Switch Lights

The lights are on

What's Happening

Why Changing The Mass Effect 3 Ending Is A Mistake

Response to the end of Mass Effect 3 has been volatile to say the least. As with all games, players are free to love or hate the ending for whatever reasons they see fit – but the demand from angry fans for a new ending is unprecedented. BioWare complying with these demands, in some form or another, is also unprecedented, and is a goodwill tactic I believe will likely backfire. Not just in the sense that BioWare may compromise its artistic integrity to appease a disgruntled section of its fan base. I think it will blow up in the face of gamers.

Warning: There are major Mass Effect 3 spoilers ahead.

The initial shock and anger that erupted on the Internet in the days following the release of Mass Effect 3 has given way to more thoughtful discussions of the trilogy's finale. In addition to innumerous critical dissections from fans and detractors alike, we've also seen gamers interpret the endings in many different ways. These different interpretations are possible because the endings are fundamentally ambiguous. The final minutes task you with making a choice that will potentially affect the Mass Effect universe for thousands of years to come. Rather than trying to summarize the ramifications of your choice like the ending of a Choose Your Own Adventure novel ("You destroyed all sentient life in the galaxy, but your offspring will continue the cycle. Better luck next time."), BioWare left each of the three final sequences open-ended, while still conveying the basics: The Reapers leave, transform, or explode, your beloved crew survives, and Shepard goes down in a blaze of glory (or doesn't?). The rest remains unwritten, and is left for you to ponder, dissect, and discuss.

As we have already seen, this ambiguity has given birth to some radically different interpretations. The most popular alternate take on Mass Effect 3's ending is the indoctrination theory, which suggests that the entire final sequence takes place in Shepard's mind as he or she fights against the influence of the Reapers. While I don't believe this is the "true" ending, I do believe those final moments are open-ended enough to make it a possibility, and that the details BioWare included intentionally or otherwise make it a theory worth considering. In that sense, it's not a matter of whether it's the "true" ending – it's simply not my ending. The people who believe the indoctrination theory are 100-percent convinced of their beliefs and are just as satisfied with their choice as I am of mine.

Now, thanks to the backlash of fans, that could change. If BioWare manipulates or further adds to the endings, the company runs the risk of negating the analyses and conclusions that gamers have already come to. What if the new downloadable content disproves the indoctrination theory? Those who see a deeper meaning in the minutiae of Shepard's final stand will be let down. What if the new content supports the theory even further? Fans who believed they already understood the ending and had accepted it will feel cheated.

Whether or not the final sequence takes place in Shepard's mind isn't the only issue that's at stake. Players made their fateful final decision based on the evidence they had at the time, and the conclusions – no matter how sparse or recycled their variations may be – also carefully support a variety of interpretations.

At the end of the game I chose the "green" option, synthesizing all organic and synthetic life based on the rationale that it was the one true way to end the cycle of violence. My fellow editor Jeff Cork opposed the green ending on the grounds that merging organics and synthetics is essentially the process that created the husks. Instead, he chose the red option: To wipe out all synthetic life from the galaxy. Who was right?

According to the endings as they are now, both of us. You can call that a copout on the part of BioWare, but based on what I saw, my ending is a happy one. For Cork, the red ending is still the right choice.

But what if BioWare adds something to the green ending to bolster Cork's view, and it turns out I really did subject all life in the Universe to some sort of synthetic enslavement? Conversely, what if the extra content reinforces my decision, and Cork wiped out the entire geth species for nothing? Either way, BioWare would be alienating players who thought they were making the right decisions – as well as avoiding the wrong decisions – only to be told otherwise by new content that wasn't originally meant to be canon. If, on the other hand, the new scenes don't alter the final decision in any significant way, it will only further enrage the players who were demanding a new ending. Even something seemingly innocuous like explaining how your crew ended up back on the Normandy could disillusion some players, as proponents of the indoctrination theory point to it as evidence of the finale's dreamlike state.

To reiterate: I don't blame anyone who didn't like the ending of Mass Effect 3. People can no more control their emotional response to something than they can control someone else's reaction to the same event. Players who hated the ending have a right to be upset. They don't, however, have the right to demand a new ending. By potentially changing the ending – even if that just means answering questions BioWare originally intended to leave unanswered – the developer stands to upset the gamers who are already happy with how their multi-year adventure played out.

And those players do exist. The comments section in our Spoiled! episode for Mass Effect 3 contains a significant amount of players who support and are pleased with the game's ending (even if they are in the minority). Whether they see hints of a larger conspiracy, are content with the sacrifices they made, or have their own ideas of what their actions mean for the Mass Effect universe, BioWare's pledge to "answer the questions" and provide more clarity for the final sequence may contain answers those players don't want to hear. Moviegoers crucified George Lucas for changing elements of the Star Wars trilogy that clashed with the established story fans already knew. Will BioWare make the same mistake? We'll find out when the developer provides further information on its "content initiatives" this April.

Email the author , or follow on , , and .

Comments
  • This article. This article times 1000. The fans DO NOT get the right to demand a new ending. They can hate it all they want. The can complain all they want. They can do that. But they absolutely cannot demand a new ending. I'm in the minority of those who enjoyed the open-ended, open to interpretation ending, the the same reason Jeff said above (I too chose Synthesis). But I have friends who don't like the ending. And that's fine. It gives us something to debate about. Another common argument I've seen is that the ending is a Deus Ex Machina. While I see where people get this assumption, it isn't. However, I won't go in to detail here. I hope Bioware doesn't change the endings. Those demanding a new ending are incredibly rude, and essentially, in the wrong. Dislike it all you want. But never should you demand it be changed.
  • Excellent article!

  • If you want to suggest that Bioware may have already been developing DLC that would take place past the ending, then that's fine.  If you want to accuse Bioware of intentionally sabotaging fan reaction to the ending just so they could justify making you spend 180 Bioware points on some additional cutscenes, then you really need to rethink whether you have a mental frame of mind that matches how the real world works. SMH.

  • the thing is if they plan on making game that take place after this in the same universe they will have to support one of the ways it ends and will be forced to make a "true" ending

  • Bioware probably isn't going to change Mass Effect's ending. They're probably just going to add to it, and if the indoctrination theory is true they've been planning on that this whole time. My problem with Mass Effect 3's ending is that Mass Effect has always been about your interactions with characters and Shepard was just a meat sack that you used to communicate, but the ending is like "nope it's about Shepard and what it means to be alive." If any DLC comes out within a few months that adds to the ending and isn't horribly glitchy. That means they've been planning this for awhile. Also if adding to Mass Effect's ending would affect Bioware's artistic integrity, then DLC shouldn't exist.
  • The only reason why people hate the ending is because you're being given an A, B and C choice of an ending when Casey Hudson specifically stated that there won't be an ending like that. Other reasons are why Shepard's armor is off after being blasted by the Reaper when running to the Conduit, why Joker was flying away, the mass relays being destroyed and how Shepard's crew got on the ship when they were with you in the battle.

  • Everything we did in the past 2 games DOESN'T matter. The endings and the "god child" are full of plot holes. red, blue and green. Those are the endings. We as fans needed more closure. Therefore changing the ending is what needs to be done.
  • Also, the "analysis" that an ambiguous ending leaves more room for player speculation, while sounding very pretty, completely refutes the "artistic integrity" argument that is made in the same breath. Ambiguity is not art! It is the absence of art! Art is defined as anything which conveys a message from the artist to the audience through some medium. Ambiguity is the lack of a message! It is a formless copout! The literary equivalent of the antichrist! Would you buy a blank, white canvas that someone told you was "a painting from Picasso's 'Ambiguous' Period"? NO! Because that is stupid at best and incredibly lazy at worst! You can't have your cake and eat it too, GI! Pick an argument and use your thinky things to support that argument!
  • Imagine if Bioware decides to add a fourth option and releases it as part of a DLC. And when you chose the fourth option, you get RickRoll'd....think about it.

  • I don't think Boiware should have to change anything, Oh, I'm so sorry that you didn't like the ending of Mass Effect 3, let's change everything that makes you upset. While we're at it, here's a unicorn and a button that ends world hunger, please push it. If you don't like the ending, I'm sorry, but who cares besides you? I dislike everything George Lucas din with the Star Wars prequels, but I'm not demanding that he changes them. I disliked the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies, but I'm not sending the Wachowski's 3,000 spoons with a note that reads: Here are the spoons you're missing, bitches! Get over yourselves. You want a massive game with the perfect ending? Make it your own selves. Then weep as you watch the people who play it rip it to shreds.
  • they don't have to exactly change the ending, but maybe give us more options or results in the end. leave a,b,c there still, but maybe give us a d,e,f as well and then clarify all the endings a lot more.

  • Mod
    Artistic integrity has no merit here, as the ending of the game breaks lore and casts aside themes previously developed - such as the threat of Dark Energy, which isn't explored at all in 3. Only two of the original writers from the first two Mass Effect entries contributed to this product, so it's far from the singular or collaborative vision detractors continue to paint it as. I love when people make arguments about "art" without really understanding the various facets of it. The relationship fans have had - for better or worse - as Hudson's repeatedly admitted, is something that kinda makes this argument moot.

    As for the additional DLC that will expound on ME3's epilogue, we have to remind ourselves that no story is "canon" in the ME Universe, so your interpretation doesn't have to be voided. That material is purely optional and not required, and I'm sure there will be material not related to the ending that players will be able to experience, since this was alluded to long before the ending fiasco.

    The fact that some fans will be disappointed isn't proof that the material - which hasn't been released or discussed remotely - will be disappointing overall. Theories and speculation are perfectly natural and have been a staple of this series - from speculation on the "Beings of Light", to arguments over the Collector Base, and mysterious planets holding mysteries that players figured might play a part into the Reaper fight. Most of those have been debunked. I doubt another one will cause any more harm.

    The Indoctrination Theory is only one of many players have developed, and it already has glaring flaws that need no additional material to debunk, but that's the beauty of it all: people will form narratives on their own as they interpret the text, and it will be an excellent distraction until another entry finally comes to players. This new material will likely do the same, and if Bethesda can pull a Broken Steel, I'm more than confident that Bioware will be able to.

    I enjoyed reading this.
  • Nope, changing the ending is good. How do you think it got to be such a big issue in the first place?
  • I'm getting sick and tired of people complaining about it. This isn't the first game where an ending disappointed people, but I never I heard of an outcry like this people about those other endings we see in other games, so why start now?
  • I love the indoctrination theory. I thought it was absolutely brilliant. And I will be upset if it doesn't play out that way. As you said in your article.

  • I love the indoctrination theory. I thought it was absolutely brilliant. And I will be upset if it doesn't play out that way. As you said in your article.

  • Your arguments assume the Bioware will build on the pre-established ending which in "A Logical Breakdown of Why the Mass Effect 3 Ending Makes No Sense" establishes how flawed and out of character the ending is in terms of lore and logic even without the indoctrination theory. I agree that if Bioware chose to build on this trash than they will be shooting them selves in foot but the vast majority of fans aren't asking for that, there asking for a total rewrite of those last 20 minutes of the game.

    docs.google.com/.../preview

    www.facebook.com/DemandABetterEndingToMassEffect3

  • its gonna be interesting to see what happens, personally I think the indoctrination theory is good one, but it still doesn't change the fact that the game and ending sucked. so I'm fine with the change, it'll give BioSmere a chance to make the game better.
  • OK.. first i just want to say he does have a point, but i see it differently. By them changing the ending, going this way or that way. Yes its going to undoubtedly anger or further upset certain groups leaning on one theory, outlook or, simply happy with the ending. There's no right or wrong way to go, just like you stated, but here's what you fail to mention. When bioware made the ending that exists now, it obviously went the same way. You cant please everybody. Now all those that cried "Its Biowares story, how they end it is their choice" Yeah your absolutely right, will you say the same if they change the ending? Its still they're choice. Most of all though, for them to create dlc that changes it or makes it better for this group, or that group, again their choice, and you have the right to play it or decide not to, and stick with your ending. At the end of the day, as long as Bioware does what Bioware wants for their story, that's all that matters. I didn't care for the ending, but i accepted it, because it was how they chose to end it, and ill be happy with wherever, or whatever direction they chose.

  • Wrong again Game Informer.  The argument in this article depends on the fact that the endings are open ended, which is true.  However, the rage that I myself feel and many others based on what I've seen is not the lack of conclusion at the end, but rather a seeming lack of good writing and thought put into the end to make it fully make sense.  The ending doesn't need to add closure, it needs to be done with more care so that our actions from earlier in the game now have meaning and the open-ended ideas actually make sense, rather than being mostly implied.