Ieldra2 wrote...
George Costanza wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
@George Constanza:
Which ending makes sense and which doesn't is very much a subjective matter.
Plot issues are plot issues. It's not subjective, really. If Darth Vader had walked in at the end of Mass Effect 3 and lightsabred Harbinger in half and won the war for the galaxy it wouldn't make sense. That's not subjective. It just doesn't make sense. Extreme example, I know. But just pointing it out.
There's issues with all three of the endings. There's things that don't tally up. But Destroy brings the least of these issues, and Synthesis, probably, the most. You could try and explain them perhaps in a future game, or with DLC, but with the information we've got, and the constraints of the lore we've been given, some things about the endings, objectively, just don't make sense. Subjectively, you can allow that to slide because they entertain you, or you think the philosophical implications outweigh slight plot inconsistencies - that's fine. But we can't ignore that some things just don't make sense, and some endings are affected more than others.
Let's say it this way: whether or not an ending's inconsistencies have enough weight to reject it as the basis for a sequel is very much a subjective matter. Some of the inconsistencies themselves are also a subjective matter.
As I see it, the EC ending scenarios themselves (everything described after you make the choice) are all consistent and very much acceptable. The problem lies in how they to come to be and in certain parts of the exposition. Which means, any of them can serve as the basis for a sequel, and the sequel would automatically answer some of the unanswered questions.
Let's. How much you're willing to look the other way on is all down to you, as I said in that other post. If you went through the history of stories told, I would hazard a guess that more often than not a story features issues, inconsistencies, holes, etc. Sometimes we don't notice, sometimes we do and we're okay with it, sometimes they're dealbreakers - i.e. they cripple the story.
With Mass Effect, there's a lot I'm prepared to turn a blind eye to for the sake of enjoying the game. I'm a Metal Gear Solid fan, so I'm used to it. With the Extended Cut, I can get through ME3 now and enjoy it, albeit acknowledging that it's still a somewhat lacklustre ending, for me. I think that Bioware could quite conceivably make a sequel using any of the endings, but I do think that some endings would require more explanation to make sense than others.
How much you're willing to put up with aside, I think that when you look at the endings, they each bring different baggage with them, of which Destroy brings the least. It's just the nature of the ending. Destroy has always been the mission, it's what you're told the Crucible is designed for, and it does its job. There's still issues in the story there, mainly down to how ludicrous a contraption the Crucible is and all the questions and baggage that brings with it. But the idea itself doesn't generate too many loose ends.
The other two ends are a little stickier for me. Control adds a couple more strange issues, and Synthesis probably more on top of that. To me, that's just the way it is. It's the nature of more complex ideas - with Destroy, you're literally just blowing **** up. It's a no brainer. Control and Synthesis are both more complex ideas, and so predictably, they both bring with them more issues.
From a personal standpoint, I'd pick Destroy because it's the ending that causes me the least amount of headaches, and because it's the most popular fan choice.
Retour en haut
