masseffectendrant

I actually

really

like the ending of Mass Effect 3. However -

I also feel that it might have been a completely inappropriate choice to make considering the format of the narrative: that is, it was a good way to end a story, but likely a bad way to end a *video game.

Consider this both an impassioned defense and sober critique of ME3's ending. Naturally, there are HUGE BLARING SPOILERS UNDER THE CUT.

First off, I should mention that my defense is coloured entirely by my play experience, which is: Full Paragon, and when I talk about the ending I mean Synthesis. While there is no right or wrong way to play Mass Effect, I think that BioWare's intended theme of "cooperation between people with vast differences" is fairly clear throughout the series considering the narrative thrust of *every single game is "cooperation between people with vast differences" in increasingly large microcasm with increasingly high stakes. While the Paragon and Renegade endings respectively are interesting studies in "no easy solutions", I also tend to err on the side of Synthesis being the "True" ending because at baseline it's a little more difficult to obtain and also it is (literally) a giant, glowing, third path more or less inferred by canon to be the best possible solution. This isn't to critique anyone's choices or preference re: ending - most of my praise and critique can be leveled at any of the three basic scenarios - however I do honestly feel that the Synthesis ending was where BioWare was going with this the whole time, which leads me to my first point:

The ending was actually incredibly well seeded. I have seen a lot of people complaining that the choices came out of nowhere, however I'd been anticipating something like this for a long time. From the very first screen, technology is presented as something inherently unknown and which the use of brings both enlightenment and calamity. The relationship between organics and technology is voliatile and the Reapers occupy a bizarre position of both unspeakably evil antagionists and self-stylized saviours. Indoctrination is a funny thing, isn't it? In retrospect, the reason it works is probably because what the Reapers say is actually *true on some levels.

The evolution of Geth from nameless enemies to a beloved party member to the (arguably) more sympathetic half of the Geth/Quarian conflict is also a huge part of this overall thematic: yes, synthetics will always turn against their masters, but sometimes there are shades of gray that a simple order/chaos dichotomy cannot comprehend. The Geth and Quarians prove the Reapers right, but they also prove them wrong.

I think that the thematic continuity here is strung a bit tighter between ME1 and ME3. ME2 loses focus a little with its scattered narrative and large focus on character drama. What ME2 DOES have, however, is the revelation that the Reapers' true purpose is to preserve organic life in synthentic form, although their motives are utterly unfathomable at the time. What ME2 ALSO has is EDI, who I think gets passed over a lot in discussions like this despite being an incredibly important character in terms of the lore. The integration of synthetic EDI into the Normandy's crew of wandering outcast freaks and aliens - moreover, the fact that the integration was her choice and that her unwavering loyalty is grounded in the idea that it was the first choice she ever made for herself - is sort of interesting in the larger context of the synthetic vs. organic conflict that dominates the galactic cycles. We have always known that this would be the cycle to end the conflict, but what is the Third Path we're looking for here? Why, it's been here in the story all along: something as simple as the Geth uploading themselves into Quarian suits in order to help cure their immune systems. As simple as Joker and EDI's bizarre delight in each other (whether you take it as romantic or not). *As simple as a Salarian Scientist curing the genophage and the Krogan agreeing to fight the reapers on Palaven soil. The third path is symbiotic coexistence.

"But if that's true," you are liable to ask, "Then what is the point of destroying the Mass Relays?" And that is a really valid complaint because after doing all this intense diplomacy and forcing people who hate each other to work together for the sake of survival, isn't it kind of shitty that none of the inhabited planets can communicate anymore?

Well, yes, it is kind of shitty.

But here is the reason I like it: so okay, the Mass Relays are a prime symbol of the Old Cycle. You cannot have a Cycle Breaking narrative and leave all the trappings of the Sick Old Ways in place otherwise you are inherently re-inviting disaster. This is one of the things that upset me the most about how Harry Potter ended, for example, so I appreciate Mass Effect going the full nine lightyears and bashing everything that the Reaper-controlled cycle represented. It might take these cultures a thousand years to re-create the technology originally left to them by the Reaper Cycle, however the important part is that this time *they will be doing it for themselves. That the galaxy depended so desperately on technology no one completely understood has been presented as a capital P Problem from day one.

(although I guess we could take the tack my boyfriend suggested when he pointed out that in the synthesis ending, the entire galaxy is basically comprised of post-singularity beings, so who knows *what will happen)

That being said, it takes a lot of guts to "kill your universe". It especially takes a lot of guts to kill a universe that's making you a lot of money and getting you a lot of critical acclaim. Which is to say that BioWare could have delivered this ~*~coexistence third path~*~ ending without destroying everything we loved about the Mass Effect universe.

Here is where my argument splits in two directions. Because I am glad they did what they did from the perspective of a writer. But I am not sure that it was the right decision from the perspective of a *gamer.

There is an old tradition in JRPGs of ending the game with the entire world's cosmos ripped to shreds (usually after killing God with your bare hands and an anachronistic assortment of martial weapons), however the game ends on a positive note with a promise of internal continuity in terms of the places and people we have come to love.

There is an old tradition in Science Fiction of ending the story with a big explosion made mostly out of transcendent futurist ideals or weirdly parsed psuedo-philosophy that leaves the viewer and/or reader with only the vaguest sense of resolution.

What I am trying to say is that people tend not to expect or accept the same things from video games that they expect and accept from other forms of media. This is often the unspoken conflict at the heart of the "are video games art" (or, more accurately "are video games art, or do they merely happen to contain artistic elements") debate. Pretend Mass Effect was a trilogy of science fiction novels, or a series of High Concept genre films. Suddenly, the ending becomes a lot easier to swallow because it has morphed into a story where you are just along for the ride, swept up in the flow and utterly at the mercy of the narrative's choices. When we are allowed to interact with that narrative, the parametres of what constitutes a "satisfying conclusion" change *dramatically.

This is especially egregious in the case of the Mass Effect series due to the success of Shepard as Player Avatar. Now, believe me you I have a played a LOT of RPGs. I have played a lot of Western RPGs, a lot of Japanese RPGs and a lot of Tabletop RPGs, so when I say that Shepard is perhaps the finest example of What To Do when making an engaging player avatar, I do not make the claim lightly. Shepard effortlessly balances the daunting tightrope of simultaneously being a solid, three-dimensional character as well as a blank slate personlity for the player to project onto. Everyone has a firm idea of what Commander Shepard "is like", but no two Commander Shepards are the same. My boyfriend, my old roommate and I all make the same choices, romance the same turians and play the same freaking class, but damned if the three of us don't have wildly different psych profiles for our Sheps. And that is the beauty of it. The games do an eerily good job at breaking down the intimacy barrier between the player and world and characters.

The writer in me appreciates the narrative poetry of ripping apart the Old Order to forge a Brave New World. Tired, bleeding, broken Shepard speaking so gently to the Catalyst and asking just what she needed to do (what one, last, goddamn, thing she needed to do) was honestly one of the most beautiful things I've seen in a video game. The post-credits scene about "The Story of the Shepard" actually made me start sobbing ugly tears. The writer in me applauds BioWare for sticking to their guns and making Mass Effect a trilogy, period, end quote, no going back and no questions asked. I love endings like this, I really, really do.

BUT.

But the gamer in me *just wants to go back to the fucking Citadel one more time. Gamers crave that promise of continuity. When you control a story, you don't always want an ending that changes the game completely. You want an ending where your accomplishments are tangible and immediate. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with that.