Mass Effect 3.5B: Taste the Rainbow (Story and Ending Discussion; Spoilers!)

[MCerberus]

The big upside to Destroy is that we now have a whole bunch of Reaper corpses to play with.

On Paragon Vanguards, I always tend to think of Berserker from 8-Bit Theater

Replace 'swords' with 'guns' and that makes Para-Soldier Fighter doesn't it?

[Luzahn]

Replace 'swords' with 'guns' and that makes Para-Soldier Fighter doesn't it?

Y'know, I did always imagine Soldier Shepard as a bit simple-minded and gun-obsessed.

[Aotrs Commander]

One could argue that one of the key points of art is to reflect on, examine and provoke thought around the human condition. Perhaps the only key point.

And it's been around for quite a long time. Flowers for Algnernon. Pygmalion. The subject of philosophy in general. Works and disciplines that ask "what does it mean to be human?" Questions like this do still need to be raised, not only because we're only slightly closer to understanding our purpose as a species than we were in the days of Socrates, but because this relatively new concept of an "interactive medium" provides fertile ground in which to cultivate the literary seeds of yesteryear. It's only "humanocentric" in the sense that this game is made for a mostly human audience () and so a human perspective is by necessity the lens through which we experience all others.

Perhaps. But, and this is what gets me annoyed, they do not need to be raised all the time. Sometimes, just sometimes perhaps it would okay to NOT have deep introspection wading in on everything.

Now, the reverse is just as bad (e.g. Bayformers)... Balance is the key, but I'm progressively finding that everything I watch, read, play and am otherwise exposed to is going off in direction I dislike, either trying to be too clever or pointlessly melodramatic (I heap contemptuous scorn on the idea that not-miserable people are not entertaining, yes, Joss Whedon, that means you as well, despite your otherwise high level of ability.)

I know it may seem trite to you, but there's still plenty of people who have not considered these themes in depth - especially considering the not-insignificant "shooter crowd" attracted to Bioware's writing by ME2 and ME3. Perhaps the more obvious dilemmas were directed more to them, than to you. Reading the comments on the forums about how people "killed the talking toasters without a second thought" I don't fault Bioware for invoking a well-used trope now and then.

I believe in variety for variety's sake. I don't object to many things, generally, until they're done to excess AND done badly, and that's when I take umbridge.

Reading a statement like your first sentence makes me highly doubt we'll ever see eye to eye, but I'll try anyway. And my mental alarms start blaring whenever one person declares what it is the "vast majority" wants.

I am perhaps being far more snippy than is my usual customary (excerbated by that post being first thing in the morning). I generally try to avoid such sweeping generalisations without qualifiers - I should have said "potentially" or some such somewhere in there.

So don't take me too much to heart, or completely at face value, as I rant louder when annoyed, and am often ranting more extreme than I actually feel. (This statement should be applied to everything I have posted, as double-especially the post to which Psyren and Anarion are responding to.)

Don't misinterpret the backlash against ME as a backlash against art. Nobody was hateful to these same themes when they were raised in ME1 and ME2. Even past games, like Jade Empire, Bioshock and Portal, raised many of these issues and were lauded for their storytelling.

That's part of the problem. They were raised in those games - and well, as far as it goes, but the point was, that's been done. It doesn't need to KEEP being explored, treading and treading and retreading over the same territory. I know ther'es only about four or five stories in the world, but that doesn't mean everything has to keep to the same one!

ME3's problem was execution, not concept; falling short, not aiming high. If the ME games weren't art, they wouldn't have nearly the following they do now. It could have easily been a cookie-cutter, humans-good/monsters-bad Excuse Plot like in Gears of War, but they went well beyond that.

For me, the execution excerbated the problems, which I otherwise would have rolled my eyeglows at but otherwise not complained - but their ineptitude in execution raised it into such stark relief, it bypassed the point I could no longer just tune it out.

It's impossible for any company (except maybe a broadband company, natch ) to give everyone what they want with the same product. Certainly not with a story, even a customizable one.

But what gets me is Bioware didn't even seem to TRY. They went with that one dude's idea of what it should be, which is subjectively a stupid idea in the first place, and more objectively incompetantly carried out (competant execution would have made it much more palatable.)

I must vociferously disagree here. Even if you think that a service can't be art, those games are filled with beautiful things and they contain art within them. Nor is providing what your customers want mutually exclusive with being art. Just look at pulp fiction novels or summer blockbuster movies. They're for a very specific audience and extremely formulaic, but they're still creative works and they make statements about various aspects of the human condition. Mass Effect as a series had a legitimate shot at being the Star Wars of video games, until they blew it by executing the ending so poorly. But even with the terrible ending, it has done an incredible job at making people think about what it means to have choice, about agency and humanity's place in the universe, and about what it means to have closure in a story.

Let me, for the record, be explictly clear: I am not now, never have been and never will be interested in the "human condition" (sic.) Not as a child, not as adult, certainly not as a Lich...

I do not object to such, generally, as I am in the minority, but I do when everyone and his uncle wants me to introspectificate on things I've more than had my fill of introspecificating on, because they happen to think they're being clever (as in this specific case.)

Character interaction does not need to be about the "human condition" either, and if there is a story and some character interaction, I'm golden. That's all I require - and most of the time - want from my entertainment.

At the end of the day stories don't need to be about humans. Stories don't need to have relatable characters - heck, there is an argument to be made that stories don't need even to have characters, for a certain definition of "character" that is not "thing the story is about."

(On a related note it would just be nice if some modern writers (with the notable exception of the writers on Friendship is Magic), somewhere, remembered that not eveything has to be gritty, miserable and unpleasant, or that gritty, miserable and unpleasant is not, in fact, and more "mature" of "clever" that the reverse, and it is not short-cut to actually trying.)

I'm surprised that you made the "games are not art" statement and then followed it up with this point. Mainly because in the previous thread I made the "games are definitely art" side of the argument and also followed it up with this point. This worries me in the sense that we're probably right.

Why? Never let it said that I am completely unreasonable. Everything in moderation. As I've said (probably so often in this post you're all sick of it already) but to further batter this carcus into the floor: Art, like everything else, from drama to humour, (as opposed to "artistry", which I define as something related but subtly different) has it's place, if not over-used, as is not, as this case, used as a bludgeon to cudgel something at the recipient.

Here's where I agree. Hiding behind a claim of artistic integrity is an appeal to artistic elitism, and doesn't get Bioware anywhere with me. If Bioware were actually interested in artistic integrity, then they would have continued and expanded on the themes of the series, done a better job of foreshadowing the ending, and come up with an interesting motivation for the reapers, and actually had a conclusion for their game/series.

That was sort of what I was trying to get at before, only phrased more sensibly and less snippily.

Let me clarify: I do not see any reason why games cannot be art, but that I don't think they should have to be, and there are times and place for it - the conclusion to the ME trilogy was not the place to nose-dive into something out of Evangelion or something.

Games may (should) contain artistry, but I qualify that as something subtly different.



Long story short - want less naval gazing, want more naval combat or at any rate, balance between two and former to be at least competantly done; even if universe is shades of grey, black and white are on the same spectrum; Contrast and Variety are best pon...ah...I mean, best...um...Turians.

Also, I am a cankerous, irritable bugger, who was middle-aged at eleven and and thus am now old, and feeling progressively uncatered for and thus quite now very willing to pour out copious vitriol on any fools unfortunate enough to arouse my ire, and especially where other people are daft enough to want to listen to me, Anarion...



Changing the subject a bit:

This apparently doesn't happen. Surprise.

Without any explanations to the contrary, given that the canon points out that the relay-linked systems are not, in fact very close in terms of direct-transit, I find it hard to believe that this won't happen, especially given the destruction to the infrastructure of the worlds that would under other circumstances be the places to ship things from. Every non-self-sufficient colony and world is going to suffer and die, while the self-sufficient capital worlds and those worlds fortunate enought to be closest to them try to repair the damage.

In time, trade routes, old and new, may be reestablished using conventional (and remember, extremely fuel-hungry) FTL transits.

But time is not necessarily something those colonies have.

What about the Quarians, and Turians, for example. Without a supply of appropriate food, if Sol isn't near to any places that have food, they are, not to put too finer point of it, buggered. There is a very real possibility that they will run out of stores before they can find a suitable place to restock, especially given the massive infrastructure damage (even before the relays were knocked out).

I cannot understate how much of a catastrophy losing the relays is. It is arguably a quicker and more disasterous extinction that the Reapers themselves, on the galactic scale.

The major worlds will survive, but most of the smaller ones are likely to be completely cut off.

We are looking at a new dark age; hell the sort of cataclysmic fall of civilisations that's usually in the backstories of most generas.

Honestly, viewing this option as attractive suggests a very alien mode of thought to me. You're forcing a change on the entire galaxy, even uncontacted or undeveloped races, to homogenize everyone at "the final evolution of life" (a meaningless concept), to avert a crisis I didn't believe in as I was being told about it. It's horrible. It may have been attractive to you, and it was certainly presented as though it were supposed to be attractive, but to me it was more abhorrent than Destroy.

But if you don't believe him, the fact that it's being sold by him and - or such was my strong impression - by the writers as clearly the "right" option despite how abhorrent it was to me makes it doubly unattractive.

The more I think about it, the less I like the synthesis option, and the worse I feel I picked that; but I really, really didn't want to murder the Geth and EDI (concurrently reading Transformers did not help my opinion in that matter), and make Legion's sacrifice essentially meaningless.

[Luzahn]

Ahh, I've missed the "just-beat-the-game" walls of text.

On synthesis: Yeah, the concept is absolutely monstrous, and seemed to me to be allowing the Reapers to win, or at least gain more than they should.

If you were opposed to killing the Geth, why not just go with control? It seems to cover all of the benefits of Synthesis, unless I'm missing some other downside to it.

[MCerberus]

If you were opposed to killing the Geth, why not just go with control? It seems to cover all of the benefits of Synthesis, unless I'm missing some other downside to it.

Well didn't they kind of want part of Shepard to be a Reaper?
"Oh you can control the Reapers. It'll be cool, that other guy just wasn't cool."
Super-vague about what it actually does.


Admiral Akbar would have something to say about the Control option.

[Luzahn]

Well didn't they kind of want part of Shepard to be a Reaper?
"Oh you can control the Reapers. It'll be cool, that other guy just wasn't cool."
Super-vague about what it actually does.


Admiral Akbar would have something to say about the Control option.

That's why I went with destroy. I'm just saying the same reaper-related risks are present in Synthesis too, where Shepard isn't even inhibiting the Reapers.

[Zevox]

On synthesis: Yeah, the concept is absolutely monstrous, and seemed to me to be allowing the Reapers to win, or at least gain more than they should.

How the heck do you possibly come to that conclusion?

If you were opposed to killing the Geth, why not just go with control? It seems to cover all of the benefits of Synthesis, unless I'm missing some other downside to it.

The fact that it's ill-explained how exact it works is worrying, especially considering the rather odd question of how exactly Shepard is supposed to control them when she dies doing this. More importantly there's always the concern about the Reapers breaking free of the control, or the possibility of someone who would abuse them getting ahold of their reigns. You know, all the reasons you would've argued against it with TIM throughout the game? Honestly Control is probably the last option I'd pick, even given the Geth would die in the destroy ending.

Not actually sure how you think it "covers all the benefits of synthesis" in any way either.

Zevox

[MCerberus]

That's why I went with destroy. I'm just saying the same reaper-related risks are present in Synthesis too, where Shepard isn't even inhibiting the Reapers.

Synth, Shepard is out of the way. Control, Shepard works for you now.

[Luzahn]

How the heck do you possibly come to that conclusion?

Zevox

The Reaper's whole objective was to prevent synthetic-organic conflict which resulted in extinction. Synthesis seems to absolutely agree with this stance, and merges the two to prevent the "inevitable" conflict that the reapers are tasked with solving.

Also, I recall the kid promoting Synthesis as the "best" in the end, though that could have been misinterpretation on my part. I felt some desire to spite it.

[Psyren]

If they flesh out Control better, there's a good chance it can become the best ending in my eyes. But with just the information I have I've got to go with Synthesis.

[kamikasei]

How so? Between the vision of your mentor Anderson choosing it, and the fact that it's the only ending where Shepard can live, Destroy seemed like it was presented as the "right" option to me.

The fact that Synthesis is the third option (always take the third option), requires the most points to unlock (which you won't necessarily know when you see it, but then you won't know when making your decision that Shepard might live under Destroy either), is talked up by the Catalyst, and is talked up in terms that make it seem the writers share the Catalyst's basic failures of reason... yes, as I said I regard Destroy as superior, but the presentation definitely comes off to me as "here are your two unpalatable choices, but here's this extra option you've worked hard enough to unlock and get to pick so it's happiness and light for everyone!".

[Luzahn]

If they flesh out Control better, there's a good chance it can become the best ending in my eyes. But with just the information I have I've got to go with Synthesis.

I feel the same way. Without concrete evidence that control completely neutralizes the Reapers, I have to go with Destroy.

I was of the mindset that it was worth destroying the entirety of the current cycle was worth the absolute end of the Reapers, however.

[Zorg]

Psyren briefly mentioned it earlier in the thread, but there's a pretty boss unofficial make your own epilogue page - just punch in a few details and you're done.
I am being completely honest in saying that if this had been on the end of my game I would have been satisfied.

[Toastkart]

This would have been really cool, I agree. It probably would have cost them a ton of extra cash though, since it wouldn't be just one fight, but rather a whole level (like with the Geth dreadnaught) culminating in Harbinger's core or something like that. It would have been worth it though.

I don't disagree, but given that the series should have earned a much larger budget and development cycle than it apparently received, I think it's still a valid 'this would have been a much more awesome mission' than what we got.

And that we're all not okay with that and believe the universe should work differently. Doesn't have to be all pessimistic.

See, here is where it's sort of a letdown. Given that the ME games are all about choice, players have a stake in the story as well. Rather than allowing players to voice their thoughts/opinions in game, players are left feeling that they can't argue or respond to that theme. It's a sort of word of god vs. death of author conflict. I'm not saying that one should win out over the other, but players aren't even allowed to participate.

Board a living reaper? That sounds like a great plan to get indoctrinated.

Not if you do it fast enough. Or better yet, make it part of the mission. Not only do you have to face off against the reaper forces inside Harbinger, but you also have to deal with your strike teams dwindling as they become indoctrinated and block your progress.

It could have been awesome.

Without any explanations to the contrary, given that the canon points out that the relay-linked systems are not, in fact very close in terms of direct-transit, I find it hard to believe that this won't happen, especially given the destruction to the infrastructure of the worlds that would under other circumstances be the places to ship things from. Every non-self-sufficient colony and world is going to suffer and die, while the self-sufficient capital worlds and those worlds fortunate enought to be closest to them try to repair the damage.

Yeah, I don't quite get this one either. All of these consequences of the ending are very possible and extremely plausible based on everything we know of the setting, but bioware is chiming in and saying none of that is actually happening because they said so, and that the galaxy will be able to get back on its feet apparently without repercussions. Go figure.

I mean, in addition to the mentioned speed and fuel limits, there's also time limits to be factored in. The codex says this about drive charge:

As positive or negative electric current is passed through an FTL drive core, it acquires a static electrical charge. Drives can be operated an average of 50 hours before they reach charge saturation. This changes proportionally to the magnitude of mass reduction; a heavier or faster ship reaches saturation more quickly.

If the charge is allowed to build, the core will discharge into the hull of a ship. All ungrounded crew members are fried to a crisp, all electronic system are burned out, and metal bulkheads may be melted and fused together.

So, ships can travel approximately 12 light years a day. Cool. However, they can only do so in 50 hour hops before the drive cores have to be discharged. If you can't find a suitable drive discharge site, then you don't have to worry about fuel. So, traveling to other systems within a cluster is doable. Traveling to other clusters? Not very likely. Unless/until you reverse engineer reaper tech, which could prove to be a risky proposition. Eh, we'll see once the extended cut dlc gets here.

[Aotrs Commander]

Psyren briefly mentioned it earlier in the thread, but there's a pretty boss unofficial make your own epilogue page - just punch in a few details and you're done.
I am being completely honest in saying that if this had been on the end of my game I would have been satisfied.

Very make-up-your-own in my case, since all I got in trying was a blank page and an "Error on page" at the bottom...

Typical...

[Zevox]

The Reaper's whole objective was to prevent synthetic-organic conflict which resulted in extinction. Synthesis seems to absolutely agree with this stance, and merges the two to prevent the "inevitable" conflict that the reapers are tasked with solving.

Synthesis stops the Reapers by making their supposed reason for their actions no longer possible, yes, but that doesn't mean that the reason to pick it is because you agree with the Catalyst. Nor do I see how that makes it in any way "allowing the Reapers to win."

Also, I recall the kid promoting Synthesis as the "best" in the end, though that could have been misinterpretation on my part. I felt some desire to spite it.

Yeah, that I don't get. I don't see any reason to base my choice of how to stop the Reapers and change the galaxy on the Catalyst's thoughts. He's obviously an idiot whose ideas make no sense, so what he thinks isn't a factor worth considering one way or the other as far as I'm concerned.

Zevox

[Zorg]

Very make-up-your-own in my case, since all I got in trying was a blank page and an "Error on page" at the bottom...

Typical...

A few people are getting that - either javascript needing to be enabled or running IE are the most likely causes.

edit:

Awesome art by Charlotte Su on the endings:

Krogan Mural (Red)



This is about the destruction ending. It's in Krogran ancient painting style.

Background
Urdnot Bakara, a Female Shaman, led her people to finish this painting during the Tuchanka renaissance period. It tries to deliver the message how different species across galaxy work together; how "crystal bearer" combines with the Great Star, in order to end The Reaper War together.


Quarian/Geth Tapestry (Blue)


This is about the control ending. It's in Quarian tapestry style.

Background
Due to the inorganic nature of Geth, they are the first to sense what happened in Citadel. When they helped the Quarian to rebuild their home in Rannoch, they told the Quarian how Shepard led The Reapers away from galaxy. After hearing the story, the Quarian tapestry masters decided to use their traditional art work to show their respect and spread the honor that Shepard and Legion achieved by sacrificing their lives. Some Geth also decided to use their precise technique to help embroider on the tapestry.

The story was told that: "Man gave his life to the sky in exchange of the light and rain of wisdom; Machine returned the life to mother land to cultivate seedlings and plants. They two achieved the 'big reconciliation'."
This piece of the biggest tapestry in history is hang on the location where Shepard beat the Reaper, and Legion died.


Asari Mural (Green)



This is about the synthesis ending, It's in Asari ancient cave painting style.

Background
This painting utilizes ancitent craft. It was painted about 10,000 years after the Reaper War, and is the 10th version of the original painting.
Due to Asari's not having the paternal line, the actual gender of the "Battle-maiden" is difficult to know. Even the weapons and armor are painted in Asari style. (Omni-tool, although still having similar appearance, is now known as the shield of nightfall god which cures the injured and communicates with the stars.)
The painting tells the story that 10,000 years ago, a Battle-maiden belonging to the "great white star" united and led different species from various territories to fight the undying dark lords and their walking dead lackey. Finally, the spirit of the white star echoed the Battle-maiden's will, showed up in green light, and ended the war.


Designer: Charlotte Su from Taiwan
Her DeviantArt website :
estlachesis0.deviantart.com/
Her Facebook :
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541569417

[Psyren]

Even if the kid (and Saren to an extent) were endorsing Synthesis, that doesn't make it bad. Bad people can still like good things.

[GloatingSwine]

Even if the kid (and Saren to an extent) were endorsing Synthesis, that doesn't make it bad. Bad people can still like good things.

No, what makes it bad is that it's forcibly rewriting entire genomes for "the greater good".

Y'know. Like the Genophage.

[JediSoth]

Synthesis has EDI and Joker come out of the ship together while glowing green. Also, leaves have circuitboards somehow.

That's from the fusion of synthetic DNA. The concept of which makes Geneticists cry. Apparently, Casey Hudson failed High School Biology (that's where I learned about DNA and the fact that machines don't have it).

[Psyren]

No, what makes it bad is that it's forcibly rewriting entire genomes for "the greater good".

Y'know. Like the Genophage.

First off, that's not what made the Genophage bad. If it was a 50% or even 75% infertility rate (instead of 99.9999%) it wouldn't actually be a problem. Krogan breed like flies, live for a 1000 years, are extremely warlike, and can survive almost anywhere and on anything - that's a huge problem, and one that will be especially pronounced if Wrex and Eve are assassinated.

Second, I'm not denying that Synthesis wouldn't be perfectly ethical. Neither is blowing up 300,000 Batarians, but Shepard did that because the other options were even more unpalatable and time was a factor.

Krogan Mural (Red)

Quarian/Geth Tapestry (Blue)

Asari Mural (Green)

DA is blocked at work so I had to check these out on my phone. Holy crap, these are amazing.

[chiasaur11]

First off, that's not what made the Genophage bad. If it was a 50% or even 75% infertility rate (instead of 99.9999%) it wouldn't actually be a problem. Krogan breed like flies, live for a 1000 years, are extremely warlike, and can survive almost anywhere and on anything - that's a huge problem, and one that will be especially pronounced if Wrex and Eve are assassinated.

Second, I'm not denying that Synthesis wouldn't be perfectly ethical. Neither is blowing up 300,000 Batarians, but Shepard did that because the other options were even more unpalatable and time was a factor.

There was no alternative then. Now there's the simple solution of killing the Reapers. You know, like everyone in their right minds has been saying all game.

Maybe kills the Geth and EDI, which is sad, but hey. C'est la guerre.

On the other hand, if you were going for ultra-paragon, you could go for control. Runs a risk of the Reapers getting loose down the line, but Paragon's always been about risk. Nobody else has to die.

(Until, you know. Out of control Reapers, galaxy is even more doomed than ever. But it's not DIRECTLY Shepard's fault.)

Synthesis is just jerking over everybody without asking because Glowy Space Hitler told you to.

[Zevox]

Synthesis is just jerking over everybody without asking because Glowy Space Hitler told you to.

I don't see how synthesis "jerks over" anyone. So everyone's body changes somewhat to incorporate synthetic parts (or organic ones if you're a Geth or EDI) - how is that a problem?

Really, that's pretty much the reason I consider synthesis the best ending: no apparent downside. Maybe some species purists will be bothered that they're now part robot, and there is some ethical concern about forcing such a change on everyone without their say-so, but it's not like there's time to ask permission or allow opt-outs, and compared to committing genocide or the myriad risks associated with control those things don't really bother me.

Zevox

[Psyren]

There was no alternative then. Now there's the simple solution of killing the Reapers. You know, like everyone in their right minds has been saying all game.

Maybe kills the Geth and EDI, which is sad, but hey. C'est la guerre.

No. Incidental genocide may be good enough for your Shepard, but not for mine.

Synthesis is just jerking over everybody without asking because Glowy Space Hitler told you to.

"Jerking over?"

I can understand a visceral reaction here, but you're making a snap judgment about the process with precious little evidence. Besides which, EDI and Joker seemed perfectly okay with it. I have enough to go on to be able to live with my choice, unless the EC raises heretofore unseen drawbacks.

(Also, I find it inordinately amusing that every single objection to Synthesis invokes Godwin's Law eventually. Doubly so since Synthesis is probably the very last thing the man himself would have ever wanted.)

[Avilan the Grey]

I am way past fed-up with these writers assuming that everything must have a dark/grim/artsy/philosophical ending involving ridiculous amounts of sacrifice, of the idea that nothing means anything unless lots of people die at the very end¹. If they want to write that stuff, they can bog off to the indy games, or better yet, write fanfiction or something, because it's not something I want to hear about anymore.

I have said it before and I say it again: Bioware are very good craftsmen. When they do the traditional standard Bioware Story (tm) they are BRILLIANT. But they are simply put not competent enough as writers to be able to pull off "creative" and "artsy". Both the ME3 ending and the entire DA2 proves that.

I'm inclinded to believe that the ending is the fault of only one or two writers, because it's so jarringly wrong and different compared to the rest of the game

Actually word of god is that it is the fault of the lead writer and the lead designer. They, themselves, drew up the ending deliberately without input from anyone.

(Also, I find it inordinately amusing that every single objection to Synthesis invokes Godwin's Law eventually. Doubly so since Synthesis is probably the very last thing the man himself would have ever wanted.)

I have no recollection of seeing ANY objection to the synthesis ending ending in Godwin's law. The ones I have seen have simply stated: "Who is Shepard to force this on the rest of the galaxy".

As for games and art... For me it is not clear cut. BUT a MAINSTREAM game, just like a MAINSTREAM movie, is entertainment first, art second. ME3 is about as much art as say Transformers: DSOTM.

[Psyren]

I have no recollection of seeing ANY objection to the synthesis ending ending in Godwin's law.

Was referring mostly to the official forums. It always comes up if a thread about synthesis goes on long enough. Here, all the ME3 subtopics are in one place, but sure enough, synthesis comes up a few times and blam, it's bound to happen.

The ones I have seen have simply stated: "Who is Shepard to force this on the rest of the galaxy".

Who is s/he to unilaterally nuke a Batarian system? Sometimes an action can be unethical and still be worth doing. Ethics is a tool to help you choose among alternatives, not necessarily to outright preclude given courses of action in all circumstances.

As for games and art... For me it is not clear cut. BUT a MAINSTREAM game, just like a MAINSTREAM movie, is entertainment first, art second. ME3 is about as much art as say Transformers: DSOTM.

The problem is that both of those words (art and entertainment) are pretty subjective. For me, ME3 was definitely entertainment first (I'm still playing it daily), but I can see how it wouldn't be for others.

[Tome]

I look at the endings a little like this:

• Destroy: Most people live.
• Control: Everyone lives, but it might not work.
• Synthesis: Everyone lives, but has something possibly unpleasant happen to them.

They've all got their downsides. Destroy kills a lot of people, Control isn't certain and Synthesis has unpleasant side effects. It all depends on which downside you're willing to put up with.

[Xondoure]

I chose Synthesis, but honestly, control seems to have the least amount of risk. If we can put up a fight now just imagine how much of a curb stomp it would be a few decades of technological progress into the future.

[Derthric]

Was referring mostly to the official forums. It always comes up if a thread about synthesis goes on long enough. Here, all the ME3 subtopics are in one place, but sure enough, synthesis comes up a few times and blam, it's bound to happen.

That's there, this is here. I have been avoiding Godwin's Law this whole time. For the exact reason people don't like it now, its a debate ender. Its why I use words tyrannical or abomination to describe the Catalyst and not vegetarian. Picking the appropriate concepts without the added weight of the analaogy. Besides Charles Manson is a better analogy anyway.

Who is s/he to unilaterally nuke a Batarian system? Sometimes an action can be unethical and still be worth doing. Ethics is a tool to help you choose among alternatives, not necessarily to outright preclude given courses of action in all circumstances.

Maybe Your Shepard killed those Batarians, but after finding out it means diddly squat in the alteration of War Assets in ME3 I just import a save pre-arrival. Honestly I disliked Arrival it was poorly executed and had a very poorly thought out story. Who knew it would be a portent of things to come.

The problem is that both of those words (art and entertainment) are pretty subjective. For me, ME3 was definitely entertainment first (I'm still playing it daily), but I can see how it wouldn't be for others.

I stand by my presented idea. Art is not produced or created by simply being. It is a status attained through consensus of Audience, Critic, and Creator.

That being said, if an artist is misinterpreted as Bioware has been, on such a massive scale then the artist has failed. And revision is needed.

I am willing to wait and see on the EC. I hope they have learned from this, both Bioware and EA.

[Fawkes]

Regardless of whether it's morally or ethically justifiable or whatever, synthesis still makes no goldang sense.