User blog comment:Legionwrex/Why Destroy is the worst ending (besides refusal)./@comment-74.57.155.136-20120713125110/@comment-3392082-20120714124756

"No, it does matter. Biowares word, is law."

Likewise, there are laws to literature composition and how to articulate a story. BioWare essentially "adding content" via twitter is after the fact and thus acknowledges lackluster to downright poor writing. A solid story is able to stand on its own merit devoid of devs having to offer secondary tidbits to correct all blunders the Catalyst caused. Mass Effect 3's conclusion is to be judged squarely upon what is depicted on screen, just like a novel is judged by the written context it provides. Twitter is not a legitimate form in most scenarios, especially to retell the plot because you presented it so poorly.

Regarding the Catalyst, the responsibility of evidence falls upon his shoulders not the audience. To reference a court proceeding, the plaintiff has the burden of proving their case before the defendant offers their rebuttal. The Catalyst (plaintiff) fails to meet this demand because no evidence is ever provided to the audience (defendant) to support his claims. Worse, the audience has contradictory evidence that is handwaved or ignored so BioWare could force the contrivance the Catalyst is infallible.

"It's still Shepard, but it is an "ascended" version of Shepard."

Incorrect. The EC Control clearly makes the insinuation Shepard is a different entity, something that harbors the embodiment of Shepard's ideals but is not longer Shepard. This is evident by its frequent reference to itself as another person. Morality is irrelevant to the argument as it does not change the context of the dialogue presented.

"Through her death, I was created. Through my birth, her thoughts are freed. They guide me now, give me reason, direction."

This one statement, among the numerous utterly throughout that sequence completely invalidates your argument.

"I really don't understand how they would merge with the Reapers"

We do not actually know what Synthesis entails, was essentially my point. We are forced to accept the Catalyst's word as though it were law. He is the Reaper God. How do we know this is not a ruse for the Reapers to control all of galaxy life, thus ensuring organics and synthetics never wage war? Therein lies the fundamental problem with the Catalyst and Synthesis as a whole. We are not provided any exposition to believe its wild assertions but are expected to believe it has good intentions. A utopian conclusion is blind ideology at best. We have an understanding of our own species and yet conflict has been apart of human history for centuries. How does a glowing beam of green light ensure conflict will never arise? It cannot unless an ulterior force dictates so.

Granted, this is merely conjecture due to the poor exposition offered however it is not disproven at any point in the narrative either.