| SlumsofOhio said: @lestatdark I think your confusing the endings as a single choice. You had the rachni choice (means nothing in ME3), and you had the decision to save (or kill) the council at the end of one. Now if I finished ME3 (which I did) would I take the time to go back and change anything? Its sad when I can have the worst possible outcomes in both ME1 and ME2, and all It takes is an hour of multiplayer to get the best endings. |
as I've stated above in my earlier statement, mass effects continually done this through all 3 games. It does mean something because you can get the rachni queen to join your army. Which if you kill her it doesn't. And if I recall you don't get her quest.
Now is it silly you can negate it in multiplayer. yes. There are many slight variations as I posted above. What it is, is unbalanced, and most people just play multiplayer to get the best ending. And the best endings the same. So it doesn't hae an effect. If it was more strict and a lot of gamers got earth destroyed, on their initial run, it would have made their choices seem like they had more meaning.
For instance galactic readiness, determines whether earth is destroyed or not. If you completely negate every quest. The readiness meter is done rather poor. But this should have worked better than it did, and was implemented poorly.
