While I expected there to be various bad endings, I did expect at least one good ending. At the end of the day I started ME3 as a fan and I ended it as a fan. It is still my favorite series.
Ironically i actually enjoyed DA2 and can’t see why a lot of fans didn’t like it.
@RVallant & @Nocturnal_Stillness, I don’t mind DA2, It’s just lost that essence of being a ‘Dragon Age’.
So I’m going to get Origins instead of DA2. But they are making improvements on DA3, they are letting you choose your backround (noble,peasant,etc) and maybe over-time in they will add more and more (Such as race, or faction) because of them identifying flaws.
Dragon Age are dead for me after Hawke joke aka Kirkwall nightmare.
And Mass Effect 3 ending if IT was true the end was perfect if like all seems not for me there is no ending in my mind
The IT end would’ve been interesting, indeed. It also would’ve been fine if it ended with Shepard dying before the whole weird platform thing. What my problem with the ending was is that it kind of came from out of no where. No foreshadowing, no clues to what was even happening, nothing. Maybe I missed something in the lore, but I kind of finished the game confused. And the Extended Cut didn’t really add anything useful.
Oh, I love the game and agree that it didn’t deserve the low ratings that it’s gotten, but there were just so many more interesting things that could’ve been done with the end. I’m usually willing to believe whatever gets thrown at me in a fictional universe, but it’s uncomfortably confusing when it comes from out of nowhere like that.
screw realism!! write whatever you want
The ME3 ending was a fiasco in the sense that it turned many fans angry and which in turn, may have prevented the game from selling more copies to new players. You may disagree that the ending was bad but I believe that bad publicity is not generally a good thing for a game developer.
On the other hand, I’m of the opinion that the ending was a mediocre story ending and a pretty darn terrible game ending. Even a non-ending cliffhanger in the veins of Assassin’s Creed 3, is I think, better than the ending presented at the end of ME3.
From a story point of view, the ending contradicted several main themes established throughout the series, for example, self-determination, redemption, and choice. Sheppard’s fight for the freedom of the galaxy’s peoples from destruction by the Reapers and the struggle between the geth and the quarians are but some examples of the the of self-determination in the story. Redemption can be seen in the decision over the fate of the Rachni and Krogan races. Choice, as a theme, I think is pretty self-evident. In the ending, however, all of these were brushed aside. The decision was forced upon the player to either destroy or control a sentient race (the reapers), taking away both their ability for self-determination and any chance for redemption. In regards to the synthesis option, it similarly takes away an individual’s right to his or her own body, going against the theme of self-determination.
From a gaming point of view, the ending leaves a lot to be desired. First of all, the game’s promise of “decisions that matter” falls flat when the ending sequence remains relatively unchanged no matter what decisions were made. When the player failed to see krogan battlemasters and asari commandos in the battlefield alongside fellow human soldiers, their sense of accomplishment gets deflated. What’s the point of building this galactic alliance if everything is eventually going to be the same anyways? Even if something minor, such as a radio message that the krogans have retaken a section of the city or that turian fighters are trying diverting Reaper forces away from the Crucible teleporter would have made thing much better. Second of all, it’s just bad game design to not allow the player some kind of final reward after completing the game. Needless to say, it frustrates the player to see that no matter what they did, their Sheppard will always die. One of the things that hit me the most is that I didn’t get to see my Sheppard retire to Rannoch with Tali. :_(
I regards to the lack of closure, I think you only have to look at the implications of the final ending sequence. Why did Joker have to escape through the Mass Relay? If it’s to escape destruction, it seems that only the Normandy managed to get out in time. Does that mean the entire alliance fleet orbiting around Earth is destroyed? What happened to Earth then? If Earth was destroyed, what did Commander Sheppard really accomplish?
On a side note, I think the one ending that was actually most consistent with the established themes of the series was the choice for Sheppard to refuse using the Crucible in the extended-ending dlc. However, Since that choice results in a complete Reaper victory, I say it doesn’t count.
Hm, I think I got side tracked a little… but anyway, I see a lot of thoughts on how realism affects stories but I’m also interested on your thoughts on how it relates to games and how its effect on story-telling can affect game designs.
I’m one of the people that doesn’t think everything in story has to be believable in order for it to be enjoyable. It might seem a bit funny and head-shakingly wrong, but it’s nothing to get worked up over. I remember playing Golden Sun where half of the summons I could do would destroy entire parts of the world during the animation, but as soon as it was over, everything was just fine. It was a little distracting, but that wasn’t the point of the game, and really didn’t matter.
A fictional universe can really function however it’s creator imagines it, I suppose. I mean, who are we to tell them that they’re wrong?
Now, that doesn’t mean it can be logically inconsistent, because that’s confusing and confusing your audience isn’t really the goal with most story-telling. Ships on fire in outer space? Sure, whatever. Why not? A major plot point comes up later in the same story where something has to be ejected into space in order for the fire to be put out? Um… Not quite so okay. I like to point out a nice little example in Dragon Ball Z where people will stand around and wait forever for their enemies to finish charging up before resuming a battle. Only once (that I can remember anyway) does anyone ever stop an enemy before they can finish charging. And then, the tactic is completely forgotten.
Those kinds of inconsistencies are what truly bother me. When you have to question the universe’s creator as to whether or not they know how things work in it.
On the subject of realism, I tend to just throw most of it out the window for fantasy and scifi settings. Even in modern settings I still tend to go a bit over the top. Still, like reaper was talking about I do try to maintain internal consistency which I do think is important.
I’m more inclined to support “realism” when it comes to the psychology of my characters. I try to make them behave in a consistent manner (unless they have mental problems) and interact with each other realistically since I tend to write a lot of dialog.
When it comes to things like fight scenes for example I become more flexible mainly because I want to get on with writing the story rather than looking up to see if certain medieval weapons can penetrate certain medieval armor with a single blow or if certain type of bullet is going to do specific damage to a specific body part when it hits. The injuries and combat feats are going to be as overly dramatic or as simple I need them to be.
I can’t let facts get in the way of a good story. Ha ha.
Yeah I’d say internal consistency is more important than realism, though they do go hand-in-hand to an extent. People tend to be very arbitrary as to what does and does not break their verisimilitude, and oftentimes only bringing things up to pick apart them when they’ve already got a negative opinion of the game (I’ve certainly been guilty of that)
I also wanted to build a house for Tali. In fact that moment in the EC where my Shepard told Garrus to take her onto the Normandy, that whole “I have a home…” was heartbreaking for me.
Makes me want to play the game again.
I hope one day I write a character as well written as Tali was.
Realisim for me , varies. Like @EndMaster said, it really pulls off it you use realisim in your characters psyche. Like The Walking Dead Video game (Spoilers!) When Lilly kills Carley, it was kind of expected since Lilly ain’t No saint so we don’t just expect her to be all like ‘Nah it’s cool that one of use drove us out of our home’.
And I wanted to retire like off the vids with Garrus! And I found the scene up in the Citadel really sweet.
From a story point of view, /sic/
Wrong on all counts. The main theme for Mass Effect has always been the struggle for intellectual understanding and physical co-existance between organic and synthetic races and the dangers of specific ideas being imposed on one or the other. Hence, the themes of geth vs quarians, salarians v krogans (as you noted, for self-determination; but this is a reflection of reapers v everything else) – the whole nature of relationships within the game is duality but it’s never been about picking one or the other. If you think about the game in a duel nature you’ve missed the point which, is that the duality of roles and themes mirror the very nature of the cycle itself.
For example, the reapers are BOTH synthetic and organic, they disregard self-determination by imposing their own logic and belief system on all other races not, to destroy them, but to preserve them, to enable further self-determination so long as its within a cycle that may exist and they strictly disregard choices as an immaterial mathematical irrelevance to the solution found by their equation (Starchild pratically tells you this, but going back to the first and second game and now (sadly) the new Leviathan DLC you’ll find it’s a-typical mechanical logical synthetic logic that is infalliable (yet can be caught out as a logical error anyway).
Shepard is the opposite of that, where each representative of the Reapers is singular, demanding, takes-no-prisoners, Shepard evolves from just a man, to a synthetic-human hybrid that you can either play as singular, demanding, takes-no-prisoner or as a collective, diplomatic, reasonable, emotional person. The reapers are pro-AI, their thought process is flawed because they are based on an artificial construct. Shepard’s and the player’s thought process is flawed because its based on an organic and emotional construct.
The hints towards this path of story was heavily hinted at throughout the trilogy. I was going to point out one of the ‘ending’ controversies you can google says that a lot of people missed references in Klencory. To me that’s silly, Klencory is just one of many planets that details the backstory of the game and the future events that would occur, the lore-nuts over at BW already figured out the number of ‘cycles’ that had occurred purely through planet descriptions in ME1 and 2. The 2nd game’s plot was based on a planet in ME1 (did anyone get it? Apparently very few did…)
It’s never been about redemption and choice, it’s been about ensuring that species/races have the time to develop and grow and the dangers of a consequence of a choice, in particular the ‘choices’ of the game have always been there to examine the 1) do good vs 2) ends-justify-the-means. It’s never been about your choices ‘mattering’ but about how those choices impact. Shepard’s choices have always been ‘minor’ choices that either buck the trend or follow it but the game’s always been central about the core choices of the species of the galaxy, Shepard is the neutral, the mix, the both-sider who can (and does if you play the cards right) fit either way and solve the issue. This is what makes him so unique in this cycle, this is what makes him so perfect in the war against the Reapers.
As an individual he’s involved in and takes part in every galactical ‘choice’ and ‘self-determination’ problem, and each of these problems have boiled down to a conflict between thought processes, either on an synthetic/organic level or on a self-detmination (i.e. paragon/renegade type) level.
As for the ending’s three paths:
The Reapers were never going to be beaten in conventional warfare. The choice of destroy and control were the boiling down of the very essence of galactic choice and the very essence of the entire theme of the trilogy that kicked off from the very start. A lot of people say that ME2 is the one that established the theme of destruction/control via the Illusive man, but it existed before that in the first game with Saren/Sovereign, Collectors/Harbringer, Everyone/Reapers, Salarian/Krogan (in some sense), Geth/Quarian (again in some sense).
It thus makes sense that the final two choices are going to be a conclusive choice of the trilogy, the Reapers get destroyed (which, was the original aim anyway), or they get controlled (by an ‘updated’ experience in Shepard – and this is the key, Shepard is almost akin to Neo in the Matrix in his role in this process, his experiences are what changes the ‘logical’ mathematical approach of the Reapers) and/or finally Synthetic.
The catch though is that these choices aren’t clear-cut, they’re not meant to be. Destruction comes at a price, so does control, it’s a matter of the lesser of two evils. I find most people dislike Destruction because of the consequences, but don’t want the Reapers existing in control so they lash out because they feel they need a complete severance of the two; which, if anything, is a fair reaction but basically means that the very message the game is conveying, that everything cannot co-exists is true and that the reaper’s actions are the best way to deal with things – this is why the destroy ending got copped in and why I thought it was bloody brilliant as an ‘eff you’ to those who didn’t get it…
I’ve seen a lot of whinge about Synthetic ending, including destruction of the right of self-determination or “rape” and other such ridiculous notions. But the synthetic ending is the natural conclusion to Shepard’s journey, particularly that he starts off as human, becomes a synthetic himself and has to deal with that fall out in 3, albiet I don’t think 3 handled it well enough. If you have Ashley for example and do the base assault before Earth the scenes exploring whether Shepard is an AI or human takes on a more sombre note, but Ashley who (more so than Kaiden) is very anti-Shepard on an emotional level finally accepts that Shepard hasn’t actually ‘changed’ artificially, he is the same guy she knew from the first game. But I digress, it builds up nicely for the synthetic ending which is;
“Shepard adds their energy to the Crucible’s, thus creating a new, synthesized DNA. The Catalyst explains that this is the best option, since synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution, and will render the Reapers obsolete. The Crucible emits a green light/beam, altering all denizens of the galaxy on the genetic level; the dividing lines between synthetic and organic life are blurred.”
The synthesis ending doesn’t ‘take away’ self-determination, rather it finally ends the exclusivity of synthetic and organic life. Both merge, both co-exist, neither can one up the other. It’s not just sentient life, if you watch the ending video you’ll see the very trees, the grass, water itself, the very leaves have synthetic/organic hybrid genetics. It isn’t a ‘die/survive’ option as has ALWAYS been the case, rather it’s an evolutionary step up on an intellectual level to finally understand the differences between the two.
Which, yes opens itself up to criticism. In some ways what Shepard does with synthesis is, impose his will on the species of the galaxy, in some ways he’s no different from the Salarian’s “uplifting” everyone, yet, here, there’s a distinction; he isn’t doing it to ‘fight’ a war, he isn’t doing it to ‘serve his purpose’ he’s doing it because on all levels there is never going to be complete understanding of an AI and organic life, the two are so different, so artificial/natural that they are destined to end up eliminating each other. The Geth/Quarians are proof of it, the Reapers are proof of it and assuming their facts are correct, every cycle so far has produced that situation. In fact, its well acknowledged that this cycle, YOUR cycle, Shepard’s cycle is completely unique and against the grain – Thank the protheans for this, uplifting and evolving humans, asari, salarians, so on enabled this turn of events to occur, its exactly why everything goes so haywire for the Reapers, their math, their cycle is broken (if you so choose it).
So boiling it down to its essence, synthesis is akin to an asari mind-meld, a meeting of two human soul mates. No one will ever understand it truly, because its just that one thing that ‘clicks’ at a very basic and yet advanced level. Its the perfect understanding of organic and synthetic life. Curiously now, no such mention was made about the preservance of organic or synthetic life so yes, in theory you commit some form of ‘genocide’ (depending on your view) but also more importantly nothing was ever made about the possibility of synthesis v synthesis wars in the future and that’s the crux, because it was never about them, it was always about the preservance of life. Essentially, you have the duality again; The Reapers and synthesis. The Reapers are the very basic, very raw form of what synthesis can be, whereas synthesis is a more idealised, more advanced version of it in theory. (Plus, in theory it’s gonna mean EDI and Joker have babies so shush!)
But, and I’ll finish it on this note; the pros and cons of every ending can be made into a huge essay, I recognise the cons of synthesis for example, but the underlying theme of duality, self-determination and so on is effectively asking you to look deeper. Do the ends justify the means? Is A, really as bad as B? We’re looking at co-existence, understanding and life (in synthesis) against ‘the elimination of the unique species genetically’ (but not their characterstics and free will) contrasted with the conformity, subjugation and ‘forceful dna-recombination’ (i.e. the process of being made into a reaper) against allowing organic and synthetic to continue to lay waste to each other.
When you boil down the overall themes and they both come to something of that kind of conclusion THAT is when you can see that synthesis on every level is kinda more justifiable and more easier to digest than the Reaper agenda, whether you agree or not, it was a ‘third’ way that prevented either the destruction of all AI/synthetic races and/or the ‘outdating’ of Shepard’s reapers in the future (which, would likely cause stagnation et al).
But, yeah, if you don’t like it I guess you don’t like it, but please don’t paint the ending as something its not because you want to label it without considering the deeper ramifications of ‘duality’ and ‘self-determination’, because you’re not doing it any justice in my view.
I agree on the ending needing more ‘choice’ influence but I did see Krogan, Turian and Asari in my battle scenes… Including Wrex giving a good old speech about how he’s gonna get laid… So yeah while there could be more, to say there was zero changes is kinda wrong.
And the alliance had already accepted that there would only be ‘one’ ending… You’re kinda forgetting here, that there is zero chance of a win for the alliance in conventional warfare, only Palaven had managed to grind the reapers to a mere halt, and that came with Krogan/Quarian aid. Everywhere else got wtfsteamrolled, and everywhere Shepard won was a one-reaper planet, not a full on warfleet/flotilla.
From the very start of 3 it was hammered home that what they were doing was getting ALL the fighting forces that were available for one last push for what effectively was the dropping of the galactic atomic bomb. If you seriously thought you were going to get a ‘happy’ ending out of that, you weren’t really paying attention to the tone of the third game. It was going to end, the fact you didn’t get Tali and build a new home and it hit you, means they’ve done their job properly. It’s hit you!
Anyway sorry but that’s a sticking point I always disagree with, Shepard died, it’s Bioware’s story and that was how it was going to end anyway. It’s like me whinging that Voldemort shouldn’t have died in Harry Potter just cos I liked him. I’m all for having a story and character get tailored to a player’s experience, I’m not in favour however, of having a complete rehaul of a story or its ending for that experience and I can understand, given that we were told from the end of ME2 that Shepard’s story was going to end (big surprise), and the insurmountable task ahead of us in ME3 plus (finally, the mental breakdown kicking off) that really there was only ever going to be one serious outcome. It was ABOUT time that something (Harbringer) laid waste to us, it was about time we had a ‘reality’ check, for 2 and ¾ of the game we were this big action hero, sometimes I wonder if the fact that Harbringer and co landing at the end and making Shepard his new ‘bitch’ was the exact reason people got so irate? It was on the cards, I thought it was a bloody awful moment, heart-in-mouth (if Bioware ended the game there I would have properly flipped my shit! Then applauded them and cried how I hated them but whatever,) and it was really what should have happened a LOT earlier in the trilogy. We’re given a final reminded y’know, that we’re ‘only human’ as Agent Smith likes to say.
As for closure, the extended ending explains all those things, but here’s the thing. For me, it didn’t have to. It was common sense as to why all those things happened. In fact, the EE only served to show that modern gamers need more ‘spoon feeding’.
And curiously, if Earth was destroyed, survived, or took damage – thats one small part of your choices having a consequence. The fact it is ONE mere choice, accumulated on a mathematical scale -yes, but STILL a choice- effectively kills any choice-don’t-matter argument does it not?
And no, refusal wasn’t consistent with established themes at all…
But its fine, your arguments are exactly the type of arguments that spawned across the bio-forums every day for hours and hours and were constantly batted back and explained in piece-meal by others more well versed in the lore and more well-versed in the exploratory themes than I, and yet as is natural (I’m not saying YOU do this, but over there…) instead of a plain and frank discussion of views people decided to completely discard the lore, themes and so on that DID occur in the game and supplant them with their own personal opinions, kind of how you’re justifying the refuse ending being consistent with the themes of the game, when it never has been outside of the very basic level since the first game (which, yes was refusal/agreement but the trilogy was supposed to show you an evolution of thoughts beyond refusal/agreement (see duality) to a third way of compromise (which, is exactly what you end up doing all throughout the third game…)
Having said that, I do agree with you that the ending needed to be more grand, more exposition in a sense. I get the feeling they weren’t sure how much would be too much and they over-estimate the need to explain every bloody little thing for some people… But I suppose it got fixed pretty quick anyway.
And yes, I am weak willed I bit the cherry and I ‘got into it’ again… -sigh-
I choose destroy because I doubt starchilds claims I would stay in control sure it looks like it but it might be a trick. Synthesis wouldn’t stop anything I’d managed to broker peace between Quarians and Geth something he said was impossible, whether it was synthetic or organic or both war would still break out.
One question for you, picking refuse results in utter defeat but the next cycle defeats them how do you think they did that? I guess less reliance on reaper tech and more time put into anti-reaper weapons?
@RVallant Wow how long did it take you to write that!? But it’s good that you are identifying things in such detail. And the fact that you didn’t go all ‘THE ENDGING WAZ SOO FUCKIN TERIBLE BW ARE FAGS!’ and also put all the views in really deserves my respect*fistpump*. If only the Asari council actually listened to Liaras dad on building their own Mass relays then we wouldn’t be in this mess.
i Hate the endings I understand your points @RVallant I only want a freaking good end and not a end copy paste from Deus ex in all the endings.
At the end I want note the diference between 10000 warfare points and 4000
The silly breath scene is not enough where hell are Shepard?
I chose destroy because control is dangerous and sinthesis is immoral oblige all people AI to be cyborgs is not my idea of coexistence and diversity
Yeah, Lilly’s a psycho. Though if you think about it, security for the group has always been the biggest thing for her, from wanting to stay at the motor inn to her wanting Lee to investigate a few missing pills.
First of all, I have to say that I never really dug into all the planets and the codex’s because I’m not really that kind of a gamer. So all my views are based on the major events I saw as I progressed through the game. But anyways, to continue my argument, sure the overall conflict of the series has been the struggle for co-existance between organic and synthetics, but from what I see, the question of whether or not they can co-exist has been answered by the second game.
The addition of Legion to the Normandy crew and our dialogues reveal that the needs of synthetic lifeforms are just like organic lifeforms at a basic level, the needs of survival and purpose. When we resolve the conflict between the quarian and the geth toward the latter half of the third game, we find that the inability of those two races to co-exist is not at a fundamental biological level but rather stems from a flawed basic understanding of the other based on assumptions. For the quarians, it is their refusal to acknowledge that the geth are capable of peace and compassion and thus unable to see them at an equal standing to themselves. For the geth, it is their fear of extinction, that the quarians will stop at nothing to see them destroyed. Once those two misunderstandings have been corrected, we can see that the two species can indeed live side-by-side in peace.
As for Commander Sheppard, if you noticed during his reconstruction, the Elusive Man wanted to, as much as possible, return the commander to the way he was, without any restrictions, mentally or physically. That’s important because it points toward a concept of individualism. That Commander Sheppard, as an individual, is the combination of both his strengths and weaknesses, and any alterations to that will change the commander and render him a different individual, one that may be unable to save the galaxy. Ashley’s problems with Sheppard, from what I can recall, was never about whether or not he became synthetic, and more about his allegiance. In fact, I never actually noticed Ashley have any hostility toward synthetics. Her main beef was always with Cerberus.
Anyways, this individualism can be expanded to include entire species. If you employ the genophage, your warscore suffers; if you kill the rachni queen, your warscore suffers; if you destroy the geth or allow the geth to kill the quarians, your warscore suffers. Sure the player can choose to wipe out the geth or ensure the complete destruction of the rachni species, but the fact that you are reward more for one choice over another is indication of the ideas that the writers have infused into the story, whether intended or not.
So no, the three choices presented at the end doesn’t follow the themes established in the series. The war was never about wiping out the Reapers, it was about survival. Is what the Reapers said true? Can organics survive alongside synthetics? All three choices turn their backs on what we have found out about the underlying problems between the geth and the quarians. The thing I really hate about the synthesis ending is that it is a “non-solution” to the problem. It essentially changes nothing. If the problem was protrayed as between the cold efficiency of machines to the raw emotion of organics, then it did nothing other than supposedly add a facit of emotion to the synthetics (as if being organic is what gives us emotions). New machines will be contructed from non-organic materials and the conflict will begin anew. You could argue that this melding of organics and synthetics can give us an edge and allow synthetics to keep up with the processing power of organics. However, is that not what implants are already doing?
But say that synthesis does all that it’s supposed to do, isn’t that the ultimate form of conformity? Essentially, we’re talking about eliminating two distinct paths of evolution and making sure that everyone in the galaxy is made up of the exact same thing. In my opinion, this is even worse than war between organics and synthetics, since in that case, there is hope of presevation for either. Synthesis may seem to be easier to digest than the Reaper agenda, but in actuality, it is the Reaper agenda. Essentially what you get out of this ending is turning everyone into a little more intelligent husks.
In regards to the refusal ending, the reason that I say it is most in-line with the overall theme of the series is that it exemplifies the individuality and the ability for choosing our own future (ie choice) that is permeated throughout the series - the idea that we will rather become extinct than become something we’re not.
Regardless, if you still maintain your point of view with regards to the themes and execution of them in the story, I won’t argue further with you on it. What I like to say is that the very fact that it is able to cause such a debate shows inconsistency and poor conveyance of the themes. It’s not the player’s job to guess the themes of the story. It’s the job of the story-teller to show the theme through the story’s events and actions done by its characters. The fact that me and many others feel that the ending was not in line with what we thought was the main themes of the story means that we obviously missed or misinterpreted some aspects of the story. To me, that’s bad story-telling. I shouldn’t have to have a degree in literature and spend my time exploring every single facet of the game in order to understand what the story is trying to tell me.
Like I found out from my first year English Literature class, the author’s intent doesn’t matter so much as what the story tells you. If the author means one thing but the story tells another, then it’s really just bad story-telling.
In terms of gameplay, I don’t think you understood why I said it’s bad game-design to kill off the player at the very end. Story-wise, yes, you can kill off the main character. But to kill off the player at the end of a game is like literally removing everything that the player has accomplished throughout the game. With some notable exceptions, none has endeared the player to the ending.
Imagine if you will, that you were an engineer working on a building. You work day-in and day-out, outshining all others and making sure that the building will be built and built well. However, just before the end of the project, you are cut from the team and the management tells you that the reason is they don’t feel you will look well with the finished building. How will you feel in that case? I don’t think that kind of feeling is in-line with what most players want at the end of a game.
Actually, to talk about a decent execution of a game in which the main character dies, I want to talk about The Walking Dead game by Telltale. In the end, the main character, Lee Everet, dies from infection (or a bullet in the head), but his legacy lived on in Clementine, the little girl he’s been protecting throughout the entire game. In this case, most players are willing to let their character die since their actions and accomplishments continues on in another character.
The reason I said what I said about the lack of closure is that the original ending made it unclear about what the fate of Earth and the other species were. It leaves the player with the question of “did I do what I set out to do?”
Again, bad game design. Games, unlike novels or movies, need clear-cut goals and objectives, at least from the player’s perspective. Minecraft may seem like it has no objective, but every player makes their own objective while in game, from trying to survive for as long as you can, to constructing a 50-story tall golden penis. If the game does not tell the player whether or not they achieved their objective and doesn’t offer the player any way to find out about that, then it leaves the player unsatisfied and frustrated. Using the engineer example, it’s like cutting the engineer from the project just before completion and then preventing the engineer from getting access to any information regarding the project (whether it was finished, how it did, etc.)
I don’t want you to get the idea that I hated the game. If I did, I wouldn’t be interested enough to write this much about it. In fact, I really enjoyed the game. I didn’t mind the trend toward minimizing inventory management because it really helps keep down my need to hoard everything I see (which is why I can’t enjoy the Elder Scrolls that much). Although I didn’t like the trend of lowering the number of conversations choices and the increasing proportion of background conversations, I did enjoy those dialogues that were present. I especially liked the tone of the last game and the scale on which the conflict is made. Heck, I played through it three times in the first two weeks since its release! My original intent was to bring it up as an example of how inconsistency in the interest of plot can ruin a gaming experience. If you don’t think that’s the case with Mass Effect, then feel free to substitute it for another game.