1106 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia_Nox]

Well - for starters - I don't want ME 4-6 to be "about me".  That is to say, I don't want it to revolve around a galaxy altering messianic figure.  

 

I want the Andromeda galaxy to be pre-established with events going on.  I want the first game to be extremely underdog, with the finish of it escaping annihilation from the pre-existing NON-EVIL forces that see us rightly as intruders on their sovereign space (I'd prefer to be allowed to settle the arse end of the Andromeda)

 

Then - for 5 - I want to still be struggling.  Still under the heel of the forces of this new galaxy.  For the end of the second?  I want to forge a place in this new galaxy. 

 

Lastly, for 6, I want to back a massive interstellar war between two (or more) major factions in this galaxy...a  "worlds war" of planets where I choose one side or the other and assist that side to victory.  That sacrifice and assistance then gains humanity a respected place in the new galaxy (and I'd like to see the other races take sides of one of the two factions - so potentially pitting you against your former Milky Way compatriots).

 

I'd like species to go extinct even after making the travel... I'd like to see colonization be a major struggle and humanity be weak... what I do not want is to be a "big god damned hero".  

[KaiserShep]

I dunno. I want my character to be a big guddamn hero. Oh Zaeed. If only you could see us now.

[themikefest]

Zaeed. One of the best characters. RIP Robin Sachs

[Il Divo]

THe phrase here is "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately"

 

 

And that sounds great in theory, woefully lacking in practice when the alternative is complete and utter annihilation. Morals are great, until they're guaranteed to get us all killed, which applies in this case. 

 

Which, as has been pointed out, Shepard has neither the right nor the qualifications to judge for the whole galaxy. organic and synthetic both. 

 

 

Except that certainly hasn't stopped us from making galaxy-altering decisions at the drop of a hat. For a new story could this work? A character concept who doesn't want galaxy-spanning decisions? Well, that game was called Dragon Age 2 (kidding, kidding). But regardless, that hypothetical game would not be Mass Effect or Bioware in general, which thrives on these sorts of situations. 

 

And as Kaiser points out, the decision has to be made, or we're dead. This seems a strange point to start worrying about our qualifications to handle this kind of situation relative to the rest of the series. 

 

I never watched THe Last AIrbender.  But I have seen A Man for All Seasons:

 

"Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?"

 

 

Same thing as above: put somebody in the position and make them watch their family die before their eyes and let's see how long those morals last. I get it - the ME3 endings are far less than ideal- can't say I'm a fan of them either. But trying to weigh the ME3 choice relative to the alternative simply isn't going to work. 

[themikefest]

My femshep is fully qualified to make the decision. She doesn't hesitate when she chooses destroy. She wants nothing to do with the others. Destroy the reapers. Let everyone have a future free from the threat of the reapers. That works for me.

[rocklikeafool]

Basically, I want an ending of the style like Baldur's Gate 2, where every decision contributed. For example, look at this NPC entry from GameBanshee:

http://www.gamebansh.../npcs/aerie.php

 

Not only do you have ending options for each different character, but you also have romance ending options. AND the NPCs react to each other. You actually can NPCs that fight you or leave the group, because they dislike your alignment choices or that you won't do their sidequest or whatever. It's great!

[Quarian Master Race]

And that sounds great in theory, woefully lacking in practice when the alternative is complete and utter annihilation. Morals are great, until they're guaranteed to get us all killed, which applies in this case. 

 

 

Except that certainly hasn't stopped us from making galaxy-altering decisions at the drop of a hat. For a new story could this work? A character concept who doesn't want galaxy-spanning decisions? Well, that game was called Dragon Age 2 (kidding, kidding). But regardless, that hypothetical game would not be Mass Effect or Bioware in general. 

 

And as Kaiser points out, the decision has to be made, or we're dead. This seems a strange point to start worrying about our qualifications to handle this kind of situation relative to the rest of the series. 

 

 

Same thing as above: put somebody in the position and make them watch their family die before their eyes and let's see how long those morals last. I get it - the ME3 endings are far less than ideal- can't say I'm a fan of them either. But trying to weigh the ME3 choice relative to the alternative simply isn't going to work. 

The problem is that the games don't necessarily put you in such positions until the very end of the 3rd game. Everything can be thoughtlessly solved by simply clicking upper right/ left with hardly any downside, no moralistic conundrums required. The previous "galaxy altering positions" are always justified with Bioware's pretentious Paragon moral righteousness. Continuing to allow the Council to dominate galactic politics in a racist, tripartate oligarchy is framed as more "cooperative" than simply usurping the inherently flawed system and has no downsides. Standing on your moral pedestal and not letting "fear compromise who I am" leads to no significant downside (oh no what shall we do without those 10 war assets!) even though you are denying the best real chance you have yet had at studying your enemy. Curing the genophage and subjecting the rest of the galaxy to the potential resurgence of the krogan horde is fine because "the feelz", and it was wrong in the first place amirite? Similarly, subjugating the quarians to the whims of the geth is fine because the former are all big mean racist bullies and their opinion is irrelevant.

While I never interpreted the games this way, they seem designed to frame all of these blue choices as ones of freedom and cooperation while glossing over the fact that you are simply deciding in most of them whom of two sides is to be oppressed. Thus I can understand the mindset that the complaints stem from, even if I fundamentally disagree with what I think are the misinterpretations of the narrative designed to reach these conclusions, and think Synthesis (which is similarly framed as the "best" choice) is entirely logically consistent and the natural ideological, thematic endpoint of the types of actions those players have been taking throughout the series.

Methinks that if the binary morality system had not existed (and the bludgeoning with the feels stick been proportionately balanced better) that not nearly as many people would have been unsatisfied with the ending. Most of the minority of players who took the middle ground or made primarily renegade choices that I know of are more ambivalent toward the ending choices, because the games were already forcing them to make compromises and telling them that they were wrong throughout, thus they didn't feel aggrieved when the endings did likewise.

[Iakus]

Well - for starters - I don't want ME 4-6 to be "about me".  That is to say, I don't want it to revolve around a galaxy altering messianic figure.  

 

I do NOT want another trilogy.  Like, at all.

[Il Divo]

The problem is that the games don't necessarily put you in such positions until the very end of the 3rd game. Everything can be thoughtlessly solved by simply clicking upper right/ left with hardly any downside, no moralistic conundrums required. The previous "galaxy altering positions" are always justified with Bioware's pretentious Paragon moral righteousness. Continuing to allow the Council to dominate galactic politics in a racist, tripartate oligarchy is framed as more "cooperative" than simply usurping the inherently flawed system and has no downsides. Standing on your moral pedestal and not letting "fear compromise who I am" leads to no significant downside (oh no what shall we do without those 10 war assets!) even though you are denying the best real chance you have yet had at studying your enemy. Curing the genophage and subjecting the rest of the galaxy to the potential resurgence of the krogan horde is fine because "the feelz", and it was wrong in the first place amirite? Similarly, subjugating the quarians to the whims of the geth is fine because the former are all big mean racist bullies and their opinion is irrelevant.

 

In general, I think you're right on the money. 

But just to clarify some (minor) points, when we talk about being put in a position above our qualifications, I don't think that applies any less to the Paragon decisions than the Renegade decisions. It's true, the Renegade decisions are often seen as harsher for having direct, lethal consequences, but in terms of the player taking on the role of judge, jury, and executioner, I think that applies to many of the conventional Paragon scenarios: releasing the Rachni Queen, saving the Council, curing the Genophage, etc. I think these are all examples of actions which, if we're concerned about who has the right to decide, a Paragon Shepard would have to abstain from. I think it's fine to view the ending decisions as abhorrent, but I don't think Bioware was ever really interested in letting us play a Shepard who was willing to let the galaxy make its own major decisions; we're always tossed into making the important decisions (somehow). 

 

Methinks that if the binary morality system had not existed (and the bludgeoning with the feels stick been proportionately balanced better) that not nearly as many people would have been unsatisfied with the ending. Most of the minority of players who took the middle ground or made primarily renegade choices that I know of are more ambivalent toward the ending choices, because the games were already forcing them to make compromises and telling them that they were wrong throughout, thus they didn't feel aggrieved when the endings did likewise.

 

 

That's largely how I felt regarding a lot of the ME3 decisions. I think in general it also comes down to Renegades simply being willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done, so with those terms presented by the Catalyst, they're more likely to say "it is what it is" where as a Paragon isn't content with that. So I think that's an accurate assessment. ME3's ending could arguably be considered a reversal of roles at the 11th hour where suddenly the Paragon approach is denied victory. 

[RUDAL]

what ending? a good one.

[Iakus]

And that sounds great in theory, woefully lacking in practice when the alternative is complete and utter annihilation. Morals are great, until they're guaranteed to get us all killed, which applies in this case. 

 

 

Except that certainly hasn't stopped us from making galaxy-altering decisions at the drop of a hat. For a new story could this work? A character concept who doesn't want galaxy-spanning decisions? Well, that game was called Dragon Age 2 (kidding, kidding). But regardless, that hypothetical game would not be Mass Effect or Bioware in general, which thrives on these sorts of situations. 

 

And as Kaiser points out, the decision has to be made, or we're dead. This seems a strange point to start worrying about our qualifications to handle this kind of situation relative to the rest of the series. 

 

 

Same thing as above: put somebody in the position and make them watch their family die before their eyes and let's see how long those morals last. I get it - the ME3 endings are far less than ideal- can't say I'm a fan of them either. But trying to weigh the ME3 choice relative to the alternative simply isn't going to work. 

okay the Internet seems to have eaten my post, so I'm gonna try again.

 

First, morals aren't really morals if you fold in the face of danger.  Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.

 

Second.  While yes Shepard does make choices that can shape the future of the galaxy (more than I was really comfortable with) The galaxy was able to push back.  Cure the genophage?  Who's to say the salrians won't make another?  Peace between quarians and geth? No one says the peace will last.   I tried to see Shepard opening up options for the galaxy to change, provide opportunities.  But there is no escaping RGB.  This reshapes the galaxy in a fundamental and irrevocable way.

 

And what makes Shepard qualified to make this choice? Harbinger's poor aiming skills?  Shepard didn't build the Crucible.  heck Shepard didn't even find the plans, Liara did.  All Shepard did was play errand boy for Hackett and creep on some conversations on the Citadel.  Where's the Crucible team on this?  Hackett?  Victus?  The Council? The galaxy built the Giant Magic Space Wand, but Shepard's the only one who gets to use it?  Without even a couple of companions to play angel and devil on Shep's shoulders?

 

Saying ME's endings were "less than ideal" is like saying water is "kinda damp".  The situation is completely contrived.  The situation is heavy-handedly structured to be run on "feelz" when even a modicum of common sense shows the entire situation is BS.  There is no reason Shepard should be boxed into this situation other than "the writer says so"

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I don't care about multiple endings. I just want a well-written ending that makes sense with the context with the story. One well written ending with no choices is better than where we have the choice of a dozen crappily written endings. But in the latter case, the writers get to say - see we gave the player choice.

 

Or maybe you get multiple endings, but you don't get to choose them in the end. Maybe your actions throughout the series determine the way the story ends. They can do that stuff. If you want the good ending, maybe you shouldn't kill _____ during the game, or maybe you shouldn't side with ____. Your choices matter.

 

Then in ME6 they put the series to bed for good. it's over. Time for a new IP.

[Rappeldrache]

I don't care about multiple endings. I just want a well-written ending that makes sense with the context with the story. One well written ending with no choices is better than where we have the choice of a dozen crappily written endings. But in the latter case, the writers get to say - see we gave the player choice.

 

 

Problem is: Different tastes. A "well-written-ending" can be for every player something else.

 

And: If they can write a logical-well-written-horrible ending, they could write a logical-well-written-happy ending. Why should they not be able to write different well-written endings? And than they give US the choice whitch one we choose. 

 

.

[KotorEffect3]

I do NOT want another trilogy.  Like, at all.

Nobody is forcing you to buy it sniffles.

[Medhia_Nox]

I do NOT want another trilogy.  Like, at all.

I'd be fine if it were three separate protagonists.  I just assumed it was going to be a trilogy again.

[Il Divo]

First, morals aren't really morals if you fold in the face of danger.  Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.

 

 

Well, there's certainly danger and there's galactic annihilation. Your comparison before about calling water "wet" works pretty well in this context. When our refusal to act results in killing every organic being in the galaxy, we're probably at the point where we should consider abandoning untenable moral philosophies and go with something less restrictive/pragmatic. 

 

Second.  While yes Shepard does make choices that can shape the future of the galaxy (more than I was really comfortable with) The galaxy was able to push back.  Cure the genophage?  Who's to say the salrians won't make another?  Peace between quarians and geth? No one says the peace will last.   I tried to see Shepard opening up options for the galaxy to change, provide opportunities.  But there is no escaping RGB.  This reshapes the galaxy in a fundamental and irrevocable way

 

 

But why was Shepard making those decisions in the first place? Why did it have to be Shepard who ultimately decides the Council's fate (even if we decide to "focus on Sovereign")? Or actively cure the Genophage? Or choose between the Quarians and the Geth? Where was the option to say to Hackett "I'm not comfortable with this, I'll handle the ground missions, but you tell me what to do"? Regardless of how you might have tried to see what you were doing as being about empowerment, they were all of them decisions with heavy repercussions for the universe. 

 

At the end of the day, while I do sympathize, Mass Effect (and Bioware games in general) aren't really narratives about disempowerment/giving up power. Dragon Age II was a game about being disempowered and people flipped. 

 

And what makes Shepard qualified to make this choice? Harbinger's poor aiming skills?  Shepard didn't build the Crucible.  heck Shepard didn't even find the plans, Liara did.  All Shepard did was play errand boy for Hackett and creep on some conversations on the Citadel.  Where's the Crucible team on this?  Hackett?  Victus?  The Council? The galaxy built the Giant Magic Space Wand, but Shepard's the only one who gets to use it?  Without even a couple of companions to play angel and devil on Shep's shoulders?

 

 

What made Shepard qualified to do anything else he did throughout the series? No matter how you approach the situation, regardless of your discomfort with the ME3 decisions, Shepard is required to act by the narrative. And considering his diverse range of experiences relative to any other currently living character in the Mass Effect universe by virtue of his protagonist status, that does count for quite a bit in terms of Shepard's qualifications. 

 

Would getting some input been interesting? Yes, but fundamentally that was never Mass Effect's narrative, even putting Renegade extremism aside. This is a huge part of why people point out/complain about Bioware games revolving around playing empowered protagonists, because more often than not, the end result is the player making decisions that affects everyone around him on a large scale, usually without any real input from others either because there's no real time or the writers don't care. 

[goishen]

First, morals aren't really morals if you fold in the face of danger.  Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.

 

 

Errr, yeh.   They are.  I think what you're talking about is ethics.  But morals and ethics are related, yet not the same. 

[prosthetic soul]

Still crying Chronoid?

Nobody is forcing you to be a jerk to other people with different opinions. 

[Natureguy85]

But he can spin. That's a neat trick.

 

"Wow, what a great and legendary pilot."

 

The problem is that the games don't necessarily put you in such positions until the very end of the 3rd game. Everything can be thoughtlessly solved by simply clicking upper right/ left with hardly any downside, no moralistic conundrums required. The previous "galaxy altering positions" are always justified with Bioware's pretentious Paragon moral righteousness. Continuing to allow the Council to dominate galactic politics in a racist, tripartate oligarchy is framed as more "cooperative" than simply usurping the inherently flawed system and has no downsides. Standing on your moral pedestal and not letting "fear compromise who I am" leads to no significant downside (oh no what shall we do without those 10 war assets!) even though you are denying the best real chance you have yet had at studying your enemy. Curing the genophage and subjecting the rest of the galaxy to the potential resurgence of the krogan horde is fine because "the feelz", and it was wrong in the first place amirite? Similarly, subjugating the quarians to the whims of the geth is fine because the former are all big mean racist bullies and their opinion is irrelevant.

While I never interpreted the games this way, they seem designed to frame all of these blue choices as ones of freedom and cooperation while glossing over the fact that you are simply deciding in most of them whom of two sides is to be oppressed. Thus I can understand the mindset that the complaints stem from, even if I fundamentally disagree with what I think are the misinterpretations of the narrative designed to reach these conclusions, and think Synthesis (which is similarly framed as the "best" choice) is entirely logically consistent and the natural ideological, thematic endpoint of the types of actions those players have been taking throughout the series.

Methinks that if the binary morality system had not existed (and the bludgeoning with the feels stick been proportionately balanced better) that not nearly as many people would have been unsatisfied with the ending. Most of the minority of players who took the middle ground or made primarily renegade choices that I know of are more ambivalent toward the ending choices, because the games were already forcing them to make compromises and telling them that they were wrong throughout, thus they didn't feel aggrieved when the endings did likewise.

 

Yeah, I like that they tried to make Paragon and Renegade very different from the usual Good/Evil morality system, but it did mostly warp into Goody Two-Shoes and *******.

 

Well, there's certainly danger and there's galactic annihilation. Your comparison before about calling water "wet" works pretty well in this context. When our refusal to act results in killing every organic being in the galaxy, we're probably at the point where we should consider abandoning untenable moral philosophies and go with something less restrictive/pragmatic. 

 

 

But why was Shepard making those decisions in the first place? Why did it have to be Shepard who ultimately decides the Council's fate (even if we decide to "focus on Sovereign")? Or actively cure the Genophage? Or choose between the Quarians and the Geth? Where was the option to say to Hackett "I'm not comfortable with this, I'll handle the ground missions, but you tell me what to do"? Regardless of how you might have tried to see what you were doing as being about empowerment, they were all of them decisions with heavy repercussions for the universe. 

 

At the end of the day, while I do sympathize, Mass Effect (and Bioware games in general) aren't really narratives about disempowerment/giving up power. Dragon Age II was a game about being disempowered and people flipped. 

 

 

What made Shepard qualified to do anything else he did throughout the series? No matter how you approach the situation, regardless of your discomfort with the ME3 decisions, Shepard is required to act by the narrative. And considering his diverse range of experiences relative to any other currently living character in the Mass Effect universe by virtue of his protagonist status, that does count for quite a bit in terms of Shepard's qualifications. 

 

Would getting some input been interesting? Yes, but fundamentally that was never Mass Effect's narrative, even putting Renegade extremism aside. This is a huge part of why people point out/complain about Bioware games revolving around playing empowered protagonists, because more often than not, the end result is the player making decisions that affects everyone around him on a large scale, usually without any real input from others either because there's no real time or the writers don't care. 

 

Yeah, I always wondered why Shepard got to decide what the 5th fleet did even though Hackett was there giving the orders for whatever Shepard says. Although since the Normandy always flies in just as the arms open, maybe Shepard just waits to open the arms until he hears that the Ascension is safe in that situation.

 

As far as Dragon Age 2, the reason it sucked is because it's a game, the entire point of which is having player input. Hawke is barely a protagonist and is mostly buffeted about by events happening around him/her. That can make a great story, but it doesn't really fit this medium very well. They have to find the middle ground between "most important person around" and "guy affected by the plot."

[Seraphim24]

 

 

As far as Dragon Age 2, the reason it sucked is because it's a game, the entire point of which is having player input. Hawke is barely a protagonist and is mostly buffeted about by events happening around him/her. That can make a great story, but it doesn't really fit this medium very well. They have to find the middle ground between "most important person around" and "guy affected by the plot."

 

Dragon Age 2 was more like "lets get buried in bureaucracy and everyone's needs!" than an epic adventure to be honest.

[fraggle]

The big thing I think is that the Catalyst provides an actual outlet to hate on, since we actively interact with him and he's the one who introduces the Crucible. The Crucible by itself is an inanimate object, making active disdain kinda difficult/not as satisfying to complain about. The Catalyst is also the one who tries to frame those decisions into his moral scenario of Organics vs. Synthetics, which for many players didn't work. 

 

Personally, if they had removed Synthesis which is imo just straight up weird, focused more energy on exploring the Destroy vs. Control theme, I think the Crucible by itself could have been workable, or at least as workable as possible in the confines of ME2/3, which caused quite a few problems. 

 

So you say people hate on the Catalyst because they are not satisfied if they'd hate on the Crucible?

Maybe I don't get all the hate for the Catalyst because I don't think it is letting you choose, rather it is also forced to accept the Crucible changed it like the dialogue suggests, and it as well as Shepard has to go along with these changes. Otherwise everything stays the same, the cycle continues. I am also quite convinced the Crucible has the tubes for Destroy and handle for Control attached to it because it doesn't make sense the decision chamber has these choices built onto them; the Catalyst doesn't even want them.

And while Synthesis is weird, yes, space magicky, I think it is only a lucky by-product because of the Crucible's massive amount of energy (which would tie in with what happens if it is severly damaged with lower EMS where Synthesis is not available) and that no one knew this would happen.

In short, to me the Catalyst plays the role of an observer who does not let you choose, but presents you the Crucible's choices to its best knowledge. Of course it promotes Synthesis, it is what it desires most after all, but your Shepard can deny it, so it's not a problem for me personally that it's going there.

So, while people can dismiss the Catalyst's talk as BS, which is fine to me, why is there need to hate it? Are people hating everyone they don't agree with? (Sorry, I guess you can't really answer this for me, but this is what's on my mind in this regard )

 

Well the Crucible is just this big unknown until the Catalyst explains it. There's also a psychological effect. While I think it's a stretch to truly call the Catalyst a "character" because of its limited function, screen time, and depth, the fact that it takes a form of a person gives the mind or emotions something to focus on where the Crucible is a thing.

 

But why is it one or the other? I hate both and many do as well.

 

Fair enough if you do hate both, but it made me wonder why many people do not hate on both. Especially since a lot I've seen here points to hating the end choices = must hate the Catalyst. If the Catalyst is removed, some people are happier with their ending. Why is that? The Catalyst removal changes nothing from the core game or the decisions, but they are fine with the outcome then. This is what's curious to me because obviously the Catalyst is just as trapped by the Crucible as is Shepard, and still it gets all the hate; not from you as you already said, but I've seen plenty others, and use of the condescending names like Starbrat etc just show how much they hate it and I don't know why that is. It might be as you guys say, they can project their disappointment and blame it on this one "character", but that's just an emotional reaction and no real reason to hate on a character imho.

 

And what makes Shepard qualified to make this choice? Harbinger's poor aiming skills?  Shepard didn't build the Crucible.  heck Shepard didn't even find the plans, Liara did.  All Shepard did was play errand boy for Hackett and creep on some conversations on the Citadel.  Where's the Crucible team on this?  Hackett?  Victus?  The Council? The galaxy built the Giant Magic Space Wand, but Shepard's the only one who gets to use it?  Without even a couple of companions to play angel and devil on Shep's shoulders?

 

You might not see Shepard as qualified, but Shepard has experienced every theme tied to the 3 choices, had the opportunity to directly work with all races and see their stances towards other species because he/she's the one who united them and had to deal with their BS. Many of them still hate each other and I think I can see them all going for Destroy anyway, except Synthetics obviously. None of those races have experienced what Shepard did throughout the games, so I do think each Shepard can count as qualified in a way. Shepard has seen TIM with Control, had a chance to either become pro-/anti-geth, pro-/anti-quarian or can work out a truce between those fractions, giving both fractions a chance, and has seen enough of the Reapers to make up their minds if they still want to have them around or if they want to play safe and get rid of them.

The fact that only Shepard is able to use it is probably tied to the great plan to only have a handful of people go and try to run for the beam so that one of them could open the Citadel arms. No one anticipated that any more would be necessary than to open the arms. If we consider this, then well... Shepard's just at the right place at the right time. Because Shepard is the main character and the last choice is there for the players to make, simple as that (yes, I'm aware that many don't like the choices, but that's how I see it). Actually, I'm quite in favour for what sH0tgUn jUliA said below, about the ending being determined for you. But it might gather hate regardless because players could feel control over the end is taken away from them. You can never satisfy everyone.

 

Or maybe you get multiple endings, but you don't get to choose them in the end. Maybe your actions throughout the series determine the way the story ends. They can do that stuff. If you want the good ending, maybe you shouldn't kill _____ during the game, or maybe you shouldn't side with ____. Your choices matter.

 

I like the idea of having multiple decisions/actions lead to an ending for you (similar like the Rannoch or VS choices play out). This would maybe also encourage loads of replaying.

[Helios969]

It sucked.  THE END.

[Il Divo]

 

Yeah, I always wondered why Shepard got to decide what the 5th fleet did even though Hackett was there giving the orders for whatever Shepard says. Although since the Normandy always flies in just as the arms open, maybe Shepard just waits to open the arms until he hears that the Ascension is safe in that situation.

 

As far as Dragon Age 2, the reason it sucked is because it's a game, the entire point of which is having player input. Hawke is barely a protagonist and is mostly buffeted about by events happening around him/her. That can make a great story, but it doesn't really fit this medium very well. They have to find the middle ground between "most important person around" and "guy affected by the plot."

 

 I'm actually completely cool with that as a plot line/character concept, it would probably make imports easier to handle too. What I mean to suggest is that, Dragon Age 2 aside, "guy affected by the plot" isn't really a story-line which Bioware has ever seemed to handle, to any extent.

 

Going back to our ME example, playing a Shepard who thinks this decision is "too big for him" would work, if we really had any ability to go that route in the series. ME3 provides more than a few reasonable moments where Shepard could have let the Alliance take the lead role in how to approach these situations, but as a concept, that was denied to us. Also throw on top that a lot of people expect the final decision in a Bioware game to typically be the most significant/most world-altering and the goal of abstaining so someone else can decide doesn't really work all that well.  

 

In short: I think you're right that there is room for middle ground between the two extremes, but I think that Mass Effect, since the original, is a perfect example of the "most important around" spectrum. 

[Dantriges]

So you say people hate on the Catalyst because they are not satisfied if they'd hate on the Crucible?
Maybe I don't get all the hate for the Catalyst because I don't think it is letting you choose, rather it is also forced to accept the Crucible changed it like the dialogue suggests, and it as well as Shepard has to go along with these changes. Otherwise everything stays the same, the cycle continues.

We don´t really know who´s actually in charge there. There´s also the "little more than a power source" statement. I assume that the Catalyst glosses over a lot of actually important stuff with this "little more than" and he tries to pull a fast one. So well it´s still a lying AI pulling manipulative BS, starting with its outward appearance. Cutting out the kid makes the whole thing more bearable because you don´t have to put up with that and listen to it, like its blather is a magnificient revelation. The few arguments Shep has, are rather weak.

[fraggle]

We don´t really know who´s actually in charge there. There´s also the "little more than a power source" statement. I assume that the Catalyst glosses over a lot of actually important stuff with this "little more than" and he tries to pull a fast one. So well it´s still a lying AI pulling manipulative BS, starting with its outward appearance. Cutting out the kid makes the whole thing more bearable because you don´t have to put up with that and listen to it, like its blather is a magnificient revelation. The few arguments Shep has, are rather weak.

 

I don't know, but iirc it states for example that Shepard is bound by these choices just as it is, too. And that if Shepard would choose Control, it wouldn't look forward to be replaced, but that it would have to accept it. Add to it that if it were actually in charge, it could just call all Reapers and destroy the Crucible before Shepard chooses Destroy themselves. Because why would it not try to prevent this then if it is absolutely against Destroy?

So, it really sounds to me that the Catalyst is held back by something. Could be wrong of course, but that's what I've taken away from it.