Airaku said:
Weather you wish to agree or not. Is not the point. That is your personal interpretation of the game. That doesn't make it true or false. In your head, that may be true. However, according to the developers, at Bioware. The main point of the series is the parallels of organics vs synthetics. The Geth war is a very small point of that. The Reapers are a major point in this. Changing biological life into synthetic life because no matter what. There will never be peace with organics. War is natural for them. With synthetics. It is not. However as long as both persist. There can never be peace. By merging the two together, Shepard had created a master race. They synthetic ending is the only one, and I mean the only one that brings peace to the galaxy. I can, with great confidence, confirm to you that the war between organics and synthetics continues on in the ALL of the other endings. There is no peace. You are correct that there are many plot points. Of course there is. It's Mass Effect. There is tons of them. First contact war (which also has a Reaper point with technology, read the novels that are written by the writer of the series. Mac Walters). The Illusive Man is obsessed with finding the secrets of the reapers and even ensures everything is cyberneticly enhanced. Shepard is a victim of this. EDI plays a huge role in the whole synthetic debates. From Mass Effect 2, all the way to Mass Effect 3 where she got a humanoid body. She was not very human friendly at the beginning of ME2 but then grew upon them. Wished to become on and feel like one. And she did. She felt love, sympathy, anger, confusion, and the whole ranger of humanlike emotion. We saw a growth of both kin. The story really evolved. I respect your perception of the story and I do not wished to call you wrong on the matter. However.... I think arguing with the writers and developers of the series is rather... silly. They certainly know the story better than you,, or any of us will. |
You say that the war between organics and synthetics will continue in any ending besides synthesis. This is absolutely not supported by the text (the game). The most prominent example of a war between synthetics and organics is that between the geth and quarians. And, depending on what you do, you can create a peaceful resolution to this conflict. The other most prominent example is Edi, and you are, even without the synthesis ending, able to coexist peacefully with her. The main proponent of synthesis is Saren, and you are able to convince him he is wrong to the point where he commits suicide.
In the ending, the three choices each have a representative. The synthesis ending is repped by Saren, the control by the illusive man, and destroy by anderson. You spend the first game fighting against synthesis, the second fighting against control. You can convince both Sareen and the Illusive man to kill themselves because they're so wrong about their ideas. So, destruction seems more reasonable in that light. The destruction ending is the only one that has an extra scene at the end as well which is typical of the "true" ending in a game.
"I respect your perception of the story and I do not wished to call you wrong on the matter. However.... I think arguing with the writers and developers of the series is rather... silly. They certainly know the story better than you,, or any of us will."
Perhaps you do not want to call people out for being wrong, however I am perfectly happy to respectfully tell people when they are wrong. You are wrong.
As someone who has fairly extensively studied literary criticism (I have a bachelors degree in English), I can tell you that it is completely unacceptable to use "the writer said so" as a valid explanation. Whenever you want to make any claim about a text, you need evidence from the actual text. If I used the author's intention as an argument about the content of a book, I'd have been failed. We don't use the authors intention as an argument for several reasons.
First of all, the human mind is not a static thing. Minds decline, even those of authors. There is no guarantee that the author will not change their mind over their interpretation, or that they will remain in a stable state of mind. People can lie, be misinterpreted, forget, say conflicting things, or get drunk. For example, George Lucas has given several conflicting comments on whether or not Han solo shot first in Star Wars a new hope. So, if you're going by the author's intentions, you'll have to believe contradictory things, or change your interpretation on their whims.
Secondly, and more importantly, intentions do not matter in the least, really in any circumstance in life. For examlple, if a student writes on a test that 2+2=5, it doesn't matter if they meant to write 2+2=4. They're wrong. If a chef intented to cook a burger well and it's raw inside, their intention doesn't matter. It's raw.
A work stands by itself. The work says what it says. If Casey Hudson says "the main point of Mass Effect 3 is that masturbation is wrong", would you agree with him? I mean, he probably wouldn't, but surely he could right?
If you would not believe that, you probably wouldn't because it doesn't make sense in the game. So, if you would doubt this hypothetical claim, then you must accept that the actual text of a work takes precedence over the word of the author. In which case, you'd have to look at the actual game to evaluate whether your anonymous source at Bioware is correct. And as far as the evidence in the game goes, he is not.
