6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Warrior Craess]

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You missed my point. If I can beat the reapers by getting assiiets only from morily bad choices and I can beat the reapers getting assiets only form morily good chioces ...What does that mean?

if thats all that you get out of ME, it means you should have chosen the no dialog option, and stuck with playing a FPS.

Thankfull that option still exists for you. 


Now how about an option that allows for those of us that played it for the interpretation?

That's not what I mean in any way. My point is their is more then one way to get the assiets need to beat the reapers...not including the mp.
Nothing I stated mean the game has to be linear to get them or beat them...In fact it means the game is not linear.

I'LL ask agein...
If I can beat the reapers by getting assiets only from morily bad choices and I can beat the reapers getting assiets only form morily good chioces ...What does that mean?


Aka, If I can beat the reapers with assiets I get in any way I want, what does that mean?

OMFG.

I answered this. Choice is a mechanism to allow you to interpret the game. Your so bogged down by the fact that choice exists in this game, that your trying to use it as an arguement. 

However per your request, that fact that you can win the game (omg stop the press!!! I can beat a game??) regardless of how, and which, choices I make, means absoultely nothing. Becuase this game was never about Choice.  It's always been about the emotion connection we the players attach to those choices. 

[Dragoonlordz]

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I mentioned no person in my response. I mentioned nothing about the OP, I gave my version of what I wanted in contrast what you and others want. But keep believing what you wish, if you create a thread on a public forum do not whine when others take part in it who have a different opinion.

I'm all for people posting their opinion, but your comment looks the exact opposite

Whats your point? It is impossible for someone to have the opposite opinion to another?

I said what I want to see, regardless of what the OP wants in a thread which talks about what people want to happen. Not in opposition to the OP, I didn't even read half of what the OP said and just skimmed through it. I did not need to in order to say what I wanted to see happen.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 août 2012 - 06:40 .

[Ithurael]

.

Ieldra2 wrote...

But while I'm at it: I've always thought that the destruction of the relays would be thematically appropriate for Destroy. So I'd find replacing the death of the geth with the destruction of the relays in all Destroy endings appropriate. But I get the feeling neither do people want that. So what would you all accept as "the" sacrifice for this new option - and it should be more than the war does anyway in all endings, or it would unbalance the scenario.

Destoying the relays in any ending kinda makes sense - though for destroy it makes the most sense - as the relays and the citadel were the hub of the cycle. And now that the cycle is over a new age begins. There is no more need for direction from starkid or the reapers.

[AlanC9]

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You probably won't hear that argument at the shareholder meeting.

Nope.

But I thought that sort of thinking was the problem with Bio/EA. Now it's the solution?

no, but trying to push away customers is not a good thing business wise

Careful, AresKeith. Next thing you know you'll be welcoming MP and CoD fans.

[dreman9999]

LadyWench wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
 It was never stted or evern pointed to that convention victory was possible. If fact it was stated it was notpassible in ME1 by Virgil.  If fact, their is nothing wrong with betting the reapersin an unconvertional way, why is that an issue? What was stated that the reapers can't be stopped and we stopped them any way, why does it matter that itwas not in a conventional way?
Whay does it have to be a conventional way?

Everyone has always told Shepard in every game something can't be done, then he/she comes back and proves them wrong. THAT was how I assumed that conventional victory might be possible.

So, I guess you already knew about the Crucible all the way back in ME1? I didn't realize that the real reason Shep was trying to warn the Council that the Reapers were a real threat so that they would start building defenses early, then joined Cerberus to defeat the Collectors (and therefore not only stop the attack on humans, but to take an important tool away from the Reapers) in ME2, and was forging alliances and building up war assest until the end of ME3 was ACTUALLY because he/she was secretly hoping that a plot-miracle kill switch would show up that would render all of those previous efforts moot. My bad.

But I digress. Sincere apologies to OP. This topic got off track and I was baited into another conversation altogether that has nothing to do with this thread. But because I truly believe that the ME fanbase is NOT a pack of whiners and can have disagreements, but still be rational, polite, constructive, and agree to disagree, I am ending this sidetrack. Sorry again, everyone. <3

That does nto mean hehas to beat the reapers conventioaly...In fact, Shepard never killed a reaper conventionaly at all.
You never asnwered my quetion. Why do we have to beat them convetioanly? Is it not enought that we beat them?
And the crucible doesn't have to be in the plot form ME1, It was hinted at since lotsb.

[AresKeith]

AlanC9 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You probably won't hear that argument at the shareholder meeting.

Nope.

But I thought that sort of thinking was the problem with Bio/EA. Now it's the solution?

no, but trying to push away customers is not a good thing business wise

Careful, AresKeith. Next thing you know you'll be welcoming MP and CoD fans.

I was one of the few who said put the MP on another disc

[Captain McBuck]

Especially considering we're slowly losing everything up until the
ending, and we suddenly turn the war around in ONE battle and win the
war 

Dude, this happens in real life all the time.

Battle of Thermopylae.
Battle of Hastings.
Battle of Trefalgar.
Battle of Kursk On the Eastern Front
D-Day Operation Overlord.
The Tet Offensive.
Battle of East Pararall.

History is filled with examples where one battle has turned the face of a war around  IF anything the main focus of ME1 and ME2 was that the reapers are not gods. . there are many reasons to change refuse, there are many not too. but this really isn't one of them. actually  it would have been a great opening for BW to show that our strenght comes from our diversity and freedom, Hell Paragon and Renegade Shep even says this, we fight because we choose to and we are better because we are different and from our differnces in unity comes strength.   Javik even says that in his cycle there was no rallying cry, no final battle. the Reapers had already broken his race at the start of the war before he was even born.

Hackett even says that the Reapers have focused the bulk of there forces around Earth, if we could break them at Earth forcing a Reaper Retreat, then it would become a war of attrition and History is also filled with examples where lesser equiped, lesser trained units  have overcome a numerical and techniogical advantage, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Vietnam, The Ottoman Invasion of Baltics, The Organics are much better set up to fight a war of Atrrition since y'know we don't have to grind up the population of a planet into Reaper Chow to replace our losses.

I've said it before but all the problems with the ending, even the Crucible all come down to the Starchild and his Full Retard mode. All of the choices even the Destroy are insturments of his wil and all serve his purpose because as it stands right now even in destroy you genocide all Synthetic life and fulfil his goal of "Preserving us from Synthetics" even if it means killing the Geth who y'know you might have saved on Rannoch, just like how Synthisis invalidates your choice over the Genophage. All of  the ending choices are morally banktrupt, its a case of "picking one which screws the galaxy the least!"

people have gone on about the ending being a hard choice. its not,  Shooting Anderson and letting The Illusive Man live and take control of the reapers to uplift humanity  is a hard choice, Asking EDI to become the new Reaper AI knowing it will break Jokers Heart is a hard choice,, Asking Billions of people to fight against a cosmic horror to the last man standing  is a hard choice.

[AlanC9]

Ithurael wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

But while I'm at it: I've always thought that the destruction of the relays would be thematically appropriate for Destroy. So I'd find replacing the death of the geth with the destruction of the relays in all Destroy endings appropriate. But I get the feeling neither do people want that. So what would you all accept as "the" sacrifice for this new option - and it should be more than the war does anyway in all endings, or it would unbalance the scenario.

Destoying the relays in any ending kinda makes sense - though for destroy it makes the most sense - as the relays and the citadel were the hub of the cycle. And now that the cycle is over a new age begins. There is no more need for direction from starkid or the reapers.

I'd have been quite happy with this myself. I think the ME galaxy's more interesting if it's torn into fragments and all the clusters go their separate ways, politically, socially, and technologically.

[dreman9999]

Warrior Craess wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You missed my point. If I can beat the reapers by getting assiiets only from morily bad choices and I can beat the reapers getting assiets only form morily good chioces ...What does that mean?

if thats all that you get out of ME, it means you should have chosen the no dialog option, and stuck with playing a FPS.

Thankfull that option still exists for you. 


Now how about an option that allows for those of us that played it for the interpretation?

That's not what I mean in any way. My point is their is more then one way to get the assiets need to beat the reapers...not including the mp.
Nothing I stated mean the game has to be linear to get them or beat them...In fact it means the game is not linear.

I'LL ask agein...
If I can beat the reapers by getting assiets only from morily bad choices and I can beat the reapers getting assiets only form morily good chioces ...What does that mean?


Aka, If I can beat the reapers with assiets I get in any way I want, what does that mean?

OMFG.

I answered this. Choice is a mechanism to allow you to interpret the game. Your so bogged down by the fact that choice exists in this game, that your trying to use it as an arguement. 

However per your request, that fact that you can win the game (omg stop the press!!! I can beat a game??) regardless of how, and which, choices I make, means absoultely nothing. Becuase this game was never about Choice.  It's always been about the emotion connection we the players attach to those choices. 

I understand that but you missed my point? Is there any moral path that leads to being defeated by the reapeers based on assiests?
Is their just on moraly way tot ake to beat the reapers? What matter more in the end to how you beat the reapers...Your morals or the assiests in hand?

Modifié par dreman9999, 30 août 2012 - 06:44 .

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

But while I'm at it: I've always thought that the destruction of the relays would be thematically appropriate for Destroy. So I'd find replacing the death of the geth with the destruction of the relays in all Destroy endings appropriate. But I get the feeling neither do people want that. So what would you all accept as "the" sacrifice for this new option - and it should be more than the war does anyway in all endings, or it would unbalance the scenario.

I thought unbalancing the scenario was the whole point of the proposal.

I thought so, too. 3DandBeyond assured me he (?) didn't want an ending without a downside. So I'm asking what significant downside he'd accept, specifically for this new Destroy option, above and beyond what the war already does in all the endings.

[Iakus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The anger of the community could easily be sated by fixing this one issue: let Shepard get out of the pile of garbage, call for an evac, and get rescued alive. And make sure it comes with the Chris Priestly and Chris Hepler gag order.

This way the LI holding the name plate implies the reunion actually does take place. This would have passed two months ago.

However at this point, implied isn't enough anymore. With all the jerking around we've gotten about this, Bioware's credibility is shot. We need to see it now. If DLC is made to add this content it would be worth some Microsoft points because it would make the game playable.

Rebuilding > Memorial > Get out of garbage + evac + rescue + reunion > credits.

This is the company that made "The Darkspawn Chronicles". This is the company where choices used to matter in their games.

YES!!!

[dreman9999]

Captain McBuck wrote...

Especially considering we're slowly losing everything up until the
ending, and we suddenly turn the war around in ONE battle and win the
war 

Dude, this happens in real life all the time.

Battle of Thermopylae.
Battle of Hastings.
Battle of Trefalgar.
Battle of Kursk On the Eastern Front
D-Day Operation Overlord.
The Tet Offensive.
Battle of East Pararall.

History is filled with examples where one battle has turned the face of a war around  IF anything the main focus of ME1 and ME2 was that the reapers are not gods. . there are many reasons to change refuse, there are many not too. but this really isn't one of them. actually  it would have been a great opening for BW to show that our strenght comes from our diversity and freedom, Hell Paragon and Renegade Shep even says this, we fight because we choose to and we are better because we are different and from our differnces in unity comes strength.   Javik even says that in his cycle there was no rallying cry, no final battle. the Reapers had already broken his race at the start of the war before he was even born.

Hackett even says that the Reapers have focused the bulk of there forces around Earth, if we could break them at Earth forcing a Reaper Retreat, then it would become a war of attrition and History is also filled with examples where lesser equiped, lesser trained units  have overcome a numerical and techniogical advantage, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Vietnam, The Ottoman Invasion of Baltics, The Organics are much better set up to fight a war of Atrrition since y'know we don't have to grind up the population of a planet into Reaper Chow to replace our losses.

I've said it before but all the problems with the ending, even the Crucible all come down to the Starchild and his Full Retard mode. All of the choices even the Destroy are insturments of his wil and all serve his purpose because as it stands right now even in destroy you genocide all Synthetic life and fulfil his goal of "Preserving us from Synthetics" even if it means killing the Geth who y'know you might have saved on Rannoch, just like how Synthisis invalidates your choice over the Genophage. All of  the ending choices are morally banktrupt, its a case of "picking one which screws the galaxy the least!"

people have gone on about the ending being a hard choice. its not,  Shooting Anderson and letting The Illusive Man live and take control of the reapers to uplift humanity  is a hard choice, Asking EDI to become the new Reaper AI knowing it will break Jokers Heart is a hard choice,, Asking Billions of people to fight against a cosmic horror to the last man standing  is a hard choice.

Do you understand that you compearing armies with limits in recources and numbers to the reapers who have no limits as a fleet?

[clennon8]

Ugh. Too many people feeding the troll. This thread is doomed.

ED: Great post, though, Shotgun.

Modifié par clennon8, 30 août 2012 - 06:44 .

[AresKeith]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I mentioned no person in my response. I mentioned nothing about the OP, I gave my version of what I wanted in contrast what you and others want. But keep believing what you wish, if you create a thread on a public forum do not whine when others take part in it who have a different opinion.

I'm all for people posting their opinion, but your comment looks the exact opposite

Whats your point? It is impossible for someone to have the opposite opinion to another?

I said what I want to see, regardless of what the OP wants in a thread which talks about what people want to happen. Not in opposition to the OP, I didn't even read half of what the OP said and just skimmed through it. I did not need to in order to say what I wanted to see happen.

after that comment, I see there's no point to continue this.

[Rovay]

clennon8 wrote...

Ugh. Too many people feeding the troll. This thread is doomed.

It was the moment OP stated what he/she wanted from Bioware.

[LadyWench]

dreman9999 wrote...
That does nto mean hehas to beat the reapers conventioaly...In fact, Shepard never killed a reaper conventionaly at all.
You never asnwered my quetion. Why do we have to beat them convetioanly? Is it not enought that we beat them?
And the crucible doesn't have to be in the plot form ME1, It was hinted at since lotsb.

It doesn't HAVE to be conventional! People can still have the other endings if they want! Choice is good! YAY, FREEDOM! Except that NONE of the choices,as they stand now, are Shep's choices (except for newish refuse). They are what the very suspect Catalyst tells us are our choices. Period.

Some of us are just saying we would REALLY LIKE the OPTION for a conventional victory if we worked to stack up war assests well above and beyond what is required, or why else does Levi DLC add more poinltess war assests on top of pointless war assests?

Your thinking is so black and white. It's GRAY. It's ALL about the gray, in-between, subtle awesome moments of a game like this. WHY would BW tell us out choices matter if they really, ultimately in the end if you think about it, don't?

THE END. Done. Thank you for your time. Oh, look at that...*glances at bare wrist* Damn, I really must be going, but it's been...something. Thanks.

Modifié par LadyWench, 30 août 2012 - 06:47 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

But while I'm at it: I've always thought that the destruction of the relays would be thematically appropriate for Destroy. So I'd find replacing the death of the geth with the destruction of the relays in all Destroy endings appropriate. But I get the feeling neither do people want that. So what would you all accept as "the" sacrifice for this new option - and it should be more than the war does anyway in all endings, or it would unbalance the scenario.

Destoying the relays in any ending kinda makes sense - though for destroy it makes the most sense - as the relays and the citadel were the hub of the cycle. And now that the cycle is over a new age begins. There is no more need for direction from starkid or the reapers.

I'd have been quite happy with this myself. I think the ME galaxy's more interesting if it's torn into fragments and all the clusters go their separate ways, politically, socially, and technologically.

I always thought was assumed in the Destroy endings anyway.  For the short term, at least.  while  the relays were being repaired.  Not to mention several homeworlds are trashed, galactic economy was already on the brink of ruin (anyone else catch that report on the CItadel?), etc.

These were not short term problems to be solved here, and they would have to be solved with no Reapers, and no space magic.

[Applepie_Svk]

dreman9999 wrote...

Do you understand that you compearing armies with limits in recources and numbers to the reapers who have no limits as a fleet?

Your headcanon I presume ... They are not countless and each cycle suffered some loses despite they always won - even just a few reapers each cycle for 20 thousand times means that they suffered loses. They couldn´t refresh they ranks each cycle in full numbers or niether at all because not all species was good for harvest as was told.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 30 août 2012 - 06:47 .

[Dragoonlordz]

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I mentioned no person in my response. I mentioned nothing about the OP, I gave my version of what I wanted in contrast what you and others want. But keep believing what you wish, if you create a thread on a public forum do not whine when others take part in it who have a different opinion.

I'm all for people posting their opinion, but your comment looks the exact opposite

Whats your point? It is impossible for someone to have the opposite opinion to another?

I said what I want to see, regardless of what the OP wants in a thread which talks about what people want to happen. Not in opposition to the OP, I didn't even read half of what the OP said and just skimmed through it. I did not need to in order to say what I wanted to see happen.

after that comment, I see there's no point to continue this.

You think you have to read every single word to get an idea of what someone wants? Or are you merely moaning that I did not reply with mere "I agree" response? There is no decent discussion to have when you have a thread full of just yes-men.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

AlanC9 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You probably won't hear that argument at the shareholder meeting.

Nope.

But I thought that sort of thinking was the problem with Bio/EA. Now it's the solution?

no, but trying to push away customers is not a good thing business wise

Careful, AresKeith. Next thing you know you'll be welcoming MP and CoD fans.

I've never ascribed the problems with ME3's plot to EA.  I assume that the value of the ME intellectual property was one of the assets that attracted EA to BioWare, actually.  I do wonder whether there was palace intrigue that led to changes in the ME team as a result of the acquisition and related cash out to BioWare officers, contracts to key talent, etc.  But we will probably never know if any of that led to changes in how ME3's plot developed and why certain key thought leaders are no longer a part of the development team.

Regardless of all that, I believe that the value of the ME IP has been diminished, a good bit in fact, because of the problems with the ending of the trilogy and the loss of faith by a very large number of customers.  Having people willing to recognize that for the financial aspects of fixing the problem is probably good for players. 

So come on EA bean counters, give us an ending we are willing to pay for!

[AlanC9]

Captain McBuck wrote..
Battle of Thermopylae.
Battle of Hastings.
Battle of Trefalgar.
Battle of Kursk On the Eastern Front
D-Day Operation Overlord.
The Tet Offensive.
Battle of East Pararall.

History is filled with examples where one battle has turned the face of a war around

Those are some pretty terrible examples. Thermopylae didn't decide anything. William wasn't losing before Hastings, though Harold really shouldn't have fought there. Kursk shouldn't have been fought either - the Germans were kidding themselves about being able to win there. Germany was already doomed before Overlord.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 août 2012 - 06:49 .

[inversevideo]

 3DandBeyond, a truly great post. One that speaks to me, and let's me know at least one other feels and understands what the ME series means to me, and how the endings made me feel.

Thanks for giving voice to this so eloquently.

I don't truly expect Bioware/EA to make any changes, but maybe, just maybe, they will 'hear' what you have said, take it to heart, and be mindful when crafting the next story-arc in the ME universe.  

[ThaDPG]

RiouHotaru wrote...

...You do realize they've already stated that beyond the EC they don't plan to change the endings. Maybe adjust dialog (like they did with Leviathan), which I'd expect. But you're never going to get a full adjustment. You're going to have to accept the endings as they are.

They can keep all the endings as they are now if they want, because I know some people are satisfied with them, but there is still room for a high EMS refusal option to be added onto refusal via DLC without changing anything before it.

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

But while I'm at it: I've always thought that the destruction of the relays would be thematically appropriate for Destroy. So I'd find replacing the death of the geth with the destruction of the relays in all Destroy endings appropriate. But I get the feeling neither do people want that. So what would you all accept as "the" sacrifice for this new option - and it should be more than the war does anyway in all endings, or it would unbalance the scenario.

Destoying the relays in any ending kinda makes sense - though for destroy it makes the most sense - as the relays and the citadel were the hub of the cycle. And now that the cycle is over a new age begins. There is no more need for direction from starkid or the reapers.

I'd have been quite happy with this myself. I think the ME galaxy's more interesting if it's torn into fragments and all the clusters go their separate ways, politically, socially, and technologically.

I always thought was assumed in the Destroy endings anyway.  For the short term, at least.  while  the relays were being repaired.  Not to mention several homeworlds are trashed, galactic economy was already on the brink of ruin (anyone else catch that report on the CItadel?), etc.

These were not short term problems to be solved here, and they would have to be solved with no Reapers, and no space magic.

The sacrifices in the other endings are permanent. Shepard's dead in Synthesis, Shepard loses his humanity in Control. The other consequences, regardless of how you see them, are permanent or at least extremely long-term as well. Short-term doesn't count. The relays would have to be destroyed for good, they'd need to be completely rebuilt instead of just repaired to keep the balance if the geth were made to survive. That dark age implied by the original endings, that would be an acceptable price for having no other downside, namely keeping everyone alive.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 août 2012 - 06:52 .

[Warrior Craess]

dreman9999 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Out of 15 people who played Mass Effect 3 that I personally know, all 15 said the endings were horrible, and that's 15/15. 16/16 if I include myself. Out of those 15 I'm the only one who is active on the forum. Granted that's not a statistically valid sample. It's anecdotal. All of them replayed with the EC, and repeated the same judgement. This is not good.

I agree with the OP on this. We are not asking for much. We've made peace with the fact that the main endings are going to remain the way they are. We've made peace with the fact that this is the end of Shepard's story arc. We've made peace with the fact that there were a lot of tough choices that had to be made during the war against the reapers. We really wish that Mac hadn't been so depressed, and you can hear it in his voice in the February interview, about the ending.

The player is left to do one of these things JUST TO END THE GAME:

* Totalitarianism -- Control
* Eugenics -- Synthesis
* Genocide -- Destroy
* Suicide -- this being the refuse ending which doesn't unlock the achievement and thus doesn't count as an added ending but rather is window dressing on "Critical Mission Failure" except you get a cut scene now.

Why?

I guess we can call this the TEGS ending.

The player works like crazy to gather all possible resources to defeat the reapers and we got the 1/4 second of breath in a pile of garbage as a reward because otherwise "it would have been too bleak", and then we were told it could have been Shepard's last breath by Chris Hepler and Chris Priestly. Funny. Very funny. I think the fans have a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Bioware broke my heart with this TEGS. I am not a child. I am not a teen. I am a grandmother.

Much of this is summed up in one conversation with Javik. Why do you fight, Shepard?

Without that reason there is nothing.

The anger of the community could easily be sated by fixing this one issue: let Shepard get out of the pile of garbage, call for an evac, and get rescued alive. And make sure it comes with the Chris Priestly and Chris Hepler gag order.

This way the LI holding the name plate implies the reunion actually does take place. This would have passed two months ago.

However at this point, implied isn't enough anymore. With all the jerking around we've gotten about this, Bioware's credibility is shot. We need to see it now. If DLC is made to add this content it would be worth some Microsoft points because it would make the game playable.

Rebuilding > Memorial > Get out of garbage + evac + rescue + reunion > credits.

This is the company that made "The Darkspawn Chronicles". This is the company where choices used to matter in their games.

NOTE: I don't care if "the endings are final" is the official stand of Bioware. Official stands can change. My "official stand" at this time is that I'm not buying another Bioware game until either an apology is issued for the mistreatment or something is done like a DLC is made to add this content it would be worth some Microsoft points because it would make the game playable.

NOTE II: To players who want to pick destroy and have Shepard die -- don't gather all the resources, and disconnect from the internet before you start the Cronos mission. It's that simple.

The game was always advertized that your going to make hard choices beat the enemy...

How is it ageint the theme of ME if the ending choice do thesame thing as advertized.

My you do take a circular route to get at what your trying to say.

Here is the counter point that many of us are trying to get you to understand. There isn't anything difficult, or hard about the ending choices of ME3.  There is no emotive context to it, becuase the rest of the theme of the ME series has been discarded. The options are nothing more than which one do I like best at this point. There is no morality to thses choices, because there is no history to it (at least in game).  The EC made the endings better, but still not thematically consistant with the rest of the ME series.