3DandBeyond I have in general agreed with your sentiments many times. I'm mostly in agreement with your OP. However, I'm just wondering, if what you want is simply the option for another choice, (such as high EMS destroy not killing the Geth/EDI) I really don't see how that is fixing much. Sure I would pick it, and I'm sure many many others would, but it wouldn't remove the Catalyst and the contrived choices. Unless Bioware chooses to continue the series, such a new ending would be utterly superfluous.
The endings as they are now simply can't be reconciled in a future release in any meaningful way. They are just way too disparate and would effectively require 3 wholly different settings. That just isn't feasible to implement. So Bioware is either going to have to somehow do that or focus on prequels and sidequels forever. I don't think they are going to do either of those. So they are going to have to make one of the endings the only one that the next games are based off of to continue the series. So basically someone is going to be disappointed no matter what Bioware does.
So, if Bioware has any intention of continuing the series, I argue that there needs to be a new ending (preferably based on high EMS destroy with some changes) Yes, it would be inherently superior, but it would only be accessible through making the correct choices and having an extremely high EMS.
Please, please spare me the rhetoric about how there should be no "easy" ending. This wouldn't be an "easy" ending to get. I hate the endings in their current form for many reasons, but one of the biggest is that the consequences of the choices are contrived. Forced sacrifice is not deep or meaningful. It doesn't make the game better. All it does is it shows that the writers thought that the ending needed even more sacrifice for completely arbitrary reasons.
Why would an ending with forced, arbitrary sacrifice better than an ending where you must work to get the best ending. An ending where your choices really matter? An ending much like Mass Effect 2?
Would Rannoch been better if the game forced you to choose between the Geth and the Quarians? Even though forging peace requires you to play the game smart and put the effort in? Even though there is no good reason to force us to choose?
Why? If someone here believes that superior options that must be earned are inherently bad please explain why. Please. I've heard this tired old argument that the ending needs sacrifice a million times. It just keeps going and going in circles because people seem to have this notion that if there has to be a sacrifice it automatically makes something better.
I'm not saying games should never have hard choices or never had sacrifice. Mass Effect has had both of those, and it was either avoidable for a good reason (such as Wrex on Virmire or the Rannoch choice) or it was a there for a good reason (such as on Legion's loyalty mission or the fleet sacrifice in ME1). But the ending to me screams forced sacrifice. I could go on about why, but just to wrap up this already long post I feel its because the Crucible is a device with enormous power worked on by the brightest minds in the galaxy. It was essentially a blank slate for the writers to base the choices on. Therefore there is no reason why it has to do x or y. So I feel the destruction of the Geth and EDI were contrived. I feel that the existence of control is contrived. I feel that the effects of Synthesis are contrived.
Modifié par elitehunter34, 31 août 2012 - 02:46 .