I have no idea what everyone is bitching about (pardon my language). All I have seen and heard from different sources is that the ending to Mass Effect 3 is the worst ending in the world. Personally I liked it, a lot. Also, the game is so good in general, that the ending shouldn't change that much of a real gamers opinion. So all of you complaining, grow a pair and look at what makes Mass Effect into the game it is.
I have heard multiple reasons on why people hate this ending. One was that the game just stops...hello people an "ending" is suppose to END! Another reason i have heard is that of choice. AS we all know, the Mass Effect games have been centered around choice. Every decision we have ever made has effected the game play and how the game unfolds as a hole. So when the ME3 ending comes up we are only giving 3 choices- to destroy, to control, or to sync. THOSE ARE STILL CHOICES!!! its not like we where slapped in the face by a giant Reaper penis and the end was choosing for us. We were giving a choice that was to effect all existence in the (games) galaxy. If you ask me, that is not an easy task. And yeah, it may only be 3 choices, but what else is there that could of been done? Think about it...you are at the end of this war and you can destroy the threat, control the threat, or create a synchronized bond with the threat. What other choices could you have? I mean really, what else could of been done. Think of a real world situation here people, what other choice would you be given if you had to end a war with a power that is too strong to let roam free. A power that is so strong that it could wipe the galaxy clean of all life. What else could you do with such a power besides:
2)Control it
or
3) Bond with it and become one
Also, If you play the game right, and the way that it is supposed to be played, Shepherd still survives in the end. This brings me to my next point
Here is a little food for thought. There is a theory spreading around the wide world that explains a lot. That is, that the Commander was really indoctrinated the whole time. How else can a organic life form some how get melted into some substance and transferred into a giant hive mind data base (that the reapers are) and control them. And that the point of the game was to try and indoctrinate the player as well. For all those super geeks that think that they must always be right, and know everything that is Mass Effect here is some support. Through out all of the Mass Effect games blue was in correspondence with paragon options, and red was in
correspondence with renegade options. Paragon was in correspondence with the "good"choices, while renegade was in correspondence with the "bad" choices. So tell me why the ending choices in ME3 shot out beams of different colors, and not just the same color. When you destroyed the reapers, which was the main point of the series and what everyone thinks is the "right" ending, the crucible shot out a red colored beam. When, if you choose to control the reapers, and become part of them, the crucible shot out a blue colored beam. So if we follow the what the franchise using as right and wrong (blue and red), what was really the right decision and why. I am pretty sure that the producers and developers that put all that time into this franchise wouldn't care so less to mess up the ending. Also, the idea is that the DLC's to later be released, as was confirmed by the PDA message at the very end before the re-load onto the Normandy, will explain the ending to the players.One DL at a time. So come on people, Give Bioware some credit. Its both there job, and it is still a business world people so grow a pair> And if you think you can create a franchise better than Bioware, then do so and shut the hell up already.
A special thanks to my buddy Ben
Testify, brother Calvin. Mass Effect 3 was a perfect game. Plus, in my ending, Wrex gives you the fourth option, but that's a secret that can only be shared among people who kept him alive in ME1.
ReplyDelete