That's a fair formulation of it, and also helps explain why so many people say "your choices don't matter" when, objectively, that's a laughable statement. People feel as if their choices don't matter, which is different, but still a problem for the game.
Relevant:
At the end of the day people won't remember what you said or did, they will remember how you made them feel.
Maya Angelou
Relevant:
At the end of the day people won't remember what you said or did, they will remember how you made them feel.
Maya Angelou
Relevant in more ways than one. RIP.
One does not simply... walk away from the endings. Unfortunately, no one can be told, how bad they are. You have to see it for yourself.
Unfortunately, this also goes for how much worse they could have been.
Consider for a moment that the writer of ME1's mental cipher, telepathic plant, hopper Saren and forced-death decisions was leaning towards bulling his way through "techno-science magic" in order to make Shepard the villain (and the Reapers more literal good guys) and force a choice between sacrificing humanity or the galaxy dying a slow death.
Also consider that the endings in Mass Effect have all had color swaps, repeated cutscenes, exhibited little to no relationship with choices throughout the rest of the games, and showed at least partial avoidance of established lore and common sense (the conduit's functionality and Saren's resurrection, "absorb the essence of organics" and the Baby Reaper) along with a railroaded decision imposed on the player without the availability to choose another, better option.
Bonus consideration!
Other ideas dropped earlier in the series included series hero Shepard turning out to be an alien, Karpyshyn continued.
"Some of the ideas were a little bit wacky and a little bit crazy. At one point we thought that maybe Shepard could be an alien but didn't know it. But we then thought that might be a little too close to [Knights of the Old Republic character] Revan."
Most intriguingly of all, Karpyshyn mentioned a discarded plot idea for the beginning of Mass Effect 2 that sounds similar to what Walters and the Mass Effect 3 team eventually chose for the trilogy's ending (er, spoilers):
"There was some ideas that maybe Shepard gets his essence transferred into some kind of machine, becoming a cyborg and becoming a bridge between synthetics and organics - which is a theme that does play up in the game," Karpyshyn concluded. "At one point we thought, maybe that's how he survives into Mass Effect 2."
It needed more polish, but it beats the considered alternatives and---all points considering ( 
)---fits the same template as the previous two games.
Unfortunately, this also goes for how much worse they could have been.
Consider for a moment that the writer of ME1's mental cipher, telepathic plant, hopper Saren and forced-death decisions was leaning towards bulling his way through "techno-science magic" in order to make Shepard the villain (and the Reapers more literal good guys) and force a choice between sacrificing humanity or the galaxy dying a slow death.
Also consider that the endings in Mass Effect have all had color swaps, repeated cutscenes, exhibited little to no relationship with choices throughout the rest of the games, and shown at least partial avoidance of established lore and common sense (the conduit's functionality and Saren's resurrection, "absorb the essence of organics" and the Baby Reaper) along with a railroaded decision imposed on the player without the availability to choose another, better option.
Bonus consideration!
It needed more polish, but it beats the considered alternatives and---all points considering---fits the same template as the previous two games.
I disagree with your assertion that the considered alternatives are inherently worse. They were never fleshed out enough to make them even appear in any way. All we have is plot points and supposed events that might have happened. I for one would have been interested to see how they turned out.
I disagree with your assertion that the considered alternatives are inherently worse. They were never fleshed out enough to make them even appear in any way. All we have is plot points and supposed events that might have happened. I for one would have been interested to see how they turned out.
I disagree with your counter-assertion that the considered alternatives weren't inherently worse, namely because of what it does with the story's protagonist and its equal, if not elevated, reliance on space magic for a dramatic final twist.
I disagree with your assertion that the considered alternatives are inherently worse. They were never fleshed out enough to make them even appear in any way. All we have is plot points and supposed events that might have happened. I for one would have been interested to see how they turned out.
in addition, even assuming these ideas are in fact worse than what we got:
Avoiding a misstep earlier doesn't somehow make a future mistep better. It's still a screwup, just a different one.
in addition, even assuming these ideas are in fact worse than what we got:
Avoiding a misstep earlier doesn't somehow make a future mistep better. It's still a screwup, just a different one.
Perhaps, but this kind of screwy ending was always in the cards for Mass Effect, originating with the series' initial writer.
Tweaking the ideas did avoid further missteps that appear to be in the series' inherent DNA, though, namely retaining some of Shepard's "heroism" and giving the player the ability to at least partly dismiss the Reapers as bad guys in the end.
I've seen all the endings. The first time I finished the game I was pretty much ecstatic. (picked Synthesis btw) I'm not lying when I say I loved the Catalyst, it's not a troll move to engage people like.. eh, you. The Reapers finally, for the first time in the game, made sense. They finally had a beginning... and an end if you so wished. I can't fathom that people would rather have had the Reapers just be the Reapers, with no reason as to why they exist and where they came from. Or prefered the Dark Energy plot, which was just awful.
Aren't you still playing the game?
And you felt guilt for saving the galaxy? What?
How many people here would rather have GlaDOS be the catalyst intstead of the Star Brat?
My first reaction to the ending, Destroy was the first I got, was simply "Meh! Is that it?"
Then I reloaded an auto-save and watched the other two. Again I had a "Meh! Is that it?" reaction.
I was told by the Catalyst that my choices would have wildly different repercussions but I was shown three near identical endings.
More than anything about the endings that still remains my biggest irritation. Don't tell me things are going to be different and then show me that they aren't. That is why I like the Extended Cut, it made the endings far more unique from each other than before.
Killed the Geth, Edi and killed most of my friends and stranded them on a world not fit for them so yeah I felt a whole lot of guilt. It left me hallowed at the end of the day.
Are we talking about pre or post-EC?
How many people here would rather have GlaDOS be the catalyst intstead of the Star Brat?
More seriously: I'd rather have Avina myself, with a few pieces of exposition to make that possible.
But I'd rather have the kid than the more directly manipulative forms of the Virmire fatality, Anderson, or someone else close to Shepard.
Killed the Geth, Edi and killed most of my friends and stranded them on a world not fit for them so yeah I felt a whole lot of guilt. It left me hallowed at the end of the day.
Ask Garrus, your current lover, what he thinks of this. (that quote about humans wanting to save everybody and Turians realizing they've won with just one man left standing)
Also, that's what you get for picking the wrong option; destroy.
Well, they retconned the stranding (thank goodness). As for the geth and EDI, that's war. If Synthesis and Control are philosophically unacceptable to you (understandable), then that's the price you pay. You absolutely can order an attack where your allies will be killed as long as their atr no less destructive means available. Considering the Reapers are going to kill everyone, Destroy is proportionate.Killed the Geth, Edi and killed most of my friends and stranded them on a world not fit for them so yeah I felt a whole lot of guilt. It left me hallowed at the end of the day.
My first playthrough I picked destroy and never regretted it. All my other playthroughs, I've picked destroy.
Both but also pre EC. I still felt horrible after both that's not good writing. Hell, even in control I felt awful for becoming big brother. I'm libertarian so it didn't mesh well for me haha.Are we talking about pre or post-EC?
I've seen all the endings. The first time I finished the game I was pretty much ecstatic. (picked Synthesis btw) I'm not lying when I say I loved the Catalyst, it's not a troll move to engage people like.. eh, you. The Reapers finally, for the first time in the game, made sense. They finally had a beginning... and an end if you so wished. I can't fathom that people would rather have had the Reapers just be the Reapers, with no reason as to why they exist and where they came from. Or prefered the Dark Energy plot, which was just awful.
I never said liked the Dark Energy plot. I'm only broadly familiar with it, and what I do know does seem less than inspired. Kill Reapers, doom the universe in the long run due to global warming dark energy buildup or allow everyone to be harvested, was it? That does sounds about as bad as the "synthetic-organic DNA meld". Or "an ancient weapon built by every cycle" for that matter.
But I don't really care about the Reapers' origins and motivations. No, that's not exactly right. I prefer them left at least a little bit ambiguous. I shall once again quote Vigil - "In the end, what does it matter? Your survival depends on stopping them - not on understanding them".
Wait, are you saying you liked the original endings? Did you play with EC for the first time?
Plus, "it's not a troll move to engage people like [me]" and "I picked synthesis BTW" don't work well together
Seriously though. You liked what you liked and that's fine (incomprehensible for me but fine all the same, if genetic rape via space magic on the entire galaxy is your thing... yikes). I'll stick to my erasing "ME3" out of existence, ok?
Unfortunately, this also goes for how much worse they could have been.
Consider for a moment that the writer of ME1's mental cipher, telepathic plant, hopper Saren and forced-death decisions was leaning towards bulling his way through "techno-science magic" in order to make Shepard the villain (and the Reapers more literal good guys) and force a choice between sacrificing humanity or the galaxy dying a slow death.
Also consider that the endings in Mass Effect have all had color swaps, repeated cutscenes, exhibited little to no relationship with choices throughout the rest of the games, and showed at least partial avoidance of established lore and common sense (the conduit's functionality and Saren's resurrection, "absorb the essence of organics" and the Baby Reaper) along with a railroaded decision imposed on the player without the availability to choose another, better option.
Bonus consideration!
It needed more polish, but it beats the considered alternatives and---all points considering (
OK. I get that. But does that mean I have to like what was attempted to convey, because some of the scrapped ideas were or could have potentially been worse or equally bad? Sorry, no.
Also, Karpyshyn was the one who introduced altered Cerberus which you so despise (and which I agree was a retcon, one I didn't mind but a retcon still) into the series, and who is (directly or indirectly) guilty of removing player's choice from the story (Human Councillor, in Retribution) and apparently does not keep track of whether a character knows about Reapers or not (Kahlee Sanders, Retribution again). So it's not like he's the ME Series' patron saint who does absolutely everything right.
My first playthrough I picked destroy and never regretted it. All my other playthroughs, I've picked destroy.
I'd consider control under different circumstances, but not in the context of what BioWare presented (and without meta-gaming).
Destroyer, all the time.
More seriously: I'd rather have Avina myself, with a few pieces of exposition to make that possible.
But I'd rather have the kid than the more directly manipulative forms of the Virmire fatality, Anderson, or someone else close to Shepard.
I view the kid as the same as the Virmire loss, Anderscum, etc.
I think it should have been some abstract entity with no discernible form, similar to Vigil.
I'd consider control under different circumstances, but not in the context of what BioWare presented (and without meta-gaming).
Destroyer, all the time.
I pick destroy for my own reasons, so that I can use the Reaper remains to enact control over the galaxy and bring it to our own form of synthesis.
I never said liked the Dark Energy plot. I'm only broadly familiar with it, and what I do know does seem less than inspired. Kill Reapers, doom the universe in the long run due to
global warmingdark energy buildup or allow everyone to be harvested, was it? That does sounds about as bad as the "synthetic-organic DNA meld". Or "an ancient weapon built by every cycle" for that matter.
I didn't said you did, I said some people did, and seem to prefer it over what we got.
I also don't understand what the hell your problem is with the Crucible. It's organics' greatest achievement, it escaped the cycles.
But I don't really care about the Reapers' origins and motivations. No, that's not exactly right. I prefer them left at least a little bit ambiguous. I shall once again quote Vigil - "In the end, what does it matter? Your survival depends on stopping them - not on understanding them".
I do. Take insects, for instance. Annoying little bugs (pun intented). But if we exterminate them all, we're in big trouble. The same could be possible for the Reapers, and it is according to the Catalyst.
Wait, are you saying you liked the original endings? Did you play with EC for the first time?
I got the game well after it was released. I saw the original endings before though, because I heard about the shitstorm that ensued. I didn't get what all the fuss was about. Yes, they were bleak, but I don't mind that at all.
If you're still arguing the pre-EC endings though, I think we're done here. They got 'fixed', they shouldn't be an issue anymore.
Plus, "it's not a troll move to engage people like [me]" and "I picked synthesis BTW" don't work well together
Just stating my first choice. Nowadays I control and headcanon I reinstate the cycles after giving the current species a chance and seeing them fail, which I believe they will.
Seriously though. You liked what you liked and that's fine (incomprehensible for me but fine all the same, if genetic rape via space magic on the entire galaxy is your thing... yikes). I'll stick to my erasing "ME3" out of existence, ok?
Funny. 250+ posts about something that doesn't exist. There's pills for that, you know?
It should've been GlaDOS. She's just doing her tests. Seeing how civilization develops, wipes the slate clean, then changes the variables.
I view the kid as the same as the Virmire loss, Anderscum, etc.
I think it should have been some abstract entity with no discernible form, similar to Vigil.
He's not, though, and you're not intended to look at the kid as a character on that same level. He represents innocents dying in the war; the others represent something far more personal.
I stand by Avina being a really unique way of capping the trilogy off, ever observing the cycles.
Retour en haut
