128 réponses à ce sujet

[Ultranovae]

I personally love the low EMS destroy consequences. The earth is burn to cinders all technology, not just reaper tech is destroyed.
Overall the player feels the enormous price and the scale of the devastation.
Yet, from the ashes, the remaining survivors still rise.
It was actually quite touching and empowering.
I'm not a geth hater, in fact they are my favorite race in the whole ME universe. It is precisely because something so dear to me is destroyed that I can appreciate the heavy toll of my choice.

[KyreneZA]

@OP

Yes and no. It would have been thematically better had BioWare not mitigated the destruction of the relays, Citadel or anything else tainted by Reaper tech (including the Geth) in a literal "Destroy" ending. They pandered to the fans by changing that in the EC. A literal interpretation of "Destroy" is firstly a rejection of all things Reaper (including how they guide the cycles into certain evolutionary paths), but secondly also a destruction of all things synthetic in order to solve the Catalyst's so-called 'problem.' In short, it is getting rid of the problem and the so-called 'solution' (the harvests if taken at face value) at the same time, even if only until the next synthetics arise.

Yes, I agree that in literal "Control" and "Synthesis" the relays and Citadel should have remained largely intact (as it now stands in the EC) as that is thematically consitent with those two choices.

[CronoDragoon]

eddieoctane wrote...

Shepard isn't with the crew for the memorial, and his/her name is on the wall.

Except it isn't, and the scene was crafted to be different in that way to reflect that Shepard is alive. If you want a pretty clear case of show-not-tell, EDI's name being on the wall but a crew member not putting Shepard's name up there is a good example.

[CronoDragoon]

humes spork wrote...
Because, if so, organic/synthetic existential conflict is inevitable. What then, if not for the Reapers? Peaceful outcomes such as that of the geth and quarians are hardly guaranteed, especially given a peaceful outcome between geth and quarians is highly dependent upon very extraordinary circumstances.

I do believe organic/synthetic existential conflict is inevitable in the same way I find organic/organic conflict inevitable, but it does not follow for me that it will end in apocalypse. I find it simplistic, for example, to assume that there will be some galactic war in which all organics fight all synthetics. More likely you get ME2, where splinters of synthetics and organics fight splinters of synthetics and organics.

I think it's useful here to bring in what many writers feel is an essential component of tragic works, namely that both the idea of good and the idea of evil are invincible. Tragedies are about the struggle between and how humans act within the scope of two infinitely greater ideas. I compare this to my view on conflict, which is to say that while I believe it can never be totally eradicated, it can be mitigated, in some instances extinguished, if only for decades or centuries at a time. Conflict can spring up again, but of course so can peace in other areas, in other wars.

Given this view, the question for me becomes which future allows the possibility for more social equality, more understanding, more defense against injustice for the few by the many. To me, the Council and relay infrastructure, while by no means perfect, provides a better template for avoiding "evil" (however you want to define that) and promoting good than a technological reset.