Alright, so after playing Leviathan and EC DLC (I got EC late, and Leviathan was just around the corner; since it supposedly impacted the ending in some way, I decided to wait and play through the ending again once I had both of them), it seems more and more like we should have an option to successfully defeat the Reapers through 'conventional' means. Now, allow me to back up my argument and respond to the common responses I've seen to similar ideas on this forum:
Firstly, when I say conventional, I don't mean that we show up, blow them out of the sky and that's that. What I mean is simply that we don't rely on the Crucible and the Catalyst's forced options where we simply deffer to the leader of our greatest enemy. In other words, we refuse, but are no defeated by doing so. This could be achieved in several ways, but primarily, I imagine it would involve successfully destroying/routing the main Reaper fleet at Earth through the combined might of all our war assets. With their primary strength broken/albeit at incredible loss for the organics, the Reapers are systematically pushed back. After decades of bloody, intense warfare over multiple fronts, the last remnants of the Reaper forces are driven back into dark space, there to plot and scheme and leave the way open for a possible future return.
That's obviously just an idea, but I feel something like that is a believable scenario (based upon what I'm going to say in a moment). Any 'conventional victory' should be achieved at great cost and the sacrifice of many, many lives. This would not be a happy ending per-se, but it would allow Shepard and his/her squad to surive and have a potential future without using space magic.Now, there are two main things to consider with such an ending; storyline concerns and gameplay concerns. Allow me to explain further:
Firstly, this ending would follow on from the Refusal ending that EC introduced. At the moment, we simply fail when we choose this ending (it is similar to the 'choice' to do nothing and eventually get the message that the Reapers have destroyed the Crucible). It is clear that Bioware either intended for this to be an almost 'joke' ending, something done just to appease fans who wanted a refusal ending and to say to them 'haha, this is what you idiots get for suggesting such a dumb thing, see, you fail', or, it is a way to leave themselves open to future possibilities.
The ending I'm suggesting/putting forward as a possibility would be akin to the variations we currently have. Each of the other endings have slightly different effects (or are not avilable at all) based on your EMS. I suggest a similar spectrum for the refusal ending. As it currently stands, we do not yet have enough EMS to achieve the best refusal ending. The one we see currently is what happens if you try to refuse, having just completed the core game. Your war assets are not strong enough to defeat the Reapers and they win. the cycle continues.
This is where DLC comes in. As it stands, with EC dropping the minimum requirement for the 'best' ending (the one that requires the most EMS where Shepard lives) to 4000, there is currently no in-game use for all that extra EMS. Leviathan introduces a ton more war assets and undoubtedly and future DLC will do so as well. It is already possible to achieve the 4000 EMS without playing any multiplayer and without even achieving/finding everything in the game. In short, it's relatively easy, similar to the ending of ME2 where you can get the 'best' ending just by ensuring you play all the missions in the game. One has to ask, if it's already so easy to get enough EMS for the 'best' ending, what's the point of adding more? The short answer is, it could be useful for achieving a successful conventional victory, which would require a much higher EMS.
Leviathan DLC introduced not just more EMS, but a storyline way in which Reapers can be defeated. These Leviathans utterly owned the Reaper you see in the DLC; imagine what more damage the could do. They are shown to be powerful, more powerful than the Reapers in some ways. Yet, at the moment, this means nothing. We still get shoehorned into our crappy endings, despite having Reaper-killers on our side. My point is that every DLC we get is going to add not just more war assets, but more in-game ways in which it becomes possible to defeat the Reapers conventionally. For such an ending to work, it has to be not only difficult to achieve, but also make lore sense (then again, looking at the ending as it stands, this is debatable). With each DLC, Bioware can introduce more unexpected allies, more powerful tech that's uncovered; ways in which we can hope to kill the Reapers. Otherwise what's the point? I already have the 'best' ending, and considering how the ending stands, any additional stuff I uncover is pointless. Who cares if the Leviathans are helping me? It changes nothing.
So I propose that for the 'best' conventional victory ending (there could be several in which the organic races suffer varying degrees of loss, including perhaps some of your squad-mates), you would require a very high-EMS score. Not just that, but you would have had to have the DLC that grants in-game reasons as to why you are able to achieve what others have not. We've already seen a hint of this with Leviathan; arguably, they alone would be enough to win the war outright. You would also have to have made smart choices throughout the trilogy (although perhaps discounting ME1 since PS3 owenrs do not have it). It is like the geth/quarian conflict; you need to have played ME2 and made the right decisions to get the best outcome. I do, however, believe that multiplayer should not be essential as again, not everyone has access to it. Having achieved all of that, you choose to refuse the Catalyst and actually succeed, even if it is narrowly and the price is very high.
I'll come to the arguments against such an idea/theory in a minute, but first, I want to say that I can see this being a very popular ending. We were already given 'Refuse' as a concesion to fans who were annoyed at being forced to essentially obey our geatest enemy. As it stands, there is no way to 'win' on our own terms; we just have to accept what the Catalyst tells us and pick an option that he has decided is acceptable. This goes against not just Shepard's personality, but everything the ME franchise represents. Every theme of overcoming impossible odds or the idea that cooperation can achieve great things is thrown aside. Instead, we are forced to agree with an illogical liar who shoves the idea that organics and synthetics cannot coexist down out throats despite the fact he is obviously wrong. I'm sure many players want to be able to tell him to sod of, reject his amoral 'solutions' and actually survive the procss. We do not win or even prove anything by accepting the Catalyst's solutions; the only way to 'win' is by rejecting him, them, and blowing him and his Reaper fleet to hell. Such an ending would, I'm sure, be extremely popular. It proves that we are better than the Reapers, not just their obediant little servants.
Now, here are the arguments I've seen against why this shouldn't be an option:
1. It invalidates the plot with the Crucible.
This is not true. The Crucible project is introduced right at the start of the game. At this point, it appears to be impossible to defeat the Reaper's conventionally, so the only logical thing to do is turn to the Crucible as a means to defeat them. This is because, at this point, no one knows about the existence of the Leviathans, or believes that the quarians and the geth could ever make peace etc. Even if they did, it would still make perfect sense to construct the Crucible. You can never have too many back up plans or alternatives when the entire galaxy is at stake. Even if the chance of defeating the Reapers in open warfare was 75% and this was known to be the case, it would still be in everyone's best interests to construct the Crucible. As Shepard goes through the game, he/she uncovers these potential game-changers, like the Leviathans and whatever is included in the other pieces of DLC. It is this that makes he/she and others realise that maybe conventional victory is possible. The Crucible is still seen as a better plan however, as it seems more 'certain' to succeed. It is not until the final choice to refuse, after hearing what the Crucible actually does, that Shepard decides to go for broke and try to win it 'conventionally'. The Crucible choices are still available, and they would be just as valid choices.
2. It invalidates the other endings by creating a new, 'best' ending.
Again, this seems to be a rather silly argument. In ME2, there is a very clearly defined best ending, where everyone lives and survives the so called 'sucide mission'. It's stated time and again throughout the game that you aren't expectd to return from beyond the relay, and that even if you do, you should be prepared to suffer casualties. However, it is possible, through skill and exhaustively completing everything the game has to offer, to achieve the impossible and get everyone out alive. This is clearly the best ending, yet does it invalidate all the others? If one best ending erases the need for other endings, why did they even bother to include the ability for squad mates to die, or the cutscene where Shepard dies? They're not the best endings and therefore irrelavant. Of course, this makes no sense. There should always be a spectrum of endings, to reflect that not everyone is able to
willing to get every last little bit of support, or make the right choices in certain situations. ME3 also has this, with different levels of 'goodness' in the endings. There is already, technically, a 'best' ending where Shepard lives and you require a higher EMS to get it. Does this invalidate all the other endings? No, so neither would a 'conventional victory' ending. It's not even clearly a better choice, as choosing something like 'Control' with the Crucible saves many more lives by immediately ending the threat, and not forcing the glaxy to suffer massive losses fighting the Reapers conventionally.
3. It's unrealistic, the humans/other organics don't have enough power to destroy the Reaprs.
Perhaps not at the moment, but that is the point of the DLC. Each DLC released will add more war assets and in-game reasons as to why we may be able to face the Reapers in a head-on-battle. Things like the Leviathans are massive advantages for the organic side, and could almost single-handedly turn the tide of battle. At the moment, it takes 4000 EMS to get the 'best' ending. It is possible to get almost triple that in the game, and future DLC is only going to add more and more. The fact that we can get so much is evidence that a better ending should, and may be made, attainable.
4. Bioware have said they aren't changin the ending any more.
This isn't a change per-se, it's not even a true addition. Remember when they said EC would not change the ending, just expand upon it? Well, they gave us a new choice. It was a logical expansion of what was there already. A proposed conventional ending does not change anything; it does not re-write or replace any existing content. It just makes the outcome of a particular choice play out differently, in a way which logically makes sense. It could easily be considered additional clarification and expansion, not alteration.
5. Defeating the Reapers conventionally goes against the feeling and themes of Mass Effect.
I would argue the exact opposite. A conventional victory fits far better with the established ME lore than using the Crucible to insta-win. Firstly, let me also point out that Bioware clearly doesn't give a crap about the themes and lore of ME. This is evidenced by a complete change in tone during the ending, and suddenly shifting the focus to synthetics vs organics. The absurdity of both this and the Catalysts arguments for it have already been discussed elsewhere. ANyway, ME has always been about two things; strength through cooperation and achieving the impossible. A conventional ending showcases both elements nicely. Shepard has always been known for never giving up, for finding a creatine solution to problems which others see as insurmintable. He/she has repeatedly done the impossible and defied everyones expectations. A conventional victory is just an extension of that theme. It also shows the fact that through cooperation, including the cooperation between synthetics and organics, it is possible to transcend your limitations. Compare that hopeful, uplifiting message which resonates with the established tone of the universe to the crappy, Reapers let you wind scenario of the Crucible. By picking any of the options, you are essentially giving in to the reapers. You haven't won, you've just chosen which slightly less bad option you want your enemy to enact. The Catalyst is the one who wins. Shepard is reduced to a toady who gives in to his/her greatest enemy. That doesn't fit with the themes of the ME games at all.
To use a slightly controversial comparison, imagine when the US killed Osama Bin Laden. The troops have just stormed his hideout and confronted him. Osama then gives them three option: 1) You can kill me, but the population of a random country will die and all planes will be destroyed. 2) You can assume control of my terrorist organisation, but you all die in the process. 3) You can convert everyone in the world to Islam against their will so that I will no longer be 'forced' to commit terrorist activities. Of course, choosing any of those options is morally repugnant and what's more, you're giving into the demands of your greatest enemy. The best course of action is just to shoot him and be done with it. But what if killing Osama caused the US to somehow lose the war and everyone dies? That's the current statee of the refusal ending.
Right, I think that covers everything I wanted to say. Now, I'm not sure whether Bioware is actually intending something like this, although there have been some hints that they are. If not though, they should strongly consider it as an option. Here are just a few interesting points I thought of to spark conversation:
1) Why are we getting more war assets when it's already easy to get the best ending (even without playing any MP)?
2) Leviathan and EC had full voice-actor work. This is different to the post-ME2 DLC which only had Shepard and a few other characters. Could this be hinting that the DLC's we're getting are story-relevant enough to require a full cast?
3) Any DLC set during the game is essentially pointless (form an overall stroy point of view) if the endings remain exactly as they are.
4) There have been supposed leaks about a possible plan to create additional ending content which ties in to a series of post-launch DLC. I do not know the legitimacy of this statement however.
TL;DR: The possibility exists that Bioware will/should add the ability to win 'conventionally' as a result of choosing the refusal ending. Such an ending should be implemented, and fits with the existing lore and gameplay in ME3.
Modifié par Cheesesack, 01 septembre 2012 - 10:32 .
Retour en haut
