I think several people here are conflating
Synthetics vs. Organics and
Reapers vs. Organics. The latter is the true theme throughout the series. The former is a sub-theme of the first game, only not really because the geth (the synthetics) are being directed by Saren (an organic) who is in turn being controlled by Sovereign (a Reaper).
Now, there are several in-game characters who argue that the geth are the true enemy (Heya Mr. turian Councilor!), but these assertions are only in place to aggravate the protagonist, who understands that the Reapers are the real threat.
This is of course skirting the fact that calling it "Synthetics vs. Organics" oversimplifies the Catalyst's point of view, which is that Organic evolution is too slow, and that upon creation of a Synthetic form of life, which will evolve faster than them, they have inevitably doomed themselves since the Synthetics will rise up and destroy them. That particular gem was only ever seen in the story if you didn't pay close enough attention to the geth/quarian conflict. The closest we actually get to Synthetics rebelling against their creators is in Project Overlord, when an Organic is given the capabilities of a Synthetic and goes on a rampage. Still not quite the same thing, but if you want to argue it go right ahead.
But the simple answer is this: the story of Mass Effect
never was about Organics vs. Synthetics. However, the story of the
Reapers has
always been about Organics vs. Synthetics. The Catalyst was created by that ancient race to deal with that problem and it did so in perhaps the most meme-tastic way possible. It was a Synthetic created by Organics to protect Organics from being destroyed by their Synthetic creations, and the way it did that was to destroy Organics (only not really - lol preservation). So we get to the end-game and confront our enemy and find out how truly insane it is. Lucky for us that it is so insane that it provides for us three different means of resolving
our problem, which also resolves its problem in various degrees of success.
This unfortunately still makes for some wretched storytelling. Imagine if in the final five minutes of Lord of the Rings (at least the final five before the twenty minutes of ending sequences, that is), we discover that Sauron created the rings of power and the One Ring because he believed that the peoples of the land would never stop warring amongst themselve, and would eventually destroy each other. It's bad storytelling because up until this point Sauron has never had what one might call "reasoning" behind his actions. Nor was he ever presented as any sort of "person" with whom I might relate to. Why then would I care what his reasonings are at the 11th hour as I get ready to defeat him?
I wouldn't. I don't. I didn't. And from the uproar on these forums and beyond, a lot of people didn't either.
Modifié par TheMarshal, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:19 .
Retour en haut
