osbornep wrote...
"1. Destroy is best because control/synthesis are the options preferred by really bad people like TIM and Saren." An earlier poster described this as an association fallacy; that seems fundamentally right to me. Secondly, we see a lot of NPC's favoring the idea of destroying the reapers, but that's not necessarily equivalent to favoring the 'destroy' option. None of these folks know that hitting the 'destroy' button results in the death of all synthetic life; knowing that might influence their opinion.
A valid point. But there was actually another important reason to include that starting build-up part that you seem to be missing.
The fact is that if Bioware did plan this out they would have planted clues in the game to guide the player to the correct decision in the end. Where would they plant those clues in a dialogue-driven game? In the dialogue of your companions.
I started looking for those possible clues, and I found Javik's dialogue... and then Tali's lines about adapting... and Vega's payback line ... and more ... and more.... etc.
Seriously, if even TIM himself near the end of the game says that Shepard "will always stick to his ideals", maybe that's more than just a coincidence... Just saying...
osbornep wrote...
"2. The goal of the game, and Shepard's most deeply held moral belief, is that the Reapers must be destroyed." This sounds like saying that the goal of WWII was to kill as many Germans as possible. It was to end the threat to the Allies and end the Holocaust. If this goal could have been accomplished with far fewer casualties, then that option would have been preferable. Similarly, the goal of ME is to end the Reaper threat; if that goal can be accomplished by means other than destroying them all, and if that results in far less collateral damage, then that is the option that should be preferred.
The Reapers are your
enemy, defeating them remains your dead-set goal for 3 games. Then, in the last minute of the 3rd game, a new party appears which uses words "we" and "us" when referring to your
enemy. This new party starts out by telling you something you know from experience is a lie (synthetics and organics cannot coexist). Then it proceeds to offer you 3 choices, without giving
any significant details about how exactly those choices will work out (and those little details he does give are untrustworthy because he just lied to you). The ONLY real certain thing about them from his explanations is that your
enemy doesn't survive in option C, while it continues to exist in options A and B.
Your decision = let's try out option A, because that guy who was indoctrinated and thus controlled by your
enemy told us it was a good idea. Right before he shot himself dead because you argued him into suicide.
Sorry, I don't agree.
osbornep wrote...
I don't think that the considerations you've offered are decisive in favoring destroy over control.
...
"3. Trying to control or take advantage of reaper tech is bad because it plays into the hands of the enemy." This just seems to be falsified by the game. Thanix cannons were developed using Reaper tech, and no matter what you do with the Collector Base, parts of the reaper larvae are used in the construction of the Crucible. Further, it's precisely the act of upload the reaper code at the end of Rannoch that gives the Geth their 'individuality.' The game seems to portray this as decidedly a good thing.
The fact that TIM, the person who was arguing most passionately for using Reaper tech, was
indoctrinated doesn't give you pause?
Let me remind you part of the Thessia conversation with TIM (from memory, so please excuse any inaccuracies):
TIM: "No, I'm just saying the Reapers have got it right. Why destroy, when you can control?"
Shepard:
"The Reapers have got it right? Listen to what you're saying!"Sheaprd: "You've been spending too much time with the enemy. They're dragging you over to their side, their way of thinking."
osbornep wrote...
Lastly, I'd like some more clarification on why the OP thinks this interpretation makes the endings better. I'm not endorsing the ending as-is, but it seems to me that if your interpretation is correct, instead of getting three really lame choices, we get one really lame choice and two elaborately disguised 'game over' screens. I'm not sure how this is an improvement.
Reason 1: Lore of the ME universe from the first 2 games is not ignored / forgotten (it is if the ending is literal)
Reason 2: Most important logical incosistencies and contradictions in the ending turn out to be intentional (if the ending is literal, the amount of those is staggering).
Reason 3: Core themes of the ME universe from the first 2 games are not ignored / forgotten (they are if the ending is literal)
Reason 4: While such writing twist would not necessarily make a good ENDING for a game, it would still be a brilliant writing twist and an impressive example of breaking the 4th wall between the writers and their audience (if the ending is literal, then the writing is ... well ... of very low quality).
Reason 5: If it was intended, it means that the
real ending is yet to come (if the ending is literal, then the Extended Cut will do nothing except spray salt all over the wound).
Probably more reasons I'm forgetting, but it's getting late here and I need some sleep.
Retour en haut
