Mass Effect 3 Ending Controversy

[buddycat]

I can't accept the notion that Bioware shouldn't change the ending because "It's their game" and "artistic integrity is at stake." Neither of those statements is inherently true.

If you're a fan of the ending, either as indoctrination artistry or simply as an ending that doesn't make much sense but is still an ending, then fine. But the ending?if it *was* an ending and not a ploy to engage gamers' ire and induce a DLC-request?was simply no good.

And do you know what artists do when their "art" is substandard? They revise it. This is true. How many times have museums discovered that there was evidence of first-draft paintings under the paint of famous paintings? Did not many famous novelists, poets and playwrites revise their scripts? George Lucas?pretty much the king of this sort of controversy?has revised his Star Wars franchise more times than may be necessary, but many of those revisions are actually appealing (and some not).

Revision is not untenable. Not for film, not for novels, not even for games.

There is also plenty of social polemic to support the idea that a work of art *does not* belong to the creator, but to its audience. The works of Hans Robert Jauss, Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish?all noted reception theorists/reader response theorists?argue that the reader (or the gamer, in this case) has a say in the work. And games are as much literature as plays or tv shows or films, as they start with a concept, then a script, and like much of literature are then performed. So, arguing that Bioware "owns" the ending is true only in terms of copyright; but there is also a social contract that the company must respect, which is that the players have invested money and time into playing, enough that their involvement with the series gives them substantial cache in determining what the endings should potentially involve.

As for Bioware's artistic integrity, I'd like to see them exhibit some of that. I don't think they have so far. They can show what integrity they have by releasing an ending that makes sense; or, even better, they can continue the story just enough that Shepard can fight off indoctrination and make another attempt at getting onto the Citadel (for real) and destroying the reapers. Whether Shepard lives or dies, the game's developers and producers can only prove their artistic integrity by providing a more suitable ending and thereby making the Mass Effect series undeniably one of the best of all time.

 

[Zortack]

Im glad to see the Escapist has some competent minds writing for it aswell. I will never believe this ending is the result of anything else but being rushed for a deadline. If it is their actual vision, well then I guess me and the people at Bioware no longer see eye to eye. I can accept that, but the rest of the game gives me the feeling that we still do somehow. We'll see come april how things stand I suppose.

 

[Joccaren]

Yeah, well, no. Its not.

If you want to throw around invalid comparisons just for the fuck of it you can do it by yourself. I'm out.

From what I have seen, it is. It is things that happen to be in the game that can be linked together to form an image of indoctrination, but none of which act as concrete or empirical evidence to support the theory. If you think there is something concrete, by all means present it. I doubt it will be anything I have not already been told, or anything that actually is concrete.

 

[veloper]

Good read. Allegedly (from a post that might have been from someone on the writing team), the ending was the brain child of Casey Hudson and Mac Walters.

Why did they get rid of poor ol' Drew.

Why.

Karpshyn wasn't as terrible as the rest of the Bioware writers.

It would be interesting to hear what he thinks of the ending, since he was the original lead-writer of the series.
It must suck to see some hack destroying your brainchild.

 

[Legion]

As always, you sum up my entire feelings on a matter perfectly.

Im glad to see the Escapist has some competent minds writing for it aswell. I will never believe this ending is the result of anything else but being rushed for a deadline. If it is their actual vision, well then I guess me and the people at Bioware no longer see eye to eye. I can accept that, but the rest of the game gives me the feeling that we still do somehow. We'll see come april how things stand I suppose.

I also agree with this. I refuse to believe they'd put that much effort into the story and lore to end it like this for anything other than an unreasonable deadline.

 

[Ken Sapp]

I can understand some of the outrage over the ending of ME3. Twist ending with no closure. I don't have a problem with the twist, but the lack of closure after all of the major choices made throughout the series makes all of those choices meaningless.
Assuming that not everyone has finished ME3:

Spoiler

I can live with the destruction of the Mass Relay network and the Citadel. But there should be some mention of how the major racial conflicts were resolved. Leave the Destruction/Control/Synthesis ending up in the air but make our choices mean something more than numbers on a screen that affect nothing other than who we can talk to before we charge the hill. Is it reasonable that the hero gives up there life to save the universe? Sure. No problem.

Here is one suggestion I would make. In that scene after the credits where descendants of the current generation are shown, add a short bit showing new mass relays being built or the old ones being repaired. And maybe some short vignettes to give us a sense that our decisions had consequences, even if it is just text cards such as they used in Dragon Age Origins

Finally, I know I will probably be flamed for it but: I enjoyed the series and the ending as it stands. Could it be done better? Of course. I never expected sunshine, rainbows and ponies but a little bit of closure would have been nice.

Nah man, why would anyone flame you? If you truly enjoyed the ending as it stands then more power to you.

We'd just like people to understand why we're unhappy with the ending instead of just skirting around the issue and shouting "ART!ART!ARTISTIC INTEGRITY!!!" over and over again and calling us entitled crybabies.

I mean that's the kind of thing that I'd expect but your run of the mill forum poster but now it's the stuff being said by numerous actual fucking journalists. It's pretty disheartening as far as I'm concerned.

I only expected to be flamed because everything I have heard so far has been "RAAAARRGH, RAAAARGH" tooth-gnashing over the ending. At most I don't think Bioware should do anything more than clarify the endings and add closure. Not rewrite it as a lot of people seem to want and be calling for.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I actually have a separate theory on Mass Effect's ending, which is that Cmdr. Shepard fell asleep on one of the first game's elevators, and everything since has been a dream.

It's the Eden Prime beacon. Everything after he touches it is just him tripping balls as the beacon plays at being The Ghost of Christmas Future.

 

[anthony87]

I only expected to be flamed because everything I have heard so far has been "RAAAARRGH, RAAAARGH" tooth-gnashing over the ending. At most I don't think Bioware should do anything more than clarify the endings and add closure. Not rewrite it as a lot of people seem to want and be calling for.

Well I can only speak for myself but a little closure is all I was looking for. Hell, I think that's pretty much what most people wanted but between people saying we're entitled, people saying we're acting like children and people saying we just don't understand the ending it seems to have gone from "closure" to "entirely new ending".

There's mountains of good discussion on the matter that are much more than just "RAAAARRGH, RAAAARGH". Unfortunately with this, just like many other things it's always the loudest and stupidest you hear from the most.

 

[Nimcha]

Spoiler

No. You're wrong. They only kill the advanced civilizations capable of creating such synthetics. That is a big difference, and it is literally said so by the Catalyst. And yes in the end the Reapers are wrong. This is also what the Catalyst says. Shepard being there proves them wrong. That is why Shepard decides what happens next. Again, all of this is said very clearly and almost literally so by the Catalyst.

EDI and the geth are only a small part of the reason the Reapers are wrong. The Reapers come every 50k years to prevent the AIs from wiping out everyone. They do so because then they give society time to bloom but arrive before the synthetics actually start the extermination. EDI and the geth are on good terms with organics near the end of the game, but there's no way to be sure that will still be the case in, say, 10k years.

As I've said a few times before on this forum, the main reason why the Reapers are proven to be redundant is exactly what the Catalyst says. Shepard is there and has defeated the Reapers. Who are, as shown repeatedly, the apex of synthetic evolution. If the galaxy can defeat them, they are not needed anymore. Since it is now shown any other occurence of synthetic can also be beaten.

So, hang on.

The Reapers are as powerful as it's possible for a synthetic species to become, yes? So... why wouldn't they just kill the synthetic species that the organic species create, rather than killing the organic species before they can create the synthetic species? I mean, I've heard of cutting out the middleman, but this is ridiculous.

Because that'd be much harder. If you hadn't noticed, it already takes quite a while and considerable effort to wipe out simple organics. A war between the Reapers and synthetics of equal or near equal strength would almost certainly end in a stalemate or maybe even a loss of the Reapers and in both those cases the organics are completely wiped out anyway.

 

[Ken Sapp]

I only expected to be flamed because everything I have heard so far has been "RAAAARRGH, RAAAARGH" tooth-gnashing over the ending. At most I don't think Bioware should do anything more than clarify the endings and add closure. Not rewrite it as a lot of people seem to want and be calling for.

Well I can only speak for myself but a little closure is all I was looking for. Hell, I think that's pretty much what most people wanted but between people saying we're entitled, people saying we're acting like children and people saying we just don't understand the ending it seems to have gone from "closure" to "entirely new ending".

There's mountains of good discussion on the matter that are much more than just "RAAAARRGH, RAAAARGH". Unfortunately with this, just like many other things it's always the loudest and stupidest you hear from the most.

You are right, not everyone are demanding a rewrite. Unfortunately, the loudest minority are also the ones with the entitlement mentality demanding that Bioware rewrite it their way.

 

[mfeff]

@ Shamus, great post, great blog, look forward to more of your work.

Concerning ME3

http://geek.pikimal.com/2012/03/22/controversy-erupts-over-mass-effect-3-writers-forum-post-name-release/

Think that about covers it.

Personally, ME3 ending, like soooooo much of ME is either trope, homage, or just copied from another source.

ME3 Ending, is Matrix films. The indoctrination theories work, for TIM and Anderson, but the conversation with "Space God" is literal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

Think Matrix films. Neo = Sheppard, Space God = Architect, Galaxy = matrix. Literally, this IS HAPPENING in the narrative. This establishes the cycle, half ass why, and allows for Sheppard/Player to choose the ending "they" want. It also loosely tropes Babylon 5 and cosmic consciousness ascension. The ending, not to be seen, but to be imagined. The Jungle scene was some crap for a DLC, that was also hijacked.

Why?

The Reaper "Beam", is where the game was supposed to do the WA check, it was canned, and art assets that where "sitting around" welded together to make this 11th hour vision work. This is precisely what happens when work flow is hijacked by a single person. If WA was high enough, the idea was to have joker fly in with the Normandy and chase the reaper away, post "dream sequence". At this point Shepard "ascends" consciousness... or whatever extremely weak metaphysical crap (poorly understood outside of Drew's vision).

There is nothing more to this than that... it is a hand of god, 11th hour character introduction to tie up the game, done extremely poorly, as it was never really the plan in the first place, certainly not as the ending. Missing at least 25 percent of the game/narrative, it was done for cost, lazy, and to cater to a marketing arm more interested in making movies and T.V. spots, than they are their game.

Do not think in terms of "order" that one played the game, think in terms of modifying scenes and modules to turn "what game" one has, into a game in a box. If it feels broken and out of place, it is, because it is... this ending, is from the second act, ripped, and put in "as the ending" to shorten development time, and "take earth back".

 

[Ifrit7th]

I'm not sure if it's been said already, but what's wrong with going back to the old leaked ending (besides everyone's already likely read it) they had, the one written by the original writer of the series? Fewer plot holes, fans get an ending that makes more sense, EA can keep producing games in the ME Universe, and they actually preserve their artistic integrity by adhering to their original vision. Is it a legal thing with Drew quitting Bioware or just lack of interest?

 

[mfeff]

snip

I said the exact same thing.

Personally, BECAUSE it was Drew's vision, and not Mac Walter's story. The impression I took away from the whole thing is that Shepard was "not deep", and this contrivance (among others) was an attempt to hijack process and give it "an artistic" vision. Which in one way works with Drew's "Will to Power" concept, that is, most the characters and races are metaphors for various philosopher's and philosophical movements. Though is misunderstood, even by people working on the product.

It (of course) falls flat, I suspect, because the story board and modules where "moved around" like cards on a table, to appease marketing "take earth back" movie considerations.

ME3, is a matrix bootleg without the narrative underneath to support the arc. Dark Energy was considered by Mac and others to be "to complex", if that is to complex, then it is safe to assume that "indoctrination" is mumbo jumbo. To go with Dark Energy, is also to create a narrative problem with making the Reapers "redeemable" which does not fit with the "Star Wars" empire is evil, because they are, motivation-less arc.

Easier to say, "it's a cycle" it has happened before, it will happen again Battle Star galactica rip off... "it's in the frak'n ship!" Than to work up a proper third act. Ala Matrix, 7 times rebuilt Zion... so on and so forth.

As Shamus said, we have 2 parallel big bads, Reaper and Cerberus; TIM is resolved, but to circular reason it, a plot device was concocted to "make it all work", make Shep "Synthetic Jesus" - BattleStar "Hera", "Take the Reapers Beyond the Rim -Babylon 5" or "kill god" Will to Power Nihilism. The whole thing begs a certain metaphysical credulity.

Not even MENTIONING, how badly the destruction of Mass Relays breaks the universe. If we had dark energy, "warp drive", or "folding space" technology (which the citadel apparently DOES USE) it is not broken, but the writers forgot to explain that... then blew it up. Oversight.

It works for Legion arc, but fails horribly with Shep, as Shep has no motivation to play games with the construct. Even in Matrix, Neo chooses "love" of an individual over humanity, which is not particularly savior-esque. Shep has no such motivation, at least not one that is particular apparent, ESPECIALLY considering if one paragon' the Geth arc.

This is the ending to ME3, because it was the simplest, easiest, most cost effective way to end it without having to generate more art assets. Mismanagement, and poor planning.

A damn shame.

 

[JeanLuc761]

You are right, not everyone are demanding a rewrite. Unfortunately, the loudest minority are also the ones with the entitlement mentality demanding that Bioware rewrite it their way.

I'm not sure that's necessarily fair. Even among the people asking for Bioware to rewrite the ending, it's less "Cater to MY DEMANDS" and more "Give us an ending that makes sense and fits the story."

Basically, the people asking for the ending to be rewritten are asking for Bioware to treat the ending with the care it deserves.

 

[mfeff]

snip

Sat down the other day with some guys and discussed a "what if..."

Unfortunately we found no way to "fix" the ending as the narrative stands. There are some pretty nasty gaps in the flow of the exposition, which seem to indicate that much of the story was "shell gamed" at the 11th hour, with art assets "cobbled" together to get "something" working.

We concluded that due to marketing choices, some writing missteps, and bad "copy paste" mentalities from other Sci-Fi, Matrix films, Babylon 5, Battle Star Galactica; that to "do" the multiple ending scenario (which probably should come after the "dream" sequence of being hit by the reaper beam) is not really "do-able" in the context of the ending "as it is".

As Edward Norton (fight club stated) "If the cost of the outrage is less than the cost of the re-write, we won't do one"... loose quote there.

This is the ending, it is very "Matrix", Shepard as agency for a "machine" plan. I stand by the Shepard = Achilles, Zeus is powerless in the face of the fates arguments. ME3 as a "whole" is just rather poorly constructed, sequels tend to do this, that didn't have a "narrative" goal the "whole" process. Clearly, ME3 was a last minute "poop" into a box with the words "sell this", as it's last gasping breaths.

 

[Oro44]

The word "entitlement" gets thrown around a lot these days, mostly incorrectly as a generic insult, but in this case, I think it applies (and not in a negative way).

Regardless of whether you feel video games are art or not, they are still a product. As a consumer, you are "entitled" to the product as it is advertised. This is why you hear about "money back guarantees". People get their money back on products all the time, be they defective or simply unsatisfying.

Unfortunately, Casey Hudson ran his mouth off and promised all sorts of things that were not delivered upon. This means that the product was not as it was advertised, and the consumer is, in fact, "entitled" to file complaints, demand their money's worth, etc.

 

[mfeff]

The word "entitlement" gets thrown around a lot these days, mostly incorrectly as a generic insult, but in this case, I think it applies (and not in a negative way).

Regardless of whether you feel video games are art or not, they are still a product. As a consumer, you are "entitled" to the product as it is advertised. This is why you hear about "money back guarantees". People get their money back on products all the time, be they defective or simply unsatisfying.

Unfortunately, Casey Hudson ran his mouth off and promised all sorts of things that were not delivered upon. This means that the product was not as it was advertised, and the consumer is, in fact, "entitled" to file complaints, demand their money's worth, etc.

You may enjoy part of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TVji_fiKsw&list=UUbdyjrrJAjDIACjCsjAGFAA&index=1&feature=plcp

I "think" you are correct from a product standpoint, the art argument may be valid in this case, if we are to consider that the "process" of development was hijacked at the 11th hour, and an "artistic - personal" vision applied to the work. In which case, it is bad comedy, as the ME3 writers are NOT the creators of the ME universe... think in terms of a sue chef, completing a meal, which was started by a much more diverse chef.

Genius is in hiding ones sources... Albert Einstein... loose misquote.

Unfortunately, it is what it is... but should we be surprised? The talent looks to have all but walked out the door... and it shows.