I know, it's been a few days...
AndyAK79 wrote...
On this last statement I wholeheartedly agree. My obsession with language is a consequence of my proffesion and I'm happy to admit it isn't always a virtue. Sincere apologies for any offense taken.
Proper discussion then:
Your point about control not being supported earlier in the game is fair, although it can be excused to some degree by pointing out that Shepards objection is to the Reapers being under the control of cerberus. The actual nature of the control option offered could not be anticipated by Shepard, and I would argue that choosing it at the end is dramatically fitting because it shows Shepards willing to make a choice he finds distasteful for the greater good.
I don't feel that having three options for sacrifice undermines its meaningfulness and I don't undestand why you do. In each of the options the galaxy is saved at asubstantial cost. If you view the options there is no 'right' option and no 'wrong' option. Each player's choice has to be weighed and measured, and is equally valid (with the arguable exception of refuse). Each option brings victory, each option brings sacrifice. Can you really argue that this is not the case? and can you argue that that this would be the case if one ending was better than the others?
The fact that all three boil down to sacrifice of the protagonist, as well as a portion of their allies who are targeted galaxy-wide for badly explored reasons in the case of Red somewhat makes each option look much like the other.
The mechanisms of triggering the Crucible being less than believeable also do not quite help making this decision too 'authentic', if you will. Hence, for some it is not so much 'victory' that matters at the end but the manner in which it was achieved, as well as some of the consequences being touted, themselves questionable, remaining somewhat nebulous instead of being made front and center being the issue - someone here mentioned the endings being quite 'happy' no matter which is picked in the case of the colour-coded ones, and I have to agree there.
Coming up with alternatives to that, frankly, is one of the few more productive exercises that final scenario presents. I'll try and do that for Red, for argument's sake and to hear your opinion on whether that would still be an outright 'best' choice.
Now of all finales Red is the most malleable one of the lot through EMS, which does give hoarding those WA some meaning as a sum-total, to a point where the PC does come through, somehow, despite little in the way of cathartic pay-off beyond that. The other downside, 'collateral damage', is something reasonably well set up in the low EMS-version of it. As the similarity of the Crucible's capability to the then unknown repercussions of the first atomic bomb is invoked in the game , a WMD known to not distinguish based on any more specific criterion what it affects in its radius, it poses the question why this was not made the primary down-side of it: raw, collateral damage. It's a convincing enough dilemma due to Sol-system, thus Earth affected no matter what being a result of the circumstance of the Citadel having been towed there, rather than a wave of energy that - somehow - is accurate enough to distinguish between code, supposedly, but cannot keep the not-too small Reapers in its sights.
And that would be bound to affect Shepards' decision one way or the other, as it is their race's homeplanet, arguably more so than potentially losing AI-allies - which would only be EDI in the case of those who already had the geth destroyed above Rannoch.
What I proposed before, the effect being somewhat more 'restrained' at higher EMS, yet still at the very least leaving Sol and surrounding systems to bear the brunt of the detonation, could also pose the question of whether every last Reaper was wiped out throughout the galaxy. The large majority of them may have been destroyed as they rallied to Earth for the final engagement with the allied fleets, but it would leave yet another downside to Red: the Reapers defeated, yet not entirely exterminated.
That covers an alternate approach to Red's 'aftermath', not yet its aforementioned absurd activation. Nor the last-minute 'exposition' of it through the Catalyst, with which quite a few people, me included, got problems with.
I also feel that comparing ME3 to other games (Bioware and otherwise) is not partcularly helpful. The narrative and style of those games is different anough that their resolutions are not readilly interchangeable; they are dependent on what has gone before. This extends to some extent to other Mass Effect games as well as Dragon Age or KOTOR; The narrative thrust of the games is different enough to warrant a different conclusion. I also believe that repetition leads to stagnation. The games are stronger for not simply repeating what has gone before; it allows the games to stand on their own strengths.
The thing is that quite a number of those involved with the development of those earlier games by BW had a hand in that of ME3 as well. Mr Walters, for example, was among the writers for JE, and as I said, despite the gravity of the decision at that game's end it worked. Hence, comparing ME3 to other games' narrative, especially those in-house is valid and useful to deduce why there wasn't near as much discontent among players with those. ME3, for one, did invoke a certain 'DA:O-in-space'-vibe with its rallying the galaxy against the all-powerful 'dragon'/Reapers. Not too horrible an example to follow, given DA:O's success.
And whether ME3's finale was all that innovative is also way out there. It was cried from the rooftops by some that it is a 'rip-off' of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. After finishing that game recently, I am hard-pressed not to see certain inspiration primarily for the EC-finale therein - other than lacking a definite 'destroy'-equivalent, and the PC's role in that game's end being primarily that of a 'messenger'.
I hope that doesn't spoil too much about that game, I'd recommend giving it a shot at any rate if you haven't already. What it further did was:
1) relegate exposition of the final choice to a character who was established well in advance and proved her trustworthiness
2) the entire game being about the following question, when it came down to it: human augmentation, yay or nay? Showing the advantages and risks to society, with the player in a place to give their final statement on that in the end
Especially the first I view as the crux of ME3's exposition-'device' rather than character that is the 'Child'/'Catalyst'. Its supposed motivation for what it is doing being something one could already make a very poignant statement on at the end of the Rannoch-arc also smacked of redundancy, at that generally well received arc's expense. Ignoring the oversimplification of the thing's mandate via certains memes, it is again not terribly hard to think of better alternatives. Such as simply preventing the rise of any serious contenders to the Reapers' absolute position within the galaxy, or even being concerned with
any civilization, organic or machine, developing self-destructive potential, or a combination of the two.
As is, with what we have, you'll have to pardon me when I am feeling somewhat more at home when I don't have to put up with the awkwardly placed, overly long monologue of that thing at the very end, at the expense of pacing and my tolerance of, in my opinion, badly written and executed VO. A matter of taste, of course, so naturally your mileage may vary.
Retour en haut
