345 réponses à ce sujet

[Cgrissom]

Provo_101 wrote...

The ending is a betrayal of the themes presented throughout the trilogy.

Let's count 'em, shall we?

Free will.
Overcoming overwhelming odds in the face of adversity.
Unity through putting aside past differences.
Equality.

That's four off the top of my head. There are more, but I think this serves to get the point across.

EDIT: Oh, and Choice.

This. Totally this.

[Zolt51]

Wes Finley wrote...

The problem lays with the presentation, not the theme of the ending.

Agree with that... that's just the kind of issue I can mostly ignore.

[Lozark]

That's funny. I am also an artist, one who even sees the merits in goddamn performance art, despite it's (arguably deserved) status as a punchline, and I still hate the ending.

Having an art background doesn't automatically make your opinions superior, especially when only minimal critical thinking reveals the flaws of the ending.  It's not that Retakers "don't get the ending."

Modifié par Lozark, 05 avril 2012 - 04:25 .

[Geneaux486]

Zolt51 wrote...

Wes Finley wrote...

The problem lays with the presentation, not the theme of the ending.

Agree with that... that's just the kind of issue I can mostly ignore.

Presentation could use some work, yeah.  Like, how'd your squad get back on the Normandy.  A cutscene showing how that happened would've been nice.

[alx119]

Lozark wrote...

That's funny. I am also an artist, one who even sees the merits in goddamn performance art, despite it's (arguably deserved) status as a punchline, and I still hate the ending.

Having an art background doesn't automatically make your opinions superior, especially when only minimal critical thinking reveals the flaws of the ending.  It's not that Retakers "don't get the ending."

I still remember when us artists were worse than govern clerks in society standards. Now we're revered as gods with higher understanding of everything. I still go wtf sometimes ._. 

[Janus382]

 I honestly can't agree with almost anything he says, which is odd... usually I can find a little common ground.  Of all the themes I can think of as being primary, "entropy" is not one... especially since I consider the series more about the characters than anything else.  

Also, the fact that he wants to ignore 30 seconds of the ending... is not a good defense of the ending.  


PS.  Stop derailing thread with VA ending opinions! 

PPS.  Steve Blum recently said the "endings were weak".... in-character as Tom... from Toonami... in an April Fool's stint... on Adult Swim.   Totally credible kinda! 

EDIT: Potentially "uncivil" remarks removed, because I'm tired and briefly forgot I wasn't a douche.

Modifié par Janus382, 05 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[STEEEEVE]

Trentgamer wrote...

Also, here is an excellent video about why exactly the ending fails so badly. www.youtube.com/watch

That was a great video.

[Kyrick]

scrapmetals wrote...

"I have a degree..." aka "Because I have a piece of paper, I know better than any of you, and my opinion is right. My **** doesn't stink and my ****** smells like perfume and you should all bow before my intelligence and hope you are all one day as great as I am."

Eh.  Not exactly accurate.  People with degrees DO, in fact, tend to know a bit more about the subject matter they have degrees in than the lay person.  It's reality, choose to accept it or not.  However, I do agree with you that this guy seems somewhat hoighty-toighty.

A couple of things.  First, he should learn to spell 'spectre' properly if he wants to play the whole "I'm smarter than you" angle.  Second, he should probably recognize that other people have degrees as well, and actually do things with them!  For instance, I teach literature studies at a college/university level and, if I were so inclined, could write a long article detailing the flaws of the narrative structure alone in the game.  Third (though there could be a lot more), does anybody notice how people who defend the endings as 'good' always try to make it a subjective issue?  That it's 'art', or that 'everybody has an opinion on whether or not they 'like' the ending?'(because if they choose to focus on narrative structure they will get smoked by the all too obvious flaws).

The 'art' issue alone is a ridiculously flawed response in terms of logic.  This game is not a piece of 'art' any more than somebody barfing in a toilet and displaying it is a piece of art.  It's a narrative, yes, but just because it's a narrative doesn't make it 'art'.  A final point to note is that the people who call it 'art' can't actually define what contitutes 'art' in the slightest.  Bottom line?  The article is from somebody who is, at best, a faux intellectual.  Somebody who has enough background to try holding their ground, but once they're faced with somebody who has actual understanding and knowledge and can back it up then magically they vanish or start qualifying.  The article is a joke made by a man who doesn't know half of what he claims to know.

[Raynulf]

eddieoctane wrote...

Condescension and art snobbery was laced throughout that entire thing.

Yep.

I'm an engineer. I have an engineering degree. Most people I work with also have similar pieces of paper. And still there are a bunch who I wouldn't trust to design a beer coaster without someone watching over them.


And to quote this little gem.

Skyfyre wrote....

Many arguments on why people hate the ending mention they don't think it "fits" with the story, or the ending feels like a tonal shift, or the ending jumps the shark. I find all these arguments to be ludicrous. No tonal shift exists here; the ending clearly follows the themes of the narrative

"Many people claim X. They are wrong."

Nice argument there.


More seriously, it's an amateurish article essentially stating "You are wrong, this is the truth. Accept it and it all makes sense", with little in the way of compelling logic.

Crap as it is, I waded through. My comments:

• Frequent references to Yahtzee, as an apparent source of inspiration. Noting that Yahtzee dumped all over the endings as being extremely poor, and relied on a hypothetical situation to claim they might be appropriate.
• Misrepresents arguements against the ending as primarilly being "wanting a B grade movie ending where everyone lives"
• The "Sacrifice for the Greater Good" theme could be argued (not that he does so very well) as a theme, yes, but the conclusions the author draws from this are unjustified and contrary to conventional narrative structure.
• The "Entropy" theme write-up is largely waffle to try and claim inevitability and hopelessness as a core theme of the game. Also, his grotesque misuse of the word hurts me, as an engineer.
• The "Forgiveness" theme write up is... largely irrelevant. Most of the examples really only apply to the Paragon choice - and as such its less a theme and more a character trait.
• How the hypothetical themes validate the ending is largely a extensive speculation on the intent of  the writers in how they wanted Shepard's psyche to be at that moment.
• Author basically dismisses complaints about plot holes and dire consequences as being irrelevant as you still won in the end.

Conclusion: 
Extremely verbose and condescending attempt to rationalise the endings, apparently motivated by a desire to defend his ego from percieved disapproval by an idol figure (Yahtzee).

Worth reading? No.

And I wish I had the time back I spent doing so.

[Megachaz]

I read the whole thing.  The problem with his analysis is that he picks and chooses themes to focus on, while ignoring all the themes that were completely violated.  

1) Sacrifice.  I can accept this one.  This was a pretty prevalent theme throughout the series.

2) "Entropy."  Basically saying synthetics will destroy organics.  The Reapers are correct.  I think it's funny he says this is a main theme of the series when he admits that it's not even introduce until the third game.  The problem with this is that it contradicts what we've been shown in the game.  Peace is possible.  Also, war between organics and synthetics was the main theme of a SIDE PLOT.  It was never the theme of the whole series.  Like ever.  Geth/Quarian war was given about as much exposure in the story as the Genophage.  Would it have made sense for the Catalyst to say "The reason the Reapers are around is because organics will eventually destory all life with biological weaponry."  Of course not!  That was the theme of a side plot that has already been resolved.

3) Forgiveness.  He falls apart here.  He hamfists forgiveness into every single part of the game, even where it doesn't fit in the slightest.  The other problem with this part of his analysis is that he claims Shepard needs to sacrifice herself as forgiveness for her actions.  This is ridiculous for a couple of reasons.

One, depending on how you played, Shep doesn't NEED forgiveness for anything.  You can act like a bastard (but then you probably wouldn't feel guilty), but you can also be a hero's hero.  Yes, Ashley or Kaiden is dead, but that was unavoidable.  It was also not Shep's fault.  As soldiers, it was their willing sacrifice, not Shep's.  Besides that, you can go through the next two games without losing anyone.  Shep is not responsible for Mordin or Thane's deaths.  Making her seem responsible diminishes the sacrifices they were willing to make.

Second, forgiveness has nothing to do with death.  Forgiveness has to do with two people putting aside their differences and giving each other a clean slate.  Not jumping into the beam of magic.

Now for the themes that the writer decided weren't important.

1)  What I've always thought is the biggest theme of the whole series, strength through diversity.  If there's anything that's been hammered into our heads through the series, it's this.  Cerberus is wrong for putting humanity ahead of everyone else, the Quarians were wrong for denying the Geth their rights, Saren is wrong for hating humanity, the Salarians were wrong for the Genophage, etc.  The Quarians?  They shut themselves off from everyone else and due to their isolationism, they can't even live outside of a life support suit.

Also, Shep's squad has always included aliens, even though the Udina didn't like it.  Why?  Because they were the right people for the job.  In ME2, the only way that everyone can survive the suicide mission is if you recruit everyone and have them give their unique upgrades to the Normandy.  Oh, speaking of the Normandy, that's the most advances ship in the Galaxy.  It's a joint effort by the Turians and Humans.  In ME3, we're straight up told that we're going to need every race united to stop the Reapers.  Even though the Genophage and Quarian/Geth side plots had their own major themes, what was the one theme commmon to both?  Putting aisde differences and working together for the greater good.

In the ending, Destroy kills off the Geth, synthesis homogenizes the galaxy, and control says "Ok, you might be right.  Let's hold off for now though."

2)  "Your choices matter."  I'm not just saying this in the gameplay sense.  Yes, the devs told us that our choices matter, but the game told us that first.  Personal choice matters.  When we have to choose between Ash and Kaiden, what we choose affects the rest of the series.  When we can choose to kill Wrex, that choice affects the rest of the series.  Who does what on the Suicide mission affects who survives.  The choice you make right now can wildly affect the future.  This theme is reinforced so strongly because it's presented through the narrative AND the gameplay.  On a side note, I think it's funny that he believes that it's hard to get everyone to survive the suicide mission if you don't look it up on the internet.  I don't even need to tell you how the ending throws this out the window.

Blargh.  That's all I can type for now.  Oh yes, he also fails to adress the insane amount of plot holes torn open by the "ending."

Modifié par Megachaz, 05 avril 2012 - 04:54 .

[Miphious]

I have a degree in English and Creative Writing. The ending (just one) is a poorly written pile of trash. I could go into a full analysis of why explaining plotholes away using outside of the game non-logic is not something lit majors do unless they are trying to say they are mightier than those peons who cannot, but that would be stupid because it's obvious.

So, does my opinion stand up the same as this person's just because we have the same degree? Which one of us does that make right because they seem to be using it as some sort of shield to say they must be right because they possess it.

Modifié par Miphious, 05 avril 2012 - 04:50 .

[FRancium]

the author from the link admitted "The main problem is that most of this narrative theme is only uncovered if you have Javik."
any argument based mainly on Javik's comments should be disregarded. Bioware promised the game was complete without From Ashes. How can it be a main theme if it was only on DLC? If the information is lacking elsewhere, any reasoning is mere "lots of speculations".

[jules_vern18]

ProtoPWS wrote...

Link: 
http://www.escapistm...-great-spoilers 

Like many of you, after finishing Mass Effect 3 I've turned to the internet to discuss the storyline and see what other people think of the game. I really did not like the ending at all.... until I stumbled onto this analysis. The author does a really good job of explaining the themes of the storyline and why the ending fits with those themes. As much as I hated the ending before, since reading that post I did a replay of the game and came away with a much better feeling. Sorry for not posting the full text but it's extremely long and I did not write it so a link will have to do.

If you need to have the ending analyzed and explained before you can enjoy it, it's not a good ending.

[webhead921]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Zolt51 wrote...

Wes Finley wrote...

The problem lays with the presentation, not the theme of the ending.

Agree with that... that's just the kind of issue I can mostly ignore.

Presentation could use some work, yeah.  Like, how'd your squad get back on the Normandy.  A cutscene showing how that happened would've been nice.

Yea, that's my #1 problem.  If the added actually provided a good reason for joker to be running away with your squad, it would SIGNIFICANTLY improve things in my opinion.

[Megachaz]

jules_vern18 wrote...

ProtoPWS wrote...

Link: 
http://www.escapistm...-great-spoilers 

Like many of you, after finishing Mass Effect 3 I've turned to the internet to discuss the storyline and see what other people think of the game. I really did not like the ending at all.... until I stumbled onto this analysis. The author does a really good job of explaining the themes of the storyline and why the ending fits with those themes. As much as I hated the ending before, since reading that post I did a replay of the game and came away with a much better feeling. Sorry for not posting the full text but it's extremely long and I did not write it so a link will have to do.

If you need to have the ending analyzed and explained before you can enjoy it, it's not a good ending.

I wouldn't say that.  Inception's ending wasn't clear cut.  Was he in a dream?  That was good speculation.  When you analyze an ending and it's still BS, then it's not a good ending.

[FemmeShep]

Why does it always feel like people that like the ending, have to reeeeeaaaaally stretch symbolic themes, and in order to like it.

[Wabajakka]

Velocithon wrote...

Disclaimer: I have a degree in literature and I minored in film studies.

I stopped right there.

[jules_vern18]

Megachaz wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

ProtoPWS wrote...

Link: 
http://www.escapistm...-great-spoilers 

Like many of you, after finishing Mass Effect 3 I've turned to the internet to discuss the storyline and see what other people think of the game. I really did not like the ending at all.... until I stumbled onto this analysis. The author does a really good job of explaining the themes of the storyline and why the ending fits with those themes. As much as I hated the ending before, since reading that post I did a replay of the game and came away with a much better feeling. Sorry for not posting the full text but it's extremely long and I did not write it so a link will have to do.

If you need to have the ending analyzed and explained before you can enjoy it, it's not a good ending.

I wouldn't say that.  Inception's ending wasn't clear cut.  Was he in a dream?  That was good speculation.  When you analyze an ending and it's still BS, then it's not a good ending.

Inception's ending was very clear cut.  Given all that was explained to the viewer throughout the film, there was no logical reason to believe he was still in a dream.

If he had been, that would have been an equally bad ending.  So I'll clarify:  If you need to have the ending analyzed and explained before you can enjoy it, either you weren't paying attention or it's not a good ending.

Mass effect's dark energy set-up in previous games was very well thought-out and seemed to forshadow the ending clearly.  The fact that they decided to dump it and introduce a completely new motivation in the last 5 minutes was a big part of what made it a bad ending.

Narrative.  Cohesion.

[Megachaz]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Megachaz wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

ProtoPWS wrote...

Link: 
http://www.escapistm...-great-spoilers 

Like many of you, after finishing Mass Effect 3 I've turned to the internet to discuss the storyline and see what other people think of the game. I really did not like the ending at all.... until I stumbled onto this analysis. The author does a really good job of explaining the themes of the storyline and why the ending fits with those themes. As much as I hated the ending before, since reading that post I did a replay of the game and came away with a much better feeling. Sorry for not posting the full text but it's extremely long and I did not write it so a link will have to do.

If you need to have the ending analyzed and explained before you can enjoy it, it's not a good ending.

I wouldn't say that.  Inception's ending wasn't clear cut.  Was he in a dream?  That was good speculation.  When you analyze an ending and it's still BS, then it's not a good ending.

Inception's ending was very clear cut.  Given all that was explained to the viewer throughout the film, there was no logical reason to believe he was still in a dream.

If he had been, that would have been an equally bad ending.  So I'll clarify:  If you need to have the ending analyzed and explained before you can enjoy it, either you weren't paying attention or it's not a good ending.

Mass effect's dark energy set-up in previous games was very well thought-out and seemed to forshadow the ending clearly.  The fact that they decided to dump it and introduce a completely new motivation in the last 5 minutes was a big part of what made it a bad ending.

Narrative.  Cohesion.

Inception's ending was meant to put doubt in the viewer's mind.  It was meant to be ambiguous.

http://marquee.blogs...eptions-ending/ 

So don't be so ready to say what Inception's ending was or wasn't.

And I still the dark energy plot was lame.

[dallicant]

Well-written, but I do not agree on the writer's statements regarding entropy as a major theme. A much more notable theme has been rebellion. You had the option of bucking the Council's authority to give the krogans and the rachni a second chance. You had the choice to defy hundreds of years of prejudice to bring the quarians and the geth together. Yet somehow, you have to take some ancient AI on his word.

I agree with the writer as to self-sacrifice. I never had a problem with Shepard dying, however.

[shnellegaming]

Trentgamer wrote...

Hmm I don't agree. The very fact that I would need to read some analysis to enjoy or understand the ending (which I still think is so full of holes it's not funny) just makes it all the more apparent how poorly done it was.

Yep

[AnsinJung]

First of all, forgiveness is closely tied to sacrifice, although the reverse is not always true.  Similarly, swallowing pride or being humbled, is like sacrifice in that it sometimes but not necessarily involves forgiveness.

His favorite example of Mordin's death isn't just about guilt and sacrifice.  Mordin himself said in ME2 that the krogan needed time to work out aggression.  There is just as strong an argument that the scientist in Mordin saw Eve as a reason to believe that Krogan future can be better sooner than previously thought.  He had to question his previous scientific work as well as even his ability to truly predict future outcomes.  He says as much when giving the choice to save Maelon's data to Shepard.  I omitted Wrex, who supports the point more, because he's not necessarily alive in ME2&3. 

The article said this about the Reapers and the ending choice:

A lot of people still complain, but that was
literally hard coded into the game from the very start. Reapers are
unbeatable, so stop saying Shepard can beat them. It all simply means
that nothing you can possibly do matters, because the Reapers will
always win. With this concept in mind you should be able to accept
picking the 3 options given to you at the end as quite frankly the only
realistic options, and options that are clearly within the confines of
the narrative being told.

The writer's appeal that the Reapers were too strong and that each cycle saw a Shepard like figure and that it was all inevitable falls apart completely because he's defending the endings in which the Reapers lose and the cycle is broken.  There is no precedent for if the cycle is broken.  As such Shepard doesn't necessarily have to die.

Of course, with the endings as are, I personally feel that the Reapers win in each ending anyway, or in the case of synthesis, organics definitely lose.  But they represent a break in the cycle according to the starchild. 

As far as Shepard's dying, this guy is just pure condescending and outright rude at times.  I would enjoy a sneer from Wormtongue more, although mostly because I'd be hyped to be in Middle-Earth.  Shepard's death may be painful and emotional and many would accept it, but we're not given to understand why death is required or why it couldn't be anyone to do it. 

We're simply told that "Shepard is special," which, yes, we've heard from day one, but at the same time, we're supposed to believe that every cycle had a Shepard?  Oh, so this Shepard is more special than previous ones and can activate the new Catalyst options, but not special enough to live, unless I have high EMS and choose the red ending?  That's the type of utter confusion that the endings provide and distract and detract from the experience we're meant to have.

[crazychris153]

scrapmetals wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Good to know illogical endings that make no sense and have so many plotholes Harbinger can fly through are great endings.

Dude, you're thinking too small. Link all the Reapers together - all of them, not just all of the ones on Earth, every single Reaper at this point in time - and make them into a nice big circle.

They could still fly through the plot holes without touching any sides.

Lol nice

[Orthodox Infidel]

 I read his analysis, and while it's clear that he's a pretty good job with his analysis, he's still wrong on multiple levels. I may be compelled to register on that board and reply to him directy at a later date.

His analysis rests on these three things being themes of the Mass Effect trilogy:

1. Sacrifice for the Greater Good
2. "Entropy" (I hate the way he uses this word)
3. Forgiveness

I counter-claim these three things are not themes of the trilogy at all, or are part of larger themes which are not done adequate service by the ending. I'm going to examine each in detail.

Sacrifice for the Greater Good

Clearly, there are many sacrifices that take place in the Mass Effect trilogy, and Mr. Skyfyre seems to have listed many of them. He is also correct that Shepard should be expected to sacrifice his life and that this is heavily foreshadowed throughout the plot of the third game, so nobody can complain about a major tonal shift simply because Shepard dies (a counter argument here is that Shepard Always Does the Impossible, but defeating the Reapers at all is enough of an impossible achievement on it's own, I think). The problem here is this "Greater Good" thing.

What is "The Greater Good?"

Most of you probably have your own answer to that, but the larger narrative doesn't have a single answer to that question. It very explicitly has many conflicting answers, all of which exist within one of two ethical frameworks: "Paragon" or "Renegade." Every decision of consequence you make has one of those two lables slapped on it, and they each correspond to different views of what is "good." Renegade is a utilitarian sort of morality which is mostly about doing something that has a clear payoff now. Paragon is very deontological and almost always has uncertain benefits in the future, or may not have any benefit at all. On top of this, the labels also have attached to them a picture for what Shepard thinks humanity's role should be: either as equals in a larger community of races or as the dominant force in the galaxy.

The problem with the ending is that these moral themes are totally thrown out the window, besides the use of the colors. Even then, the colors aren't applied in a way that correspond to what players are used to, and a third choice with a new color that doesn't fit within ANY themes of the trilogy appears. Every other game has ended on a note that at least acknowledges the ongoing conflict between Paragon vs. Renegade, yet all we see in the last game is what color our explosion is.

Before someone says "well, the color of the explosion is what tells you," I'll say right now that's pure baloney. In the first game you can save the council or hold the fleet back to concentrate on Sovereign. Regardless of which decision you made (and ignoring that you can explictly sacrifice the council solely to put humanity on top), the game shows you whether Paragon or Renegade won with the setting of the final conversation: it's either in the bright Presidium or the dark Council Chambers. Similarly, in Mass Effect 2, the "Paragon" explosion is orange and the "Renegade" explosion is blue, but the final clue comes from the color of the star in the Illusive Man's office: if it's blue, we know we did the "right" thing. Dream-Planet doesn't make any commentary on the moral status of your decision or the galaxy: just on whether Joker gets to bang EDI or has to make due with your love interest.

Entropy

I'm going to start by saying up front that the word "Entropy" will not make any further appearances in this post. That word is a technical term which is not a giant umbrella for "Order vs. Chaos" and "Inevitability" and whatever the hell unemployed people with literature degrees want it to mean. It's correct meaning is beyond the scope of this post, but the definition in a common dictionary is not sufficient to understand it correctly. Please do not use this word unless you understand it correctly. If you think it means "disorder" then you do not understand it, please shut up.

With that out of the way, the author of the analysis really defeats this theme himself by stating up front that it only appears in the third game. Yes, Sovereign and Harbinger say things about your inevitble destruction and being infinite genetic destiny, blah blah. But we have no reason to believe those things, just like how women I've never met before have no reason to believe anything I say when I am in a bar. So we only have what the Reapers say about it in ME3, and it's only in those last five minutes (+/- 2 minutes on Rannoch) where we see it. Clearly, it's not a theme of the series, and any attempt to say it is doomed to failure. But this "theme" also has additional problems with it that must be pointed out.

The way the author sums this theme up is that the same cycle of events inevitably happen: synthetics will kill organics, this is self evident, and nobody can stop it. On top of the complete lack of attention to this theme until the last five minutes, there are two major problems here:

1. This set of claims ignores that the Starbrat, controller of the Reapers, created this cycle in the first place. The inevitable was not inevitable until the Reapers made it that way, and we're fixing the Reaper problem one way or another. Starbrat even says the fact that Shepard is there means everything fell apart and was not inevitable after all.

2. The destruction of all organic life by synthetic life is an event which has self-evidently never happened, because organic life still exists. I've bolded "all" here, because most people lose that key part when debating other parts of the cycle. The mere fact that synthetics might rebel and might kill only their own masters is not enough to justify this insane plan. The Reapers cannot have seen "all organics" get wiped out, because otherwise there would be nothing for them to do. The Reapers cannot claim that it is a statistical certainty (which is what the boy does) that this anihilation will occur because it has never happened. The boy is obviously not omniscient, otherwise he would have predicted that Shepard would have ended up in the magic control room, so the boy does not have a special perspective which lets him claim that events which have never happened are certain to happen.

So much for... inevitability.

Forgiveness

The main thrust of this point is that the ending is that Shepard has lots of guilt, and that the only way he can deal with that is to sacrifice himself at the end.

Really?

Firstly, there's a term for this. It's called "Survivor's Guilt" and it was widely considered to be a mental disorder; it is now considered part of PTSD. It is patently ludicrous and wrongheaded to suggest that the only way to deal with Survivor's Guilt or any other mental disorder is to kill yourself, even if it is as a noble sacrifice that will save many other lives. I doubt this was the intention of the Mass Effect writers, but if it was, then the ending is even more offensive than I first thought.

Mordin is used incorrectly as an example of how this attonement is supposed to work. The author of the analysis claims that Mordin's death was necessary for him to atone for the Genophage modification. This is false. Mordin's death was only necessary because that was the only way to cure the Genophage. If Mordin could cure the Genophage without dying, his atonement would still be complete and Mordin would then go retire on a beach somewhere studying seashells with a perfectly clear conscience. The same would be true of Shepard if he beat the Reapers. 

It's a different thing to claim that Shepard has to die to defeat the Reapers because that's the price which must be paid to defeat the Reapers. In fact, I have no problem with Shepard dying in order to accomplish his mission. But the idea that he has to die to clear his own conscience is just plain incorrect. So much for that theme, and the analysis.

[recentio]

When the defense is longer than what is being defended, not to mention based so heavily on OUTSIDE MATERIAL, something has gone very very wrong.

Modifié par recentio, 05 avril 2012 - 06:43 .