Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
I do not agree.
We have still established multiple times that trying to Control someone is wrong. The Protheans, the Salarians and the Krogans, Cerberus and just about all their experiments ever, the Geth Heretic rewrite...hell the Quarian/Geth conflict is spawned from the Quarians attempt to control the Geth.
Synthesis is the same. It removes diversity, but we have always been told diversity is good. Javik specifically mentions how the Protheans fell very fast against the Reapers because they had one set of strategies which the Reapers quikly learned as opposed to the variety of strategies used by the current cycle. Shepard also gathers a fleet of every species out there in ME3 and the interactions and problems between different species is a major part of the series.
Every case of Synthesis or implied Synthesis before that has also ended in horrible monsters. Collectors, Reaper Forces...the Reapers themselves who refer to themselves as the pinnacle of evolution. To quote Garrus: "The Reapers are just one big nightmare factory."
These themes and instances dont just vanish just because an AI tells us so. They were still important parts of the games and cannot simply be thrown out the window...if we do that then it is indeed bad writing.
The Quarians did not attempt to control the Geth, they tried to destroy them. If the Reapers are willingfully giving control to Shepard, they surely know what they are doing! Is the player comforted by the Catalyst's explanations? For many, it was ok, so I suppose Control is not "bad" if taken into account all the ranting related to the relays being destroyed in the other endings, having the allies stranded in the Sol system, slowly dying from starvation.
Synthesis did not remove diversity, it gave common grounds to everyone, it allowed for more "compatibility" between all species. They all looked different just like they were before, but with added "common characteristics" that erased some antagonizing needs. This is utopia, and some players really liked the idea, while some others didn't.
Bioware succeeded in giving the player a hard time to decide, and this is surely not because of "bad writing". Having the player doubt in a crucial moment, while the allied forces are still getting wiped out, that's all part of the game. Of course the players felt the Catalyst was absolutely insensitive regarding the fate of organics, it's also obvious the Catalyst is the one who pulls the strings, leaving only a glimpse of decision upon Shepard-player, but there would be no suspense in the final act without such elements. You can't say that the "lore" still applies when everything proposed is brand new, and of course it's breaking the lore! But that is what the player has to face, alone, with no more clues than what the glowing boy says. Is it a nice twist of events to throw at players at the very end of a game? Not the best. Does that invalidate the content? No.
I'm not confusing my desire for "another type of ending" with my desire to fully understand the
actual endings. They both exist, but in different parts of my mind. I can abstract from my "deception" related to my experience to try to understand the meaning of each of the choices offered, wether or not I would have chosen them. This is the "objective" action of really trying to "understand Bioware's work", and it helps me appreciate other's opinions.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
