I do not agree that the endings are great. However, I do agree with some of the individual assessments of the OP.
I think the Control and Destroy options are valid choices. To me they make sense and are fairly clear what they mean. But I just don't understand the Synthesis option at all. That doesn't mean it does not have merit. I just do not understand neither the mechanics or consequences of such an option. If i was given such an option, I would assume it was a trap.
I differ from some of the critics because I believe there can only be one real ending, regardless of choices. When I say true, ending I mean the ending for which gamers will willingly play the game again, after they have experimented with the false endings where Shepard dies and fails, etc.
The truth is that ME1 and M2 only really had one ending. Likewise, ME3 can only really have one ending as well.
That ending should be on a positive note, even if Shepard dies. Because we need a postive note to want to play again. We want to believe that the people we have saved will have a meanigful existence after Shepard's story is finished.
The truth is that I believe most people will only play a game or watch a movie if they can relate positively to the ending. People will watch a movie multiple times if the end is postiive, But people will be less likely to watch a movie with negative end, no matter how great the movie is.
For me there should only one true ending (the defeat of the Reapers) with two variations. Either:
- Shepard lives, but some squad mates may die. With appropriate final scenes of loss, victory and reunion with LI, etc.
- Shepard dies heroically. With appropriate scenes of loss, victory and mourning of Shep by LI, etc.
Apart from that, the consequences of the end should be explained.
However, I think that Bioware were reluctanct to define the new order after the game. They wanted the gamer to define the new order with their own imagination. And that is why they left the plot holes.
They also probably understoof that some people would hate the ending no matter what they did and so sort of opted out of defining the end. But this option has made matters even worse by the look of it.
So I understand the argument about deliberately creating plotholes to allow the gamer to imagine their own ending.
For example: Crashing on in a tropical jungle world can allow for two imagined outcomes. We could either imagine that the world is an inhabited paradise where the crew will help to creat a new civilisation. Or you could equally imagine that they are on a hostile deserted planet with no hope where it will be a struggle to survive.
However, I am not convinced that this tactic of having a vague ending is appropriate for a video game. I regard ME as quite a mainstream product with a mainstream customer base. I don't really expect to have to make up my own story. I expect Bioware to fill in the gaps for me.
Obviously, there will be many gamers who will be happy with or indifferent to the vague dark ending.
But I think most gamers want to have access to an ending where they feel good and believe there is a future for the people they have saved.
In the end for such an epic game trilogy, they should have had an equally epic epilogue to show the galaxy's appreciation for Shepard and the sacrifices made. And in that Bioware failed.
Basically, it is akin to playing a soccer video-game where you put in lots of effort to win the league or World Cup, only to find that there is no animation of your team lifting the cup.
And that is Bioware's greatest failing with the ending. We did not get to see the trophy. We had to imagine it, or even worse, imagine that after all that work there is no trophy at all.
Any why would you want to play again if there is no trophy?
Modifié par Motherlander, 17 mars 2012 - 01:10 .
Retour en haut
