The only thing your decisions throughout the games seem to effect are war assets, which can impact endings somewhat.
I actually do have some problems with the whole premise of the game (ME3) to start with. It's something that repeatedly gets brushed aside-the idea that all these military forces should drop everything and get to Earth. Earth got attacked and people didn't just give up on it, but when other homeworlds do, the attitude is "oh now that's sad that planet fell". But that's another discussion altogether.
What I do think is that doing the best in the game is actually the worst for what can happen. If you get max war assets assembled at Earth then when the relays are destroyed (and no matter what they will be), you should have also either totally destroyed the fleets or totally stranded them at Earth.
It would be really nice if at some point the devs/writers and all would state just exactly what it meant to them, if that's possible.
The only explanation I can come up with is that it's like the Kobayashi Maru in Star Trek. It's a test with no right answer. Or, it's like a Twilight Zone episode.
I think what I'd like to see at the very least is that the decisions to be made at the end take into account not only the sacrifices of self and others along the way, but also the guts and determination the character has. Even Paragon or Renegade choices have little meaning here. It makes more sense for their to be options with P or R choices-a wimpier Shepard might just go along, but a more risk-taking one would talk back, at least.
I think whoever said that there's no reason they couldn't have a terrible ending as well as a totally happy ending and everything in between hit it right on the head.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 14 avril 2012 - 03:28 .