247 réponses à ce sujet

[Netsfn1427]

iakus wrote...]

But it doesn't make sense.  And there is no explanation available.  Why did the author drop a bridge on Shepard for this ending?

Bringing Shepard back from the dead didn't make any sense. No explanation is given on HOW they got his brain working again, which is impossible. As for the last question, why does any author kill a character? Because they feel it fits in a story. You and others feel differently for Shepard. Others disagree.

But ME3 is part of a trilogy, of which ME1 and ME2 were a part.  Shifting themes so drastically at the end of a story, especially when it so drastically affects the player's character:  not cool.

And while coming out alive may not have been "required"  It should have been an option, at least.

Tone and themes can change if the settings shift drastically. The Harry Potter series does not end with the same tone in which it began. Because the series takes place over seven years and the universe it inhabits gets progressively darker. 

ME3 tone shift, which again, began in ME2, makes sense. The galaxy is literally burning. It would be more insulting if they kept the same tone in ME1 that they did in 3.

I wonder what the ME3 return/exchange numbers were?

ME3 by itself won't doom Bioware.  But it is showing a tend that may in the future do a lot of damage.  Games are entertainment.  If they fail to entertain, what are we buying?

I don't know what that rate was. None of us do. Hence these proclamations about what will doom Bioware and what won't are kind of pointless.

[Netsfn1427]

AlanC9 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...
 All dark stuff. It doesn't pop up at the end. The end is just the first time Shepard can lose his/her life. 

Second, actually. Though it's pretty damn hard to get Shep killed in the Suicide Mission.

True. Though that literally ends your save. This is the first time Shepard can be killed and not revived by reloading.

[mjb203]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...
 All dark stuff. It doesn't pop up at the end. The end is just the first time Shepard can lose his/her life. 

Second, actually. Though it's pretty damn hard to get Shep killed in the Suicide Mission.

True. Though that literally ends your save. This is the first time Shepard can be killed and not revived by reloading.

Not true.  Shep can be revived by reloading and choosing a different color. 

And it is the third time Shep could have possibly died (although the "death" at the beginning of ME2 is suspect, and as a story device I wasn't a big fan of it either).

[Sousabird]

mjb203 wrote...

Sousabird wrote...

destroy mother ****er have you heard of it? I don't want a super perfect sunshine and rainbows end, it's too unrealistic in a war of this magnitude so I like destroy because it's an appropriate sacrafice for the greatest victory.

Then if the option is there for the "perfect" ending, don't pick it.  Simple.

Just don't try to force the sacrifice on those who don't want it.

The thing is it would be dumb to say and they all lived happily ever after with no losses, think about how stupid the virmire decision would be if it was like Save ashley, Kaiden or both, most people would pick both and make the other two a bit pointless (assuming you didn't hate either character)

[Netsfn1427]

mjb203 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...
 All dark stuff. It doesn't pop up at the end. The end is just the first time Shepard can lose his/her life. 

Second, actually. Though it's pretty damn hard to get Shep killed in the Suicide Mission.

True. Though that literally ends your save. This is the first time Shepard can be killed and not revived by reloading.

Not true.  Shep can be revived by reloading and choosing a different color. 

And it is the third time Shep could have possibly died (although the "death" at the beginning of ME2 is suspect, and as a story device I wasn't a big fan of it either).

Fair point- though some people refuse to believe Shep is alive in destroy+. Therefore for those people, Shepard is dead no matter which color you choose.

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Bringing Shepard back from the dead didn't make any sense. No explanation is given on HOW they got his brain working again, which is impossible. As for the last question, why does any author kill a character? Because they feel it fits in a story. You and others feel differently for Shepard. Others disagree.

Congrats, you found one of my major sticking points about ME2.

And you forget, the player is supposed to have agency in the story too.  THis is Mass Effect, not Assassin's Creed.

Tone and themes can change if the settings shift drastically. The Harry Potter series does not end with the same tone in which it began. Because the series takes place over seven years and the universe it inhabits gets progressively darker. 

ME3 tone shift, which again, began in ME2, makes sense. The galaxy is literally burning. It would be more insulting if they kept the same tone in ME1 that they did in 3.

On the contrary, I would have found it quite uplifing.  The tone In ME1 was already pretty dark, but still had a feeling of optimism.  That no situation is totally hopeless.  Even ME3 sort of had that sense (or at least you could roleplay it) right up until the Catalyst tells Shepard to pick a color and die.  Or just stand there and die, makes no difference to him.

[Nightwriter]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

There are divergent outcomes, about as divergent as you can get in a game like this. You've got three different ways to resolve the Geth/Quarian conflict. You've got three different ways to resolve the Genophage. You can have half your party members either die before the end of the game or be killed before the game even begins. You can define your experience- again, as much as you ever have in a Bioware game.  I have no idea what you expected, but how much did you believe was possible in this game?

Those examples aren't under criticism. The ending is. The genophage and geth/quarian arcs are widely praised.

I can't think of a single criticism for the other choices in the game.

Netsfn1427 wrote...

No, the entire third game is dark. Seeing Garrus say where he grew up is now just a ring of fire isn't dark? The Wrex confrontation if you betray him isn't dark? Sanctuary isn't dark? And it was trending that was in ME2. Seeing people melted in front of you? Mordin's side quest? Helping Samara kill her daughter? All dark stuff. It doesn't pop up at the end. The end is just the first time Shepard can lose his/her life.

ME3 isn't dark. It mixes too many colors for such generalizations. It's sobering, grave, emotional, exciting, funny, and frequently uplifting. At best -- at best -- the dark-to-light ratio is flat equal. There is a counterexample for every instance you just put forth, and several of the ones you mentioned are optional and avoidable.

When the dark and light are flat even, you don't get to say that the ending has to be dark, anymore than I get to say it has to be light. ME3's ending should've delivered the tasteful mix of flavors that the rest of the game did.

Netsfn1427 wrote...

It's also true. As I mentioned earlier and AlanC9 added, there's a long list of games where the fanbase was up and arms. Some critiques were listened to, others were not.

It's true, but you're misusing it badly. When a fan sues BioWare because they couldn't play an elf in DA2 like they demanded, then you can remind them it's not their game and BioWare wanted to go in a different direction with the Hawke family. When someone puts forth a well-articulated criticism, however, I see no reason why you feel the need to remind people that they aren't the boss of BioWare. An unfavorable review is not a declaration of ownership.

Netsfn1427 wrote...

And there were plenty of times where they didn't listen. Wrex was never added back as a party member, for example. They still stuck with the voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel in the original ME. Odds are this is going to be one of those times when they didn't listen.

They most certainly didn't, but I think you're forgetting the original argument:

Argument: Fans have no right to ask BioWare to compromise its artistic integrity.
Counterargument: BioWare has compromised its artistic integrity countless times in the past to appease fans.

Instances where they disregarded a fan request have no bearing on the validity of this counterargument.

You do not get to cherry pick which parts of the creative material are sacrosanct and which are for sale, and you don't get to compartmentalize a series' artistic integrity.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 23 septembre 2012 - 11:44 .

[Netsfn1427]

iakus wrote...

Congrats, you found one of my major sticking points about ME2.

And you forget, the player is supposed to have agency in the story too.  THis is Mass Effect, not Assassin's Creed.

Well you're consistent. I can respect that.

And player does have agency in ME. But it's always going to be limited. You're telling a story-heavy RPG. There's just only so much Bioware can do customizing a game for everyone's needs. Your story choices make enough of a difference to satisfy me. It seemed like it satisfied most people. It's the endings that are the debate. And while the endings are divorced from the choices you make prior, this is what Bioware always does. It's to prevent people from being locked out of the ending based on an earlier choice.

If you have a problem with that, then you have a general problem with Bioware's decision making devices. If you just have a problem that Shepard didn't live, that's valid, but still opinion.

On the contrary, I would have found it quite uplifing.  The tone In ME1 was already pretty dark, but still had a feeling of optimism.  That no situation is totally hopeless.  Even ME3 sort of had that sense (or at least you could roleplay it) right up until the Catalyst tells Shepard to pick a color and die.  Or just stand there and die, makes no difference to him.

That's your feeling. Mine was the opposite post EC. I feel like I did save the galaxy from annihilation and part of that was because everything seemed so damn bleak for most of it. But I also think my Shepard lived in destroy, so that might be the difference between us.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

There are divergent outcomes, about as divergent as you can get in a game like this. You've got three different ways to resolve the Geth/Quarian conflict. You've got three different ways to resolve the Genophage. You can have half your party members either die before the end of the game or be killed before the game even begins. You can define your experience- again, as much as you ever have in a Bioware game.  I have no idea what you expected, but how much did you believe was possible in this game?

Those examples aren't under criticism. The ending is. The genophage and geth/quarian arcs are widely praised.

I can't think of a single criticism for the other choices in the game.

The genophage plotline conveniently tosses the foundation of Wrex's cultural reform away with a replacement of 'two good leaders will make everything alright', and the Geth-Quarian conflict gets increasingly one-sided face-palm worthy as the Geth are increasingly white-washed and the Quarians are presented as not only solely responsible for the conflict but also as bone-headedly stupid?

Netsfn1427 wrote...

When the dark and light are flat even, you don't get to say that the ending has to be dark, anymore than I get to say it has to be light. ME3's ending should've delivered the tasteful mix of flavors that the rest of the game did.

That someone has to die for good things to happen for others?

Well, sadly some people don't want their Shepard to be as noble as Mordin or Legion...

You do not get to cherry pick which parts of the creative material are sacrosanct and which are for sale, and you don't get to compartmentalize a series' artistic integrity.

Sure you do. All things are relative, and the amounts of compromise also depend on the nature and scale of what's to be compromized.

[mjb203]

Sousabird wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Sousabird wrote...

destroy mother ****er have you heard of it? I don't want a super perfect sunshine and rainbows end, it's too unrealistic in a war of this magnitude so I like destroy because it's an appropriate sacrafice for the greatest victory.

Then if the option is there for the "perfect" ending, don't pick it.  Simple.

Just don't try to force the sacrifice on those who don't want it.

The thing is it would be dumb to say and they all lived happily ever after with no losses, think about how stupid the virmire decision would be if it was like Save ashley, Kaiden or both, most people would pick both and make the other two a bit pointless (assuming you didn't hate either character)

Countless sacrifices have already been made by the time Shepard reaches the Catalyst.  Losses have already been made by ALL races.  Several squadmates are already dead regardless of whether or not a "perfect" ME2 playthrough was imported.  Ash/Kaidan, Mordin (possibly, and let's face it, most likely), Wrex (possibly), Thane, Legion.  Why add on the geth and EDI in Destroy?  It is a choice that pulls you right out of the game "just because". 

You seem to not want the so called "perfect" ending just because you'd be too tempted to pick it and not have the sacrifice you deem necessary.  Congratulations on ruining other people's perception of the game.  No one here is trying to take away from your sacrificial theme, only asking Bioware why they chose to not include one with arbitrary sacrifices.

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Well you're consistent. I can respect that.

And player does have agency in ME. But it's always going to be limited. You're telling a story-heavy RPG. There's just only so much Bioware can do customizing a game for everyone's needs. Your story choices make enough of a difference to satisfy me. It seemed like it satisfied most people. It's the endings that are the debate. And while the endings are divorced from the choices you make prior, this is what Bioware always does. It's to prevent people from being locked out of the ending based on an earlier choice.

I understand that all cRPGs are going to be limited.

But "player character survival" strikes me a a staple choice that should be provided in any game that claims to offer choice

That's your feeling. Mine was the opposite post EC. I feel like I did save the galaxy from annihilation and part of that was because everything seemed so damn bleak for most of it. But I also think my Shepard lived in destroy, so that might be the difference between us.

I do not consider that easter egg in High EMS Destroy as confirmation Shepard's survival, no.  the implications of that scene are too unpleasant.

Modifié par iakus, 24 septembre 2012 - 12:00 .

[Netsfn1427]

Nightwriter wrote...

Those examples aren't under criticism. The ending is. The genophage and geth/quarian arcs are widely praised.

I can't think of a single criticism for the other choices in the game.

The ending gives you choices. Pre-EC, there were implications were that the galaxy was a different place, but it really wasn't shown or told. Post EC, it's told. Right now the complaint isn't the variety of the ending, it's that one particular scenario (Shep lives with no Synthetic death) wasn't implemented. The choices are there. But the choice that many want isn't.

ME3 isn't dark. It mixes too many colors for such generalizations. It's sobering, grave, emotional, exciting, funny, and frequently uplifting. At best -- at best -- the dark-to-light ratio is flat equal. There is a counterexample for every instance you just put forth, and several of the ones you mentioned are optional and avoidable.

When the dark and light are flat even, you don't get to say that the ending has to be dark, anymore than I get to say it has to be light. ME3's ending should've delivered the tasteful mix of flavors that the rest of the game did.

The game is bittersweet at best. It has it's moments of humor, but I wouldn't call it cheery. And the endings reflect that. There's plenty to cheer about if you survived the Reapers post EC. There's plenty to be sad about as well.

It's true, but you're misusing it badly. When a fan sues BioWare because they couldn't play an elf in DA2 like they demanded, then you can remind them it's not their game and BioWare wanted to go in a different direction with the Hawke family. When someone puts forth a well-articulated criticism, however, I see no reason why you feel the need to remind people that they aren't the boss of BioWare. An unfavorable review is not a declaration of ownership.

Cause it still comes down to a matter of choice. Bioware chose to go in this direction. They've since said that the EC is as far as they're going. Maybe they change that because they want to canonize an ending for ME4, but they're still well within their rights to say "We're done with the endings." Which they have. Multiple times.

They most certainly didn't, but I think you're forgetting the original argument:

Argument: Fans have no right to ask BioWare to compromise its artistic integrity.
Counterargument: BioWare has compromised its artistic integrity countless times in the past to appease fans.

Instances where they disregarded a fan request have no bearing on the validity of this counterargument.

You do not get to cherry pick which parts of the creative material are sacrosanct and which are for sale, and you don't get to compartmentalize a series' artistic integrity.

Oh, you can do as you please. I don't have the power to stop you from requesting the endings be changed, nor would I use it even if I did. I'll debate the merits of your argument in regards to the story. But you can keep on requesting whatever you like.

But Bioware can tell you what they consider important and what they don't. And they have with the repeated "We're done with ending content." Will it blow up in their face? Maybe. But if ME4 turns out to be a pretty good game, I suspect they'll do fine.

[mjb203]

iakus wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Well you're consistent. I can respect that.

And player does have agency in ME. But it's always going to be limited. You're telling a story-heavy RPG. There's just only so much Bioware can do customizing a game for everyone's needs. Your story choices make enough of a difference to satisfy me. It seemed like it satisfied most people. It's the endings that are the debate. And while the endings are divorced from the choices you make prior, this is what Bioware always does. It's to prevent people from being locked out of the ending based on an earlier choice.

I understand that all cRPGs are going to be limited.

But "player character survival" strikes me a a staple choice that should be provided in any game that claims to offer choice

That's your feeling. Mine was the opposite post EC. I feel like I did save the galaxy from annihilation and part of that was because everything seemed so damn bleak for most of it. But I also think my Shepard lived in destroy, so that might be the difference between us.

I do not consider that easter egg in High EMS Destroy as confirmation Shepard's survival, no.  the implications of that scene are too unpleasant.

The bolded I think this is the rub here.  I certainly agree with this statement.  In a cRPG, player character survival should be a choice.  Some players get quite attached to their characters and want to see the "happily ever after" slide.  While I can respect Bioware putting in the Shepard breathes easter egg, it is entirely too vague for many people.

I was certainly disappointed with the rachni decision from ME1 (to argue the point of player choice).  Why include it in ME1 if they are coming back in ME3 anyway?  Why not just have Shep release the queen in ME1 if they wanted to bring them back?

If they wanted the player to have choice, why not use the Klixen from ME2 in place of the rachni?  They are certainly similar enough that ravagers could either be klixen reapers or rachni reapers in that sense.

Anyway, back on point, from the moment the Catalyst was introduced, it just took me personally right out of the story.  It was a poor character right from the start that should have never happened (no plot central character should be introduced in the finale of a story, it's bad writing and a cop-out).  The arbitrary problem it is faced with has not been present in the story since ME1, and if the writers wanted to go that way, they should have left the geth as a hostile A.I. race and never introduced the geth/heretic conflict with Legion in ME2.  The arbitrary sacrifices at the end make it even worse.

[Netsfn1427]

iakus wrote...

I understand that all cRPGs are going to be limited.

But "player character survival" strikes me a a staple choice that should be provided in any game that claims to offer choice

I don't feel that way. I can appreciate that sometimes the good guy doesn't always get to go home. Wouldn't want it in every game I play, but it can work. I felt like it works in ME3. You don't. Opinion again.

I do not consider that easter egg in High EMS Destroy as confirmation Shepard's survival, no.  the implications of that scene are too unpleasant.

Just out of curiosity, if Shepard living was confirmed, rather than just strongly implied,  would that be enough for you?

[Netsfn1427]

mjb203 wrote...

Anyway, back on point, from the moment the Catalyst was introduced, it just took me personally right out of the story.  It was a poor character right from the start that should have never happened (no plot central character should be introduced in the finale of a story, it's bad writing and a cop-out).  The arbitrary problem it is faced with has not been present in the story since ME1, and if the writers wanted to go that way, they should have left the geth as a hostile A.I. race and never introduced the geth/heretic conflict with Legion in ME2.  The arbitrary sacrifices at the end make it even worse.

See I'd have gone in a different direction. I wouldn't have let you save both the Geth and Quarians. They should have made you choose, as they do with the Krogan and Salarians. (You don't get the optimal War Asset number unless you kill Eve and Wrex. I remember seeing that even though the Salarians give some support, it isn't the same number you get under that scenario.) In fact, that mission is pretty much the only time you can get through without compromising anything. It, more than anything else, stands out as not fitting with the rest of the game. And I say that despite that it's my favorite moment of the game, primarily because of Legion.

I understand why they did it; they spent the past game and a half painting the Geth as victims so that most people would want to pick them. Unfortunately, they probably couldn't have written Tali into joining someone who just exterminated her people. So they'd have forced you to choose Tali or the Geth. It's an interesting choice, but considering Tali's massive fan base, I doubt that would have gone over well.

[Ghost]

Stupid *breath* clanless.

[mjb203]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Anyway, back on point, from the moment the Catalyst was introduced, it just took me personally right out of the story.  It was a poor character right from the start that should have never happened (no plot central character should be introduced in the finale of a story, it's bad writing and a cop-out).  The arbitrary problem it is faced with has not been present in the story since ME1, and if the writers wanted to go that way, they should have left the geth as a hostile A.I. race and never introduced the geth/heretic conflict with Legion in ME2.  The arbitrary sacrifices at the end make it even worse.

See I'd have gone in a different direction. I wouldn't have let you save both the Geth and Quarians. They should have made you choose, as they do with the Krogan and Salarians. (You don't get the optimal War Asset number unless you kill Eve and Wrex. I remember seeing that even though the Salarians give some support, it isn't the same number you get under that scenario.) In fact, that mission is pretty much the only time you can get through without compromising anything. It, more than anything else, stands out as not fitting with the rest of the game. And I say that despite that it's my favorite moment of the game, primarily because of Legion.

I understand why they did it; they spent the past game and a half painting the Geth as victims so that most people would want to pick them. Unfortunately, they probably couldn't have written Tali into joining someone who just exterminated her people. So they'd have forced you to choose Tali or the Geth.  It's an interesting choice, but considering Tali's massive fan base, I doubt that would have gone over well.

Well, but then that would be Bioware caving into the demands of the fan base, right?  And from what you (and others) seem to have been getting at is that Bioware shouldn't give fans a "happily ever after" choice, despite the fact that it would still be a choice.

Please note that I'm not disagreeing with the point you brought up about choosing one or the other, I think that it would have made for a far more interesting plotline (even if I would have personally disliked it).  But they opened the can of worms at that point, which is getting the fanbase to expect the possibility of the "perfect" ending and then yanking the rug out from under them at the last second.  That is not cool.

Like I said, I would have taken the Catalyst much better had the geth stayed a hostile race, as then it's argument about synthetics always rebelling against their creators would have made some sense and had a basis in the previous stories.  And, with the addition of friendly EDI, it would have made for a far more difficult moral dilemma (i.e.: do I sacrifice the one A.I. who seems to break this trend and not take the chance, or do I take the chance that we can wipe out the geth and save EDI?).

It also doesn't help that all other A.I. rebellions that have been mentioned throughout the series seem to have happened due to Reaper meddling.  The heretic geth, the Zha'til, etc.  I'm not so sure about the A.I. in the "Metacon War" though, as Javik never really elaborated on it too much, and I haven't combed through that section of the codex yet.

Edit: bolded what I was referring to in the first sentence, and clarification.

Modifié par mjb203, 24 septembre 2012 - 12:38 .

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

iakus wrote...

I understand that all cRPGs are going to be limited.

But "player character survival" strikes me a a staple choice that should be provided in any game that claims to offer choice

I don't feel that way. I can appreciate that sometimes the good guy doesn't always get to go home. Wouldn't want it in every game I play, but it can work. I felt like it works in ME3. You don't. Opinion again.

IThat's the thing, in a game that offers choice it doesn't have to be in every game you play.  Each time you play Mass Effect, it could have been something different.  Different levels of sacrifice.  Some stories endig happilly.  Some sadly.  It's what offers replayability.  To me, at least, killing Shepard in every possible ending makes me wonder what the point of replaying at all is.  

Just out of curiosity, if Shepard living was confirmed, rather than just strongly implied,  would that be enough for you?

To replay the game?  Probably.  But it wouldn't make the endings "good" by any stretch.  Just enough that I might be able to hold my nose through how terribly EDI and the geth were treated, how laughably contrived the Catalyst is, and how railroaded the three choices are.

[Ghost]

You all steal my credit chits!

[Sousabird]

mjb203 wrote...

Sousabird wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Sousabird wrote...

destroy mother ****er have you heard of it? I don't want a super perfect sunshine and rainbows end, it's too unrealistic in a war of this magnitude so I like destroy because it's an appropriate sacrafice for the greatest victory.

Then if the option is there for the "perfect" ending, don't pick it.  Simple.

Just don't try to force the sacrifice on those who don't want it.

The thing is it would be dumb to say and they all lived happily ever after with no losses, think about how stupid the virmire decision would be if it was like Save ashley, Kaiden or both, most people would pick both and make the other two a bit pointless (assuming you didn't hate either character)

Countless sacrifices have already been made by the time Shepard reaches the Catalyst.  Losses have already been made by ALL races.  Several squadmates are already dead regardless of whether or not a "perfect" ME2 playthrough was imported.  Ash/Kaidan, Mordin (possibly, and let's face it, most likely), Wrex (possibly), Thane, Legion.  Why add on the geth and EDI in Destroy?  It is a choice that pulls you right out of the game "just because". 

You seem to not want the so called "perfect" ending just because you'd be too tempted to pick it and not have the sacrifice you deem necessary.  Congratulations on ruining other people's perception of the game.  No one here is trying to take away from your sacrificial theme, only asking Bioware why they chose to not include one with arbitrary sacrifices.

Also the fact that EDI and Geth die in destroy makes perfect sense, think about it, giant death ray to destroy all synthetics Which appears to target only stuff with reaper code, and guess what Edi and the Geth have in them.
Also you didn't answer my question, why should we be able to win without any sacrafice in the most one sided battle ever, but Ashley and Kaiden had to be a tough decision, honestly with the events of mass effect, Shepard should have had to have made a lot more tough decision then he did.

[mjb203]

Sousabird wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Sousabird wrote...

mjb203 wrote...

Sousabird wrote...

destroy mother ****er have you heard of it? I don't want a super perfect sunshine and rainbows end, it's too unrealistic in a war of this magnitude so I like destroy because it's an appropriate sacrafice for the greatest victory.

Then if the option is there for the "perfect" ending, don't pick it.  Simple.

Just don't try to force the sacrifice on those who don't want it.

The thing is it would be dumb to say and they all lived happily ever after with no losses, think about how stupid the virmire decision would be if it was like Save ashley, Kaiden or both, most people would pick both and make the other two a bit pointless (assuming you didn't hate either character)

Countless sacrifices have already been made by the time Shepard reaches the Catalyst.  Losses have already been made by ALL races.  Several squadmates are already dead regardless of whether or not a "perfect" ME2 playthrough was imported.  Ash/Kaidan, Mordin (possibly, and let's face it, most likely), Wrex (possibly), Thane, Legion.  Why add on the geth and EDI in Destroy?  It is a choice that pulls you right out of the game "just because". 

You seem to not want the so called "perfect" ending just because you'd be too tempted to pick it and not have the sacrifice you deem necessary.  Congratulations on ruining other people's perception of the game.  No one here is trying to take away from your sacrificial theme, only asking Bioware why they chose to not include one with arbitrary sacrifices.

Also the fact that EDI and Geth die in destroy makes perfect sense, think about it, giant death ray to destroy all synthetics Which appears to target only stuff with reaper code, and guess what Edi and the Geth have in them.
Also you didn't answer my question, why should we be able to win without any sacrafice in the most one sided battle ever, but Ashley and Kaiden had to be a tough decision, honestly with the events of mass effect, Shepard should have had to have made a lot more tough decision then he did.

I did answer you, there were already plenty of sacrifices:  Thane, Mordin (possibly), Wrex (possibly, in ME1 or ME3), Tali (possibly in ME3), Ash/Kaidan, Legion, either Admiral Koris or his crew, the asari unit on Thessia you cannot save, the primarch's son or the krogan colony, Jack (possibly, if the school wasn't evacuated).  All of those are sacrifices! 

And if the giant destroy beam makes sense since it targets all A.I. with Reaper code, what about the giant blue control beam?  Why doesn't it target the geth and EDI?  They still have Reaper code in them.  Or can the blue beam differentiate between Reapers and non-Reaper synthetics?  If it can, why can't the red Destroy beam?  <- This is NEVER explained in the conversation with the Catalyst, so the only reasons are headcanon ones.

Edit: added a few more sacrifices

Modifié par mjb203, 24 septembre 2012 - 12:46 .

[JPN17]

If Mass Effect was really the "player's story" as the devs said, then a best case ending should have been available to those who wanted it.

[mjb203]

JPN17 wrote...

If Mass Effect was really the "player's story" as the devs said, then a best case ending should have been available to those who wanted it.

*Krogan voice*, "I like this human, he understands!"

[Netsfn1427]

mjb203 wrote...

Well, but then that would be Bioware caving into the demands of the fan base, right?  And from what you (and others) seem to have been getting at is that Bioware shouldn't give fans a "happily ever after" choice, despite the fact that it would still be a choice.

I'm not denying they don't make decisions based on fan feedback. But there's also a difference between what they decided to do with the story prior to its release and afterwards. And if that wasn't the case and the demand was that high for further ending content, they'd release it. (ala the EC) And for the record, if that Quarian/Geth DID exist in game, I wouldn't like it if they added something to alter it so peace with both was possible.

But even if I didn't like it, I really couldn't do much about it. I'm not the one writing the game after all.

Please note that I'm not disagreeing with the point you brought up about choosing one or the other, I think that it would have made for a far more interesting plotline (even if I would have personally disliked it).  But they opened the can of worms at that point, which is getting the fanbase to expect the possibility of the "perfect" ending and then yanking the rug out from under them at the last second.  That is not cool.

I suspect the fans would have expected that type of ending because that's the type of ending that has always been available in Bioware games. But it's my suspicion. I can't verify it.

Like I said, I would have taken the Catalyst much better had the geth stayed a hostile race, as then it's argument about synthetics always rebelling against their creators would have made some sense and had a basis in the previous stories.  And, with the addition of friendly EDI, it would have made for a far more difficult moral dilemma (i.e.: do I sacrifice the one A.I. who seems to break this trend and not take the chance, or do I take the chance that we can wipe out the geth and save EDI?).

It also doesn't help that all other A.I. rebellions that have been mentioned throughout the series seem to have happened due to Reaper meddling.  The heretic geth, the Zha'til, etc.  I'm not so sure about the A.I. in the "Metacon War" though, as Javik never really elaborated on it too much, and I haven't combed through that section of the codex yet.

I think the creator/created issue is a better one, because there's even more evidence for that in game. Beyond the Synthethic/Organic, you'd have had the Krogan/Salarians, the Protheans and the Rachni (and possibly the Leviathans and the Rachni), the Leviathans and their thralls etc. But given the explanations given, the Catalyst has a focus only on the Synthethic/Organic conflict is acceptable, in my opinion.

[Netsfn1427]

iakus wrote...

IThat's the thing, in a game that offers choice it doesn't have to be in every game you play.  Each time you play Mass Effect, it could have been something different.  Different levels of sacrifice.  Some stories endig happilly.  Some sadly.  It's what offers replayability.  To me, at least, killing Shepard in every possible ending makes me wonder what the point of replaying at all is. 

The replayability is the state of the galaxy. Depending on your choices, the place ends up pretty different.

To replay the game?  Probably.  But it wouldn't make the endings "good" by any stretch.  Just enough that I might be able to hold my nose through how terribly EDI and the geth were treated, how laughably contrived the Catalyst is, and how railroaded the three choices are.

I just can't get worked up about choices being contrived, because I was so surprised to have a choice actually be worth something at the end of the game.(Galaxy wise, and Shepard wise, since I do feel Shepard ends up in three different scenarios)  I was annoyed when I learned you didn't actually lose anything by choosing the save the Council in ME1, despite all the warnings that you would. I don't mind choices, but I hate choices that are just lies to get you to tempt you to take the other option. The ME1 ending choice, the Redcliffe "choice" in DA:O are the ones that stand out the most in that regard.

Neither one ruins my experience when I play the game. I just shake my head in a bit of disgust when I hear the character tell me the negative ramifications, know there really aren't any in game.