GameInformer

I wasn't able to marathon through Mass Effect 3 like everyone else on the internet. Simply because, well, I kind of have a life (kind of). But as I spent over a week playing through the game, the complaints of the ending started piling up like bodies in a Collector processing plant (Bring on the nerd analogies). Oh, this wasn't just "Man, that ending was very disappointing" levels of complaints. This was "THIS FILTH IS SATAN AND WE MUST CONVERT IT TO OUR HOLY ARMY". And I mean that in a semi-literal sense. It's gotten to the point that a movement was brought up called "Retake Mass Effect 3" in which fans raised awareness and raised $40,000 dollars at a Child's Play donation to get the point across to Bioware that they didn't just want an apology for the ending; they wanted it changed.

I've had plenty of time to come up with various reasons why I think that particular reaction is complete and utter bullsh*t, even without having actually played the ending, but I'll save that for later. Regardless, even though I did think that those particular reactions were bullsh*t, they still had me wary. If THIS many people didn't like it, well, what if the ending really does suck? What if my favorite video game series of this generation is going to conclude with a giant middle finger from Bioware.

Expecting the worst, but still hopeful that perhaps the fanboys were wrong, I completed the final level, and it was probably one of the most compelling experiences I've ever had with a game, ending or otherwise. Was it perfect? No, but then again, what ending really is perfect? (Except maybe Black Swan and The Shawshank Redemption and Catcher in the Rye and Vertigo and Season 4 of Breaking Badand holy crap where was I going with this.) To say that Mass Effect 3's ending is divisive is like saying there was only a slight dent in the Star Wars fandom when Phantom Menace released. While it certainly isn't Star Wars prequels bad, it's certainly inspired a similar gut-reaction. Keep in mind that this isn't "Oh, the final act was problematic", this is "The final 5 minutes RUINED the franchise". I'm not kidding, it took 5 minutes to get Mass Effect fanboys to be pissed off beyond all belief. 

It's gotten to the point that the reactions to the ending have become almost as interesting as the ending itself. So now, what was originally supposed to be an analysis on the merits and flaws of the ending has taken a new approach. In today's post, I'm not going to take one side or the other like the countless other articles I've seen. I'm breaking down what makes the ending work, what makes it not work, and finally analyzing the various fan reactions.

Broken down into four sections, I'm gonna respond to specific fan criticisms, then I'll look at the good elements of the ending, then the bad ones, and finally I'll go into a completely different tangent on why the backlash was inevitable, bad ending or otherwise.

Also, it should come as no surprise that this will be very spoiler heavy, so if you haven't finished the game yet, go finish it. If you're a Mass Effect non-fan and you've never played the games but you're still reading this, this will be very confusing for you to read. With that being said, let's look at some specific reactions. Keep in mind that I'm not attacking "all da h8ers" when I refer to these responses, I'm only specifically addressing the people who actually said the very things I'm about to quote. So let's get started...

Part 1: Responding To Responses...Responsively



#1: The Final 5 Minutes Ruined The Franchise!

This is the easiest one to respond to: No. No it didn't at all. If you honestly think that 5 minutes is enough to effectively "ruin" a franchise that you've liked over the course of three games, and numerous side-media such as comic books, novels, etc., then you clearly are being a whiny little pr*ck. There's nothing wrong with hating the final 5 minutes at all, but if you really think that the 30 hours and 2 previous games of stuff you loved is completely invalid after experiencing the ending, then you need to crawl back to your hole where no one can hear your incessant bitching and moaning.

#2: We Are Entitled To Want To Have The Ending Changed Because Bioware Promised Us A Player-Driven Narrative!

And that's exactly what you got. A player-driven narrative. But does that make you the author? No! 

Listen, I know that probably the biggest (and also most annoying) discussion point in the industry is whether or not video games deserve to be called an art form or not, and let me tell you this: If you really do believe that games are art, you should know that they are the creation of ARTISTS. I don't care how many PR people and advertising campaigns tell you that YOU are the one crafts the story, because that's a lie. Everything is still dictated entirely by Bioware, they just allow you to steer it in different directions. And those directions are still predetermined by the limits of Bioware's control. You aren't creating the story. What Mass Effect does is offer the "illusion" of choice. A very fun, extremely well-written, and amazing illusion, mind you, but still an illusion. If the game really did allow you to direct the narrative, you could've very well turned down your Spectre status in the first game, but you can't can you? Because Bioware is still in control. Everything is still entirely linear in nature, you are still being directed down a strict path, it's just you get to branch that path in different directions. 

So understanding that, would video games cease to be art if their main story could be changed with a simple update? Yes! How would you feel if because test audiences weren't happy with the shocking twist in Empire Strikes Back, the twist could be erased with a director's cut? The story doesn't belong to you! It is entirely the work of the artist(s) that worked on it. There's nothing wrong with using DLC to fix bugs and glitches, but to "change the ending"? No. If we could just change endings for everything we didn't like, then it stops being "art" and becomes a "service". Shallow pap whose only purpose is to appeal to the simplest and most generic responses in our brains. The Mona Lisa can never be updated. Shakespeare's plays are fine as they are. And no matter how much you think the ending sucks, writing angry letters to demand the ending be changed diminishes the value of an artist's work. 

#3: The Reapers' Master Plan Made No Sense!

While I agree that there are a few elements that don't make sense (which I will explain later), I honestly thought that Bioware did a fair job of explaining what needed to be explained without making it too obvious, too hammered-in, or too expository. Namely, I've seen this particular image popping up a lot recently:



And let me just get something right off the bat: No. This picture is absolutely wrong and that's not what's happening at all. Oh har har, your little meme picture is clever and we can laugh at it, but that's not what was happening in the game at all. What the AI explained wasn't "we're saving you from destruction by destroying you". Rather it was something more along the lines of "We're destroying the most evolved species so that organic life can continue with newer species". Because if the most evolved species kept evolving, then it would bring the destruction of all organic life. I honestly don't get what was confusing, because the AI made it specifically clear that organics will always find ways to destroy themselves through synthetics. And in order to save organic life, the options are either a.) make sure that organic life will continue on forever but at the cost of wiping out the most advanced species every 50,000 years; or b.) allow organics to continue with their own self-destruction, and in doing so, become extinct forever. 

I don't know about you, but that's fascinating, thought-provoking stuff! What would be a worse fate? Being forced into a cycle of life then destruction for eternity, or never having to experience destruction again due to being completely extinct from the universe. This is the kind of philosophical debate that sci-fi nerds should be creaming their pants over! This is an incredibly complex dilemma with no real easy answers, the kind of dilemma that a series like Mass Effect can get away with forcing you to stop and seriously consider. The plan does make sense on a certain cosmological level, or at least if you're an AI that's millions of years old. 

#4: DEUS EX MACHINA! I KNOW ENGLISH LITERATURE TERMS!

The other thing I've heard a lot is that the "Decision-O-Tron 2000" at the end of the game is one big fat contrivance that was pulled from Bioware's asses at the last minute to give us all a half-baked ending. This is another thing I have to disagree with. Right from the very start of the game, Bioware is telling you "Hey! There's a big Macguffin that's going to stop the Reapers for you! And considering how much we're referencing Project Manhattan (i.e. once), there's nooo waaayy that it's going to have some sort of negative repercussion at all." From the very beginning, they set up this "deus ex machina", and keep building it up, so I don't think it's too ridiculous to have it there at the end of the game.

#5: IT'S MAGICAL!

Is there really a big difference between impossibly advanced technology and magic? Okay, one is shinier and more futuristic looking, but still. I mean, you guys have had no problem accepting Prothean technology, Biotic abilities, holographs that can also be swords, and conjuring freaking flames and ice blasts from your omni-tool, so complaining about the events of the final 5 minutes having a magical quality to it is arbitrary and redundant.

#6: The Star Child

Okay, this one is a bit more specific, but I've still got (at least what I believe to be) a pretty sensible reasoning for why the Catalyst AI at the end of the game appears to you in the form of the small boy that you couldn't save earlier. Many have described it as ridiculous, stupid, cheesy, non-sensical, and the usual terms that people have leveled against the ending as a whole. To which I say, "At what point did the game ever say that that AI even was the same kid you saw at the beginning of the game?"

So why is the Catalyst AI in the form of the boy to begin with? Well, one thing I started noticing when the final moments started coming into play was that the atmosphere got a little more "eerie", a little more "off-putting", and a little more, dare I say, "Kubrickian". It's the exact same explanation I'd give for why Dave found himself in a hotel room in the middle of space at the end of 2001 A Space Odyssey: The Catalyst is giving Shepard (and the player) a friendly face. Imagine yourself in Shepard's shoes, and in a way, you are in Shepard's shoes. An AI is about to explain to you the meaning behind a cycle that has existed for millions of years, and is going to present you with a moral dilemma so difficult that it could shape the entire universe and the evolutionary process as a whole. 

The AI is smart enough to know that no human, not even Shepard, would be up for the task. So it comes up with a way to make the decision more identifiable. Like how the aliens gave Dave a hotel room, which was an image that he was familiar and comfortable with, Shepard sees the AI as the boy he couldn't save. The boy is integral. He is (literally) haunting Shepard's dreams. He is a symbol of all the people he couldn't save back on earth. By presenting itself as this, the AI automatically goes through to Shepard. Appearing as the image Shepard associates with all the friends and fellow humans he's lost, Shepard sees the final dilemma as the ultimate salvation for humanity.

#7: Theories!

I've heard dozens of theories on alternate takes on the ending. Many theorize that perhaps the final moments are either a dream, a hallucination induced by heavy Reaper indoctrination, or a combination of both. I'm not entirely sure if I buy it, but considering Bioware promises single player DLC, it would sure be a convenient way to continue events after Shepard's "demise". (And believe me, this is an issue I will address later).

#8: But My Choices Didn't Matter!

Wrong. Your choices did matter. They affect the end of the game, how successful the final mission is, the choices of the previous two games affected who you met and what encounters you had in the third game (mostly). The real complaint is that people think that their choices didn't matter at the final moment of the game. Let's get one thing straight, just because the final five minutes didn't give you a recap of every single choice you made in the games, doesn't mean they weren't arbitrary or meaningless. To quote Ben Kuchera "What the game doesn't do is rub your face in your choices." Over 30 hours of gameplay before the ending kept hearkening back to and recalling every single tiny decision you made in the previous two games, offering almost every thread (Even the stupid Conrad Verner one) their own resolution. It gives you just enough closure, while leaving plenty to the imagination.

Of course, there's another side to this that I will discuss later, but to say that every choice didn't matter is flat-out hyperbole.