Dragoonlordz wrote...
What part was altered do you think? The only reason Shepard could survive the first two titles is because it was designed as a trilogy from the beginning.
A trilogy doesn’t need to have the same character in all three games.
What would stop them of killing Shepard in the end of ME1 and having another character carrying the torch into ME2?
Perhaps a certain <insert player chosen name> Lawson. A Cerberus operative, that has to recruit a team to deal with the collectors and dies during the suicide mission, only to be substituted in ME3 by <insert player chosen name> Vega a young Alliance lieutenant with a knack to get things done, no matter what.
Still you would get the same story, basically. Yet I don’t doubt many would find it less appealing. After all, to find that - - no matter what you do - your character is doomed, is not the kind of story many who bought ME games were looking for, obviously.
The fact that he does die in ME2 both at the start and potentially along with entire crew and companions at end shows that they were never playing this invincible hero theory.
And the fact that she dies and comes back, and that she can pull the suicide mission off without losing a single member of the team, tells us she is no common Jane, and was never about a story of a “lesser” hero necessarily doomed to die. There is a very important difference between not being able to loose and not being able to survive or win. Most people that want a “happier,” more victorious ending do not want an assured victory or survival no matter what; they want a good, clear chance of obtaining that, and they have a firm ground to support their expectations.
He remained alive because it was a trilogy thats all. The trilogy is over they can now lay him or her to rest if they wished. They were never against killing him.
Shepard takes enormous risks, beat impossible odds, and walks away; again and again and again. By design or by chance, it becomes clear that, as TIM put about Shepard: “you’re unique.” Shepard can be expected to have a chance of accomplishing what others cannot. And that includes a clear survival chance... or of finding another way other than submission to the star-child. It is not about not being possible to die, or loose; it is about being possible to live, and win.
The amount of death of companions and characters through out the series shows that they never intended it to be a happy go lucky theme game series..
Happy go lucky? And who wants that, seriously?
Very few want a rainbow and fluffy pink unicorns ending, sparkling with pink pixie dust ™ and the musical theme of the” Sound of Music” playing. This is entirely the creation of the minds of those who oppose
even the possibility of a less dark ending being available for others players,
in parallel with the ones they personally like.
The choices still have an impact too, a very big one both through the game and even at the end shown now in EC. Choices do matter still even if you do not get the exact choice you want.
The problem is that I didn’t get, even remotely, what I wanted or expected. I suspect that is the case with many others.
I actually do not mind having a cutscene, where you make your stand and all the fleets and worlds go down in blaze of glory fighting to bitter end but I do have major objection to reject equals win situation. Not only because like said throws the balance of consequence right out the window but also because it makes a mockery of the themes of the series and this game itself. Both regarding strength of Reapers through entire trilogy stated cannot win conventionally and secondly the theme of the game itself. Lastly it also urinates on the efforts both in time and resources, money and hours spent to create both the original endings and EC plus integrity of a creator of the story they wished to create. Their story as it always has been like said, with them given you some freedom within the boundries of the overall plot they wanted to create and always within set parameters. For own personal, individual endings just use fan fiction thats what it is there for; stories based in the universe different to the one the creator wished to create..
I personally think, (and I have stated as much elsewhere), that what many that want a conventional victory want is not so much a victory on those terms but rather to have a chance at victory at all. The “victories” we currently have require more than a simple, “lay of Shepard’s life” to be accomplished. They require her body, mind and soul and still the winning is meagre. With such victories, who fears defeat?
As for the theme, I’m afraid I don’t agree. Sacrifice was a secondary theme in ME1 and ME2. That is why you can beat Sovereign in ME1 final game without loosing Shepard or any of her companions in the battle, or why you can save everyone and their fish in the Suicide mission in ME2:
It is not what these games are essentially about.
Even in ME3 Sacrifice is not the only theme to take front row. Remember when, at the Defence Comity, you are asked about how to defeat the reapers? Or what themes you can focus during Shepard final speeches? Or the recurring events going on during ME3 that are
not about Sacrifice?
So no. It wasn’t always like that. It is like that in the ending, but not elsewhere. The expectations of something different are sound, logical and reasonable. It is the absence of an ending that addresses this problem that is thematically inconsistent, and fails to take into account a good part of the audience. It is not something that should be limited to the realm of fan fiction to be solved, anymore than some thought the trial issue was. It is up to Bioware to decide how to address the problem, as it is up to the audience to address how Bioware handled the problem.
Retour en haut
