As a side note, I just realized why you split your post into multiple ones as I was click “post comment”.
Why is it that everyone has the time to make super long posts but me?
I love your comments trollhunter
Because it’s Sunday and I’m bored. 
@MaraJade You are welcome 
@hahaha1357 I’m just lazy and impatient but don’t worry I am not those types of people who instead of putting a intelligent comment just decide to insult people. I just put a witty comment.
@Nocturnal_Stillness - Starchild doesn’t have a need to lie, furthermore; his analysis
of synthetic v organic is based on multiple cycles, his mathematical formulae will
consider the Quarians and Geth an anomaly, that being Shepard’s influence, because
technically without Shepard (and it’s only one possible resolution) Quarians and Geth
did go to war, they did try to exterminate each other, it’s the only “logical” conclusion
that both sides ended up driving towards. So he’s right in every aspect.
On top of that, the conflict is really a scientifical/philosphical question, when an AI
is created we’ve always written that its evolution will strive to ‘be’ superior and defeat
its creators, mainly because that is how the ‘logic’ will eventually present itself. It’s
not that it’s been subverted but merely delayed. We see it in other science-fiction movies;
Agent Smith off the Matrix said it best ‘it is inevitable!’ it’s how we as a species
expect things to occur and it’s likely to be how our programming of sentinent life will evolve
and for the ME universe it’s just how its happened for millions of years. One blip isn’t
worth changing everything for, but like Starchild said this cycle is… ‘unique’ so he’s
willing to do so.
As for your question, the extended ending for refuse states they use the crucible. So effectively
they did what someone who picked refused didn’t do.
@trollhunterthethird - Five or ten minutes I type fast when I have something to say!
@hahaha01357 - Re; Synthetic and organic misunderstanding see the point directed to
Nocturnal Stillness above.
Ashley’s musings about Shepard being changed or being an ‘ai’ is part of squad dialogue
with him, I believe Mars is the earliest she mentions it and the base mission at the end
is where she converts over. Iirc she doesn’t say much unless romantically pursued, a shame really
and I haven’t done a Kaiden run to see what he says sadly.
Nothing about individualism, choices and warscore that you mentioned ‘eviscerated’ the point
that the themes did follow the choices, you can’t blank the theme and say they don’t exist
and they don’t follow the choices to fit your own purpose. That’s a non-sequitor argument.
Anyway survival against the reapers was mandated via destroying/wiping them out, that’s
the point made in the first game (Shepard; “We will unite, you’re just a machine and a
machine can be broken/destroyed”) and re-made in the second (Anderson/Hackett) but with
alternative options (Control theory is being developed here - TIM, synthesis is also
explored via Shepard/David/et al as is the ‘ignore everything’ - Council) but, the main
thrust of the game was always defeating the Reapers via whatever means, it’s only because
a) The reapers are so damn advanced, numerous and powerful and b) The majority of the galaxy
stuck their heads in the sand that effectively it becomes a battle for survival.
Here’s another tidbit assimilated through the game. Sovereign is believed to be the main
cause of the Rachni Wars. The hints are there, the codex digs deeper but it’s conversation
options and digging well into the timeline of the game that brings stuff like this up.
Until someone has actually picked up on the plot they’re really commenting on the plot,
its themes and so on without really understanding it.
@RVallant Wow, you’re really passionate about this! Hm, I wonder if I can change the name of this thread to “Discussion about the themes of Mass Effect”… Anyways,
Synthetic/Organic Misunderstanding
-> The problem I have with your explaination is that the conflict between Quarians and Geth is a very important part of the story and which, to me, served as an analogue to the bigger conflict. The fact is and remains that they were able to reconcile and the game actually focuses a lot of attention on exploring that very possibility through interactions between Tali and Legion. About what the Starchild said, I don’t think “anomaly” is a satisfactory explaination for anything. In any scientific discipline, including and especially math, any evidence that goes against your predictions is not simply brushed away as “anomaly”. Even in calculating probability, outliers must have a sound explaination.
Evolution of Artificial Intelligence
-> See, here’s the crux of the problem, because in my view, the game never really talks about or focuses on any of this except in explaining the origins of the Reapers. Let’s take a look at the evolution of EDI for example. Throughout the series, we see EDI evolve to bear more and more resemblance to humans, even as she obtains more and more upgrades to her system. At the end of ME3, we even see her developing a romantic relationship with Joker! To me, this clearly illustrates the triumph of the human condition over cold, calculated “logic” of the prototypical AI. At the end though, this gets flipped on its head and we see the Starchild tell us that reconciliation is impossible (even if at the very end, regardless of what your Sheppard did, we see an embrace between Joker and EDI). How contradictory can you get?
As a side note, I remember one of the Reapers (I forget which, Sovereign?) said that the invasion of the galaxy was already delayed, but we have not yet seen a large scale war between organics and synthetics that threatened the existence of organic life. Similarly, the Protheans of the previous cycle were never threatened either. What does this mean? It means that the Reapers did their job right, that they were able to wipe out organics before they developed an AI that was strong enough to eliminate themselves. However, since the Reapers did their jobs right, they were never able to witness the destruction of a sentient organic species by a synthetic race. So here’s my question: how much basis does the Starchild’s calculations have? By my calculation, he has just one instance of such an event occuring, the ending conflict of the cycle during which the Reapers were created. Perhaps his own cycle is really the anomaly?
Individualism, etc.
-> I don’t quite understand your argument. You mentioned that Commander Sheppard’s reconstruction is part of his transition to becoming more and more “synthetic”, symoblizing the “epitome of evolution” as illustrated with the synthesis ending. (Hm, I just realized, “synthetic” is defined in the dictionary as "relating to or of synthesis, interesting.) My argument is that since the Illusive Man wanted to preserve him as he is points more towards a theme of individualism. The fact that he did become more “synthetic” is a simple limitation of technology. If anything, the fact that both both his own biology and synthetic materials are working together to preserve his body serves as illustration that organics and synthetics can work together in peace. As for Ashley’s musings, I always took it as her recluctant to accept that Cerberus didn’t alter Sheppard’s mind when they put him back together. Like I said before, her beef was always with Cerberus.
Also, the war was always about survival. The fact that Sovereign took on and almost wiped out the Alliance Fifth Fleet and the ships guarding the Citadel by itself made that point sufficiently clear by the end of the first game. Like Sheppard said at the beginning of ME3 “We fight or we die”. Even if the entire galaxy devoted everything they had to stop the Reapers following the battle at the Citadel, their chances for survival is still slim at best.
To follow up
-> When we look at the ending of a story, we can expect a natural progression towards that ending. For example, when we look at Paradise Lost, the themes of justice and fate (in the form of God’s grand plan) seem very pervasive throughout the poem. If at the end, God just decided to forgive Adam and Eve with no strings attached, then the reader will be left wondering “what the heck just happened?”
Actually, this brings up a point and leads me to thinking that maybe a story can be considered as a character too. Its themes can be compared to a character’s traits. If something happens in the story that goes against the established themes, then it leaves the audience with the same impression as if witnessing a character doing something against his or her established character traits.
ps. I guess I’m pretty passionate about Mass Effect too…hm, or maybe I just like a good discussion.
pps. Damn do I envy your ability to organize your thoughts so quickly. This reply took me nearly 2 hours to write! Granted I was a little bit distracted after coming home from work, but meh.