Unpopular opinions

What are you reading? More Nazi literature? That was condemned as early as Nuremberg...and the most useful research (hypothermia) that has been used is still commonly frowned upon.

Either way, just don't tell me it's the Heroic path. It's stuff like this where I start wanting to agree with the kooks who think games and media are a bad influence. I don't want kids being cajoled into "moral" views by like this. You want to be a piece of shit neckbeard on your own, fine. Just don't tell everyone it's a "good thing". 

My main issue is with the game's notion of "good" here. Or Weekes. Or whoever. Not necessarily yours. I just think you in particular are being a bit blasé about it. Which still kind of annoys me, because I'm more black n white.

I ran into a Reddit thread recently discussing the same thing and it saddens me that there was one dissenter there. Just about everyone's convinced how good this is.

As much as I like the big squad in 2 (or big squads, period), I could have done without some.

That said, they all have such good missions. So yeah, I'd even like to play Thane's... if it had that option at the end.

He serves no purpose except for me to recruit him after I finish the suicide mission if I want the councilor to survive. The last time I did his loyalty mission was before ME3 was released.

True...

He's another like Leng that I think really got hurt by the cut. His older mission in ME3 sounded like a repeat of the one with the Turian, Joram Talid. Except in ME3, it was Terra Firma and Charles Saracino.

ME2 allotted Paragon points (quite a bit) for the choice. 3 just sealed the deal.

Anyhow, I'm arguing from a moral stance. It's the same case with the Collector base.. almost purely a moral choice as well. The colonists are dead, but for some people, the principle of the matter is still a factor.

Speaking of which, Shep has a line at the end when with TIM. "Humanity needs a leader who's looking out for them." Which is exactly what I'm doing here with Maelon's data too (funnily though, this is the Paragon choice with TIM now. So much for consistency). I'm not going to be the guy that sold out human victims so Krogan babies could be happy. Symbolically speaking, I'm turning humanity into the Galaxy's bitch when I do things like that. Same with not wanting humanity to be TIM's playthings in the end too. These small acts mean something, in the bigger picture. Not that I'm trying to convince you, but this is the best way I can explain it --- even with already dead victims, this still matters to me.

If anything is "evangelical" (i.e. Preachy), it's the game and Tuchanka arc as a whole. I'm just doing my own thing and telling them to piss off. I can think for myself. I don't need Paragon points to know I'm right or feelgood soundtracks and pity stories with Eve to urge me forward in the next game. It's manipulative bullshit. My version of the story is far more lowkey.

It is traditional as far as the playerbase goes. My views are considered quaint at best. It's not very radical when I can find a Reddit thread where people agree with you more than me.

edit: Times like this, I feel like I'm talking to Legion and he wants me to explain Burial sites.

Oh? EDI is literally the Normandy. If any character was going to dry hump the Normandy it would be Joker

Hmm...

I like the Hammerhead over the Mako

Liara fits the Mary Sue trope (yes, I did give it a lot of thought, no, it's fine for people to like her, that was the intention after all)

Leviathan did nothing to improve the dumbass logic of the Catalyst

The Soldier class was rendered obsolete by ME3

I'm glad nearly all teammates had the potential to be killed and removed from the team.

Paragon decisions can be just as coldly calculating as Renegade.

I never hated the Turian Counselor.

I'm disappointed that neither Grunt nor Samara backed up their intention to try to kill Shepard later.

I like using shotguns as an Infiltrator.

I guess we have a terminology problem here. When I speak of "unethical methods", I mean methods that harm people or risk their health without consent, or otherwise do damage to morally relevant entities, and I see no reason why those methods should produce less reliable data. If your statement (bolded in the quote) refers to that, I regard it as wishful thinking. However, in a broader sense, "unethical" also applies to academic misconduct, involving forged evidence, intentionally biased samples and suchlike. These are indeed very likely to produce low-quality results. Your example uses "unethical" in the latter sense.

In the infamous Nazi example, there is another factor: many of those experiments didn't have a scientific objective, they were just done to cause as much pain as possible and science was used as a justification. Those would also produce low-quality results, but I'd rather not label them "science" in the first place. 

I would not have liked your proposed scenario, since it would send the message that the ethics of a scientific experiment are necessarily connected to the quality of obtainted results. This is hard to falsify since we can't exactly do a controlled study about it, but I'd go so far and say this is factually wrong, simply because it doesn't make the least bit of sense. 

The Nazi research you put forth contains "intentionally biased samples."  Scientists who will intentionally engage in experiments that harm people will, more often than not, have an alternative "agenda" that they are setting out to prove.  It's preconceived science... and that can lead to further biased reporting of the results, etc.  The data are, therefore, unreliable; that is, the scientific community cannot know which tidbits they can trust and which ones they can't... so, "good science" has to be done to gain reliable data anyways.  To be ethical, that "good" science can't be set up with a bias towards only "proving" the unreliable data... it has to be prepared to "disprove" it as well.  Conversely, it can't be set up with an intent to just "disprove" the data since that would also bias the new science.  The best move is to literally throw out the old data and start fresh with "good science."

In the case of the genophage, one has to "head canon" that this "good science" is what Mordin did... that he objectively "redid" a lot of Maelon's steps that "just happened" to agree with Maelon's data and that if Mordin had encountered a test of his own that pointed out a problem, he would have redirected his research and "thrown out" that part of Maelon's work.  Mordin's past experience with the genophage and his hyper-Salarian abilities is what would potentially have enabled him to create the cure quickly.  Your point about credit stands... It was Mordin's cure.  IMO, the scenario should not have hinged on whether or not Maelon's data was saved but on whether or not Mordin had been previously convinced to look objectively at the overall problem... There should have been some evidence in the game of Mordin redo-ing population scenarios, etc. taking into account the cultural developments that had taken place in Krogan society over the past century.  That the population scenarios were never redone outside of a time of war with the Krogan is a basic flaw in the "science" tainting the debate over whether or not the genophage should or should not be cured.