Another "ME3 Ending Thread": Of Player Agency, Genre Shift, and Catharsis Blowback

Recommended Videos

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
Mass Effect has, since it's beginning, been an experiment into the concept of continuitous player agency - that is, that players will have the decision to make large or small changes to the story and it's details as it progresses along it's narrative arc, and that these decisions will be respected over the course of the trilogy. This has been the expectation from day one and thus far has been the most successful of Bioware's forays into continuitous player agency. Dragon Age followed a similar idea thread but did not center on a central character which the player maintains agency over, rather it is a set of different tales and different characters placed in the same World Setting in which player agency has ripple effects on that setting.

One of the problems of course, with any game that focuses on Player Agency, is that the same thing will mean different things to different people. People have expectations based on 'their' story, and the way you avoid stepping on 'their' story is to maintain player agency and give them the free will to choose their outcomes. This creates certain limitations on you as the author - you must maintain contingency plans for every player agency point you provide. Certain narrative and organizational devices can make this much easier, such as a binary 'morality' system (paragon/renegade points) and condition flags (companion loyalty/approval). This allows you to frame the narrative arc that your players will undergo while providing the illusion of complete choice. While this form of Player Agency is by design limited (your arc of control is more akin to 180 degrees than 360 degrees of movement, if you follow) it is an effective way of allowing your players to exercise their agency over the narrative while still establishing a general story arc which you can follow and plan for.

Over the past three games Bioware has done what, in my opinion, can be considered a masterful job of faithfully representing the continuity of player agency, referencing player choices in meaningful and meaningless ways via datapoints. Mass Effect 3 was the penultimate example of this, borrowing choices from the previous two games to almost completly form the narrative arc of the third - that is, your choices have finally become the definition of the setting (wether or not you saved the council, the rachni, etc) influences the characters that appear and how events play out in these games. Mass Effect 3 is exceptionally well polished (barring some frustrating bugs and annoying UI and quest tracking issues) and represents the continuity nerds wet dream - a universe of their own creation, the punultimate choose your own adventure.

However...

In the last 10-15 minutes of the game there was an abrupt genre convention shift (more in line with the metaphysical pulp sci-fi of the 1900's than the Space Opera / Military Drama we had thus far experianced), a fundamental violation of one of the tenants of the Writer-Reader contract. This abrupt genre shift has left fans feeling disoriented, confused, and dissapointed - which swiftly leads to bitterness and anger. Their suspension of disbelief and expectations have not been adequatly serviced, and thus the ending causes the story of Mass Effect - from beginning to end, from 1-3 - to fail. Many are now observing plot holes and inconsistancies - those plot holes were always there, but were forgiven. However a bad ending damns a story, it causes a blowback in the reader where their tension and emotional involvement does not achieve catharsis and they're left to take it out on the author.

And this is why, I, and many thousands of other individuals have been so upset by the ending to Mass Effect 3. Our genre expectations and player agency have been violated, the finale of the story is uninfluenced by the continuity of our decisions and follows an unfamiliar narrative trend.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
I can safely say, besides the phantom mission thing in ME2, there really aren't any plot holes in the series that cannot be explained away as people not paying attention.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
Plot Holes and Inconsistencies: A List for argumentative purposes (WIP)

The Dark Energy in ME2 is an example of Chekhov's gun.

If the Citadel was leader of the Reapers all along, why didn't it activate it's mass relay itself?

Why does Sovereign introduce himself as the destroyer of the human race and exterminator of all species when the Reapers purpose is to preserve civilizations as Reapers themselves and to prune life away so it can flourish?

I will amend as more come to me
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
TsunamiWombat said:
Plot Holes and Inconsistencies: A List for argumentative purposes (WIP)

The Dark Energy in ME2 is an example of Chekhov's gun.

If the Citadel was leader of the Reapers all along, why didn't it activate it's mass relay itself?

Why does Sovereign introduce himself as the destroyer of the human race and exterminator of all species when the Reapers purpose is to preserve civilizations as Reapers themselves and to prune life away so it can flourish?

I will amend as more come to me
1. It is only a Chekov's gun if you make it into one, I could very well say the leviathan of dis, and the beings of light mentioned by the volus miner on that one planet are Chekov's guns also. Just because you THINK that they will be important =/= they are.

2. The Catalyst monitored The Reapers, and was the computer of the Citadel, who is to say its creator didn't put in a "A Reaper/the Keepers have to activate the Citadel in order to prevent a false start on the invasion in case The Catalyst went rouge or became corrupt" program.

It would probably be part of the same programing that prevented it from enacting the ending choices itself, and why it needed Shepard to do it.

3. Because he would have been the Destroyer of the human race and he does exterminate all species because ALL life eventually has to be killed to prevent synthetics from destroying all organic life forever.
 

longboardfan

New member
Jul 27, 2011
166
0
0
SajuukKhar said:
TsunamiWombat said:
Plot Holes and Inconsistencies: A List for argumentative purposes (WIP)

The Dark Energy in ME2 is an example of Chekhov's gun.

If the Citadel was leader of the Reapers all along, why didn't it activate it's mass relay itself?

Why does Sovereign introduce himself as the destroyer of the human race and exterminator of all species when the Reapers purpose is to preserve civilizations as Reapers themselves and to prune life away so it can flourish?

I will amend as more come to me
1. It is only a Chekov's gun if you make it into one, I could very well say the leviathan of dis, and the beings of light mentioned by the volus miner on that one planet are Chekov's guns also. Just because you THINK that they will be important =/= they are.

2. The Catalyst monitored The Reapers, and was the computer of the Citadel, who is to say its creator didn't put in a "A Reaper/the Keepers have to activate the Citadel in order to prevent a false start on the invasion in case The Catalyst went rouge or became corrupt" program.

It would probably be part of the same programing that prevented it from enacting the ending choices itself, and why it needed Shepard to do it.

3. Because he would have been the Destroyer of the human race and he does exterminate all species because ALL life eventually has to be killed to prevent synthetics from destroying all organic life forever.
I've started noticing you in every single ME 3 post. What are your motivations?

1) If you make it part of the plot, its a Chekov's gun. The others are minor holes too. Why are they there if you don't do anything with them? Don't point out the gun on the wall if you don't use it.
2) Supposition is not an argument. You are clearly speculating and that's exactly why its a giant fat plot hole. If the writers aren't doing their job, why should I do it for them? Its the writer's job to tell the story. Otherwise if I'm writing my own story I AM THE AUTHOR.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
longboardfan said:
I've started noticing you in every single ME 3 post. What are your motivations?

1) If you make it part of the plot, its a Chekov's gun. The others are minor holes too. Why are they there if you don't do anything with them? Don't point out the gun on the wall if you don't use it.
2) Supposition is not an argument. You are clearly speculating and that's exactly why its a giant fat plot hole. If the writers aren't doing their job, why should I do it for them? Its the writer's job to tell the story. Otherwise if I'm writing my own story I AM THE AUTHOR.
What are "my motivations"? so unsubtle in your suspicious and accusatory tone.

My "motivations" are I don't like it when people blatantly lie about a games features in order to generate more hate.

All of this "the games ending doesn't fit the themes" stuff is annoying because of how blatantly it does fit the games themes.


Beyond that
1. It was never part of the main plot, it was mentioned ONCE as causing something bad in Tali's mission and the Quarrians aren't even sure whats REALLY causing it, and it is mentioned one other time as something Novera is looking into to which isn't surprising because Dark energy is stuff given off by just about EVERYTHING dealing with element Zero.

I found it MORE confusing that they would bring up something that should be a totally common thing given their use of element zero all the time as if it was remotely important.

2. If game makers actually did what you are implying they should games would have o be thousands of hours long with mostly dialog to explain every little thing. Most games don't explain TONS of things and no one gets up-in-arms about them this really seems like people doing it in this specific game series in order to cuase more hate even though other games do it all the time and no one complains.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
I am not blatantly lying, nor am I attempting to generate hate. Either of these suggests malevolence. If I am incorrect, the worst I can be accused of is ignorance.

Dark Energy is brought up frequently because it was originally the focus of the leaked endings.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
TsunamiWombat said:
I am not blatantly lying, nor am I attempting to generate hate. Either of these suggests malevolence. If I am incorrect, the worst I can be accused of is ignorance.

Dark Energy is brought up frequently because it was originally the focus of the leaked endings.
1. I never said, or implied, you were. all I said was people were, and given that the person was asking about my presence in other threads leads to my answer applying to THOSE threads also.

2. Also having read the leaked endings I don't remember it being mentioned. the leaked endings in the script, as I recall, were the same as the ones we got in the game.
 

Lucem712

*Chirp*
Jul 14, 2011
1,472
0
0
Any plot holes in the series can be solved with "Mass Effect [insert word here]"

I'm kidding, mostly :)

I hope Bioware at least attempts to appease their fans, otherwise there might not be any love left for the future Mass Effect spin offs or re-brandings.
 

longboardfan

New member
Jul 27, 2011
166
0
0
Supposition is speculation and isn't any basis for debate or support for an argument. Almost all of your comments have involved the following characteristic lines: "It would probably be," "who is to say," and "it should be."

Here's mine:
The problem is probably caused by interference by EA executives meddling.
The game will probably be forgotten until the end of the year worst of 2012 lists.
It should be in my garbage right now.

I've heard this argument before. I don't need everything explained. Good stories don't explain everything, but they do explain (or show) the important points. Just show me people using and I'll go along with it. I don't need to know how a lightsaber works, but I can see it working in the movies. I don't need to see or hear Obi Wan spending a week showing Luke how to operate a lightsaber or how to build one. However we saw him briefly training with it and using it later. Problem solved. We see A and we see B and we make the logical conclusion that A caused B. We saw Luke turn one on, we later see him train, then we see him fight with it in the next movie. Therefore Luke uses a lightsaber and is trained in its use. We didn't get thousands of lines of dialog getting there.

We have Sovereign in game one threaten to annihilate all life. We do some side missions and its suspected that he might have been responsible for the Rachni War. We know he tried activating the relay in the Citadel and failed. Why didn't the Catalyst just finish the job? "So I see you want to open the relays to allow the Reaper flood. Would you like me to auto-format your doomsday plan?" You know, unless Saren was up there trying to click the "No Thanks" option on that giant touch screen in the Council Chamber.

Here's my supposition:
Saren couldn't close the auto-format the end of the galaxy button because the touch screen was too imprecise, and try as he might he couldn't click the little "X" to close before Shepard stopped him.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
longboardfan said:
Here's mine:
The problem is probably caused by interference by EA executives meddling.
The game will probably be forgotten until the end of the year worst of 2012 lists.
It should be in my garbage right now.
1. I love it when people blame EA, because it has no justification at all

2. The fact that the game has gotten such high scores from reviews almost guarantees that it will get MANY GOTY awards.
 

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
Perfectly said. It isn't that the character dies -- I'd honestly be fine with that being the case, even if you're forced to accept that that is the case. It's that the ending doesn't gel with the "feel" of the game at all.

The biggest offense, in my opinion, is that the Mass Effect Relays are always destroyed no matter what you choose. We've seen that an exploding relay can do serious damage to nearby planets, so you're not only isolating all of the corners of the galaxy and literally killing the sense of freedom and exploration that is the mainstay of the series, but you're also blasting all of the surviving aliens back into the stone age by detonating a giant bombs right next to their planets.

Maybe that's just personal for me though. I literally had a moment when I was trying to acquire all of the war assets before finishing the game where I said to myself, "You know what's cool about this game, the idea of being able to jump from one side of the galaxy to the other almost instantaneously. I think that single fact might be one of the reasons I like playing it so much."
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
I don't mind the downbeat ending. The space magic aspects of the story become suddenly more pronounced in the ending, though, which is more than a little annoying.

If we're talking plot holes, does Shepard's lack of motivation at the beginning of Mass Effect 2 count?

TIM: Hey Shepard, want to join my terrorism/mad scientist organization?

Shepard:
[ ]Sure!
[ ]I guess so.
[x]Only a little.
 

Syzygy23

New member
Sep 20, 2010
824
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
I just felt like someone promised me the best ice cream of my life, and instead they jammed a giant dick up my ass.
Hell, I thought that sentence was going elsewhere, otherwise I would have skipped the mental imaging process.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
2. You think that GOTY will go to Mass Effect? It might, considering a bug-ridden mess won this year. But when voting time comes again next year, whatever game got the most hype closest to voting will win.

OT: The ending reminds me of the ending of Final Fantasy X and Cowboy Bebop. People unhappy because they expected a happy ending for their efforts, and when that didn't happen, they raged.
Maybe, unless Valve releases Episode 3/Half-Life 3 this year, it has a very high chance.

Funny because all the people I know loved Cowboy bebops ending because it ended with every character solving the problems of their past
-Ed found her father
-Fye got her memories back
-Jet found the guy who REALLY shot his arm
-Spike found Julia and then got revenge on vicious

EVERYTHING was solved
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
Everyone's fixated on the 'plot holes' aside and not the actual issue of player agency and genre shift :\
 

matrix3509

New member
Sep 24, 2008
1,372
0
0
The sad truth is that player agency (or lack thereof) as it relates to Mass Effect is a sick joke. Its on the level of an acquaintance you invited to a party only to have him turn up drunk and start trying to fuck your bonzai plant. He (Bioware) is the only one that thinks its funny, and everyone else (non-fanboys) want to castrate him.

Almost every choice is meaningless, and for every situation where you actually want to be given a choice, the writers say "HAHA fuck you, welcome to the cosmic railroad ************!"
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
I do think the introduction of the Catalyst was a bit TOO abrupt. The only hint at a higher force above the Reapers was that one conversation with Javik where he and Shepard talked about how there seemed to be some kind of force behind the repetition, and how Javik felt the reapers were servants of that force, not the ones causing it.

However, I don't think the ending is as "bad" as people are making it out to be. I think a lot of the complaints are because a lot of people wanted a cliche ending. They wanted Shepard to be a hero one last time. To run out of an exploding fortress one last time. To unite with her allies in victory, or to die like a hero. I admit, part of me wanted that as well.

The ending of Mass Effect is not bad because it didn't conform to a beloved (yet cliche) expectation. I think some of the things brought up by it were quite fascinating, to be honest. I literally had to put the controller down and think. I hadn't felt that kind of weight since the decision to reprogram the geth.

I see a lot of people complaining about how your choice doesn't change anything... and I think that is not quite right. It is more about the implications of your choice than the choice itself. Do you wipe out synthetic life? Do you try to control the reapers? Do you make a new state of existence by making the ultimate sacrifice?

I don't think the end result of your choice is as important as the choice itself. As the last action you take as Commander Shepard, and potentially, as the last action Shepard takes in his/her life as well.

The ending was definitely bittersweet... but I think it fit. Shepard brought about the end of a galactic age. The end of the Cycle. The relays are gone, and every one of his/her allies is in one place and more unified than they've ever been. It is a chance for the people of the Milky Way to start fresh. Foreshadowing the Catalyst a bit more would have been nice though.

As for me, I chose destruction. I don't trust the catalyst. What the reapers have done is beyond redemption, and they needed to be taken down for good. I really like the geth, and EDI... but I could not allow the reapers to just go on their way, and potentially be a threat again at some point. I also just don't trust the Catalyst. It is clearly using the form of a child to try and engender support and trust. I think it's just as manipulative as the other reapers.

Destruction and Synthesis are the only two viable options, I think. Synthesis, if you trust the Catalyst, destruction if you don't.

There's an interesting theory on the web as well. If you do things right, after the scene with the Normandy crew climbing out of the crash, you see Shepard again. You see him/her partly buried under rubble and you see him/her take a breath. There are some people that think that everything after Harbinger blasted Shepard during the dash to the conduit was a dream... or a form of indoctrination. An attempt to kill her will to fight. Both the Control and Synthesis endings clearly kill Shepard, or force her to sacrifice herself. What if those were what the reapers wanted? To force her to give up and just die in the rubble. But choosing to destroy the reapers, even when you know it could kill the geth, and EDI, and wipe out the mass relays. I think that represents resolve, and the courage to stick to your principles. I think it represents resistance to this final attempt by the reapers to stop you.

Maybe there's still some fighting to do yet. Maybe there's one last walk for the Commander to take when she drags herself up out of the rubble.

It's all speculation at this point of course. That's why vague, open endings like these can be so fascinating. A lot of it is inference, and personal opinion. There is not right or wrong interpretation at this point.

Something else to keep in mind. Big, epic sagas rarely have truly satisfying endings. It's more about the ride than the destination, I think. Mass Effect has been one hell of a ride :)