chemiclord wrote...
Dranks wrote...
Oh I never doubted for a second that he survived. I'm just saying that they're playing mind games with us. They want to see war, I swear.
It seemed pretty simple to me. Fans have been griping about how Shepard must have died in the scene as it played out, so one of the writers slapped on the troll mask and said, "Sure. It was his last gasp. Problem?"
If people are hellbent on being miserable about the breath scene... why should Bioware keep trying to convince them otherwise?
Mass Effect 3 is the first game I've played where the ending is intentionally left open so that the player has to "head canon" what happens. I don't like it, and I wasn't given the impression that this would happen from the other games.
The decisions you made in each of the games didn't affect the story nearly as much as some people would have you believe so it wouldn't be a terrible stretch to make an ending that encompasses the basics. The Extended Cut does this for all endings but Destroy. The Extended Cut may have opened a plot hole or two but went out of its way to give closure and clarity to the endings, except for this nugget. This bothers me.
They obviously understood the endings were bleak (according to things said during the panel) and maybe they should have been asking themselves what the "reader" (player) might be expecting, as per this article's excellent analysis on a part of the writer/reader contract:
Lessons from Sherlock Holmes: How Do You Kill Your Hero?.
I'm with everyone that says they had to make Destroy bleak (by killing Shepard or being vague) because otherwise the vast majority of players would consider it canon, as it would obviously have the happiest outcome.
This is just another example of something BioWare does a lot. They have an idea, they have their reasons, they figure out how to execute it and then they do it. The idea was let go before deciding if the execution was really the best way to tie in the reason.
We have the ending we have because they didn't want anything to be considered canon. To prevent Destroy being considered canon, it was probably obvious from the start that the reapers are dead and Shepard could live, which is the best of both worlds as far as players are concerned. So, it has to "balance" out the others by coming with heavy sacrifices: killing the Geth and EDI. That's probably when they decided that all of the endings are probably too bleak.
Control already "kills" Shepard. Synthesis, Shepard is obviously gone and you can't even headcanon him back. The only way to make him alive again is through Destroy, but they don't want it all roses because the other endings quite obviously kill Shepard and Destroy has to balance out with them or no one's going to pick anything but Destroy. You could argue in Control, Shepard makes an EDI-like body for himself or otherwise makes his presence known as the new Catalyst. In my mind, there's simply no indication he can never talk to anyone ever again.
I like BioWare a lot but they do this is often and this is just the most aggravating example. I don't like this kind of "balanced morality" that you saw throughout Dragon Age 1 and 2, both of which had a ton of moral choices in which you picked the lesser of any number of evils. It smacks of "perfect edge" design (ie, obviously constructed) and doesn't feel at all natural, just contrived.
Modifié par Mystiq6, 15 juillet 2012 - 02:48 .
Retour en haut
