Mass Effect Series - Interview @ The Complex

...I would argue that the interesting difference there was that the character was set-up to die from the get go. That 'schoolteacher with terminal cancer goes bad' is not quite the same premise as 'larger than life military commander kick-ass and chews bubblegum' should be obvious even to BioWare.

Thank to bring me ammo, it's exactly that sort of players point of view that is... weird (I won't write the exact words I'm thinking). So a rambo can't die at end of the story? LOL
 
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
480
My 2 cents about endings.

I can accept that Shepard has to die. It is no issue to me at all (although in one of the endings he lives). One of main themes in mass effect series was personal sacrfice for "greater good". If shepard can ask the ultimate sacfice from his comrades (like in virmire for example), i'm sure he has no issues taking the fall if the situation requires it. He is a soldier after all.

So what bugged me was the whole star child concept. Why on earth did they bring up something like during last 5 minutes? Why not just run with the perfectly good "destroy reapers" ending with various differences, such as how you handled sever key decisions during 3 games. (Like: companion quests, geth vs quarians, Genocide cure, rachni queen, faith of councill etc).

And why not make the end battle more interactive? I would have liked to see that the choises during the games actually influenced the outcome of it. Talk about letdown when the end battle was basicly one big non-interactive railroad ride. It was a fun ride, but I expected more from it.

Anyhow back to the endings…

Wasn't the main idea all along to destroy reapers? They were never ready to negotiage about their mission. Even the leviathan DLC pointed to this direction. Now all suddenly they threw our face this silly idea that Shepard could control the reapers. I get that TIM was indoctrinated so obviously he pushed this idea, but Sherpard would never do something like this, unless he himself was under reaper control. Maybe this was the ultimate renegade choise in a way.

However the third "hippy" choise which required most of the war assets was likely the most idiotic ending I could have imagined. First of all how could some machine just change the DNA structure of all machines and organics throughout the galaxy? Green space magic? And isn't this basicly what reapers wanted? Sure their methods were more crude, but by choosing this ending you basicly gave up and submitted to reapers will.

And it doesn't even make sense. I spent whole freaking series solving the geth vs quarian conflict and I managed to make a peace between these two races. It was one of the most beautifull moments during the entire series and the game robbed me the satisfaction at the end.

Or what about EDI who was genuinely trying to understand organics. The discussions between edi and shepard were just best bioware. Or how about Joker and edi who formed a friendship/romance during me2 and me3?

So during last minutes of me3 some silly reaper a.i claims that peace between machines and organics can't be done? Machines and organics can never understand each other? Cycle just continues? What a load of horse shit.

The fourth ending was kind of satisfying. You can actually shoot the brat, although it has severe consequences :)

So which ending was my favourite? Well the obvious one: destroy reapers. Sadly destroy reapers ending meant the end of all synthetics, even the friendly ones such as geth and edi. The cost was high, but acceptable. It however robbed the whole conclusion from geth vs quarians conflict. Bioware kind of pulled the carpet under our feet with that ending.

Ah but I better stop ranting now :)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
I understand how you feel Dez. Two games worth of C&C were casually thrown away and than Bioware (and their fanboys) tried to whitewash it by accusing players of throwing a hissy fit over Shepard's death!
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Back
Top Bottom