I've read
Drew Karpyshyn's ideas on the ending based on the dark energy plot. And I found it as very good basis for an ending that respects every Mass Effect aspects
The Dark Energy was a force that was going to consume everything. According to Karpyshyn, "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 its genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread."
The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."
I love the idea because it repects and use forgotten elements in the current endings: In Mass Effect 1 Sovereign depicts the Reapers as "each a nation" and "apex of evolution". That makes sense with Drew Karpyshyn's statements. The dark energy has been highly highlighted in Mass Effect 2 as something of importance. There it is back for a really good reason and gives the Reapers a motivation that Shepard can't logically argue with. No need to say that the Startchild's motives are on the other hand HIGHLY debatable and contain major logical flaws... The dark energy is a threat Shepard can't deny because he witnessed it with his very eyes on Haelstrom. That threat now raises a questionning that followed him from the start and is the very central aspect of Mass Effect questionning:
Does the end justifies the means?Will Shepard destroy the Reapers to protect the freedom of all the galaxy's species even if that means lesser chances of survival regarding the Dark energy threat, or will he decide against all ethics or morals that survival is the priority and use the Reapers' solution to that end?
Now let's see what we can build on that basis. 2 Solutions but multiple possible endings regarding the war assets and the player choices throughout the whole game (ME1,2&3) :
1/ Shepard refuses the Reapers' solution and thus fight them, first check based on war assets amount:
- if too low the Reapers win the war and harvest/kill all the galaxy's saptien races
- if high enough the Reapers are defeated (military power + crucible help) and then we proceed to a second check based on the player's choices and the manner he solved conflicts. If he sacrificied too many races, been too divisive among them, if the galactic races are not unite enough. If he hasn't prived enough that conciliation opens many doors then tensions and pro-Reaper factions appear among all species, attempting to recover the Reaper's technology and become the new "chosen" race, the very one who will face the dark energy threat just like the Reapers did. The wars between the anti and pro Reaper last for centuries preventing everyone from finding a viable solution to save the Galaxy and therefore dooming it.
2/ Shepard decides to use the Reaper's technology in order to "improve" the human race, first check based on war assets amount:- if too low the Reapers refuse to ally or be dominated, they see all races unworthy to govern them and chose to stick to their plan to harverst them under their terms.
- if high enough the Reaper are dominated and forced to acknowledge the fact that Shepard proved humanity to be worthy of governing them. We proceed to a second check, based on the player's choices and the manner he solved conflicts.
If he didn't took enough drastic measures to prove his points, didn't took enough pro human decisions. If he didn't prove enough during the whole game that the end justifies the means then he fails to convince humanity to follow his decision, internal conflicts and civil wars prevent them to achieve his goal to unite with the Reapers. Too few humans join the new hybrid race, the new reapers are too few to be a viable solution against the dark energy threat, the galaxy is doomed.
If the player succesfully passes the checks:- if Shepard chose solution 1: the galaxy's sapient species depite their particulars views and particular interests decide however to start a common project to find a solution to the dark energy's threat. The ending is left open and does not tell if they succeed or not.
- if Shepard chose solution 2: humanity successfully merge with the Reapers and dominate the entire Galaxy, they harvest/destroy the other races in order to be able to face the dark energy's threat. The ending is left open and doesn't tell if they succeed or not.
To me that's an "almost perfect" ending for the game, few plot holes, few contradictions, the continuity is respected, all the decisions have an impact on the final outcome and allows a good replayablity for the 3 games. And it keeps Mass Effect's core questionning alive "
Does the end justifies the means? ", letting the player giving an answer of his own.
----------
I am fully aware that this ending would require to retcon all what happens after Shepard is hit by Harbinger's laser before entering the Citadel. I am fully aware that it may not be possible to do so, but solutions like the endoctrination theory (it doesn't mean we actually have to use that one in particular) showed that there's still a way to explain what happens in the Citadel and give the opportunity to change the outcome.
I hope this will help to find better ways to end that awesome trilogy.
Modifié par kimuji, 24 mars 2012 - 04:40 .