We will pick up where we left off last week with discussing the various problems with the presention of the game's ending options, begining with the "control" ending.
Control:
"Control" doesn't have much in the way of plotholes, but it does falls short somewhat thematically. My biggest narrative concern is something already mentioned. I don't understand Shepherd's relationship to the Virtual Kid (VK) and why VK feels obligated to mention "control" as an option. If for whatever reason, Shepherd has such control over VK that he's willing to cede power to him, why can't Shepherd tell him to blow himself up and the Reapers along with him? Oh yeah, because VK's "been changed" and "can't make (it) happen" even though this only makes sense if we're talking about "synthesis".
Where "control" really fails is thematically. Throughout the whole series there is this sense of forboding that the Reapers are not a force that will negotiate or can be manipulated, controlled either directly or indirectly.They will do what they wish or nothing at all. All those who think otherwise while perhaps able to obtain a degree of success inevitably fail usually with something awful happening to them. Project Overlord ends with the crew dead, and Sanctuary is destroyed. Even the Illusive Man is brought under the Reaper's control, and Shepherd is forced to shoot him in self-defense.
So while "control" was always on the table to potentially be pursued, the game itself caters to the idea that it is impossible. Then, at the very end when the options are laid out apparently taking control of the Reapers is as easy as walking up to a panel. It's jarring to realize the Illusive Man, the leader of a terriorist organization who was more or less an antagonist for the last game and a half, was absolutely on the right track! All the while we and the game were calling him nuts, in the end he was only 100 feet from his goal!
"Control" doesn't have much in the way of plotholes, but it does falls short somewhat thematically. My biggest narrative concern is something already mentioned. I don't understand Shepherd's relationship to the Virtual Kid (VK) and why VK feels obligated to mention "control" as an option. If for whatever reason, Shepherd has such control over VK that he's willing to cede power to him, why can't Shepherd tell him to blow himself up and the Reapers along with him? Oh yeah, because VK's "been changed" and "can't make (it) happen" even though this only makes sense if we're talking about "synthesis".
Where "control" really fails is thematically. Throughout the whole series there is this sense of forboding that the Reapers are not a force that will negotiate or can be manipulated, controlled either directly or indirectly.They will do what they wish or nothing at all. All those who think otherwise while perhaps able to obtain a degree of success inevitably fail usually with something awful happening to them. Project Overlord ends with the crew dead, and Sanctuary is destroyed. Even the Illusive Man is brought under the Reaper's control, and Shepherd is forced to shoot him in self-defense.
So while "control" was always on the table to potentially be pursued, the game itself caters to the idea that it is impossible. Then, at the very end when the options are laid out apparently taking control of the Reapers is as easy as walking up to a panel. It's jarring to realize the Illusive Man, the leader of a terriorist organization who was more or less an antagonist for the last game and a half, was absolutely on the right track! All the while we and the game were calling him nuts, in the end he was only 100 feet from his goal!
Even Shepherd admits that the Illusive Man was right. I guess trying to beat him at every turn, killing Kai Leng and blowing up his base all feels kinda silly now doesn't it?
Before I go any further, I'm sure there are people who are shouting, "Indoctrination Theory!!" at the top of their lungs. My answer.... it will be discussed late. Next up, we have...
Synthesis:
One thing I haaaaate about Mass Effect 3 is that the game caters to "synthesis" as the good ending. Many people believe "synthesis" provides the best conclusion with perhaps some good reason. Unfortunately, "synthesis" is far from a perfect ending and in some ways is worse than the others. I will try to explain why "synthesis" is flawed and why I don't like it personally.
First off, I don't appreciate how the Reapers are not punished. While in other endings they can destroyed or subjucated in "synthesis" they become partners. So, in the end you team up with a group of AIs who've been cultivating and annihilating all advanced life forms resulting in the death of trillions. Mmm. And don't give me that "is a fire at war?" crap VK spouts. All your interactions with them have posed them as overbearing asses puncuated by villanous bragging and not-so-veiled threats. These guys are not misunderstood; they are bad guys and bad guys should suffer consequences for their actions. In "synthesis" that doesn't happen.
Secondly, "Synthesis" requires Shephard to physioloically alter every organism in the galaxy. This single decision changes how every living works and thinks from the moment you jump into the Crucible to ad infinitum. Do you have the right to do that? More importantly, what if you're wrong? Is it reasonable to jump into a giant ray of energy because a kid starts talking about how you need to end some cycle you've just heard about? If you pick "destroy" and the cycle is real, at least whether it continues or not will be decided because people choose to and not because they've been "programmed" to think a certain way. Speaking of which...
The whole game is about how people of different cultures, creeds, and species can work together to accomplish their goals. Strength through diversity is the theme in Mass Effect 3 in my opinion. Shepherd heals old wounds, forms new alliances, and stops the Geth-Quarian conflict all while devloping a relationship with his ship's AI computer, EDI. "Synthesis" is in direct conflict with this. "Synthesis" is all about unity through conformity; we can't get along unless we all think alike. Despite the fact that the game itself disproves this theory of cycles, the kid jabbers away that "synthesis" is the only solution, and Shephard is oddly compliant.
Before I go any further, I'm sure there are people who are shouting, "Indoctrination Theory!!" at the top of their lungs. My answer.... it will be discussed late. Next up, we have...
Synthesis:
One thing I haaaaate about Mass Effect 3 is that the game caters to "synthesis" as the good ending. Many people believe "synthesis" provides the best conclusion with perhaps some good reason. Unfortunately, "synthesis" is far from a perfect ending and in some ways is worse than the others. I will try to explain why "synthesis" is flawed and why I don't like it personally.
First off, I don't appreciate how the Reapers are not punished. While in other endings they can destroyed or subjucated in "synthesis" they become partners. So, in the end you team up with a group of AIs who've been cultivating and annihilating all advanced life forms resulting in the death of trillions. Mmm. And don't give me that "is a fire at war?" crap VK spouts. All your interactions with them have posed them as overbearing asses puncuated by villanous bragging and not-so-veiled threats. These guys are not misunderstood; they are bad guys and bad guys should suffer consequences for their actions. In "synthesis" that doesn't happen.
Secondly, "Synthesis" requires Shephard to physioloically alter every organism in the galaxy. This single decision changes how every living works and thinks from the moment you jump into the Crucible to ad infinitum. Do you have the right to do that? More importantly, what if you're wrong? Is it reasonable to jump into a giant ray of energy because a kid starts talking about how you need to end some cycle you've just heard about? If you pick "destroy" and the cycle is real, at least whether it continues or not will be decided because people choose to and not because they've been "programmed" to think a certain way. Speaking of which...
The whole game is about how people of different cultures, creeds, and species can work together to accomplish their goals. Strength through diversity is the theme in Mass Effect 3 in my opinion. Shepherd heals old wounds, forms new alliances, and stops the Geth-Quarian conflict all while devloping a relationship with his ship's AI computer, EDI. "Synthesis" is in direct conflict with this. "Synthesis" is all about unity through conformity; we can't get along unless we all think alike. Despite the fact that the game itself disproves this theory of cycles, the kid jabbers away that "synthesis" is the only solution, and Shephard is oddly compliant.
One last thing; pro-synthesizers argue that since "synthesis" offers the greatest utility for the most amount of people it has to be the best ending. I would offer two counter arguments. First off, all the endings have an optimistic outlook and express the belief that things are getting better. Who's to say if I pick "destroy", that a turning point in AI-organic relations couldn't be realized? Who's to say in "control" Shepherd couldn't act as a benelovent god using the Reapers as enforcers to create a golden age of peace and prosperity? Though prefering "synthesis", the game is not clear which ending offers the greatest amount of liberty and prosperity for the galaxy.
Secondly, even if "synthesis" does break this cycle, that doesn't mean the world is perfect. Ok, AI and organics can relate, so what? Crime still exists right? Corruption is still a thing, I'm sure. The game suggests a heaven on earth is created, but a little bit of thought tears this idea down. One thing I hate about the cycle theory is in one way it's so obvious it's dumb. At its core, the theory merely says that over time people with differences come into conflict. Hasn't that been the case not just with AI and organics but I don't know, everyone? I mean, until people are perfect isn't that always going to be a thing, regardless of the ending we choose? So, in the end what does "synthesis" do besides treat a symptom to a much bigger root problem?
Secondly, even if "synthesis" does break this cycle, that doesn't mean the world is perfect. Ok, AI and organics can relate, so what? Crime still exists right? Corruption is still a thing, I'm sure. The game suggests a heaven on earth is created, but a little bit of thought tears this idea down. One thing I hate about the cycle theory is in one way it's so obvious it's dumb. At its core, the theory merely says that over time people with differences come into conflict. Hasn't that been the case not just with AI and organics but I don't know, everyone? I mean, until people are perfect isn't that always going to be a thing, regardless of the ending we choose? So, in the end what does "synthesis" do besides treat a symptom to a much bigger root problem?
Now that we've dscussed the choices, let's talk about their effects. In researching the ending, the first thing you discover is that the game's outcome is determined by two variables; what choice you make on the Crucible and your effective military strength. Depending on the latter, the Earth and your crew will emerge in various states of well-being. That makes sense; if you bring a bigger army, survivability should go up, right? Watch the video though (7:00); what kills and destroys things is the blast from the CRUCIBLE, not the Reapers.
Think about how mind-boggingly bad of an idea this is. The Crucible, a thing whose purpose and abilities I have already questioned behaves fundamentally different based off..... your military strength? This makes no sense.
Also poorly done is the scene that shows Joker/EDI and others crash-landing on a tropical planet far from Earth. The only possible idea I can think of for why this scene exists is that it is another pro-synthesis moment, showing a beautiful Eden soon to be populated by a new Adam and new Eve. One should note that often times the game will show members who were with you on Earth back on the ship without providing an explanation as to how they got there. If you did not pick "synthesis" this scene, which has no action or dialogue, serves no purpose but to show that some of your squad survived.
The main thing fans were disappointed with other than the flawed narrative choices was that the choices meant very little. Despite three distinct ending choices, their effect was the same.
Also poorly done is the scene that shows Joker/EDI and others crash-landing on a tropical planet far from Earth. The only possible idea I can think of for why this scene exists is that it is another pro-synthesis moment, showing a beautiful Eden soon to be populated by a new Adam and new Eve. One should note that often times the game will show members who were with you on Earth back on the ship without providing an explanation as to how they got there. If you did not pick "synthesis" this scene, which has no action or dialogue, serves no purpose but to show that some of your squad survived.
The main thing fans were disappointed with other than the flawed narrative choices was that the choices meant very little. Despite three distinct ending choices, their effect was the same.
It is no exaggeration to say that all three major endings share about 80% of content. We get the same shots, same scenes the only difference being the light shooting out from the Crucible is a different color. Even the added DLC synopses of the aftermath is similar; in all three the world is unified, the Reaper threat is extinguished, we're going to rebuild, blah blah blah. How can three radically different decisions yield the same result?
It strikes me the idea behind this was that the writer's wanted to give the players a choice yet also wanted a certain outcome to occur. However, this creates the problem having to tie each decision to a set ending, some of which may not go together. Invariably, you get an ending that lacks cohesion, an ending that has to jump through a lot of hoops to explain why x, y, and z is the case, sorta like Mass Effect.
Rather than attempting to have the best of both worlds and succeeding at neither, the writers should've gone full blown player choice with distinct choices and results (which includes Shepherd living), or they should've gone to a cut-scene upon Shepherd meeting the VK in which a planned but logical ending could've happened. Instead, the player is left with the mirage of choice and an ending that is both out of his control and unsatisfying.
Now, let's talk about the Indoctrination Theory. If you aren't sure what I'm talking about, or need a refresher....
It strikes me the idea behind this was that the writer's wanted to give the players a choice yet also wanted a certain outcome to occur. However, this creates the problem having to tie each decision to a set ending, some of which may not go together. Invariably, you get an ending that lacks cohesion, an ending that has to jump through a lot of hoops to explain why x, y, and z is the case, sorta like Mass Effect.
Rather than attempting to have the best of both worlds and succeeding at neither, the writers should've gone full blown player choice with distinct choices and results (which includes Shepherd living), or they should've gone to a cut-scene upon Shepherd meeting the VK in which a planned but logical ending could've happened. Instead, the player is left with the mirage of choice and an ending that is both out of his control and unsatisfying.
Now, let's talk about the Indoctrination Theory. If you aren't sure what I'm talking about, or need a refresher....
Initially, I thought this was the usual crazy fan theory that made even less sense than the actual content or at the very least was grasping at straws. However, the more I mulled it over, the more I realized the IT works better than the face-value ending at filling in plot holes. The dreams, the voices, the reoccurring figure of a child all sound a lot like indoctrination. The "oily shadows" the Rachni Queen describes matches perfectly with the figures in Shepherd's dream, and the mere presence of the VK proves that the Reapers have access to Shepherd's mind.
For me, looking at all the evidence, the number of coincidences the designers had to have "accidentally" put in suggest more than happenstance or rushed writing. The dream scenes and interactions with the child are genuinely out of place, and everything after Harbinger's laser does have an eccentric, ethereal quality to it, like say a dream. More importantly, I've yet to find evidence from a narrative perspective that out-and-out discredits the theory.
It's quite possible that at some time the IT was the ending but was scraped before the game's release. Or it's possible the writers took the easy way out and intentionally provided ambigious information with clues for the gamer to interpret as he saw fit. The ending that appeals to the most people wins so vagueness is good, right? It's also possible that we were absolutely supposed to take everything at face value, and somehow out of that mess the fans came up with a theory that fit what we saw yet made more sense than the actual ending.
My guess is that the truth is a mixture of two and three. I mean, if the theory held water from a game design viewpoint, the story ends on the biggest cliff-hanger of all time. What writer would stop the story on a note like that, permanently unfinished? However, they probably did leave certain thing ambigious on purpose. Upon seeing the negative response for the endings and the overwhelming support for IT, the writers had no choice but to rally around it as a possibility. They never planned it exactly that way so they can't confirm it (plus, then people would ask for the actual ending) but to deny it is to say, "yes, the endings really ARE that bad". To this day they are stuck in a position where they can give no definitive answer, only shrouded ones.
For me, looking at all the evidence, the number of coincidences the designers had to have "accidentally" put in suggest more than happenstance or rushed writing. The dream scenes and interactions with the child are genuinely out of place, and everything after Harbinger's laser does have an eccentric, ethereal quality to it, like say a dream. More importantly, I've yet to find evidence from a narrative perspective that out-and-out discredits the theory.
It's quite possible that at some time the IT was the ending but was scraped before the game's release. Or it's possible the writers took the easy way out and intentionally provided ambigious information with clues for the gamer to interpret as he saw fit. The ending that appeals to the most people wins so vagueness is good, right? It's also possible that we were absolutely supposed to take everything at face value, and somehow out of that mess the fans came up with a theory that fit what we saw yet made more sense than the actual ending.
My guess is that the truth is a mixture of two and three. I mean, if the theory held water from a game design viewpoint, the story ends on the biggest cliff-hanger of all time. What writer would stop the story on a note like that, permanently unfinished? However, they probably did leave certain thing ambigious on purpose. Upon seeing the negative response for the endings and the overwhelming support for IT, the writers had no choice but to rally around it as a possibility. They never planned it exactly that way so they can't confirm it (plus, then people would ask for the actual ending) but to deny it is to say, "yes, the endings really ARE that bad". To this day they are stuck in a position where they can give no definitive answer, only shrouded ones.
I truly hope some day Bioware gives some sort of complete answer on the IT because Mass Effect fans deserve an answer. Unconfirmed and probably unintended, if you need the IT to live with Mass Effect's ending, whatever floats your boat, I say. For me, as much as I want to fully believe IT, and as much evidence as there is for it, there are also signs that the endings were meant to be taken at face-value, and the writers just got darn lucky that the fans came up with as brilliant of a theory as they did to explain it. Ultimately then, my opinion of the IT falls somewhere in between belief and skepticism.
Well believe it or not, I actually can talk about this subject even more, but I have decided enough is enough, and hopefully everyone gets the point. Again, any questions or comments you have please let me know in the comment section below. I don't know what I'll be discussing next blog. Hmmmm. See you next time!
Well believe it or not, I actually can talk about this subject even more, but I have decided enough is enough, and hopefully everyone gets the point. Again, any questions or comments you have please let me know in the comment section below. I don't know what I'll be discussing next blog. Hmmmm. See you next time!