Ugh.  No, I'm not "tapping out".  I was recognizing a lost cause and moving on with my life.

I already addressed why we have no reason to think the synthesis ending will bring about peace.  Bringing up a philosophy site does not change that.  The evidence has to come from the game itself.  The philosophy on its own does not prove anything, unless we have examples from the game to support it.  Just because the philosophy exists, and even if you were interpretting it correctly (which I don't believe to be the case), that doesn't mean that the game in any way agrees with that that philosophy.  The game only shows us negative outcomes for synthesis, shows us that even a hive mind can have a conflict, and that diversity is beneficial.  I addressed this in more detail a few posts back, and I don't feel like repeating myself.

If you want to sit there saying you haven't insulted me fine.  We might as well be arguing about whether or not the sky is blue.  If you want to say that the sky is green, fine.  I'm not wasting any more energy saying it's blue.

But, that was not my only reason for not replying.  It was also because you simply weren't responding to what I actually wrote anymore.  Actually, that's been the case for a while, but I got bored of it.

For example.

Are you seriously thinking that I don't have time because I can't find the answers? That is such a dumb accusation. Some people have lives outside of the internet and tend to be very busy. This is something that is a very simple concept to understand. If you insist, I have been very busy working on a cinematic cutscene for a current project. Damn. I didn't even want to touch this. The next thing you're going to say is that it's just an excuse. Once again grasping at straws.

This just flat out doesn't relate to anything I said.  I didn't say anything about you having or not having time.  I didn't accuse you of not having time, or anything like it.  This just literally popped out of nowhere.  In fact, I've said several times that I have no interest whatsoever in what you claim to do in your outside life.  I certainly didn't "insist" on you telling me anything.  In fact I've mentioned a few times how I'm profoundly uninterested in your personal life.

You're responding to something I never ever said.  Plus you're even getting an attitude and being condescending about something that I never said.  I really don't know what I could possibly say to this.  It's just kind of bizarre.

Are you seriously asking me how hybrids are not synthetic and organic? My god dude... they are hybrids because they are synthetic AND organic. This is children's logic. I don't even know what to say about this without sounding ignorant or insulting. 

No, I'm not seriously asking you how hybrids are not synthetic and organic.  I'm not only not asking you seriously, I'm not asking you in any way whatsoever.  I just simply didn't ask you that, or in any way question that hybrids are both synthetic or organic. I mean...  I'm the one who brought up the term hybrid... spefically to describe beings that were both organic and synthetic...

You're making up something I never said, and then implying I'm an idiot for saying it @_@.  I just simply don't know how to respond to that. 

I don't know why you are saying that theme and what the characters are doing are the same.

Not only did I not say this one, but I said the exact opposite of it.  To quote myself.

"You are using subject, theme, conflict, and plot interchangeably... but they're just not the same things. "  

I'm not sure how that could possibly be misconstrued... Again, you're just saying things that I didn't say, and I really don't know how to carry on any kind of dialogue in that situation.

So, yeah.  If your replies are complete non-sequitors, then I'm done. 

Very well, if you wish to move on. Then I am okay with that. The moderator has asked us kindly to do so and I would not want to get into trouble over a debate.

What I am going to say is this. Regardless of your opinion on the matters. I am going to need to believe the developers of the game because their intention of the subject matter, what they consider to be canon, is the final word. It does NOT matter if it can be interpreted differently. Which it can be. I'm sure we can both agree on this. However, that does not change the idea, intention, or logic based on the philosophy they were going for. They are still the developers and I trust their judgment over a random person on the internet. One whom I assume is not part of the development team at Bioware.

You are free to believe what you want.  If you want me to believe it too, then you need evidence. That is the nature of debate.

That statement applies to even author themselves.  Whether the claim comes from you or Mac Walters, I'll need evidence for it if I am to believe it.  

And there is the epic center of our disagreement. We have very different perspectives on the authors of the story. I take their words for it because that is how they envisioned and/or intended it to be. Of course I mainly only consider this on complicated and often misinterpreted stories. In the case of an apparent flat out lie, as you stated that occurs in some cases. A contraction. I can agree with you. If the current canon is re-written like Luca did, then I accept the current canon. There has been some rare occasions where I tend to refuse a canonlogical change. This is due to personal preference and ignorance.

So if you don't take an authors word for it. Then you wouldn't take the word from anyone else. Developer or otherwise. The only thing I can do is talk, talk, and talk. Repeat what I was told. The show you a reference point (link i provided) to what the philosophy was based on. Which is why I continue to stand by my claims that it is the only ending where peace can last.

Sure the star child is said to be Sovereign, presenting himself to Shepard in a familiar matter. That doesn't mean that he isn't telling the truth and giving Shepard a choice to make a difference. Hence the rejection ending which was later added and cleared this up. In that ending his voice turns into Sovereign and says "so be it". In a sense this ending is also not considered bad because the cycle continues and peace is preserved in the galaxy for another cycle for new races to develop, evolve, and live their lives. Of course this is subjective to the player but it on base logic. It makes sense. One of the things that Bioware seems to try and point out. Is that the Reapers are right. They aren't evil, but rather "gods" that serve for the sole purpose of preserving the galaxy. That is their function and they gave their solution. They are solely focused on logic. In the ending we got they propose alternative solutions for the player. They gave also presented us with the pros and cons, the effect and reactions. The percussions of all of the choices. From what I've understood and know, as well as my own interpretation of the game. There is no reason for the Reapers to lie under any circumstances. To be honest I don't remember them lying. They've controlled and operated unbeknown to the galaxy, but they spoke only of reality.

The ending of ME2 is imposible to superpass BUT ... ME3 is a amazing game, great with a weird final! that's all!!

If you choose to believe things without evidence, then that is your business.  The truth value of a statement is , in most cases, not dependent on who says it. 

If one of the authors actually said, "I intended the game to be about X", I'd have to accept that unless I saw an obvious reason for a lie.  Because, the author is naturally the best source (although not a perfect source) regarding what goes on in his mind.  However, saying "the game is actually about X" is a different claim.

For example, if you are familiar with marvel comics, Ant Man famously backhanded his wife, which became a big point in the character's story.  However, the author never intended Hank to do this.  The author's script mentioned Hank pushing his wife out of the way.  The author did not intend this in an especially violent way, but the artist decided to draw it as a full on backhand to the Wasp's face.

So, the author could accurately say "in my mind, Hank never hit his wife".  And that would be true.  However, that doesn't change the fact that in the actual comic, Hank did hit his wife.  If I'm sitting there reading the comic, looking at this happen, and the author tries to tell me it didn't, I have to go with the comic.  

In short, I am only talking about the version of Mass Effect 3 that I played.  The version I played is the version that made it to the disc. This is also a version that was influenced by hundreds of artists, multiple authors, and presumably dozens of executives.   I did not, and cannot play the version in the developers head.  The version in the author's head may be different, but that version is irrelevant to me, because I cannot experience it.

Again, canon only is an issue when two events within a story contradict.  It doesn't deal with multiple interpretations.  

The idea that reapers are not lying is a bit off.  It would be more accurate to say that we don't have evidence of them lying.  However, we speak to very few reapers.  Sovereign tells us very little about their objectives, Harbinger only taunts us, and then there is the catalyst.  So, we really don't know how truthful the reapers are.  

We do know that the reapers are manipulative.  They controlled the Illusive man, but he believed he was not being controlled.  Sovereign also controls Benezia, as well as Sareen.  We know that one of their main tools is indoctrination, which involved manipulating organics to think things that they would not normally think.  While not technically lies, I would call this at the very least deceptive.  We know reapers routinely manipulate organics.  Knowing this, would you believe that they are always truthful?

Even IF the reapers are always honest, that does not mean they are always right.  Obviously, the reapers are not omniscient, or they would not have been defeated in the first game, or on Rannoch, etc.  So, they can miscalculate.  

The reapers seem to be wrong about the inevitability of conflict between synthetics and organics.  In the game, we have evidence that this is the case.  The geth only act in self defense.  They are able to make peace with the quarians.  Edi is another example of synthetics coexisting peacefully.  

Why do we see examples of synthetics and organics being able to live peacefully if the catalyst is telling us otherwise?  There are two possible explanations.  The first is that Bioware is trying to show us that the reapers are not right.  The reapers were created in a particular time and place.  It seems that their core programming has been the same since.  Perhaps the reapers have seen in every cycle that their prediction comes true, and thus concluded that they are right.

However, it is heavily suggested that this cycle is different, largely due to humanity's involvement.  We see clearly that this cycle is, at the very least, much different than the prothean cycle.  It may be that the reaper's statements held true for other cycles, but not this one.  This is another reason why the ending was so disappointing.  In other cases, with Saren and the Illusive man, you can always convince them to see things your way.  With the catalyst, Shepard doesn't even try (this was made slightly better in the extended ending).

Which is why the ending feels so disjointed and unsatisfying.  The reapers are proposing a solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist in the galaxy.  Assuming you played your cards right, there is simply no conflict between synthetics and organics.  There *might* be conflict between them in the future, but that conflict doesn't happen in the game.  At best, the reapers are solving a potential problem.  At worst, they're trying to destory the galaxy for no real reason.

We also know that synthesis won't necessarily bring peace.  This is shown with the geth.  Even with a hive mind, it is still possible to have a conflict.  This was the whole point of legion's arc in ME2.  That you can never reach 100% understanding even with something like the geth.  We can't guarantee that there WILL be conflict in a post-synthesis world, but we know that it's possible. 

All of this evidence from the game indicates that the catalyst is not right.

First I want to state that I meant Harbinger, not Sovereign. Correction on that error on my part.

I can see what you mean in the case of Ant-man. Wasn't he seen as abusive on more than one occasion though? Was this after or before the fact? Sorry I don't read the comics so I really can't comment on this :/

What you say about the Reapers makes some sense for an argument, except we also don't see any evidence that they are lying. One of the reasons the Reapers can be considered with good intentions. Is that their actions is not unlike what god did in the bible when he caused the great flood. I do not know if this is what Bioware intended as I didn't ask about this. If I get the chance again in the future, I will bring this up in a conversation.

Keep in mind that Shepard is also both synthetic and organic. I just thought I'd bring this up. Take it or leave it. I agree that the cycle is different, but in some cases it might not be. The humans were the Protheans of this cycle. Trying to achieve dominate in the galaxy, the difference is... that the Protheans actually succeeded. It is unknown what the cycle before them, with the Inusannons was like. They seemed very peaceful and the Protheans stole their technology. This is the cycle where the Catalyst was completed. It took the Galaxy to set aside their differences and unite together to achieve this.

I also want to point out that in order to get the synthesis ending. Shepard had to unite the galaxy and achieve that highest war assets. In order to do this you had to bring everyone together. Set differences aside. With this ending you unify everything and everyone becomes one. Likely connected as a consciousness in the vein the Geth were in. This last sentence is merely just speculations. I fail to see why the ending the requires you to bring everyone together and then officially unites them isn't the best choice. True peace and a mindset that is a like, while retaining individualism, just like the Geth. I really just conclude the same answer that I was given by the developer to my game in my story. Everything lined up and I had a similar conclusion of my own before I was told. This only strengthened my belief.


Somehow I've seen and heard the opposite of what you've claimed regaurding the Catalyst. From my perspective, it defeats the whole purpous of even being there from a story telling perspective.

I can see what you mean in the case of Ant-man. Wasn't he seen as abusive on more than one occasion though? Was this after or before the fact? Sorry I don't read the comics so I really can't comment on this :/

I was only bringing up the biblical example to show a similar base concept between the two. The game really does seem to go into a new age way of thinking at the end of the game, but like you said. It came out of no where. Going with the "all is one" theory. Hence why it is considered canon (by BioWare), but I can see why some will disagree with it. I wouldn't go as far as calling them robots. The combination was supposed to show a peaceful species at the highest point of possible evolution. It's really weird, I know but it's supposed to be a perfect universal utopia where negativity no longer exists. Disagreements are gone, hate is gone. This is why, presumably, the synesthetic ending is the only one where the peace will last as peace will become permanent. The common misconception here is that people think that everyone loses their "individualism" in this ending. *sighs* No!, just no. xD

What is a little weird is that Shepard actually embraces this choice. It's the ultimate sacrifice and he/she falls down the middle and disintegrates, symbolically becoming one with the universe. This ending is the only one that gives us an idea of a conclusion to the journey. Call it ridiculous, call it brilliant, call it what you will.

They way you've described things regarding the organics and synesthetic suggests that all the Synthetic beings started out as peaceful, but became aggressive due to organics. This seems to be true throughout the game. Organics are the primary aggressors at the end of the day. I've pondered on this multiple times. It's more food for thought than anything.

Shepard is both organic and synthetic. Not synthetic in the way of the Geth or EDI. Shepard is half machine with all those implants. They support Shepard and he/she will die if it is destroyed. So in the destroy ending actually kills Shepard. So you must be wondering why you she Shepard in the high War Asset destroy ending? I can't prove anything here but I assume it was part of the cut "indoctrination" ending. Which was a planned, and cut. We are taken back to moments before the citadel and see Shepard wheezing out a breathe on Earth. Shortly after Shepard get's his crew back on the Normandy and toward the Citadel. Harbinger gets a good show on your and you clearly see the laser go toward Shepard. Screen fades to white. From here... it's all fair game and shit gets really weird. Movement, and distorted vision should have been a first clear hint to players. Shortly after Harbinger blasts you.
Earlier we see Shepard in dream states with the child throughout the game. This is also from the indoctrination ending. ME2 had some codec entries that foreshadow this and outline it in the Indoctrination codec entry. I still don't understand to this day, why the ending where Shepard lives is still in the game. All it does is make people believe that the indoctrination theory is true, when it is not. It's been cut from the game. The scene serves no purpose and is contradictive and irrelevant to the ending the game shipped with. Maybe it remains as a nod, I don't know.

I'm not sure if this is something I've mentioned before. But one of the thumb rules of gameplay design is to make the right path obvious to the player from the starting point. Meaning they can see the direction where they begin. The Synthesis ending, should it be unlocked for you. Set's straight a head of you. It is also the core of the Citadel/Catalyst. The Destroy and Control ending and left and right from you. Meaning the player needs to look and turn to go off the path. They are called "off sets" or optional paths. If we go strictly by a game design choice. The Synthesis ending is the canon in the designers eyes. Which is of course another thing that was pointed out to me. Unfortunately this is another reason on the pile of why I consider it to be the best choice.

At the end of the day. I will repeat what I was chosen. Regardless of what ending they (BioWare) considers to be canon. It is YOUR story. You are Shepard and that canon is yours. Not dictated by any one else. That is how BioWare games function. To give the player as much choice as possible despite technical limitations, that they forge their own story.