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

If it came out of nowhere, then it's hard to really argue that it is the main theme.  It can't be considered canon by Bioware, because canon, by necessity, has to be official.  

As for whether there would be peace or not, we don't really know.  As I mentioned, even the Geth have wars among themselves.  The only reason we have to believe there will be peace is that the starchild said so.  

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. 

Shepard was knocked unconcious, so you could argue that he was just groggy from that.  But, there are a whole lot of things that just plain don't make sense unless you go with a dream sequence theory.  Some of the holes were filled in with the extended cut, but I'd still say the indoctrination theory is a perfectly valid interpretation.

At any rate, Shepard living (which is made even more clear in the extended cut) signifies that the Starchild is not always right, or not only truthful.  He says Shapard will die, and he doesn't.  So, reason to doubt that.

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.

The scene was in both versions, and expanded on the second.  So, I have to believe they left it there for a reason.  The indoctrination theory does make a whole lot of sense.  I don't know if I actually believe it, but it is a very valid interpretation.  

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.

Meh.  I get what you're saying in most games, but I don't think that would apply to the ending, which is basically an interactive cutscene.  It seemed more like a nod to the choice wheel than anything.  

It came out of no where because it was off the top of my head. It was only a comparison. Nothing else. (Regarding the biblical comparison only). As for the Geth warring against themselves. I actually don't have an answer for that. The Heretics worshiped the "Old Machines", whom they saw as gods. That was the reason given for being the main enemies in Mass Effect 1. Much like the Inusannon's originally supposed to be the Protheans, a storyline which was dropped later in the series in favor for the other Protheans (The Inusannon's were changed to be the Protheans for the Protheans, they are the ones that the Protheans took their technology from). They also inhabited Ilos and you go their their ruins near the end of ME. I could be wrong here, but the change was to point that the Reapers were required to keep peace or dominate races like the Protheans would have complete control over the Galaxy. Off topic. Another ancient race that was supposed to play a more significant race and was forgotten in the sequels was the Thorian, who were basically ancient humans. I don't think they are related at all, but they are very similar.

I think the whole fact that you need high war assets to get the synthetic ending (brining people together is a major part of that and making peace). Is another hint toward my point. This is just my take. But again, it's a new age philosophy thing >.<

I agree with what you are saying about a lot of things not making sense. The whole just being groggy doesn't add up. Such as waking up in an area that happens to look very much where he/she was knocked out. By dream sequence theory, are you referring to indoctrination? Or more on the line of the death and find peace theory. As for the dreams Shepard had. That was part of the Indoctrination ending. Which was cut. Again, the ending was made just prior to release, most of the content was left in. Take it or leave it on that. As for the Indoctrination theory. Even though it's cut, and BioWare won't confirm or deny it publicly. One reason for this is because the official ending was meant to be interrupted in any way you want it to be, it's YOUR story. So in that sense, if you believe in the indoctrination theory, it remains true to that particular player. But in reality, no it's not, it's content that was unfinished and cut to meet the release date. Just like the Illusive Man fight and a few other things. Taking evidence from earlier in the game is what keeps the theory alive and well, even to this day.

I have no reason why it was in both version. The extended cut in my opinion, was terrible. It removed the sense of mystery and tarnished it a little. Most of the significant stuff was presented as still frames.... ugh. I didn't feel like it added much to the story nor the ending, a lot of people on the contrary enjoyed it.

I need to disagree about the ending. It is very basic game design choice. BioWare often makes the dialogue wheel (not always) have a paragon choice on the top, and renegade on the bottom. BioWare again, try's to present it clear. If BioWare wanted to red ending to be canon (in their eyes) They would have had the player directed to it, being the middle choice. Things would obviously, have been built differently with that in mind. If we were to take the rule of thumb. Red is renegade, and blue is paragon. Often you need to do more work for paragon (and on seldom occasions extreme renegade options). So Destroy is technically the bad ending. This is irrelevant either way because there is NO canon for Paragon or Renegade. This is why Shepard is excluded from the graphic novels, which are stated as essential to the canon, equal to the games. Back to my point. BioWare heavily implies direction in their level design. Trying to point where to go, in this sense. It is highly more likely than not to consider that BioWare was pointing out to the player that the Synthetic ending is the best ending. I don't see why it isn't when BioWare considers it to be. It's all in the eye of the beholder and it's your story, but they created the story and to them, that is the ending. Which is funny because it practically is contradictive in its on way. It's up to the player, but to the developers, their story is Syntheses. Hence why they don't flat out state it. Which is why it's so frustrating for me to explain it, especially with the destroy ending being the basic default ending for the lazy shoot em up gamers who run through the game just "killing shit". Which make's killing the Reapers make more sense to them. The majority of the players actually went with the destroy ending (pushing the polls from the forums aside). It's so one sided that it's ridiculous to even consider it a real ending. The control ending is practically admitting that the Illusive Man was right. I don't even understand why it's presented as a "blue" (suggestive paragon) ending, at least it's not genocide on a race. The only ending that is considered morally correct is unifying everything into one, retaining individualism, and tying up the whole "uniting the galaxy" theme. Something that was major. It becomes organics and synesthetic rather than organics vs synthetics. This is a HUGE difference. Ugh it's so frustrating >.<

It came out of no where because it was off the top of my head. It was only a comparison. Nothing else. (Regarding the biblical comparison only). As for the Geth warring against themselves. I actually don't have an answer for that. The Heretics worshiped the "Old Machines", whom they saw as gods. That was the reason given for being the main enemies in Mass Effect 1. Much like the Inusannon's originally supposed to be the Protheans, a storyline which was dropped later in the series in favor for the other Protheans (The Inusannon's were changed to be the Protheans for the Protheans, they are the ones that the Protheans took their technology from). They also inhabited Ilos and you go their their ruins near the end of ME. I could be wrong here, but the change was to point that the Reapers were required to keep peace or dominate races like the Protheans would have complete control over the Galaxy. Off topic. Another ancient race that was supposed to play a more significant race and was forgotten in the sequels was the Thorian, who were basically ancient humans. I don't think they are related at all, but they are very similar.

You two are STILL going at it?

The game itself was not horrible but Bioware made a ton of promises that never came through. They also acted extremely arrogant when people criticized the ending.

Yeah they made a lot promises that they didn't keep. The worst thing about it was the gaming media, instead of calling Bioware for their bullshit, they attacked gamers instead. It was one of the first obvious examples of the horrid state of gaming journalism.

I guess it coms down to interpretation.

I don't know, to my mind something going seriously against humanity's interests in the end-game always seemed inevitable.

@ the thread.

Wow. This went places. I think what it goes to show is that one way or another there is an enormous amount of interest in this franchise, and I cannot wait for Andromeda!

Lol taking around 90 reviews from the top game critics, supposedly non biased reviewers, and averaging them out to a 93 is in no way shape or form "cherry picking". Taking a handful of these sure call it what u want but the whole of them, no. This score of 93 on meta is what u call reliable data. The meta userscore is not reliable data in any way. As I've seen reports and probably agreed by most on this site that more than half the user reviews on certain games are scored by someone who never played the game. Adding that angry or unsatisfied players are far more likely to spam reviews than people who actually liked the game they played makes the user score metric completely unreliable and to be honest never even worth a mention.

I know game quality is subjective, but metacritic is about as close to an independant metric as we can get atm...

I think that when you started playing the franchise affects your view of Mass Effect 3. If I hadn't played the first two games and just played the third. Most of my problems with ME3 would disappear.

I wouldn't have the same attachment to the story or the lore. I wouldn't have gotten to "know" the characters as well. I wouldn't have noticed limited the conversation options had become nor how terrible the quest log was. The plots holes or out of character behaviour wouldn't stick out like sore thumb to me. I also wouldn't be annoyed by the complete sidelining of all but two characters in the ME2 cast.

I wouldn't know the franchise well enough to notice the flaws and problems. It's why I found the game so disappointing. It's also why don't understand how people can say it was great "except the ending."