kidbd15 wrote...
I'm not upset about forcing Udina into office, it probably benefits the story much better, but the act itself of disregarding our choice is a bit upsetting. Overall, I don't care in this instance, but would care for something like the Rachni decision.
I get that in a story-driven trilogy like Mass Effect the writers have to take some liberties in order to maintain a consistent, main plot line regardless of choices made. The last game in the trilogy, however, should be much less constrained by this. As Casey Hudson has said himself dozens of times, this is the last game; there is nowhere left to go with the story arc after ME3. No matter how far the branches deviate from the trunk of the tree, Shepard's story will end and they don't need to worry about compensating and course-correcting to fit Shepard's choices into yet another chapter.
If we took the logic of, "Udina in office makes for a better story," then we could apply that to any of the choices over the last two games. Of course you can craft a better, more cohesive story if you control all of the variables, but the ME trilogy is supposed to be about player agency, at least to a degree. So maybe killing off the Rachni does not create a better story, but if I chose to, they damn well better be dead.
I don't know, this just seems shady to me. It worries me because I know they want to continue the ME universe after Shep's trilogy ends, and I'm sure it's tempting to try to have all of the possible ME3 endings be essentially the same in order to wrap things up in a neat little bow for continuity purposes for future Mass Effect installments. Bioware should worry about the afterma
th of the great trilogy
after they create the great trilogy; they shouldn't hold back and limit their artistic vision because of continuity concerns.
Modifié par Biotic Sage, 21 septembre 2011 - 06:32 .