Many of the critics, however, point at the lack of a happy ending as the reason for their dissatisfaction. To which the fanboys promptly reply that a flowery ending would not be realistic and bold enough, given the circumstances and scale of the war. Albeit the concerns from both sides are valid, the problems with the game and its story are much deeper than that.
First of all, I need to say that I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with grim endings. Matter of fact, I usually really like them. I played the original Deus Ex - the game that obviously "inspired" (euphemism for rip-off) the ME3 endings (we will come back to it later) - back when it was released and I loved the dark tone of the endings. Join the illuminati, merge with the AI Helius or send the world back to a dark age?
None of the choices was easy, but they all made sense. They were coherent to the story and the story itself was cohese too. Most importantly, there was closure. Unfortunately, that is clearly not the case with Mass Effect 3.
So here's my two cents on the matter.
I - THE (BROKEN) PREMISES OF THE STORY
I was pretty satisfied when I finished ME2 and was under the impression that the Reapers' goal was to basically evolve by harvesting new (diverse) forms of sentient life. It makes sense, as the randomness of natural selection
should probably be able to come up with new stuff that simple synthetic programming wouldn't achieve by itself. Hence, the Reapers would evolve by absorbing new species, making new reapers, then wiping away all life to catalyse the rise of even newer forms of life. To me, that makes perfect sense.
But now, with ME3, it all (or partially) goes to the drain. They still harvest species to create new reapers, although that is kind of irrelevant now, because their goal and means of achieving it is, pardon my language, just bat-**** retarded.
We learn that the Reapers protect organic life from synthetics by wiping away organics in order to stop them from making synthetics.
Not only it's somewhat a paradox (some might say its not) but the WHOLE thing is based on at least two highly implausible events:
1. That synthetic life will necessarily rebel against organic - clearly false, and nothing more than an overused plot device. Unlike biological beings, machines have no pre-established intincts telling them to reproduced, to conquer space, to kill. Unless they are programmed to do so, they certainly wouldn't have such goals. So there is clearly no inherent threat. It's completely random.
2. That killing the organics - WITHOUT PREVIOUS WARNINGS - is the best way of protecting them. Really? I mean, that's the best some freaking ancient millions of years old bio-based machines can think of? I guess their age is not giving them any more wisdom. Alzheimer maybe? Seriously, there are thousand of different ways of dealing with the issue that don't require a massive genocide.
Besides, the whole idea is completely contradictory to what Sovereign said in ME1. I mean, what's so hard about understanding "yo, you gonna create synthetics that are gonna kill you, so I'm gonna kill you before you do it". I mean, one might not agree with it, but it just ain't rocket science right? It's actually a fairly simplistic (albeit flawed) reason.
II - THE ENDINGS
Ok, so based upon such premises - that the reapers are coming to save the galaxy from the hypothetical evil synthetics and that killing organics is the best way to deal with it - we, at the very end of our journey, are given three choices:
a) - Destroy;
- Control; andc) - Merge
Regardless of what you decide, it doesn't take much to see that no ending really solves the problem stated in the premise. It might solve it, it might not, but if it does solve it, IT DEPENDS ON THE PREMISES BEING FALSE.
If you destroy the reapers, people in the future might eventually make sentient synthetics that achieve "singularity". There won't be any reapers to kill them, so unless premise "1" above is false, we're screwed and all was for naught.
If you control or merge with the reapers,
people in the future might too eventually make new sentient synthetics that achieve "singularity" (one could argue that in the merge case there won't be the necessity, but its clearly speculation and other isolated that are not part-synth creatures could build those evil synths). In this case, you have the reapers to destroy em in a new cycle. So unless, premise "2" above is false, all is for naught, a new cycle will be necessary, and it would best to just leave the reapers alove in this cycle to begin with.
All that, in my opinion, clearly shows the real issue with the endings and the plot. There is no real logical closure to the story. All we do may not even have an impact in the future. If it does, it's because the reapers premise was flawed, and there was no reason for the cycle to have begun anyhow. Meh.
Also, the whole thing is really poorly written (and I'm not even talking about the kid acting, which is just horrible). It is an obvious "deus ex machina" plot device, where at the last moment of the game, we are presented at the final moment with three magical solutions presented by "The Guardian". Bad writing at its best.
And talking about "deus ex", it seems bioware just ran out of time and tried to rush to come up with something bol for the ending, so they just ripped-off the very original ending of "Deus Ex", coming up with something really disconnected and not logical at all.
In the Deus Ex game, those three choices we had mattered, they would certainly shape the future to come. In ME3, we can only be sure that the choices we make chance the colors of the relays. I may be exagerating a little bit, but certainly not much!
So...ok, we didn't have closure on saving/destroying/changing the galaxy but can at least have a satisfying end to the characters: no! We see em for just fractions of moments and that's it. We - not only our characters - are left stranded.
But all those issues probably pale in comparison to the last one: the whole idea of having a wide range of choices that would impact the outcome of the game proved - YET AGAIN - to be completely bollocks. You can play however the hell you want and in the end, the outcome is the same.
Do you really expect me to believe that in an universe driven by randomness, with countless possibilities for alliances, enemy factions, new inventions, etc, all our stories would lead to that very same outcome? Just the thought of that is absurd!
It's all about the illusion of choice, really. We are still playing an in-rails RPG, even though they - heavily - advertise that we can make our own story.
III - THE SUPPOSEDLY ORIGINAL PREMISE AND ENDING
I heard on another topic that the original idea was that the Reapers wanted to find a way to stop the spread of Dark Energy which would eventually consume everything.
It went like this: "The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of it's genetic diversity (I know, I know) and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread. The original final choice was going to be "Kill the Reapers and put your faith in the races of the galaxy in finding another way to stop the spread with what little time is left" or "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."
Now, reading that really saddens me, because it's such a better story.
Even if the dark energy thing didn't make sense scientifically (does any of the game?), the premise is consistent, not subject to "may or may not". And the final decision would be a really difficult and important choice.
Ultimate sacrifice. Means vs. end. A great parable.
I really can't understand why such a good concept went down the drain.
Retour en haut
