Discussion History JustForFun / DaringDo

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

----

Edit:

I think your claims are rendered moot by [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 this misconception of yours that I pointed out in our Mass Effect 3 forum thread, since it serves as the foundation for the arguments you provided]]; you believe that the Catalyst changed his mind about organics vs synthetics and such.

----

[[http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/quotAll-Were-Thematically-Revoltingquot-My-Lit-Professor039s-take-on-the-Endings-UPDATED-11435886-1.html This forum post]] provides another point of view of why the endings contradict the themes of the series.

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

----

Edit:

I think your claims are rendered moot by [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 this misconception of yours that I pointed out in our Mass Effect 3 forum thread, since it serves as the foundation for the arguments you provided]]; believe that the Catalyst changed his mind about organics vs synthetics and such.

--

I agree with Lilyx that Control is not a BrokenAesop.

----

[[http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/quotAll-Were-Thematically-Revoltingquot-My-Lit-Professor039s-take-on-the-Endings-UPDATED-11435886-1.html This forum post]] provides another point of view of why the endings contradict the themes of the series.

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

----

Edit:

I think your arguments are rendered moot by [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 this misconception of yours that I pointed out in our Mass Effect 3 forum thread, since it serves as the foundation for the arguments you provided]]; believe that the Catalyst changed his mind about organics vs synthetics and such.

--

I agree with Lilyx that Control is not a BrokenAesop.

----

[[http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/quotAll-Were-Thematically-Revoltingquot-My-Lit-Professor039s-take-on-the-Endings-UPDATED-11435886-1.html This forum post]] provides another point of view of why the endings contradict the themes of the series.

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

----

Edit:

I think your arguments are rendered moot by [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 this misconception of yours that I pointed out in our Mass Effect 3 forum thread, which serves as the foundation for these arguments]]; believe that the Catalyst changed his mind about organics vs synthetics and such.

--

I agree with Lilyx that Control is not a BrokenAesop.

----

[[http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/quotAll-Were-Thematically-Revoltingquot-My-Lit-Professor039s-take-on-the-Endings-UPDATED-11435886-1.html This forum post]] provides another point of view of why the endings contradict the themes of the series.

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

--

I think your arguments are rendered moot by [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 this misconception of yours that I pointed out in our Mass Effect 3 forum thread, which serves as the foundation for these arguments]]; believe that the Catalyst changed his mind about organics vs synthetics and such.

--

I agree with Lilyx that Control is not a BrokenAesop.

----

[[http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/quotAll-Were-Thematically-Revoltingquot-My-Lit-Professor039s-take-on-the-Endings-UPDATED-11435886-1.html This forum post]] provides another point of view of why the endings contradict the themes of the series.

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

--

I think your arguments are rendered moot by [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 this misconception of yours that I pointed out in our Mass Effect 3 forum thread]].

--

I agree with Lilyx that Control is not a BrokenAesop.

----

[[http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/quotAll-Were-Thematically-Revoltingquot-My-Lit-Professor039s-take-on-the-Endings-UPDATED-11435886-1.html This forum post]] provides another point of view of why the endings contradict the themes of the series.

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

--

I think these arguments of yours are rendered moot by [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 this misconception of yours that I pointed out in our Mass Effect 3 forum thread]].

--

I agree with Lilyx that Control is not a BrokenAesop.

----

[[http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/quotAll-Were-Thematically-Revoltingquot-My-Lit-Professor039s-take-on-the-Endings-UPDATED-11435886-1.html This forum post]] provides another point of view of why the endings contradict the themes of the series.

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

--

I think these arguments of yours are born of [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324277980A41940400&page=534#13343 the basic misconception I pointed out in our Mass Effect 3 forum thread]]

--

I agree with Lilyx that Control is not a BrokenAesop.

----

[[http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/quotAll-Were-Thematically-Revoltingquot-My-Lit-Professor039s-take-on-the-Endings-UPDATED-11435886-1.html This forum post]] provides another point of view of why the endings contradict the themes of the series.

\\\"As I\\\'ve already stated, different people can do the exact same thing for completely different reasons. The Catalyst may want to find a \\\"solution\\\" to its problem, but that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst wants. \\\"

The Catalyst and by extension the Reapers want to find a solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out all organic life. They give Shepard 3 choices that fixes (or attempt to fix) this problem. Shepard has no substantial comment about this, apart from saying that if organics are robbed of hope/choice, they \\\"may as well be machines.\\\" Forgetting, apparently, that EDI and the geth also have hopes, despite being machines. Shepard then chooses one of the options and the game ends. There is no time to dwell on the issue, you don\\\'t have a dialogue option for questioning anything, and the game doesn\\\'t acknowledge how this section compares to the portrayal of synthetics through the series. We can find all of this in the story. This \\\"that doesn\\\'t mean that Shepard makes their decision based on what the Catalyst says\\\" is roleplaying. You are judging thoughts of the main character that are not expressed in the game, not even through optional dialogue. Shepard chooses one of the Catalyst\\\'s solutions with no ado whatsoever. \\\'\\\'This\\\'\\\' we can see in the game, if we watch the scene.

--

I agree with Lilyx that Control is not a BrokenAesop.

To be precise, let\\\'s take this sentence of yours: