By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 21 January 2016
Edit Thread
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.