Ieldra2 wrote...
phyreblade74 wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
paxxton wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
I disagree. IT prescribes a "correct" choice based on false reasoning and forces everyone who doesn't agree with the ITists to make an out-of character-decision. IT is one of the few things that would make the endings worse than they already are.
It's plainly untrue. You can choose any of the endings and live by the consequences if Bioware's ME team wishes to implement it that way in the future games or DLC.
It's plainly true. The IT is - among other things I don't necessarily disagree with - an attempt by some people to enshrine Destroy as the "correct" choice, stating that if you choose otherwise you "succumb" to indoctrination. Actually, it's even worse than prescribing a "correct" choice. It prescribes a "correct" way to think - it is akin to telling me that if I am honestly convinced that choosing Destroy is not the best option, then I am thinking wrong. It reminds me of the Soviet Union, where dissidents were put into asylums. What makes is worse is that the assumption we can recognize that correct choice as such is based on false reasoning.
Sort of like those people who chose certain companions and/or Shepard to die during the Suicide Mission, you mean? Because I could never wrap my head around that sort of chance, as in, why would anyone do that? To ME, it wasn't "correct". But to someone else, someone who wanted to interject some sort of tragic element into their story, perhaps, it made sense that someone or even everyone died during that mission. That's one of the things I thought was so important about ME, that you could make the story uniquely your own, shrug.
Bottom line, if I think Indoctrination and the subsequent destroy option in the only "correct" option, doesn't mean you have to, right? So what dang difference does it make, to you, that someone feel the way I do? It's mind-boggling, to me, why people feel it important to castigate the story some feel is proper and true, for them. If you want your Shepard to die in a blaze of glory, nobly giving himself over to whatever red/green option is available, great! I don't and, newsflash, that's great, too.
The parallel is flawed:
If you make Shepard die at the end of ME2, that's a very obvious "bad" option. You know what you're getting into. The same as trying to have sex with Morinth. In spite of what the IT promoters say, this is not at all obvious with Control and Synthesis. You can, with perfectly good reasoning, come to the conclusion either one is a perfectly viable solution to the problem. That the IT promoters don't agree is beside the point, because it is your personal philosophy and the character of your individual Shepard applied to the situation that makes you come to the conclusion, not any undeniable fact.
A better parallel would be Keeping the Collector Base in ME2. I bet it's mostly the same people who said "keeping the base is OBVIOUSLY evil" that now promote Destroy as the only option. The fact is, it was a viable choice, as it should have been. Those who kept the base in ME2 were in the minority, but that doesn't mean that choice should result in "you lose".
That's silly reasoning. Want to know why? Because the entire series has been premised on the
destruction of the Reapers. It's the most obviously "good" option there is, it's the one that's been talked about, planned, and insisted upon by every "good" guy and "heroic" figure throughout 3 full games called Mass Effect. Anderson tells you to destroy, Hacket tells you to destroy, all your buddies and pals tell you to destroy. Heck, even the Geth tell you to destroy!
Who tells you you should try and control the Reapers? A fellow who runs concentration camps, performs experiments on innocent people, throws Marines into thresher maw nests just to see what their poison does to them, puts biotic children into labs where they're tortured, assassinates anyone who tries to expose him, hooks autistic kids into computers so they cry and scream in pain, and indoctrinates his own people.
Who tells you you should try and synthesize with the Reapers? A fellow who shoots his own friends in the back, attacks colonies of civilians and tries to blow them all up, enslaves Geth, experiments on Krogans and Salarians, kills numerous innocent people in an attempt to bring Reapers through the Citadel, and eventually blows his own head off.
As I see it, the "good" versus "bad" options have been made perfectly clear. Morphius didn't tell Neo what swallowing the Red Pill would really, truly do, either, but I still thought it was pretty obvious that Neo was "supposed" to swallow it, else what "good" would the story be. In Mass Effect, Shepard is "supposed" to destroy the Reapers, there's precious little that's confusing about that. Any other option has been blatantly exposed as "bad" simply by benefit of being proposed by a "bad guy".
But, still, it's all moot, I think. In the end, your story is what you make it. There's nothing wrong with playing the game and choosing one of the "wrong" colors. I didn't, even before I considered the chance of indoctrination, only because it just didn't make that much sense to me, given what Shepard had been fighting to do all along. But someone else could see it differently than me, and I don't have any issue with that. I'm certainly not going to insist they are out of hand for seeing the story the way they do, anyway. It's why "good" and "bad" are set apart in little quotes, here in my post, lol.
And, seriously. If you chose "badly" the first time around, then play the game again and get a different outcome, right?
Retour en haut
.
