MegaSovereign wrote...
Fall of the Citadel DLC idea:
You get to play as an N7-class character (that you get to customize just like the MP) with Bailey in your squad along with someone else (maybe Aria since the hidden files show that she's still going to be on the Citadel even if she gets Omega back).
While the Reapers are trying to take the Citadel, you discover that the defense systems were shut down/manipulated by an inside source. You and your squad try to find the source (along the way you get greeted by a bunch of Reaper forces) . You then stumble upon a hidden archive left by the Protheans who had starved on the Citadel while they found a way to sabotage the Keeper signal (see ME1). Going through the archives, you learn about the Catalyst/Reaper intelligence that resides on the Citadel and you find out that the Crucible plans originated from the Reapers. The Reapers created the plans so that one day a good-enough cycle could complete and successfully deploy it in order to ensure that the organics are "ready" for synthesis. The classical definition of the word "Crucible" is a "severe test or trial." The Protheans were working on a way to modify these plans to include the Destroy functionality (and it goes without saying, the indoctrinated factions added the Control functionality).
At the end of the DLC, you get intel that could upgrade the Crucible:
1) So that way it exclusively targets the Reapers in the Destroy ending.
2) Make it to where the relays don't get damaged in the Control/Synthesis ending. (I added this part to keep the endings balanced. You can't boost one without balancing the other two, right?)
This is just a rough draft ofcourse and some of the details would need to be worked out, but this is one way that Bioware could make a DLC that address all 3 audiences:
1) The audience that wants "new" DLC content (not exclusively ending related).
2) The audience that wants an ending that wouldn't push moral boundaries. ("Destroy+" ending).
3) The audience that wants more exposition on the Crucible's origins/functionality. (They could maybe even add a codex as to how Synthesis works for example.)
EDIT:
The ending dialogue with the Catalyst and Shepard would still be the same. Shepard obviously wouldn't know much about the team that found the Prothean archives on the Citadel, but the Catalyst would not be aware of the Prothean upgrades that were added to the Crucible design. As a result, the Catalyst would still assume that the Destroy ending targets all synthetics even when it doesn't.
It'd definitely tip the endings to being "good enough" in my book. Right now it sits at "Close but no ciggar"
And most people who know me personally find that odd since I'm normally someone who says the main character dying would make some stories better.
Mass Effect 3 would very easilly fall into that category BUT. The key difference between ME3 and other stories that don't have the character die that I say the character should die is one primary key and any literature professor will tell you this rule hands down must always be followed when you want to make the character a martyr.
The person needs to have an option to live.
Even if in books/movies it doesn't seem like there's an option they always have more meaning/significance than ME3 in general because even if there isn't an aparent choice at the end of the book for the character to escape/survive there was always a choice throughout the length of the story itself for the Character to just say "****it" and leave. Its not a choice any author will take of course because its the damn protagonist but we, the audience know in an out of sandbox sense that the person always had that "option" if not for author/hand of god guiding them.
But in ME3 there is not an option to even run because Reapers kill everything. So without even the farthest fallback point of survivability available to Shepard even in an outworld sense, you reduce the poignancy of his sacrifice into just a killing off move.
Take for example armageddon. (One of the only Bay films I can stomach) Bruce Willis at the end of that movie shoves the character AJ back into the ship after AJ drew the short straw of blowing himself up along with the asteroid, making it so AJ escaped on the ship and he was the one who died in his place. Hence the significance, bravery and poignancy of his sacrifice.
Now lets change the picture. On Armageddon, before Bruce shoves the AJ character back into the ship a piece of rock from the asteroid falls off rips right through the ship, the whole crew dies and AJ gets some shrapnel to shatter his helmet and kill him.
Bruce willis blowing up the bomb at that point is no longer a sacrifice, its him expediting his death by a few minutes and saving the people of earth in the process.
With no option of survivability there is no meaning, no martyrdom, no catharsis, there is only death
In ME3 its only compounded, not assisted by the fact that the death is held up by what is one of the most unequivocably hated characters in existence, the Catalyst, and framed by three equally abhorrent choices which equate, from left to right with Mass Slavery, Mass Molestation, and Mass Genocide.
Without the option of clear survivability, the endings will always be reduced to merely an elaborate method of killing off the protagonist of a 100 plus hour series in the eyes of a lot of people.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
when i made that choice, i had no idea that i was going to live and in fact was told that i would probably die because i'm partially synthetic, and © even if i assume that the breath scene indicates life, there's nothing after that scene confirming that i live...except some old dude telling a little kid stories about "the shepard" in god knows how many years.
