QUOTE(hahli9 @ Mar 21 2012, 05:22 PM)
The Matrix and Spider-Man was alright to me. The endings fit what the movies were. Though maybe I should watch them again, I watched Matrix when I was a kid and last time it was all, "Explosion! Yay!"
The difference here is you are comparing movies to games. In games, the endings CAN be patched, they can be changed if the developers see a better way to end them. I can't say anything about Star Wars since I haven't watched the initial trilogy recently. And wtf Romeo & Juliet? ME3 was never a love story was it? I can't say I've read Romeo & Juliet so I can't give any more in-depth analysis of the story but seriously, comparing ME to Romeo & Juliet is just nonsense.
And just to answer your initial statement, there is no expectation that ME3 would be a true masterpiece. The thing I said was that ME3
would be a masterpiece
if the
indoctrination theory were true. Please don't just read a single sentence and throw the rest of my post out the window. There was however an expectation of more than 1 ending with 3 slight differences between them. The developers have always said that the endings would weigh in all your choices from the previous games. That was why you were given the option to import your save files. If in the end, no matter what you did, you'd separate all the races of Mass Effect by destroying all the mass relays then what the hell was the entire of mass effect's plot for? Throughout the whole of ME3, you go uniting all the races. The Turians and the Krogans, the Quarians and the Geth. What was that for? Just to build an army strong enough to get on the crucible? Mass Effect was more than a war against the Reapers, it was Shepard's effect on the galaxy. This
human race, an infant of galactic travel, uniting the races to bring about a common cause: Survival through any means. And if that means is the destruction of the Reapers then so be it.
You know, there's a reason they let you unite the Geth and Quarian last. They want that choice to still be in your head when you make the choices at the ending. Knowing that you've united the Geth and Quarian before, why would you choose to destroy? You have single-handedly caused and experienced the unification of an organic and a synthetic race. That Shepard would not argue against the holographic synthetic God starchild is just nonsense. On the brink of death, a God appears before you and tells you that you can throw all you have accomplished away, control what you have sought to destroy and right after you just told TIM that you can't control them, you have to destroy them or unite all synthetic and organic life <- What Reapers have been doing, serving you plates of bio-synthetic death machines made from organics harvested throughout the galaxy.
Sorry, I got sidetracked but to just accept the ending of Mass Effect is like you haven't played the previous games at all. People aren't pissed because they want this game to be god damn bloody brilliant, they are pissed because all of their actions in the games culminates in a select screen at the end. And initially, my post was to incite discussion on the indoctrination theory and suddenly some people take parts of my post out of context and start a pointless argument.
You're already comparing ME to Romeo and Juliet by talking up ME3's potential to be a brilliant literary masterpiece. I don't see why you can't patch book and movie endings. As mentioned earlier, George Lucas seems to enjoy patching his movies, who shot first Han or Greedo? Steven Spielberg replaced his fed's guns with mobile phones. Books can be interactive as well, in the 80s choose your own adventure type game books were all the rage, where if you didn't like the ending you made a different decision.
Also, don't forget that if you don't import, you're forced to either lie to the krogan or you open the universe to a new era of krogan over population and tyranny, and you are forced to make the decision that causes the extinction of either the geth or the quarians. Why can't blowing everything to kingdom come be a viable alternative then? If you make all the right decisions and everyone's holding hands before the final battle, why can't control or synthesis be a suitable ending for people who wanted to make those decisions?
You spend the whole game building the crucible with no idea what it does apart from the fact that it's a weapon. As shepard mentions, you're basically a kid with a loaded gun.. you don't learn anything more about the weapon until the end when the catalyst explains the purpose to you. You basically can't argue because you don't know any better. Why does it have to be a "godchild", can't it be a sophisticated VI that's in charge of running the citadel, or really just a "plot device" to move the story along?
All their decisions from the previous 2 games culminated in the entire 3rd game. The third game is just one long end game of resolving outstanding storylines.
Hey it's a happy ending for the galaxy as well. Irrespective of whether you strand people on alien planets and destroy all means of communication, the fact the stargazer and child are around means that ultimately it all worked out.
QUOTE
Good read, it is essentially a very well detailed explanation of why the indoctrination theory is true.
Force feeding indoctrination theory as fact is no different from what the tin foil hat theorists are doing in this thread
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...hl=moon+landing To quote Dr. Ray Muzyka:
QUOTE
The journey you undertake in Mass Effect provokes an intense range of highly personal emotions in the player; even so, the passionate reaction of some of our most loyal players to the current endings in Mass Effect 3 is something that has genuinely surprised us.
I really believe that this is the reason we got the endings we got. Because bioware didn't know better.