When something is called an abomination, it usually means "We don't like this, AND we never want to ever see it again, and we want to make sure of that." It doesn't just mean 'ugly disgusting monster'.
If you take the Collector's tech, you're basically saying something more like (in the ME2 state of Shepard at least): "This is terrible, it never should have happened, but since it did happen, I think it can be used." AKA you're less concerned about it meaning anything for the future, as long as you have something that can advance your cause today.
Mentally (though you could argue otherwise with some success), you're leaving an opening to Reaper tech being used again. Or for others to use it, and for you to continue its use in some form.
Exhibit A:
-Never used Reaper tech
-Emboldened to never use it in future
Exhibit B:
-Previously never used Reaper tech
-Uses it once...then a bit more..
-Comes to see it as useful, and may use it at times
Exhibit C:
-Uses Reaper tech whenever it comes up, uses it to its fullest (that the story allows - and most of it especially in ME1-2, didn't allow it)
-Doesn't see an issue with using it, especially since the burning on the stove doesn't really happen to Shepard, it seems
-Comes to see the ultimate use of Reaper tech, and embraces it
However, the story points us in certain ways anyway. For example, the most we can do to EDI is disregard her presence, which I think has some effect on the storytelling. However, she's always going to be on your ship. Overall, ME3 tries to at least nudge the player towards just letting technology either OF or FROM the Reapers be a thing that ought to exist, even if only for a specific purpose. I believe this is very much by design, and it shows an interesting irony as we wage war against the Reapers.
Modifié par SwobyJ, 30 janvier 2014 - 08:25 .





Retour en haut







