419 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, FWIW, there was a Patrick Weekes quote kicking around saying that Shepard could live if he made certain "sacrifices," or something to that effect. Which is compatible with this.

None of my Sheps ever pick that path anyway, but I've certainly got nothing against that loophole being there.

I haven't seen that tweet, though I've seen a couple of Jessica Merizan tweets commenting to that effect.  But that could very well have just been speculation on her part.  And of course, no one comments on it now

I posted an idea on how Shepard's survival as well as other factors in the ending could be based on EMS and ending choice  here to make things less bleak.:  social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12017713

Didn't get many responses though

Modifié par iakus, 14 mai 2012 - 11:27 .

[Repearized Miranda]

I read your post (can't reply though) and it's pretty well written - except Synthesis seems "bad" whereas it's believe to be the only "good" endings (you have seen the slides, no? D - 3, C - 2, S -1)

That would make lots of people feel better though because: "I choose green because it means 'good'"(that wouldn't have been the only slide with the description) or "I was just tired." (and well, Synthesis' path is only a straight line (right down the middle) Rotate 90 degrees either direction, still in the middle.

not to mention the "face-value" thing. (You know what I mean).

I do like your idea though.

[iamthedave3]

GodWood wrote...

Because happy endings are childish, player ******-bait that have no place in any serious story with an adult target audience.

That's the most idiotic thing I've seen on these forums in several months.

Well done, sir. Well done.

[GodWood]

iakus wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Because the deaths of trillions means nothing to YOU the player. Bioware wants to pull your heartstrings and the ebst way to do that is to kill those you hold dear.

By your logic, if the deaths of trillion is meaningless to me, then so is saving trillions

Considering most consider ME3's ending to be sad this is evidently true for them.

Did you seriously just say the bolded part? Really?

If you seriously believe that, then you should rad more (hint: Ferdinand and Miranda get together)

“And will I tell you that these three lived happily ever after? I will not, for no one ever does. But there was happiness. And they did live.”  -Stephen King "The Dark Tower

Not that that series had a great ending either, but that quote does describe what happened to some of the characters, at leat.

Curious, why is an ending like this necessary?

iamthedave3 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Because happy endings are childish, player ******-bait that have no place in any serious story with an adult target audience.

That's the most idiotic thing I've seen on these forums in several months.

Well done, sir. Well done.

Your mother.

Modifié par GodWood, 15 mai 2012 - 10:43 .

[shodiswe]

Deadly Sniper Goat wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had a happy ending, no matter what. (Well, I suppose the renegade ones might not have been so happy... I never chose the kill the council option)

Mass Effect 2 had a happy ending, but you had to wrk your ass off to achieve it, and had very little room for error to achieve it.

Why can't ME3?

Of course, by ME3's nature, no ending can be truely happy. Trillions are still dead, a minimum of three trusted companions died in your vicinity, and there's immense damage left in the Reaper's wake. Nobody's disputing that.

But why can't Shepard survive? Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to kill a character to end their story. Why can't Shepard stand in the sunset with his/her friends, stare down at Harbinger's burning wreckage, and mourn the losses it took to get that far, yet still have the hope for tomorrow with a galaxy full of intact relays and dead/dying/signifigantly weakened Reapers, or even just the knowledge of how to kill said Reapers effectively?

Why does it have to end on a mercilessly dark ending that goes against established themes, and forces a sacrifice that the whole series up to that point, EVEN THE GAME ITSELF, led you to believe was not a forgone conclusion?

What I'm asking boils down to: The people who are vehemetly opposed to the ending being lighter, or that critisize the retakers because 'The ending isn't happy enough": What is wrong with that? What, on earth, is wrong with a happy ending? What is it about the chance of a happy ending that brings so much anger?

I don't want sarcastic "Happy endings aren't ARTISTIC" remarks, though I can't stop you if you wish to do so. I don't want bile, or rage. I just want an honest answer- What, exactly, so irritates people about the prospect of a happy ending?

When I pick destroy my shepard survives... every specis in the galaxy is still alive... sure the relays are destroyed and will make travel along major traderoutes slower.
However improved FTL drives should help resolve that somewhat... also the mojor traderouts between homeworlds and major clusters could have their relays rebuilt.. If nothing else im sure the citadel races can construct lesser relays that cuts down on travel time on major trade routes, it might be cheaper than constructing suoperpowerful instant travel relays.

And people dying? It's a massive galaxtic invasion... it's war... ofcourse some people will die, most of them people you never got to know...

The problem I got with the endign is the railroading of the final conversation with the catalyst...  wanted more personal dialogue options, perhaps some more exploratory investigative options... and some paragon/renegade interrupts.
Perhaps the option to just rush through the catalyst hologram and shoot at the conduit and blow up the reapers the second Shepard realizes that's all that's needed to destroy the reapers... That would be an awesome renegade interrupt..

Having the catalyst yell "wait!! wait!! there is more!! I got more options!! listen to me!!"  BOOM... Now those options would have made the ending far more enjoyable. the option to get an emotional personal experience when makign your choice. and maybe even letting the reapers know what you think about them and their stupid ideas/religious beliefs... The catalyst claims there is only one way for organic and synthetic life to evolve, I don't belive things to be that simple. It might be right 99% of the time but not always, also a lot sugested that the syntetics created on each cycle were actualy on the verge of getting wiped out until the reapers intervened.. The ending as it stands atm makes no sense and it's poor storytelling.. Far too much railroading and no interactive storytelling..
Other than that the ending is happy.. you win, you can possibly have expected everyone to survive, if that was the case then why get worried in the first place... It's not a war or a crisis unless people are getting hurt, it's actuayl what forces a lot of peopel to wage war in the first place, not because they want to but because they are pushed into it by those who thinks they can make things better by pushing people around.In this case the reapers.

[Iakus]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

I read your post (can't reply though) and it's pretty well written - except Synthesis seems "bad" whereas it's believe to be the only "good" endings (you have seen the slides, no? D - 3, C - 2, S -1)

That would make lots of people feel better though because: "I choose green because it means 'good'"(that wouldn't have been the only slide with the description) or "I was just tired." (and well, Synthesis' path is only a straight line (right down the middle) Rotate 90 degrees either direction, still in the middle.

not to mention the "face-value" thing. (You know what I mean).

I do like your idea though.

I've heeard a lot of debate over wich ending is "best" in the spoiler forums.   I don't think there's a consensus on the issue save perhaps "they're all bad"

I left Green alone mainly because
1) I don't understand it anyway
2) I couldn't figure out a way for Shepard to survive without adding yet more space magic to it and
3) Some people may simply want Shepard to die at the end regardless.

So I just stuck with "explain it better so it seems like a good choice"

This way people could choose if "Shepard lives" "Shepard dies" or "Shepard becomes a techno-god"

Modifié par iakus, 15 mai 2012 - 02:59 .

[Iakus]

GodWood wrote...
]Considering most consider ME3's ending to be sad this is evidently true for them.

And so does it also not make sense that the deaths causing heartstring-tugging might be true for them as well?

Curious, why is an ending like this necessary?

Because after everything Shepard has done, saving everything from individuals to colonies to the whole galaxy multiple times, some people feel that a viking funeral is not an appropriate reward. Being able to retire in peace, however, is.

So I think having the option to have that outcome is "necessary"

[Christianswe]

There is nothing wrong with a happy ending. It´s just that sad, darker endings, somehow is seen as more artistic and deep. Which they are in some cases, but not always. I think that there should be an OPTION to a happy ending, why not? It´s mass effect, there should be more endings. I don´t get the hate towards people who want an option to a happy ending. Cause i don´t like the ending to ME3, but not because it is sad, have many other reasons first hand. Thats my opinion.

[Corkus LeBlunth IV]

Happy endings aren't artistic enough.

[Naughty Bear]

Deadly Sniper Goat wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had a happy ending, no matter what. (Well, I suppose the renegade ones might not have been so happy... I never chose the kill the council option)

Mass Effect 2 had a happy ending, but you had to wrk your ass off to achieve it, and had very little room for error to achieve it.

Why can't ME3?

Of course, by ME3's nature, no ending can be truely happy. Trillions are still dead, a minimum of three trusted companions died in your vicinity, and there's immense damage left in the Reaper's wake. Nobody's disputing that.

But why can't Shepard survive? Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to kill a character to end their story. Why can't Shepard stand in the sunset with his/her friends, stare down at Harbinger's burning wreckage, and mourn the losses it took to get that far, yet still have the hope for tomorrow with a galaxy full of intact relays and dead/dying/signifigantly weakened Reapers, or even just the knowledge of how to kill said Reapers effectively?

Why does it have to end on a mercilessly dark ending that goes against established themes, and forces a sacrifice that the whole series up to that point, EVEN THE GAME ITSELF, led you to believe was not a forgone conclusion?

What I'm asking boils down to: The people who are vehemetly opposed to the ending being lighter, or that critisize the retakers because 'The ending isn't happy enough": What is wrong with that? What, on earth, is wrong with a happy ending? What is it about the chance of a happy ending that brings so much anger?

I don't want sarcastic "Happy endings aren't ARTISTIC" remarks, though I can't stop you if you wish to do so. I don't want bile, or rage. I just want an honest answer- What, exactly, so irritates people about the prospect of a happy ending?

Honestly, with a situation like Mass Effect 3, there is a little to chance of a happy ending at all. The Reapers is a tsunami that no-one can stop, chucking soldiers and other resources will just make the tsunami stronger (organics turned into husks).

The Reapers are a wall of death that just goes through everything, leaving destruction in it's path, all you can do is watch and wait until it ends.

It is a doomsday event that if you think about it, is really scary. Every cycle is being nudged and manipulated in the way the Reapers want it to go, ever since your species evolved into what they are now, the Reapers have planned it.

Chuck in indoctrination and it is impossible. The indoctrination part is which i find really scary.

The Reapers are practically so overpowered a Deus Ex is needed and the only way to end the Reapers which is what Bioware did, evenwithout the indoctrination, they will still destroy us. The only way i can see destroying is for each cycle to attack the Reapers, giving the next cycle a slight chance at winning.

With each cycle chucking everything and destroying everything they got at the Reapers, eventually they will be weakened enough to destroy for the next cycle, along with each cycle sacrificing and nuking everything they own, it prevents the chance of the Reapers using it agaisnt the next cycle.. A phyrrhic victory at best.

There are been plenty of other galatic civiizations that have fallen, why should this one be different?

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 15 mai 2012 - 06:26 .

[morten n86]

A happy ending should have been ONE of the supposed 16 endings. and bloody hard to achive.
but i really thought it was a possibility.

So i would say that nothing is wrong with a happy ending.

[Repearized Miranda]

iakus wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

I read your post (can't reply though) and it's pretty well written - except Synthesis seems "bad" whereas it's believe to be the only "good" endings (you have seen the slides, no? D - 3, C - 2, S -1)

That would make lots of people feel better though because: "I choose green because it means 'good'"(that wouldn't have been the only slide with the description) or "I was just tired." (and well, Synthesis' path is only a straight line (right down the middle) Rotate 90 degrees either direction, still in the middle.

not to mention the "face-value" thing. (You know what I mean).

I do like your idea though.

I've heeard a lot of debate over wich ending is "best" in the spoiler forums.   I don't think there's a consensus on the issue save perhaps "they're all bad"

I left Green alone mainly because
1) I don't understand it anyway
2) I couldn't figure out a way for Shepard to survive without adding yet more space magic to it and
3) Some people may simply want Shepard to die at the end regardless.

So I just stuck with "explain it better so it seems like a good choice"

This way people could choose if "Shepard lives" "Shepard dies" or "Shepard becomes a techno-god"

That's because of the face-value issue; if it weren't, there'd be no EC DLC to need clarify this! I totally get what you are saying.

How's green not understandable? Maybe explaining the intricies of it is a little much, but go back to ME, I don't see how you couldn't understand it. If this were the case, how did the advocate grasp it? And since he is no longer, they went with literal translations (What was Rannoch for if not that?) and of course, the symbolsm at the likewise end; however, it's clear that it has also been discussed before. Why did the "soulmates" remain on the bridge all day or why was the relationship angle if even pimped at all starting from the previous installment?

I have no argument with statement two since alot of people figured that SM would end it whether Shepard lives or not and most weren't happy abot it.

I've got no qualms with Shepard dying either. It's showing that it happened, but then saying it may NOT have. Regardless, of this, you beat the Reapers and have achieved legendary status. Okay. Did you live to tell about or did you die hoping you get the chance to?

You don't give someone all the pieces to the puzzle and tell them to construct it only to end up doing that yourself. It robs both people of the experience. The one who needs to try and the one encouraging it.

This is what I feel the EC DLC will end up doing and it may not be good.

[Iakus]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

I've got no qualms with Shepard dying either. It's showing that it happened, but then saying it may NOT have. Regardless, of this, you beat the Reapers and have achieved legendary status. Okay. Did you live to tell about or did you die hoping you get the chance to?

You don't give someone all the pieces to the puzzle and tell them to construct it only to end up doing that yourself. It robs both people of the experience. The one who needs to try and the one encouraging it.

This is what I feel the EC DLC will end up doing and it may not be good.

And that's precisely what my proposal was:  A way to let everyone have the pieces to the puzzle they want to assemble.  Let the ending Shepard chooses help determine Shep's ultimate fate.  Let the player write the ending.  Or at least have a hand in it.

All this silence concerning the EC is sending my mind in all sorts of directions about what it will be like.  Few of those directions are good...

[Repearized Miranda]

^ Lots of folks feel this way; however, if they did let us choose, that would take away one of the staples in the series regarding it. The illusion of it.

It's fun at first until you realize it. It's like a magic trick, but you find out what happened to construct the illusion.

The big endings across all games:

Council/No Council - no matter what, Sovereign still goes down
Base/No Base - TIm/Cerberus has said assets still messing with it.

This time though: the choice isn't what's offered at face-value. The choice is about your character's values! Will you stick to your beliefs or not? Only two choices! And this goes beyond what color you pick!

Besides, has no one noticed how suddenly a third option pops up? That should tell you, it's an illusion right there. Control + Synthesis are the same! (One gives in) If not, why were there only three people in that room -- you, Anderson and TIM - not four?

That's partly why the IT turns people off - they don't believe in (space) magic. Heck, I don't believe in magic, but I do enjoy watching the tricks that make it happen.

I do get what you're saying, but we do; not seeing it, is the "open-to-interpretation," part, but now that we will. That's no worse than if they said pick destroy. They wanted you to make that decision - not make it for you.

Which is what will happen.

"This happened with everybody after you chose Control.
This happened after you chose Synthesis
This happened after you chose destroy

Depending on what he good result is to people, they'll go "I'm glad I picked that!" or "I wish I hadn't!" They're doing that now sans the "clarification."

That's no different than "metagaming" just to see what will happen next (which is probably the reason for the auto-dialogue or auto-cutscenes in the first place)

It all goes back to Illusion of Choice. If one can see through a magic trick; yet, again, it's the realization and if you don't pick up on it early, you won't know until it's too late!

And with the common FRS in such games, this the result you get!

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 16 mai 2012 - 02:46 .

[Abirn]

See in this case it is about artistic integrity. If the designers don't want the game to have a happy ending then it shouldn't. What they absolutely should NOT do is create all sorts of logical contradictions that make no sense when creating that ending.

I love games/movies that have bittersweet endings. But they at least have to make logical sense. The problem with ME3 is it makes no sense.

[Redstar6]

I played games with a bittersweet ending and I honestly had no problem with them. (Dead Space 2 DLC, Halo Reach) But what was different in those games are that they are BITTER and SWEET. I care for my character enough to hate it when they die, but still give a smile when I know it was for the greater good.

I would've mind if Shepard had died and I don't mind about the star child, but why did everything have to be doomed because of it. Someone please explain the sweet portion of this bittersweet ending to me.

[Han Shot First]

I'm cool with a happy ending, so long as not everyone on the Normandy survives to enjoy the victory parade.

[Repearized Miranda]

Abirn wrote...

See in this case it is about artistic integrity. If the designers don't want the game to have a happy ending then it shouldn't. What they absolutely should NOT do is create all sorts of logical contradictions that make no sense when creating that ending.

I love games/movies that have bittersweet endings. But they at least have to make logical sense. The problem with ME3 is it makes no sense.

That may be, but they want you to make sense of it; that's the point of it - not making any. They want you to figure out how to do it.

Remember the puzzle analogy: "Here are all your pieces now put it together. There's even the box to hrlp you." The puzzle "makes no sense" until you do put it together!

Funny thing is, half this forum has (to the best of their ability) - it just doesn't make sense to the other half. So, that half dismantles it - and tell BW to piece it together. What's worse, is that they skip trying themselves.

And how does it look to BW? "We'll hold your hand and put it together for you!" And it's not them saying, one side or the other is wrong or doesn't know how to, but handing the dismantled puzzle to them states otherwise.

Whatever, the picture is supposed to look alike (IT or something else) at least the ones who were willing to piece it together - either on their own, using the picture on the box as reference or both - are doing so.

I don't like puzzles myself - especially ones with lots of pieces and get frustrated, but ask for help, too. However, I feel like I've accomplished something and I did because I put it together - even if it doesn't look like what it's supposed to on the box - it's something better than what I had initially.

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 16 mai 2012 - 09:25 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

arial wrote...
1) 90% of games out there have the hero survive, they want to be different
2) in real life war is about sacrifice (my brother died in Afghanistan, so i know), and they did this to reflect it.
3) as Shepard said "each of you need to be willing to die, if not, your already dead"
4) I am sure they have a reason of some kind (isn't there a plot flag that you only get in Destroy? and they did say to keep our ME3 saves...)

1) Perhaps that's because it's...games? The kind of thing where you try to win?
2) My Family have participated in wars during WW1, WW2, and Vietnam war and we lost no one, so dying during war isn't mandatory. Actually it's the contrary: in most wars, most of the soldiers, even those on the losing side, survive.
3) It's one of the problem of ME3, Shepard can be REALLY out of character sometimes because of the autodialogues. My Shepard actually said he was not fighting for the Galaxy but for his own survival during ME2. Quite a retcon...

[Han Shot First]

1) Perhaps that's because it's...games? The kind of thing where you try to win?

Shepard dying isn't a loss if the Reapers are destroyed and the galaxy is saved. Survival isn't necessary for the hero to triumph in any work of fiction.

I just recently watched the movie Gladiator, and I assume you've seen it before. Did Maximus lose when he died at the end? Or did the hero triumph by getting his revenge and saving Rome from the rule of Commodus?

2) My Family have participated in wars during WW1, WW2, and Vietnam war and we lost no one, so dying during war isn't mandatory. Actually it's the contrary: in most wars, most of the soldiers, even those on the losing side, survive.

As a percentage, yes. But most people who serve in the military are in support roles and either entirely removed from danger, or exposed to it at much lesser degree than the troops on the front line. It is really only a small percentage of the military that is actually put into the meat grinder. Even in WW2 the ratio was something like for every front line soldier, it took 5 in support roles to keep him supplied and in fighting condition.

I'm not saying that was the case with your relatives, but saying that most soldiers in wars aren't casualties isn't entirely accurate, because it also includes a lot of people who never (or rarely) heard a shot fired in anger. If you want to get a better idea of casualty rates in a really intense conflict, narrow it down to a single infantry company or regiment rather than entire division or army, so that you weed out most of the support elements like supply, motor transport, mechanics, ect.
 
K Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment for example suffered over 65% casualties during the battle of Peleliu. After the battle, of it's original 7 officers only 2 remained. The next battle the company fought in, Okinawa, was even worse. There K/3/5 suffered 80% casualties. And it wasn't unique in having a high casualty rate in both of those battles. In fact in both, it wasn't even the company with the highest casualty rate.

The Reaper War, arguably, should be even more intense.

Also it isn't unusual for people to have ancestors in their family line who fought in wars and survived, because generally speaking it usually people in their late teens or early 20s who fight wars. Being so young, many of them are going to be unmarried and without children. There are exceptions to every rule of course, and a lot of the older Staff NCOs and Officers are married. But the bulk of the fighting is done by people who haven't yet settled down and raised families.

I come from a long line of veterans as well and served in the military myself, but I think with only one exception we were all single at the time we were in the military. I didn't get married until I had been out for a few years.

3) It's one of the problem of ME3, Shepard can be REALLY out of character sometimes because of the autodialogues. My Shepard actually said he was not fighting for the Galaxy but for his own survival during ME2. Quite a retcon...

I think that is more of a problem with ME2 having bad dialogue.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 18 mai 2012 - 07:35 .

[ZombieGambit]

The whole of the Mass Effect story is like a future version of Jesus. "Shepard", saving the world, gathering followers (disciples), being resurrected etc. The bible says Jesus sacrificed himself to save the world, which makes a ride-off-into-the-sunset ending impossible.

[Andromidius]

There's nothing wrong with the choice of a happy ending. But it needs to be a choice, and it needs to be earned.

But what is a happy ending? Well I'll tell you one thing - its not unicorns and rainbows. Anyone who says this is being purposely obtuse.

Let's take Lord of the Rings. Did we get a happy ending? Yes we did. But what was the cost? Gondor was devastated by the war, and while it regained a King it had lost many of its greatest leaders. Rohan suffered as well, losing its King and having many of its towns razed to the ground by raiders. The Elves lost much of their magical power, and departed Middle Earth. The Dwarves became reclusive and distanced themselves from Men. The Wizards were all either dead or left alongside the Elves. The Hobbits suffered greatly at the hands of Brigands, having the Shire practically destroyed around them. And the hero, Frodo? He never recovers from his wounds, suffers depression and eventually leaves Middle Earth as well (and eventually Sam follows him).

That is a bittersweet ending. Which is exactly what Mass Effect could have had. Based on choices made during the game, we could have various things happen:

1/ If Wrex and/or Eve died, the Krogan could become aggressive again and destablise Citadel Space again with their conquests.

2/ The Batarians could rise from the ashes and start causing trouble again as they try to regain the power they used to have.

3/ The Terminus Sector could invade the weakened Citadel territories.

4/ The Quarans may never truely resettle Rannoch - if they even survive at all. Same with the Geth, who's to say conflicts won't arise between them again?

5/ The Yagh could rise and start dominating the galaxy.

6/ Billions are still dead. Don't forget that. Billions.

Fact is, all we wanted was the option for a real victory. And before you say 'conventional victory is impossible', which the hell is conventional about what we were during during ME3? Krogan and Turians allied together? Salarians actually fighting? Geth and Rachni working together with the Alliance races? The Terminus Systems allied with the Citadel? The Shadow Broker being an ally? Hit-and-run tactics, gurrilla warfare, suicide attacks... The list goes on! There's nothing conventional at all about those things!

So true victory, no destruction of galactic civilisations, no dues ex ending, no space magic, and the option for the hero to survive to see his/her friends again. That's not asking much.

[Sidney]

Andromidius wrote...

There's nothing wrong with the choice of a happy ending. But it needs to be a choice, and it needs to be earned.

But what is a happy ending? Well I'll tell you one thing - its not unicorns and rainbows. Anyone who says this is being purposely obtuse.

Except what people seem to miss- rainbows and unicorns being the desired outcome stop lying to yourself - is that we got the happy ending. How much happier does it get than the galaxy gets to live? If the ending was cruicible fires, reapers die, Cortez picks up Shep on shuttle while his LI hugs him and welcomes him back and then you get a DAO style party (maybe ewoks even) after the "win" and some filler cards there'd be 1/10000000th the griping.

You rattle off your LoTR endings showing "bad" things but overall good but reallty other than Shep being dead what is lost? The Mass Relays which people go hysterical on but it isn't the end of the universe. Then based on your picks and decisions the following bad things may or may not happen: earth can burn (one planet out of how many), Geth and EDI can die. Sorry, that's not a long list of sorrows.

[CrazyBirdman]

Honestly, I feel that Mass Effect has a happy ending. You defeated the ultimate threat and united the galaxy. Shepards survival is not really nescessary to me. If the story would have ended with the crucible firing a giant laser beam that kills Harbinger I would not really be satisfied just because the victory feels sweeter if you sacrficed something on the way. If you need to make the ultimate sacrifice is debateable but fitting given the high stakes.

[Lisa_H]

I would love the option to a happy ending. Shepard lives, defeats the reapers and gets her/his LI. The other two ME games left you with a feeling of hope and optimism, at least one ending should follow that theme. And besides even with an ending that ends happily for Shepard billions have died, big parts of the galactic community have been ripped into pieces. Isn't that grim enough?