You can see it in this way, sure, but, in my opinion, players, who wishes, deserve ending, where V lives, albeit with sacrifices of sort.
Well in Dragon Age: Origins your character could sacrifice himself in the end or survive, depending on what you chose and somehow it is one of the best RPG games till this day so?
And again I ask: How do you reach the conclusion that that is the theme?
The 6-months to live thing didn't come about organically but was dropped on us at the last moment.
The theme should be "the corps always win". It doesn't matter mow much you hurt Arasaka, Militech and others will just move in. You can work for them, or try to run away, but in the end you are just heading for another conflict.
There is no need for a badly written 6-months to live limit.
No. Vs hunt to survival are acts 2 and 3. V gets a solution to the problem - a cure.
That cure is than retconned in the epilogue.
This is textbook bad writing.
In addition, several plot holes are ripped open. In addition, it's the same blshit that V happened at the beginning of act 2.
They had not even the dignity to do it in a other game.
If you, as V, related to Johnny and decide that he might deserve the second chance that you can't have. Johnny's redemption is not undeserved and not without player's agency
Post automatically merged:
Then what is the different endings, where are the choices? Every player would just cure V and end the game. What would the quid pro quo be about?
Post automatically merged:
Which is a stupid choice since there are better alternatives, that are easily accessable
no, you and some others wouldn´t. The case is to give both groups of players a valid replayability and thus for it needs, some more good endings and some that we have now. Win-Win
The choice!!!
Do you want to work with Arasaka who control the world?
Do you want to rule the Underworld from the Afterlife?
Do you want to leave with the Nomads?
Choice and consequence.
Well. You could still go with arasaka, who chops up your brain or a slaves you on their servers.
Quid pro quo. You fucking send your new buddy to cyberhell and stand on the pile of bodies of good people who want you to live.
Btw. The sacrifice of johnny (who never wanted your body), Saul, Rogue, and all the others is negated by the 6 month timer.
Death in a story has to have a meaning. On our case, it enables. V to live. That meaning is destroyed by the plot-cancer.
Really. Start reading books.
Everyone woud. The sad ending just for sake of sad ending is as silly as yours demand for unicorns and rainbows.
Why are always entitled people that say something like this, what you think "choices matter" is up to you, for me the choices doesn't matter and I have every right to think so, not you or anyone else will change my mind on that and I doubt you will change anyone else either.
You do like the endings, congrats to you brother but I don't want another mass effect 3 over again.
and yes for me there is an illusion of choice when it comes to the endings because most all results in V dying, whether in 6 months or not doesn't matter, V dies.
And that's why true CHOICE would be the cardinal solution.
Im sorry does anyone asks for unicorn and rainbow ending!!! Im not can argue no one does in this threads just read the comments and figure it out
It's not even a demand for unicorns and rainbows.
But I guess a logical ending nowadays is too much to ask for.
If the goal of the game (BTW the cyberpunk splash that usually comes when the game starts) is at the beginning of act 2.
The majority of the game is act 2 and 3. The goal of the game is to survive. Not surviving the game is equal to a game over screen.
I get the feeling that the game was not meant to end after mikoshi. It feels more like the end of act 2.
From the structure, the game up to the heist feels like the prologue.
ok, after reading over this a couple of times, I believe that I do not disagree with the content of this statement.
Last edited:
And why wouldn't I? If V has a chance to cure, it makes no sense to die.