If that. I think Thane is the only one that is necessarily tragic, in that sense.
I've done playthroughs with a lot of deaths though --- I don't recommend it , simply because it makes the Citadel party look lame. Not because of bittersweetness and tragedy... but simple aesthetics and lack of "fun".
I did the Citadel dlc with only Steve, Joker, Liara, edi, Samantha and James at the party. Excellent
That isn't very wise or intelligent of a Shepard.
If you wanted your Shepard to be smart, he'd realize that there was no other way, and that instead of wasting his time calling it an idiotic situation and trying to find the 'honorable' way, he'd turn the situation to his advantage and do what needed to be done.
Agreed x1000. Either play the hand you've been dealt, or stand on your self-righteous moral principles, pick refuse and let every civilization in the the galaxy burn for your stubborness, but don't sit there and whinge that you don't get to win unconditionally without any compromises. The writers are under no obligation to provide you with a fairytale ending, and I, for one, am glad they didn't.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I did the Citadel dlc with only Steve, Joker, Liara, edi, Samantha and James at the party. Excellent
Spoiler
Lol.. Vega.. standing in the back alone. Probably farted.
The game is about the end of the world, you're facing an enemy that has never known defeat, possesses unimaginable power, and has laid waste to countless civilizations before yours.
Point being? It's not like Bioware hasn't let us topple gods before.
Sure people that made the "right choices" should get some better outcomes (and they did with genophage and rannoch) but really what are you expecting here? That saving the Dirty Dozen in ME2 would alter the course of a galaxy wide conflict? It was always going to be a bloodbath.
I was expecting to be able to defeat the Reapers without adopting their methods.
Just because some people want it or think they are working towards it doesn't mean they should get it.
Just you, then?
Agreed x1000. Either play the hand you've been dealt, or stand on your self-righteous moral principles, pick refuse and let every civilization in the the galaxy burn for your stubborness, but don't sit there and whinge that you don't get to win unconditionally without any compromises. The writers are under no obligation to provide you with a fairytale ending, and I, for one, am glad they didn't.
"I'm happy so stfu"
Yeah never heard that one before 
Oh for the love of....a happy ending doesn't automatically make it saccharine or cliche. Just as a sad super depressing, End of Evangelion ending we were given doesn't automatically equate to deep or profound. How many effing times do I have to repeat this.(although yes you're right regardless in your point) Also, I agree with the TC. He is getting way too much flak for this.
Everyone keeps spouting the same old nonsense and it's laughable.
"It would have been stupid to get a fairy tale ending."
Oh really? Stupid? You mean more stupid than what we already got? MORE STUPID THAN THIS?
SpoilerThe only thing worse than people who are so rigid-minded into thinking only one kind of ending is appropriate to a series that is about CHOICES are people who claim super sad endings are somehow automatically better than super happy endings. It's the dumbest most fallacious logic ever. I have yet to come across a single argument in this thread that rebukes the OP's original suggestion. Bioware SHOULD do it. But they won't. Because they're stubborn. And because they have no idea what the word humility means.
Agree completely. Hardly like a little clarity or closure for Shep would equate to a fairytale ending when billions are dead.
Guest_ruul_*
Most remastered games, movies, etc, usually keep all the original content, and just redo the textures and pre-rendered movies in HD. Kind of like remastering an old TV show from DVD to Blu-ray. Same exact show and content, just better resolution. Nothing changed though.
The scene where the Crucible docks with the Citadel is one such example of a pre-rendered movie. Maybe throw in an HD audio track for the music. They don't completely change the experience. I expect the remastered version will have the same ending, choices, and all the DLC included.
There's a difference between remastered, and reimagined.
An ending which allows you to defeat the Reapers on your own terms, despite the game not giving you the option, is a reimagined version.
An ending which expands on scenes (Shepard in the rubble) or removes certain parts (Godchild, Crucible plot), despite the original game or DLC not doing this is a reimagined version.
A remastered version is much like my example I used in the first paragraph, and is more likely what will happen.
I just want to ask people who absolutely cannot accept an ending (doesn't even necessarily need to refer to only Bioware titles) what they would do?
Let's assume you create a story and some people would hate on the ending - would you really change it? Just to succumb to some people so they can feel better? Completely ditch the ambitions with your intended ending and sacrifice your artistic integrity? Would you?
In all honesty, I for one would never listen to any of these people and betray my own personal story just because some people don't like it. Accepting ideas for future stories? Yes. But I'd not go back and change my ending to please someone. Learn from mistakes (if you wanna call it that), carry on and maybe throw in both a happy and non-happy end next time, if it fits the game's theme 
Oh for the love of....a happy ending doesn't automatically make it saccharine or cliche. Just as a sad super depressing, End of Evangelion ending we were given doesn't automatically equate to deep or profound. How many effing times do I have to repeat this.(although yes you're right regardless in your point) Also, I agree with the TC. He is getting way too much flak for this.
Everyone keeps spouting the same old nonsense and it's laughable.
"It would have been stupid to get a fairy tale ending."
Oh really? Stupid? You mean more stupid than what we already got? MORE STUPID THAN THIS?
SpoilerThe only thing worse than people who are so rigid-minded into thinking only one kind of ending is appropriate to a series that is about CHOICES are people who claim super sad endings are somehow automatically better than super happy endings. It's the dumbest most fallacious logic ever. I have yet to come across a single argument in this thread that rebukes the OP's original suggestion. Bioware SHOULD do it. But they won't. Because they're stubborn. And because they have no idea what the word humility means.
ME3's ending was nothing like Evangelion.
And that's actually an ending that makes you think, while confusing the hell out of you and utterly scarring you to the core while doing so.
As well, you not recognizing a good argument does not mean that a good argument doesn't exist. It just means that you're too stubborn to have humility to say that you don't know or don't want to know a good argument.
Wow, selfish much?
Getting an ending he enjoys, and expressing satisfaction that one that would not fit (despite others shilling) =/= selfish.
anyone wondering if we'll get a real ending in the remastered trilogy?
And that's fine. I have no problem with a heroic Sacrifice being a possible outcome.
But virtually all outcomes?
And the only one that's not leaves Shepard a faceless torso buried in rubble and written off as dead by most of the galaxy anyway? Why does dead Shepard get explicitly spelled out scenes, but live Shepard just get that?
I see your point, and maybe they could have done some more with the post-Destroy thing. All I can guess is that they didn't want to establish Destroy as the correct ending because it's the only one Shep lives through. I dunno. I was jut speaking for myself, I do get why people are frustrated. I just happen not to be. Well, not about that aspect of the ending anyway.
Also, and I don't know if this applies to your play style, but I've said before that I think a 'Shep dies' ending only really flows with certain playthroughs. With a renegade or renegon playthrough sacrifice is at least a recurring theme. In a Paragon playthrough Shep pretty much skates along without having to sacrifice much of anything - Krogan become peaceful, Quarians and Geth hold hands and skip off into the sunset, blah blah. So Shep dying at the end of all that must be pretty jarring. I never got that far because pure paraShep was just insufferable.
I see your point, and maybe they could have done some more with the post-Destroy thing. All I can guess is that they didn't want to establish Destroy as the correct ending because it's the only one Shep lives through. I dunno. I was jut speaking for myself, I do get why people are frustrated. I just happen not to be. Well, not about that aspect of the ending anyway.
Also, and I don't know if this applies to your play style, but I've said before that I think a 'Shep dies' ending only really flows with certain playthroughs. With a renegade or renegon playthrough sacrifice is at least a recurring theme. In a Paragon playthrough Shep pretty much skates along without having to sacrifice much of anything - Krogan become peaceful, Quarians and Geth hold hands and skip off into the sunset, blah blah. So Shep dying at the end of all that must be pretty jarring. I never got that far because pure paraShep was just insufferable.
In an ending where the damage to the relays is worst, where Geth and EDI die too, i don't see how doing jusitce to Shep lives with closure and clarification would establish it to be the correct ending. If anything it would be counterbalancing the imbalance that exists versus the other endings.
anyone wondering if we'll get a real ending in the remastered trilogy?
We sure will.
It's called the endings we've had for almost 3 years now.
I was expecting to be able to defeat the Reapers without adopting their methods.
1) You're not adopting their methods.
2) There is nothing that you have that could have done any damage to the Reapers besides the Crucible. It's the hand you made for yourself, it's the hand that you use.
3) What you want is unreasonable.
If you have one happy ending among others it invalidates all the other ending options. Sacrifice becomes meaningless if there is a way out of it. If all choices but one are imperfect, then choices don't mean anything anymore. I rather have the imperfect endings where the victory always comes at a price. The choice should be about the price you are willing to pay. I don't know if it was neccessary to kill Shepard for that, but honestly, it's a fictional character and his/her story is over. Why do people care that much?
Also, and I don't know if this applies to your play style, but I've said before that I think a 'Shep dies' ending only really flows with certain playthroughs. With a renegade or renegon playthrough sacrifice is at least a recurring theme. In a Paragon playthrough Shep pretty much skates along without having to sacrifice much of anything - Krogan become peaceful, Quarians and Geth hold hands and skip off into the sunset, blah blah. So Shep dying at the end of all that must be pretty jarring. I never got that far because pure paraShep was just insufferable.
A renegade Shepard can get everyone alive through the Suicide Mission, depending on choices made. A paragon Shepard can get Wrex killed in ME1, leading a the very least, to a civil war among the krogan. And if both Eve and Wrex are dead, sabotaging the genophage becomes the paragon choice.
And both paragon and renegade characters can create peace on Rannoch. Again, provided certain chocies are made, which are not necessarily paragon or renegade (in fact, I'd sat renegades have it easier, as rewriting the geth in ME2 rather than destroying them is points against peace)
If you have one happy ending among others it invalidates all the other ending options. Sacrifice becomes meaningless if there is a way out of it. If all choices but one are imperfect, then choices don't mean anything anymore. I rather have the imperfect endings where the victory always comes at a price. The choice should be about the price you are willing to pay. I don't know if it was neccessary to kill Shepard for that, but honestly, it's a fictional character and his/her story is over. Why do people care that much?
No it doesn't. There are actually people who like the Heroic Sacrifice trope. There are even people who prefer the Warden dies in DAO. Heck I don't even see the Dark Ritual as the "best outcome" myself.
And just because people don't want to be forced to watch Shepard die doesn't mean there should be no price. As you said, it should be about what price you are willing to pay. Yet for some reason, the price is the same for Shepard in almost every permutation of the endings. How does that work?
Why do people care? Because it's our character. And Bioware took Shepard away from us in the final moments of the game. Because "art" Because they forgot that they were making a game, not a tv show. We are not supposed to be passive observers of our own game.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
If you have one happy ending among others it invalidates all the other ending options. Sacrifice becomes meaningless if there is a way out of it. If all choices but one are imperfect, then choices don't mean anything anymore. I rather have the imperfect endings where the victory always comes at a price. The choice should be about the price you are willing to pay. I don't know if it was neccessary to kill Shepard for that, but honestly, it's a fictional character and his/her story is over. Why do people care that much?
Sacrifice isn't meaningless for the people who pick them though. They do it because they value Control and Synthesis and care about longterm solutions. To them this outweighs one life.
Destroy already has downsides, without including Shepard's death: Chaos and unpredictability. Those other choices are for people who like to organize their environment. You get a good idea on how the future will play out. But destroy takes chances with everything (and not just synthetics). People still won't get along post-destroy, and synthetics will probably be a nuisance eventually. Nor will there be green space magic that makes people less "dissimilar".. Nor Robot Overlords who kick all of their asses into shape. People will still have to solve problems the hard way. And if Shepard manages to live in this, he/she will still have a mundane life (and probably a dangerous life, depending on your choices. Like what if he sabotaged the Genophage cure? Then he'd always be looking over his shoulder. It's much easier to get away with if you were a Reaper. Heh...).
Why do people care? Because it's our character. And Bioware took Shepard away from us in the final moments of the game. Because "art" Because they forgot that they were making a game, not a tv show. We are not supposed to be passive observers of our own game.
The series wouldn't exist without us being passive observers to Shepard sacrificing him/herself for Kaidan or Ashley on Eden Prime, and it's faaaaaar from the only time throughout the series.
I'd be the first to say that Mass Effect would make for a really interesting alternate story if Ashley/Kaidan could have gotten the beacon message.
But I still think there's a world of difference between "receiving a message from an alien artifact" and "complete disintegration"
But that might just be me splitting hairs 
No it doesn't. There are actually people who like the Heroic Sacrifice trope. There are even people who prefer the Warden dies in DAO. Heck I don't even see the Dark Ritual as the "best outcome" myself.
It definitely does for me. It is completely immersion breaking to let your character choose a heroic sacrifice that is avoidable. I'd literally have to put my fingers in my ears and pretend the perfect option isn't there. I can do that to a certain degree, but it sucks honestly. So don't pretend that a happy ending doesn't take anything away from people who don't like it. It certainly does.
And I don`t play DAO, so I can't comment on it. But maybe Fallout 3 is a good comparison (if you played it). Do you really think that many people chose their Lone Wanderer to activate the purifier and suffer/die from radiation once they had the option to let Fawkes or Charon do it (both immune to radiation)? I haven't heard of someone who did.
And just because people don't want to be forced to watch Shepard die doesn't mean there should be no price. As you said, it should be about what price you are willing to pay. Yet for some reason, the price is the same for Shepard in almost every permutation of the endings. How does that work?
Not really. In Synthesis Shepard dies, but every being is now carrying a part of him. Something for the spiritual people, I guess. In control Shepard dies, but his thoughts and memories continue, for people who believe in such things (there certainly are). In Destroy, Shepard probably lives. I can see that those options all suck for you, but they're not the same.
It definitely does for me. It is completely immersion breaking to let your character choose a heroic sacrifice that is avoidable. I'd literally have to put my fingers in my ears and pretend the perfect option isn't there. I can do that to a certain degree, but it sucks honestly. So don't pretend that a happy ending doesn't take anything away from people who don't like it. It certainly does.
And I don`t play DAO, so I can't comment on it. But maybe Fallout 3 is a good comparison (if you played it). Do you really think that many people chose their Lone Wanderer to activate the purifier and suffer/die from radiation once they had the option to let Fawkes or Charon do it (both immune to radiation)? I haven't heard of someone who did.
Then I really feel sorry for you. Because just because a character has the option to live, doesn't make it "perfect"
I did play Fallout 3, but not until after Broken Steel came out. And yeah, sending a radiation-proof companion into the chamber full of lethal radiation only makes sense. But what if you don't have one? What if your companion is Butch, for example? Or Star Paladin Cross?
but I guess it's moot, since while Broken Steel added the option to send a companion in, it also retconned the lethality of the radiation, allowing for post campaign play.
Not really. In Synthesis Shepard dies, but every being is now carrying a part of him. Something for the spiritual people, I guess. In control Shepard dies, but his thoughts and memories continue, for people who believe in such things (there certainly are). In Destroy, Shepard probably lives. I can see that those options all suck for you, but they're not the same.
Yeah, see, it's that "probably" thing that's the sticking point (at least as far as Shepard's survival. The endings have far more, and imo, deeper problems)
Shepard definitely dies in all other outcomes, but maybe survives in one.
Then I really feel sorry for you. Because just because a character has the option to live, doesn't make it "perfect"
Oh, you don't have to feel sorry for me, I more or less got what I wanted. I should rather feel sorry for you if you're so obsessed with a fictional character's death.
Oh, you don't have to feel sorry for me, I more or less got what I wanted. I should rather feel sorry for you if you're so obsessed with a fictional character's death.
Way to trivialize.
Must I repeat YET AGAIN that Shepard's death (or "ray of hope") is only one of my problems with the ending?
Retour en haut
