txgoldrush wrote...
Face it.....a happy ending WOULD break the intergrity of the game.
The MAIN THEME of Mass Effect 3 is VICTORY THROUGH SACRIFICE.. This requires an ending that is bittersweet at best. Yes trilogies as a whole can overlying themes throughout, such as overcoming all odds (which WAS fuffilled in ME3, Shepard DID break the cycle), but single entries in a series or trilogy has their own themes.
Several points here:
Bittersweet: one person’s bittersweet is another person’s vinegar, so how exactly are you going to get just the right dose of bitter and sweet with only one taste available for all?
The Main Theme for ME3 may have been intended to be sacrifice. But, by design or flaw, it certainly wasn’t the only one that took relevance. Unity was always present and far more present than sacrifice during the entire trilogy. Except during the ending, where it counts for nothing.
Further, you do realize that, by the time of the end, sacrifice was already done aplenty. You do not have to kill the character, her mentor, her grandmother, her cat and the canary to make that point. It’s overkill.
Regarding overarching themes of the trilogy, like
overcoming all odds. Sorry but no. Shepard does not overcome anything in the end. All that her efforts allowed her in the end was an audience with Reaper upper management.
It is something, I guess; but ultimately it is up to the star-god to decide if what is going o happen. Had "It" decided to proceed with "Its" plans, and Shepard could do nothing about it, other than watch the fleet be destroyed.
What happens is that the Star-god decides to grant 3 bad choices, (that are intended to be the answer to "Its" own problem, by-the-way, not Shepard’s) I repeat: Shepard does not earns or conquers those choices; they are granted by "It."
Bioware should, and looks like they are, provide far more clarity and closure, however, not change the tone of the ending or provide a happy ending. To do so is selling out and breaking the relevance of the ending....
Here’s the problem; apparently a great deal many people felt that nothing they did during the trilogy mattered in the end. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that, for these people the relevance of the ending as it is.... none whatsoever.
But here’s the thing; a very good thing about video games, and one that movies and books don’t have, is that ... wait for it....you can actual have different endings.
Yup. It is possible for a game to have a grim-dark ending, filled to the brim with angst, another where you can quietly retire your character to some quiet countryside, or another were she becomes the next counsellor.
So you can have your meaningful ending, and others can have theirs too, isn't that better than just you having it?
Hell, ME1 was not a fully happy ending, in fact had elements of victory through sacrifice, as either the a part of the alliance navy or the council is sacrificed, and ME2 is a hollow victory at best. This isn't Star Wars either, where Alderaan and Taris can be annihilated but be no longer relevant 5 minutes later....and end on a ceremony. And ME3 is so dark, a happy ending would not be appropriate.
So, let me get this straight. You are saying that Bioware made a relevant point about victory through sacrifice, while allowing the main character to live in ME1, but then the main character has to die in ME3 because, if not, it violates that theme?
In fact, ending the current universe and creating a new beginning IS A GOOD THING and a smart move. That needs to stay.
Actually, it is only a good thing if you assume people were tired of the old universe; otherwise it just substitutes something the audience liked with something the audience
may like.
Retour en haut
