alx119 wrote...
Shepard is always free to choose, and yes, I thought I didn't need to specify that by the game script he's limited to X and Y choices, but still it's their choices. The player's the one who turns the wheel, and Shepard's the one who does the action.
And now instead of a dialogue wheel, you walk Shepard over to represent your choice.
That isn't a removal of control by any means. A removal of choice is the Indoctrinated Hanar sidequest with Kasumi, in which the Big Choice is carried by means of an interrupt. That has a passive answer.
Saying: "Shepard doesn't have to choose at all" is a weak weak counter argument, yeah, the wisest choice in the game of war is basically not to play it. But that's just absurd.
You don't have to choose is the strongest counterargument to an assertion that you are forced to make a choice.
If you want to argue that you are forced to face a choice, that would be true... it would also be redundant since that has been a staple of the Mass Effect storyline in every game at every stage.
In the end, you are still forced to choose between three colors. You can't talk with the kid more than once, and you can't counter his arguments with things that already happened in game. I can point you to Saren and TIM when it comes down to "talk" and CHALLENGE someone's argument. But hey, whatever. Challenging Saren and TIM is ok, but not challenging the ventboy.
Saren is analgous to TIM, not the Star Child. The Crucible choice is analogous the ME1 and ME2 ending choices, not what happened before them either. Neither game has ever given you a chance to go back and talk to your companions or support characters with counterarguments once they posed you a question.
You're criticizing a staple of the series by comparing apples and oranges.
The Rachni choice, although limited by the script (DUH), it's Shepard choice, not the ventkid, your own squaddies will argue against and in favor, but ultimately is Shepard who presses the button. The illusive man forced you, or tried to force you to KEEP the base, you could oppose it or accept it and again, it's Shepard who says the last word and hell even WHY in both cases. Context matters you know.
Shepard is the one who chooses the Crucible ending, not the Star Child. Your argument keeps coming back to this, but it's false because it's still the player that makes the ending choice. It is in no way made for you.
In the last scenes, you are forced to choose between the three choices the kid gives you, not only you don't have the wheel to choose ( I guess it was symbolic and so thought provoking), but you can't even investigate, nor question the kid's choices and his logic for the choices. He just says: This will happen, choose this this or this. With some pretty words, that doesn't even make it better. And yes, it is acceptance, it's FULL SUBMISSION, because for more mockery Shepard himself accepts the kids choices so bad that he's willing to kill himself over them. To go there, walk towards it even if he's half dead, jump through a beam, grab two thingies of death, or shoot some random tube of death. It's ultimate submission. No matter how you see it.
This is the exact same structural setup as every other Big Decision in the game, with only a dialogue wheel replaced with a route to walk.
You are always given a few set choices.
You are always given a brief summary of the immediate effects.
You have never been given the opportunity to engage in a counterargument to disprove someone's logic on the issue before the choice.
You have always been limited to the choices provided.
And you know, another valid point as to why the ending sucked, you don't have a choice to not build the crucible, or to not fire it once you know what it does. You can just stop playing, if that's what you imply, but again, that's absurd.
You can't NOT go on the Suicide Mission. You can't NOT chase Saren. You can't NOT steal the Normandy. You can't NOT do most of the plot of the games.
This is very, very old news. It's also intrensic with the medium of a narrative RPG.
In game, it is a big deal. The Collector base is just a plothole and bad writting. Krogans are clearly worse with Wreav's leadership and we see that in game (although yes, by the end it doesn't ****ing matter.)
How are they worse? Do more Krogan attack you? Do they refuse to give you assets? Do they oppose you?
The consequences of the Krogan were always implied, never structured into the story.
It's interesting how you advocate for an optimist imagination of the outcomes in the ending, yet you are calling bull**** to everything in game. I never said it made sense irl, but it made sense in the game context. Again, it matters.
Even in the game, the context doesn't make sense. There is no provided basis for Asari telepathy with every species, because nervous systems simply don't work like that. It's a de facto.
The same applies to the Alliance: the Alliance is treated as a major power, but the numbers and backing for such are never provided. The Alliance has no provided basis for being exceptional, it is simply claimed to be exceptional.
You clearly don't have that much of an investment or regard in the Mass Effect series, since you value it's concepts so poorly. So I guess this exchange is over, your view is tainted by a biased view of the game as mine is (only mine is a more wide view, and I can almost certainly say it's a majority view).
I've probably written far more on and about Mass Effect than you, unless you have a few hundred thousands of words on concept designs laying around. Don't confuse 'no fan rage' with 'lack of investement'.
Also don't invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy.
In the end is just a game, if you want to think as pure bull****, hey good for you, the ending must have been the best ever. You can proceed to go watch some other bull****, like Star Trek, or Star Wars, or Stargate and Farscape, it's filled with space magic and bull****.
Charming language.
Retour en haut
