Allan Schumacher wrote...
This is actually why the choice works for me. By the same token, it's also why people wish they could tell the Catalyst off. Issues with the Catalyst aside, I don't find the inclusion of the Geth to be logically inconsistent because it still works as being a part of the unpredictability of the Crucible.
Oh, the inclusion of the Geth as sacrifices was logically obvious. They seemed so much like reapers (with a few important distinctions) that you could see them being destroyed being part of the story from ages away.
The problem arises in potential and interest. Let's just say for sake of example that a different race was put up as a sacrifice. Not just one that people wouldn't care about or one that isn't very important but one of the Council races. Hell, put all the council races up as a sacrifice.
I would still not have too much of a problem with that. They are important in the universe but I find myself despising them more and more as time goes on. In fact, the races that being the most interest to me are, in order, Quarians, Geth, Krogan, Drell. The races that seem to have the most potential are also very similar. The Quarians were just granted a home. They are no longer outcasts. If they even returned to a fraction of their former glory (before the morning war) then we would have a race that would arguably be similar to what Humans were around the time of ME1. The Krogan have the potential of evolving as a society away from constant bloodshed and into more galactic integration. The Geth have incredible potential as a species. And if you achieved peace between the Geth and Quarians then the ally between the two races would form a union that, together, would arguably become one of the greatest mutually beneficial partnerships ever made.
When I think of what is lost in the Geth, the lost potential seems far too great.
The sacrifice is understandable if you look at what the Geth are. But I don't think it was deserving.
Everything alluded to after the Peace option in the Q/G conflict, everything the Geth could be is taken away without warning.
And not once has such a decision been made in the Mass Effect universe. With the virmire situation we had to chose between two squadmates that some consider to be uninteresting and, in reality, we didn't really have much connection to at all outside of a few minor details and the romance. When I was faced with this choice I honestly could not care less who survived. In the end I went with rank and saved Alenko.
With the Rachni it is similar in that, aside from a few minor things we don't have any personal connection to them.
With the Geth it is completely different because not only do you get an insiders view to them with Legion in ME2, but you are there when you witness their rebirth. Had they not become fully sentient individuals then I would not nearly be as bothered with the decision as I am.
A similar thing would be this: Imagine the Virmire decision again in ME1. Now lets say that there was an option to save both Ash and Kaidan. If Ash dies then Kaidan is on your squad and survives the ending and all things are good. If Kaidan dies Ash thanks you and disappears until the endgame where no matter what you do, the proper ending has her railroaded into dying off screen with little context and no emotional response whatsoever from Shepard. If you save both then both things happen at the same time.
Only this is with entire species, arguably the most interesting species in the galaxy (arguable and definitely would change based on opinion.).
Their sacrifice just seems to come out of nowhere like how Kat dies in Reach. (I haven't played Reach so I don't know how the game deals with her death. I'll just assume that it's not once brought up again and there's no emotional response from the characters because that would be an even closer analogy to the Geth sacrifice).
Because of the lack of any kind of closure or emotional response from Shepard (or anyone) with the Geth sacrifice it simply doesn't make any sense. I like emotional decisions. I know that, were peace not possible, the Quarian/Geth conflict would be incredibly hard yet nonetheless enjoyable.
I dunno. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over again. There was no lead up. The personal connection to the player seems too high. You are railroaded into it if you chose the proper ending. And it makes the entire monster outcome of the Q/G conflict (and most of what is implied in the peace outcome) completely irrelevant.
And with the whole "we fight or we die" theme... It really wasn't there for me. It was mentioned and said a lot in dialog but the major plot points never really said "fight or die" at all. In fact, they pretty much always said "Unification and peace between races once enemies can stop the greatest of threats." It wasn't "we fight or we die." It was "We fight
as one or we die." There is, in my eyes, a tremendous difference.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I remember seeing a comment along the lines of how the point of video games is to provide some escapism, and not allowing the player to truly "win" is a bad thing for games.
I completely agree with that statement. Although "bad" endings to a series should still exist, there should always be an ending that is satisfying and provides closure. The Geth make that impossible for Destory and the Reapers still being alive and the morality behind Control and Synthesis make that impossible for those too. It's completely lose/lose/lose.
The whole thing with video games is that it isn't even on the same level as a movie or a book. Those are just entertainment. Telling a story. The interaction in video games make them so much more in that you aren't simply being told or shown a story, you are actually experiencing the story. For anyone who thinks that bad endings are good: Life sucks enough as it is.