AlanC9 wrote...
Giantdeathrobot wrote..
I think the A, B, C thing refers more to the whole ''here's your 3 endings, pick one'' structure, like the one that was also made in Deus Ex Human Revolution. It's an arbitrary label, sure, but then one could argue all labels are arbitrary. It was used to demonstrate that, rather than logical following from the player's previous decisions (like in, say, Fallout New Vegas), depended almost entirely on which of the 3 paths you took at the very end.
I guess this makes the argument a little clearer. But why is it presumptively better to have less choice in the endgame?
It all depends on how those choices are implemented.
I took New Vegas as an example. Not idly, since its bare-bones structure is similar to ME3's; gather allies/supplies/equipment for the big showdown. You have little choice at the end-game; at best, your skills can ensure you don't have to fight the end boss, or change a handful of things. The thing is, you made all the relevant choices
before. You picked a side in the war. You recruited X or Y ally (or killed them off). You ensure this or that asset would be usable (or not). You helped that settlement solve its problems so it fares better in the coming conflict (or you left it a lifeless desert). You see all that play out during the ending mission, either with your own eyes or via radio. Afterwards, you have detailled slides giving you the fate of each and every community and important character, based on your choices.
Did you have many choices at the last minute of the game? No. Did it make for a more fulfilling ending than ME3? Hell yes, immensely so. Am I holding ME3 to a overly high standard? I think not, since the series was sold on the premise that your choices (all of 'em) mattered. In the end, the only thing that does matter is which shoe-horned bullcrap you accept as the least horrible outcome, with some variance according to an arbitrary number that tracks your
performance, rather than your actual
choices, across three games (but mostly one, the third).
Another game I mentionned, Deus Ex Human Revolution, did this better methinks. It explains beforehand the ramifications of each ending, with a final monologue that slightly differs based on your behavior during the game. It also doesn't change the conflict at the last bloody minute. It ultimately didn't have much of an incidence on the series, which ending you picked, but that was fully justified by the fact that it was a prequel and they couldn't go crazy with changing established cannon via giving too many details. ME3 has no such excuse, and did its choices far worse than a game that isin't even an RPG. And Deus Ex had more choices, 4.
More choices doesn't make it better, or worse. It's how you present, implement and explain the consequence of them that matters. And ME3's ending fails horribly in that regard. So long as the Catalyst and its associated lunacy stayed, as well as the total lack of player agency from the choices before the ending, whenever the final sequence has 3 choices or 10 doesn't change much. It's still very badly designed. I mean, cripes, one of the endings (Destroy) can potentially even override one of the previous ''important'' choices (Rannoch)! How in the world is that good storytelling in an RPG, especially given how clumsily the death of the Geth is shoe-horned?
TLDR: More doesn't equal good. It's not what you do, it's how you do it. ME3 did it badly.
Modifié par Giantdeathrobot, 18 octobre 2013 - 04:25 .
Retour en haut
