Most people are furious that Bioware put the
wrong ending in the game, not necessarily because they put a "bad" ending in. We see people
rejecting the current ending, even replacing it with one of their own,
because it is wrong. In a trilogy that's all about player choice, it's taken as a slap in the face when we can't get any sort of closure on how our decisions impact the survivors or even our squad. It's an additional punch in the gut when we can't even
change the ending beyond a colored flash of light and possibly a techy overlay with our one
universe-shattering decision. In short, the "point" of the entire trilogy shifts from "your choices" to "Shepard dies! *slams book closed*"
This goes back to the
reader-writer contract.
Here's another short source. The fact that Bioware went three games strengthening their base formula makes the ending asinine: With their railroaded death of Shepard, the nonsense with the star-god-child, the absurdity of teleporting squadmates to the Normandy, and the laziness of recolored assets, it's no wonder people feel no reason to play the trilogy again or even NG+. This points directly to the following violations (from source #1). Keep in mind this is not an exhaustive list, and the source itself goes on to state the more works created by an author "the more complex the contract, for the reader builds expectations of what that author will or will not do—better known as a brand.":
-That the rules will not change and the author will play by the rules he sets up. If in the world created birds can swing but not fly, we better not see flying birds halfway through.
The first rule broken is the character of Shepard simply would not take the star-god-child's words at face value. S/He has been in similar situations in the past, and has
always had the chance to find his/her own path. What we get is blind acceptance; completely out of character.
The Reapers change throughout the story. They are
never depicted as the big machines that see themselves doing the "right" thing. In their own words, humans are nothing more than an insect-- trivial, meaningless, easily crushed.
The worst rule broken, however, is everything with the exception of eezo has a solid basis on possible existant tech or tech theories.
Synthesis is space magic. Full stop.
-That there’ll be good ending, a primarily source for an emotionally satisfying experience. A multitude of errors will be forgiven if a great ending is provided. And what qualifies as a great ending? The release of tension that come from the sense of rightness, the feeling that this is the way things should—had—to be, whether bittersweet or happily-ever-after.
There is absolutely no sense of rightness; the ending doesn't even bother to explain how things are "right." It just shows explosion, generic combat scene, colored lights in relays, then (if you're really lucky!) Shepard taking a breath before we see a scene at Asspull Island. We see no resolution in characters' stories, in the LI, or even back on Earth aside for the color-shifted light as it goes through.
"But wait!" you might say, " They wanted the player to reach their own conclusions!"
This is a violation of point #1. Even in the abysmal end of Mass Effect 2, we got another conversation with The Illusive Man for closure. At the end of the
trilogy we get a man that says "the Shepard" is a legend. Another writing adage: SHOW, DON'T MOTHER****ING TELL. We expect to
see Shepard a legend, through the eyes of the people he saved. Not from some anonymous grandpa ten generations removed simply "saying" he's a legend.
-That the author will not deceive the reader. An author can mislead a character and therefore the reader, but the truth must be there and twists properly foreshadowed so that a reader can look back and say, “Duh! Of course, that’s what had to happen. Why didn’t I see that coming?"
The Catalyst Star-God-Child. The options open to Shepard. The Normandy on Asspull Island. There is no foreshadowed reason for any of these to exist; they're simply trash thrown together at the last second in a desperate attempt to ship on time.
-That the flip-side of that will be true—all foreshadowing will be fulfilled. Or as is talked about in playwriting, if there’s a gun on the wall, it’d better be fired before the end of the act.
In this case, the "loaded gun" is dark energy. It is never properly explained or resolved. Considering how just about everything isn't resolved after the star-god-child, you can add just about anything in any of the three games here.
So yes, while the valiant sacrifice of Shepard makes perfect sense for the trilogy (in theory), but the fact that it is presented in a bubble without character choice, reason, or visible reaction (showing not telling), damns this ending. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a tragedy-- that's why that genre has survived thousands of years. What
is wrong, however, is they essentially decided to duct tape the ending of Star Wars to the ending of The Lord of the Rings. It's the
wrong ending for the trilogy. They quite literally ripped the writer-reader contract in half, which is the holiest of holies to an author.
It's not bad writing, it's bad storytelling-- a much more severe offense.
I'm not trying to tell you you're "wrong" in liking the ending. On its own, I suppose it stands as a somewhat cliche soldiery scifi thing endy. I'm sure you'd agree with me when I say that it's not the
right ending, though, especially for this trilogy.
Modifié par Dreogan, 11 mars 2012 - 08:55 .
Retour en haut
