Ending is a disservice to Shepherd (spoilers)

#1Spartan_097Posted 4/25/2012 2:31:02 PM
SPOILERS

The ending to ME 3 is a disservice to Shepherd. Shepherd is one of my all time favourite characters. Paragon Shepherd is very noble, cares about his/her crew, strong-willed, understanding of other species, takes no bull crap, and is nice but at the same time able to kick so much butt. Another thing about Shepherd is that you control his/her actions. You control what decision to make, who to romance etc. It makes the game more personal and make you feel a strong attachment to your Shepherd.

Also with my main male shepherd I feel like he is an extension of myself, I try to put me in his position and think what would I do in a particular situation. Female shepherd i think is my favourite female character of any medium. She is awesome. She is strong, take charge, kick-as, intelligent, confident, and very likeable.

One of Shepherd's greatest traits is that Shepherd never gives up and always looks for another option rather than compromise his/her principles. But in Mass effect 3's ending Shepherd just gives into Starchild's circular logic and dumb reasoning and picks one of the 3 choices that starchild forces on you. The real shepherd would argue that the reapers' logic is broken since Geth are working together with the Quarians and EDI is in a romantic relationship with Joker. In fact the Geth never had any intentions to fight organics until Sovereign brainwashed some of them into fighting organics. Reapers are dumb they don't want synthetics to kill organics but the reapers coerce some of the Geth to attack organics.

Anyways the real Shepherd would reject all three of the colour choices and try to find another solution. Shepherd would rather go down fighting in a blaze of glory then choose one of the 3 options. Control ending is what Illusive Man wanted, synthesis ending is what Saren wanted so choosing either these two negates all you have been fighting for in the 3 games. Destroy ending you sacrifice the Geth but Shepherd (Paragon) would never compromise principle and sacrifice one race. Shepherd would rather all races fight to survive or die trying. Shepherd's legendary tale is somewhat tainted with the current ending.

The ending is a disservice to such a great character. Metal gear solid and Babylon 5's (Solid snake and John Sheridan) endings is how you properly send off such an awesome and beloved character.

I prefer a happy ending, but i don't mind a bitter sweet ending where shepherd dies if it is done right. But the current ending is just bitter.
#2EbonGrayPrincePosted 4/25/2012 2:42:43 PM
This is pretty much the exact layout of a pre-college essay.

Introduction
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Conclusion

Sorry, just couldn't help but notice.

Also it really depends on the Shepard. If it's for the greater good, even a paragon Shepard would do what had to be done (Arrival), and a renegade Shepard would most definitely put organics above synthetics, referencing the Destroy ending. Most renegade Shepards destroy the heretic Geth in ME2, and they really just don't give a damn about Legion.
---
"Embrace your destruction... It is the fate of all things... I will create a monument to nonexistence!" -Kefka Palazzo
Steam/Origin: EbonGrayPrince
#3some09guy IIPosted 4/25/2012 2:56:31 PM(edited)
*SPOILERS FOR CRYSIS*


Just be glad he didn't go out like Nomad. Didn't even know he was dead until I heard of it from a comic fan. That's right, they killed off the protagonist of the first game of their series in a comic book nobody will ever read.


*END SPOILERS*

Anywho, could just do what I do: headcanon in a fan edit. It's not like there's going to be a future for this series anyway. Here's a good one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-uK8CQLDRc
#4GamemakoPosted 4/25/2012 3:24:46 PM
Spoilers for Crysis and ME3

some09guy II posted...
That's right, they killed off the protagonist of the first game of their series in a comic book nobody will ever read.

Pfft, the Being of Light god-child is already continuity porn.
---
One can only wonder at how such idiocy invariably comes to power.
ESTIMATE THE CATACLYSM. CALCULATE THE APOCALYPSE.
#5john_freeman69Posted 4/25/2012 3:46:06 PM
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s320x320/427053_10150714804180166_541150165_11684993_197462504_n.jpg
#6MachEvolutionPosted 4/25/2012 4:29:03 PM
My Sheppard was Renegade, I reprogrammed the heretic Geth in ME2. When the ending of ME3 came my only choice was to kill the entire Geth race along with EDI(who I spent the entire game supporting her and Joker's relationship) and who knows what other technology might be destroyed. The Geth and the Quarians were getting along quite well after I was through with them, Tali and Legion were friends. Killing the Geth felt like a betrayal of Legion's sacrifice.

My Sheppard wouldn't stand for control, or synthesis. I've been fighting through 3 games in order to destroy the Reapers and that's what I'm going to do even if it means sacrificing people I care about. I didn't like it but it really was the only option. My only respite was that I was supposed to be dead as well, but then Sheppard woke up anyways.

ME3's ending is a betrayal to so many things and so many people. Anybody that supports what Bioware has done is woefully ignorant.
#7ZemPosted 4/25/2012 8:06:49 PM
"One of Shepherd's greatest traits is that Shepherd never gives up and always looks for another option rather than compromise his/her principles. But in Mass effect 3's ending Shepherd just gives into Starchild's circular logic and dumb reasoning and picks one of the 3 choices that starchild forces on you."

You've been doing this the whole series. Shepard has only ever been presented with a small set of choices at any given decision point and asked, "Pick one of these or shut off the game and go outside." In this case, the Star Child isn't telling you what to do. He's just telling you what the options are for activating the Crucible which your people have just spent all this time building without actually knowing what it does. You don't have another choice unless it is just hanging out with Star Child and watching the galaxy burn away.

"The real shepherd would argue that the reapers' logic is broken since Geth are working together with the Quarians and EDI is in a romantic relationship with Joker."

Except it's your logic that is broken there. How often has peace been declared between nations on this planet of ours and then broken just among us organics? The Reapers are claiming that synthetics will inevitably overthrow organics and replace them if left unchecked and that opinion is presumably backed by countless 50k year cycles of experience vs. your two examples of synthetics and organics getting along.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's an incredibly lame reason for the existence of the Reapers but that's a story quality criticism. There's nothing at all wrong with the logic of it.

Anyways the real Shepherd would reject all three of the colour choices and try to find another solution. Shepherd would rather go down fighting in a blaze of glory then choose one of the 3 options.

Again, you really never have this option anywhere else in the series. You can go down and die in ME2, if you really want to, but that's done in a blaze of incompetence... not glory.

Control ending is what Illusive Man wanted

Nope. The Illusive Man wanted to control and KEEP the Reapers around to do his bidding. That kind of power would obviously corrupt. Shepard isn't really given that option. The Control ending kills you but allows you to control the Reapers long enough to make them stop fighting and leave. Synthetic races are not destroyed. Organics are not altered against their will. I know people want to believe the colors were reversed as a trick, but I don't think they were. This really IS the Paragon ending since it does the least "damage" of the three (assuming you consider synthesis a bad thing).

synthesis ending is what Saren wanted so choosing either these two negates all you have been fighting for in the 3 games.

No, Saren wanted organics to be servants of the Reapers. Synthesis is presented as a means of fusing organic and synthetic properties. It's lame because of how it's implemented in this game. Deus Ex did this much better. Nor was it ever suggested this turns people into a collective hive mind or destroys their individuality. Think of all the technology you use daily being built in and you're close to the idea. Imagine you're still you, but you can think as fast as a computer, have perfect memory, and maybe enhanced physical capabilities. That's what I assumed synthesis was. Like augmentation and instant communication with all other organics, sort of like in Deus Ex (which is probably where they ripped off this idea).

Destroy ending you sacrifice the Geth but Shepherd (Paragon) would never compromise principle and sacrifice one race. Shepherd would rather all races fight to survive or die trying. Shepherd's legendary tale is somewhat tainted with the current ending.

Which is why this is really the Renegade ending. Shepard SMASH!
#8Spartan_097(Topic Creator)Posted 4/25/2012 8:08:25 PM
@EbonGrayPrince

It was not my intention to format it as a "pre-college essay". I just broke it up in smaller paragraphs so it wouldn't be a huge wall of text. You made some valid points. It really does depend on the Shepherd. I can kind of see why some renegade Shepherds would choose destroy or control. No matter how much you dislike and unpleasant it is to choose destroy, even a paragon Shepherd must make the hard call and choose destroy for the greater good if there is absolutely no other way. However, my problem is that Shepherd doesn't even try to find another way. He just gives in and accepts starchild's choices. Shepherd seemed defeated and no longer has that fire and fight in him/her.

@some09guy II

I think I might just do that. Nice video I liked that fan ending better than the actual one.

@john_freeman69

Haha that picture always makes me smile.

@MachEvolution

There is no way my Shepherd would choose control or synthesis so that left destroy by default. As much as I don't like betraying and dooming the Geth, destroy is the least bad ending. My Shepherd also survived the destroy ending so I hope since the catalyst was wrong about Shepherd dying I like to believe that the catalyst is also wrong about the destroy option killing the Geth.
#9_FalstaffPosted 4/25/2012 10:08:06 PM
Zem posted...
"One of Shepherd's greatest traits is that Shepherd never gives up and always looks for another option rather than compromise his/her principles. But in Mass effect 3's ending Shepherd just gives into Starchild's circular logic and dumb reasoning and picks one of the 3 choices that starchild forces on you."

You've been doing this the whole series. Shepard has only ever been presented with a small set of choices at any given decision point and asked, "Pick one of these or shut off the game and go outside." In this case, the Star Child isn't telling you what to do. He's just telling you what the options are for activating the Crucible which your people have just spent all this time building without actually knowing what it does. You don't have another choice unless it is just hanging out with Star Child and watching the galaxy burn away.


One of the larger issues with the ending isn't the lack of choices. It's the prompt destruction of the illusion of choice. Everyone, if they really think about it, will realize that in any game to date, a player has a limited set of options to choose from. Previously, Mass Effect did a great job of making the players believe that their choices were unique and clever, even though there were really only a few choices at most. The ending to ME3 violently breaks that illusion and tears us out of the game.
---
9 days to go, and I'm out of here.
#10wcleung9Posted 4/26/2012 12:03:11 AM

You've been doing this the whole series. Shepard has only ever been presented with a small set of choices at any given decision point and asked, "Pick one of these or shut off the game and go outside." In this case, the Star Child isn't telling you what to do. He's just telling you what the options are for activating the Crucible which your people have just spent all this time building without actually knowing what it does. You don't have another choice unless it is just hanging out with Star Child and watching the galaxy burn away.


TC is talking about the character Bioware crafted (no matter what choices players made)
You are talking about gameplay mechanics.

No matter what choices player made, Shepard has always been a I-will-do-it-my-way guy. This is what Bioware crafted him/her to be. But Starchild's offers are all just compromises. Shepard's easy acceptance without argue is definitely out of the character Bioware crafted him/her to be (again, irrelevant to what choices player made)


Except it's your logic that is broken there. How often has peace been declared between nations on this planet of ours and then broken just among us organics? The Reapers are claiming that synthetics will inevitably overthrow organics and replace them if left unchecked and that opinion is presumably backed by countless 50k year cycles of experience vs. your two examples of synthetics and organics getting along.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's an incredibly lame reason for the existence of the Reapers but that's a story quality criticism. There's nothing at all wrong with the logic of it.

Even if they have 50K of experience to come to this conclusion, they didn't show that to Shepard (and players). They failed at convincing Shepard (and players) why "Synthetic will always overthrown Organics" is so inevitable. At least Shepard has two examples to support his/her arguments. Starchild has none. Why Shepard didn't argue with him? Again, Shepard is out of the Bioware-crafted character.


Again, you really never have this option anywhere else in the series. You can go down and die in ME2, if you really want to, but that's done in a blaze of incompetence... not glory.

Again, TC is talking about story and you are just talking about gameplay mechanics.

Shepard said more than once in the story (no matter what choices players made) that she would rather die fighting instead of giving in to Reapers. But in the ending, she just followed strictly what the Reaper Leader told him/her to do, with each choice compromising something. Out of the Bioware-crafted character again.


Nope. The Illusive Man wanted to control and KEEP the Reapers around to do his bidding. That kind of power would obviously corrupt. Shepard isn't really given that option. The Control ending kills you but allows you to control the Reapers long enough to make them stop fighting and leave. Synthetic races are not destroyed. Organics are not altered against their will. I know people want to believe the colors were reversed as a trick, but I don't think they were. This really IS the Paragon ending since it does the least "damage" of the three (assuming you consider synthesis a bad thing).

The game didn't say Shepard will die some time after control.
The game said Shepard will die and control.
This is in fact a bit contradicting. But a sensible explanation is Shepard will die as a human, and become something like Starchild to control the Reapers. Therefore, the This-Power-Is-Too-Big-To-Control argument still stands. Shepard just did what he/she told TIM not to do.
On the contrary, if the game really means "die some time after control", it's meaningless. The Reapers can just come back anytime after Shepard ceased control.