By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 28 January 2017
Edit Thread
Scoobes said:
JWeinCom said:

*Spoilers*

Was the point the developers trying to make that some things are inevitable?  Again, we only have evidence to the contrary.  In ME1 it seems pretty inevitable that the citadel will fall, but you overcome impossible odds.  In Mass Effect 2, you go on what is constantly called a suicide mission, but you are able to make it out with all crew members alive, if you make the right choices.  You're able to end the genophage, end the seemingly endless battle between Geth and Quarian, overcome the reaper's mind control in several cases, etc etc.

So, Shepard routinely does the impossible.  The whole series is about ending a cycle that has been going on forever.  If the point was that certain things are inevitable, that would be a strange and sudden shift.  And of course, in one ending it seems that Shepard lives, so that throws another wrench in it.

As for what they could have done, the indoctrination theory, whether it was ever intended or not, would have been pretty satisfying as an ending.  Either that, or they could have just kept it simple, and had the united force of the galaxy defeat evil.  They would have had to change some things along the way, but it would have worked.  Wouldn't have been the most creative thing, but sometimes it's fine just to blow up the death star and have the good guys go home happy.

To me that's what I think the devs were going for and also why it sticks out as such a weird and controversial moment in the trilogy.

The series is nearly completely devoted to cause and effect and even if you screw up, they spent the entire trilogy making your character out to be this absolutely incredible figure that defies all the odds, but at the end of the day he/she is only one human being and can only do so much. I think the ending was supposed to serve as a counter point to the cause and effect nature of the rest of the trilogy where you can defy the odds, you can choose which characters survive and which die, and the Galaxy seems to turn at your whim. After all that, you're meant to feel powerless.

That one ending where it looks like he lives is only viewable if you choose the correct ending and have a score of 5000+, and even then it's not certain. My suspicion with that is they put it in as a kind of nod to the emotional desire players would have had with their version of Shephard, and the need for some people to get the perfect "happy" ending. An easter egg moment for players that completely devoted themselves to getting rid of the Reapers.

The intention doesn't matter.  If it's my intention to shit on your sofa, and I shit on your sofa, you're not going to congratulate me on the realization of my vision.

You can't spend hours and hours showing on thing then swerve on a dime at the end. It's like if at the end of a Spider-man movie he decides "fuck it, I'm gonna use my powers to get money and get laid".  Or Esmeralda goes "you know what, Quasi really is good deep down and I'm going to marry him and make deformed little babies".  Or if Winston breaks free and leads a successful rebellion at the end of 1984.

If they wanted to do that, then that's shitty writing, and fans were reasonably upset.  You can absolutely have a bleak and depressing ending about how one man is ultimately powerless (again see 1984).  But, if you want to go that route, you have to earn it.  You can't just decide to introduce it at the end.  Readers expect some kind of logic and consistency.   Otherwise it's just a crappy Shamylan twist ending.

Edit:  Plus, *spoilers* they just had Shepard go through the whole doubting himself thing after the fall of Thessia, only to come back with a vengance shortly after, defeat his rival, and save the day.  So, if that was the point they were trying to make, they shouldn't have made the opposite point right before.