So a little over a month ago the cinematic trailer to Mass Effect: Andromeda came out, mostly to the sound of oohs and aahs. Naturally, conversation about the original trilogy was stimulated, and of course the major talking point, the ones that fans can't get away from, was Mass Effect's III ending. If anything, I'll give Bioware credit for making an ending that kept people talking.
I was surprised to see a lot of people commenting they didn't understand why the endings got such a bad rap and that they rather liked them. So, for this blog (maybe two, I got a lot of ground to cover) I've decided to undertake the task of explaining the flaws and my personal objections to the endings.
Let me first explain my own position. Before the DLC, I would say the ending was pretty bad, at best a "D". With the DLC, I thought it was ok; at least I could live (duality meaning implied) with the "destroy" ending. I don't think the options presented to end the game are terrible. However, they are presented extremely poorly with missing or even contradictory pieces of information, many of which go against the game's core elements. Even then, I don't think it would've been too hard to fix most of the problems I'm about to describe. A new conversation here, a slightly different cinematic sequence there would've greatly improved the ending. However, the ending as it is has major problems and even worse ramifications.
I was surprised to see a lot of people commenting they didn't understand why the endings got such a bad rap and that they rather liked them. So, for this blog (maybe two, I got a lot of ground to cover) I've decided to undertake the task of explaining the flaws and my personal objections to the endings.
Let me first explain my own position. Before the DLC, I would say the ending was pretty bad, at best a "D". With the DLC, I thought it was ok; at least I could live (duality meaning implied) with the "destroy" ending. I don't think the options presented to end the game are terrible. However, they are presented extremely poorly with missing or even contradictory pieces of information, many of which go against the game's core elements. Even then, I don't think it would've been too hard to fix most of the problems I'm about to describe. A new conversation here, a slightly different cinematic sequence there would've greatly improved the ending. However, the ending as it is has major problems and even worse ramifications.
I could tell something seemed off even before the ending officially started when Hackett informs your character that the Reapers have moved the Citadel to Earth to protect it. Why do the Reapers do this? What's so essential about the Citadel that they can't destroy the only thing that could possibly defeat them? Of course, we do learn the Citadel houses the Virtual Kid (that's my official name for him, from now on VK), but assumedly they are not so completely interconnected that he could not leave; remember, that the VK existed long before the Citadel as the Reapers were the ones who built it in the first place.
Ignoring that, they also leave the teleportation beam that allows Shepherd to get aboard. If I didn't know any better, I would've guessed they wanted him to get to the Citadel, which maybe is the answer; still, this all comes across as lackluster writing. From there, there is a confrontation with the Illusive Man and after that a conversation with the VK. Watch it in all its glory...
Ignoring that, they also leave the teleportation beam that allows Shepherd to get aboard. If I didn't know any better, I would've guessed they wanted him to get to the Citadel, which maybe is the answer; still, this all comes across as lackluster writing. From there, there is a confrontation with the Illusive Man and after that a conversation with the VK. Watch it in all its glory...
Even before we get our options to end the game, we are presented with this nonsensical and confusing conversation, in addition to one that goes against many of the game's themes.
First off, it bothers me that this idea of a cycle between organics and synthetics is introduced literally in the last 30 minutes of the game. I'm not talking about the theme of organics and synthetics not getting along, or the cycle of Reaper annihilating all advanced life every 50,000 years; I'm talking about the specific idea of a cycle of organics creating synthetics, synthetics rebelling and destroying the organics only for the organics to rebuild, build more AI and repeat the process. As far as I'm aware, this is the only place in the game where this specific "cycle" is discussed. Think about it; a MAJOR plot point, a plot point which one of the endings completely revolves around, is not described until literally 99.5% of the series has gone by. While this is maybe meant to be a "twist", it comes across as weak BS that has no almost backing from the rest of the series. Do you think a real Shepherd would actually buy into what the VK, essentially his enemy for the last five years, somebody who wants to annihilate all advanced life, is telling him especially something this big and new?
Another reason why this concept is hard to accept is that up to this point the Reapers motivations were clear. They were the pinnacle of life, born and bred to remain on top through the occassional harvesting of organic life forms. Organics were beneath them. That was it; it wasn't hard to understand, and it made for effective and good story-telling.
First off, it bothers me that this idea of a cycle between organics and synthetics is introduced literally in the last 30 minutes of the game. I'm not talking about the theme of organics and synthetics not getting along, or the cycle of Reaper annihilating all advanced life every 50,000 years; I'm talking about the specific idea of a cycle of organics creating synthetics, synthetics rebelling and destroying the organics only for the organics to rebuild, build more AI and repeat the process. As far as I'm aware, this is the only place in the game where this specific "cycle" is discussed. Think about it; a MAJOR plot point, a plot point which one of the endings completely revolves around, is not described until literally 99.5% of the series has gone by. While this is maybe meant to be a "twist", it comes across as weak BS that has no almost backing from the rest of the series. Do you think a real Shepherd would actually buy into what the VK, essentially his enemy for the last five years, somebody who wants to annihilate all advanced life, is telling him especially something this big and new?
Another reason why this concept is hard to accept is that up to this point the Reapers motivations were clear. They were the pinnacle of life, born and bred to remain on top through the occassional harvesting of organic life forms. Organics were beneath them. That was it; it wasn't hard to understand, and it made for effective and good story-telling.
I don't know about you but it sounds like all that "the Reapers are a solution to prevent organics from completely destroying themselves through AI" stuff is a bunch of garbage. The VK says he controls the Reapers; well, buddy I'd recommend a tighter leash because it looks like they've got a few ideas of their own (I guess the creation does always rebel against their creators). The VK says synthesis is the next step in evolution. Soveregn says the Reapers are the pinacle of evolution. VK talks about the cycle of organics and synthetics. Sovereign talks about the cycle of the Reapers harvesting advanced life-forms. VK explains the cycle in five minutes. Sovereign says their motives are beyond our comphrension. VK admits he was created. Sovereign has no beginning. And the contradictions continue. Hmm....
But anyway, let's get back to the conversation with the kid. Once we get past the fact that we're being destroyed for our own good by AI to make sure we're not destroyed sometime later by AI, the VK starts talking about the Crucible. Apparently, the largest engineering project in the history of the world is "little more than a power source". With the addition of the Citadel, or catalyst, or the kid, whatever, it's possible of releasing energy throughout the galaxy.
If the Crucible is only a power source, whoever designed it, what was their plan? Seriously, this is an actual question, which ending were the Protheans trying to pick? The game suggests it was meant for synthesis, but this begs the question of how they were aware of this possibility, and anyways the Crucible "fires" no matter your ending. The kid says that the Crucible changed him, created new possibilities, but he can't act on them. Again, he is talking about synthesis. So why does he bring up the "destroy" and "control" options at all? What possible motive would there be for VK to tell Shepherd about them, someone who would clearly use them to destroy him? Maybe the crucible somehow overrode his programming, but no it is only a power source. It's like the writers team decided they wanted a metaphysical god-like figure who gave a "You must choose.... but choose wisely," speech without asking themselves whether it made sense in the context of the story.
But anyway, let's get back to the conversation with the kid. Once we get past the fact that we're being destroyed for our own good by AI to make sure we're not destroyed sometime later by AI, the VK starts talking about the Crucible. Apparently, the largest engineering project in the history of the world is "little more than a power source". With the addition of the Citadel, or catalyst, or the kid, whatever, it's possible of releasing energy throughout the galaxy.
If the Crucible is only a power source, whoever designed it, what was their plan? Seriously, this is an actual question, which ending were the Protheans trying to pick? The game suggests it was meant for synthesis, but this begs the question of how they were aware of this possibility, and anyways the Crucible "fires" no matter your ending. The kid says that the Crucible changed him, created new possibilities, but he can't act on them. Again, he is talking about synthesis. So why does he bring up the "destroy" and "control" options at all? What possible motive would there be for VK to tell Shepherd about them, someone who would clearly use them to destroy him? Maybe the crucible somehow overrode his programming, but no it is only a power source. It's like the writers team decided they wanted a metaphysical god-like figure who gave a "You must choose.... but choose wisely," speech without asking themselves whether it made sense in the context of the story.
What would've made far more sense is if VK had brought up synthesis right away and only through conversation had the others been revealed. There could've been a renegade option, where Shepherd tells VK he's going to end this thing once and for all. He could've started shooting or pressing buttons on a control panel. The kid would've gotten angry, there would've been a confrontation, and in the process the Citadel blows up. Since VK controls the Reapers, they all become deactivated, cue your cinematic cut-scene. Something like this would've been a decent start to an ending that fit with the story both thematically and narratively. As it is though...
Destroy:
OK, we've finally reached the point where we can start talking about the endings! Let's start with "destroy" as it's the most natural and in my opinion has the least plotholes. This is my preferred ending.
Once again, we have to start with asking ourselves what the Crucible really does and what is its relationship with the Catalyst (VK). One would think the way to defeat the Reapers, a group of machines, is by "unplugging" it at the source, in this case the VK. Apparently though, this possibiliy is never discussed. Instead, destroying them consists of shooting at something inside the Citadel, which then arms the Crucible, which shoots itself across the galaxy turning off all the Reapers. If someone has an answer about how and why this happens, I would be most happy to hear it because as far as I can tell it is unexplained.
Secondly, it is not told why the Crucible doesn't discriminate between Reapers and other AI. If you're going to destroy the Reapers, shouldn't the VK be the key since he controls them and assumedly knows their code? Instead, somehow the Crucible just knows how to destroy all AI.
Thirdly, I know for me this was the first time I was told Shepherd is part synthetic. At some point he mentions after his resurrection in the beginning of Mass Effect II noticing "a few upgrades" but if this is a reference, it's pretty darn subtle. Other than this, I don't know if it is mentioned in any other conversation up until the ending; if I am wrong, please let me know. Let me reiterate that most of the time when the game uses the word synthetic, particularly when VK uses it, it is referring to AI. There is not the impression they are saying Shepherd merely has computerized or cybnernetic parts; he actually has AI or AI-like components. You'd think a doctor would've spotted that sometime between ME II & III....
This information seems to have been put in to provide an explanation for why Shepherd dies in "destroy" (even though in the "he lives" scene he's surrounded by rubble. Obviously, something's happened to the Citadel that could've resulted in his death) and why "synthesis" is on the table. However, in my opinion it is at best barely mentioned and the writers don't suggest at all its significance to the point I wasn't even aware of it. Once again the story has to clarify important information very late in the game for the endings to make (more) sense.
Destroy:
OK, we've finally reached the point where we can start talking about the endings! Let's start with "destroy" as it's the most natural and in my opinion has the least plotholes. This is my preferred ending.
Once again, we have to start with asking ourselves what the Crucible really does and what is its relationship with the Catalyst (VK). One would think the way to defeat the Reapers, a group of machines, is by "unplugging" it at the source, in this case the VK. Apparently though, this possibiliy is never discussed. Instead, destroying them consists of shooting at something inside the Citadel, which then arms the Crucible, which shoots itself across the galaxy turning off all the Reapers. If someone has an answer about how and why this happens, I would be most happy to hear it because as far as I can tell it is unexplained.
Secondly, it is not told why the Crucible doesn't discriminate between Reapers and other AI. If you're going to destroy the Reapers, shouldn't the VK be the key since he controls them and assumedly knows their code? Instead, somehow the Crucible just knows how to destroy all AI.
Thirdly, I know for me this was the first time I was told Shepherd is part synthetic. At some point he mentions after his resurrection in the beginning of Mass Effect II noticing "a few upgrades" but if this is a reference, it's pretty darn subtle. Other than this, I don't know if it is mentioned in any other conversation up until the ending; if I am wrong, please let me know. Let me reiterate that most of the time when the game uses the word synthetic, particularly when VK uses it, it is referring to AI. There is not the impression they are saying Shepherd merely has computerized or cybnernetic parts; he actually has AI or AI-like components. You'd think a doctor would've spotted that sometime between ME II & III....
This information seems to have been put in to provide an explanation for why Shepherd dies in "destroy" (even though in the "he lives" scene he's surrounded by rubble. Obviously, something's happened to the Citadel that could've resulted in his death) and why "synthesis" is on the table. However, in my opinion it is at best barely mentioned and the writers don't suggest at all its significance to the point I wasn't even aware of it. Once again the story has to clarify important information very late in the game for the endings to make (more) sense.
Oh boy, I think that's enough for now. We will discuss control, synthesis, and the game's final cut-scenes in next week's blog. The Mass Effect ending's are complicated so I'd love any questions or comments you might have. If I'm incorrect about something or made an error anywhere, please let me know as I am definitely not perfect and may have missed something in my research. Thanks and see ya next time!