Why the ending did not work (repost)

The Catalyst said that, yes, but it was either wrong or lying.  That's implicit in the game since Shepard can survive.  So, like I said, the choices are that the Catalyst is lying or just wrong.  Which you decide doesn't matter.  What matters is that "partly synthetic" isn't a death sentence.

Even in ME1, the Keepers are impervious to bullets.  When you meet Tali, there is a keeper in that alley that, I'm sure, we've all riddled with bullets at one time or another without affecting it in any way.  In ME2, we are told that the keepers run "protein vats" by Bailey, and there are no cemeteries evident on the Citadel.  Part of their job maintaining the Citadel then is likely the disposal of the dead.  Disposing of already dead bodies and the act of "harvesting" are distinctly different.  The Collectors processed living people.

What appears to be out of place regarding the keepers is the assertion in ME1 that they "self-destruct" if disturbed.  At first, he tells us they "just shut down" and then later it gets mentioned that the "self-distruct."  However, no keeper is ever shown either shutting down or self-destructing in the game.

Even in ME1, the Keepers are impervious to bullets.  When you meet Tali, there is a keeper in that alley that, I'm sure, we've all riddled with bullets at one time or another without affecting it in any way.  In ME2, we are told that the keepers run "protein vats" by Bailey, and there are no cemeteries evident on the Citadel.  Part of their job maintaining the Citadel then is likely the disposal of the dead.  Disposing of already dead bodies and the act of "harvesting" are distinctly different.  The Collectors processed living people.

What appears to be out of place regarding the keepers is the assertion in ME1 that they "self-destruct" if disturbed.  At first, he tells us they "just shut down" and then later it gets mentioned that the "self-distruct."  However, no keeper is ever shown either shutting down or self-destructing in the game.

I've never shot the Keeper near Tali in ME1!  Something to look forward to.  But for the Keepers, I was under the assumption that, since the Reapers had control of the Citadel again, they were also once more in control of the Keepers.  Given that the conversation between Shepard and Anderson is something about humans being shipped to the Citadel to have their remains contribute to a new Reaper, I didn't see it as an unreasonable assumption.  Also, I only think people who die in unreachable places are taken by the Keepers as a general rule.  Nothing indicates that any society gave up funeral rites so that the Keepers could fill their protein vats.

That's what Bioware wanted. People to forget.  ME3 is the best place to start playing the trilogy. So whatever happened before that time never did.

Well, as I said, it's the cutscene that is the aberration, not that the player is unable to shoot a keeper on the Citadel.  That the player is never able to shoot a keeper on the Citadel is consistent in all three games.  You can "speculate" Bioware's motives for that if you wish... It's still speculation.

Ok, I'm going back through your posts trying to find the logic here. Because you lost me with that last response.

I said: he Catalyst offers options that go directly against all those things, and not only must you accept it, but embrace it as well. The Catalyst is the rational entity that has never evolved, sees everything as inevitable and doesn't understand what Shepard has done to get so far (and the writers probably forgot).

And you responded with: 'The Catalyst has also seen countless cycles repeat the same actions but with different faces. Which is also echoed in the game multiple times. They are living in a paradise compared to our current set up. The races of the galaxy have the literal entire galaxy to explore and expand on. No longer are they at a shortage of supplies or limited in space to grow. And yet the same old set ups still follow them. Conflict is rampant in the galaxy not just between races but between similar groups. There are massive multi billion dollar mercenary groups that earn a ton for violence and murder.'

The difference is Shepard.

And then you respond: 'Here is the thing though the galaxy was already heading down the path to destruction before Shepard was even a factor in the grand scheme of the galaxy. The Quarians created unintentionally I might add an entire race of synthetic life. Their responds to it was sheer fear resulting in them attempting to kill them. Which kick started a war which left their planets damaged and their entire race pushed to the brink of extinction. And in responds to that the Council had all AI's peaceful or not rounded up and killed again out of sheer fear of a repeat happening.

How is that even relevant to the point I made? The Catalyst never evolved. It didn't pay attention to the things Shepard achieved.

Also: 'ow and why was peace gained between Geth and Quarians. Everyone is so fast to point it out but never examine the reasons and effects behind it. Without Reaper intervention the Quarians would have completely wiped out the Geth. Due to their completely unprovoked attack on Geth controlled space. If the Reapers didn't attempt to completely strip all Geth of any free will they would have effectively wiped out the Quarians. And Legion wouldn't have wanted to assist Shepard because there would be nothing wrong in what they are doing to it.'

Like I mentioned before: The Geth almost annihilated the Quarians in the war that led the Quarians to flee to their migrant fleet.

But more importantly, I don't really get why brought that up in the first place. I was only stating that synthesism is horrible.

And then I said: Yes, and that's where Shepard came in, and mostly fixed it.

And your response: But Shepard didn't fix anything. Building the Crucible and attaching it to the Citadel doesn't fix the many social and political issues in the galaxy. The issues with S vs O are far more then that.

Social and political issues? Since when is Shepard a politician or did he/she get a degree in social studies? Shepard fights an enemy threatening the galaxy and tries to get people together for a common cause, fixing conflicts if possible, that's it. The scope of the game is limited to what BW dictates, it's not solving every issue in the universe.

And then you state: Because 2 of the 4 do not directly address the social and economical problem between races.

The games were never about solving everything. They were about uniting people as much as you can as a player, to fight a bigger threat. I don't remember there being economical issues, and if there were, how are they important to the central plot?



And I guess we'll disagree on what Control means, and how it affects principals.

The next time you play ME3, turn around when walking across the chasm. Look down to the left and right. What appears to be waterfalls, is really bloodfalls can be seen. Imagine how many people have been processed for that to happen?

What other reason would there be to have all those bodies on the Citadel? There are large piles of bodies just before Shepard goes up the beam.
Yes and no. If Shepard wasn't thinking too clearly, he/she would never of been able to use the power of the voice to convince TIM to shoot himself.

For me, I saw no reason to have Shepard injured. But then again, Shepard should be dead after Harbinger fires his beam of doom

According to Patrick Weekes, a lot of people survived. He didn't give a number, but I'm sure it wasn't most.

How do you explain all the bodies seen at the beam just before Shepard uses it? Anderson did say, before heading to Earth, that the reapers use the beam to transport people alive and dead up the beam.

There's nothing to suggest otherwise.

What multiple interpretations are there?
If that's the case, it can also be applied when Shepard is talking to the thing.
That wasn't necessary, if that's what their intention was. Or it could be Bioware was rushed or they didn't plan ahead. Most likely both.

The speculation is also based on the Prothean VI. It said that the Reapers were on Earth to harvest humans. The whole point of harvesting is to create new Reapers. So, sure, it may still be speculation in the sense that we don't see a proto-Reaper but the Reapers are harvesting humans. Also, I'd say the "human" Reaper was meant only to terrorize humanity. There are zero other examples of Reapers even remotely like it. The rest are pretty similar in design.