| starcraft said:
Something that certain gamers have decried as an error of narrative – namely that a series about choice wound up having broadly similar (and devastating) endings – was in fact a masterpiece. Ultimately, the game delivered what the franchise had always promised – significant limitations on the ability of humans and other species to impact change on the universe around them. It made complete sense, and was not a departure from the existing narrative at all. People are just so used to Hollywood endings in their video games (excepting the obligatory sad death of one or two characters 20 minutes before the ending, or to spur a revenge plot) that they couldn’t fathom that a franchise would actually end the way it had been implying it would end all along. |
I get where you're coming from but I have to disagree. There a YouTube video that points out the inherent flaw with the ending (my iPad won't let me link to it). The destroy option, the thing you've been working towards throughout the entire series is painted as the worse option. This could have been made as a moral point, but until you meet the catalyst it is still your overall aim. Then other options are either the aim of Cerberus (control) or Saren (synergy) so you basically end up doing their work for them.
Even reject is flawed as you can't point out the ridiculous flaw in the catalysts logic - he wants to preserve organic life, and does so by continually destroying organic life.
