@RobbyBevard:
They're fairly different, but the entire point is that Shepard only discovers the new path at the last second, 1.and doesn't have time to think over how much the universe will be affected by this slim choice he has. And neither should the audience.
He/you make a new choice with large consequences with very little time to think about it… and that's that. The universe will change dramatically no matter what, but as huge and nuanced as full of history as their world building was, that's not something that can be shown well even in a 10 hour epilogue. That's a mystery for the viewer to sit with and contemplate, or a subject for an entire new game.
2.There's a countless number of sci-fi books, or fantasy books, that do the same sort of thing. MOST of the time, the ending is the ending, and the follow up or epilogue is non-existant. And sometimes epilogues suck a ton because they stop your own imagination or don't fit the narrative well (like Harry Potter's)
3.Any way you do it though, the reapers are beaten, Shepard made a sacrifice befitting the personality you gave him, and that's the point.
I'm more interested in the inevitable Krogan expansion wars, myself.
1. First of all, that statement seems very problematic to me because your putting a limit on the perception of players. That seems very wrong to me. It seems you're seperating the character shepard with the player itself which I strongly disagree with especially for mass effect.
Given that ME is a very player driven game and that the scene gives you quite a bit of time before the reaper elimination message kicks in, saying that it doesn't give you as the player any time to think about it seems shaky. To some it may be so to others it may not, I didn't even know about the reaper elimination message and I felt I took a lot of time considering every possibility.
The thing is if they'd really intended for that kind of urgency something more akin to the walking dead dialog seems more appropriate. But then since this is a game I have a hard time arguing how people should perceive things albeit there are hard game mechanic indicators implicating it. Interaction changes perception so much compared to mere witnessing.
But then that's not the point, this is a story told to you. Telling the player what the outcome is of every choice is doesn't change the moment when you choose(shepard not having the time to choose wisely does not change that the outcomes should be a lot more different).
Like already said, for me it's just a hardcore cop out just having colour swaps signalise the significance of difference, that doesn't mean I want them to explicitly tell me what's going to happen after every ending, just that I'd like to feel like yes these choices feel different and significant.
I didn't get that out of the original ending. To top it off I got confusion out of it.
2. Wow I don't even know where to begin here this is such a broad statement to bring into the discussion that can have so many different nuances and angles depending on perspective, intention and to that end reception. Sorry I don't feel like I can go into that cave without making similarly broad statements that probably would just be plain out wrong.
3. For you maybe, alas for many others it was not(which does not make you wrong but it also doesn't make you right). To me it was never about shepards fate, it was about the galaxy. I had no problem with him dying, heck I didn't even have a problem with garrus and tali dying from harbinger's(was that the right reaper name?) lasers, before they magically showed up alive to my confusion on the normandy at the end. I knew what I sacrificed, what I wanted to know what I gained from it. And again that's why I feel it's very hard to just say this game is about this and has that intention.
Just out of interest don't you think that having cinematics distinctly different from each other (while not necessarily telling everything, that said ME3 does a marvelous job of tying pretty much everything up already) wouldn't it be better?
Having them be different, would communicate the idea that destroy, control and synthesis are hugely different far better.
If you think that the way it is, is better I'd be genuinly interested why.