of your tasks is to see to it that the players or readers are emotionally ok with the way your story ends (at least if you don't want a downer ending). Not necessarily happy, but ok. In the best cases even a bittersweet ending can have some kind of catharsis. On the other hand, if half of the players reject your ending because they experience it as too depressing, then you've failed as a writer. That Shepard died was sad, yes, but the deciding factor was that the ending made many players feel that they lost in a much more profound way. If I may quote one important point: "If the antagonist's values are ascendant, then the hero has just lost". And another one from a review: "...with the benefits [of your ending choice] removed from any relatable emotional touchstone to the intangible space of far flung statistics."

 

Unfortunately, the review that pointed this out most succintly is no longer online, but this thread quotes the most relevant parts.

[IndianaJonesYay]

Start from the viewpoint that the reapers are absolutely evil.  Count the number of sentient creatures they have murdered all in the name of some problem that isn't really a problem unless you are a reaper. ..

 

 

Good point. The Catalyst assumes (probably from how Leviathan programmed it) that organics and synthetics can never co-operate. If you got the geth and the quarians to reconcile, and seeing as how your pilot is (probably) dating an AI... well, Mr. Catalyst, I think you have a few things wrong.

 

The Catalyst acts all smart, and I think BioWare wanted us to think it was smart, but it was pretty unintelligent, if you ask me. It claims to be as far beyond being an AI as Shepard is beyond being an animal, but I'm not sold. At one level, Shepard is an animal, albeit advanced. On another level, the Catalyst was wrong about how far the Crucible had advanced (it admits that it thought the plans for the Crucible had been given up a few cycles ago). So maybe the Catalyst isn't so smart after all... so why should we trust it?

 

Finally, the Catalyst says that now that synthesis is inevitable now that it knows it's possible. Okay, fine. Lemme go ahead and destroy the Reapers anyway, since your inevitability will eventually inevitably happen. 

 

You know, I understand perfectly well where they wanted to go with the ending. The thing is, as a writer one of your tasks is to see to it that the players or readers are emotionally ok with the way your story ends (at least if you don't want a downer ending). Not necessarily happy, but ok. In the best cases even a bittersweet ending can have some kind of catharsis. On the other hand, if half of the players reject your ending because they experience it as too depressing, then you've failed as a writer. That Shepard died was sad, yes, but the deciding factor was that the ending made many players feel that they lost in a much more profound way. If I may quote one important point: "If the antagonist's values are ascendant, then the hero has just lost". And another one from a review: "...with the benefits [of your ending choice] removed from any relatable emotional touchstone to the intangible space of far flung statistics."

 

Now that was good writing. Do you write professionally? Good writers are always aware of their readers and their readers' perceptions. Bravo, and cheers.

 

The ending would work if the core issue throughout the trilogy were synthetics and organics fighting. But that's not the core issue (or at least it's no longer the core issue as soon as Legion explains the heretics and the true geth). The core problem in the ME trilogy is the Reapers themselves with their intent to wipe out all advanced life. So the core solution should be getting rid of the Reapers. If they wanted Control (bleh) or Synthesis (meh) to be satisfying, they should have had the organic-synthetic conflict be a more central issue throughout the trilogy.

[AlanC9]

On the other hand, if half of the players reject your ending because they experience it as too depressing, then you've failed as a writer. That Shepard died was sad, yes, but the deciding factor was that the ending made many players feel that they lost in a much more profound way. If I may quote one important point: "If the antagonist's values are ascendant, then the hero has just lost".

I always found this point a little hard to relate to. Can values be ascendant without people actually believing them? If anything, a post-Destroy MEU would see the Catalyst's motivations discredited for all time -- assuming Shepard survives to reveal what those motivations were, of course.

That review illustrates why I liked the ending better than most did, incidentally. For me the most central theme of the series was always that Shepard was the one person who was able to face the terrible reality of the situation, and to do what needs to be done. (I suppose this is how Drew K. saw the series too, looking at the Dark Energy plot.) The ending almost literalizes that, with Shepard standing outside of History itself. That this history is founded on an idiotic mistake doesn't bother me; I suppose that marks me as something of a nihilist, perhaps.

[AlanC9]

 
The ending would work if the core issue throughout the trilogy were synthetics and organics fighting. But that's not the core issue (or at least it's no longer the core issue as soon as Legion explains the heretics and the true geth). The core problem in the ME trilogy is the Reapers themselves with their intent to wipe out all advanced life. So the core solution should be getting rid of the Reapers. If they wanted Control (bleh) or Synthesis (meh) to be satisfying, they should have had the organic-synthetic conflict be a more central issue throughout the trilogy.

I don't quite follow this. Except for low-EMS runs with the Collector Base saved, you've always got Destroy available. If you're not picking Control, does it matter that Control isn't satisfying?

[IndianaJonesYay]

I don't quite follow this. Except for low-EMS runs with the Collector Base saved, you've always got Destroy available. If you're not picking Control, does it matter that Control isn't satisfying?

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. When I referred to "the ending," I meant any of the three (four) choices, not just synthesis. The Catalyst seems to think the core problem in the universe is organics vs. synthetics, but that simply isn't true in so many instances. Ergo, the Catalyst is flawed and much less knowledge than it thinks, and thus can't be trusted.

 

Blow 'em away, Shep. Destroy, baby, destroy.