274 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaysh]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Jaysh wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Jaysh wrote...

Your going to judge the entire movement because of me? *laughs*

No, I judged the subset of the movement long ago, you just add to it.

You are nothing but a hypocrit. You call me "arrogant" because I was making a judgment upon the people who like the ending, but you yourself are judging the entire movement for people who hate the ending? 

Oh boy. You really can't read, can you?

I don't judge the movement as a whole. I judge the people like you who act arrogant and uninformed. I judge the ones who can't let someone say something positive about the game without being told they're dumb, a troll, or a PR person.

I don't judge the movement as a whole. I do, however think they're being ridiculous. But that's my own personal opinion. I judge those who put themselves out there to be judged by their actions.

*laughs* 

You chose from the get go to get offened by what I had to say. I don't care if you judge me. I don't care what you have to say unless you explain why you like the ending. I'm ending our argument here.

[MakeMineMako]

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...



I agree. But judging a movement by the actions of one is silly imho. It's as bad as judging the whole of the Occupy movement on one person.

But when a large group acts the way he does in your group, it looks bad. And you cannot possibly deny that there is not a very large chunk in your movement that acts this way.

Just like there are pro-ending trolls who drop in threads, and post insulting remarks in order to inflame. 

[HenchxNarf]

MakeMineMako wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...



I agree. But judging a movement by the actions of one is silly imho. It's as bad as judging the whole of the Occupy movement on one person.

But when a large group acts the way he does in your group, it looks bad. And you cannot possibly deny that there is not a very large chunk in your movement that acts this way.

Just like there are pro-ending trolls who drop in threads, and post insulting remarks in order to inflame. 

Not as many, actually. I haven't even seen one myself. But I suppose they are out there.

[stabbykitteh]

Jagri wrote...

Here is a question I would have for people who support the ending.

Do you not regret not having a chance to confront Harbinger for one last time? I feel rather cheated I didn't get to at least spit on him for all the trouble he gave us in ME2.

No. Harbinger could have played a bigger role I suppose, but it was just one of thousands of Reapers
The stakes are so much higher than getting even with one of them (imho).

It's like finally getting to tell off the Turian councelor. It felt hollow. It doesn't matter that he didn't listen at that point,
trillions are at risk, billions are dying, stopping that is all that matters.

[Zaire Taylor]

Valo_Soren wrote...

Zaire Taylor wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

I do not feel misled because I expected this kind of esoteric and self sacrificing ending in the first place. I'm not sure why a dark universe sci-fi world like Mass effect would lead people to believe that the ending was going to be all rainbows and cup cakes.

Well, the first two games ended in minor triumphs by quelling temporary threats of Sovereign and the Collectors.  It sure would have fit in to have the Reapers destroyed.

But the reapers are defeated in one of three ways every time, and the more war assets you have the more sound that defeat is, if you choose destroy, they are utterly destroyed, if you choose symbiosis all organic and synthetic life becomes one single race, if you choose control the reapers now serve shepard and the organic races. You can't defeat an enemy much more soundly then that.

But no matter what you do, you're still left with an ending where your entire civilization is destroyed, and it's likely that the next cycle will never ever be able to become as technologically advanced as we were since the Mass Relays are all destroyed.

[SpiderFan1217]

leonia42 wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

*snip*

*snip*

Gonna be a little lame and quote myself from another thread:

"Just finished my first run of ME3. I took some advice and did it with a default Shep. I choose to destroy the Reapers. Everything seemed to fit. Bioware crafted a wonderful Trilegy and when they were done telling their story I wasn't left wanting. Usually when I finish a series that I love as much as I love ME. I'm sad that the journey is over. With ME it's different. I loved everything about it. From the Mako to mounds of weapon and armor DLC's that I will never use. Everythign just felt right. This is a way to say, "Thank You." to the company that has now solitified itself, in my eyes, as the greatest videogame developers of all time. It was a Hell of a Run Bioware. I'm glad I was part of it. Mass Effect was beautiful."

I didn't feel depressed at all. I felt good. Like I imagine Shep felt when he realised he/she'd done it and did't have to fight anymore. I thought I would feel depressed, but Bioware, in my opinion, told a complete story that when it ended left me wanting for nothing. To me it was, beautiful.

[sp0ck 06]

I'm a long time ME fan. ME1 was the reason i bought an xbox, and I've invested hundreds of hours in the series. I actually love the conclusion. The ending has really grown on me as I thought about it, I'll just post here what I've posted elsewhere in the forum. This is what I thought of it.

I managed to avoid completely spoiling myself, but I knew people hated it, that Shep died, and that something drastic happened at the very end. i braced myself for the worst.

I could clearly see why people are upset by the ending. The gamer in me hated the ending, its abruptness, its ambiguitity, and its lack of closure. What the hell happened with the Normandy? What happened to the races, and my friends (the ones left living by the end)? I wanted answers! I deserve answers, after who knows how many hours spent playing these games.

After letting the ending stew for a few days, playing some MP, starting an Adept playthrough, I decided I loved the IDEA of the ending, it was just incomplete.

I was reminded of 2001, mixed with some Matrix Revolutions and a side of Contact with Ender's Game. I love where they were going with the ending. I was expected the Dark Energy "mass relays use dark energy and the Reapers ensure everything doesn't die by stopping advanced civilizations from using the relays."

Instead, we got, for lack of a better term, some crazy S**t! Suddenly the game was delving deep into questions about the nature of the universe, time, chaos versus order, intelligent design. I really appreciate what BioWare was trying to do. This is not a videogame ending. It's a terrible videogame ending. But I think its a pretty cool ending to a piece of fiction.

The Starkid represented a vast, incomprehensible sythetic intelligence. While it was certainly the driving force behind the Reapers, I don't think it was directly controlling them like Harby controlled the Collectors. A lot of people have pointed out flaws in the Starkids logic. This makes sense, because it's logic IS flawed. It is trying to maintain an order, a "solution" to what it views as the chaos of organic evolution. This fits with what the Reapers have been telling us all along. Sovvy said "we impose order on the chaos..."

The Starkid's motiviation was not borne out of trying to preserve life, but preserve order. Thus I think the ending s less about the literal "i build synthetics to kill organics to prevent them building synthetics to kill them" and more about deep question of order vs chaos. The cycle, the Crucible, the war against the Reapers, it all comes across as a test. A system established before time by some intelligence (presumably organic: going by the Starkid's own words, he must have been created at some point). The Starkid is the caretaker of this system, the impetus that drives the rotation of the galaxy. The Reapers are just tools of that system. I don't think the Reapers truly understand the nature of their existence, but they do have purpose.

Shepard, as the first organic to compete the Crucible and "activate" the Catalyst, is the literal represention of chaos, just as the Starkid represents order. This diacotomy is also expressed in the final conversation between TIM and Andersen. The Starkid, although seemingly godlike from Shepard's POV, is ultimately just a much a slave to the system as a Reapers and TIM. It's unable to make the final choice, leaving that to Shepard. So really the choices boil down to:

Control: Accept the validity of the system, assuming the Starkid's role as a machine-god maintaining the "old order" of the galaxy (reminds me most of 2001)

Synth: The system is flawed because it only represents one half of the universe's order: the synthetic, logical, scientific approach. It requires the inherently chaotic input of an organic lifeform to achieve balance.

Destroy: The system is flawed beyond repair. It nullifies free will by "determining" the continued, "harvested" existence of organic life is more valuable than the life in of its own. It values preservation of the order over faith in evolution to drive on its own.

This is how I interpreted the endings. I love the idea of these endings. BioWare has some cajones to let Shepard decide the ultimate fate of the galaxy from a metaphysical level.

WHAT I HATE IS THE IMPLEMENTATION

These endings are HUGE. I mean, this is the ultimate choice: you're basically confronted by a god and asked how you think the universe should procede from here. Yet the critics who say the theres only 1 ending, 3 colors, are absolutely right. We aren't shown anything that happened, just some silly "Lost" esque sequence with the Normandy and a bunch of stuff blowing up. What happened to the fleets? Our friends? The Citadel? Th explosions from the relays? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GALAXY AFTER I DETERMINED ITS VERY NATURE???

It's disappointing, because I really believe if BioWare had just provided some closure the fans would have embrace d these endings and the idea behind them. As it is, all we get is the Stargazer thing, which was cool, but all that told was some life survived, along with legends of Shepard. Hell, even just text would have done. Did the geth rebel again? What happened to the fleets? Were all the relays destroyed, and the solar systems with them? Just want answers!!!!!!

TLDR: BioWare, I love the direction that you went with in the ending. I love how you truly tried to transcend the tired videogame format. But as a gamer, I want some closure to the choices I've made throughout this game. Just tell us what happened!

[FellishBeast]

Bitter Kevin wrote...

I brought peace to the galaxy. That's what I expected all along.

How so? Did you see peace happen? Did you see aliens hugging each other and celebrating? The only possible peace there could be with that ending is everyone being dead. Which is probably what happened when all the relays blew up. And if they didn't kill everyone...they trapped the whole armada in the Sol system effectively damning them all, considering Earth is dead, Turians and Quarians can't eat human food, and there is no way out of the system.

You brought eventual peace through genocide. But if that's what you expected...then props, bro!

[Leonia]

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

"Just finished my first run of ME3.
I took some advice and did it with a default Shep. I choose to destroy
the Reapers. Everything seemed to fit. Bioware crafted a wonderful
Trilegy and when they were done telling their story I wasn't left
wanting. Usually when I finish a series that I love as much as I love
ME. I'm sad that the journey is over. With ME it's different. I loved
everything about it. From the Mako to mounds of weapon and armor DLC's
that I will never use. Everythign just felt right. This is a way to say,
"Thank You." to the company that has now solitified itself, in my eyes,
as the greatest videogame developers of all time. It was a Hell of a
Run Bioware. I'm glad I was part of it. Mass Effect was beautiful."

I
didn't feel depressed at all. I felt good. Like I imagine Shep felt
when he realised he/she'd done it and did't have to fight anymore. I
thought I would feel depressed, but Bioware, in my opinion, told a
complete story that when it ended left me wanting for nothing. To me it
was, beautiful.

My depression was only in seeing the end (having to let go of characters I had grown rather attached to), ultimately it felt "good" as you say to see that Shepard was successful and would be meeting her LI in heaven for drinks. That week after finishing was a weird one, I felt happy and sad all at once.  I couldn't have planned the experience any better, always expected she would die in the end (even if there is that ending with the breath, but I didn't get it the first itme). A confrontation with Harbinger didn't seem necessary, they exchanged words in Arrival anyway and I kind of liked not having to fight a big bad evil boss at the end, it was a different kind of ending that I've thought about heaps since finishing and have really come to terms with once my emotions settled down.

Modifié par leonia42, 20 mars 2012 - 06:02 .

[Valo_Soren]

Zaire Taylor wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

Zaire Taylor wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

I do not feel misled because I expected this kind of esoteric and self sacrificing ending in the first place. I'm not sure why a dark universe sci-fi world like Mass effect would lead people to believe that the ending was going to be all rainbows and cup cakes.

Well, the first two games ended in minor triumphs by quelling temporary threats of Sovereign and the Collectors.  It sure would have fit in to have the Reapers destroyed.

But the reapers are defeated in one of three ways every time, and the more war assets you have the more sound that defeat is, if you choose destroy, they are utterly destroyed, if you choose symbiosis all organic and synthetic life becomes one single race, if you choose control the reapers now serve shepard and the organic races. You can't defeat an enemy much more soundly then that.

But no matter what you do, you're still left with an ending where your entire civilization is destroyed, and it's likely that the next cycle will never ever be able to become as technologically advanced as we were since the Mass Relays are all destroyed.

No civilization is not destroyed, there is nothing that shows civilization being destroyed other then those having already died to the war. The mass effect relays are shut down yes but they do not explode and destroy entire solar systems like the one in the ARRIVAL dlc in ME 2. And the forces stuck in the Sol system are still very much alive, unless your war assets are below 2000 and everyone gets killed because you hadn't gathered enough.

Modifié par Valo_Soren, 20 mars 2012 - 06:05 .

[Leonia]

While the Normandy sequence at the end seems entirely confusing if you think about it logically, I think the intent behind it was to show that life has continued and there is still hope, regardless of the choice made at the end. Maybe it was poorly executed and they could have found a better way to symoblise that but I don't doubt for a moment that life continues on and even if all synthetics were destroyed, they can be rebuilt in the future. It's not over for galactic civilisation, though the victory didn't come without a high price. Better than no victory at all.

Modifié par leonia42, 20 mars 2012 - 06:08 .

[Valo_Soren]

Zaire Taylor wrote...
t the next cycle will never ever be able to become as technologically advanced as we were since the Mass Relays are all destroyed.

Organic civilization was never meant to be that technologically advanced in the first place, it was forced upon them by the Reapers and the Catalyst, much like the salarians helped the krogan advance way to fast, the same thing was done to the galaxy as a whole by the reapers, now organic life will evolve at the pace its supposed to, naturally without outside influence. Its similar to the reason why the Prime directive is the Federations number one law in Star Trek. Interfering with younger civilizations can only lead to bad things.

[AtreiyaN7]

HenchxNarf wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...



I agree. But judging a movement by the actions of one is silly imho. It's as bad as judging the whole of the Occupy movement on one person.

But when a large group acts the way he does in your group, it looks bad. And you cannot possibly deny that there is not a very large chunk in your movement that acts this way.

Just like there are pro-ending trolls who drop in threads, and post insulting remarks in order to inflame. 

Not as many, actually. I haven't even seen one myself. But I suppose they are out there.

There are, and I make a point of telling them to lay off if I notice it. Civility goes both ways after all, and it doesn't do any of us any good if people are acting like jerks toward each other. That being said, it seems to me that most of the abuse seems to come from a certain subset of people in the "movement."

[Lugaidster]

YeGodz wrote...

Spectre_Shepard wrote...

YeGodz wrote...

Misled in what sense? I keep seeing that choice didn't matter, but it was all over the place. The entire game was one call-back and arc resolution after another.

Or does it only count if it happens in the last 5 minutes of the game? Because if that's the case, then ME 1&2 didn't have choice, either. Well, 1 didn't. 2 had a choice of two colors for the explosion, rather than 3.

the choice in ME2 was sprad out over the final mission. who to send where and will they survive. the effects were actually pretty profound on a personal level.

in ME3, theres only 1 instance of choice at the conclusion, and its barely a real choice at all.

Which would matter if there was going to be another game. But there wasn't. Loading the endgame with decisions ala ME2 would have served no purpose, because none of the plot threads created thereby were going to be followed up on.

I guess I didn't see the last mission as being somehow detached from the rest of the game. I spent 30 hours making peace, brokering deals, and solving series long conflicts to get the armada together and in position. That was the point. It had to be, because, let's face it, beating the Reapers and saving the galaxy was a foregone conclusion, regardless of how long the odds were.

Why fight for 3 games if resistance is futile? A big part of the theme was hope, I see no resolution of that hope in any of the endings. You barely get that when you see 3 (of the 40 or so characters) you met along the way step out in a faraway planet for no apparent reason at all. I can understand that the underlying premise of the ending may sound good to some people, but the execution was still poor. 

Bittersweet for the sake of it is as pointless as a happy ending for the sake of it. None of the three options really mattered that much in what you came here to do. Save the people, not the galaxy. Since you see nothing of that, the only way to cope is to detach. The game was promised to have a satisfactory ending, I really fail how these endings are satisfactory in anything but stoping the reapers. If that was all it was to it, one game would've sufficed and no personal relations would've been not only unnecessary but preferable. 

[AtreiyaN7]

leonia42 wrote...

While the Normandy sequence at the end seems entirely confusing if you think about it logically, I think the intent behind it was to show that life has continued and there is still hope, regardless of the choice made at the end. Maybe it was poorly executed and they could have found a better way to symoblise that but I don't doubt for a moment that life continues on and even if all synthetics were destroyed, they can be rebuilt in the future. It's not over for galactic civilisation, though the victory didn't come without a high price. Better than no victory at all.

And I agree with this wise turian (except that I didn't destroy the synthetics of course - hehe).

[Leeloo Multipass]

Valo_Soren wrote...

Actually the choices are to control the reapers, thereby enslaving them to the will of Shepard, symbiosis, thereby creating a new race, or destruction, destroying the reapers and all other synthetic life forms in the galaxy including EDI and the Geth. Each ending is based on the variables of your choices throughout the game based no the War Assets you collect and based on that War asset number depending on how much you do in the game, it affects different variables in each ending.

Shepard made a huge sacrifice in order to free the galaxy from control, the mass relays are gone, evolution can no longer be forced on the organic races of hte galaxy. Each ending gives the races of the milky way, a fresh start, yes it will be tough starting out, but it will be ok in the long run because the galaxy is finally free after millions of years of Reaper control.

Did it not bother you at all that two of those endings went against absolutely everything that we've learned about the Reapers in the Mass Effect Universe?

Personally I was a bit miffed that the synthesis ending was framed as the perfect solution when it was basically everything that Saron stood for in ME1. Control is obvious....we know they can't be controlled. I know it's Commander Shepard and all...but he's still just a human. He can't actually control the reapers. Just no way.

And of course the Destroy ending. Well...Shepard just spent 3 games (or maybe just 2 depending on how you want to see it) proving that synthetic life and organic life and exist peacefully. I mean...I would expect Shepard to shove the options back into the Catalyst's face at this point.

I was frustrated because the choices didn't make sense as they were given. You didn't feel that way? Please elaborate. I'm honestly trying to see this from all sides because I WANT to enjoy the endings. I genuinely wish I could replay ME3 right now and feel right about it.

[Jagri]

Flummox wrote...

Jagri wrote...

Here is a question I would have for people who support the ending.

Do you not regret not having a chance to confront Harbinger for one last time? I feel rather cheated I didn't get to at least spit on him for all the trouble he gave us in ME2.

No. Harbinger could have played a bigger role I suppose, but it was just one of thousands of Reapers
The stakes are so much higher than getting even with one of them (imho).

It's like finally getting to tell off the Turian councelor. It felt hollow. It doesn't matter that he didn't listen at that point,
trillions are at risk, billions are dying, stopping that is all that matters.

During the events of ME3 billions were dying within days as trillions of lives were at risk yet did that stop you from completing side missions, interacting with crew and or love interests, buying gifts at the hospitial, and or stopping to shop for armor fashions/weapon upgrades? 

When I heard on the coms that Harbinger was coming I felt a thrill. Yes finally the chance to put him down once and all I get is him not saying a word as he blasts and kills allies all around Shepard.

Modifié par Jagri, 20 mars 2012 - 06:17 .

[HenchxNarf]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

While the Normandy sequence at the end seems entirely confusing if you think about it logically, I think the intent behind it was to show that life has continued and there is still hope, regardless of the choice made at the end. Maybe it was poorly executed and they could have found a better way to symoblise that but I don't doubt for a moment that life continues on and even if all synthetics were destroyed, they can be rebuilt in the future. It's not over for galactic civilisation, though the victory didn't come without a high price. Better than no victory at all.

And I agree with this wise turian (except that I didn't destroy the synthetics of course - hehe).

I chose Synthesis so that my Jezika Shepard could be with Kaidan forever. She loved him through THREE GAMES!

[TheNexus]

Valo_Soren wrote...

I do not feel misled because I expected this kind of esoteric and self sacrificing ending in the first place. I'm not sure why a dark universe sci-fi world like Mass effect would lead people to believe that the ending was going to be all rainbows and cup cakes.

You justed stated the problem.

Bioware gave us the ending.

We wanted the endings, plural.

[111987]

LeeluMultipass wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

Actually the choices are to control the reapers, thereby enslaving them to the will of Shepard, symbiosis, thereby creating a new race, or destruction, destroying the reapers and all other synthetic life forms in the galaxy including EDI and the Geth. Each ending is based on the variables of your choices throughout the game based no the War Assets you collect and based on that War asset number depending on how much you do in the game, it affects different variables in each ending.

Shepard made a huge sacrifice in order to free the galaxy from control, the mass relays are gone, evolution can no longer be forced on the organic races of hte galaxy. Each ending gives the races of the milky way, a fresh start, yes it will be tough starting out, but it will be ok in the long run because the galaxy is finally free after millions of years of Reaper control.

And of course the Destroy ending. Well...Shepard just spent 3 games (or maybe just 2 depending on how you want to see it) proving that synthetic life and organic life and exist peacefully. I mean...I would expect Shepard to shove the options back into the Catalyst's face at this point.

Not necesarrily true. If you sold Legion in Mass Effect 2 to Cerberus, you'd never learn the truth about the Geth.

Anyways, you don't have to accept the Catalyst's logic. You're going to have to make a sacrifice for a greater good, you just choose what the sacrifice is. I didn't hear anyone complaining about not being able to decide not to destroy the Alpha Relay in 'Arrival'.

[Leonia]

Lugaidster wrote...

Bittersweet for the sake of it is as pointless as a happy ending for the sake of it. None of the three options really mattered that much in what you came here to do. Save the people, not the galaxy. Since you see nothing of that, the only way to cope is to detach. The game was promised to have a satisfactory ending, I really fail how these endings are satisfactory in anything but stoping the reapers. If that was all it was to it, one game would've sufficed and no personal relations would've been not only unnecessary but preferable. 

I think as gamers we grew very attached to those relationships, so much so that we lost sight of what Mass Effect was ultimately about: stopping the Reapers. It seems like an oversimplification of the plot but that's really what the premise of the trilogy boils down to.

Yes, we made some friends and enemies along the way and there were heaps of subplots that we wanted more answers on but those were never the focus, not from the viewpoint of the developers anyway. As players we influenced some of the direction, Hudson has already outlined that before, but it was never really about what we wanted, we couldn't possibly have known everything the writers had intended for us to experience. Maybe that's where the disconnect lies: between what playeres wanted and what the developers wanted. Some where along the lines our expectations shifted and our emotions got tangled up with everything.

That's why it's so hard to be ok with the ending, people were never going to be totally satisfied with it, no matter how hard the devs tried.

Modifié par leonia42, 20 mars 2012 - 06:19 .

[Leonia]

LeeluMultipass wrote...

Did it not bother you at all that two of those endings went against absolutely everything that we've learned about the Reapers in the Mass Effect Universe?

Personally I was a bit miffed that the synthesis ending was framed as the perfect solution when it was basically everything that Saron stood for in ME1. Control is obvious....we know they can't be controlled. I know it's Commander Shepard and all...but he's still just a human. He can't actually control the reapers. Just no way.

And of course the Destroy ending. Well...Shepard just spent 3 games (or maybe just 2 depending on how you want to see it) proving that synthetic life and organic life and exist peacefully. I mean...I would expect Shepard to shove the options back into the Catalyst's face at this point.

I was frustrated because the choices didn't make sense as they were given. You didn't feel that way? Please elaborate. I'm honestly trying to see this from all sides because I WANT to enjoy the endings. I genuinely wish I could replay ME3 right now and feel right about it.

You're supposed to feel frustrated. The choices suck. That's the point. It was a hard choice to make and it forced you to really evaluate what was most important to the galaxy as a whole. You can't expect the Reapers to suddenly play fair in the end.

[Faerillis]

I think a lot of the veteran players who don't feel misled, simply don't understand the complaints. There are plenty of videos that explain the complaints in a perfectly reasonable, mostly calm manner; I'd personally recommend Angry Joe's video regarding the endings.

Here are some of the arguments against the Endings. I'm not asking for you agreement on this, nor am I trying to stir anything up, I simply want this discussion to address the actual beliefs of those who take umbrage with the ME3 Endings and not a strawman.

The player choices are shallow, and directly contradict a number of developer and writer quotes from before the release. The fact that nothing the players do, besides gaining a minimal amount of War Assets, effects the ending in any way, shape or form. Ignoring that there are 4 Endings total: Green, Red, Blue, or Orange explosions.
The player doesn't even get the option of challenging the nonsense of StarChild. We don't get the option to say "We peacefully resolved the conflict between organic and synthetic on Rannoch. We don't get to tell GlowBoy that "These options aren't acceptable; I will not destroy the Mass Relays and destroy the galaxy with them. You can take the Reapers and go, or I will sit here until the forces I've gathered have died." The way my Shepard would have.

It opens up a ton of plotholes. Why was Joker fleeing through a Mass Relay? not only would he not have done that, but the rest of the crew that he saved never would have allowed him. As Arrival demonstrated, destroying a Mass Relay can destroy an entire solar system. Even if the Solar System wasn't destroyed, that Galactically Unprecedented Fleet is now stranded on a desolate planet; not to mention that two of the races there can't eat human food even if the Earth is salvagable.

All the conflicts you resolve, or at least delay, don't mean a damn thing as the entirety of Galactic Civilization has now fallen. Moreover, since GodKid built the Reapers and the Mass Relays we have no hope at all of recreating travel on that scale.

There is no closure. None. Shepard failing no matter what, with progress being increased by how many war assets you have, and the Reapers winning; that's closure. The Reapers being destroyed at the cost of Shepard's life and we get to see the aftermath on the Galactic Civilization; that's closure. Cutting to black after destroying the entirety of Galactic Civilization isn't.

[Leeloo Multipass]

111987 wrote...

LeeluMultipass wrote...


And of course the Destroy ending. Well...Shepard just spent 3 games (or maybe just 2 depending on how you want to see it) proving that synthetic life and organic life and exist peacefully. I mean...I would expect Shepard to shove the options back into the Catalyst's face at this point.

Not necesarrily true. If you sold Legion in Mass Effect 2 to Cerberus, you'd never learn the truth about the Geth.

Anyways, you don't have to accept the Catalyst's logic. You're going to have to make a sacrifice for a greater good, you just choose what the sacrifice is. I didn't hear anyone complaining about not being able to decide not to destroy the Alpha Relay in 'Arrival'.

You bring up a good point and what I believe is the root cause of this entire situation.

"Not necessarily." Correct. Because I DID have that choice. MY Shepard chose to unite these two seemingly polar opposites and bring peace. Others did not.

So I'm bothered that I was given this choice throughout the game but denied something similar in the end. In a game all about choice, the choices were quite lacking when it really counted.

Of cource you and I can disagree, but that's how it stands for many players who disliked the endings.