That said, it's still worth noting that even the most Paragon of the Paragon have killed a lot of mercs, many of which had no specific crime associated with them. Hell, in ME1 you could wind up in a fight with nameless mercs just by driving over the wrong hill, and a lot of them were just mining or scavenging. Killing these people results in a boost in xp, but nothing more. I don't really want to get into a Spec-Ops discussion about this, but the message the mechanics give is... interesting.
This does get brought up somewhat during Mass Effect 2, specifically during Samara's recruitment mission when she confronts Shepard about it. Paragon Shepard gives a throw-away answer about "good reasons," but it's clear it doesn't weigh very heavily on them.
We kind of forget about this in Mass Effect 3, as every enemy (except, I guess, the CAT-6s) has the tint of Reaper on them. Though, if your choice is Synthesis, the death of Reaper troops is just as much a loss. I'd like to think that the dreams are part of this catching up to him/her, but that isn't explicitly stated (and the voices are all from squad mates or named characters).
I guess the reason this stands out to me so much is that, in a series with such a huge focus on morality, very little attention is paid to the people that account for the majority of on-screen deaths. Shepard mourns the deaths of those killed by his/her enemies, but doesn't pay much attention to his/her own victims. Unfortunately, the player isn't given an option to express their opinion about these deaths, and by the time we get to Mass Effect 3 the distinction seems quaint.
It would have been very interesting to hear what some of the squad members thought about gunning these people down, more so the ME1 characters, as quite a few of the ME2 characters wouldn't care, though it would be really interesting to hear what Legion thought about it. We do get some dialogue from Thane and Samara on the subject, but both of them are bound by some obligation that makes the killing separate from their own will. Come to think of it, Tali or ME1 Liara's take on it would also be interesting.
The reason why I think this should have been brought up is because I think it would have helped some people accept the lack of a happy ending. Why should Shepard get a happy ending when he/she has taken so many away from other people? Sure, Shepard got the job done, but he/she was pursuing more (a lot more) than personal happiness, and repeatedly went beyond any kind of moral bindings to do so. Shepard wanted to end the Reapers, or symbolically, to end the Grim Reaper. You don't do that without crossing a few lines, and no one thought Dr. Frankenstein deserved everlasting peace for his accomplishment. Presenting Shepard with a happy ending doesn't do anything to further his/her goals, and it would appear to vindicate those pointless deaths.
Shepard's goal was to stop the threat of the Reapers; one way or another, he/she accomplished that. If Shepard's goal had been happiness, then I'd understand some of the reactions to the endings, but it wasn't; that was the player's desire. If you've seen the interview with Casey Hudson on how they chose the name Shepard, you'll see that this aspect of his/her character (getting the job done regardless of what else happens) is consistent and maintained throughout the series.
I guess this is just the disconnect between player and player character. We're there for entertainment, whereas Shepard isn't. Our desires coincided from time to time, but ultimately, we had to know that they'd diverge when the series ended.
Modifié par MyChemicalBromance, 02 avril 2013 - 04:46 .
Retour en haut
