Hyper-space said:
This is why we cannot have nice things, for we set up these absurd rules for video-games that only serve to permeate clichés and tired tropes, such as the Hollywood-esque notion that a movie (or in this case, Video-games) should only have happy-endings.
On the other hand somebody playing an epic role-playing video-game trilogy is going to *expect* to be the hero and save the universe. That's why they are playing the game. When expectations don't match reality, disappointment is created.
This explains why DA:O was so goddamn stale and bland, OF COURSE WE HAVE TO HAVE AN EVIL DARK FORCE THAT THREATENS TO CONSUME THE LAND AND ONLY THE CHOSEN ONE CAN SAVE US.
Jesus balls, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read, its people like him that are the reason why 90% of all RPGs have derivative-as-shit stories and character archetypes.
It's like this: if you fail at the end, what was the point of playing? For instance, how many games have YOU played where if you die/lose the macguffin/etc throughout the level you LOSE... but then all the hard work is made moot because in the cutscene that follows, your character dies/loses the macguffin/etc? It cheapens the experience, and makes your actions as a player pointless.
That's not to say it NEVER works. Red Dead Redemption had one of the best endings I've seen in a videogame, and
. but there, it works, because john marston has ACHIEVED something. There will be repercussions from his actions. In fact, the ending's immediate impact can be felt as the player assumes the role of his son, and a formerly meek child becomes a coldblooded murderer. Marston has achieved personal redemption, even if he has not been redeemed in the eyes of authority. Shepard, on the other hand, has been the tool of the player to shape an entire galaxy. he sets things in motion, but when his game ends, nothing comes of it. The players journey through the series is ultimately for nothing. I'm told that some fans have adopted a theory that the player's inability to save the day at the end comes from Shepard being mind-controlled, which in my opinion would save that particular facet of the problems people have been listing. It makes the tragedy of having all your hard work have a reason in the grand scheme of things, as opposed to the idea that poor design or planning has robbed you of the chance. Personally, I don't really care about the series, as I have only played the first, and don't want to play the others, but I would be fine if the series ending on a sad note, and I think there are many who are mature enough to accept that not everything needs a happy ending. But when it happens, we want a REASON it has to. Marston can't live peacefully on his farm because he was never going to be able to, he only had a chance to make up for his own misdeeds before the hammer fell. There is no reason, on the other hand that my character in oblivion should be stupid enough to fall for a lich's obvious trap because the lich says he's sorry.
Do you see the distinction? We MADE the story happen. Someone else built the story, but they aren't showing it to us, we making the events unfold ourselves. We want to be part of it.
That said, even as a non-fanboy, some of the technical issues about the ending were just appalling. So if someone hates the ending because of the details (like the problems with the timeline) I have to agree wholeheartedly. if they just hate it because everything goes tits-up for everyone, well, that i agree with you on, its only personal taste and therefore unquantifiable
