1106 réponses à ce sujet

[Gothfather]

For me the ending, doesn't even have to be endings as quantity doesn't equal quality, has to be well crafted. I have thought that for the most part bioware has made great endings for their games.

 

Kotor - Great ending as either a Sith lord or the prodigal knight ending. Which was all predicated on just one choice in the game. yet the ending worked. The ending was satisfying and a great conclusion to the best star wars game in the industry.

 

ME - Great ending even knowing the Shepard wasn't dead at the end as the crew franticly looked for Shepard in the end fit the theme of the story. Was it an over used trope sure but tropes get over used because they are effective not because they aren't. While a bunch of tropes can't be just dumped together to make a good story, a good story can and will have a bunch of tropes in it.

 

DA:O - Again really just one ending with tweaks to it based on your choices in game. it was a good way to end the game. It was satisfying to see what became of our heroes, companions and Pc alike.

 

DA2 - only two things were redeemable in this game good character writing and the ending fit the story told. i enjoyed that one of the two archvillains in the game turned out to be your companion. (To all those Anders lovers I have only this to say, anyone that kills thousands to force a war between the templars and the mages isn't a good guy. He clearly states he had the kill the revered mother because she was reasonable. how can a person be a good guy when they kill people who are to reasonable and not an extremist?. oh and I think Anders was one of the best characters bioware has ever written but he was no good guy.) Terrible game but one of bioware better stories in my opinion. Game play ruined DA2.

 

Me2 - Was a weak story but it end tied up the story and set the stage for Me3 which is exactly what I want the second part of a trilogy to do. Ending wise the only complaint I have was that the Suicide mission was written so it was possible to complete it cost free. That was a design failing on Bioware's part not a failure of the ending.

 

DA:I - I enjoyed the ending for DA:I the fight with cory was anticlimactic but that is because the story was weak, don't make your all powerful enemy lose in the first part of your game. The attack on haven was such a great moment in the game and so decisive it really should have been reserved for near the end of the game. If Cory had sent a minor raid that killed some people and shown the vulnerability of haven that makes the inquisition realise they can't defend it so they abandoned it, then it would have served the story better. We gain skyhold but cory's army is still intact and we don't have this overwhelming feeling that cory is just a punching bag because we ALWAYS win. We should have lost a companion at haven make lose part of our experience. The reveal of Solas during the epilogue  was a great tease and fitting for the series about a world vs any one protagonist. it left me feeling like I learned something significant about the world so I was satisfied even if cory was a let down.

 

Me3 - i think this was the only game where they created a BAD ending. I not claiming that all their other games were perfect which I think I have shown in the above post) but I feel that the flaws to their other games were not due to the endings. Me3 had other flaws than their ending and I would argue that the main issue with the game wasn't that he endings themselves were flawed so much as the game could not provide closure because of the two separated mutually exclusive narratives being told. We got an ending for one of the narratives but were left handing in the other. Which means the endings failed to deliver closure or a satisfying feeling. And since a trilogy is suppose to provide us with closure in the third instalment and we didn't get that Me3's endings failed.

 

i really don't think Bioware needs to work on their endings, they had one failure with an ending, it happened. Get over it people. One point of failure does not a pattern make. We as a community need to get over ourselves and suck it up, No one is perfect. I'd much rather bioware work on this idea that loss and failure in a game are bad storytelling. they go out of their way to limit loss to preferential characters which is a wide departure from Me1. In me3 all our losses where from ex members of the crew. i would like Bioware to start writing more mature stories and by mature i don't mean  romances or sex. We are adults we don't have to have everything be perfect with rainbows and unicorns.

[Daemul]

ITT:People who don't know what a figure of speech is

 

On topic:I really don't give a **** how the new series ends, as long as the game is fun to play like ME3 was they can kill off everyone in the most horrible ways imaginable for all I care. 

[Dieb]

Like with DAI; let me see all the companions first; including the romance options, whether they're attractive enough to suit my very credible usual standards, as well as what their blood types are.

 

We can narrow down the ending once we've got that - in order of course to then  move on to decide upon which actors from Game of Thrones are going to be the two voices for each respective gender, and how much of it we're going to permit Mac "DareDevil" Walters to write.

 

P.S.: Just so that no one can claim this particular idea for Chapter II / Mission 4 before me:

 

[LightningSamus]

Whether the ending is good or not is a subjective.

No matter the ending, people will still complain about it.
I wouldn't worry about it, wait until you get to the ending and judge for yourself.

[NKnight7]

I'm just hoping for an ending that will bring a good amount of closure since even though I didn't hate ME3's ending it just wasn't complete to me. An ending with a good amount of closure and maybe some teases for a possible sequel is what I want.

[goishen]

Well, as much as my distaste for her channel, she does have some really good interviews.   gamermd83 had an interview with Freddie Prinze Jr and in that interview, he stated that the reason that he believed that the ME3 got cut was because A) they released a hard release date, and they ran out of time and/or money.  He freely states that he has no inside info on the workings of the company, but it's just a feeling he got when working on the voice of Vega.  And yes, I watched all hour and forty five minutes of the interview.  

 

Now, I'm not sure if that's the case or not.  But if that is the case, then hopefully BioWare has learned from it and not to set any hard release dates. 

 

Myself?  I was fine with the ending.  Why?  Because when it all comes to an end, when it all comes crashing down around you...   It's just going to be you.  I don't wanna get too philosophical on you, but we all die alone.  Shep did that, but helped the galaxy in the process. 

[CaIIisto]

ME6?

Do we even know that Andromeda is another trilogy?

Either way, whenever it ends, I'd just like to feel that what I'd done throughout the game actually counted for something. I don't want to lose agency in the final 5 minutes, and I don't want an ambiguous end for my character. And of course, an ending that doesn't seem as though it's been conjured up in the last 5 minutes on the back of a napkin.....

[Tinxa]

I would like to see Bioware slowly drop the idea that every ending has to enable the same worldstate for the next game and that every choice has to be given a nod in the next game. Especially if the games have different PCs. I really don't understand why people see this as "ruining" their choices. Because of this the PC can never become the evil emperor or ruin the world or make any sort of drastic changes in the setting... no, the PC can just save the galaxy in a nice way or in a not so nice way. Personally I would rather have more choices with the ending in a single game and I wouldn't be bothered in the least, if they just chose one outcome for the next game *shrug*

I would still have the character who is an evil emperor and an enjoyable playthrough, even if they say "Okay the world was saved by your hero and all the races still exist" in the next game.

 

I feel DA is already becoming unmanageable because of this. All heroes have to disappear and in DA2 Hawke couldn't even influence the outcome. Even so they have to make some choices like having Leliana be alive. Does it really matter if she has some flimsy dialogue "Yes, the warden killed me but I survived, only I don't remember how" instead of just saying that the warden didn't kill her? I think that this fixation on choices carrying over, just ends up with them making meaningless and restrictive options and outcomes in the individual games. Sure you can give Isabela to the Arishok but she escapes anyway completely unharmed. Sure you can kill the Rachni but they will just get cloned. ME had to do it because the same PC carried over but I'd rater have separate games set in ME universe with lots of different options from now on. DAO had the most satisfying and varied ending imo. Partly I think because they weren't so obsessed with setting the sequels and how choices would carry over but more focused on making an interesting standalone game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Do the reapers have to darken the sky?

Not relevant to my point.

Truth is binary. An assertion is either true or it is false - there's no middle ground. If they weren't bringing enough Reapers such that their numbers would darken the sky, they were lying.

If I have 300 capital ships plus destroyers, processing ships and troop transport ships, I'm sure they would harvest the galaxy fairly easily. They enter the sol system. Shutoff the relay cutting off any reinforcements for the organics. Destroy the military in the sol system. Do the same thing for each system then go back and harvest each system without interference.

Exactly. Which is why I said the "darken the sky" remark was propaganda. They were trying to intimidate us.

[Dantriges]

But they didn't say "our numbers can darken the sky of every world." They said "our numbers will darken the sky of every world." But when they came, they didn't bring enough Reapers to do that.

It was blatant falsehood.

 

Ah, what Sovereign meant was that usually the Reapers put a huge semiopaque object between the star and the planet.   And it´s able to change it´s transparency. After the Reapers installed it, they set it on a countdown with an even darker number appearing on the surface of the object. When it reaches zero, the whole thing only let´s a bit of light through and the Reapers appear for the harvest. They established it, so that people know when it´s their turn, to get ready. Funny, that the people never did line up properly and still ran away screaming instead of being nice organics and do their part in making sure the harvest progresses smoothly.

 

Sovereign meant it literally , not his fault that the Reapers decided to leave that stuff in darkspace. They were just a bit too unwieldy to take them on the long journey. 

[Mathias]

Whether the ending is good or not is a subjective.

No matter the ending, people will still complain about it.
I wouldn't worry about it, wait until you get to the ending and judge for yourself.

 

I'm gonna rustle some jimmies with this, but a damn good argument can be made as to why ME3's ending, from an academic point of view, is objectively poorly written. I'm not about to make that argument because that is a can of worms I'm not prepared enough or care enough to open. Whether or not somebody "likes" the ending, is something I won't understand but at the end of the day that's cool with me. But liking something, and thinking something is good are two different things, and thinking ME3 was legitimately well written is just crazy talk.

 

 

You don't have to Major in Literature, study Creative Writing, or even have read a book in your entire life, to know that you don't do the things that they did with that ending.

[SlottsMachine]

Damn. I thought this was going be another MGS spam thread. Tracking The End was best mission tho. 

[themikefest]

Not relevant to my point.

Relevant or not, you said our numbers will darken the sky. Were you expecting to see that? If so, why? Because 1 reaper said that?
 

Truth is binary. An assertion is either true or it is false - there's no middle ground. If they weren't bringing enough Reapers such that their numbers would darken the sky, they were lying.

What number would be enough for you for them to darken the sky? Were they lying? The one that was lying, if you want to call it lying, was Sovereign. There was no they
 

Exactly. Which is why I said the "darken the sky" remark was propaganda. They were trying to intimidate us.

Us? I don't know about you, but I wasn't intimidated.

[Mathias]

Us? I don't know about you, but I wasn't intimidated.

 

I was. I honestly got chills the first time I met Sovereign. That scene was so brilliantly and carefully crafted, you can tell the writers put a lot of time and effort into making that conversation have as much impact as it did. That whole conversation was basically you staring into the Abyss, and the Abyss stared right back as if you were an ant. I love it.

[AlanC9]

I'm gonna rustle some jimmies with this, but a damn good argument can be made as to why ME3's ending, from an academic point of view, is objectively poorly written. I'm not about to make that argument because that is a can of worms I'm not prepared enough or care enough to open. Whether or not somebody "likes" the ending, is something I won't understand but at the end of the day that's cool with me. But liking something, and thinking something is good are two different things, and thinking ME3 was legitimately well written is just crazy talk.
 
 
You don't have to Major in Literature, study Creative Writing, or even have read a book in your entire life, to know that you don't do the things that they did with that ending.

If you don't want to open a can of worms, talking about what's in the can isn't the way.

[AlanC9]

I was. I honestly got chills the first time I met Sovereign. That scene was so brilliantly and carefully crafted, you can tell the writers put a lot of time and effort into making that conversation have as much impact as it did. That whole conversation was basically you staring into the Abyss, and the Abyss stared right back as if you were an ant. I love it.

I thought the scene was well-written, but what I took away was that Sovereign was hiding something. Turns out that was actually Drew K.

Intimidated? Not really. Talking to a Reaper didn't make the situation any worse than it already was.

[Mathias]

If you don't want to open a can of worms, talking about what's in the can isn't the way.

 

No I just state my feelings on it, and if someone wants to challenge them, in this particular case I say "No thank you." 

 

If this were 2-3 years ago when the anger was still fresh in my system, that'd be a different story.

[Ahglock]

No I just state my feelings on it, and if someone wants to challenge them, in this particular case I say "No thank you."

If this were 2-3 years ago when the anger was still fresh in my system, that'd be a different story.

I'm not getting into your specific point but I agree with the general idea. Liking something does not mean it's good. My go to example is the movie Commando. I freaking love it, it is perhaps my favorite movie. I jokingly refer to it as the citizen Kane of my generation, what ctz did for cinematography commando did for one liners. But i objectively recognize that it is not a quality movie in artistic sense.

[AlanC9]

No I just state my feelings on it, and if someone wants to challenge them, in this particular case I say "No thank you." 
 
If this were 2-3 years ago when the anger was still fresh in my system, that'd be a different story.

That wasn't my point. You've now opened up the point for everyone who wants to take issue with it even if you don't want to talk about it.

Of course, we could just keep talking about how we're not talking about it instead of talking about it.

[Mathias]

That wasn't my point. You've now opened up the point for everyone who wants to take issue with it even if you don't want to talk about it.
 

Welp, hope they have fun.

 

 

I'm not getting into your specific point but I agree with the general idea. Liking something does not mean it's good. My go to example is the movie Commando. I freaking love it, it is perhaps my favorite movie. I jokingly refer to it as the citizen Kane of my generation, what ctz did for cinematography commando did for one liners. But i objectively recognize that it is not a quality movie in artistic sense.

 

Completely agree on that. 

[KaiserShep]

I thought the scene was well-written, but what I took away was that Sovereign was hiding something. Turns out that was actually Drew K.

 

Imagine if the ghostly figure of the Catalyst was actually modeled after Drew K. It would meta so hard. 

[Natureguy85]

Frankly I loved the trilogy's ending and felt it favored story over choice, which I am fine with. A massive reason for why I love ME so much is the sci-fi aspect; in any case, in the end, I did have a choice, and if it didn't matter so much I wouldn't care which I picked. But I pick "destroy" every time. 

 

I found the notion that synthetics and non-synthetics will forever be against one another to be very profound. It's a topic that sci-fi has touched upon for years upon years; take Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep or even in Star Trek you have the Borg, or Data versus Lal versus Lore. 

 

We know the much maligned "Star Child" was basically just a VI created to keep the cycles on track. The reapers are the philosophy of another race, and they have also probably evolved beyond that philosophy as well. Then again I don't feel it was ever established if a reaper is a "person" (they claim to be "each a nation") and I love that. The game posed the question, "What is life" and "What does it mean to be alive?" and then never answered it because it's not an answerable question.

 

I want more profound sci-fi like that. I'm not interested in a tidy little ending with epilogue slides a la Dragon Age. Those endings imo sum up why DA has always been inferior to ME because it's just too meta. It knows it's a game and we know we can affect each and every outcome. A DA game is never going to blow me away the way an ME game has. it's too concerned with mimicking a tabletop game to tell a really good story.

 

This post is internally inconsistent. The ending stepped away from sci-fi and went into philosophy and mysticism. It didn't favor story over choice; it gave you choices that made no sense and violated the themes of the series.

 

Synthetics and Organics fighting wasn't the theme of the series. It wasn't even ultimately the premise of the Catalyst, which went further. It seemed like it was the core of Mass Effect until we learned that the Reapers don't like the Geth either. Then Mass Effect 2 told us Reapers were cyborgs.

 

The theme of "what is alive" was central to the Rannoch arc and EDI, but not the whole series. If they wanted to make that central, they needed to do a lot more with Shepard's death and resurrection than nothing.

 

It's fine if you don't like how "tidy" Dragon Age Origins ends up, but that was a classic adventure story and was done well for what it was. Mass Effect was not.

 

 

I still hold to this day that if they had put a satisfying happy ending on ME3, that despite all of the plot holes, we wouldn't have been picking the game to death like we have. It was the bad ending that caused us to pick it to death. The ME3 experience was ruined by 5 minutes.

 

Satisfying and happy are not automatically linked. The problem was that the end did not fit the story. I could have been satisfied with a bittersweet ending, personally. Even Shepard's death would have been fine if presented well. The Ultimate Sacrifice ending of Dragon Age Origins was great.

 

 

I don't remember Morrowind well enough.

 

Certainly in Oblivion I actively avoided following the instructions given at the beginning.  I just escaped from prison, and when I ask my captor why I was there, he avoided the question.  And then he tells me to seek out the captain of his guard?  I don't think so.  It seemed like a trap, so I treated it as such.

 

I wasn't concerned with a trap as much as I was thinking "I'm a free man. Why serve the people that imprisoned me?"

 

But we don't have to do them all. This is much easier with the silent protagonist, because we don't have to deal with the Warden saying things without our consent.

 

Which main plot missions can you skip?

 

Comes down to the perspective from which you're approaching the game, I think. The first time I played the Dragon Age tabletop game, I somehow didn't even stumble upon the main story path. It's harder, though possible, to do that in a CRPG.

 

In any case, I believe what Sylvius means is that you can close the book on a particular character at any point, if you so choose. I believe he treats certain TPKs as definitive, and regards those playthroughs over as well.

 

I guess it's just using head canon to make an ME2 "Shepard dies" type ending. He's taking a Schrodinger's Cat approach that the story isn't written until you get there while others see it more like a "Choose your own adventure" where the pages are all written, but you get to pick to which page you turn.

 

I get that you can do that from play perspective by headcanoning a lot (sandbox games being easiest to headcanon, linear one's being hardest like ME and DA), but I don't think that means that you can call ending optional. That would mean that ending of everything is optional, you can shut the tv middle of movie as well and headcanon that the movie ended there ^^;

I did that with Garden State. It should have ended on the plane, dammit.

 

Also, what a bad movie.

 

Source Code should have ended at the freeze frame. It was a great moment and I was pissed when it continued. It made no sense and had some ethical problems.

 

Sure. Doesn't everyone agree that the lack of a happy ending was the real problem?

 

No

 

There are two points I'd really like to see but they are more general in nature and are not really related to any specific story:

 

1) Ideally, I'd like for any developer, not only BW, to write at least a rough outline of the ending first, maybe even before thinking of the beginning of the story. I find it helps immensely to know from the beginning where the story should go and it helps to create a cohesive and coherent plot. It would even be great if they would create the ending fairly early and really polish it's development in terms of level design and art. I find that very often, game endings are rushed and slapped on at the very end of the development cycle, which is why so often they are disconnected and anticlimactic. This often retroactively sours my impression of the entire game. IMO, the ending of a game has to be it's shining moment. I get that there are statistics that show that a lot of players never get that far but I guess I expect of developers who want to call themselves artists that they have enough respect for their own product to make that effort regardless. Again, this is not specific to BW or Mass Effect but a general expectation - or maybe rather an idealistic wish - of mine.

 

2) If there are multiple endings, they should organically flow from the entire plot and not be separated by one specific final choice. Mass Effect 3 was not very good at this and another really bad example is the Deus Ex series (especially human revolution). Both series have you make countless decisions throughout the game but the endings are purely defined by one very specific 3-4 way choice at the end (in DX:HR, it's even friggin' buttons). This inevitably poses the question what all that previous stuff was actually all about (granted, ME was much more in depth with it's plot decisions throughout the game). One might look at The Witcher 3 here for inspiration. Here was one of the rare games that didn't tie the ending to one particular decisions but took a couple of carefully chosen variables from throughout the entire game and used those to determine the outcome. While more complicated to script properly, this makes an ending feel much more naturally emerging from the entirety of the story and really gives the player the illusion of choice and consequence because - just like in real life - many factors can impact on the defining final event that then can serve as a cathartic moment that nicely wraps the entire plot into one coherent picture. Books and movies do it all the time and I think the interactive nature of games offers a lot of potential here that so far is only rarely tapped.

 

This can't be said enough. Any real writer knows they have to have the basic outline of where the story is going before they start anything else. Things can change along the way, of course, but you need that plan to start. And an ending needs to fit the story it ends. Mass Effect 3's did not.

 

Wow, what a nostalgia trip this thread is.  We've started with pointless discussion of the ending, and now we're moving on to Indoctrination theory blather!

 

What did he say that had to do with IT?

[Natureguy85]

Sorry, but no, there isn't anything "brilliant" about giving the Reapers an inherent and crippling structural flaw that they had millions billions of years, the vast majority of which wasn't spent actually engaged in the cycles, to fix and no Plan B in place to avert it. The holes involved with the Reapers just showing up in a weakened state, ripe for defeat, reeks of propping up ME2's pathetic "Ah yes, Reapers" universe reboot and its devotion to being a Captain Space Therapist simulator. 

 

I'm glad ME3 perpetuated most of their prowess to the bittersweet end. 

It was just a bad idea to make the Reapers as powerful as they were. I mean it was really cool and interesting at the time, but once you start getting down to the point where the heroes have to actually confront these things, there's not a lot of wiggle room there. The proper way to do it is to establish a way throughout your story for the good guys to gain the power to confront the bad guys. That's where Mass Effect 2 was suppose to come in. Istead the writers went on a complete tangent, and when ME3 came out they had written themselves into a corner.

 

It's actually quite amazing when you start thinking about it more and more, how the writers over at Bioware didn't have a real plan for this.

 

 

On the one hand you're right, but on the other hand there's something to be said for them not having a contingency plan because they thought they were so powerful they didn't need one. Or because they think they are "the pinnacle of evolution", they never improve themselves over time. Neither of these are needed though. They just needed to have the galaxy's technological advances from Sovereign matter more. They codex claims they put the Thanix cannon on fighters, for crying out loud.  As Mathias said, making them still so unbeatable where we know from the start that we have no chance was a mistake. I could see it working where they put up a fight but the Reapers slowly push them back showing that they are still superior.

 

Mass Effect 1 already started to lay down the foundation towards defeating the Reapers conventionally. There was an implication that despite how powerful the Reapers are, and they are very powerful, their greatest advantage was crippling each cycle with an overwhelming surprise attack. That and in each cycle there is normally one dominant species that rules over the rest.

 

Our cycle is the first cycle to ever receive real warning about The Reapers, and we stood at the end of ME1 not only delaying the Reaper invasion by god knows how many years, but we stood united, and each race brought something unique to the table. That right golden opportunity right there should've been the jumping off point that led to our cycle developing a way to prepare and put up a real fight. But then Mass Effect 2 retconned that and so we got the infamous "Ah yes Reapers..." line, and we found out the galaxy had been doing nothing about the Reapers for two years. We didn't have the means to fight against the Reapers conventionally in Mass Effect 1, but that's where Mass Effect 2 should've come in.

 

Instead we got one of the worst and most literal examples of deus ex machina I've ever seen in ficition. 

 

Yeah it bothered me that they showed us many ways the current cycle was different yet used none of them in the outcome.

 

One. Reaper.
 

It's not even the most literal example of a DEM in Mass Effect.

Well, except for the whole Reaper-shrugging-off-the-entire-fleet's-attack thing.

You mean like in ME2 with the thanix cannon that popped collector shields and hulls like nothing when put on a tiny ass ship? Oh wait defunct reapers might give them some kind of tech edge in this cycle.

 

 

That was before getting their hands on Reaper technology. That should have jumped their technology forward.

 

 

You continue to adhere to your rigid (and arbitrary) definition.
You're not going to see my point as long as you keep rejecting my core premise.

The story isn't written by BioWare. They create the world, but it's you who creates the story, and you create a different one with each playthrough.

 

Somewhat. You change certain details but you don't really change the main, overall plot.

 

I'm not disputing that there's one canonical ending. I'm disputing that it's at all relevant to any individual playthrough.

When you play a new character, you're initiating a new and unique instance of the game's universe. Nothing that doesn't actually appear on screen needs to happen in it. The minor NPCs could have completely different backstories - unless you actually learn of them in-game, why would they necessarily be consistent across playthroughs?

I'm taking advantage of the inherent ambiguity of unfinished narratives. A book you don't finish could end a variety of ways, and if you don't actually read to the end, who's to say it doesn't? Each playthrough works the same way.

You're letting your playthroughs be limited by your own metagame knowledge. Why?

 

I would say that if a tree fell in the forest, the fact that I didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't fall. The book I didn't finish could end in a variety of ways as far as I know, but it does end a particular way. The words are on the page. Now you have more room for your view in a game where there are some blanks on the pages, but most of the story is still written out.

 

I like what the Turians did against the reapers in that battle. What I would've had them do  is to continue there attack like they did to destroy those capital ships instead of helping defend their planet

 

If I was, I would've included a mission to darkspace

 

Well if we remember Mass Effect, the Reapers can apparently turn very quickly so I don't know how well getting behind would really work. Then again, Mass Effect 3 forgot a lot from Mass Effect.

 

I've been pushing the Dark Space idea since ME1. Ever since Vigil mentioned the idea that they are vulnerable in their dormant state, I thought the series would head to attacking them there, maybe destroying some mothership or something. The second biggest reveal in Mass Effect was that the Citadel itself was a Mass Relay... and that never mattered ever again. The first being that Sovereign was a sentient creature, not merely a ship.

[Natureguy85]

Where in the detached vastness of darkspace, the domain of countless mecha-Cthulhu with superior firepower, are we supposedly going? What do we hope to accomplish there, if we can actually overcome the endless demands of the traveling? Or are we just gonna show up on their doorstep?

Actually, I think you could contrive something here. Use the Citadel relay to get there. Sure, it requires grossly inadequate Reaper security, but anyone who makes it to the end of ME1 has proven that he can swallow that.

How about a hilarious anticlimax where dozens of sleeping Reapers are picked off without knowing what hit them?

 

As above, the idea that the Citadel is a relay was a huge plot reveal in Mass Effect and should have mattered. If the writers made Vigil correct that the Reapers are sleeping there, they would be vulnerable. There could be a few awake and additional tension would be created by time pressure as the rest of the Reapers, a truly unbeatable force, were starting to wake up.

 

Yeah, I don't know why they didn't make it matter

 

If they had the numbers Sovereign claimed, that means they deployed a pitifully small portion of their total strength in ME3. Why? That's a terrible way to go to war.

If you're able, you meet your enemy with overwhelming force and nothing less.

 

I agree that Sovereign was definitely using psychological warfare and it's working on us too in a way. He says their numbers will darken the sky of every world and they do. Each world we see is full of them. In our heads we envision a lot more, sure, but that was Sovereign's objective. Remember that the usual MO was to close the Relay network, isolating systems. It wouldn't take that many Reapers to take out a small chunk of the galaxy's defenses.

[Gonda]

There should be different endings, however, it should be, good, neutral, and bad.

 

In ME3 i feel like all of them are bad, mabey destroy is the "good", at least for me.

 

I got Mad Max ending spoiler and after that i could not play the game,

Spoiler

as there was no point to go trough all the hell just to lose everything in the end.

 

Feels like ME3 a littel