osbornep wrote...
@txgoldrush:
I think what drayfish is getting at with the destroy ending is that if the theme is sacrifice, the implementation is no good. An easy way to dramatize the theme of sacrifice would have been to have the crucible wipe out earth, or wipe out some substantial portion of the fleet, perhaps including the Normandy. That would have been a tough choice, but it wouldn't have the problematic implications of the current destroy ending.
If the point of destroy is that sacrifices have to be made, why are we picking on a species that, depending on your playthrough, has a decent chance of not even existing anymore to be sacrificed? Why are we structuring things in such a way as to specifically reward the "They're just toasters" mentality, particularly after the game has gone through so much trouble giving EDI and Legion Pinocchio stories? On top of that, why is their sacrifice so downplayed by the ending? You don't exactly see heartbreaking images of your Geth buddies flopping over dead on the battlefield. The extended cut whitewashes the whole affair, using the less specific language of 'synthetics' instead of referring directly to the Geth, apparently in an attempt to make us feel less bad about their deaths. On top of everything, the destroy ending is the only one where you have a chance to live, an element which seems to run contrary to the theme of sacrifice, if anything. If the theme of this ending is sacrifice, the message is, apparently, 'Sacrifice isn't such a big deal, as long as it isn't you or your own being sacrificed." Speaking only for myself, that's what I find so distasteful about it.
If we're looking at things from the point of view of authorial intent, then I would venture to say that the destruction of synthetics in destroy is not about sacrifice; it is not an arbitrary price attached to the ending to make you feel bad (otherwise, they wouldn't go through so much trouble to make you not feel bad). It's the whole point of that ending. They actually wanted us to take the singularity hypothesis of the catalyst seriously; the point of the destruction of the Geth is that if we don't destroy synthetics now, who's going to prevent them from wiping out all organic life? Destroy is supposed to represent the blunt, impatient solution to the singularity. When you get to the end, the game isn't about the war with the reapers; it's about solving the tension between synthetics and organics.
I didn't for a moment take seriously the singularity stuff, so none of the endings worked for me at all. But that's well-trodden territory for me at this point, and this post is getting dangerously close to tl;dr material already. If you enjoyed this ending, and genuinely felt that it was principally about sacrifice and hard choices, then that's perfectly okay. For my own part, though, I couldn't play through any of the ending scenarios without reading some Unfortunate Implications into them.
Also, did you forget, Destroy can also destroy Earth, Shepard, and the Normandy if your EMS is low and you did not get enough help to protect the Crucible.
Also don't forget that EDI is ALWAYS one of the three characters shown when Shepard makes the decision....its always Anderson, the most significant non LI loss, and the LI (alive or dead). EDI automatically becomes the 2nd character shown.
" the point of the destruction of the Geth is that if we don't destroy synthetics now, who's going to prevent them from wiping out all organic life? "
wrong
Its the collateral damage, the consquence, the Crucible takes, nothing arbitrary. Its from synthetics only, to hybrids like Shep, to all technology, to everything...according to EMS. The Extended Cut actually changed this....from "you can kill all the geth if you want?" a god awful line that was thrown out...to "but be warned, others will be targeted as well".
Modifié par txgoldrush, 05 janvier 2013 - 01:32 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
