Sera said:
I'm pretty sure most people aren't "unable to think outside the box", or that most of us weren't able to predict the endings (nice condescension by the way)
My opinion, while condescending by your definition, bears validity by force of reason. You may disregard it, or not, under such terms if you wish, and give it neither question nor attempt at reasonable consideration; quite simply put, I understood something I believe many did not, and I stand by my analysis. I invite you towards considering it, and to disagree or agree, as is healthy in any debate;
The main issue I'm seeing is that a game series which prides itself around choice, self-determination and (less so) defying the odds and being kickass has 3 completely static endings which you have absolutely no say in.
I am not quite sure it 'prides' itself on any such specific traits. Indeed, I would claim the very opposite; from the very first game, we take note that the main antagonist is unthinkably powerful, to such an extent that a single member of its number could lay waste to entire flotillas' worth of ships. We are confronted with the difficulties of choice, and the consequences that derive from that capacity, consequences that hold us as if to shackles, denying us the apparent liberty that having choice implies, simply because oftentimes, there is no good choice, and oftentimes there is no choice at all. In Shepard's case, at the end of it all, he is faced with three choices of terrible importance for the future of the galaxy, however, and you most certainly have all say about what choice to make. Each of them represents dire ramifications for the future of life in the galaxy, both for good and ill. I find the subtlety of each ending to be sublime and thought provoking - I have never sat that long just pondering the ramifications of a choice. That sensation, I believe, is precisely what the authors intended, and I applaud them with a standing ovation for it.
We also take note of the humanity of the protagonist - yes, he is Shepard, warrior without equal, but he, too, can die, he, too, can weep, he, too, can suffer. I believe the considerations on the humanity of Shepard and the value of sentient thought to be far more at the core of Mass Effect than 'being kickass', pardon me saying it. That particular trait is borne more of the quality of the series than its actual intended purpose, I'd say.
In Mass Effect 1 and 2, apart from there being several different ways you could end the game, stuff you did previously defined the ending somewhat and changed what would happen, whereas in Mass Effect 3, you get to the top of that Crucidel and the last 3 games might as well have not happened at all for all the difference it makes.
You seem to ignore the context of Mass Effect 3 altogether. You seem to be of the idea that the previous games were great triumphs of epic resolution that would fix the issues at hand; it is well and firmly established that all that was accomplished in 1 and 2 were delays of the inevitable. You also seem to ignore the enormity of what Shepard accomplishes in the course of his career in the two previous games; every single choice matters for the future of the galaxy, even if it has no direct correlation to your success or failure in the battle against the Reapers.
From what I've heard, you can't even die on your way to the Citadel lift or anything if you have shit-all forces at your disposal. It begs the question of why bother? In Mass Effect 2, you met all your crew and did all their loyalty missions or there was a very real threat that they would die, and if you didn't do enough then there was a VERY real threat that Shepard him/herself would DIE. That seems completely absent in Mass Effect 3.
I would counter-argue that Shepard, while a powerful force, is not the sun upon the center of the metaphorical universe. In fact, nothing about the purpose of the war on the Reapers is about Shepard; it is about all organic life. Why bother gathering forces if the final sequence will always be the same, you ask? The outcome will be dramatically different. Maybe Shepard will not die, maybe he will always take up that mass effect lift up to the Citadel no matter what choices were made before. But in the process of not caring for gathering enough forces in swift enough a manner, billions of lives are lost across hundreds of worlds. There is worth in bothering to unite everyone against the Reapers. The very purpose of many of the points made throughout the game is that either the species band together to face this foe and risk defeat, or be separate and certain that defeat will be a certainty.
It is easy to disregard and dissociate oneself from anything other than the protagonist. We get to know the protagonist, fight with him/her, accompany the struggles, successes and failures made. It is much harder to care for the faceless masses that Shepard fights for. I take those in far greater consideration than any fate befalling the protagonist because they are the reason the protagonist is fighting in the first place. They are the ones whom Shepard means to save.
I won't lie, when I got to the citadel lift thing in London and I was sprinting towards it, people dying left, right and centre, and then I got hit by that reaper laser, the first thought to cross my mind was "Fuck. That's awesome, I get to play it all again cos I fucked up and didn't have enough of something."
But no. It happens no matter what. Which strikes me, and I think a lot of other people, as very, very lazy, and not in keeping with the previous two games.
I do think you have a point in this regard. It does strike me as odd that everyone else around Shepard must die, except himself, at that critical stage. As if he could not fail at reaching that pivotal moment in the plot. I would not exactly call it lazy; from a storywriter's perspective, the power of Plot would compel Shepard to at least make it up to the Catalyst for any semblance of plot completion to follow. I believe this is adequately compensated by the consequence being reflected on other factors - Earth's destruction, chaos and discord among the other species and so on.
Speaking of laziness, same cutscene, different colours. But that's been mentioned at length.
ALSO: Apparently the Rachni queen is in ME3 whether you saved her or not in Mass Effect 1. The more I read about ME3, the more depressed I get.
I would counter that it is not the cutscene itself that matters, but what took place before it. The cutscene does the job for what it is intended; a big space machine doing its intended purpose. The different colours have different meanings, as discussed right before the taking of the choice.
As for the Rachni matter, that either needs proper canonical explanation or it risks complete and utter inconsistency for those who took that choice. 'Why the Queen is still there if I chose to kill her?' is a question that must be asked and answered satisfactorily. If not, then I agree, it is a serious deviation from internal logic which I cannot suffer.
I am in the process of playing through a Renegade who liquefied the Queen - I will look towards that part of the game once I come to it.
In conclusion, I do believe that the ending of Mass Effect 3 is some of the most brilliant writing I've seen in any game I have played in the last few years. I do understand the vitriol and the complaints, and I do understand the investment carried over throughout the series by many, including myself. I cannot, however, support the notion that the authors 'got it wrong' or that the ending is shit simply because it failed to match the expectations of the masses, the same way I can't support the (hypothetical) notion that people could lynch-mob Tolkien for not letting Frodo live happily ever after in the Shire after Lord of the Rings. Because that was never the intended direction of the story. And as regrettable as the dislike of so many is, it is even more regrettable that people find themselves in the right of demanding a different ending or clamouring about the demise of quality writing in games. Because I know what that means, sadly; it means conformity to the established formulae, in complete disregard for the internal logic of the setting. It means sacrificing quality for the sake of the mob's appeasing. And that is the death of the original artist.
