Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Ariq]

If we're getting clarification and closure rather than a shifted ending / Indoctrination confirmation, then at minimum I expect Bioware to be able to respond to these two glaring problems:

1) At the end, when you encounter the avatar of the Reaper's creator, can Bioware explain his motivations, and how those motivations reflect the themes of Mass Effect 1, 2, & 3? For example, can Bioware explain the foreshadowing of the Geth / Quarian conflict in the light of the avatar's revelations? What role does EDI represent vis-a-vis the sudden assertion of synthetic-organic antinomy? With the Destruction option negating all of the dialogue and plot development relating to EDI and the Geth, can Bioware clarify what EDI and the Geth are intentended to represent?

2) Can Bioware help me understand the options at the end? Two of those options have been posited earlier in the series: Synthesis was considered by Saren in ME1, and Control has been the objective of the Illusive Man since ME2. Shepard has previously rejected both of these options in no uncertain terms. Further, Shepard has rejected the propositions of the Reaper's representatives before, out of hand, in his discussions with Sovereign and Harbinger. There has been no indication that discussion or compromise can be found. In point of fact, those endings appear to contradict everthing Shepard has represented - whether Paragon, Renegade or some shade between. Can Bioware help me understand the sudden change in heart we see in Shepard, the willingness to accept the word of the Reaper's avatar at face value, and further to consider options he has previously rejected with righteous vehemence?