Well... they are if you sacrifice other important characters instead. So, someone will die cause Bioware doesnt want too much work. You get the sweet decision of picking wich one.

You don't have to sacrifice any important characters to save your Warden or Inquisitor. You may have to sacrifice an important character for your Hawke depending on the choices you've made previously. The DA does a lot of work. I know DA isn't as well received as ME on the whole but from a narrative standpoint the DA is leagues above the ME team. Which is strange because ME was conceived as a trilogy unlike DA.

The Dragon Age team and the Mass Effect team are separate. Yes they are under the Bioware banner but they aren't the same developers. For all the flaws of the Dragon Age franchise, unlike Mass Effect, the Dragon Age team has an overall narrative plan, pays attention to lore, and forces the player to make real choices. Consistency in the writing of characters in Dragon Age is something that sorely missing in Mass Effect. There are a lot of OOC moments in ME3. 

"There is a lot to take in with this. You provide some good and understandable points. I'll get the little things out of the way first. Perhaps I have been hasty with my replies and had some pretty cringe worthy lines. Irrelevant or not. I do have a little side project that I do where I write and create content in an anonymous matter. What started out as a simple concept to prove a point, has surpassed my expectations and milestones. I occasionally interact with the followers and produce more content. I get to reflect on various philosophies, stories, polarity, and contrasts. I play with plethora of ideas of various themes. To say it isn't fun or intriguing would be a lie. Of course this is irrelevant because revealing it would destroy the magic and concept behind the whole façade. Of course on the contrary you will accuse me for a liar and I'm probably wasting my time mentioning this."

You're wasting your time because it's irrelevant to this conversation.  I don't mean that to be rude, but I just don't get how this relates to the topic at all, unless you want to present something you wrote about Mass Effect.  

"On that subject I do find the whole calling someone a liar thing to be a little offensive on the base of suspicion without evidence. Arguably in your defense, I see where your suspension arises. It is true that I talked to at least 7 people from Bioware, but in a sense you are correct. I stated this in a wrongful and irrelevant matter. I have had talks with many of them regarding Mass Effect. I can say that not all of them are in the know of the over all picture. For example two of them worked on the Dragon Age project, along with another unannounced cancelled title. Much like a politician or sales and marketing person. I did dishonestly raise that number to "look good". Not a lie, but not honest. Not something I am particularly proud of as I have a very strong philosophy and belief when it comes to honesty. I can say I am ashamed. As for those I have talked to regarding the matter. They have made the themes and concepts quite clear. You are correct with fact that there are many major plots in the game. Many which are sub-themes. A lot of stories first come into mind with a single concept. In Game Design, due to the amount of staff involved. A major theme that the game resolves around must be picked. From there we have the roots of a story that we expand upon. The tendencies is to create something relatable to the audience. In an RPG game, we traditionally try to create a few major themes with lots of minor themes that are often relevant to the main idea of the game. There are cases where they can be irrelevant if they add a substance to the story or the game itself. This allows for more creativity for the team members. Level designers will often benefit from this."

Come on man.  You just raised the number again.  Before you said "7 to be precise".  Now it's "at least 7".  This is just a bit bizarre at this point.  You are raising the number as you are saying how ashamed you are you changed the number.  Seriously, wtf? And yes, that is evidence you are lying.  If you give four contradictory accounts, at least three, and probably four, of them must be false.  So, you have no right to be offended, because it is demonstrably true that you are lying here and hence a liar at this junction. Plus, you still cannot explain why anyone at Bioware would be in trouble for telling you the theme of the game.  

Even if I did believe that the author is always right, nobody from Bioware said that Synthetics vs organics is the main theme of the story.  YOU said that.  And even if I was stupid enough to believe your story I still have no idea of the context it was said in or the exact wording, so I couldn't possibly take that into consideration.  

Considering all of this, why should I, or anyone else, take your claim seriously, or care in the least about what you claim people at Bioware said?  At this point, you should either drop the point entirely and rely on actual evidence from the game to make your case (which you should be doing anyway), or provide some evidence to show that you were at least telling the truth 1/4 of the time.  

"You may have a English degree and your grammar is quite impressive, but from where I stand. I feel that you attack an author simply because you disagree with them, or misperceived the context of the story. On the other hand. To give you the benefit of the doubt. Video games are made with massive teams and as I have mentioned before. Sub-plots, side-quests, exploration, DLC, and yes, even large plots are created by other teams for the game. To increase the content, while feeling consistent with the game. This doesn't always work out as smoothly as the developers intended. In the end. There was a theme, an idea, perhaps you wish to call it a concept. That very concept in the case of Mass Effect was the contrast of "Organics and Synthetic lifefroms". I do not wish to argue with you any more on this matter, but I will also not change my mind after being told straight from the source of the material. That being said, I also keep my journey, and my interpretation of the story in my mind. Forever and always."

I didn't attack any author.  I just explained that what the author says is completely irrelevant to me as a reader.  As an individual, I may be interested to hear what an author has to say, but as a reader, it does not directly inform my opinion of the book.

To give a, hopefully, clearer example, we'll look at Harry Potter.  JK Rowling said that Dumbledore is gay.  At first, I doubted this, but when I looked at the book, I found reason to believe he was.  Considering his age, him being single, never married, no kids, the lack of any relevant females in his history, and most importantly.  *spoilers* Dumbledore does some things when with Grindewald that are totally contrary to his character in the rest of the book.  This is best explained by the idea that their relationship was romantic, and thus Dumbledore was willing to do things outside of his nature for that love. 

My point in this is that authors are not always wrong or always right.  Whatever they say has to be judged against the text. If the claim is borne out by the text, I am perfectly happy to revise my opinion accordingly, as I did in this case.  If what they say is not supported by the text, then I will not.  Their claim, like any claim, needs to be judged based on evidence. 

So, I don't much care what you think about the story, or who told you.  If you want to convince people that your point of view is true, you need evidence from the actual work.  And if what you say is true, then that should be easy to do, and you shouldn't have to call on an imaginary authority source anyway.

I'm not sure why I have to spend so much time on this, because it is a known logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

"One of the greatest things about writing is that there is no right or wrong for an author. The challenge is to portray that vision to your audience. I fell into this trap in a recent script I wrote. I over complicated it, and was restricted to 45 seconds. The result of the draft was revealing to me. Only 40% of the people understood the meaning behind it. That is not good. That is bad. Some people might say "Oh well the 60% are stupid." I've had people say that to me. On the other hand. I picked a subject that required more time to flesh out the explanation and emotions. For the period of time the script took place in. I did not clearly depict a characters intention. Instead I used metaphors and symbolism to do so. This lead to confusion and required me to do one of two things. Rewrite the script in a more simplistic manner for the allotted 45 seconds. Or flesh out the characters over more time. I have to go with option A. In reality I would love to do option B and make it a full, fleshed out story. I certainly learned a lesson there. In my mind, my vision was as clear as the sun. It couldn't have been any brighter. Then after getting input, I can see the flaws from other peoples points of view. That's when I begin to refine the story to make more sense, whilst staying true to myself. I would be dreaded to write something that I didn't enjoy."

I really don't get the relevance to this story, unless it is to agree with me.  It seems you're saying that the version in your head did not match the version that was eventually written.  Which is kind of what I've been saying.  What you think may not line up with what you actually write.  

I cannot assess the version of Mass Effect 3 that was in Mac Walter's head, or anyone else at Bioware.  I can only assess the one that made it onto my TV screen, so that is the only version I'm interested in.  And in that version, Organics vs synthetics was not the main theme.

And of course there is wrong for an author.  Which is simple to demonstrate.  Supposed JK Rowling (we'll use her again), was posting something and wrote "The main character of my book was named Larry Potter".  She would be wrong.  This is obviously a simplified example, but obviously authors can be wrong. 

"All in all. I understand your perception of the matters. In the end. The theme that the game was built around remains the same. What started out as an idea, a concept. Bloomed and grew into something much more. With that understanding I was able to see why Bioware views the Synthetic ending as the real ending in "their" minds. As I stated in my first post. I explained that each ending is subjective to the player and is to be considered real to that. As the writers, they considered the synthetic ending to be correct as it touched most of the major themes of the game and the main theme they stemmed the game from. Keeping that in mind. The player creates their own story and legacy as they go through the game. So their choices may result in another ending making more sense to them. Or perhaps their ideals feel more inclined in that direction. After all, Bioware games are created with the intention of their worlds are created to let create their own story. That is the core essence of Bioware games and it will be seen again in the new IP that the talented people are Bioware are currently hard at work on."

I never argued about which ending is real, so I'm not going to address this.  I don't think any ending is real.

"The fur coat story is silly, but very impressive. A psychological trick, and one I am quite familiar with. If you wish to enter the mind of psychology, then we shall. The fur coat is a simple smoke and mirror to your claim. Of course your last post was not about a fur coat and I am quite sure that you did not hold the idea of a fur coat firmly in your mind when you typed it out either. Feel free to correct me on this matter. Your point is simple. One person can make a claim, then contradict it later. This isn't an issue that is exclusive to writers. We all do it at some point, as you clearly pointed out. I have done it not once, but at least twice since we started our conversation. In the case of George Lucas, I hate it when people use him as an example because he kind of has his own little special corner. He changed the film to fit his visions. He was the heart and soul of Star Wars up to this point. I hold a lot respect for him to stay true with the visions in his head, rather than simply give people what they wanted. He created a universe and shared it with the world. He stayed as true as possible to his ideas. Continuing to improve upon (albeit in his opinion and mind) the story and change details that he wasn't happy with or felt wasn't inline with his visions. In a manner of speaking. He created it for himself and shared it with the world. He had a dominate level of control over the story and direction of the series, some might perceive that his mind was copied to the paper. That's only one perspective. Others might look at it as he was a poor writer. Yet, it was his story. In your mind, there is no right or wrong with a story. That is the art of it. A child creates a story that makes sense to him, it might not be sensible to another. With Lucas, heh, he continued to write plot scripts despie not releasing them. It really was his universe.  Now if he were to turn around and say something stupid like "Leia wore a pink dress". He would need to go back and change that to be true, regardless if it is in his mind. Or he would need to write something else into the canon to change the statement to true."

It's not a trick, and it's not psychology.  It is logic.  It's a clear demonstration.  It is 100% objective proof that a claim an author makes can be wrong.  Star Wars is a bad example (which I know I brought up, but I did not intend to talk about it this much), because that is an example where the work itself is actually and physically being changed.  So there are different versions of the film, and what we can say about the film changes with each version.  If I was watching the original version and I said "there is a Gungan on the roof at the celebration" in return of the Jedi, this statement would be wrong.  If I was watching the edited version, that comment would be right.  This makes it a confusing example to use here and I'm not going into it.

But my question was very simple.  Was my last post (two posts ago) about panda fur coats?  You said my post was not about a panda fur coat, when I, the author, clearly said it was.  So, you're saying that the author can make a statement about his or her work that is wrong.  And you say it is wrong because that statement contradicts what I wrote.  So, what is actually written is more important than what the author said about the writing.  I rest my case.

I could also put that in simpler, more neutral, logic terms if you don't like pandas.

Premise 1:  Authors can be wrong about what they've written.

Demonstration of Premise 1:  My statement was (as you say) wrong.

Premise 2:  We recognize that authors statements are wrong when they contradict text.

Demonstration of Premise 2:  My comment was contradicted by my original writing, and thus you judged it to be wrong.

Conclusion:  When the text of a work disagrees with extratextual evidence, then what the text says takes precedence.

If you cannot disprove either of these premises, the conclusion holds as true.

If what I say about my post can be wrong, then what Bioware devs say about their game can be wrong as well.  The way we tell if my comment about my post is right or wrong is by looking at the post itself.  Same thing with the game.  If what the author says is contradicted by the work itself, then it is wrong.  So, even IF someone at Bioware said, "the main theme is about organics vs synthetics", that would be wrong because, in my opinion which I have explained earlier, it is contradicted by the work itself.  Therefore, what an anonymous and probably imaginary person at Bioware said is irrelevant.  Even if they had said that, we would STILL have to look at the actual game to see if it checks out.  So, unless you can give compelling examples from game to back up your opinions (that the war between synthetics and organics is inevitable, and that organics vs synthetics is the main theme) then your claims are wrong.

*Sigh* I spend way too much time arguing with people who are wrong on the internet.  But at this point, I've given you evidence from the game itself, and I've given you logical proof, examples, and sources that clearly explain why author's do not have complete authority (or perhaps any authority).  All you've given is an incredibly sketch claim that you've talked with an anonymous source at Bioware who told you the theme with a complete lack of context or explanation.   If you are going to argue against this without presenting any kind of evidence, you have left the realm of rational conversation, and are wasting both of our time.  

Indeed we are wasting our time. I've seen a few of your posts and it appears that you go around trying to prove people wrong and put them down. I don't even know why I am arguing with you at this point. You try to dodge everything and call people out on various opinions or insights. I have come to conclude that it is very possible that you have an "inferiority complex". The need to act superior over others to boost your own confidence.

Unfortunately, the reality is that I provided knowledge that I felt many people on here would not have. I concluded that they may not have this knowledge by the simple fact that I doubt every one on here has contact with people from Bioware. I was under no way obliged to share such information nor am I obliged to give you any information on my sources. Sharing information regarding corporate information, including but not limited to staff or affairs is prohibited. I am sorry that such a rule is a thorn to your inconvenience and made you conclude that I am lying. 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. I very much can relate with the information I was told, and the game that I played. I explained why the number went to 7. You chose to ignore what I said about making it sound like marketing BS data. It's not lying, but it's not entirely honest. It makes one look better than they really are. Something that as I said, was unfaithful of myself.

You are more than free to formulate your own opinions and interpretation of anything in the universe. You have a mind and you are free to use it. From where I sit, I think you are a very intelligent person. Arrogant, but intelligent. Your interpretation of ME3 is very different from others. Just because you feel you are right in your mind, doesn't make you right in comparison to the rest of us. That conclusion is just down right silly. This rubs off as embarrassment as I am reading this from someone who "claims" to have a master's degree in English.

As for that authority thing you posted. It made me laugh a little because I am quite the opposite of that. As someone who is quite philosophical and scientific. I delve into a lot of research to form my own opinions on various matters. For example global warming is an issue. Some scientist claim that all the ice is going to melt and sea levels will rise drastically. Quite a bold claim that will makes sense to a lot of people. However in reality, the North Pole is shrinking but Antarctica is growing and continues to reach breaking records of growth in human history. One theory is the south is getting colder and the north is getting warmer. A huge change in the eco-system that will affect society. Someone might even try to conclude the possibility of an eventual rain forest in Canada and snow storms in Brazil. Something that is unfathomable to most people. This remains food for  thought in the scientific realm. While this is irrelevant to the conversation, it shows that different people, even in the fields they are from. Will draw different conclusions.

Are you really going to use typos and simple mistakes as an example? Really dude, really? Come on. "Larry Potter". I think even the average high school drop out can tell the difference with that one. That was just a silly example that failed to prove a point. It is illogical to assume that a author will intentionally lie about their work. On the contrary it does happen. But this is a very weak argument to use for your case. You can very well argue that the original version of a story and book is canon, but in reality the canon is defined by the "definitive" version. This is very common knowledge and I do not believe for a second that you fail to recognise this. You can assess each version separately to your hearts content. You are also free to imagine that the original version is the real version because you prefer that story. That is your right. Even if it is not correct in reality.

I feel that you have a lack of understanding of themes and base concepts that are the foundation of the story and/or work. In game development it is very common for a game to be created revolving a certain single concept. I've told you what was used in the case of Mass Effect. You do not like the answer and continue to argue against it. God of War is the simplest concept. Santa Monica wrote the theme and concept as "Battling Greek Gods" and "Gore and Violence". A very basic concept that grew into a fun game. Video game development is VERY different than writing a book. Writing a book is very different than film. You are trying to use your knowledge of literature to assess each one with the same logic. So I still stand by my claims and what I have been told. The base foundation remains and it appears to me that you were unable to comprehend this. To say I am wrong is an act of desperation. I cannot admit to the idea that you are right, when you are not. From a game development point of view. You miss the mark by miles.

I will give you credit where it's due. I think it's quite insightful of you to consider sometimes an author fails to conceive their vision on paper. Failing to explain events that change the interpretation and/or meaning of a plot point. Unfortunately this is not the case for our debate here. Another interesting concept is where an author writes a story with the expectation of the reader to have knowledge on the concept or myth the story is based on. This was the fallacy of the film "Jupiter Ascending". Millions have misinterpreted that film because of this, it backfired backin the face of the Wachowski brothers. In the case of "Memento or K-pax" those films were created to keep people guessing after the film and debate for a long time to come. The ending of Mass Effect had the same intention. The fact we are still talking about Mass Effect today means one thing. Bioware has succeeded in that specific goal. The film "Snowpiercer" is a film that was often misinterpreted by a lot of people. I have tons of friends who have troubles grasping the concept. Yet on the other side of the coin. Thousands of people understand the film without a hitch. Literature can be a double edge sword for many authors. Not everyone thinks the same and not everyone perceives information the same. Clearly this is a case that is relevant to this case.

You continue to dodge and weave around certain aspects of the debate. Words such as "I'm not going into this" show that. Perhaps a lack of knowledge on said subjects of that matter. Or it's your way of trying to sound smart when you are wrong. Regardless of your reasons. It is something you should be aware of when you engage in debates.

"Indeed we are wasting our time. I've seen a few of your posts and it appears that you go around trying to prove people wrong and put them down. I don't even know why I am arguing with you at this point. You try to dodge everything and call people out on various opinions or insights. I have come to conclude that it is very possible that you have an "inferiority complex". The need to act superior over others to boost your own confidence."

This is pure flaming, and I would appreciate an apology.  I absolutely enjoy trying to prove people wrong.  I like debate.  I enjoy it as an intellectual exercise, and I value my own opinion, and feel it is worth defending.  

By the way, I did mention I got a degree in English right?  Do you think I spent four years of my life discussing and arguing about literature because I didn't like doing it?

To say I have an inferiority complex is a pure personal attack and is totally unacceptable.  Before you point out that I called you a liar, I called you a liar because I demonstrated that you lied.  It was also directly relevant to the conversation because it pertained to the reliability of information you were citing. 

I do not put people down.  I put ideas down.  If your idea is wrong, I will put it down as such.  I said this very early on in the conversation.  If you don't like this, that is your business.  If you don't want to speak with me, you are not obligated to.  Simply apologize for the personal insults, and move on with your life.

Whether or not I have an inferiority complex is entirely irrelevant to this debate, which is flaming, not to mention another logical fallacy.  (Ad hominen attack).  Which is quite similar to the argument from authority fallacy, in which you're arguing about the characteristics of the person making a claim and not the claim itself.

By the way, I don't know why you put "inferiority complex in quotes".  And did you just accuse someone of having a inferiority complex, and then explain it to them as if they were too dumb to know what a very common term meant?  That's one of the funniest fucking things I've ever seen.

Unfortunately, the reality is that I provided knowledge that I felt many people on her would not have. I concluded that they may not have this knowledge by the simple fact that I doubt every one on here has contact with people from Bioware. I was under no way obliged to share such information nor am I obliged to give you any information on my sources. Sharing information regarding corporate information, including but not limited to staff or affairs is prohibited. I am sorry that such a rule is a thorn to your inconvenience and made you conclude that I am lying. 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. I very much can relate with the information I was told, and the game that I played. I explained why the number went to 7. You chose to ignore what I said about making it sound like marketing BS data. It's not lying, but it's not entirely honest. It makes one look better than they really are. Something that as I said, was unfaithful of myself.

The idea that they can't share the theme of the actual game without getting in trouble is absolutely laughable.  Are you saying that the MAIN THEME of the game is sensitive corporate information?  Or that the company cannot share the name of their staff?  Is this the CIA?  Ridiculous.

And no, you are not obligated to share any information.  UNLESS YOU WANT TO USE IT TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.  If you expect me to take what you're saying as some sort of definitive proof regarding the theme of the game, then you absolutely need to back your shit up.  But that is not why I called you a liar.

I concluded that you lied because you made four statements that all contradicted each other.  They cannot all be true.  If you spoke to two people at Bioware, you lied about talking to seven people.   One of them is a lie.  It is lying 100%, which is why I ignored you talking about marketing BS.  And right after saying you artificially changed the number, you AGAIN changed it from "precisely" 7 to "at least" 7.  So were you lying about it being 7, or about 2?  Can you keep your own lies straight?  

"It's not lying but it's not entirely honest."  We're not politicians here, so I'm not going to accept such nonsense.  If you claim honesty is so important to you, I don't see how you can make such a claim.  If you said something that you knew was untrue, you lied.  Simple.  And now you are lying about lying.  That's lying squared.

And yet again you are making unfounded personal attacks.  You made a claim to me in a conversation with me.  Calling that out does not make me a jackass, and it does not ruin it for anyone else who may want to discuss it with you.  They are free to go ahead.  But keep going with the insults I guess.  

As for that authority thing you posted. It made me laugh a little because I am quite the opposite of that. As someone who is quite philosophical and scientific. I delve into a lot of research to form my own opinions on various matters. For example global warming is an issue. Some scientist claim that all the ice is going to melt and sea levels will rise drastically. Quite a bold claim that will makes sense to a lot of people. However in reality, the North Pole is shrinking but Antarctica is growing and continues to reach breaking records of growth in human history. One theory is the south is getting colder and the north is getting warmer. A huge change in the eco-system that will affect society. Someone might even try to conclude the possibility of an eventual rain forest in Canada and snow storms in Brazil. Something that is unfathomable to most people. This remains food for  thought in the scientific realm. While this is irrelevant to the conversation, it shows that different people, even in the fields they are from. Will draw different conclusions.

Since you're going to accuse me of dodging questions later, I'll address this now.  I'm not dodging anything, I'm reacting when you're dodging a question.  You're admitting that this is irrelevant, as you have with several other things, and then accusing me of dodging it.  This did not respond to anything I said, or address the argument from authority fallacy.  

Are you really going to use typos and simple mistakes as an example? Really dude, really? Come on. "Larry Potter". I think even the average high school drop out can tell the difference with that one. That was just a silly example that failed to prove a point. It is illogical to assume that a author will intentionally lie about their work. On the contrary it does happen. But this is a very weak argument to use for your case. You can very well argue that the original version of a story and book is canon, but in reality the canon is defined by the "definitive" version. This is very common knowledge and I do not believe for a second that you fail to recognise this. You can assess each version separately to your hearts content. You are also free to imagine that the original version is the real version because you prefer that story. That is your right. Even if it is not correct in reality.

Do you know what an analogy is?  When you use a simpler example to illustrate a more complex concept?  The point is that statements can be wrong.  Maybe it's because of a typo, because of an intentional lie, or simply a mistake. It doesn't matter why the claim is wrong, just that it is wrong.    Regardless of why these mistakes are made, we need a way to determine whether statements are true or not.  We do so by looking at the text.  I  I was trying to dumb it down to a typo level because you consistently are not responding to more complex examples.  

I feel that you have a lack of understanding of themes and base concepts that are the foundation of the story and/or work. In game development it is very common for a game to be created revolving a certain single concept. I've told you what was used in the case of Mass Effect. You do not like the answer and continue to argue against it. God of War is the simplest concept. Santa Monica wrote the theme and concept as "Battling Greek Gods" and "Gore and Violence". A very basic concept that grew into a fun game. Video game development is VERY different than writing a book. Writing a book is very different than film. You are trying to use your knowledge of literature to assess each one with the same logic. So I still stand by my claims and what I have been told. The base foundation remains and it appears to me that you were unable to comprehend this. To say I am wrong is an act of desperation. I cannot admit to the idea that you are right, when you are not. From a game development point of view. You miss the mark by miles.

Can you show that I have a lack of understanding on theme?  Cause, I'm sorry to go to the college well again, but if you are going to AGAIN use persona attacks, I have to defend myself with evidence from my personal life. I have a degree showing I do know a lot about theme.  I also have a master's degree showing I know how to teach theme to others.  Which is not to say I CAN'T be wrong, but I have compelling evidence to show that I am indeed very capable of explaining theme.  So, unless you can point out something I've said that shows I do not (aside from me not believing that your uncle works at Bioware or whatever), then do not insult my intelligence.  Another personal attack.  

Again, I continue to argue against you because you have not given me evidence. And no, yet again, claiming that someone told you does not count.

We are using literary terms because we are analyzing a story, not the gameplay.  But do you want to talk about gameplay?  Fine, let's do that. 

One of the core gameplay elements is the paragon/renegade meter.  The paragon/renegade meter informs the dialogue tree options, which has a direct impact on how the game unfolds.  Paragon options are generally, but not always, associated with allying yourself with the larger intergalactic community, and renegade with placing humanity above all else.  For example, in Mass Effect 1, identifying yourself with the alliance earns you renegade points, and identifying yourself as a spectre earns you paragon points.  In the second game, associating yourself with the anti-alien cerberus gives you renegade points, and defying them gives you paragon points.  Selling out the Krogan for the sake of humanity (to earn Salarian aid) gives you renegade points, and refusing gives you paragon points.

So, not only is the idea of cooperation vs individualism baked into every facet of the story, but it is also part of the fabric of the gameplay as well.  It is literally staring you at the face for the entirety of the trilogy.  Notice that there is no "organic vs synthetic" meter as part of the gameplay.  

And your statement that organics vs synthetics is the key gameplay concept is also ridiculously wrong.  A HUGE part of the game is spent not fighting against synthetics.  In fact, I'd say far less than half of the trilogy is spent not fighting synthetics.  In the second game for instance, the only times you fight synthetics are legion and Tali's missions, and the reaper at the end.  At least 75% of the game is spent fighting organic life, and that ratio would also be about right for Mass Effect 3.  Although there are corrupted organics which is a gray area.  As I said, from a story perspective, Mass Effect 1 is the only one where the main theme is (or could be) organics vs synthetics, and that is also the only game where you spend most of your time fighting synthetics.  

This is not to mention the time you spend on the citidel.  A huge part of the game is devoted to building up an intergalactic coalition. In the second game, you do this by building individual ties to your teammates.  In the third, this concept is broadened to forming alliances with different species and organizations.  While this is related to fighting the reapers in the sense of the story, the actual gameplay element is having conversations, and either cooperating with allies or coercing others to fight with you.  If you say that the idea of the game design is just fighting against synthetics you're ignoring more than half the combat, and nearly everything outside of it.  

Now here's the part where I'm going to insult your ideas, and you're going to accuse me of being too mean.  It's not that I'm saying you're wrong as an act of desperation.  It's that I'm saying you're wrong because I'm not a moron.

See what I just did earlier was provide you with EVIDENCE that backs up my claim.  Information from the game that supports what I'm saying.  What you've done is said "someone at Bioware told me".  You have given me no corroborating evidence for that story, you have admittedly been dishonest about at least part of it, and you have provided nothing from the game.  And I'm desperate for arguing against that?  Lolol. 

 "will give you credit where it's due. I think it's quite insightful of you to consider sometimes an author fails to conceive their vision on paper. Failing to explain events that change the interpretation and/or meaning of a plot point. Unfortunately this is not the case for our debate here. Another interesting concept is where an author writes a story with the expectation of the reader to have knowledge on the concept or myth the story is based on. This was the fallacy of the film "Jupiter Ascending". Millions have misinterpreted that film because of this, it backfired backin the face of the Wachowski brothers. In the case of "Memento or K-pax" those films were created to keep people guessing after the film and debate for a long time to come. The ending of Mass Effect had the same intention. The fact we are still talking about Mass Effect today means one thing. Bioware has succeeded in that specific goal. The film "Snowpiercer" is a film that was often misinterpreted by a lot of people. I have tons of friends who have troubles grasping the concept. Yet on the other side of the coin. Thousands of people understand the film without a hitch. Literature can be a double edge sword for many authors. Not everyone thinks the same and not everyone perceives information the same. Clearly this is a case that is relevant to this case."

This is pretty self contradictory.  The idea of Mass Effect was to be ambiguous enough to get people to wonder, yet you're basically telling me I have to believe what you say with no evidence? 

And I haven't seen any of those movies (except for Memento which was fairly clear aside from its structure), so I can't comment on them, nor do I see how they are relevant to this conversation, at least not without more details.  The reason I've been sticking to examples like Harry Potter and Star Wars is because they are really popular.  

"You continue to dodge and weave around certain aspects of the debate. Words such as "I'm not going into this" show that. Perhaps a lack of knowledge on said subjects of that matter. Or it's your way of trying to sound smart when you are wrong. Regardless of your reasons. It is something you should be aware of when you engage in debates."

Again I am going to call you a liar, because again, you are lying.  And you are again attacking me personally. Which is what people often do when they're flailing around in an argument.  

I have said "I'm not going into this" (or something similar) precisely twice (at least in that last post and I don't think at all before).  When I have done so, I have quoted it anyway and given a clear explanation why.  The things I did not address were Star Wars and the ending.  

The reason I didn't address these things were because they would take us far off topic.  Star Wars was a bad example as that is the case of a film having actual different versions, and not a matter of interpretation.  Our conversation about Star Wars was going nowhere.  The conversation is about Mass Effect 3.  I brought up Star Wars as a quick example, and you got into a whole thing about it, and wouldn't give it up after I explained why it was a bad example.  An author making a claim about an existing work is different than them making a new and different work.  If you don't get this, I'm sorry.

I also said I wasn't going into this regarding the ending, because I never talked about which ending was "real" and I didn't feel like defending a position I never claimed to hold that was irrelevant to the conversation.  But you want me too?  Fine.  I think all the endings are equally real, because it is an interactive narrative.  If you chose control, that is the real ending and so on.  Unless there is something in Andromeda that contradicts one ending or confirms another, all the endings are equally valid in my mind.  For example, if Reapers show up in Andromeda, obviously destroy can't work anymore, and if Shepard still exists, then control can't be right, and if Joker doesn't have a robodick, then synthesis isn't right.  Until then, they're all valid no matter how stupid synthesis is.  There, you happy I addressed this copletely irrelevant topic?  Glad that useless shit is out of the way.

Btw, I have quoted absolutely everything you said to ensure I either responded to it all or provided justification for ignoring it.  Not only that, but I've specifically asked you for clarification on specific points so I COULD address them.  The exact opposite of what you've done.  

Now, let's see how much you dodged...

You completely ignored the logical proof, completely dropped the line of conversation about the statement about my post being wrong, competely ignored the point about the argument from authority fallacy your case has been built upon, you have not clarified whether writers are often or always right, you have STILL NOT EXPLAINED HOW WE SHOULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE STATEMENTS BY AUTHORS, YOU HAVE STILL NOT EXPLAINED HOW SYNTHETICS VS ORGANICS IS MORE RELEVANT THAN ANY OTHER TOPIC.  And you still haven't explained why on Earth I should believe your claim about who you spoke to at Bioware.

You rely on the argument from authority fallacy, you don't back up a single thing you've said, you throw out personal attacks, you clearly lie (unless 1=2=7<7 that is), you ramble about completely irrelevant topics (I really don't care in the least about your script or your anomalous writing on the internet).  And you're telling me how to debate?  Lulz.

But here, I'll teach you the most important thing about debate.  YOU BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH EVIDENCE.  That's really, the most important thing by far.  Your whole argument is "I talked to one... no two... no 7... no at least 7 people at Bioware.  So you have to believe me."  Your whole "debate" is one probably fraudulent claim with no supporting evidence.  So, don't pretend to understand anything about debate when you can't get the first thing right. ^_^

This I never asked, nor do I know for sure or have an answer. What I do know is that the directors cut ending made it clear that Shepard is dead. You kind of see him/her die in the endings. Especially the synthetic one (he/she became one with the force? lol I'm just kidding there). I am speculating that, that little scene may have been part of the "indoctrination" thing or it was poke like you said. I don't want to make any claims because I don't know. But I do think that what ever it was. It isn't really significant, which is unfortunate. However, from my understanding. You can only see this scene in the destroy ending. So you cannot claim that you got the right ending. As there is no right or wrong but the Synthesis ending is considered to be the best ending (right in Biowares eyes).

As for Shepard in Andromeda. Bioware has gone public in stating that it is a new chapter as if was a new universe. It will still feel like Mass Effect and it may or may not have links to the first game. They stated that Shepard would have no relations in the new game. That being said, that was a year ago and could have changed, as does everything in game development. I have heard rumors that the N7 logo may have been removed completely from the game, as it wouldn't have made sense.

As for the rumors about the player being a "path finder" and creating new settlements for humanity. This is likely true. I DO know that they are going for a more human story this time around. It's possible that humans got there on a colony ship. Some familiar races will return, as we all know the Krogan will be back. It is also rumored that they are now and intelligent space faring race. It will very much still be a Mass Effect game. It will attract both new and old fans, it may not please all of the older fans but hopefully it will :)