@BLKCrystilMage: "I think most of the complaints were about how there wasn't any meaningful difference between the 3 endings."
Obviously... the three endings are the same... the glowing kid choice. I know it makes no sense when comparing those choices but... that’s on Supermac artistic writing...
"Aside from that, the explanation of the Reapers made sense..."
Are you sure? They saving you from a war you already proved can be prevented... in this same game... LOL I love artistic writing... Also... saving you by squeezing you into a pulp is not what I would call salvation...
@Sepewrath: "But the player has to win in the end; so BW did the best they could to coalesce those two conflicting ideas."
Nah... The routes to a multiple option ending are endless. All you need is a proper vision of what you final product needs to be. ME3 has 2 great missions that wraps up two main plots, tuchanka and rannoch, everything else is just crap...
Obviously, the first a most important mistake was ME2. Because ultimately it did nothing to advance the main storyline. It was a great game and experience but only from a side quest vision.
But nothing justifies what ME3 becomes. The first ten minutes of ME3 undermines and destroys ME1 main plot, the giant dildo device is just a deus ex device that makes zero sense from a narrative perspective and even worse from an engineering perspective, and the three coloured ending a travesty of what a final mission and decision is...
So... I can't cut them some slack... they don't deserve it...
"But since Mass Effect avoided most of the extra weird stuff, the ending of Mass Effect 3 never really had a chance to be good."
I would be glad if it were just bad... it is the worse thing I ever saw in a video game. It destroyed 2 games in a few seconds...
"The choices presented by the Catalyst at the climax of the trilogy are very big and impactful ones..."
Sorry what? The choices are very simple to understand, you either do what he wants (red, blue and green) or you choose none and receive a middle finger for it. To my Shepard was simple, accept the AI victory or not... and my Shepard as Paragon never would accept it... never...
Also, the three choices are the most stupid thing ever imagined. One is by definition not a solution (red), the blue one is a perpetuation of the problem, and the last one (green) a super rape of organic species.
Ufff... So many years passed... still, the hate is still present... As a gamer, if god allowed me to beg something, it would be to wipe ME3 from my mind. I loved ME1 and ME2 so much that is so painful not to be able to play those games again...
@johnblz: "We went from Mass effect 2 and Minecraft/Audiosurf/Toribash in indies, to Life is Strange/ Death Stranding and Mouthwashing - no-gameplay, soul-less titles..."
Wrong comparison. Personal tastes in games are a very important advantage. You have diversity and you can choose the game you like, more focused on gameplay or more focused in the story. Good balance is the key, but that is just my personal opinion.
"Mass Effect 2 is still an example to follow when it comes to incorporating storytelling into video games, as opposed to making a story and selling it as a game."
And this is the worst take of all... storytelling is an art, a very complicated art. ME2 is a failure when it comes to story telling... also, a game is something that you play, you dont have just one way for "gameplay",TWD episodes and Life is Strange are games I enjoy deeply. But again, is my personal taste working here, when I was a kid all I wanted to play was Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter... but then MGS happened...
@oldmanmadmax: "I don't think that killing anyone is universally wrong"
Then we disagree. If we don't give value to life we become simple animals trying to survive and nothing more. Everything is acceptable because the result is more important than the process.
"Civilized people should come together to determine whether or not someone was justified in taking a life."
That´s the problem, the word "civilized people"... Because an enraged mob can be portrayed as civilized people... The term is too vast and too open to interpretation.
You have laws, and you have consequences, but to take a life away is in my view way to extreme. Especially with so many examples of wrong judgements... But that's a different topic...
"a situation where one society attacks another"
In war there is no law, only actions to remember. The imposition of consequences comes in the hands of the victor, it has nothing to do with justice.
"However, there's nothing for Ciri to do once the crime has already been committed."
We are walking in circles on this debate. While I understand where you're coming from, and the foundation of your argumentation, your end result is the "no consequences" for that crime. In my view, if I can do something about it I will do it, or in this situation, Ciri will do it.
"If they deemed that his actions were reasonable, then so be it."
And what if they decide that every child in village must also die?... should we accept everything? My point remains the original, we do something or nothing... both actions have consequences...
"Ciri could just haul him into the nearest outpost and turn him in for murder."
If this were an option I can assure that it would always be my choice. Its the reasonable and right thing to do. On this there is no debate.
"And Ciri would be absolutely no better than the people she's killing."
Well... Yes and No... Yes because he is killing "people" (if she kills them). And no, because they killed an innocent person and she is killing assassins (monsters)... Two very different things... Again, all the variable must be on the table.
@oldmanmadmax: "Right and wrong is always subjective."
At some point a line must be drawn. No matter how much subjectivity you can find. Can we define that killing people is wrong? I hope so, otherwise, Ciri is doing nothing wrong either dont you think? Its just a normal day in the office. Everyone killing someone.
You know, same as me that in that context there would be no justice. They were already prepared to sacrifice her, so no one to blame. I would accept the idea of bringing her killers to justice. The entire village if necessary, but in order to do that you need a proper justice system. Without that proper system all you have is "do something" or "do nothing"... I think that in that specific situation, to do something sends a bigger message (and brings more justice) than to do nothing.
Add your logic in reverse... when is right to act... one victim, 2 victims, 3 victims.... and so on... The problem with your logic about what's enough, or the limitation of justice, can also be applied to the inaction about the whole situation. Does a killer with children be treated differently than a killer with no children? Is not a killer nevertheless? This questions can evolve endlessly... but the action is the same, to do nothing, or to do something.
"She's not trying to make the world more just."
This is not correct. If a murderer is stopped (in one way or another) the world becomes more just. You are talking as if she had a tantrum over nothing... and that is not what happened. It was too late to save the girl, not to bring her killers to justice. Or to impose justice in this particular case.
PS: Lets just point one thing... We don't know what happens... if she kills them or not... its an open sequence... and I think that happens for a reason.
blindbsnake's comments