Why the ending did not work (repost)

Technology like the Grey Box. Which allows perfect recall of memories due to them being converted into data and stored.

Yes there are places that you can't do that and those places are generally stereotyped as ignorant or backwards by the people in areas who have moved beyond it. 11 out of 10 problems people have with Islam is based on an area that contains 10% of the entire world's population. With that area being extremely fundamentalist.  That in and of it self is fairly ignorant to state that because of the actions of a minority of a group that everyone else associated with that group is exactly the same. Or to even claim that the people in the extremely fundementalist areas all support that set up. Which is a lot like saying everyone in Germany supported the Nazi's and the concentration camps.


Apparently you didn't read as I clearly stated there is no direct proportional growth between intelligence and reduction of our blood thirsty ways. But there has been improvements as we advanced. I suggest you read before you make comments because it only makes you look silly.

Greybox was an example of a physical technology that you demanded an example of. The Greybox in the game world was large bulky and prone to failures that would result in the user being turned into a drooling vegetable. But it shows the potential of technology to effect everyone. Higher level of technology does elevate people to higher level of everything. The Greeks though when a woman was menstruating it was because her vagina detached and wondering around the body. Hence the emotional changes. Mentally handicapped people were treated like they were demon possessed and treated like absolute crap. There is a reason a common horror cliché is a hunted abandoned mental institute. Because the shit that went on in there was truly the stuff of nightmares.

Over time and as technology advances how ever we have changed and grown and reached new levels of health care to the point we now can live x2 as long as our great great grand parents. As we learn more we realize it is simply hormones that alter during menstruation not that the vagina detaches and wonders around the body. We learn the causes and how to identify mental disabilities early and we closed down the mental wards that would abuse and subject the people in it to horrible experiments because they were deemed throw always from society. Things are not all sunshine and butterflies but many of the more developed nations of the world no longer round up and burn people at the stake because they don't like them the way the French monarch did with the Knights Templar. Who though smart banking practices gained a ton of power to the point the French King didn't like it and took steps to remove them from power by rounding up all members of it, torturing false confessions out of them and burning them alive.

99% of people's reaction to anything particularly hot button issues is because they are ignorant of the information. Ignorant people act ignorantly. Informed people act less so. Billy Bob bible humper might make the claim that Islam oppresses women. But it is an ignorant statement that ignores the bible spells out pretty clearly that women are pretty much property and slavery is a good thing. And any location that is just as fundamentalist as that would be treating them the same way be it Islam or Christian.

When you are literally basing your entire statement on ignorant people making ignorant statements you are actually just proving my point. Stupid is as stupid does. But once you have well informed intelligent people the equation alters significantly. Dumb idiots in the US don't want any Syrian Refugees because they think terrorist might slip in with them. But this ignores the fact that to even qualify for that they have to fill out and go though a year or more worth of bureaucratic paperwork and background checks. Just to be approved let along the actual work of being allowed on US soil. There is a 3,000% more chance of a terrorist getting to the US though simply flying here under a fake passport from a country we don't associate with terrorism then there is from a war refugee being one. Yet ignorant people doesn't see it and don't treat it as such.


You also missed the follow up line:

It isn't a direct proportional decrease compared to intelligence increase. But the improvement is there.

Which again is kind of important to the over all statement. There is no direct proportional change but as we have gotten more and more technologically advanced we have became less blood thirsty and violent. at least our right. There are exceptions to the trend. There are always going to be exceptions. but it doesn't prove the over all trend is wrong.

The big stinger for me about this entire discussion is how you perceive what the ending does as a function of the narrative. I had a very constructive debate on Reddit with an english teacher over this. I was always under the impression that the ending fails and still does, for me, because the denoument of the story is postulated over an entirely different narrative it does not belong in; The main theme of the story is about organics and synthetics in relation to whether we will ever create synthetic beings that rival us to the point of no return and extinction. This was never a thing before the final ten minutes. There was a theme about organics and synthetics and the potential eradication of organics but it was in a different, less general context where the organics were represented by Quarians and Synthetics were represented by the Geth, and whether one lived or died had nothing to do with organics/synthetics IN GENERAL, but only that specific situation. Whether the Geth could eventually become worse and kill ALL humans if they kept growing afterwards was an entirely different story that ME3 wasn't trying to tell at any point outside of the very final scene before the final cinematic.

But here's the thing, this guy I talked to was adamant that the final scene did not implicate that the theme of organics and synthetics was effectively the main theme of the trilogy even with the newfound emphasis on it. He argued it was just the "last piece of the puzzle" and extra characterization for the Reapers and that the choice you get is a compromise or a necessity to end the conflict. And arguably Shepard has some sort of heroic resolve in sacrificing himself and compromising with the Reapers's presumption about organics and synthetics to save everyone, and after EC the companions do get closure in a somewhat satisfying way.

I still stand firm that I think it became a denoument of a story that doesn't belong there, as it saying almost nothing about the themes the story was thus far trying to address, that is, the galactic alliance getting their resolve, Shepard's resolve over his struggle to be a leader under all the hard work he's done and lastly his friendships and romances and galactic peace. I think the ending accounted for most these things after EC but then it goes on to further dabble in the idea of organics and synthetics in the epilogue speeches - all three of them because they are all related to the choice that involved organics and/or synthetics surviving and there is not one outcome where both survive with no strings attached. There's always a catch, whether it be the merging of lifeforms, the destruction of synthetics or Shepard becoming a synthetic god. The ending hinges on the notion that there was some "bigger idea" behind everything from the start but that idea rings false with what the narrative has shown throughout the trilogy. Yes there was conflict, sometimes between organics and synthetics but it was never this narrow assumption of the Catalyst that all organics were going to die when synthetics inevitably overevolve themselves. That NEVER came across at any point before the Catalyst started yapping, and all it is, is an assumption of absolutist thinking. Never say never but also never say "always" because it's not possible to say either for sure. It's a terrible argument but ME3 insists we have to buy into such an argument as the biggest driving force of the story.

It's a postulate and it doesn't fit into the narrative at all. It does rationally and in terms of lore (if you accept the crackpot pseudoscience) but if you care at all about narrative composition or structure or making a message aka STORYTELLING, you'll know it's all a big pile of shit.