Because one of the defining characteristics of Shepard--possibly the ONLY defining characteristic, given the level of player choice to his personality and beliefs--is that he can engage any foe and any problem, and fight them on his terms, compromising when it suits him,
Like Ashley and Kaiden? Earth's fleet and the Destiny's Ascension? Or even Mordin on Tuchanka? Balak or the hostages? The Alpha Relay and the Bahak System?
Shepard isn't
always able to get the optimal outcome and sometimes must make actual choices that aren't exactly ideal. I'm not saying the expectation of a happier ending is silly because of my examples, but it's more just a counterpoint to the idea that Shepard is always able to make the best out of the situation even if it doesn't seem obvious or even if it seems impossible.
Because in the best stories, the timeless ones that are cherished for generations, the ones that matter to people and keep them warm when the real world goes cold and give a glimmer of light when the darkness closes in, end in such a way, realistic or not.
I don't think so. Shakespeare's most famous works tend to be his tragedies. Most people are well aware of the story of Romeo and Juliet, even if they aren't familiar with the Shakespeare version. I haven't studied literary history so I can't comment if these types of stories are more or less common, but there's no shortage of tragic stories that are considered absolute gems of literature and have been passed down for many generations.
In terms of the Mass Effect series, yes, considering it's been done since the freaking beginning.
To be perfectly blunt, if you think that the Mass Effect series
must provide an unequivocally superior ending in order to maintain narrative coherence, then I think you're misusing the term narrative coherence.
Shepard dying is definitely losing.
When you invest 3 entire games and years into one character, his death is a loss
Emphatically disagree. I think it's fine that you feel this way, but I definitely do not. Even with the original endings.
Because that's what I spent three games working for. I didn't go through Mass Effect 1 and 2 disappointed because I had the option of winning with minimal casualties. I enjoyed those games because it felt like my character made the difference.
When you get right down to it, the whole idea of the Geth/Edi dying in destroy just feels forced, like they threw in killing them because otherwise it's hands down the best option. Forcing the catalyst to be unable to discriminate between the reapers and everything else will never stop feeling like a cop out.
At it's core, any decision is essentially "thrown in" because it's determined by what the content creators want to do. I actually agree that the cost is probably put in to make the choice less of an obvious choice. But does it feel forced because you just don't want it to be the case, or does it feel forced because it just doesn't make any sense.
My first interpretation of the Geth being a victim of the blast is that the blast simply targets synthetic life form. There's already issues with the crucible itself (I don't think it's a strong aspect of the story), but given it is what's there, it was easy to logically deduce why the Geth would also fall victim.
At what point does a choice become challenging and interesting compared to just feeling forced?
@Bourne Endeavor
Your post was a bit lengthy so I didn't want to quote it outright, but thanks for your response and I appreciate your insights as an author yourself.
Retour en haut
Then you wont be botherd by all the people who disagree.
