This line is an example of auto-dialogue from Mass Effect 1. By auto-dialogue, I mean that Shepard says this line to Sovereign no matter what you choose.
I never liked this line. I've always disagreed with its philosophy. However, it fits Mass Effect 1 perfectly. That game is all about how synthetics are the bad guys. There is some ambiguity about the quarian-geth war and whether or not the geth rebellion was justified, but that's it. Everywhere else, the synthetics are soulless machines that neither understand nor appreciate what "life" is. Saren's line about being a symbol of the future (an organic-synthetic fusion) is presented as something to be rejected; he is, in this context, an abomination. One could say that he has given up his "humanity" to become a machine; to become a synthetic is to die.
The anti-synthetic sentiment changes in Mass Effect 2. Legion explains that the geth we fought in ME1 were actually "heretics" who agreed with the Reapers. The "orthodox" geth, represented by Legion, are genuinely curious about organics, but don't trust them. There is also EDI, who befriends Joker and the crew. Both Legion and EDI serve as examples of synthetic "life"; they are fundamentally different from organics, but it can be argued that they are "alive". The organics-vs.-synethetics theme is also complicated by the revelation that the Reapers contain the minds of organics. Again, we have some kind of fusion, but it's still presented as something horrific and wrong.
We all know what happens in Mass Effect 3: EDI wants a relationship with Joker, the geth want to upgrade themselves with "Reaper code" so that they will be considered "alive", and Synthesis is a possible ending. We have come a long way since ME1. I realize that many people disagree with how these developments were presented, though. The Joker-EDI relationship is criticized for being silly. Some people think that the geth were ruined because their story suggests that they weren't really "alive" until they used the Reaper code. And of course, Synthesis has all kinds of problems.
So what is the point of this thread? Well, these are just some observations and my thoughts about them. I think that BioWare was not wrong for presenting "organics vs. synthetics" as a significant theme for the ending. The problem is that the trilogy muddled the theme on its way to the ending. If certain parts of Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 had not existed, then I think the Catalyst's argument would be easier to accept, and it wouldn't feel so random. However, the Destroy ending would unquestionably be the ending of choice. Without Legion and EDI, Mass Effect's message would be that machines, even intelligent machines, can never be alive, and that to integrate oneself with technology is to risk losing one's humanity.
EDIT: I forgot to mention Shepard and Project Lazarus. Shepard's death and resurrection is one of the most bizarre plot points of the trilogy, but only because it's almost never discussed. It doesn't feel important, and it doesn't seem to contribute to any series-spanning themes. It's just there to justify changing your Shepard between ME1 and ME2... I remember joking about another Shepard death between ME2 and ME3. If it had been important, then it would have focused on bridging the gap between organics and synthetics. This is really just another problem created by ME2. I wonder: If one were to play ME1, and then skip to the ending of ME3, would it make sense? Would there be less plot dissonance than if one were to play the entire trilogy?
Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 06 janvier 2014 - 02:48 .
Retour en haut
