User blog:The Milkman/The Writing of the Ending

Instead of ranting about why BioWare's actions are wrong morally, I'm instead going to dissect what went wrong with the ending from a literary perspective, and how it contributed to the anticlimax that caused one of the biggest controversies in the history of gaming.

What Went Wrong
The ending to Mass Effect 3 has made a significant impact on the gaming community, that much is unequivocal. The reaction to it has raised thousands of dollars for charity, caused the price of the game to drop prematurely, and brought others to sell the game and swear off BioWare products altogether. This is bad for BioWare.

A Plot Like Swiss Cheese


I think it goes without saying that plot holes generally tend to make stories less enjoyable, especially when they are so massive in size and numerous in number. To name a few:


 * Why is Joker running from the fight? Why would my best friend cut and run like a coward at the last minute?
 * How did Joker manage to extract my entire squad, but not me? They were right behind me five minutes ago, weren't they? If they made their way to the Normandy, they would have noticed that I'm alive, or at least went to check. After all we've been through,
 * The Normandy is seen trying to escape an explosion, but we don't see the rest of the fleet. Since this explosion causes the Normandy to crash, wouldn't it have the same effect on the rest of the fleet? Is it safe to assume then, that the entire fleet we spent the whole game building was just decimated off-screen?
 * Since the Mass Relays are destroyed in every ending, it's probably safe to assume that everyone is now stranded in the Sol System, a solar system with eight planets. Out of that eight, the only planet that has an actual atmosphere capable of supporting life was just decimated by aliens. The fact that some people have to ask BioWare whether or not everyone starves to death in the end speaks for itself.
 * What happened to the Citadel? How was it moved? Did they even put up a fight? Weren't there defences? The last time a Reaper tried gaining control of the Citadel, an intense battle ensued.
 * The Catalyst states that no matter what I do, I will die. He clearly explains that because I am partly synthetic, I will die if the destroy option is taken. Despite this, it is possible to survive if your war assets are high enough. Don't ask me how these things are related, but does this mean that this god child was lying, or is it ignorant?
 * Why I am walking toward the exploding doohickey? Generally speaking, walking toward explosions is bad for your health.
 * How did Anderson get to the Citadel before me, without even stopping to try and help me?

A Very Literal Deus Ex Machina
For those of you who don't speak dead languages fluently, the Latin phrase "deus ex machina" simply means "God of the machine". As a literary device, it is, according to Wikipedia, a "plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object."

Sound familiar? That's an exact description of the Catalyst, both literarily and literally. Honestly, I'm not sure if a deus ex machina can ever be used properly, and if it can, BioWare didn't even come close. Introducing any new character this late in the story is a terrible idea, but a character of such importance can't be introduced in the climax. You can't be familiar with a villain you just met. Once The Illusive Man and his super space ninja were both dead, I was hoping we could move on to the real big bad: Harbinger. Instead, he is never heard from again after his short cameo (something that made me understandably upset). The God Child has arguably become the new antagonist, or worse, the protagonist. In the scene preceding the final "decision", Shepard has very little involvement in moving the action forward. The Catalyst simply decides you let you decide the fate of the galaxy, regardless of any previous action. Shepard seems static and indulgent in his conversation with it. The new, contrived, and enigmatic character has superseded Shepard's place as the driving force in the narrative. The plot has shifted from being that of Shepard's story to the Catalyst's.

This character appeared from nowhere and solved a conflict three games and five years in the making with ease. What was the point of uniting the galaxy and gathering war assets if God Child can resolve the main conflict instantly? Just as quickly as it resolved a conflict however, it introduced a new one. As is the case with characters, introducing new conflicts is just as confusing and contrived.

Conflict of Interest
Just as the Catalyst superseded Shepard as the protagonist, the new conflict it introduces superseded the old conflict. Before we met the Catalyst, the primary conflict was The Reapers wanting to annihilate us, and us not wanting to be annihilated. Simple, but effective. But it isn't the premise of Mass Effect that made it great. It was the characters, sub-plots, and little details about the universe that made it worth saving. The supposed tension between organics and synthetics however, was much less significant. The revelation of the reason behind the Reaper's purpose was iffy, questionable, and out-of-place with the Mass Effect trilogy. It left me more than a little disgruntled. Your primary overarching goal suddenly shifted from "stop the Reapers" to "Save organics from synthetics". Normally, the Geth would be a prime example of this, but BioWare instead decided to portray them in a sympathetic light. The geth never truly rebelled thus, there was no real introduction to this conflict. With the From Ashes DLC however, the synthetics vs. Organics conflict is a minor underlying conflict. Is it at all unfair that you can only be introduced to the eventual primary conflict if you paid 10 dollars more for content already on your disc? Whatever happened to the good old days, when I could buy a full and complete product, without waiting several months for it be fixed?

BioWare has done this before. My biggest complaint against Dragon Age 2 was that it lacked an overarching goal. In the original Dragon Age Origins, your goal was clear: Stop the blight. In Mass Effect, it was "Take down Saren", and in Mass Effect 2 it was "Shut down the Collectors". Of course, each had a large series of subplots, but they were all tied together by the main goal. No matter how much time we spent killing mercs in ME2, the obvious threat still loomed overhead; Every story arc lead back into our goal of shutting down the Collectors.

Here is an example from Mass Effect 3. The genophage story arc was arguably the best parts of the game. The genophage was a hot topic from the first Mass Effect game, and many of the desicions you've made regarding it effects the course of the action during the missions on Sur'Kesh and Tuchanka. In addition to that, there were largely varying outcomes. Even though we weren't directly confronting the Reaper threat, we were facing a different obstacle that was related to it. When that conflict was resolved (either with the krogan being cured or the krogan thinking they were cured) everything related back to our primary, overarching goal: Not being annihilated by the Reapers. This is something they failed to do in Dragon Age 2, which turned out to be a big part of why the storytelling was so weak compared to the original. Mass Effect 3 maintained an overarching conflict, but it abandoned when it mattered most. Take it away Yoda.

Dazed and Confused
As I've said before, a good story should make you feel feelings. Whether those feelings are happy, or sad, or somewhere in-between, the narrative did it's job; It immersed you well enough to actaully care about non-existent and entirely fictitious people. There are however, some things you shouldn't ever feel at the end of a narrative. Confusion, disappointment, and apathy are the worst ones, and that's exactly what players got with the ending to Mass Effect 3.



There is a very distinct drop-off point from where the game stops being exiting and starts being palpably terrible. As soon as Shep is lifted to the top of the Citadel, things get really weird, really fast. I had a million different questions, but no options to actaully ask any. I was left with many unanswered questions, but no way to actually sate my curiosity.

Destroying all synthetic life in the galaxy is kind of a big deal. Despite the aforementioned bigness, The Catalyst doesn't take a lot of time explaining the possible consequences of our actions. He also states that I will die, because I am partly synthetic. Problem is, "partly synthetic" is a pretty loose term. What is defined as completely organic? Quarians and volus have implants to interface with their suits. Are they going to die as well? That's fairly important, considering I committed genocide on the geth all because my girlfriend is a quarian.

The Control option was also difficult to consider, because it was fervently opposed from the start by the protagonist, and the only real support from it came from a crazy man who was being brainwashed by alien robots. I was constantly told that controlling the reapers was stupid, don't do a 360 turn and say "Oh, turns out he was right!" At the least, the player character should be able to support or refute this notion based on the player's moral compass.

Whilst many of our past choices were made "in the dark", we still had some idea of what the results could be. When I had to choose between killing and rewriting the geth heretics, I didn't know exactly what would happen, but I knew if I killed them, the threat would be gone, but so would a possible ally. On the converse, sparing them would make them more powerful (a danger in and of itself), but I could gamble and hope they'd be useful assets in the future.

With the synthesis option, I don't even fully understand what it means. For me, Synthesis wasn't thoroughly explained enough for it to even be a viable option. It doesn't make sense practically. Is everyone half robot now? Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal employs a very similar science fiction MacGuffin. The difference here is that the tone of Ratchet and Clank franchise is not nearly as serious as Mass Effect; The former is much more light-hearted. I'm willing to accept that, in the Ratchet and Clank universe, there exists a machine capable of taking squishy organic life forms and turning them into robots. The Mass Effect universe is much more grounded in reality however, so I really can't fathom a device that can somehow install circuit boards beneath the flesh of every organic. Also, since humans are mostly comprised of water, wouldn't they all short circut instantly? Did I just electrocute every human in the universe to death!? Talk about a shocking ending!

Oh dear God, I can't believe I actaully just wrote that.



The Human Element
In terms of storytelling, BioWare has done a superb job in the past. What really makes BioWare's narratives so amazing however, isn't the plethora of plot twists or myriad of metaphoric literary devices: it's the human element that made it really stand out. BioWare has made some of the most interesting characters and companions in the game industry, and it's the strongest facet of their games. We can actaully have heated debates about who's the best follower, or who we hate and who we love. They all felt alive, and thus, the world felt alive.

That's where the ending went wrong; they stopped caring about the characters. Dragon Age and Mass Effect aren't just games with a "save the world" story, they're complex, character-driven dramas. Without them, the stories of these games would fall flat. In the end however, the most important character is a very literal dues ex machina, our protagonist is a silent sheep, and our supporting characters are no where to be seen. The plot was no longer focused mainly on the characters, but instead dissolved into a "us vs. them" scenario.

Fallout: New Vegas (Yes, I like drawing comparisons, get over it.) did this as well. Whereas Fallout 3 involved a long-established conflict betwixt the Enclave and the Brotherhood of Steel, most of the tension was between individual characters. (You, Lyons, Liam Neeson, and others against Eden, Autumn et al.) In that game, your character had a designated and somewhat significant role in that world as a Vault Dweller and the son of the man who started Project Purity. In New Vegas, the player character is simply a random nobody who delivers packages. Not only does this forget to explain the player's ignorance, it also means that despite being the driving force behind the action, the protagonist seemingly has no place in the plot (excluding DLC). The conflict instead focuses on the three-way political tension between the rival factions (NCR, Legion, and Mr. House.) Because of this, the story was less compelling and emotionally involving. I felt like I was no longer a part of the plot, because it failed to relate to me with a sort of human element (See, my tangent wasn't entirely pointless!)

In the Mass Effect trilogy, My desire isn't to save galaxy specifically, but rather it's denizens. MrBTounge made some valid points in his Tasteful, Understated Nerdrage videos. He goes on to say he wouldn't have cared about curing the genophage if he'd never heard about it from Wrex, whom we know and love as a character first. I, nor anyone else, cares about a sterility plague inflicted upon a fictitious race of turtle dinosaurs. That's not enticing at all. But Wrex could make me care. I cared about Wrex and thus, I cared about saving the krogan from extinction. In any good story, the best way to draw in the reader/audience/viewer/player is with interesting characters. By relating to them, you can more easily introduce them to whatever conflict or allegory you want.

The Jesus of Science Fiction?
In most variations of the ending, Shep dies in an attempt to save humanity. I could go into how a story can still effective without killing off half it's cast, but if you're still actually reading, I'll spare you the segue. The main beef I take with this is how meaningless Shepard's sacrifice is. In the worst case scenario, organic life is vaporised along with all synthetic life. I wouldn't mind an ending in which the Reapers win (which is something BioWare actually promised), so long as humanity went out swinging (or blasting, whatever). Let it be known that we didn't go quietly, and that we fought to the end and never gave up hope despite the odds.

In the "Destroy/Vaporise" ending, it's more of an epic failure on an a galactic scale. Of course, survival isn't even possible in the Synthesis and Control endings. According to the Catalyst, survival ins't possible at all, but it turns out he is either wrong or lying (yet another anomaly left unsolved). Whatever the reason, if you pick Destroy, you can persevere, but your survival is contingent upon the combined strength of the fleets you've assembled'. I don't even know how those things are practically related, but forget it. This means be that in the case of Destroy, Shepard's death isn't a noble and necessary sacrifice, but rather a failure.



More of the Same
With the Extended Cut comes hope. Everyone wants the ending to be fixed, but can the damage ever be undone? The short answer is: no. The original unaltered product will always be incomplete. What about the poor fellows without an Internet connection? I guess the're stuck with an unfinished product, bought at full price. Rather than admitting fault (wasn't there a quest in Dragon Age 2 about that?), BioWare thanked us for the feedback and said they were proud of their poorly written ending. This makes them come off as extremely arrogant, and their only hopes of saving face just went down the toilet, along with the loyalty of their fans and any hope of customer reconciliation. It's widely known that treating your customer like crap is bad for business.

Again, I'd like to segue back to Fallout 3. The ending for that game was perfect. It was literally brought full-circle. Fans only complained because they couldn't free roam after one lousy mission. Broken Steel is a great add-on, and I love that the developer listened to their fans, but there is no longer a definitive end to the Lone Wanderer's story. It just ends wherever we stop playing. Not that I ever intend to stop playing Fallout 3. Ever.

Bethesda listened when that very small group of fans demanded a changed ending, so why can't BioWare listen to this uproar?

The Ending of My Rant about the Ending
So there you have it. Everything that made the ending so terrible. It is believed by some that ending, contrary to the rest of the game, was written by Casey alone, with absolutely no outside input or peer review. If this rumour is true, then I have a few words of advice: When you are writing the most important part of your game, get an outside opinion.

This is usually the party where some wise commenter says "Could you make a better ending?" My answer to that is "No. A monkey could write a better ending to Mass Effect 3. I've already found better endings made by the fans. From scripts to static slideshows, the enraged fan base has already done a better job than BioWare. Of course, actions speak louder than words, and pictures are worth a thousand actions. Or words. Whatever.