By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I don't get how Mass Effect 3 was a bad game (major spoilers)...

 

What ending did you choose?

FUCK THE REAPERS! #DESTROYFTW! 38 42.22%
 
My god... control is so e... 11 12.22%
 
Yo man... peace is import... 21 23.33%
 
FUCK YOU ALL! I HAD ENOUG... 20 22.22%
 
Total:90
KiigelHeart said:
Airaku said:
                                

 

There are two things that you should have understood.
1) All Reapers are both organic and synthetic beings.
2) The function of the Reapers to preserve the existence of the Galaxy so life can grow and have their chance to evolve. Another function was to stop apex race's from dominating the galaxy. And *gasps* because synthetics and organic beings never get along, galactic peace will always be at risk. Therefor the final solution was found. Only one solution could address ALL the answers and themes of the game. The synthesis ending is considered canon at Bioware because it "unites" "organics and synthetics" by creating a single race that follows the "all is one" concept. Biology and technology are no longer different concepts and ethnic differences are set aside (another big theme of the series)

Eh I think most of gamers understood this because there was a starchild explaining this shit in words of one syllable. It's simply such bad writing and out of context considering rest of the story and themes. Just like that they decided that galactic peace will always be at risk, ugh.. It does conveniently tie things up, but feels forced. I mean, it doesn't feel like the story was delivered towards this conclusion but the exact opposite.

For Airaku and JWeinCom, your debate would be more interesting to follow if you took a few steps back and stop with those personal insults :) And that nonsense with themes from other games, I mean wtf? This thread is about Mass Effect..



I'm just a wee bit frustrated, and I think with good reason.

 

If you have been following the conversation, can you answer a couple of questions?  Since I have been accused of being delusional, the only way to resolve this would be through a third party... I'm not going to ask you to pick sides, but if you could just answer a couple of questions, I'd appreciate it.

 

1)  Have I been ignoring points that Airaku has brought up?

2) Have I been giving evidence to support my claims?

 

Like I said, I'm not asking you to like pick sides, or tell me if my evidence is valid, or good or anything like that.  However, these two claims are baffling to me as they seem, from my point of me, to be pretty objectively obvious.  The fact that we disagree on them means that one of us must either be delusional or dishonest.  I totally understand if you don't want to do this, but I am legitimately interested in your answer.  The claims seem so bizarre that I have to legitimately doubt myself.



Around the Network
KiigelHeart said:
                                       

Eh I think most of gamers understood this because there was a starchild explaining this shit in words of one syllable. It's simply such bad writing and out of context considering rest of the story and themes. Just like that they decided that galactic peace will always be at risk, ugh.. It does conveniently tie things up, but feels forced. I mean, it doesn't feel like the story was delivered towards this conclusion but the exact opposite.

For Airaku and JWeinCom, your debate would be more interesting to follow if you took a few steps back and stop with those personal insults :) And that nonsense with themes from other games, I mean wtf? This thread is about Mass Effect..



 

That seems to very much be the case from my observations. I really love the Reapers and the concept behind them. Once we learned from their true intentions, we become to question if they are a necessity for the continued survival and perseverance of the galaxy. While Bioware at least admitted that they created an enemy too powerful to defeat. I don't think that a deus ex machina was necessary. In my opinion. It would have been far more impactful to have the cycle complete and the Reapers win. It would really add a meaning and a message to the concept of life, death, and existence. Sure, some gamers would be pissed, but likely less so than from what we got. I can only think of one game where the ending is depressing and the antagonist wins.




Jesus what is going on in this thread? lol



JWeinCom said:

F

It may or may not surprise you to know that I actually WAS referring to the theme from both points of view when I made the initial claim. Other wise, why would I even both brining it up? LOL I'm sorry but.... wow dude, just wow. You are throwing in a lot of smoke and mirrors and straight up ignorance of ignoring half of my replies. Focusing on the little openings in my posts. Interesting how you stray away from the strong points in EVERY post. I'm starting to have some troubles of taking you seriously at the moment. Please do not take this the wrong way.  Then again, I'm doing the same so why should I even blame you?

This is again simply not true.  I have quoted every single line of text you said, and replied to it.  When you have actually pointed out something I did not address, I made a point to address it in the next post.  This is just lying.  I've already made a point several times of saying that I've directly quoted everything you've said.  You have not disputed this. Are you denying this?  What have I straight up ignored that was relevant to the topic of Mass Effect or author's authority?  PLEASE ADDRESS THIS IF YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP MAKING THIS BASELESS ACCUSATION.  Do you have evidence to support this, or are you lying?

You initially addressed the theme as plot.  That is a story related term, so it shows clearly you were talking about story.  As for why you  would bring up game design if you weren't initially talking about that, I have no idea.  I also have no idea why you brought up your anomalous writing, the seminar you may or may have not gone too, the theme of Rock Band, a script you may or may not have written, global warming, or half of the other things you bring up.  You bring up a lot of stuff that we weren't originally talking about for no apparent reason.  If you were referring to the theme from both points of view, then are you saying the theme is the same either way?  I'm legitimately confused.  Even after reading this post I'm not sure.

And, just as a simple point of fact, you're not the one who brought up theme.  I'm the one who used the word theme, and obviously I was not using it from a game development point of view.  You responded to my claim about theme by giving me story details and didn't bring up game development till much later.  So, yeah... your argument just doesn't jive with what was actually said.

While we're at it, can you show where I've used "smoke and mirrors"?  You keep saying things like this, I keep asking you for evidence, and you keep ignoring it. 

I don't mind a good debate but seriously? You're using your literature knowledge where I'm using my game design knowledge on a subject about a video game and the writing of a story. No shit we are going to have a disagreement here. Your degree, should you have it, would show that you have a better idea of theme in terms of writing than I would. However, on the contrary, you have no idea what a theme is in a video game. At least in my opinion, sure i know about theme in writing, but I understand theme in game 

Should I have it?  Dude, I like, posted a picture of it.  O_o... Why are you still doubting this?  Like, I honestly can't even anymore.  Are you actually reading what I say?

And if I need a degree (which I presented) to show that I have a better idea in writing, why don't you need to provide evidence that you have knowledge of themes in video games?  Why do you keep insisting that my claims be held to a higher standard of evidence than yours?

Show me a degree, or some equal piece of evidence, to show you have knowledge of what theme is in a video game.

I thought it was clear, but if not, I'll elaborate.  Games are considered, by many including myself, a form of literature.  Particularly in games such as Mass Effect, the same elements of literature should be present.  It still follows basic story structure, character development and so on so forth.  

However, while I described theme as a literary term, you can also, and probably more accurately, describe it as a narrative term.  Theme applies to any kind of narrative, and even if you want to say Mass Effect is not literature, it is most definitely a narrative.  In other words, a story.  At any rate, you just said that you WERE addressing it from a story perspective.  So that should work fine.

And you have YET to demonstrate that your definition of theme is valid, despite me asking you several time.  If you're still questioning me after I've presented my degree, I'm certainly not going to accept your claim with nothing to back it up.  So, I simply reject your concept of theme until you can demonstrate it.  

Some that I actually don't think you'd have guessed without a designers mindset. Which allowed me to conclude that you would not get 15/15 right. I used no riddles, I simply used the industry standard logic.

You concluded that I would not get 15/15 right because it's a rigged game.  If you're deciding the answers, naturally I'm not going to get 15 out of 15 right.  

Which is why I compared you to the riddler.  Because this is an obscenely wacky challenge that defies rational human behavior.  

"You want to prove the theme of Mass Effect Batman?  Well, I'll concede to your point, but first you'll have to play a little game... Let's see if the world's greatest detective can find the theme for these 45 games!  WAHAHAHA!!!"

I feel through that. I have rested my case. Could you at least get 5 of those right? Really, is it that hard?

I already explained clearly why this is so stupid.  In 17 different ways. If you feel you've rested your case, then you have no idea how debate... or even just conversation in general works.  I'm honestly not trying to even be rude here, I just don't know what to say.

What is the case you're trying to rest?  What are you trying to prove?  At best, you could prove that I don't know theme in video games... But where does that get us?  

People are not right or wrong.  Ideas are right and wrong.  Even if I was the stupidest person alive, which I am not, what I say about Mass Effect's theme would stand or fall on its own merit. The only way to prove my claim wrong is with evidence from the game.  You cannot prove anything about Mass Effect by attacking me.  All you're accomplishing is making yourself look silly.

I gave you a list of 15 games to give a theme. I stated clearly that I would link 3 games together. I asked that you give me the theme that those games were derivative from. Or is the common denominator. All three games would share the same theme. I did not specify a certain Zelda or Elderscrolls game due to the theme. 

No.  You didn't.  You just simply didn't say that you were linking three games together.  You just absolutely did not.  This is just really bizarre at this point.  Can you show me where you said that?  Like, I checked about five times because I was so baffled at this obviously untrue statement.

Look, let's forget about what the developers are saying, what the game is saying, or what I'm saying for a moment... Do you actually know what YOU are saying?  O_o... 

You keep saying things that just are obviously not true based, just by looking at this conversation.   Like... I don't even know what to say at this point... you just simply didn't say this, and you're accusing me of saying things I never said, and doing things I haven't done.  

I feel through that. I have rested my case. Could you at least get 5 of those right? Really, is it that 

Ok... let's try this.

To prove your case, you need to tell me the theme of 1984, Bioshock Infinite, House of Leaves, The Sun Also Rises, War and Peace, The Cat In The Hat, Home Alone 3, 19Q4, The Wind Up Bird Chronicle, Xenoblade Chronicles, Final Fantasy X, Braid, and Debbie Does Dallas.

If you cannot do this, you're wrong and I am right.  AND I am the one who gets to decide what the theme is. If you disagree with me you're wrong.  

Do you think that is a fair challenge?  Does it in any way relate to the theme of Mass Effect?

It's obviously absurd, even to those outside this conversation.

" And that nonsense with themes from other games, I mean wtf? This thread is about Mass Effect.."

Well said KiigelHeart.  WTF indeed.

I will also state that all my evidence is the same as yours. Verbal and non-physical evidence. We both used logic from our perspective areas of experience with an attempt of explaining to one another. 

This is again, simply not true.  I have presented actual physical evidence, I have linked to scholarly sources, quoted you when applicable, and so on.  Plus, you haven't demonstrated any experience in a relevant area.

You don't know what logic is. That's not an insult, but your description of logic demonstrates that.  There is no logic "from perspective areas".  Logic in literature is not different from logic in game design (unless you are talking about programming which you are not).  Logic is logic.  It is a system of describing truth based on the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of identity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_Logical_Absolutes) Logic involves creating a set of premises, demonstrating them to be true, and then forming a conclusion based on that.  

Your evidence has not been based on logic.  Your evidence has simply been "cause I said so.  And if you disagree, you're stupid."

What I do not tolerate is the whole "you lied" bullshit. I explained my justifications and continue to do so. I am beginning to believe you are delusional, I expect you to feel the same about me. After all, we share a very different perspective for a good reason. It's clear as glass.

No.  You have lied on several occasions.  And when I have pointed it out you've ignored it.  You've admitted you were dishonest, and deceptive, yet you insist you didn't lie.  I'll use logic to show this cannot be the case.

According to the law of the excluded middle, either a statement is true or the negation of that statement is true.  Either A is true or A is not true.  So, either your statement is true or your statement is false.  

Statement A- I spoke 2 people at Bioware about Mass Effect.

Statement B- I spoke with 7 people at Bioware about Mass Effect.

Both of these statements are either true or not true.

The law of non-contradiction states that A cannot be not A.  Meaning that something is not what it is not.  It sounds obvious, which it should be.  These are the simplest rules which are the backbone of logic.  They seem so obvious that they don't need to be stated, but we had to actually state them to give logic any kind of form.

This means in this context 2 cannot be 7.

If 2 cannot be 7, then either statment A or statement B have to be false.  

So, regardless of how many, if any, people you spoke with at Bioware, one of those two statements had to be false. 

So, one or both of those statements has to be untrue according to the laws of logic.  And, you would have to know that one of them is untrue.  So, you knowingly said something that was untrue.  As far as I'm concerned, that makes you a liar.  You even said you were ashamed.  Why were you ashamed if you didn't lie?  How can you claim that you were dishonest, and then act offended that I called you a liar? 

Further, according to the law of non-contradiction, not true cannot be not not true (aka true).  The wording sounds a bit off, because this is logic, and the language you use differs from standard English.  You cannot say that your statement is not true (as you did) and also claim that it is also not not true (true) as you are also claiming.  This violates the law of non-contradiction.  To claim you are not lying while also claiming that you are being dishonest is to violate the fundamental principles of logic.  It is the very definition of illogical.

I mean, that's just flat out proof right there.

 

Now, if I do not have any positive evidence to support your claim, and I do have evidence that it is at least in part not true, why should I believe you at all?


Let's try another one.  This time expressing logic a bit differently.

Your claim-  You claim you did not intend to insult me.

Premise 1-  You called me a jackass.

Premise 2-  The term jackass is an insult.

Conclusion-  You meant to insult me, and therefore your claim is false.  You lied.

It's just there man.  In black and white.  It's proven that you made untrue statements knowingly.  If you want to call it something other than a lie, then whatever.  You'll go far in politics.  But by the definition of the word, yes you did lie.  And this is proof, unless you can dispute one of those premises.  Because, that is simply how logic works.  If the premise is consistent with the conclusion, and the premises are true, the argument holds.

And that's kind of the beauty of logic.  It is a system to objectively evaluate a statement.  Doesn't matter how delusional I am, if the premises hold, my statement is true.

But hey, you want to call me delusional?  Fine.  Can you point out any particular instance where I am acting in a delusional fashion, besides in not believing you? Or are you just again insulting me instead of providing any actual support for your claims? You keep questioning me, but you can't point to anything in particular... 

And, again, for the record, I have no real desire to go on and on about your honesty or lack there of.  I told you several times that if you just accept that I don't believe you and leave it there, I wouldn't say anymore about it... But if you're going to keep on going with it, and insult me for not accepting your claims, then I'm going to have to keep addressing it.  

I will answer you questions since you insist. Personally I choose to focus on the aspects that stuck out the most to me. Which you seem to not like, and perhaps found to be disrespectful. So I will quote you and play my part of addressing your questions more seriously and with proper consideration. Something that you rightfully claim that I ignored.

So... you chose to focus on the questions that didn't relate to Mass Effect?  You intentionally chose to ignore anything actually related to the theme of the game?  

It's not so much disrespectful as it is dishonest.  I've asked you several times to offer clarification for a claim, shown why it's false, and you keep on going without addressing it.  Debating is pretty easy when you don't back up your claims, and ignore most of what the other person says.

 I might not go so far as to say it's dishonest, except for the fact that you've accused me several times of ignoring your points. I have, and even outside people, have pointed out that this is false, yet you keep on claiming it without justification.    So you recognize that not addressing points is an issue, yet you continually choose to do so, by your own admission.  

1) What you propose is interesting. I say this because there are two sides to this. For one the author's comments should be right unless they are lying for a reason. If the author disagrees with their text and they choose to write it, then we as an audience should accept the current canon. We may have a preference of our liking, but the true story is the canon. This is why many Star Wars fans choose to follow Lucas' vision and the EU over Disney's more simplified and in my opinion, dumbed down Star Wars. I do feel that this is a bad example because of "corporate trade". As for the author's intended vision verses their public release that is written. This is very much a gray area. Some might consider that the authors vision is correct because they are the creators of the story. Sometimes a single grammical error can change a meaning, or the author failed to correct convey their message to the masses. It is still their story and they are the visionaries. From another perspective, as you seem to suggest. What is done is done. It is perceived as such by our understanding of literature and how they communicated themselves to their audiences. They created it, it is by some law and concept we created in our society to be the definite version as it written as such.  You may be surprised that speech and language is a human creation and contains perspective and has zero definite. It is not a fact like the sun rises every day, or perhaps that can't be proven either? Perhaps it can. On Earth, if you jump, you will land. If you drop something, it will hit the ground under certain conditions. But when someone might see the color red, a color blind person would likely see green or another color. The color they see remains true to them, it is their experience and perception of their reality. Therefor both statements are true. The English language is built upon perspectives and understanding of language that is created by man, there is no definite answer stated by the laws of the universe. So in this case, we can very much accept both the authors claims and the written text and consider both perspectives. What do have is a social standard that is universally accepted amongst the people. So in the end, there is truth to both. One is definitive, the other is not. Both use their own sets of logic.

Like, this is the problem.  I already addressed what you said about canon, you ignored it, and now you're bringing up the same thing again. First off, as I mentioned earlier, you're misusing the word canon.  Canon only applies when there are multiple versions of a single event within a series of related works of fiction. Canon has never been really been based on the author's perspective.  More often,  it is a decision made by editorial staffs.  Canon is not really a thing in literature, at least in the sense your're using.  Canon is a not a tool for establishing truth, it is a tool for maintaining consistency. It does not inherently have anything to do with artistic integrity.  Look back to see where I addressed this earlier.  You can't bring canon into this argument, because canon is another matter entirely.

But the main reason that canon doesn't apply here is that canon only applies when there are two TEXTUAL events that contradict.  It doesn't apply to an author's comments outside the work.  ONLY something in the actual text can be considered canonical.  An author's comment about the theme of a work would not fall under this category.  There is no disagreement about the actual plot of the games here. Canon only addresses the hard facts of a story, it does not address different interpretations.

As for the rest of it, you are saying both are true, yet you're saying that I'm wrong for arguing against the authors.  So, do you stand by this opinion, or do you accept that it is possible to disagree with the authors and be justified?  If so, how do we resolve such a conflict, where you are standing by what the author said, and I am showing that the text says something different?  

And you said that an author can lie about their work.  Yes?  So how can we tell if an author is lying?  As far as I can tell, the only way to tell an author is lying is by looking at the text itself.  Plus, the author could also simply misspeak, or be misinterpreted, or make a mistake.  It happens, doesn't it?

I'll again present a logical proof.

Premise 1 (which you've accepted already)-  An author's claim about his work can be untrue.

Premise 2-  We can tell whether or not an author's statement is true by comparing it to the text. (I demonstrated this before with my panda example).

Conclusion-  When the author's statement disagrees with the text, the text takes precedence.

I presented this before and you ignored it.  But, if the premises hold true, the conclusion holds true.  Anything less is illogical.


I should point out, there is a big difference between believing and proving.  You could believe whatever you want about Mass Effect for whatever reason.  But, if you want to actually present your viewpoint as true, as you did, you need to prove it.  And author statements just don't count.  You need evidence from the game.  Speaking of which...

2&3) Many stories, especially in video games evolve to have many different arcs, which creates subthemes. These sub-themes are what you are claiming to be main themes, if I am not mistaken. In a video game a game will be based on a set of themes, as well as what we call "forms of fun". As for Mass Effect, it is true that each entry does have it's own theme but they all are glued together by the main theme of humans and synthetics. I am willing to bet if you give me multiple themes from the game. I estimate that around 7 or 8 out of 10 of them can be linked back to my claim. At least a good portion of them. Now there are main other subthemes. The romance plot of the game is uses love as a theme, this must be shocking to you... -_- The Illusive Man has a theme of control. This theme of control is split into 3 areas. 1) Manipulation and power over others. 2) Human dominance in the galaxy. And importantly 3) Control over synthetic beings know as the Reapers. This links back to the Organic and Synthetic claim. He want's to use the Reapers (synthetic being) for the advancement (human dominance theme) of humanity (organic theme) while manipulating them (manipulation and power over others) to achieve that goal. Yes he also engages in control through resources and what some may refer too as organised crime. In the end his story contains organics and synthetics as a major theme. With Anderson the galaxy is at war with the Geth, Collectors, and Reapers. All which are directly linked to Synthetics vs Organics with the Collectors being an organic race that is controlled (control theme again) by a synthetic race. No matter what perspective you choose to look at Mass Effect from, we see the main theme being Organics and Synthetics as the needle and thread. That is the base foundation. We see the Reapers combining biological and synthetic parts to create these fucked up creatures. The biotoics is another cool concept, but it links back to technological modification which amplifies the body tissue. Asari are natural biotics, but humans require implants (technology, which is a theme that is tied together with the concept of synthetics, that technology is a HUGE theme as they go hand in hand). We can tie almost everything in the game to biology and technology and their interactions with one another.

2.  At this point, I'm simply going to address this mostly from a story perspective, because you have not yet demonstrated that your definition of theme is valid. You already said you WERE addressing this from a story perspective originally (in part at least... I think.... it was unclear).  If you can demonstrate your definition of theme is valid, then I will revisit this from that perspective if you like.

But hey, I do appreciate that you're actually addressing the story now, which is what I've been trying to get at the whole time.  I'd much rather just focus on this. 

Anyway, this is not how theme is used in a narrative context.  The "needle and thread" that drives the story is NOT the theme.  Theme does not drive the action.   The conflict drives the action.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative)        http://literarydevices.net/conflict/) Organics vs synthetics is (mostly) the conflict of the game, but that does not make it the theme.  The theme is the underlying message of the work, or in this case, works.  A good explanation of how theme works in fiction is.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-theme-in-literature-definition-examples-quiz.html

 I disagree that theme crosses cultural barriers, but that's another matter. 

To give a more gameplay related example, I want to look at Mass Effect 2.  The overarching conflict is between the human and the collectors, but what do you spend the game doing?  You defend Tali's father against claims of treason, help Miranda save her sister, you help Garrus get revenge for his comrade, help Jacob find his father, help Grunt through his rite of passage, help Kasumi avenge recover her partner's data, help Jack recover from her PTSD, help Mordin recover his data from the genophage, helping Samara kill her daughter (or not), helping Thane resolve his daddy son issues, etc.  Very little of the game is actually about fighting the collectors.  I believe only about 4 or 5 missions actually involve fighting them.  The collector ship,  the battle at Horizon, and the ending.  

The ultimate objective is to defeat the collectors, but the vast majority of the game is spent on the recruiting and loyalty missions.  The collectors are only in the foreground very briefly, and spend most of the time in the background of the game.  You spend far far more time resolving your crewmates' personal issues than on fighting collectors.

What is the game really about then?  It is about building a team and resolving each team member's personal issues to establish trust.  What is the underlying message?  To give a simple one word theme specifically for Mass Effect 2, teamwork, cooperation, or loyalty would work.  You spend way way more of the game on this then you do on shooting collectors, so I don't think you can even argue from a gameplay perspective that organics vs synthetics is the theme of this game. 

To give an example in Mass Effect 3, think of the T'chanka portion of the game.  Yes, there are reapers on T'chanka, but is that really the focus of that portion?  The focus is on resolving the issue of the genophage.  It is once again about cooperation, or lack there of, with your fellow species.  

In Mass Effect 3, again I'd argue that while the reapers are ultimately the big threat you're trying to stop, far more of the narrative focus is one cooperation, or lack there of, between races.  The first two main arcs of the story are T'chanka and Rannoch. The point of these arcs is to resolve the longstanding issues between the various races.  What you spend most of the game doing is making peace between the Geth, the Quarians, the Krogan, the Turians, and the Salarians (and the Asari later on).  Yes, you are doing this so that you can fight the reapers, but again that is the conflict and not the theme.  Like Mass Effect 2, the theme is cooperation.  In ME2, you are helping each individual resolve their issues to establish trust.  In Mass Effect 3, you are doing the same thing, but on a galactic scale.

To sum it up, saying the theme is organics vs synthetics is to confuse conflict with theme.  While the conflict drives the action, the theme is the message behind all that is going on.  While there is conflict between organics vs synthetics, far more of the narrative focus is on cooperation, teamwork, and unification.  This is why the ending was so unsatisfying to gamers.  It resolved the conflict, but not in a way that was consistent with the theme.  

There are two things that you should have understood.
1) All Reapers are both organic and synthetic beings.
2) The function of the Reapers to preserve the existence of the Galaxy so life can grow and have their chance to evolve. Another function was to stop apex race's from dominating the galaxy. And *gasps* because synthetics and organic beings never get along, galactic peace will always be at risk. Therefor the final solution was found. Only one solution could address ALL the answers and themes of the game. The synthesis ending is considered canon at Bioware because it "unites" "organics and synthetics" by creating a single race that follows the "all is one" concept. Biology and technology are no longer different concepts and ethnic differences are set aside (another big theme of the series)

It is unfortunate that many people do not see this and this poll proves otherwise, as does your replies.

Uhhhhh... the poll doesn't ask which ending is "canonical" or even which is "best".  It just asks which ending people chose.  I'm really not trying to insult you... at least not at this particular moment... but yeah.  I don't know how you can back up any claim if you can't accurately absorb information.  If you can't read the poll accurately, on what basis can you say you understood Bioware's comments, even if you did indeed hear them?

These perspectives does NOT change the intention or the message of the game or what it is about, what ties it all together, from a development point of view. The synthesis ending combines everything into one and makes perfect sense from both a story and gameplay perspective. What this does make clear is that developers need to be a little more clearer on portraying these messages. I for one think it was clear as day. These are certainly things that should be taken notes of. I also have been taking notes of this from the responses I've seen in this thread. It can only allow for improvement, but the inability to please everyone must also be considered as it is the nature of things.

I have already addressed that we have no reason to trust the star child, and for that matter no reason to trust what you say about Bioware.  To sum it up quickly, we have no reason to trust the starchild.  He belongs to a race of beings whose whole shtick is manipulating humans.  They admit that he was in the progress of manipulating a human like... ten seconds before Shepard talks to him.  Their goal is the preservation and reproduction of the reapers.  

Besides the reapers (who as you say can be considered organic), the only examples we have in the game show that organic and synthetic life can indeed coexist in harmony.  The Geth are basically portrayed as space Ghandi and EDI and Joker are having brittle bone crunching robosex.  At every point that the game developers could have illustrated that conflict between organics and synthetics was inevitable, they instead chose to show just the opposite, that peace was possible.  The starchild's claims are contradicted by evidence, and thus, we should consider them untrue.

Further, the series show that ethnic differences can be set aside, without the reapers.  The whole first two thirds of the game are about resolving the conflicts between the different species without turning everyone into robots. It is possible to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians, and the Salarians/Turians/Krogan which are the two biggest interspecies conflicts in the game.  Shepards diverse team shows how a variety of different species can work together and form bonds of trust, friendship, and love.  And we have no reason to suggest that turning everyone into robots would somehow eliminate all future conflict.  "Hey Salarians... I now you tried to neuter our entire species... but... we're all robots now.  We good."

Actually, I can PROVE that making everyone synthetic would not solve that issue.  One of the key conflicts in the second game is between the Geth and... the Geth.  They are not only one synthetic race, but a linked hivemind and STILL there is conflict between the Geth and the "Heretics".  This was the WHOLE POINT of Legion's arc.  So we know that making everything synthetic (in part or in whole) will not eliminate their differences.  The claim is contradicted by the events of the games.

Not only that, but the differences between ethnicities (species would be more accurate) is A GOOD THING in the game.   Javik points out that one of the main reasons the protheans failed was because of their forced assimilation of subservient cultures.  That the difference in species is an asset that may enable the galaxy to succeed where the protheans had failed.  In that vein, we can see why eliminating these differences would be beneficial for the reapers, but not that it would be good for the galaxy.  Again, the claim is not supported by the rest of the game.

And what examples do we have of synthesis?  We have Sareen who was an insane villain, we have husks and various other manipulated organics, the Illusive Man, and, as you say in #1, the reapers themselves. Most of our examples of synthesized beings are not very good.

Essentially, the starchild presents a solution to an unsolvable problem, but the game fails to show that the problem was unsolvable, or that the solution is very good.  As such, the ending is unsatisfying, and inconsistent with the theme.

Your claims simply are contradicted by the game itself.  This is evidence that either your claims are fraudulent, that you misunderstood them, or that whoever made them was simply wrong. 

4) Perhaps not. We both are shoot smoke and using our own knowledge to support out claims. For the other person, that knowledge seems to not serve them. I addressed it from the game development point of view and the based on the foundation of both the story and the message of the game, or shall I say the intended theme.

This really doesn't address my question, which may be because I didn't ask it properly.  My question was directly related to your claim about being a bioware insider of some sort.  This is not a claim about knowledge or perspective.  This is a purely factual claim, that has to be resolved with hard evidence.  

For example, you claimed that I did not have a Master's degree.  I could have argued about literature or education for as long as I liked, but that would not have proven my claim.  The only way to prove that claim was with physical evidence, so that's what I had to provide.

Your claim about having insider information with Bioware is a factual claim.  It is not a matter of point of view, it is a matter of fact.  Either you do speak to people at Bioware, or you don't.  The only way to conclusively prove this is with hard evidence.

If you have not provided me with evidence, is there any reason for me to believe this claim?  If not, why do you keep insisting I should, even going so far as to say I'm delusional for not doing so?   And if I shouldn't believe this claim, why am I "desperate" for not taking it as gospel?

 

As for other claims, again, that's just not true.  I can give a lot of examples, but I'll just give one.  When I was talking about whether or not an author has authority over their work, I linked you to two articles that are considered essential to literary criticism.  When I asked you to support your definition of theme, you gave me nothing.  Please stop claiming I did not give you evidence, because I have consistently done so.  I have several times addressed this, and you are still making the claim.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for your game, I still think it is ridiculous, but since you answered my questions, I'll do it.  Whether I'm right or wrong, I maintain this has nothing to do with the topic.  And if you comment on whether I'm right or wrong on any of these, I'll simply say I don't care.  Games that I've actually played are underlined.  I am going by your definition of theme, which I don't accept, but w/e.

1) Metroid Prime, Elderscrolls, Myth-  I played prime long ago.  I'd probably say isolation for that one, but that doesn't go with Skyrim.  Exploration maybe?


2) Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty, Age of Empires- I guess you want war.


3) System Shock, Silent Hill, Bioshock-  Free will.


4) Mirrors Edge, Assassin's Creed, Dying Light-  Only played some of Asscreed 2.  History I guess? Parkour maybe?


5) God of War, No More Heroes, Soldier of Fortune-  Lightsaber masturbation.  Only played a bit of NMH.


6) Grand Theft Auto, Twisted Metal, Gran Turismo-  Driving.


7) Uncharted, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider-
Survival.  Only tomb raider I've played is the reboot.


8) Fire Emblem, The Legend of Zelda, The Witcher-  I really don't see that much of a common theme in Fire Emblem and Zelda.  Best I could do is legend.


9) Dues Ex, Remeber Me, Snatcher- Having played none of them, I'll venture a guess and say the thin line between man and machine.


10) Castlevania, Lunar Knights, BloodRayne-  Vampires?


11) Zone of Enders, Armor Core, Ranger X-  Only played ZOE, and I got bored quickly.  Mechs?


12) Advent Rising, Mass Effect (This ones gets 2 because it's a rare theme and Halo counts, but is not a core theme)- Not even going to do this one since we already disagreed on this.


13) Watch Doges, Batman Arkham Games, True Crime- Crime I guess?  I'd really rather say the psychology of evil.


14) The Order of 1886, Kid Icarus, Altered Beast- I don't know which Kid Icarus you're talking about.  I'd give a different answer for each.  I'll split the difference and say devotion.  


15) Audiosurf, Brutal Legend, Rock Band-  Music?  The power of music?

 


I will need to keep this short due to time, unfortunately. It seems that you are consistently trying to twist my words and intentions. Running your words in circles like a dog chasing his tail. Calling me a lair consistently. You do realise you can call someone a "jackass" without the intention of being insulting, correct? Did you not hear my tone, because I most certainly did NOT mean to be insulting. That is just one of many of my words that you tried to twist. I do not appreciate that you continue to do so. As for the talking to people from Bioware. I'm going to drop this subject as you haven't a clue at this point. Yes, know what I'm saying and yes I understand logic. Most of all, I understand logical reasoning. Something I studied in Philosophy and I tried to explain the concept to you and you failed to understand it.

Are you really going with that "I'm right your wrong" bullshit in a debate? Really? *face palms* Would anyone continue to debate unless under the following conditions?
1) They believe they are right
or my personal favorite
2) To engage a thought provoking conversations
Sadly this debate follows option 1. The most undesirable in my eyes.

You claim that I did not use the word theme in my first post. This is correct. The term "point" was very much used in similar context. Also for the last time. I did initially speak from a story perspective and I did progressively move into a developer mindset. I absolutely do consider games to be a medium of story telling. Not a shed of doubt about this.

I am glad that this is getting back on track of the Mass Effect series.

The Geth was resolved after being rewriting. Their conflict with each other still links back to organics and synthetics. Can you prove that there would have been conflict without Unity. What would be the point? Why would they need the virus, or a link to Saren who was under control by the Reapers. The Reapers wouldn't even need any involvement.

Your examples of synthesis are bad ideas because they were. Very negative approach that were more forced and would have resulted in ugly outcomes. Especially Jack Harpers way, unfortunately later understood Desolas and believed that he was right all a long. Jack then became known as "The Illusive Man".

In Mass Effect 2, care to explain why you are bringing all these people together? Yes they each have their own story but there still remains the main subject of the game. Also, the Collectors are both organic and synthetic. The Reapers very much upgraded them. In terms of gameplay they are counted as organics in terms of their weaknesses for gameplay purposes. Plot wise they are both.


I will need to cut this short unfortunately. I will provide the answers as promised. (it is relevant for the subject of theme and this is from a game design prospect) I am very impressed with some of your answers and do give you the credit where it is due.

Again it is the theme that ties all three games together.


1) Metroid, Elder Scrolls, Myth (Sense of discovery and exploration) Definitely get a point here for being half right.
 2) Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty, Age of Empires War (War) Already know
3) System Shock, Silent Hill, Bioshock (Sense of Fear) Bioshock was not scary but was intended to be by irrational games. Fear was a theme the game was built around. Also a what we call a "form of fun"
 4) Mirrors Edge, Assassins' Creed, Dying Light (Free Running/Parkour) Correct.
5) God of War, No More Heroes, Soldier of Fortune (Brutality and sense of shock) Weird but this was the common denominator.
 6) Grand Theft Auto, Twisted Metal, Gran Turismo (Cars) Close enough.
 7) Uncharted, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider (Thrill of Danger) This one was tricky. Considered a theme and form of fun in game design. Survival is a good answer and sufficient and accurate. You got this one.
8) Fire Emblem, The Legend of Zelda, The Witcher (Medieval) This should have been obvious
 9) Dues Ex, Remember Me, Snatcher (Cyber Punk) Again obvious, but you mentioned not playing them.
 10) Castlevania, Lunar Knights, BloodRanye (Vampire) Easy :)
 11) Zone of Enders, Armor Core, Ranger X (Mechs) again easy :)
 12) Advent Rising, Mass Effect (Humanities rise/ascension to greatness.) I'll give you the answer anyways.
 13) Watch Dogs, Batman Arkham Games, True Crime (Justice) Crime is another perspective I suppose. Psychology pertains more to just Batman for the most part.
 14) The Order of 1886, Kid Icarus, Altered Beast (Mythical Creatures) Any Icarus game still uses this as the base theme before the pen even hits the paper.
15) Audiosurf, Brutal Legend, Rock Band (music) you nailed this one

 

 

 









The game was never really considered bad, it was just everyone focuses on the ending which is terrible. When you get to it, it makes the whole game feel extremely linear (as most decisions you make have next to no impact on the ending).

The game overall was good and I did really enjoy it myself. And I played a number of other games with lacklustre endings (Assassins Creed 1 and 3) so it's not like ME3 doesn't have some company in that department.



Around the Network
starcraft said:

Something that certain gamers have decried as an error of narrative – namely that a series about choice wound up having broadly similar (and devastating) endings – was in fact a masterpiece. Ultimately, the game delivered what the franchise had always promised – significant limitations on the ability of humans and other species to impact change on the universe around them. It made complete sense, and was not a departure from the existing narrative at all. People are just so used to Hollywood endings in their video games (excepting the obligatory sad death of one or two characters 20 minutes before the ending, or to spur a revenge plot) that they couldn’t fathom that a franchise would actually end the way it had been implying it would end all along.

I get where you're coming from but I have to disagree. There a YouTube video that points out the inherent flaw with the ending (my iPad won't let me link to it). The destroy option, the thing you've been working towards throughout the entire series is painted as the worse option. This could have been made as a moral point, but until you meet the catalyst it is still your overall aim. Then other options are either the aim of Cerberus (control) or Saren (synergy) so you basically end up doing their work for them.

Even reject is flawed as you can't point out the ridiculous flaw in the catalysts logic - he wants to preserve organic life, and does so by continually destroying organic life.

 





Airaku said:

 


I will need to keep this short due to time, unfortunately. It seems that you are consistently trying to twist my words and intentions. Running your words in circles like a dog chasing his tail. Calling me a lair consistently. You do realise you can call someone a "jackass" without the intention of being insulting, correct? Did you not hear my tone, because I most certainly did NOT mean to be insulting. That is just one of many of my words that you tried to twist. I do not appreciate that you continue to do so. As for the talking to people from Bioware. I'm going to drop this subject as you haven't a clue at this point. Yes, know what I'm saying and yes I understand logic. Most of all, I understand logical reasoning. Something I studied in Philosophy and I tried to explain the concept to you and you failed to understand it.

Are you really going with that "I'm right your wrong" bullshit in a debate? Really? *face palms* Would anyone continue to debate unless under the following conditions?
1) They believe they are right
or my personal favorite
2) To engage a thought provoking conversations
Sadly this debate follows option 1. The most undesirable in my eyes.

You claim that I did not use the word theme in my first post. This is correct. The term "point" was very much used in similar context. Also for the last time. I did initially speak from a story perspective and I did progressively move into a developer mindset. I absolutely do consider games to be a medium of story telling. Not a shed of doubt about this.

I am glad that this is getting back on track of the Mass Effect series.

The Geth was resolved after being rewriting. Their conflict with each other still links back to organics and synthetics. Can you prove that there would have been conflict without Unity. What would be the point? Why would they need the virus, or a link to Saren who was under control by the Reapers. The Reapers wouldn't even need any involvement.

Your examples of synthesis are bad ideas because they were. Very negative approach that were more forced and would have resulted in ugly outcomes. Especially Jack Harpers way, unfortunately later understood Desolas and believed that he was right all a long. Jack then became known as "The Illusive Man".

In Mass Effect 2, care to explain why you are bringing all these people together? Yes they each have their own story but there still remains the main subject of the game. Also, the Collectors are both organic and synthetic. The Reapers very much upgraded them. In terms of gameplay they are counted as organics in terms of their weaknesses for gameplay purposes. Plot wise they are both.


I will need to cut this short unfortunately. I will provide the answers as promised. (it is relevant for the subject of theme and this is from a game design prospect) I am very impressed with some of your answers and do give you the credit where it is due.

Again it is the theme that ties all three games together.


1) Metroid, Elder Scrolls, Myth (Sense of discovery and exploration) Definitely get a point here for being half right.
 2) Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty, Age of Empires War (War) Already know
3) System Shock, Silent Hill, Bioshock (Sense of Fear) Bioshock was not scary but was intended to be by irrational games. Fear was a theme the game was built around. Also a what we call a "form of fun"
 4) Mirrors Edge, Assassins' Creed, Dying Light (Free Running/Parkour) Correct.
5) God of War, No More Heroes, Soldier of Fortune (Brutality and sense of shock) Weird but this was the common denominator.
 6) Grand Theft Auto, Twisted Metal, Gran Turismo (Cars) Close enough.
 7) Uncharted, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider (Thrill of Danger) This one was tricky. Considered a theme and form of fun in game design. Survival is a good answer and sufficient and accurate. You got this one.
8) Fire Emblem, The Legend of Zelda, The Witcher (Medieval) This should have been obvious
 9) Dues Ex, Remember Me, Snatcher (Cyber Punk) Again obvious, but you mentioned not playing them.
 10) Castlevania, Lunar Knights, BloodRanye (Vampire) Easy :)
 11) Zone of Enders, Armor Core, Ranger X (Mechs) again easy :)
 12) Advent Rising, Mass Effect (Humanities rise/ascension to greatness.) I'll give you the answer anyways.
 13) Watch Dogs, Batman Arkham Games, True Crime (Justice) Crime is another perspective I suppose. Psychology pertains more to just Batman for the most part.
 14) The Order of 1886, Kid Icarus, Altered Beast (Mythical Creatures) Any Icarus game still uses this as the base theme before the pen even hits the paper.
15) Audiosurf, Brutal Legend, Rock Band (music) you nailed this one

 

 

 

 






 

I will need to keep this short due to time, unfortunately. It seems that you are consistently trying to twist my words and intentions. Running your words in circles like a dog chasing his tail. Calling me a lair consistently. You do realise you can call someone a "jackass" without the intention of being insulting, correct?

Lol... I twisted the word jackass into an insult... Let's look at the definition for jackass.

From dictionary.com

"a contemptibly foolish or stupid person; dolt; blockhead; ass."

From Oxford English dictionary

"A stupid person."

From Webster's

" a stupid person :  fool"

and my favortie, from the online slang dictionary 

"a general insult."

That's what the word means.  If you want to tell me it is not an insult then you are the one twisting words.  I cannot honestly believe you are arguing that jackass is not an insult.  And if that is your best evidence of me "twisting" words, then that's pretty sad.  

But hey, don't let me "twist" your words.  I'll give you the quote, and you explain how it wasn't an insult.

"That doesn't mean you should be a jackass and ruin it for people who may actually want to engage in a meaningful conversation about the game and its development."

Go on.  Explain how it's not an insult.  I'm genuinely interested to see how you try and weasel out of this.  I'll be over here with a bag of popcorn.  

 

"Running your words in circles like a dog chasing his tail. "

I notice that whenever I ask you to back up one of the attacks you make against me, you instead move on to a new one.  This one at least has *some* merit though.  I do admit to being quite verbose.  However when your arguments have reached the ludicrous levels of "jackass is not an insult" and I'm forced to prove basic common sense things... then it gets kinda long winded.  I think you're so unfamiliar with the concept of using evidence to support your claims, that you think of it as some kind of trickery.

"What is that link to a reputable source that's backing you up?  Voodoo!  Voodoo I say!!!!!"

You don't have to respond to the whole thing, but can you give me one or two examples of me being, "delusional" or "twisting your words"?  If not, then your claim does not stand and I'll consider the point conceded.  Maybe you should actually respond to my words instead of making broad attacks?

"As for the talking to people from Bioware. I'm going to drop this subject as you haven't a clue at this point"

You're right... I don't have a clue.  Because a clue is evidence, and you haven't provided that.  I don't know why you expect me to have some clue about your personal dealings.  The only "clue" I have is that you have given contradictory accounts, which is a clue against your claims.  But, since you will not provide a clue for me, I'm glad you're finally dropping it.

"Something I studied in Philosophy and I tried to explain the concept to you and you failed to understand it."

Eh... no?  This is one of those things that you're saying that just didn't happen... Granted I could have missed this, and I'm not going to scan through the posts, but can you show me where you tried to explain logic?

But ummmm... I did explain logic.  I don't know how you can say I failed to understand logic, when I just explained it.  Unless your logic is different O_o...

Here's a link to encyclopedia Britanica, which will cite the same three logical absoutes (referred to here as the laws of thought) as I just did.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought

If you say I don't understand logic... then you're just demonstrably wrong.  Can you point out something in my description that was inaccurate?  As someone who claims to have studied philosophy, you should recognize that these come from Aristotle, so I'm not sure how you didn't recognize this as a valid description of logic.  

But, I can't blame you for not being able to follow what I say... you can't quite follow what you say either... For example...

What I said: 11.  This conversation WAS about story, and I showed clear evidence that YOU were talking about story originally.  Why are you trying to change the scope? 

You replied last post:  "It may or may not surprise you to know that I actually WAS referring to the theme from both points of view (developer and story) when I made the initial claim.  Other wise (sic), why would I even both (sic) brining (sic) it up? LOL I'm sorry but.... wow dude, just wow. You are throwing in a lot of smoke and mirrors and straight up ignorance of ignoring half of my replies."

You now... :"I did initially speak from a story perspective and I did progressively move into a developer mindset. I absolutely do consider games to be a medium of story telling. Not a shed (sic) of doubt about this."

These statements are contradictory.  Before, you said that you were referring to theme from both points of view initially.  In fact, you attacked me for implying otherwise.

Now, you're saying that you were initially speaking about if from a story perspective, and then moved to a developer mindset.

So, you laughed at me, accused me of being deceptive and ignorant, and were basically a jerk when I said you were initially talking about story and changed the conversation to being about game development... then, just one post later you say you were initially talking about story and moved on to talking about game development.  Lulz.

It seems that you're the one who is ignoring your replies.  Good thing one of us is paying attention ^_~

 You're you really going with that "I'm right your wrong" bullshit in a debate? Really? *face palms* Would anyone continue to debate unless under the following conditions?

1) They believe they are right
or my personal favorite
2) To engage a thought provoking conversations
Sadly this debate follows option 1. The most undesirable in my eyes.

Speaking of twisting words, my saying "I'm right and your wrong", was part of a clearly sarcastic critique of your silly theme game.  Let me bring up the quote for you.  

"""""""""To prove your case, you need to tell me the theme of 1984, Bioshock Infinite, House of Leaves, The Sun Also Rises, War and Peace, The Cat In The Hat, Home Alone 3, 19Q4, The Wind Up Bird Chronicle, Xenoblade Chronicles, Final Fantasy X, Braid, and Debbie Does Dallas.

If you cannot do this, you're wrong and I am right.  AND I am the one who gets to decide what the theme is. If you disagree with me you're wrong.  """""""""

Now, before you dragged my poor little quote kicking and screaming from it's context, it was clear that I was mocking your ridiculous "Name That Theme" game. Unless you thought that I was seriously asking you for the theme of Debbie Does Dallas (ambition and the American dream btw).

At this point, I've moved from frustration to exasperation to straight up amusement.  You accuse me of "twisting" the word jackass into an insult, jumping on little openings, then ten seconds later, you rip something out of context like that.  

But, if we're facepalming stupid things...

 

 

I take it that point #1 on the first question was conceded, at least to the extent that you do not maintain an author's comments are 100% reliable evidence.

The Geth was resolved after being rewriting. Their conflict with each other still links back to organics and synthetics. Can you prove that there would have been conflict without Unity. What would be the point? Why would they need the virus, or a link to Saren who was under control by the Reapers. The Reapers wouldn't even need any involvement.

But the Geth aren't necessarily rewritten.  This is an interactive narrative.  They can be rewritten or destroyed.  As of now, there is no canonical story.  Canon is something that HAS to be established publicly, so what Bioware said is irrelevant, even if you did have private conversations.  Canon by definition can not be a secret.

Your response doesn't really address the point I was making.  You said that synthesis would end conflicts between different ethnicities.  This proves that it would not necessarily do that.  That does not mean I can guarante there will be conflict between the synthesized world, just that there is no reason to expect there won't be.  The only "evidence" that we have that shows synthesis will lead to peace is the word of the starchild, who I take it you accept is not a reliable source of information. 

Furthermore, I demonstrated how the game shows that differences between races can be solved without everybody being robots.

I honestly don't know what you mean when you say "can you prove there would be conflict without unity"? 

"Your examples of synthesis are bad ideas because they were. Very negative approach that were more forced and would have resulted in ugly outcomes. Especially Jack Harpers way, unfortunately later understood Desolas and believed that he was right all a long. Jack then became known as "The Illusive Man".

And those are the examples of synthesis we have.  So, if every example we have of synthesis leads to horrible outcome, what reason do we have to believe that it would lead to a positive outcome in this case?

In Mass Effect 2, care to explain why you are bringing all these people together? Yes they each have their own story but there still remains the main subject of the game. Also, the Collectors are both organic and synthetic. The Reapers very much upgraded them. In terms of gameplay they are counted as organics in terms of their weaknesses for gameplay purposes. Plot wise they are both.

I agree that the battle between the collectors and Shepard is the main subject of the game.  But that is not the same as the theme.

I already explained that the "theme" is not the reason that characters are doing whatever they do.  That is the conflict.  You are using subject, theme, conflict, and plot interchangeably... but they're just not the same things.  Please go and watch the link I gave you about theme. 

If you don't know about narrative structure... then you don't know... 

Look back to the video on theme I provided, or if you like, find your own source of theme from a story perspective.  After reading this, would you still say that "organics vs synthetics" is an accurate description of theme?

Now, if the collectors, the reapers, and the reapers minions can all be counted as organics AND synthetics, then how are you claiming that this game is about organics vs synthetics?

If the reapers and collectors are both organic/synthetic hybrids, then isn't the conflict actually between organics and hybrids?The only time you actually fight pure synthetics is against the Geth, who were themselves instigated by hybrids. The rest of the games you are fighting either pure organics, or hybrids.  Considering this, how can you say that organic vs synthetic is the theme of the game, or that synthesis is a good option?  

It seems that synethesized being (hybrids) are actually the cause of all the problems in the series...  So your claim that organics vs synthetics is the theme of the game fails.  You just plain don't fight many synthetics, or even interact with them very much.  

I will need to cut this short unfortunately. I will provide the answers as promised. (it is relevant for the subject of theme and this is from a game design prospect) I am very impressed with some of your answers and do give you the credit where it is due.

Eh... I don't think you can provide answers... You can tell me what you think theme is, but whether you think I'm right or wrong, you have not shown you are an authority.  It's not that I don't get your meaning of theme... It's just not what we were initially talking about, and I disagree with it.
But, it's interesting that you're claiming that the theme of Mass Effect is human ascension... When the whole point you've been trying to make is that the theme is organics vs synthetics. 


SecondWar said:
starcraft said:

Something that certain gamers have decried as an error of narrative – namely that a series about choice wound up having broadly similar (and devastating) endings – was in fact a masterpiece. Ultimately, the game delivered what the franchise had always promised – significant limitations on the ability of humans and other species to impact change on the universe around them. It made complete sense, and was not a departure from the existing narrative at all. People are just so used to Hollywood endings in their video games (excepting the obligatory sad death of one or two characters 20 minutes before the ending, or to spur a revenge plot) that they couldn’t fathom that a franchise would actually end the way it had been implying it would end all along.

I get where you're coming from but I have to disagree. There a YouTube video that points out the inherent flaw with the ending (my iPad won't let me link to it). The destroy option, the thing you've been working towards throughout the entire series is painted as the worse option. This could have been made as a moral point, but until you meet the catalyst it is still your overall aim. Then other options are either the aim of Cerberus (control) or Saren (synergy) so you basically end up doing their work for them.

Even reject is flawed as you can't point out the ridiculous flaw in the catalysts logic - he wants to preserve organic life, and does so by continually destroying organic life.

 



 

To add to this, the color coding of the ending is all wrong.  The control option is in paragon blue, when it has been a renegade choice throughout the rest of the game.  Anderson, who is like literally the paragon throughout the game, is portrayed in renegade red. 

The only way this makes sense is from the reaper's perspective, which to me lend credence to the indoctrination theory.  That's clearly where they were headed, but then they made a sharp turn at the last moment...



JWeinCom said:
SecondWar said:

I get where you're coming from but I have to disagree. There a YouTube video that points out the inherent flaw with the ending (my iPad won't let me link to it). The destroy option, the thing you've been working towards throughout the entire series is painted as the worse option. This could have been made as a moral point, but until you meet the catalyst it is still your overall aim. Then other options are either the aim of Cerberus (control) or Saren (synergy) so you basically end up doing their work for them.

Even reject is flawed as you can't point out the ridiculous flaw in the catalysts logic - he wants to preserve organic life, and does so by continually destroying organic life.

 



 

To add to this, the color coding of the ending is all wrong.  The control option is in paragon blue, when it has been a renegade choice throughout the rest of the game.  Anderson, who is like literally the paragon throughout the game, is portrayed in renegade red. 

The only way this makes sense is from the reaper's perspective, which to me lend credence to the indoctrination theory.  That's clearly where they were headed, but then they made a sharp turn at the last moment...

 

I disagree on the Indoctrination Theory. It was never their intention. Fans, that actually followed the lore of the series, constructed the Indoctrination Theory to cope with the terrible writing Bioware saddled ME3 with in it's conclusion. Casey Hudson and Mack Walters had never shown themselves to be clever enough to construct such an ending. 



Darc Requiem said:
JWeinCom said:

 

To add to this, the color coding of the ending is all wrong.  The control option is in paragon blue, when it has been a renegade choice throughout the rest of the game.  Anderson, who is like literally the paragon throughout the game, is portrayed in renegade red. 

The only way this makes sense is from the reaper's perspective, which to me lend credence to the indoctrination theory.  That's clearly where they were headed, but then they made a sharp turn at the last moment...

 

I disagree on the Indoctrination Theory. It was never their intention. Fans, that actually followed the lore of the series, constructed the Indoctrination Theory to cope with the terrible writing Bioware saddled ME3 with in it's conclusion. Casey Hudson and Mack Walters had never shown themselves to be clever enough to construct such an ending. 

Well, like I was saying earlier, I don't really try to analyze the authors, just the text itself.  I think the game shows a lot of evidence for the indoctrination theory.  Whether this was intentional or not, it seems like a fairly valid interpretation.