jstme wrote...
HVR 2.0.
This is a sci-fi video game. It is not real ,but it's plot is written by real people. Those people could write infinite number of different endings. Even the ending in which Shepard kills every reaper by beating them to death with feathers.If they would have let their imagination run even wilder - they could have written even synthesis ending.
Sarcasm aside, i can understand headcanoning people that make synthesis/control their personal utopia and thus enjoy the endings.
I didn't headcanon anything. I took what EC gave me. :happy:
Given that, you can deduct that HYR was not a big fan of the original endings. Take that for what it's worth.
However understanding that all current endings to a certain fictional video game are against all previous narrative and morally abhorrent and liking it for exactly that... Sorry, i cannot understand it.
I disagree that they go against the narrative. It may have gone against the rosy ME1 and ME2 stories, but neither of those took place in a galactic war. ME2 in particular was a joke. You have this hyped-up suicide mission where you can get everyone out ridiculously easily. The strategy and tactics boil down to "let's split up, gang!"
ME3 set the tone in a big, big way. Let me guess, you cured the genophage. Because Wrex, amirite? What if his brother were in charge, would you still do it? If not, you chose genocide in the name of peace, before it was cool (Destroy). If you still do, EC pretty much calls you a fool for it by showing his krogan priming for war. Did you achieve Rannoch peace? If so, you saved a military man (Koris) over a group of civilians, for politics. How does that not bother you? Or did you commit genocide of either the geth or quarians? Did you believe the Collector Base was ethically-tainted? The Alliance doesn't. They seize it or whatever was left of it from Cerberus HQ for the Crucible.
And what was Javik's quote about honor in war, again?
As to "morally abhorrent" ... I can't help you there, or anyone else for that matter. I for one don't view any of Destroy, Control, or Synthesis in the same way as those who are rabidly opposed to any of the three. If I did, I probably wouldn't enjoy it so much and reside firmly in the anti-ender camp myself. As is, I'm still disputing claims like "the choices came from the catalyst" or "he wants this and that" ... what to say of the true nature of red, green and blue.
Not all wars end with genocide ,"biowarfare" or "mind control".
*Occupation, not mind-control.
And not all wars stake all advanced life in the galaxy while fighting against a race of giant sentient dreadnoughts, either. Nor do they involve FTL flight, aliens, or "element zero" and mass-effect technology. What's your point?