Choosing an Ending for Andromeda Canon

We also generally fight wars to a point of "surrender" or "negotiation" of a cease fire agreement.  To do this and end a war does require a level of trust between the leaders of the warring parties as well as a level of trust between the people and the leader representing them.  The writing is such that the player can also interpret the completion of the Crucible as being a sufficient enough threat to effectively invoke a "surrender" from the Reaper leader (i.e. the Catalyst)... and then proceed to negotiate that "cease fire" treaty with it.  So, the in moment reason to perhaps trust the Catalyst is if Shepard believes the Crucible is enough of an intimidation to invoke a "surrender" rather than an elaborate con job.  I would expect even a surrendering leader to at least try to negotiate a way to save his/her people from extinction.

I'm not trying to convince you that it's a good idea... In some IRL circumstances, negotiating a trust between warring parties has been a better idea than subjugating the "losing" party to the point of where an even worse regime rises up in rebellion a few years later (e.g. Germany WW1 to WWII).  All I've been saying is that the game is written with some open ground here for different people playing Shepards of different personalities to logically interpret the situation differently by assigning different levels of importance to the variety of little details present in the game.

The only "intention" I'm giving the developers is the intention to write a game that can be interpreted in more than one way.  Was it done completely without their personal biases showing through?... No, it was not.  They are only human after all.  Were they intentionally trying to lead and mislead people into believing what they personally might believe about the situation?  I don't think so.  If that was their intention, the game would have been written with far stronger messages overall... without all the vague language and innuendoes tearing people in bi-polar directions.

Should I trust or believe that people here are writing their posts in an unbiased way?  No... not when they frame in comments like ""We've seen no other examples than horrific ones." when, quite clearly, that is not what was presented within the time frame the game covered.

SUDDENLY GODWIN!!

Well, Doomsday above sees only "horrific examples" of synthesis presented in the game... so what makes you think you need to peel away "if we were green, everything would be perfect" nonsense.  Bioware DID show that green was less than perfect and also showed that it could be interpreted as being "less than horrific."

... and that's my answer to your response below.  It wasn't presented one sided... You're the one attaching more importance to the aspects shown on the one side of the coin than the other... just as Doomsday is attaching more importance to some aspects... and you're making it one-sided.

The reason there is no Low EMS version is because it generally takes a little effort to get to the point in a war where sides will sit down and discuss peace terms... so they asked that you actually complete a bit more of the game... big deal!  It doesn't say anything about it being the "best" ending.  The "best" ending IS the Shepard lives one... it's the one most people now strive for and will select destroy for repeatedly just because Shepard lives.  It's the one that they modded to make their "happy endings." 

So, what makes you think that you need to paint yourself up as some sort of "hero" for the "blind" masses - When it's you who just doesn't "see" that the downsides were presented in the game.  Trust me, the "destroy" ending doesn't need a champion... it's got plenty.  So, go argue with Doomsday about how one game can only portray "horrific examples" and still only portray the result of those examples as being the "optimal" outcome.  I'm done here.

I am no champion of Destroy.  That I consider it the least bad ending in no way diminishes the fact that it leaves me cold and not a little disgusted with Bioware.  It just means I hate the others more.


But the fact that there is no Low EMS version of Synthesis is telling.  It's meant to be the "golden ending"  And yes, it outright tells you this.  I just showed you the examples.  People may choose Destroy because of the torso easter egg, but that's not the ending Bioware wanted us to choose. 

I'm no hero for the masses.  I'm just a p*ssed off consumer.  Heck I'm not even the first to make the eugenics connection.  I am saying that the good endings in ME3 would be the bad endings in almost any other game. 

You're interpreting it as being telling.  Which ending is most commonly refered to as the "best ending"? - Destroy Shepard Lives.  Which ending was made into the Happy Ending Mod? - Destroy Shepard Lives.  Which ending is most frequently slammed here on BSN (by you) - Synthesis.  Whiich ending do people slam regardless of whether they only see "horrific examples" in the game or only see it as being promoted as being the "everything would be perfect" ending?  Synthesis.  When people see two totally opposing reasons for hating synthesis stated int he same forum... how can it possibly be said that this game is not interpretable in different ways?  This game is interpretable in a number of different ways whether you want to deny that or not.  Your bias is so clear that you won't even acknowledge the existence of a "horrifying example" that IS in the game - the Zha'til taking over the Zha.

... and I'm the on here who has already said (on this thread or another like it) that the endings are set up as a dilemma.  Definition of dilemma:  "a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones."  It's not Bioware trumping the Destroy ending in a "Happy ending" mod.  In the EC, they did indicate that with Destroy, things would be rebuilt.  In Paragon Control, Shepard is the "one who saves the many."  The negatives on any of the endings are brushed aside in the EC.

I agree that the EC "whitewashed" a lot of unpleasant stuff in the three colored ending. Synthesis is still the one with absolutely no downside at all. And you don't have answered my question: when did you sit down to discuss peace during the ending sequence?
Pre-EC, one of the writer said that the best ending was obtainable without MP...so I do think that synthesis was clearly intended as "the best ending" by the writers. (Now, people can think whatever they want for their Shepard and that's all right but I looked at the intention of the writers only, here).

I don't know why you come with the definition of dilemma...(Thanks for pointing the obvious ). However, I do think that this one is poorly set up, contradicts 99,9% of what came before on a thematic level (and more...) and thus it's a very disappointing way to end the trilogy.

Green? And throw life's chance to evolve into something wonderful ON ITS OWN for the first time since the Intelligence was created? I think not. That's just continuing on a path they created. That is, my Shepard's see things that way.

It's what I love about Wrex and the Krogan as well.  Humanity aside, they are the most diverse single species presented in the game.  Another area it's touched on... In the conversations with Legion... expressing a desire to not lose the unique perspective of the heretics. 

@ Lakus re Eugenics Downside - It was brought up with Okeer, when Shepard points out the numbers of Krogan he threw away in order to develop his "perfect" one... also that the "imperfect" have purpose.  Then again, the emotional toll of being engineered to be perfect took on Miranda is also shown in the game.  Lakus, I'm convinced what you really wanted is for them to show synthesis in a very one-sided, purely NEGATIVE way... and they didn't do that.

Way back in ME1 - they opened the idea by giving the player a choice whether or not to recommend gene therapy for Rebecca's child (i.e. side with the uncle in overriding the mother's choice or siding with the mother in taking the risk of a "natural" heart disease).  The told us about things like the Reapers luring Alliance officers into talks of peace so they could indoctrinate them "in the name of peace."  If they didn't want us to be able to interpret that there could be a dark side to synthesis, they would not have put that sort of suggestion into the game.  The dark side of synthesis was shown as well as the potential benefits that inserting AI med tech could have (i.e. Quarians with boosted immune system, babies without heart conditions, etc.).

Well, you don't have to use the persuade options. She says exactly that. It's more natural that way, I suppose.