Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Hawksblud]

 Out of curiosity, many arguments I've seen over the storyline and even the game itself seem to take for granted that the player would think that the preservation of organic life was more worthy of a cause than the preservation of synthetic life. This confuses me for several reasons.

First, while I agree that ME1 sets up this cycle where organics create synthetics, synthetics destroy organics, it was my impression that most of the main theme of ME2 was to call into question that assumption. We meet Legion and EDI, the first two sympathetic and fully developed AI characters, and Shepard him/herself is shown to be questionably 'organic' (that was my read, YMMV), a complete departure from the Geth/Reapers are evil destroyers, organic life is superior. I was thus surprised that at the end of ME3 we instead were presented with the assumption that Shepard would be willing to accept the assertion that organic life was somehow superior to synthetic life. Either we destroy all synthetics, we control the Reapers but will allow them back if synthetic life gets uppity again, or we merge synthetic and organic to save organics from synthetics. I felt as though the emphasis that Shepard him/herself claims at least in the Paragon playthrough (all life is equally important and valid despite organic/synthetic boundaries) was lost.

However, enough about the endings and their failures. It seems to be a sentiment echoed on the forums and in critiques of the storyline. So my question is: do you consider the needs and preservance of organic life to be absolutely paramount? In a universe where different species peak and then are culled, over and over again, where the Drell and the Krogan and the Quarians were almost (or actually) wiped out in this cycle, why do we suddenly have the assumption that if synthetics were to culturally or population-wise overtake (or evolve to be superior) to organics, that this is far worse than any other outcome? Storywise, this bothered me.

Hope I'm getting my point across. :/ Do you think this assumption is valid, given the ME universe? Note that I picked 'merge' but was still blehh at the overall arc that we saw in the later half of the game. Not critiquing the endings per say but more this underlying assumption that seems to contradict the thematic bulk of ME2 and the first half of ME3. Curious if others read it similarly/differently.