User blog:SilencedSkies/The Illusive Man: Good, Evil or just bad writing?

Now that we know the fate of the Illusive Man, do you really think he was as evil as the Alliance made him out to be? Or do you think, as i do, that he was the victim of bad writing. let me explain. In ME, w saw the results of several Cerberus operations resulting in the death of an Alliance Admiral. leading up to that mission, it's made out that Cerberus is a bad organization that does terrible things for no apparent reason. Then in ME2, you see that Cerberus is split up into cells that operate independently of one another but they all have to report back to The Illusive Man with status updates and what not. This revealing in the second game shows that while Cerberus may do bad things, they have an ulterior motive, keeping humanity afloat in a roiling ocean. Then ME3 comes along and skullf***s all that with a baseball bat. Cerberus becomes this massive army with thousands of troops in a matter of 6 months and no one figured it out, but that's a different story. During the time Shepherd was in prison, The Illusive Man basically drained his gray matter out of his skull and turned against humanity as a whole, first by sticking Reaper tech into his troops noggins and then by launching attacks on human colonies. This ties into The Illusive Man because he ordered it and from the look of things, he got implants just before the end of the game so his thinking was probably clear and unaffected by the Reapers until the very end. What i'm going for is that I understood and admired his motivations and desires in ME2, while i didn't really like his methods. In ME3, its like they replaced him with a moron version of himself. to quote Ben Croshaw: "It's like a James Bond movie where he gets killed off half way through and replaced with a bloke named Bames Jond." Basically, all this text summarizes to: Is the Illusive Man good, evil, or another victim of bad writing?