aim1essgun wrote...
coldlogic82 wrote...
While I do believe that Mass Effect is a great game overall, I'm afraid I'm with majority on the issue of endings. I liked the game enough that I'm doing a replay (hoping to get the "secret ending" maybe?), and there's a lot of cool stuff in there. I loved the Geth missions (so creative) and the tension of the final missions. In fact, the ending is just about the only thing I didn't like in ME 3. Unfortunately, the ending is pretty important, and like a lot of bioware fans, I feel somewhat betrayed. But instead of just saying I feel betrayed because I "didn't like it" I want to offer a real crtical look at why, psychologically and artistically, the ending falls flat. Spoiler warning for any content beyond this point.
I think I can really pin down the majority of the issue to one thing. The relays. It seems like a small part of the disappointment, but upon reflection, I believe the destruction of the relays in all endings (known so far) is really what hurts. This is the soul of why the ending gives us a feeling of "nothing we did mattered." The entire series focuses on alien relations, the attempts at peace, and the problems stemming from this. It focuses on why people are united when they could be, on overcoming prejudice, and how difficult this really is. So we have the third installation in which the entire galaxy is finally united. We can end the war between Krogan and Turian, we can even end the war between Quarian and Geth, creating an amazing new partnership. All of these are obviously not "final" in their scope, as we know after the reaper invasion, it would be easy to start warring again. However, the idea is that there is at least the possibility. While the grander connotations are nice, it's actually the more immediate alliances that make the ending hurt. Simply put, we just spent 3 games helping people overcome prejudice and come together, and we just spent the final game uniting the entire galaxy under one banner. Then the mass relays go and that's all over. We just united the entire galaxy in a remarkably inspiritation manner, and then we get to the end and the game goes "haha, nice job, BAM, no more of that." I think a good half of the dissatisfaction comes from this point alone. Think aobut it. If we control the reapers by shepard sacrificing himself, that's sad, but hey, the whole galaxy can celebrate him and we can take what he built and see how long we can keep it up. If we go synthesis, fine, once again sad shepard dies, and for being one of the "better" endings it's awfully close to actually helping the reapers fulfill their goal, but, whatever, we're all under a great new framework of DNA, let's go celebrate and be happy and whatever. Finally, Shepard destroys the reapers and, quite sadly, the geth, making everything he for the quarians a waste of his time, but at least we all win and get to celebrate. Without the relays, the game implies that beyond quantum entanglement devices there isn't a means for communcation or travel around the galaxy in any reasonably timely manner. Hell, the relays being destroyed means the rest of the galaxy DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. They can hope the relays got destroyed for a good reason, but, especially if you take the "advanced tech destruction" route, the galaxy cannot rest easy for at least a century while news of the victory actually makes its way to various corners of the galaxy, assuming it even can due to travelling constraints not addressed by technology BECAUSE the relays made them needless. So, in the biggest possible way, the destruction of the relays assures Shepard is NOT a legend, and everything he accomplished, in the third game especially, is almost entirely meaningless. The ending says, sure, you saved the universe, and sure, you probably couldn't have done it without doing everything you did in these games, but aside from the absolute most basic "you won because earth didn't explode," there is no victory. That hurts. That hurts a lot, and I'm amazed that isn't obvious to the story writers.
The second problem has to do with execution. This is where I think a lot of fans feel the most betrayed, whereas the relays gave us the most dissapointment. The final choices are solely based on war assets. Yes, the decisions you made had an impact on how many assets you acquired, how many different aliens you unite, and all that, but in the end, what's upsetting is that our choices don't in any way alter the final choices available to us. The destruction of the collector base becomes part of a math equation saying if picking one of the choices will blow up earth or not. It doesn't create a single ending that follows from that decision, nor does it affect what choices are available. It doesn't matter if you played just ME 3 or the whole series. It doesn't matter if you went paragon or renegade. It doesn't matter if you saved the geth or blew them up. No matter what you did, you get the same three choices, game over. In ME 2, whether or not you blew up the collector base at LEAST ended up with people saying diffferent things. By blowing it up, you get Miranda telling the Illusive Man to shove it, and you don't get that with ME 3. And another note on paragon vs renegade. In the final talk with the Illusive Man, for the two choices at least, taking a "special" paragon or renegade option has NO EFFECT ON THE CONVERSATION. Shepard maybe sounds a little smarter, or like he *should* influence something, but no matter what you pick, the Illusive Man says the same thing. Every time, every way. Now, I had my paragon meter maxed out and the third paragon dialogue option was still greyed out, so that may affect something, though I don't know what, and it's hard to imagine it erasing the other two major problems, that of the relay and the same three choices in all situations.
Next, the ending is ruined by the use of an unneeded element that actually creates less closure. That is the child. It's always fun, of course, to have mysterious characters, like that guy in Half Life, where we never really could figure out who he was, what he was doing, etc etc. Having that element run through a story can be exciting. The Illusive Man, for instance, was mysterious until the very end. Who's side was he really on, was he working with the reapers or against them, why did cerberus keep interfering, all these questions were kept alive and kicking until the end. That's cool. But introducing something like that as a resolution doesn't work. The "kid" introduced at the end raises too many questions. Yes, we know whatever it is controls the reapers, and that it is, in all probability, mostly synthetic. But why does it appear as that child? Does the way he appears have something to do with the dreams Shepard keeps having? Obviously whatever it is, it choose to appear the way it did, but there aren't enough clues as to why. There isn't enough information create even opposing opinions on who it was and what it wanted. The ONLY reason it was needed was to explain the choices Shepard had, and the voice of Harbinger explaining those choices probably wouldn't have pleased anyone. Something more a like a VI like Glyph would have been much more appropriate. You wouldn't even need to cut the dream sequences. The intent there is obvious. In fact, it's actually rather clever Shepard is haunted by this "spectre." Yes bioware, I got that reference, it was cute, but it just wasn't done right. People really wanted closure. Even something like "Shep got in there, found out the crucible was going to destroy all the mass relays because he had another techno-vision, but did it anyway cause living was more important," would have been better than "Shep got in there, at which point whatever is in charge of the reapers, whether an individual or mass consciousness, choose, for some reason we can only speculate, to appear to Shepard as a child that haunts his dreams (because the reapers are totally known for their clever word play, spectre, get it, haha), and told him his master plan to save all life by destroying it wasn't going to work, so instead of letting the people that beat him decide what to do, he presented him with three set in stone options that allowed people to live, but basically made everthing he did a little on the pointless side."
And finally, on that note, I believe the serious closure problems finished the job. Just all the loose ends. If you choose to romance someone, well, they have to go on without you. Yeah, that could happen in ME 2, but at least in ME 2 it was also completely avoidable. It's most upsetting if you pursued a romance for all three games, say, with Liara. It's like, in the end, yeah, that romance just didn't work out. Then there's the lack of "logistical" closure. Yay, the galaxy is saved, but, not yay, the entire galatic fleet (minus the races you pissed off) is now stuck near earth. So EDI points out feeding the Krogan is going to be problematic. So, um, yay the reapers are gone, now do we stop the krogan from killing us all for food? Same problem with Turians? It doesn't create a feeling of "all right, all the races are going to live on earth, cool." It's "all the races are now in a logistical nightmare, how the hell are we going to solve that?" There is no answer.
So, those major points are, I believe, why the ending was unsuccessful. In order of priority. Really, I honestly believe a lot more people would have been okay with "sad" endings if the relays didn't have to go. Maybe that's what bioware wanted, maybe they wanted to say "survival at all costs, and that cost can be pretty damn high." I don't think people were upset because fo the blunt "sad" emotion that the endings tended to bring out.
On a final note, I do want to say I'm pretty sure Bioware has a happier ending up its sleeve in the form of DLC or an expansion or something like that. From a business standpoint, it's risky, but it usually works. Bait people, give them a crappy ending, and then say "we just released one that does suck" and people who were upset flock in to buy it. I don't think that means bioware has no integrity. It would just mean they took a route that, while effective, is awfully irritating.
Retour en haut
