Ce sujet est fermé
RagingCeltik wrote...
Just a quick thought...
Do you think that we would have felt less betrayed over the endings as long as each choice Shepard made on the citadel resulted in a wildly differently animated cutscene? Are we angrier that we feel ending makes no sense or that the ending was lazily produced (ie: one cutscene for three choices)?
Would this movement be in effect if the ending was varied enough -- even if it didn't make as much sense as we would have liked -- to warrant multiple playthroughs.
I personally feel that even if the ending had wildly different cutscenes the options given completly break away from what the series stands for both philosophically and structurally. Mass effect through all three games is about unity and the acceptance of difference, in 1 and 2 you are uniting your disperate crew for a common purpose and throughout 3 you are uniting the entire galaxy.
In the end this is completely thrown out the window, even if you ignore the massive plot holes the three options you are given are to take a level of control you spent the first game stopping Saren from having and the next two doing the same to TIM. The synthesis option is unity through uniformity, which goes completely against the philosophy of the entire series (especialy the rest of 3), in many ways you could see the fight against the reapers as the ultimate expresion of the fight against unity through uniformity. Then the destroy option has you killing all synthetic life for no reason.
On top of all that the star childs logic and the justification for the reapers is hideously flawed, not only is it a circular argument to which his reaper solution is a self fulfiling profecy anyway (don't forget that the only reason the Geth attacked Eden Prime and the citadel was because of the reapers), but the idea that synthetics will always inevitably turn on organics is proved completely false not only by every conversation you have with Legion and the Geth and the Quarians cooperation in the battle that is happening around you at that very moment but also by the conversation you have with EDI barely 5 minuets before that scene.
Add again the mechanical problems of giving people a deus ex type ending which the series has always avoided, or Shepard suddenly blindly following logic he/she know to proveably wrong.
Personally I feel the only way to fix the ending and retain what is already there is to follow the indoctrination theory, even if this was not planned (which given how well the whole theory holds together I would be very surprised if it wasn't intentional, as if they were going for an inception type ending but pulled it of terribly, or post ending content has been planned all along, possibly because of hurried re-writes) it fits perfectly and could easily then lead on to a different ending.
In my opinion I don't feel there needs to be a big 'choice' at the end, given the nature of 3's war assests system I thought that the end would be a culmination of all your choices up to that point, had you got enough military strength, had you united people, had you done enoguh to help your squad, there is no need for a big end choice. Big end choices of epic scale naturally invalidate everything you have done before (unless pulled of perfectly) as its ramifications are so huge as to eclipse or literally eradicate everything you have done previously. I think it should come down to whether you defeat the reapers, how desisive that defeat was, how costly it was, whether squad members or shepard dies and then see the effect of this and your other choices on the galaxy and the many characters you have come to know and love. No big end choice but a culmination of your narrative.
I know all this has probably been said before, but its good to vent, and thanks to anyone who gets to the end of this.
Oh, and Hold The Line!
Retour en haut
And nice to see you too 
