I think I'm cool with it.
Almost all of it. ME3.
After a year and a half of reading on people's theories, interpretations, feelings, reactions, investigations, and after playing all DLCs a few times on XB360 and PC, I think I understand enough to get where Bioware was trying to come from, and where they want to head towards. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. *shrug*
I do think Indoctrination is taking place, but I also think that our understanding of indoc develops and changes throughout the series. Same with 'who' Shepard is, 'what' the Reapers are, and 'why' things are happened the way they did.
I trend heavily towards Destroy when it comes to decision time, but I understand why one would pick Control, and sympathize with the Synthesis deciders. My first choice was Synthesis, and I think I get why.
I do think that Destroy is the most 'canon' to the Shepard that we're being sold. You know, the one in the commercials. They even added FemShep to that. It's also the one that maintains the most (physical, and perhaps otherwise) 'humanity'. In here, Shepard is more definitively presented as the soldier, but with higher 'scores', he can be a hero, or outright savior to the galaxy.
I just also think that Shepard has taken up the Reapers' tech in order to do so. Yes, I think the Crucible is something the Reapers played a part in at some stage, and perhaps a major part. As such, a Shepard waking up won't quite be the same man he was before.
But he will, at the very least, consider himself 'more' human (I know it is subjective - that is the point) that he would with any of the other choices.
Destroy is also the more common thread in this journey. If it wasn't for the quest to, well, kill Reapers, Shepard wouldn't even be in this spot apparently parlaying with the being that created the Reapers (personally I believe it is what remains of Sovereign/Nazara, but that's another deal). So you can stay true to that, or you can lean towards the growing temptation to control the Reapers, or outright take that chance and leap into the Reapers' arms (symbolically), hoping they meant to do right.
You're prepped to do any of these, but I just think Destroy is the thread that Bioware made sure every single player is regularly exposed to. You have to pay attention for Control (along with its disturbing parts), and follow specific lines of story for Synthesis (along with its disgusting parts). If you do that for both, Destroy will seem less and less appealing, and, like me, you'll even go up to jumping into that giant beam of light.
~~~
Control appeals to Shepard and/or the player's wants to save the lives of as many as possible. And perhaps, in some form, it achieves that, or at least does that with the greater ease and immediate safety than the uphill Destroy slope (whatever the interpretation). In here, Shepard is more definitively presented as the hero (or dark-hero) who gives up his own life for the sake of others.
I just also think that indoctrination HAS gotten to him, by the way. I think he's not the same man he was in ME1, or even ME2 (until the Collector Base choice, maybe Legion's Loyalty). Many of the choices and consequences seem more metaphorical (regardless of their visual presentation), and illustrate (often with color coding) where Shepard is heading. If you allow it.
The Alliance color change from Red to Blue, for example, is a subtle and interesting change, barely remarked upon by the devs and not at all brought up in-game.
BUT, I don't think all is lost. I do think we've lost 'Shepard' as we've casually understood him in ME1-ME3, but really, he had his time, and it'll be ok. In fact, most of London FOB seems outright designed to let us be OK with Shepard (again as we've understood him) going away, even in a Destroy ending.
UItimately, the Reapers are just machines, if we trust the sources we have on them, or even Shepard's proclamations in ME1. They can be destroyed, but not without a visceral cost. But they could possibly also be controlled, but not without a personal cost. Shepard lost his body, is now in danger of losing his mind, but he seemingly has not lost his 'soul'.
~~~
Synthesis can appeal to Shepard and/or the player's wishes for the brightest future for everyone. While for the player, it only requires EMS, for Shepard and the story, I find it works much better if you Cured the Genophage with Wrex and Eve around (Mordin/Padok part more optional), and did the Rannoch Peace outcome. However, the writing makes it so pretty much any combo can work.
In this, Shepard is changed (forget about player intentions - I'm talking about the writing of Shepard) into someone akin to Saren, yet without the forced control over him that made him lose out to Shepard and the Reapers' control.
Again, do I think indoc is happening? Hell yes. In fact, I consider that one of the most major reasons why to just leap to Destroy. But at the same time, IF we try to trust that the lore information we're learning is correct...
Then the Reapers haven't been lying. Or rather, they've been running under a model that they believe it correct, and to an extent, as did their creators.
To take full Peace options in previous ME3 encounters, you basically have to drop nearly all issues you have with the sides doing bad things to each other. This means (at least currently) ignoring that there's even krogan still in power that tossed friggin asteroids into populated planets and worked to overwhelm the galaxy, and ignoring the various moral crimes that geth and/or quarians committed (depending on your POV).
The difference is that in those cases, we're still in the overall perspective of a 'Destroyer' (by default, Shepard is out to kill Reapers), and its the ending of ME3 that we're almostttt outright forced to change that perspective.
What we're missing is context. What we're standing in is a 'moral vaccum', if we let outselves be there.
And when when we decide a morality, we might find that we don't agree much with Shepard at all! Or we can even understand the Reapers committing indoctrination, due to perceiving organics as basic and 'chaos'-growing.
Is it morally right? We can still say absolutely not. However, in Synthesis, it is likely that we say "Ok, I can get why it was done, fine, but let's try this a different way."
The fact that is was such a drastic shift to ask from us is imo intentional. It is my belief that future games will explore these color-coded moralities, from a less Red perspective, while also challenging us with even more shades of 'grey' between.
I just hope that Bioware understands that the fanbase is kinda screwed up right now, and will need at least one solid, awesome, fun game, that doesn't mess with them as much as ME3 did. Have complexity, have confusion, but for Maker's sake, do it in a form that we can understand and even be spelled out answers within! And if it's a sequel, bloody explain ME1-3! It's OK! I'm sure there's a way to do so and maintain the journey it was.
Anyway, thanks for reading my diary forum post
. If you have any questions, put em up here and I'll give you my take. This is NOT an IT post, and in fact parts of it go against especially conventional IT. Any hate is welcome too, but try to be polite because I'd rather this thread not be locked. If anything, I want it to go to productive places 
Modifié par SwobyJ, 05 janvier 2014 - 03:47 .
Retour en haut
If, if, if.
. Or with human lettering on the area that 'no organic has come before' to. Or with shifting panels like in the Shadow Broker base. Or with a standoff very very similar in several respects (including gun used, I believe) to the Saren standoff scene.
