My understandings is that BW tries to employ the war assets rating mechanism to reflect the decisions and choices players made along the course, and then in turn, contribute to the ultimate endings.
I've noticed the typical complains about the endings include the following points:
1. The endings negate players efforts. Decisions and choices made by players do not mater in the end.
This probably is true if you are expecting all your efforts lead to a fairy tale ending, and you are only satisfied by a "happy ending". A side note, the choices I'm talking about here refer to those before the final mission. The final three choices provided in the end are BW's version of possible solutions to the crisis. Your choices and efforts affect weather the 3 colored endings are executed well or badly via the war asset rating mechanism.
2. The 3 endings are basically the same just in different colors. The mass relays are destroyed no matter which ending you choose.
Visually, it's true that the 3 ending sequences are just color-coded same one. But conceptually and theoretically, they're completely distinct from each others. And It's supposed to give players a hard time to choose from.
Many people think the mass relay destruction will destroy the host star system as shown in Arrival. But I've heard people talking about "controlled destruction", which is not that devastated. I think destroying a mass relay with an asteroid can be quite different from destruction caused by energy charge. The sequence showing London survived the shockwave implys it. I think the destruction is a reasonable and acceptable price to pay for such an epic feat - ending the 50000 year civilization extinction cycle. Such an epic feat demands such a great price. I can imagine younger civilizations away from mass relays may have better chances than the older ones to preserve. Giving some time (less than 50000 years), civilizations across the galaxy will reconnect themselves by any means for sure.
3. No closures whatsoever.
I think BW tries to explain the logic behind the plot via the Catalyst's mouth, and constrain the possible solutions so they can execute the endings. It may not be the best idea, but the endings do tell/imply how the crisis is ended, whether humanity is preserved, and what Shepard's final fate is. It is the most important closure in this regard. it may be better to just add a little bit more content regarding teammates' fate without losing focus.
4. Plot holes. The logic and motivation behind the Reapers is not sound enough.
If you're talking about the foundation logic behind the plot, then it's not just about the ending but the whole series. I agree some plots seem to be a bit off, which BW should execute more clearly.
To me, the current ending implemented by BW is not a perfect but an enjoyable one.
One improvement to the ending I can think of is to add a conditioned Peace/Coexistence option, and color-code it in white. This option should be raised by Shepard rather than by the Catalyst. Doing so allows Shepard to challenge the godchild's mindset, and prove his theory about chaos is unsound as creators and "createes" do not necessarily have inherent fundamental contradictions. Peace between quarian and geth is a good example. This option perfectly fits Shepard's character - a warrior against fate. And of course, it has to have something to do with the Crucible since it's the critical tool to end the cycle. That's where the condition part can fit in.
I don't enjoy the plot holes. I enjoyed the visual effects, the views, the music, the voice acting, the gameplay and the ride of emotions.
My favorite moment in the ending is when I watched my Shepard drawing a breath under the rubble in the final sequence. I said to myself: Come on, Shepard! You deserve to join in the celebration, the reunion, the huging, the crying and the laughing...
Modifié par vandoug, 27 mars 2012 - 03:03 .
Retour en haut
