Vox Draco wrote...
Well, it is a bad thing to choose as, because the story fails to deliver prior to the last stand, we or better the Cmdr. standing up there, has absolutely NO way of knowing what synthesis will ultimatly lead to. Granted, in that regard none of the decisions are sure.
My Shepard has an affinity for taking very big risks.
That's the problem of having those options tied directly to a character that introduces itself as the controller of the antagonists slaughtering billions of people...
Except I do not indentify the Catalyst as one with the Reapers. See my thread, "How it works: Reaper Command" in my sig to understand why. "How it works: the Crucible" may also enlighten you further.
To me, the Catalyst is Conrad Verner. He thinks he's doing something good by supporting terrorism. But he's too stupid to realize he's not. I never shot Conrad or told him to go get killed, I tried to fix the stupid man's mistakes. What I'm doing here is no different.
And pardon me, but story-telling IS ALL that matters and the very reason why the ending led to such an uroar in the first place. I surely didn't play mass effect for the fancy graphics or the stunning combat, but for the chars and stories told in the game. And in that regard, synthesis and the entire set-up around it, including all choices abd how they are presented, fail. Destroy is merely the least annyoing of them all, and only a refuse with win would stay true to the story being told so far...
I disagree with just about all of that. I have shelved countless video games with good stories. Not the Mass Effect trilogy though. Why? Because it delivers an immersive experience unlike any of the games I play. Stories alone are not enough to get my interest. ME involves me on an emotional and intellectual level that other games simply do not.
That's why I thought the 11th-hour twist of ME3's ending was glorious: the element of surprise, the major revelations, and above all... that final decision.
That decision puts all others in this series to shame: the morality is murky, and it's far more consequential than any of the ones that came before it. In fact, it's a decision so difficult that it breaks some of the players who get there. I'm talking about the players that Refuse, because choosing the other options are too hard for them, and the players who metagame and choose Destroy though they'd choose Refuse if they could win through it.
My only problem with the original endings was that I saw no consequences for my enormous action or the previous ones, as well as the fate of my old squaddies and everything like that. Also, I had issues with the presentation of everything from Harby's beam to Joker getting off the Normandy on Eden. EC fixed 2/3 of those.
As for lousy presentation, I've tolerated worse from this story already. So with that, the endings are good in my book.
I am a little baffled that someone can look and criticize/support the endings other than on the basis of the story being told badly...every logical argument for or against synthesis is invalid for me, because the option itself simply has not grown naturally from the story.
The out-of-the-blue nature of Synthesis is just part of the game for me. To that end, it's a lot like how TIM springs the Collector Base decision on you at the end of ME2 - a decision I would have taken, had I not fully expected them to go space-na'zi on the galaxy as they did in ME3.
It reminds me of the krogan shaman in Grunt's rite, telling him (responding to Grunt asking "What will happen?"), "Who knows?! You must adapt. You must thrive, no matter the situation. Any true krogan would." Same's true of being a leader, gotta be ready for anything thrown your way. Things like that make up the experience I enjoy.
If it had, I would have no real problem with it in ME3...as the bad guy option, that is. After all, merging synth and orgs is the premise of the reapers.
Bad guy?? Nah. Legion got it right on Rannoch. He took the code that the Reapers used to control the geth and then uploaded it to the geth so they could harness the power the Reapers gave them without losing their free-will.
That's why I willingly risked running the quarians through the geth buzzsaw instead of sacrificing the geth for the quarians, they got it right and became more valuable to me. Thankfully, that situation was resolved without losing the quarains either.
I am all romantic and humanistic. I think mankind shall do it on its own, for good or bad, without divine intervention. That'S why shepard's fate makes me mad beyond reason. The way they treat Shepard in the end in destroy and refuse is a kick in the guts of mankind itself for me...either humanity is screwed totally in refuse for Shepard, mankinds avatar, stays true to itself, or the avatar is treated like shiat, left in a pile of rubble without real closure to her fate...it irks me greatly...
And I am the pragmatist. I seen my opportunities, and I took 'em.
Shepard went out in a blaze-of-glory.
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 19 septembre 2012 - 11:18 .
Retour en haut
a threat so massive that it would be beyond the playable character to solve.
