Saren didn't really have deep motives. What made him interesting is that he was merely an Indoctrinated puppet trying to keep his own mind.
I feel like the first sentence contradicts the second, unless I'm missing something here. Exactly what is your view on what is a deep motive?
@angol_fear:
I find it odd (and honestly a little irritating and disturbing) that someone claiming to be a scholar of literature so often uses the phrase "you did it wrong" (referring to reading, writing or understanding) in their posts. Interpreting literature is just that, interpretation. Unless the original author makes a definite statement about the intention behind the work, I think it is tough to claim that one in particular is wrong as long as its cause is presented. Being a scientist myself, I am perplexed as to how someone in a profession that seeks to squire knowledge and understanding seems to have the singular agenda of shutting down other viewpoints (and possibly belittle those who hold them). This is particularly ironic since the interpretation of this self-appointed expert includes "otherness and perspectives/ representation/ point of view" as one of the themes that apparently only angol has picked up on.
My problem with these posts is not so much with what they are trying to argue (although I disagree on that on a number of counts as well, more on that below) but rather on the tone these arguments are presented at, a tone which doesn't foster discourse as much as it implies hostility. Now people may call me a big wuss for taking issue with this and not just focusing on the content but I believe that - especially on an online forum where we lack personal contact, vocal inflection and body language cues - courtesy in tone is vitally important for a prosperous exchange of opinions and ideas. And that's why we are all here, is it not?
Now that I have spent all this time complaining about the tone that has taken a hold of this thread, let's move on to content:
You wrote:
Mass Effect 2 is full of retcon, its writing is based on that. Mass Effect 3 followed the same path and the ending is a big retcon. So we can't condamn the ending alone it's the whole writing of the trilogy that should be condamned. Bioware's writers are not beginners, so why did they do that? That's something I've explained many times but that has been ignored many times. The retcons are related to perception/point of view. We don't know the whole thing, we discover, we understand little by little. The more we know the more it breaks our first idea.
You are relating the retcons to a change in perspective, that all the sudden and jarring changes between games (which you acknowledge) are intentional and preparing us for the final big reveal during which two related things happen:
1) The catalyst reveals the real purpose of the reapers, which again is something we didn't understand before, due to our limited point of view and
2) the entire problem that caused the cycles and war is this limited perspective that also separates organics and synthetics (or more widely spoken any groups that separate themselves from one another)
That's how I interpret your case here:
The catalyst talked about organics and synthetics, the problem actually more about otherness and perspectives/ representation/ point of view. Once again to understand it we have to be on a philosophical perspective of things.
It is a fairly valid interpretation IMO and one can definitely go ahead and see the story unfold in such a manner but I have two major issues with you claiming that it is the one and only valid interpretation of this aspect of the ending and the story:
1) The retcons: I have seen a lot of theories and interpretations of the plot, some coming up with elaborate conspiracy theories that try to deal with the retcons. I think yours is similar, just that it is not a conspiracy theory within the fiction but on the level of the writers themselves. Their expert use of retcons as a stylistic means to prove a point is a positive in your book. But that assumes author intent which we don't have any information about. It would probably even be credible if there was only one writer for this series but the fact that there was an entire team with shifting members at least allows for the possibility that the retcons are indeed inconsistencies in this case. I am not saying they have to be, I am saying that it's an assumption that is not less (maybe even more) logical than yours. In one case, we even have the author's take on it:
You wrote:
The whole thing with the geth is pretty obvious (basically from bad guys in Mass Effect1 to victims in Mass Effect 3).
Chris L'Etoille, the writer who was in charge of Legion (and thus the geth perspective) in ME2 and who left the team before ME3 was rather dismayed about the changes that were made in the later game.
We even know from Drew Karpyshyn that by the time he left his position as lead writer during the development of ME2, there was no real plan for the ending (and the concepts they had at the time were very different from the final work).
So I think it's tough to claim that the only way to interpret the ending is by retroactive reading if we know that there was no forethought in the writing. As always when analyzing literature, you cannot confine yourself strictly to the text, you need to analyze it in the context of how it was created.
You can of course interpret the perspective issue into the story and the retcons (it is certainly there in the ending, I agree with that), it's a beautiful way to see it but claiming that this was author intent and that it is the only correct way to interpret the story simply means ignoring some available information.
On a side note about the Cerberus retcon, we have no information of whether or not it was intentional but if it was, I think Dantriges has a point in mentioning the inability of the player to have an input on the decision as to how Shepard deals with Cerberus. If a writer wants to deceive the main character, it is important to also deceive the audience, otherwise the protagonist will just look dumb. This is even worse if the audience is given the illusion to control the protagonist. In Cerberus' case, given the fact that a lot of people didn't want to work with them in ME2 (just look at the forums back then), I don't think the deception worked. The players perspective was wider than the characters and still the writer would have tried to push the theme with a sledgehammer by simply omitting sensible dialogue options. This is possible but I would maintain that however you put it, it was still very inelegant way to write the plot and to portray the theme.
2) Going on from the last paragraph, you are interpreting the ME story very much like a book or a movie but it simply is not. It's is an interactive experience, a game in which the audience is allowed to make decisions. In many cases, these decisions don't really matter and we are guided along a certain path. This is important simply so that the developers and writers can keep track of what is happening. However, it is clear that within that constraint they want the player to craft their own experience throughout the story and they allow the player to shift the experience in a way that almost stretches the entire setup to bursting. That alone allows for a multitude of interpretations of this story and one - if not THE - major criticism of the endings is that they do not cater to this variety in mood, themes and - if you are inclined to take this as far as possible - even genre.
As a (fairly insignificant but specific) example, take your interpretation:that there is no god and that everything is physical. I get that, it's valid and I would even agree with you that it is very likely that this was writer intent. However, in my interpretation, it is a circumstance, a given in the ME universe that it is based on science and the natural world. It is a given fact more than a theme. Interestingly, the audience is given the choice whether or not Shepard should be religious, spiritual, agnostic or an atheist. It happens in a dialogue with Ashley in ME1, when you talk about space exploration and she asks if you believe in god or any higher power. The player is given the choice to steer the protagonist in a direction that is more in accord with a metaphysical believe system there. This is not taken up later in the series again. If an important underlying theme would be to deal with this religious aspect (or it's invalidity), it would be a great - I'd even say inexcusable - omission to not pick up this thread again and allow the player to make a comment, based on what they think their protagonist believes. So as a whole I would characterize the ME trilogy as a story where religious themes are more absent than actively tackled and deconstructed. Again, if you want to emphasize some unclear subtleties to force that theme, you can do that but if this was writer intent, it was so well hidden that I'd have to say it was detrimental to the intent and thus inelegant execution. But I am sure I am just "reading it wrong" again (and for the record, that was sarcasm).
The names you invoke, like Nietzsche, are considered great writers because they could imbue a text with deep meaning that became readily clear to a majority of educated readers without spelling out the meaning directly but by weaving it into the text. The trick is to be subtle enough so that it doesn't feel like the message is hammered down, yet to be clear enough so that the message comes across and at the same time to pack it all in a sensibly constructed story that has a clear line of plot and character development on it's own. Even if we assume your interpretation of the author's intents are accurate, BioWare still failed at the latter two points. Not to mention that the company grossly misrepresented their own product in their marketing campaigns by the way.
As I said above, all these points are not here to prove you wrong, they are just indications that your way of seeing things is not the only and ultimate truth as which you like to represent it. That is my main issue with your posts, not so much how you choose to see the ME trilogy (which certainly is a fascinating interpretation of the material, no argument there).
On a slightly different note, now that we got a bit more insight into your interpretation of the ME trilogy, I wonder which ending you choose?
Seems, i could have left responding to the rest of the forum. A lot more elegant than my response.
Not always. For example, most people love the Joker in The Dark Knight. He had complex schemes, but not any motivation beyond being an agent of chaos and destruction. I'll point to my guy Mr.Btongue:
"They don't need a complex motivation because the story is not about them."
I like the Joker more when I consider his motivation to be demonstrating that civilization was just a thin veneer, that savagery lies just beneath the surface.
Batman: This city just showed you that it's full of people ready to believe in good.
The Joker: Until their spirit breaks completely. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent, and all the heroic things he's done. You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for Gotham's soul in a fistfight with you? No. You need an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey.
Batman: What did you do?
The Joker: I took Gotham's white knight and I brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. You see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push!
@MrFob, Interpretation isn't something that is limitless. In the " On the Genealogy of morality", Nietzsche talked about the art of interpretation, it's not something anyone can do. Nietzsche said it, the modern man has forgotten what is very important to consider reading as an art (and the interpretation become an art), what he has forgotten is to chew. Another example : people here like to talk about death of the author (which is an old theory that they don't understand because they only read summaries on internet). Umberto Eco, who died few days ago, saw that problem of this theory and in the 80's he insisted on the fact that there are limits.
So when people force an interpretation and they only do it with purpose of saying "it's bad", "it's not properly developed" etc... yes there is a problem and they are wrong. I have already explained it (and it was ignored) but reading isn't just understand the basic meaning (any child can do that), it's following the flow of the writing, it's all about comprehension (in its etymological meaning). Interpretation that goes against the writing is wrong.
So when someone talked about transhumanism because the ending choices look like Deus Ex, sure there is that theme which is actually part of an other theme. So when people criticized that theme (and considered Deus Ex better because it developed more that theme), they failed at understand the writing. They imposed their point of view with a comparison to evaluate.
I've already talked about it but to develop something doesn't mean to be always explicit. There are many way to develop things. Mass Effect took a path and people are not used to this one.
I feel like the first sentence contradicts the second, unless I'm missing something here. Exactly what is your view on what is a deep motive?
A fair question. You could call that a motivation, but his motivation within the plot, meaning why he did what he did, was that he was Indoctrinated. That's what I was referring to.
Added: So I would argue that the character may be complex, but the motivation for his actions is not.
@MrFob, Interpretation isn't something that is limitless. In the " On the Genealogy of morality", Nietzsche talked about the art of interpretation, it's not something anyone can do. Nietzsche said it, the modern man has forgotten what is very important to consider reading as an art (and the interpretation become an art), what he has forgotten is to chew. Another example : people here like to talk about death of the author (which is an old theory that they don't understand because they only read summaries on internet). Umberto Eco, who died few days ago, saw that problem of this theory and in the 80's he insisted on the fact that there are limits.
So when people force an interpretation and they only do it with purpose of saying "it's bad", "it's not properly developed" etc... yes there is a problem and they are wrong. I have already explained it (and it was ignored) but reading isn't just understand the basic meaning (any child can do that), it's following the flow of the writing, it's all about comprehension (in its etymological meaning). Interpretation that goes against the writing is wrong.
So when someone talked about transhumanism because the ending choices look like Deus Ex, sure there is that theme which is actually part of an other theme. So when people criticized that theme (and considered Deus Ex better because it developed more that theme), they failed at understand the writing. They imposed their point of view with a comparison to evaluate.
I've already talked about it but to develop something doesn't mean to be always explicit. There are many way to develop things. Mass Effect took a path and people are not used to this one.
Interestingly, this is based on your interpretation forced on the writing.
Well, see, not everyone can do it, but some can. 
Interestingly, this is based on your interpretation forced on the writing.
Perhaps irony is 'internet knowledge'?
A fair question. You could call that a motivation, but his motivation within the plot, meaning why he did what he did, was that he was Indoctrinated. That's what I was referring to.
Added: So I would argue that the character may be complex, but the motivation for his actions is not.
That's not the whole truth though. Saren's primary motivation was to prevent the annihilation of civilizations, which is a good/pure motivation. This is why in the end he kills himself. When you confront him he realizes that he has been indoctrinated to actually oppose that primary motivation.
The indoctrination subtletly forced him to the conlclusion that killing the reapers isn't the solution, so he got motivated to help them. Which sounds like a plausible scenario to an extent, an organic would be terrified (fear as a motivation) of such a foe and would definently attempt to negotiate.
That's not the whole truth though. Saren's primary motivation was to prevent the annihilation of civilizations, which is a good/pure motivation. This is why in the end he kills himself. When you confront him he realizes that he has been indoctrinated to actually oppose that primary motivation.
The indoctrination subtletly forced him to the conlclusion that killing the reapers isn't the solution, so he got motivated to help them. Which sounds like a plausible scenario to an extent, an organic would be terrified (fear as a motivation) of such a foe and would definently attempt to negotiate.
Sounds a lot like the final scene at the end. Shepard was being convinced that destroying the Reapers isn't the solution, and that control and especially synthesis were. Depending on what the player does, he doesn't destroy the Reapers (successfully convinced), or he does (not convinced). Shepard, like Saren goes against his primary motivation and kills himself.
@angol_fear:
There, you are doing it again. You are not having a discussion, you are deflecting counterpoints to your arguments by going after people instead of arguments in order to have a monologue. You say you answer me but you are not directly addressing anything that I wrote. Instead, you are going for a slightly related tangent about how people should - in your mind - interpret (or rather stop to interpret) literature.
But in any case, I will not follow this pattern so let me address what you wrote. I do this because I think you are grossly misrepresenting Nietzsche as well. Your invocation of Umberto Eco, one of - from everything I have read of and about him - the most curious, investigative and, yes, interpretative contemporary authors I know to push your "closed text" agenda for ME would probably have him rotate in his grave.
But back to Nietzsche, in "Genealogy of morality", when writing about the "art of interpretation", he refers specifically to his own work (more precisely Zarathustra, which he mentions by name). Of course he can do that because it's his work, he can tell you that one interpretation or the other is not what he wanted to say, that's fine. If a BioWare writer would have written your posts, I wouldn't have as much of a problem (although I would still criticize the sloppy implementation of the message). But you are not the author so you don't have that level of authority. Your interpretation is not more or less valid than another unless it is backed up by facts from the text. I have not seen you invalidate other interpretations on a argumentative text-reliant basis and I have shown in my earlier post that there are holes in your interpretation. Not bad ones and not really worse than those that can be found in other interpretations on these boards but they are there and if you are not willing to address and discuss them directly you simply have no basis for claiming a Nietzsche like authority over the work.
Besides, if you read Nietzsche carefully you will find that he doesn't exclude anyone from being capable of the art of interpretation, quite the contrary, All that is needed to perform it is to familiarize yourself deeply with the text, to not just read the words but think about the meaning behind them to decipher it's aphoristic form, to rehash it over and over (you say chew but the actual German word used is "wiederkäuen" which means ruminate or rehash in this context, in which he ironically likens his preferred reader to a cow). The subtitle for the 1886 publication of Zarathustra is "Ein Buch fuer Alle und Keinen", a book for everyone and no one, which is widely (by a range of respected and experienced scholars) interpreted as his opinion that everyone could give it a try but no one of his time would really get it.
So yes, according to Nietzsche, interpreting a text is not an easy task it is not done by simply reading it's superficial meaning, you are right about that but you are wrong when you think that this gives you leave to dismiss other people on these boards without arguing on a text related basis. The people who post on this forum for years can be assumed to have rehashed this text over and over, to have thought about it deeply, to have gone beyond superficial reading, to have picked up on underlying themes and meanings. This is evidenced by the fact that this is the meat of our discussion in this thread. I am not saying everything said by anyone has to be right or that you have to agree but using "Genealogy of morality" to dismiss all of them in bulk is in my opinion a distortion of meaning in itself.
So not only do you have a questionable interpretation of Mass Effect, you also have a very questionable and way too literal and general interpretation of Nietzsche in my opinion. And if he were alive today, he would also have something to say about being used to elevate a piece of pulp mainstream scifi to the realms of Zarathustra, I bet.
This leads me back to my original point: You continue to argue against people instead of ideas (except for very rare occasions like the post I answered to above). This is what irritates me and using Nietzsche or Eco to justify it is despicable, IMO.
As for the death of the author theory (which I believe is one of the few points in your post that vaguely relates to the ideas in my previous one), I am not sure how you want to argue exactly. In your interpretation of the work, you are heavily relying on author intent (as evidenced by your previous posts) but you are not acknowledging information that we have about the author(s), their intent and the creative process of this work. It is tough to have it both ways.
That's not the whole truth though. Saren's primary motivation was to prevent the annihilation of civilizations, which is a good/pure motivation. This is why in the end he kills himself. When you confront him he realizes that he has been indoctrinated to actually oppose that primary motivation.
The indoctrination subtletly forced him to the conlclusion that killing the reapers isn't the solution, so he got motivated to help them. Which sounds like a plausible scenario to an extent, an organic would be terrified (fear as a motivation) of such a foe and would definently attempt to negotiate.
We don't know how much of that was Saren and how much was the Indoctrination. Looking back from TIM in ME3, it certainly seems that Indoctrination works by amplifying desires already in the subject, such as TIM's desire for power. However, I was talking about the things Saren specifically does in the story, such as Eden Prime and Ilos. Virmire, on the other hand, seems to be him fighting for his own mind a bit.
@MrFob, "ruminate" yes I was trying to find the word that could translate the notion. Thanks.
I'm relying on author intent but not as much as you seem to think. A text is a very complex object.
It seems that you think that because something is "mainstream" it can't have any artistic ambition. If you think so then you'll agree with me that in the XIX the writers who were published in some newspaper/magazine couldn't have any ambition and can't be elevate to the same place than writers who directly wrote books. Cinema and television series couldn't have any ambition? Cinema was just entertainment, and television series are mainstream.
PS : what can you say about the Nietzsche's writing (about his "style")?
Saren said himself that he regarded helping the Reapers as the key to survival. That's possibly (probably) indoctrination, but I wonder where it started? Could be that indoctrination latched onto that thought and amplified it, crushing any hope that an alternative was possible and keeping the "helping the Reapers" idea going long after he'd have otherwise rejected it, seeing what they're actually up to. At least early on it doesn't look like Saren is very heavily indoctrinated (he's got rather more of his mind left than a husk at any rate).We don't know how much of that was Saren and how much was the Indoctrination. Looking back from TIM in ME3, it certainly seems that Indoctrination works by amplifying desires already in the subject, such as TIM's desire for power. However, I was talking about the things Saren specifically does in the story, such as Eden Prime and Ilos. Virmire, on the other hand, seems to be him fighting for his own mind a bit.
I think at the level of Indoctrination that Saren and The Illusive Man were under, they were still capable of independent action as long as it was not directly in opposition to the Reapers goals. After all both Saren and TIM were studying indoctrination, it was only when TIM wanted to apply it to the Reapers themselves did they attack Sanctuary.
This is why I think that TIM was under some level of indoctrination from the moment we meet him. He couldn't turn Cerberus directly against the Collectors, and by extension the Reapers, so he brought Shepard back, gave one ship, and set them a suicide mission.
I'm relying on author intent but not as much as you seem to think. A text is a very complex object.
Yes it is (and I'd say an interactive medium can be even more complex) but what is your argument? If you rely on author intent in the way you described earlier, how do you reconcile it with the facts that we know about the author(s)of the ME series that I have mentioned above?
It seems that you think that because something is "mainstream" it can't have any artistic ambition.
No, I don't believe that and I am a bit perplexed as to why you would suggest it. Where do you get this idea from?
PS : what can you say about the Nietzsche's writing (about his "style")?
We've already gone on quite a tangent with this, let's keep it on topic.
Saren said himself that he regarded helping the Reapers as the key to survival. That's possibly (probably) indoctrination, but I wonder where it started? Could be that indoctrination latched onto that thought and amplified it, crushing any hope that an alternative was possible and keeping the "helping the Reapers" idea going long after he'd have otherwise rejected it, seeing what they're actually up to. At least early on it doesn't look like Saren is very heavily indoctrinated (he's got rather more of his mind left than a husk at any rate).
For most of the time I think that most of TIM's actions are his own, which sometimes work against what the Reapers want (what's going on at Sanctuary doesn't look like Reaper interest), so I expect the occasional nudge and no more than removing any attempt for him to co-operate. The occasional trouble that might give the Reapers is more than made up for by the trouble it gives everyone else.
Is there any information about how Saren and Sovereign met?
Sanctuary is just TIM's Virmire. Neither are under total domination so that they keep their utility, as discussed in the first game.
I think at the level of Indoctrination that Saren and The Illusive Man were under, they were still capable of independent action as long as it was not directly in opposition to the Reapers goals. After all both Saren and TIM were studying indoctrination, it was only when TIM wanted to apply it to the Reapers themselves did they attack Sanctuary.
This is why I think that TIM was under some level of indoctrination from the moment we meet him. He couldn't turn Cerberus directly against the Collectors, and by extension the Reapers, so he brought Shepard back, gave one ship, and set them a suicide mission.
I have a hard time seeing TIM as Indoctrinated in ME2. He is completely opposed to the Reapers. I saw his Indoctrination as occurring between games, after spending time with Reaper tech. Of course, at the time I didn't know where he got it since I destroyed the Collector Base but it turns out he can get it anyway!
Sounds a lot like the final scene at the end. Shepard was being convinced that destroying the Reapers isn't the solution, and that control and especially synthesis were. Depending on what the player does, he doesn't destroy the Reapers (successfully convinced), or he does (not convinced). Shepard, like Saren goes against his primary motivation and kills himself.
So you're saying that the indoctrination theory is true, but not for Shepard but ... the player.
That is interesting.
We don't know how much of that was Saren and how much was the Indoctrination. Looking back from TIM in ME3, it certainly seems that Indoctrination works by amplifying desires already in the subject, such as TIM's desire for power. However, I was talking about the things Saren specifically does in the story, such as Eden Prime and Ilos. Virmire, on the other hand, seems to be him fighting for his own mind a bit.
Well, when we are discussing character, we must look at him as a whole. Because Saren's motivation for saving all civilizations did play a role in the story, and a much larger role in his death by suicide.
I think at the level of Indoctrination that Saren and The Illusive Man were under, they were still capable of independent action as long as it was not directly in opposition to the Reapers goals. After all both Saren and TIM were studying indoctrination, it was only when TIM wanted to apply it to the Reapers themselves did they attack Sanctuary.
This is why I think that TIM was under some level of indoctrination from the moment we meet him. He couldn't turn Cerberus directly against the Collectors, and by extension the Reapers, so he brought Shepard back, gave one ship, and set them a suicide mission.
Didn't the Illusive man escape from a procedure that would turn him into a husk? I think i read about it in the comics, but still. ME games shouldn't have to require outside sources to have a complete story.
So you're saying that the indoctrination theory is true, but not for Shepard but ... the player.
That is interesting.
I say "duped."
Well, when we are discussing character, we must look at him as a whole. Because Saren's motivation for saving all civilizations did play a role in the story, and a much larger role in his death by suicide.
True, but we never see any independent motivation to save civilizations. We only get that from him when he's Indoctrinated. Certainly on the Citadel at the end, it's all Sovereign talking. The suicide is really a final act of defiance, answering his own question from earlier; "Is not submission preferable to extinction?" In the end, he says "No," as Shepard does.
I have a hard time seeing TIM as Indoctrinated in ME2. He is completely opposed to the Reapers. I saw his Indoctrination as occurring between games, after spending time with Reaper tech. Of course, at the time I didn't know where he got it since I destroyed the Collector Base but it turns out he can get it anyway!
Completely opposed but takes so little action directly against them. Instead spends a fortune to bring back Shepard, gives a ship and a skeleton crew, then does nothing but put those few resources directly in harm's way.
I believe he knew the influence he was under and had to work around around it. He certainly knew that the Reapers needed to be stopped but couldn't do it himself, so he brought back the one person he believed could.
Completely opposed but takes so little action directly against them. Instead spends a fortune to bring back Shepard, gives a ship and a skeleton crew, then does nothing but put those few resources directly in harm's way.
I believe he knew the influence he was under and had to work around around it. He certainly knew that the Reapers needed to be stopped but couldn't do it himself, so he brought back the one person he believed could.
That shows how much he wanted to stop the Reapers because anything Cerberus handles directly ends in disaster and failure. 
You could be right. I don't give the writers that much credit but it's an interesting perspective.
That shows how much he wanted to stop the Reapers because anything Cerberus handles directly ends in disaster and failure.
You could be right. I don't give the writers that much credit but it's an interesting perspective.
Could be right. It's probably not, though.
Shepard and friends completely go along with TIM and his shenanigans. And I doubt they were also all partly Indoctrinated.
True, but we never see any independent motivation to save civilizations. We only get that from him when he's Indoctrinated. Certainly on the Citadel at the end, it's all Sovereign talking. The suicide is really a final act of defiance, answering his own question from earlier; "Is not submission preferable to extinction?" In the end, he says "No," as Shepard does.
I doubt Saren heard the reapers say, "lets kill everyone, even all the Turians" and responded positively. Anyone would have tried to prevent it or at least run.
His speech about saving civilizations was on Virmire, not the Citadel. Before he was given extensive implanting.
That's your point of view. Objectively it wasn't bad. The majority here can say it's bad, the ending won't turn into a bad ending. Quality is not connected to popularity. You disliked it, many people here disliked it, that's just opinion. There's no "objective" truth in what you said.
woah. My POV on the ending is completely different from yours. I see the ending as something IT related - although not IT specific so think of it as mindblowing in so many ways. HOwever the way they presented it to the masses is so vague and out of place with anything previously within the narrative, that it is not fulfilling to the masses, just an elite group who actually saw the ending as it was (which I'm glad I called it from day one)
Completely opposed but takes so little action directly against them. Instead spends a fortune to bring back Shepard, gives a ship and a skeleton crew, then does nothing but put those few resources directly in harm's way.
I believe he knew the influence he was under and had to work around around it. He certainly knew that the Reapers needed to be stopped but couldn't do it himself, so he brought back the one person he believed could.
This actually makes perfect sense the more I think about it. Wow
Retour en haut