MerchantGOL wrote...
no because then destory would of been a cop out, mass effect has never been about easy decisions, Vermire, the rachni, rewriting the geth, keeping the base, thes have all been tough choices with moral and actual consiqunces, it would of been a betrayel of the franchise to have two decisions with real reprecusions and have the dinkky little destory option with no draw back. aditonaly thats the only ending where shepard lives, which means you are bying his life for the price of the geth and edi, that is brilliant in my oppinion
Mass Effect has also had times where you could have superior third options. If you make the right choices, rather than having to pick between the Geth and the Quarians, you can ensure peace. If you do everything right, you can make everyone live in the suicide mission in Mass Effect 2. If you're Paragon or Renegade score is high enough, you can save Wrex on Virmire.
with the exception of the geth and quarians none of those choices were as big as this, theirs no third option to whenter the coucil dies, theirs no magic happy alternative the the rachni, or the prothean base, so your argument is bull ****, this si the last decision fot he game, the bigges descison of the franchise, to give you amagic way out would of been weak and a betrayal, and its not worth it jsut because you cant handel not getting your fanfic ending
"So, the whole reason why you can't accept the Geth/EDI living is because it takes away from the other endings?" no because it would take away fromt he destory ending and make it shallow and weak and would make allt he other choices were u couldnt cheat less in comparison
"If you like Control and Synthesis fine, then pick them, but don't force destroy to have consequences it doesn't need to have. " it did need to have them or it wouldnt of been worthy of the francise
" But you say, "No it does because x or y or z." Stop it. The writers can do whatever they damn well please. Theres no reason destroy has to destroy the Geth. " no because their are obvious reason in game for why it happend the way it did
"The bottom line is, it feels contrived. I can't think of a single time in the entire Mass Effect series where the consequences of a choice felt even a little contrived. " not having the option of letting the coucil decide the rachnis fate isn't contrived? not telling the illusiv eman to shove it in me2 isnt contrived? not being able to save ash and akden despite having more then enough men available isnt contrived?
"Why do you need anymore sacrifice? Billions have already died. Countless billions. Is that enough sacrifice for you? Is the deaths of billions really not enough to appease you?" because thats what the game and the franchose is about sacrafice you cant have 2 othe rendings wiht sacrafice then have one with out then your entire message and every other choice is meaningless. for the story integrity the ending had to be equal, you pay for the lfie of your shepard with the life of your freinds [at least 1 even if you **** over the geth] its a choice worhty of this franchise.
"it did need to have them or it wouldnt of been worthy of the francise"
You're free to believe that.
"not having the option of letting the coucil decide the rachnis fate isn't contrived? not telling the illusiv eman to shove it in me2 isnt contrived? not being able to save ash and akden despite having more then enough men available isnt contrived?"
The first one isn't even a choice you get. I don't even know what the point of saying that is. Not being able to save both on Virmire was fine. You didn't have enough time to save both. It doesn't feel contrived. The geth and EDI dying feels contrived. I'll try to put this as simply as possible.
The Crucible is an immensly advanced device yes? It can turn you into an immortal being that gives you control of the Reapers. It can alter every organic and synthetic being in the galaxy on a molecular level. But it can't destroy the Reapers without destroying the Geth/EDI. Really, really Bioware writers? Do you expect me to believe it can't do that? It completely kills the suspension of disbelief of me and many other people posting here.
Look, I totally get what you're saying, Mass Effect has had sacrifice plenty of times, I get it, and I agree. But the absolutely vital point is that every time a sacrifice was made, it was
necessary. Every time a sacrifice had to be made, it wasn't arbitrary. They're had to be a sacrifice because the situation demanded it.
If you saved the council and there was no consequences, then it would feel contrived, because there's an entire Geth fleet guarding Sovereign. It makes sense that going in before the Citadel opening would kill at least a few ships.
When Mordin sacrificed himself, he had to because there was no time for another option.
There has never been
any other time where in the Mass Effect series where the sacrifice felt arbitrary.
And one more thing, you know what a major, major consequence of choosing destroy is? It's exactly what the Catalyst says is a consequence of choosing Destroy. Without the Reapers to stop you, synthetics might be created that will destroy all organic life. There you go.
That is the entire point of the ending. The ending is not about stopping the Reapers, the ending is about whether or not you believe the Catalyst. If you believe that he's right, you will pick Control or Synthesis, because they remove the possibility of synthetics that will destroy all organics. If you believe that he's wrong, you will pick destroy. So don't say that the endings need sacrifice. That's not what the ending is about.
Modifié par elitehunter34, 04 juillet 2012 - 07:27 .
Retour en haut
) 
