Assumptions and arguments of the Star Child that, for most of us, are repugnant on humanistic grounds:
1) The end justifies the means: Saving organic life's future is worth causing suffering and death on a massive scale.
2) You must destroy that which you love to save it: (see above)
3) The choices before you are predetermined.
If you're like me, what was most disturbing about the ending was its denial of the humanistic spirit that breathed life into the series from the big story arcs down to individual conversations. It was represented both by the Paragon's embrace of galactic diversity and the Renegade's struggle to test her will against any obstacle.
Since this is what I wanted the ending to affirm, I would also want my request to BioWare to change the ending to be consistent with those principles. Even though the Retake movement can, at most, only put a symbolic dent in BioWare's reputation and income, I question whether that's what we should even be trying to do.
Does getting a new ending justify boycotts, ratings bombs, and harrassment of BioWare employees through e-mail and Twitter? Will "making BioWare suffer" really empower them to keep making stories that we truly love and engage with? And why do we try to (even if we can't, in the big picture) force them to bend to our uncompromising will, robbing them of choice and agency?
I want to persuade BioWare to change the ending: not force them to, not punish them for messing up. I think our arguments speak for themselves. And I do not want to adopt the assumptions of the Star Child under any circumstances.
Obviously, I can't decide the strategies of the Retake movement all on my own, but things like the Charity Drive and calling positive press attention to our concerns seem much more in keeping with our principles than trying to actually "harm" BioWare. I don't want to be the Reapers.
Modifié par Qutayba, 19 mars 2012 - 03:41 .
Retour en haut
