solarom wrote...
The article is curious, but unfortunately it doesn't translate your point very well. A bunch of theories are thrown, but none of them actually resolve any plot inconsistencies, sudden (and, arguably, incompetently handled) theme shifts and narrative "hiccups" the ending suffers from.
To make an example...
Speculation/Reflection 1.
"The balance of power throughout Mass Effect is firmly grounded in the dynamics of the Kardashev Scale: the Type I Citadel/spacefaring species are threatened by the Type II Reapers, who are interested in preventing the Type I from becoming Type II or Type III (the protheans almost make it – at the end of the first game, it’s revealed that the Conduit is actually a mass relay) and destroying all of the Type 0 and non-civilized life. The Type I species, over millions of years, develop Type III technology, which at the end of Mass Effect 3, finally forces the Type II Reapers to surrender."
Ok, this works. I know of the Kardashev Scale and I understand how, if need be, one could apply it to the ME universe.
Conclusion 1.
"With this daunting difference in scope between the Citadel races’ concerns and the Reapers’ concerns, it’s no surprise that the Reapers are skeptical that organics would ever understand their motives. Ironically it may also be why audiences felt alienated by the ending.
This is why Shepard’s sense of ethics applies perfectly throughout most of the game, but is turned completely upside down when confronted with the potential for the known species to become a Type II civilization – thus why the ending throws out practically everything prior to it. It’s understandable that the emotional effect of Shepard’s epiphany is lost to people who haven’t given any thought to the significance of this transition."
Ok, so I assume (I'm not sure, because the transition between speculation and the conclusion the author draws from it is far from obvious) the author is trying to show how coming into contacts with something too advanced to comprehend (eg. Sovereign in ME1, the Catalyst + the Crucible and the options it presents) can serve to create a sense of alienation within the character, and by extension the player.
To this I have to say, yes. So what?
An encounter with Sovereign was one of the highest emotional points in gaming history for me personally. I did feel threatened, creeped out and alienated, and it was fantastic. I didn't alienate me as a player towards ME1. So a sense of alienation, when introduces properly, can actually be a good thing, no?
Similarly, the Synthesis option in the ME3 ending wasn't the reason I didn't like the ending, and let's be honest, you don't even need to know of the Kardashev Scale to comprehend it at least on a metaphorical level. I have some degree of understanding of quantum mechanics (from reading Hawking etc.) while not being a scientist, all through metaphors and basic knowledge of physics.
So yeah, the idea of Synthesis or, say, Control could seem repulsive to Shepard and undesirable to some of the players, but a) not due to their inability to understand them, and 
what does it prove? Most of the qualms people have with the options you get at the end were not with the options themselves, but with how they were introduced. I could see how the idea of Synthesis could be beautiful and desirable, if not for the horrific case of Space Magic in its explanation. Or how the Control could actually seem as a necessary evil, if prior to those events we were shown at least some evidence that TIM might actually be right in his obsession. All three endings could've been presented with more sense and coherence, and the fact that they weren't is IMO the main reason people didn't like them, and not because those players aren't educated enough.
Most importantly, the article's reasoning fixes none of the ending's actual issues. What it's been talking about mostly are problems of tone and theme, and most people could overlook and/or forgive that if the plot worked really, really well. Sadly, the introduction of the Catalyst basically troughs all logic out of the window, and I don't think there's enough scientific lingo in the world to explain why hasn't Casper (who was there the whole time, apparently) activated the Citadel relay back in ME1. That's just one of many, many giant plot holes that I personally consider unacceptable in a work of art that wants to qualify as science-fiction, a genre where details matter more than anywhere else, and the sheer presence of such holes makes the idea that Bioware discarded/replaced important concepts only because Hudson/Walters assumed the players' "familiarity with some rather esoteric concepts" seem very far-fetched.
And that's also why I think the article, thoughtful as it is, is basically another Indoctrination Theory. Not thematically, of course. It just seems that a critical, intelligent person who loves ME series very much and doesn't want to be disappointed with it is left with no other choice but to rationalize and create long, elaborate explanations to salvage the mess of its finale.
You, sir, I applaud. Took the words right out of my mouth. I will add one other thought to this.
Story. ME is a digital book. Game yes, but it also tells a very compelling, gripping tale of characters we have grown to love. It is a story - and as such, is subject to the very same rules as any other book. In fact, being Sci-fi, it is subject to more; namely the laws of physics etc but as you touch on this above I wont go into it.
One of the single-biggest no-no's is 'cheating' the reader. Never should this be done - if a book does, it has failed and deserves to be thrown in the bin. Sadly, ME3 did just this. It cheated the player - because the ending made no sense. I will say what has been said now many times: we should not need to have any familiarity with Astrobiology on ANY level to understand the ending, and to suggest in any shape that it is required is a failure.
And going back to story and one of it's core components; characters - we have spent 100 hours with the likes of Garrus, Tali, Ashley, Wrex etc etc etc, and they see fit to leave us with, in some cases, not even a few seconds of cinematic to explain their fate? Totally unacceptable.
To the OP and anyone who thinks it is acceptable for Bioware to leave the ending so incomprehensible as to require further reading and study, I present an example:
Imagine picking up the last book in a great series, getting to the end and saying 'Hmm, that made no sense at all.' You then put it face-down, and discover the following embossed on the back cover:
'Please read X, Y and Z to understand how this story ended.'
I'd be pretty peeved, wouldn't you?
Retour en haut
