iakus wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
In my experience, there are two common fan-design philosophies for how endings/choices should go: that choices should be 'choose your outcome', in which all aspects of an outcome can be chosen for a sliding-scale of good/bad, and 'balanced', in which outcomes are roughly equivalent in the sense that all have tradeoffs and costs that the player can't avoid. An example of the first is often when there's the super-option third way, like Geth-Quarian peace which lets you side with both without consequence. An example of the second would be the more binary Krogan-Salarian delimma of the Genophage arc.
I, personally, feel that when any one option is evidentily superior to the rest, it weakens the choice: this especially occurs when the 'superior' option is reasonable to the point that there's little reason not to take it: if you could have Geth-Quarian peace, why wouldn't you? There stops being equally valid choices, and it starts being 'one good choice and some bad choices.' When you stop thinking about a choice, it ceases to be a good one.
The Rannoch arc is one of those rare gems in ME3 where your choices actually mattered (like Tuchanka). Not just in ME3 but in ME2 as well. It's more than a matter of red/blue text. Sell Legion to Cerberus? Peace is impossible. Tali dead? Peace is impossible. Rewrite the Heretics? Don't save Admiral Koris? Peace might be possible, but it's harder. It's all based on choice. And some people choose to roleplay out "bad" choices. If you reall ywant an optimal outcome, you can have it. But you have to work for it. And that includes importing a game with both Tali and Legion alive.
I agree that the choices mattered, but I don't think the context of format of them was particularly good in the setup or execution. Too many of the prerequisite choices rested on obviously 'right' answers. Tali and Legion loyalty in ME2, for example: getting characters killed was always a mark of failure, and the moral decision for selling Legion was pretty much a no-brainer of a non-equal choice: on one hand, a few credits. On another, a new squadmate with exclusive content.
Rannoch and the Geth/Quarians had some pieces I've no hesitation in calling excellent. Admiral Koris is actually one of them (his plea to save his crew strikes a cord with me, regardless of the bigger picture), and despite the bizaar P/R handling of the mission the Heretic Geth virus was a well-done piece of developing the Geth both as non-organic morality (something sadly lessened with time) and a complicated decision.
It's more of the context the choices exist in that gives me disatisfaction. My displeasure with the Geth sympathy treatment is hardly a secret, but my biggest grievence is with how, well, petty the continuing conflict is, and how basic it is to stop. The narrative and writing basically put all the onus on a hundreds-of-years conflict on one side, and turned a story of mutual mis-understanding and fear into a case of an idiot bullying an innocent... and all that's required to end the war and spark an inspiring, optimistic peace setting is for the bully to stop.
Maybe my relations with people who've been stuck in the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere are showing through, but conflicts that sustain themselves for generations aren't like that. To me, Rannoch's conclusion doesn't only lack a plausible context: it actually
trivializes the sort of sacrifices and difficulties it takes to make peace. I don't take personal offense at what's clearly meant to be a happy moment, but I'm not moved by it either.
It really is an issue with the story writing and not the choices (which, as far as consequences go, I approve). I feel there should have been a more grounded presentation of the issue and resolution. The Geth should have been called out, directly and with development, for not reaching outside their borders to try and to signal their willingness for peace and build ties with other species: the Geth isolation was their own choice, and their lack of allies besides the Reaper was a problem of their own creation. And while it was certainly fair that the Quarians needed to stop, you know, trying to kill the Geth, it could have been done with a great deal more measure and reason behind their views: rather than have Qwib-Qwib be the one mature, sensible Quarian not named Tali, Garrel could have been an advocate of the Quarians fears that a co-existence wouldn't be possible (we destroy them or they destroy us, like they murdered the Quarians left on the homeworld), and Xen could have been something less than a 'she must be
crazy!' character we were not-subtly supposed to hate.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem in the resolution (for me) is that it lacks an actual compromise on the part of both factions. While it is, as far as player choices, 'earned', the participants haven't: I feel a real peace should have involved the Geth coming to terms with their shortcomings and making their own meaningful effort to recognize why they are feared and hated. Instead, the Geth becoming the absolute dominant power on Rannoch, and soon begin running the very suits of the Quarians. That went a bit far.
My personal proposal for that alternative solution? That the Geth evacuate Rannoch and leave it for the Quarians, avoiding the initial fight, and using the buffer of the planet as a demonstration of their willingness to co-operate and avoid a conflict. The Geth still keep their Reaper Code (meaning the Quarians can't kill them), but they take a powerfully symbolic move that demonstrates they recognize and value the Creator's concerns (returning to the homeworld safely). Maybe an embassy is left on the planet, or in the system. Maybe the Geth extend an offer to help the Quarians move in.
But before a unification that provides one near-total power over the other, a detente that proves co-existence is possible.
When the game is literally keeping score (in the form of EMS) it makes sense there there would be "optimal" outcomes. Heck we already have them with High EMS versions of Detroy and Control, and with Synthesis (the semicanon "best" outcome) Yet they are still too bleak for a number of people. The hope fro EC was that somehow this would be lightened. And while it does confirm you don't kill the galaxy with your choice, that's really the only lightening it did. And Bioware still doesn't understand why this is a problem?
I can't speak for Bioware, but I can see why I wouldn't see it as a problem (something I feel is wrong) as opposed to something I might avoid in the future (an unnecessary distraction). It would come down to a fundamental disagreement about what it is and what it should be, but that doesn't mean I don't understand your views. It just would mean I don't prioritize them.
MEHEM is essentially what people wanted "optimal Destroy" to be. Everyone who's dead up until that point is still dead. But Shepard is confirmed to keep his life (and perhaps, soul) at the end. No MEHEM doesn't provide any choices, but thast's mainly due to technical limitations in modding. the "chocie" is in choosing to install it.
The thing about projects like MEHEM is that they have no actual end-point in their reach. MEHEM is the sort of design idea that only leaves everyone who's dead up to that point dead because, well, technical limitations. If MEHEM re-created the whole game, it would most likely all be MEHEM.
And if all the choices are unhappy, how is that any less a one-sided choice? It's just a different side.
I agree. I wouldn't agree that all the ME3 endings are unhappy, but I do agree that there's a difference between having all decisions be balanced and having all decisions be bad. One of the worst fiction series I've had the displeasure of watching (far, far worse than ME3 by legions) was one in which the moral ambiguity of war amounted to 'genocidal racists fight eachother.'
Declare any ending in DAo "the best" and I can pretty much guarantee you'll find people who disagree. Heck the best ending is likely to vary based on how you play individual Wardens. That's variety.
Oh, I'm fairly sure you could find people who would disagree if you called any ending in ME3 the best.
See now you're talking!
Oh, don't get me started...
I think we agree on the general principles (except what constitutes happy and sad), but not the executions... but then, we haven't tried laying down concrete alternatives.
Shall I dig out my old Dark Energy ending-rewrite in which the choices were between destroying the galaxy as we know it figuratively, or destroying the galaxy as we know it literally? (But hey, everyone survived...)
And Bioware thought ending slides would be enough. And for that they deserve harsh criticism.
I don't think that's quite right. I've no doubt they understood their solution wouldn't please everyone, and I don't think they were foolish enough to try. If they had done MEHEM, IT theory would have kicked up a storm on account to it being Reaper propoganda. If they had done IT,
I'd have kicked up a storm.
The Ending Slides were probably brought in for a specific field of complaint, and that was for the post-ending closure that many people complained about: what the effects of various choices, the end-states of various characters, etc. Those were things that, just as in DAO, slides are well made for, and they did solve a lot of those problems for a good number of people. I didn't think it was an issue as such, and even I was pleasantly pleased for the most part.
(Except by nuclear-family Krogan slide. There isn't an angry smilie mad enough for that.)
Retour en haut
