If you merge, you essentially force all life everywhere to either take on organic components or synthetic components. Mass Effect 2 did something really interesting with its conclusion. In the climax of the game, any member of your squad and even the protagonist, Shepard, could permanently die. In order to prevent this outcome, you needed to do loyalty missions throughout the game and then make sensible choices at the climax. Essentially, Mass Effect 2 , more than the first game, was built around character relationships so that by the time the game ended, you were invested in every single supporting character.
For example, on my first attempt at the final mission, I lost Thane, so I replayed it to find a way to save him and succeeded! However, this investment created a programming problem for Mass Effect 3. There was pretty much no way for the final game in the franchise to adapt to your choices regarding who lived and who died. All the personal choices made up to that point seemed irrelevant, and in the end, all three endings ultimately destroyed the very mechanic that the universe based itself on: the mass relays that allowed for interstellar travel.
Even worse is that the final choice only led to one of three underwhelming cutscenes. It seemed that nothing from the previous two games even mattered, and this angered fans to the point that BioWare received complaints and harassment from fans.
BioWare did eventually respond by releasing longer cutscenes, but the damage was done. Those new scenes did little to satisfy longtime players of the franchise. However, the Mass Effect 3 ending wasn't as bad as players remember. That final choice before the end is part of something bigger. That last choice required players to think about all the decisions that came before, from all three games, and then use that information to decide on the final fate of the galaxy.
It required the player to become Commander Shepard and think like their version of that character to make an informed decision. Players who thought that this choice was too easy completely missed the point. They were supposed to think about it, mull it over, and decide how the story would end. If that choice came easily, then maybe, just maybe , those players were doing it wrong. There is also the whole of the Mass Effect 3 game to consider.
At time of release, Mass Effect 3 's original ending was one of the biggest controversies in gaming. Players were infuriated by its lack of choice and explanation, leading to a backlash that resulted in the Extended Cut DLC. The revised ending placated most fans by giving them a greater sense of how their choices affected the galaxy.
However, while the first ending was flawed, it wasn't without merit. With the Legendary Edition now available, it's time to look back at what that original ending got wrong, what it got right and what was lost in its reconstruction. From the very beginning, Mass Effect was a space opera-cosmic horror hybrid. In the first game, humanity is struggling to win a place in the galaxy and the biggest tensions are with alien races. This changes with the reveal of Lovecraftian machines known as the Reapers.
Their existence makes it clear that all the progress made by organic life pales in comparison to the strength of synthetics. The Reapers are a grandly terrifying presence in the galaxy. Their stated goal is the eradication of organic life. To that end, they corrupt living beings into their slaves and soldiers. Nowhere is this made more abundantly clear than in the ending to Mass Effect 3. Shepard fights through a legion of corrupted creatures to reach the Citadel, the heart of galactic society.
The station had been taken over by The Illusive Man, a once-uneasy ally now controlled by the Reaper technology he sought to wield.
0コメント