(Spoilers)Mass Effect 2 ruined the Franchise, 3 was continuation of that

[Forum Explorer]

Nobody wants crappy endings, regardless of quantity. But I still think your dichotomy above is false.



What it proves is that hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for us who received the finished product to say "if they had just done X it would be better." But we weren't there when the sausage was being made either.

It's not impossible to have multiple good endings, it's just harder. A lot harder. Particularly the way ME3 did it. The 'easy' way for multiple quality endings is doing things the Undertale way. Your choices throughout the entire game determine which ending you get, and the final moment is decided before you get there. For Mass Effect you could do something like:

1. You've been pursuing and tracking down the Crucible throughout the story. So the end story is activating the Crucible to wipe out the Reapers.

2. You've been building military strength at all costs. The end isn't so much a super weapon, but mass use of WMDs. You trick the Reapers into investing more and more forces into fighting on Earth, and sacrifice the planet to cripple them and give the races of the galaxy the ability to actually win the war. <= Make this the hardest route that needs almost perfect play.

3. You actually work with TIM and Cerberus. You discover a way to fuse flesh and technology together, and forcibly (Renegade) or convince everyone (Paragon) to transform themselves into these new beings that are not only immune to the majority of the Reaper's tricks, but are also much stronger, faster, and durable. This route could even have it possible to negotiate a peaceful ending with the Reapers.

The problem is that doing so takes so much time and effort. It's possible, but you are almost making 3 games, instead of just one. Typically that means each route ends up much smaller or of lower quality. Or you can pull a Witcher and actually have each route be of high quality.



Oh definitely. And honestly, I don't even mind the Crucible ending. Using a superweapon to defeat an otherwise impossible foe? That's a genre staple, and not a bad one. I'm fine with it. It's fun to spitball ideas, but even just writing a fanfiction of one of these above ideas is time consuming, tiring, and hard. Let alone making it into a game.

Overall I'd give ME3's ending a C+. Kinda shaky compared to the rest of the game, but a decent enough ending. It is a pretty massive drop in quality to the rest of the game, but quite often the ending of a series is that hardest part.

[Anteros]

What it proves is that hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for us who received the finished product to say "if they had just done X it would be better." But we weren't there when the sausage was being made either.

Hindsight may be 20/20 but there's simply no way that they didn't know what they were churning out was crap already. I refuse to believe that anyone looked at the last few hours of Mass Effect 3 and thought it was a satisfying conclusion to that story. Even the most self absorbed writer in the universe had to know it would be poorly received.

[Mechalich]

Hindsight may be 20/20 but there's simply no way that they didn't know what they were churning out was crap already. I refuse to believe that anyone looked at the last few hours of Mass Effect 3 and thought it was a satisfying conclusion to that story. Even the most self absorbed writer in the universe had to know it would be poorly received.

It's my understanding that ME3 labored under significant budget and time constraints and the ending was initially slated to be much more complex and involve other elements, like the weird sun on the planet where you recruit Tali in ME2, but these were ultimately dropped. The later Mass Effect games, both ME3 and Andromeda suffered considerably in that they tried to do something massively more ambitious than they could ultimately deliver and when this failed slapped together a half-baked project in order to meet deadlines rather than accept the delays needed to make a good one.

[Psyren]

I mean we weren't there but when the sausage is complete garbage does it really matter?

It wasn't.

It's not impossible to have multiple good endings, it's just harder. A lot harder.

Even if I agreed with this blanket statement, "harder" doesn't mean "not worth trying." Plenty of games with multiple endings are actually quite well-received; Silent Hill 2, Chrono Trigger, Jade Empire, Resident Evil, Undertale as you mentioned.

2. You've been building military strength at all costs. The end isn't so much a super weapon, but mass use of WMDs. You trick the Reapers into investing more and more forces into fighting on Earth, and sacrifice the planet to cripple them and give the races of the galaxy the ability to actually win the war. <= Make this the hardest route that needs almost perfect play.

The problem I have with conventional victory is that no matter how difficult you make it, it simply becomes the One True Ending anyway, with any of the others just being soft failure states - much like completing the Suicide Mission in ME2 with any losses at all.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I apologize for the following digression, but I had a question regarding ME and thought it'd be rude to start an entire new thread for just this one question.

I just discovered the Mass Effect Archive thing, but I'm not sure how to connect my existing Mass Effect stuff to it, namely my last playthrough of the first game, and all the achievements I got in it since I got a new computer and started from scratch...

[Forum Explorer]

Even if I agreed with this blanket statement, "harder" doesn't mean "not worth trying." Plenty of games with multiple endings are actually quite well-received; Silent Hill 2, Chrono Trigger, Jade Empire, Resident Evil, Undertale as you mentioned.



The problem I have with conventional victory is that no matter how difficult you make it, it simply becomes the One True Ending anyway, with any of the others just being soft failure states - much like completing the Suicide Mission in ME2 with any losses at all.

Maybe it's just a matter of hindsight here. Mass Effect 3 tried to have multiple endings, and failed to do it well. So in hindsight, they shouldn't have tried.


Why?

I'm not joking either. Why would that be considered the One True Ending? Particularly if succeeding requires stuff like the Earth being sacrificed, or major character death.

[Psyren]

Maybe it's just a matter of hindsight here. Mass Effect 3 tried to have multiple endings, and failed to do it well. So in hindsight, they shouldn't have tried.

So, only try things you know in advance will succeed?

Why?

I'm not joking either. Why would that be considered the One True Ending? Particularly if succeeding requires stuff like the Earth being sacrificed, or major character death.

You're right, my bad. The Crucible ending that doesn't require character death would be that ending then.

And if you require character death for all of them - you'd get just as many complaints as we have now.

[Inarius]

I apologize for the following digression, but I had a question regarding ME and thought it'd be rude to start an entire new thread for just this one question.

I just discovered the Mass Effect Archive thing, but I'm not sure how to connect my existing Mass Effect stuff to it, namely my last playthrough of the first game, and all the achievements I got in it since I got a new computer and started from scratch...

Huh, I didnt realize this was a thing. I haven't figured out how to link things in it but judging by the achievements that I have listed it looks like maybe installing and starting mass effect 1 might update it. I'll see in about 10 mins or so heh.

Edit: It seems thats not the answer, it looks like it isnt possible to sync the stuff from the first 2 games if you're on PC. What you can do is click each achievement and request unlock, it seems to be automated due to PC achievements for the first 2 games not being integrated into your EA account heh.

[Forum Explorer]

So, only try things you know in advance will succeed?



You're right, my bad. The Crucible ending that doesn't require character death would be that ending then.

And if you require character death for all of them - you'd get just as many complaints as we have now.

No, I'm just calling myself out on using hindsight to complain about something. It's not like they knew going for multiple endings would turn out badly, and by the time they finished, they likely didn't have the time or budget to fix things.


If any ending would require character death, it'd be the Conventional Warfare ending. If I was writing it, none of the main cast would survive that ending.

It'd basically end up being Mass Effect's Genocide route. It would be brutally difficult, the story would crap on you constantly as you faced massive casualties and destruction, and in the end the only thing you get is the pride of beating the most difficult path.

[Kaptin Keen]

Overall, I think this discussion is .. well, old. Obviously.

But here's what: As I've stated elsewhere, I think the ending of ME3 is just ... average. The standard for the industry is anything but impressive, so that's not high praise in any way, shape or form.

No, the real problem for ME is another one entirely: It's the Reapers. They're an incredibly inane and unconvincing enemy.

So, what are the Reapers? They're some sort of ancient AI race who waits in interstellar space for the time when organic races become advanced enough to pose a threat. Why do they do this? Basically no reason. What do they want? Nothing really, except to kill off advanced organic life at regular intervals. What do they do in the meantime? Not a god damned thing. They just left a trap in place - and for all that they've been doing this apparently since the dawn of time, their trap isn't even really working.

That's just incredibly unconvincing. Outrageously lame. Stupid. And a very poor foundation on which to build a believable tale.

So that's my claim: Any problems with the series comes not from the ending, or anything like that - it comes from it's dumb premise.

And further: From the start of the first game, I decided that I was willing to accept their premise. Maybe that's why I don't particularly hate the game, ending included.

[Morty]

I apologize for the following digression, but I had a question regarding ME and thought it'd be rude to start an entire new thread for just this one question.

I just discovered the Mass Effect Archive thing, but I'm not sure how to connect my existing Mass Effect stuff to it, namely my last playthrough of the first game, and all the achievements I got in it since I got a new computer and started from scratch...

I don't think it's actually possible to connect anything from the games to the system, unlike with Dragon Age.

Overall, I think this discussion is .. well, old. Obviously.

But here's what: As I've stated elsewhere, I think the ending of ME3 is just ... average. The standard for the industry is anything but impressive, so that's not high praise in any way, shape or form.

No, the real problem for ME is another one entirely: It's the Reapers. They're an incredibly inane and unconvincing enemy.

So, what are the Reapers? They're some sort of ancient AI race who waits in interstellar space for the time when organic races become advanced enough to pose a threat. Why do they do this? Basically no reason. What do they want? Nothing really, except to kill off advanced organic life at regular intervals. What do they do in the meantime? Not a god damned thing. They just left a trap in place - and for all that they've been doing this apparently since the dawn of time, their trap isn't even really working.

That's just incredibly unconvincing. Outrageously lame. Stupid. And a very poor foundation on which to build a believable tale.

So that's my claim: Any problems with the series comes not from the ending, or anything like that - it comes from it's dumb premise.

And further: From the start of the first game, I decided that I was willing to accept their premise. Maybe that's why I don't particularly hate the game, ending included.

I feel like there's a lot of truth to it. Maybe the Reapers weren't outright bad, but they just lost momentum after that first "woah" impression of speaking to Sovereign for the first time. The first game made the big reveal about 2/3 of the way in (during the "important derail after you've hit three of the locations" moment, like KotoR 1's key reveal) and then the rest of the series just plodded along.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, as was mentioned. It's easy for us to look back and see how the seams came apart. But the main plot of the game was a mystery plot in many ways - where do the Reapers come from, what do they really want, how do we defeat them. And like many mystery plots, it stumbled when it came to actually revealing anything.

[GloatingSwine]

No, the real problem for ME is another one entirely: It's the Reapers. They're an incredibly inane and unconvincing enemy.

So, what are the Reapers? They're some sort of ancient AI race who waits in interstellar space for the time when organic races become advanced enough to pose a threat. Why do they do this? Basically no reason. What do they want? Nothing really, except to kill off advanced organic life at regular intervals. What do they do in the meantime? Not a god damned thing. They just left a trap in place - and for all that they've been doing this apparently since the dawn of time, their trap isn't even really working.

The Reapers are the Inhibitors from Revelation Space.

In Revelation Space the first successful interstellar society predicts the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda (A real thing, will happen in about four billion years), and whilst not a lot will happen on the individual star system level any interstellar society will be hopelessly disrupted and will have used too many resources from the galaxy to rebuild. But if they prevent a new interstellar society spreading until after the galaxies have passed through each other then whoever it is will be able to fully exploit the galaxy in safety.

So they build an AI system which is designed to contain intelligent life to the planetary level, cutting off interstellar travel by killing anyone who develops it (because there'll always be more).


The leaked/rumoured dark energy plot was clearly heading in that direction. The Reapers existed to prevent excessive use of element zero hastening the collapse of the galaxy as we saw hints of in Tali's recruitment mission in ME2, but to keep life in general alive until some other solution could be found.

But they decided against that plot, because that's complicated and details oriented sci-fi, and can't really support the demand from EA that they make Modern Warfare for them (which they were turning everything into at the time, even to the extent of reproducing the music, try listening to the Modern Warfare 2 and Crysis 2 themes back to back. The only reasonable explanation is that the deliberately hired the same guy and asked him to write something as similar as possible whilst remaining legally distinct). Which is why they suddenly moved the critical events to Earth because they expected an audience that didn't engage with the narrative and so didn't put weight on the Citadel.

[Name_Here]

It wasn't.

It was. It was so bad it broke the franchise and nobody has been able to come up with a serious defense of it even 7 years later.

[Kaptin Keen]

The Reapers are the Inhibitors from Revelation Space.

In Revelation Space the first successful interstellar society predicts the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda (A real thing, will happen in about four billion years), and whilst not a lot will happen on the individual star system level any interstellar society will be hopelessly disrupted and will have used too many resources from the galaxy to rebuild. But if they prevent a new interstellar society spreading until after the galaxies have passed through each other then whoever it is will be able to fully exploit the galaxy in safety.

So they build an AI system which is designed to contain intelligent life to the planetary level, cutting off interstellar travel by killing anyone who develops it (because there'll always be more).


The leaked/rumoured dark energy plot was clearly heading in that direction. The Reapers existed to prevent excessive use of element zero hastening the collapse of the galaxy as we saw hints of in Tali's recruitment mission in ME2, but to keep life in general alive until some other solution could be found.

But they decided against that plot, because that's complicated and details oriented sci-fi, and can't really support the demand from EA that they make Modern Warfare for them (which they were turning everything into at the time, even to the extent of reproducing the music, try listening to the Modern Warfare 2 and Crysis 2 themes back to back. The only reasonable explanation is that the deliberately hired the same guy and asked him to write something as similar as possible whilst remaining legally distinct). Which is why they suddenly moved the critical events to Earth because they expected an audience that didn't engage with the narrative and so didn't put weight on the Citadel.

That's more detailed - but no less dumb. It's not suddenly a good plot - or a good villain - because you conjure a wildly contrieved excuse, and babble about an imaginary element, and galaxy collision.

[Anteros]

So, only try things you know in advance will succeed?



You're right, my bad. The Crucible ending that doesn't require character death would be that ending then.

And if you require character death for all of them - you'd get just as many complaints as we have now.

No, that isn't true. Character death is fine and well received if it's actually done well. No one complains about Virmire for example. It's when character death is only included for shock value, or forced in without any player choice that people complained.

It was. It was so bad it broke the franchise and nobody has been able to come up with a serious defense of it even 7 years later.

I'm forced to agree with this. It wasn't just mediocre or bad, it was insultingly bad. So bad that it changed what was widely viewed as one of the best game series of all time into something people have mocked ever since. I absolutely loved the first 99% of the Mass Effect series, and I haven't been able to make myself replay it in all this time because the ending is just that bad. All those decisions you make along the way kinda lose their sense of importance when you know the writer is going to poop on them during the series climax.

At this point, the only way they could re-ignite my interest in the franchise is if they introduced Mass Effect 4 where you find out Shepard was indoctrinated at some point in the 3rd game, the ending was all just an awful illusion, and now you have to go fix things.

[Rodin]

I'm forced to agree with this. It wasn't just mediocre or bad, it was insultingly bad. So bad that it changed what was widely viewed as one of the best game series of all time into something people have mocked ever since. I absolutely loved the first 99% of the Mass Effect series, and I haven't been able to make myself replay it in all this time because the ending is just that bad. All those decisions you make along the way kinda lose their sense of importance when you know the writer is going to poop on them during the series climax.

At this point, the only way they could re-ignite my interest in the franchise is if they introduced Mass Effect 4 where you find out Shepard was indoctrinated at some point in the 3rd game, the ending was all just an awful illusion, and now you have to go fix things.

This is the position I will never understand.

Not liking it? Fine. I didn't like the ending of DA: Inquisition. That hasn't kept me from being interested in future games.

Thinking it could have been done a lot better? I'll certainly agree with that. I think someone mentioned above that the grade is about a C, that was my experience too. It was a somewhat disappointing end and far below the quality of the Suicide Mission in terms of narrative weight.

But so bad it destroyed the franchise for you? I just can't wrap my head around that. It's a level of opinion difference akin to someone pointing at the sky and describing what a lovely green it is.

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to start an argument on this point. Different people hate (and like) different things. It's just a shock to me to meet that level of opinion difference from someone who also enjoyed the rest of the games as much as I did.

Anyway, I didn't have a point here. It's interesting, that's all.

Oh, and what DID kill the franchise for me was Andromeda, which was the proof that Bioware no longer knew what they wanted to do with the universe. You had an entirely blank slate to work with and you gave us...THAT? In this particular case I seem to be in the majority, as there's every indication that Andromeda outright killed the franchise.

[Anteros]

This is the position I will never understand.

Not liking it? Fine. I didn't like the ending of DA: Inquisition. That hasn't kept me from being interested in future games.

Thinking it could have been done a lot better? I'll certainly agree with that. I think someone mentioned above that the grade is about a C, that was my experience too. It was a somewhat disappointing end and far below the quality of the Suicide Mission in terms of narrative weight.

But so bad it destroyed the franchise for you? I just can't wrap my head around that. It's a level of opinion difference akin to someone pointing at the sky and describing what a lovely green it is.

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to start an argument on this point. Different people hate (and like) different things. It's just a shock to me to meet that level of opinion difference from someone who also enjoyed the rest of the games as much as I did.

Anyway, I didn't have a point here. It's interesting, that's all.

Oh, and what DID kill the franchise for me was Andromeda, which was the proof that Bioware no longer knew what they wanted to do with the universe. You had an entirely blank slate to work with and you gave us...THAT? In this particular case I seem to be in the majority, as there's every indication that Andromeda outright killed the franchise.

Because at its core Mass Effect was supposed to be this epic space opera with you shaping the fate of the galaxy. So we spend a decade on these games and make dozens of decisions along the way and it's all built up to be important. Then you get to the end and none of decisions matter. Not. A. Single. One. How are you supposed to replay and enjoy the series when you know that the entire premise is a lie? It's a choose your own adventure book where every path leads to the same last page.

And then to add insult to injury, that last page was ripped out and replaced with some sort of bad deus ex machina fan fiction.

[Psyren]

It was.

It wasn't.

No, that isn't true. Character death is fine and well received if it's actually done well. No one complains about Virmire for example. It's when character death is only included for shock value, or forced in without any player choice that people complained.

It would likely depend on who's on the chopping block in each branch. Tuchanka is a meaningful choice because you can't save both Mordin and Wrex, both very likable characters. But the choice between Samara and Morinth for example is a lot less meaningful, for most people it feels like there's a clear right and wrong answer. But if you have too many of those meaningful deaths, the tone just feels bleak.

[GloatingSwine]

But the choice between Samara and Morinth for example is a lot less meaningful, for most people it feels like there's a clear right and wrong answer.

There is a clear right and wrong answer.

Morinth is a malevolent and unstable psychopath, Samara is a disciplined warrior with a thousand years of experience. And given that the recruitment choice is explicitly because they are deadlocked in a biotic conflict Morinth doesn't even have the commendation of being more powerful.


And yes. I am in the camp that says Mass Effect 3's ending retroactively taints the experience of the preceding games. And also destroyed my faith in Bioware as a developer. I don't buy their games any more.

[Anteros]

It would likely depend on who's on the chopping block in each branch. Tuchanka is a meaningful choice because you can't save both Mordin and Wrex, both very likable characters. But the choice between Samara and Morinth for example is a lot less meaningful, for most people it feels like there's a clear right and wrong answer. But if you have too many of those meaningful deaths, the tone just feels bleak.

Yes, good writing is good and bad writing is bad. This isn't controversial. It's basically what I said.

The original script supposedly called for a choice between saving the surviving Virmire squad member or Garrus/Liara with Kai Leng killing the other. It would have been an excellent chance to invest people in him as an antagonist, and I doubt there would be any outcry at all. Instead we got an antagonist that pees in people's cereal who no one can take seriously at all.

It wasn't.

I'm beginning to wonder what Bioware would have to do for you to stop defending them. Destroy beloved franchises with middle school level fan-fiction writing that's almost universally mocked and reviled? "It's not that bad." Microtransactions? "Sure!" Charging for early access to games? "Here's my wallet!" Bug-riddled messes that are actually bricking people's systems? "Sign me up!"

If they keep going along the current trend they'll be executing orphans in the middle of the street by the end of the year. I'm interested in how you'll defend it.

[Serenity]

Yes, good writing is good and bad writing is bad. This isn't controversial. It's basically what I said.

The original script supposedly called for a choice between saving the surviving Virmire squad member or Garrus/Liara with Kai Leng killing the other. It would have been an excellent chance to invest people in him as an antagonist, and I doubt there would be any outcry at all. Instead we got an antagonist that pees in people's cereal who no one can take seriously at all.

Eh, Kai Leng does a lot of things that on paper seem like they'd invest people in him as an antagonist. The problem isn't what he does, it's that he tends to accomplish it by diabolus ex machina, failing to convince the auience that anything but the power of cutscenes is preventing Shepard from just shooting him in his smug face.

[Name_Here]

It wasn't.

Maybe you need more time to put forward any kind of defense for the ending? Maybe you'll come up with some kind of even passable defense.

Cause it absolutely was.

[factotum]

So we spend a decade on these games and make dozens of decisions along the way and it's all built up to be important. Then you get to the end and none of decisions matter. Not. A. Single. One. How are you supposed to replay and enjoy the series when you know that the entire premise is a lie? It's a choose your own adventure book where every path leads to the same last page.

This is the most important thing here, I think. ME3 just having a bad ending wouldn't be so bad if you could actually see some sign of the choices you made along the way in it, but as it is, you got 3 choices which only differed in which bits of the *same* ending video you saw, but with a different coloured filter over the top.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yes, good writing is good and bad writing is bad. This isn't controversial. It's basically what I said.

The original script supposedly called for a choice between saving the surviving Virmire squad member or Garrus/Liara with Kai Leng killing the other. It would have been an excellent chance to invest people in him as an antagonist, and I doubt there would be any outcry at all.

I'd have been absolutely furious to the point I might have rage-quit the game.

...

Oh, wait, no sorry, I genuinely misread that sentence, you meant choice between Ashley/Kaiden or Garrus/Liara, not between Garrus or Liara. No, fair point, I wouldn't have batted an eyeglow at that choice (any more than I did at Thane, which was an eyeglow roll, but Kai Leng was so uttely terrible he completely overshadowed that), but it wouldn't have made me think any more of Kai Leng.

[Anteros]

I'd have been absolutely furious to the point I might have rage-quit the game.

...

Oh, wait, no sorry, I genuinely misread that sentence, you meant choice between Ashley/Kaiden or Garrus/Liara, not between Garrus or Liara. No, fair point, I wouldn't have batted an eyeglow at that choice (any more than I did at Thane, which was an eyeglow roll, but Kai Leng was so uttely terrible he completely overshadowed that), but it wouldn't have made me think any more of Kai Leng.

It would have at least given a reason for Shepard to hate him, even if he's still just an awful space ninja that no one can take seriously. Killing him might have been satisfying. Instead, the only satisfying thing about killing him was the fact that you won't have to see him in the story anymore.

[Psyren]

Maybe you need more time to put forward any kind of defense for the ending? Maybe you'll come up with some kind of even passable defense.

And who is judging "passability" - you?

If they keep going along the current trend they'll be executing orphans in the middle of the street by the end of the year. I'm interested in how you'll defend it.

That'll be quite the Kotaku article, I'll give you that.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Huh, I didnt realize this was a thing. I haven't figured out how to link things in it but judging by the achievements that I have listed it looks like maybe installing and starting mass effect 1 might update it. I'll see in about 10 mins or so heh.

Edit: It seems thats not the answer, it looks like it isnt possible to sync the stuff from the first 2 games if you're on PC. What you can do is click each achievement and request unlock, it seems to be automated due to PC achievements for the first 2 games not being integrated into your EA account heh.

Okay, that's a relief. I was worried I'd have to reinstall the game and start all over or something! Thanks!

[Callos_DeTerran]

Well, we had a boss fight against one on foot, so, like I said before, they could have not put that there, but put that at the end or something and made it Harbinger.

Hell, doing something like a repeat of ME1 against Soverign and Whathisname, my mind's gone blank from the first one with Harbinger and TIM (Harbinger maybe getting locked into Assuming Direct Control by some techno-biotic triockey from your squad mates)... There would have been ways.

Defeating a Reaper capital ship like that would have felt...weird and out of place, at least to me personally.

Y'know, funny thing is they had concept art and models for an indoctrinated TIM that you would have to actually fight in a boss battle. I don't know if they planned on having Harbinger and TIM pull a Sovereign/, but there is a draft of the script where you fight TIM as a boss battle. Ultimately Bioware decided it was a better idea not to fight TIM, since he wasn't that kind of character in the first place, and have Shepard beat him via a dialogue which I actually quite enjoyed!

[Rodin]

To speak personally on the ending...actually, no, I don't really want to do that. I've posted pages and pages here over the last 7 years about why I didn't have a problem with it story-wise. Most of the issues I did have were spectacle-based, in that the choices you make aren't sufficiently shown in the cinematics.

The briefest summary I can really give is that I wasn't heavily involved with having my choices matter where the Reapers are concerned. Because as far as they're concerned, I'm just collecting resources for the battle. All of the narrative weight of your choices is resolved earlier in the plot. Did you take the time to learn about your squadmates, and make good decisions? They get to survive the Suicide Mission. How do you feel about the Krogan? Those choices all come out and are resolved when you cure (or don't cure) the genophage. How do you feel about the Geth/Quarian conflict? All of that is resolved during that section of the game. The decision to save the Rachni is entirely contained within the first game. By the time you get to the final battle, all the major plot points are settled. There's nothing more to tell.

So, there's that, plus I'm real sucker for transhumanism stories. The rest of the themes, plot strengths and weaknesses, etc, I've gone into ad nauseum, so I'll just say that I didn't have a problem with them. Again.

[Name_Here]

And who is judging "passability" - you?

Who else- you?

Maybe make a defense and we'll see how it lands since so far you've contained yourself to a single two word phrase repeatedly.