Cronus said:
I feel this way too especially on my second run through. I guess the first time around I was just stunned it was over. But looking back, it's still a great game (to me) all the way through, and the ending itself is just on a different timeline than just a single game - I felt like the ending had been happening for a few hours, and the final mission was the real send off.
No one could be completely satisfied with the ending, and Bioware unfortunately backed themselves into that corner with their own characters but in the grand scheme of it all they did it right. I'll be interested to see how the DLC changes things.
Yeah, I think the key thing there is a second time through; another look with the whole picture in mind. They had to compromise and meet a lot of criteria, and in retrospect, to use Hackett's description of the Crucible itself, "the designs are... elegant. Massive in scope, but strangely simple as well."
Saephon said:
Don't take this as me ranting at you personally, but I do get tired of hearing that. I feel it's a cop out. Just because you can't please everyone doesn't mean it's wrong to point out where improvements could have been made.
By the same token, just because improvements could have been made doesn't mean it's broken either, and the volume to which we've been hearing that is beyond tiresome.
Saephon said:
Anyway I agree it wasn't bittersweet, but that's kind of my problem with it. It seemed to be going for that "sacrifice for the greater good" vibe at the end, but when Shepard's sacrifice was basically inevitable at the hands of the
creator of the Reapers, AKA the God-like being I'm introduced to in the last 10 minutes
allows me to save the galaxy...I don't know, it feels cheap? That'd be like the Idea of Evil allowing Guts to resolve the story with its own pre-approved set of choices at the very end of Berserk, only we aren't aware of the Idea's existence until their meeting. Where's the theme of struggling against all odds then? Bleh, I say!
It seems to me like you're still breaking down why you felt that way instead of reexamining the whole thing to see if it really stands (it doesn't help that you've previously
bailed on the conversation only to come back and re-register the same discontent =). Plus, the various reasons it's supposedly so bad are all starting to run together and conflict; the decisions are either too hard, or it's all too cheap and easy, despite the sacrifices, which seem mandatory and therefore meaningless, except when they're not, etc.
For one thing, we're actually introduced to the Catalyst, for all thematic intents and purposes, at the beginning of the game when the boy says you can't help him, runs away, and is destroyed, which is more than just a random way to introduce a kid Shepard is sad to see die, it's the foundation of those last 10 minutes as well. That theme is followed up on throughout the game in Shepard's dreams (especially when the kid burns, and
especially when the kid
and Shepard burn) and certain conversations (both concerning the boy specifically and a mind behind evolution generally). Plus the whole Crucible project was established as the Dues ex MacGuffin early on (
possibly as early as ME1 =). BTW, it's interesting that the Catalyst essentially is a literal embodiment of a "god out of the machine" just as the Crucible itself is a literal Paragon/Renegade mechanism; I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional. There's plenty of other conversations and themes that directly tie into Shepard's tough decision at the end too, it's just not obvious at the time. In any case, it doesn't all come out of nowhere like one might have initially thought.
As for the theme of struggling against all odds. That's the entire game and how Shepard got to that point and had the opportunity to activate and use the Crucible at all, which was the stated goal almost from the outset (so, if you didn't mind it before...). You're dismissing all that because you didn't like how it was executed ultimately, but it doesn't sound like you've given that execution further consideration after the fact, or relative to the alternatives. For example, would it have been better if Shepard had just pushed a button on the console and the Reapers died, or did we need a wholly more impressive dues ex machina to solve what was presented as a totally impossible situation by any conventional means? I don't know, perhaps if the Crucible had been more of a conventional weapon, basically a giant gun that could blow Reapers out of the sky but which had to be escorted around to the various systems and planets to engage the Reaper fleets, it would have felt less like cheating, but would ultimately come down to the same thing, but with less opportunity for explanation and likely no more satisfying a conclusion. Just throwing shit against the wall, it would have been neat if Cerberus and/or the Alliance had used our existing Reaper tech to build our own Reaper-style ships to fight them with, which could have also tied into the cycle and a paradoxical origin myth of the Reapers, better representing how organics ultimate destroy each other/themselves with synthetics, with greater emphasis on organic tensions and initiative in the cycle as a whole. I'm rambling. =)
Saephon said:
Here's an amusing thought: If shooting the Big Red Pipes is what initiates the Destroy option, does that mean that if the Citadel were to be blown up or inflicted severe damage in the war, the Reapers could trigger their own demise?
You're joking, but it still implies you haven't put too much thought into this; that obviously couldn't have happened without the Citadel being otherwise intact and in position with the Crucible (plus that area clearly has shielding/a field of some kind). So, no, I don't think the Reapers would have allowed all that to happen by accident. [/nerdingout]
yota821 said:
I wouldn't have minded if I had gotten this ending.

is that a bad thing?
Nah, as long as you don't cry about it or anything.
