F
| Airaku said:
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?
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 design.
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. Every Elderscrolls game has this theme as it's core. I should have been more clear with Zelda because the Windwaker timeline (The Hero of Wind and a New World) does NOT follow this as a theme and has a very different theme form the rest of the Zelda games. Do you know what those 3 games have for it's theme?
I will give you one of the 15 for free. #2 Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty, Age of Empires all contains the theme of war. Some of the other games I've listed have themes that go beyond the obvious. 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.
I feel through that. I have rested my case. Could you at least get 5 of those right? Really, is it that hard?
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. We both continue to go at each others throats through that mindset. It's clear we will not see eye to eye on it. I stand by my claims, and you stand by yours. 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.
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.
"1. How can we tell if an author's comments about their work are wrong? If what the author says disagrees with the actual text, which do we accept?
2. Whether or not you talked to someone at Bioware , there should still be evidence in the games themselves that organics vs synthetics is the main theme. Right?
3. Following # 2, do you have any evidence that, from BOTH a design and literary perspective, organics vs synthetics is the main theme? Prove this, using evidence from the games.
4. Should people accept claims without any sort of evidence? If they should not, why do you keep insisting I should believe your claims?"
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
I hope these answers are more than satisfactory to you. I still await your answers based on the themes of the games I sent you. All of them can be stated in 5 words or less. Most are 1-2 words. Very, very simple stuff. Again it's the theme that they share in common, it doesn't even need to be the main theme. Some of them are the base themes, and there may or may not be a couple that are tricky.
|
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?
Currently Online 
