GuyWithFace wrote...
XX55XX wrote...
Because, if used correctly (betrayals to tend to be clinche in and of themselves), it can be a cool plot device.
It certainly is cliche, but it can also be a good driving point for the story, giving the protagonist an unexpected obstacle to overcome.
And I can relate to you wanting the trilogy to end with the 'bad guys' winning, but sadly, that's a terrible idea economically. The audience wants to be the victor: Especially when we're the ones in control. Imagine it like this: You've played all three games, doing one impossible thing after the next as Commander Shepard... only to be blindsided at the very end, with no way to counter it. So, in essence, your entire story was moot. You saved the galaxy *two* times, only to have it destroyed in the end. And there was nothing you could do about it.
Doesn't sound like a game a lot of people would want to play.
Closing thought: I wouldn't put it past Bioware to have a negative ending in ME3. There's negative ending in ME2. If you play well enough in ME3, you emerge victorious. Play poorly, making bad decisions, and it costs you. That way, at least the player feels responsible, rather than having their demise thrown upon them.
Well they could have two endings then:
1. Shepard wins, but most of the galaxy is anihilated. Rebuilding the galaxy into what it once was would be impossible within even an Asari lifetime.
2. Shepard loses, gets turned into a Reaper, and takes part in the next cycle of extinction.
Modifié par XX55XX, 16 février 2010 - 02:25 .