I appreciate your sentiment, but I would not put it in the context of the fans failing Bioware.Tali-vas-normandy wrote...
Look Im gonna say this hoping someone at bioware or casey himself will ready this
Casey the ending you're idea was alright, but I feel that most of us gamers are not really ready for you're vision, some gamers are so used to just have stright up boss fights, and then an epic hero poses, that when anything new and altering comes along it becomes overwhelimg, you're vision might be more beneficial for future gamers then for us.
When you are brought up in a certain way taht's the only thing you can cope with mostly unless you adapt but I don't think the gaming industry is ready for that change yet.
Their 'vision' may well have worked - a vision of an equal, tolerant future: of synthesis validating all life, of destroy rebuilding from the ashes of what was lost; of control ushering in a brave new world (pun intentional) - but the way that it was employed was ghastly, and reveals a fundamental lacking of storytelling.
Why did these universe-altering changes have to me forced upon people unwillingly? Why did Shepard have to visit unspeakable crimes against his own allies in order to 'do what needs to be done'?
Making synthesis an involuntary mutation of people against their will, rather than a choice that they can freely make, robs it of the poetry I assume it was going for. Rather than a sign of rebirth, it is a sickening devolution - arrogantly wiping diversity from the universe.
Likewise, they could have made destroy have a devastating blast radius would have given a hefty death toll, without further poisoning the result by forcing Shepard to commit an act of genocide that makes him/her a war criminal, proving him/herself to be willing to use the Reapers own tactics to win.
And having Shepard willing to believe what the Reaper King tells him about becoming the Uber-Reaper in Control is currently presented as intensely naive, considering that the Illusive Man was just killed, moments before, for believing precisely the same thing. ...And that's leaving aside the whole becoming-an-unstoppable-totalitarian-god thing.
I'm making wild assumptions now, but to me this whole thing smacks of rushed, insular writing. I feel like any editor, critic, or fellow writer would have been able to express and correct these concerns had the narrative gone through a proper peer-review process.
The fact that anyone thought that a heroic tale, defined by freedom and player choice, should end with an arbitrary moral compromise that reduces the protagonist to the enemy's errand boy and validates intolerance is mystifying.
Retour en haut
