Very Long Analysis of ME3 Ending, aka why the ending is great (spoilers)

[Vrach]

My main complaint about the ending wasn't necessarily a thematic or tonal shift; it was the fact that it seemed like it was trying to do way too much with the time it had left. Five minutes from the end, we're told that the Reapers are actually under the control of a godlike figure that lives in the Citadel's attic. We're told that he doesn't think organics and synthetics can coexist, when 90% of our interactions with the Geth serve to suggest otherwise. We're given his almost comically stupid plan for correcting this issue, namely kill them before they can kill themselves. And we're told that because some people we know managed to build something, we're in charge of deciding what happens to the galaxy next.

All of these elements are introduced way too quickly, at a point in the narrative where people naturally expect answers instead of additional questions. And these new questions are themselves brushed aside as well, leading to the infamous RGB scale of ME3 endings. It could have been done well, if certain aspects of it had been 1. explained more substantially, 2. paced more carefully, and (the others are maybes, but this is most important) 3. introduced earlier in the narrative.

I finished ME3 last night and after a lot of effort avoiding these threads (but being very aware of them), I sat there thinking "so... what's everyone's problem with the ending?".

Ok, the RGB thing is annoying (I didn't notice it myself, only finishing the game once), especially since BioWare apparently promised very different endings. But as the OP said, that's just a shitty cutscene at the end, the ending is your actual choice and it does make an actual difference.

On the other arguments though:
1) God-child - why is everyone calling it that? I mean, ok, aside from the fact that's one's first association when you see the thing, it's quite remarkably obvious the child is simply an AI (it refers to synthetics as "us"), the Citadel is its body (like a Reaper's body is a Reaper ship) and the avatar is just an interface he's using to communicate with you (yeah I know, reminds people of that shitty movie South Park made fun of, but it's hardly nonsensical for an AI to project whatever it wants as a hologram).

And how is this a problem? The Reapers are a synthetic race of shitlings that have existed for several galaxy timelines, why is it an issue there's a synthetic leader to them who constructed them and is controlling them? And even if you do see it as a God, we've established back in ME1 that Reapers can easily be seen as Gods, why is it a problem we might think of their leader as one?

2) His solution is stupid - first off, he doesn't need to be right. Synthetic's are not immaculate, we've seen countless examples of this. Hell, we're cool with Reapers thinking what they're doing is right, we've been cool with that since the first game and we're cool with the fact we think it's monstrous. So again, this is their constructor/maker/leader, where's the issue?

Second, are you sure it's stupid? Sure, we can reunite the Geth with the rest of the galaxy, but is one example at one point in history proof of concept? This creature has sat on his arse for countless millenia watching the same shit over and over again, to think you know better than it based on one single incident is simply shortsighted.

Not to mention, people are taking it the wrong way anyway. Everyone describing the issue says "so his solution to synthetics not killing organics is to kill organics with synthetics?". The faulty part there is what they think the problem is. The problem is not that synthetics kill organics - organics kill organics just fine too, that's a non-issue. The problem is that synthetics are superior to organics, which means that left unchecked, they could wipe out every single organic in the galaxy - something the kid itself tells you it doesn't do.

What the little dude is doing is destroying the civilizations advanced enough to build true AI, but leaving the younger civilizations alone. That way, there's always organic life in the universe. Without him there to do that, the alternative could very well be that synthetics wipe out everything, possibly even destroy the entire galaxy (and by destroy I do mean quite literally destroy everything there is in it, Arrival has shown how plausible that is by wiping out an entire system in one strike)

We've accepted the Fallout 3's "war - war never changes", right? Most of us think that makes sense? So think about what you get when you mix the fact the war never changes with the fact synthetic life is superior to organic life?

3) Relays get destroyed, everyone is fucked - first off, tough shit. No super happy ending? So what, you're not entitled to one. Second, the relays aren't something these civilizations really earned. It's not something they built, it's something that was there and that they used. Third, every single space faring civilization has acquired and learned about the mass effect technology from these relays, who says they can't rebuild them? Hell, it's almost certain Reapers have this technology, you're given a choice to take control of them, why not use the Reapers to rebuild them? You even have one relay left to study, since the Citadel is left standing, the relay inside it likely remains.

All in all, I don't see any problem with the ending. Yes, I would've liked my Shepard to have kicked Reaper ass so the galaxy can get on with its existence, but the ending simply tells us that the price of getting rid of Reapers is the destruction of the relays - the rest is really up to you, you'll either destroy synthetic life which has the least effect, take control of the Reapers and use them for whatever you want or you'll merge synthetics and organics, which presumably puts organics on an even footing with synthetics.

Personally, I view my ending as "Shepard takes Reapers, works with the rest of the galaxy to reconstruct the relays, quells synthetic wars using the Reapers in the future".

Another good ending would be to synthesise life. You know all those complaints over half the galaxy's fleet stuck on Earth with no nutrients? Ever considered the fact the new synthesised life doesn't NEED nutrients, much like the synthetics don't? And if it gives organics the capabilities of synthetics, you can again work, now with remarkably increased production (see Ranoch) towards rebuilding the relays.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But, you must know, Bioware isn't changing the ending because people didnt like it, strictly speaking. They're changing the ending because of all the pressure they're getting. The only example I can think of that relates to this is, although its very exaggerated, i know, is of a torture victim. That's a better example than a placating mother. All the hate their getting, if fans wanted Shepard to ride off on a flying turtle made of friendship, they'd probably do it at this point.

The only pressure that could possibly be exerted on Bioware that would make the slightest whiff of difference to them is the pressure that comes from a threat to leave. To buy something else instead. To no longer pre-order. To no longer be a FAN. That's the ONLY "pressure" that would speak to them and force their hand. And it would only force their hand if that threat was cogent, and if it was issued by a large enough segment of their player base to be unsettling.

So what's the solution? Take away the right of consumers to vote with their wallets? Take away the right of consumers to issue negative feedback BEFORE voting with their wallets? Why does Bioware want THAT? If you were running a business, would YOU want that? No chance to make things right, and keep your fan base intact?

And really, this is not a parent/child relationship. Last time I checked, I didn't pay my mother to provide me with a product. This constant misrepresentation of the developer/publisher as an exhausted nanny herding around a school of entitled children is absurd in the extreme. I've never seen another business/customer relationship described in this fashion, and by the customers no less. Instead of worrying about the art form being taken seriously, worry about this bizarre self-hatred and self-flagellation the gaming "community" seems to engage in so ritualistically. The developers and publishers are not your friends. They're not your Mom, they're not your Dad. They're a business, and you pay them to provide you with product. Yes, that product is art, but it's commercial art, created and sold for profit. It's not a gift they're giving you.

Cant we agree that this is getting a little out of hand? I mean, every other thread is the same people saying the same things about how they disliked the ending. Its fine, you cab dislike the ending. Your reasoning is completely valid. EVERYONE on this site agrees with you. So can we be done now? Can we all agree the endings bad and move on? I dont who you guys are arguing against, other than the OP I dont think anyones denying that its a bad ending. I just dont see the point of flooding the forums with this.

Obviously people DON'T agree that it's getting old, because they keep making threads about it. Would you do this at a party? Walk up to a conversation, groan, insist the subject at hand is old news, and demand they talk about something more to your liking? It's such a bizarre tick that people get on discussion forums. I would even dare to suggest it hasn't gotten old for YOU, because here you are, in a ME3 discussion thread, discussing ME3, even if it's just to moan about how boring you find it, instead of posting in a different thread or starting a new topic.

 

[JediMB]

This video can not be posted enough:

1) God-child - why is everyone calling it that? I mean, ok, aside from the fact that's one's first association when you see the thing, it's quite remarkably obvious the child is simply an AI (it refers to synthetics as "us"), the Citadel is its body (like a Reaper's body is a Reaper ship) and the avatar is just an interface he's using to communicate with you (yeah I know, reminds people of that shitty movie South Park made fun of, but it's hardly nonsensical for an AI to project whatever it wants as a hologram).

For starters, there's nothing to suggest that he is an AI. All AI or VI we've seen have either been processes within a physical body, or a personality you interact with through a holographic interface.

The Star Child, or God Child, or Catalyst, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't look anything like the holographic interfaces seen in the game. (Nor is there any sort of machine or surface around to project it.) Not even the ones that have clearly been Reaper technology. It looks more like a ghost-like creature.

And how is this a problem? The Reapers are a synthetic race of shitlings that have existed for several galaxy timelines, why is it an issue there's a synthetic leader to them who constructed them and is controlling them? And even if you do see it as a God, we've established back in ME1 that Reapers can easily be seen as Gods, why is it a problem we might think of their leader as one?

The idea that a singular consciousness is in control of the Reapers goes against pretty much everything we learned about them in the previous games.

Sovereign: "My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness. You cannot grasp the nature of our existence."

Sovereign: "We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite."

And Sovereign and Harbinger both display distinct personalities/identities, which simply wouldn't be the case if they were all just controlled by the Star Child.

Furthermore, the Star Child's claims in regards to the goals of the Reapers go against what both Sovereign and Harbinger said about their goals. The Reapers never had any interest in saving organics, but rather used the ones with the highest genetic potential for some unknown purpose, while the rest were wiped out to leave a blank slate for the next cycle.

 

[T-004]

I have to agree with OP... though to be honest, I think the biggest problem people have with the ending, the REALLY biggest issue is not the lack of themes or any of that stuff. Shepard can bite the dust all he wants in my game. I have no problem with that. From what I hear it's simple. There is no closure. It's boom, relays blow up, you see joker, (for whatever reason), flying away from the blast. They end up on some planet. Then some future earth with a guy and a kid. Boom, end.

Now where people are going "Wait, wtf happened?" is the fact for example - we don't see the rebuilding effort from whatever choice you made, where garrus or tali or whatever end up etc. I think the biggest problem people have with the ending is simple: People want to know what happened to all their companions in the game.

Why did joker flee? Was I being indoctrinated? The biggest problem is the questions. it's that simple. It leaves too many open ended questions, too many loose threads. Heck, a cheesy scene like for example this scene from Italian job... As the pod cast put it, a simple text slide with various images/scenes would have fit with what happened after you dealt with the reapers, depending upon the choices you made.

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


Though to be honest, I think the ending is just the issue overblown because tali fans being mad at bioware for the photo-shop tali. but that's just me. I liked tali just as much as any other companions, ok a Quite a bit more than kaden/Jacob, but even I think the photo-shop image was a cop out. The home-world where she removes her mask would have been the perfect place to do it. But that's just me.

At this point, if I was a bioware I would do the following:

Roll out the original ending that the author intended (with dark energy and stuff) right after you make a choice. If I recall quite a few months ago, the bioware were on fire during what? Sept-November sometime when the ending got leaked and people were made at the "Cheesey ending." Depending upon that choice, is the difference between you breaking indoctrination or not. Then the real choice begins. But that is just me, that's how I would roll with it. TO me - it seems the indoctrination theory is pretty solid and makes plenty of sense. I can also roll with this ending either way. The only thing I agree with all the outrage is this - there is a need for closure on a number of issues.

1) why is joker flying away?
2) What happened to everyone etc?
3) I'm sure people can add more in here.

Heres one - Why did Javik(who was in my squad during the run at the transport beam)step out of the Normandy on the paradise planet? Did he have a personal teleport that let him get to the Normandy before it apparently abandoned Earth to leg it through the Sol relay just before the bloody thing exploded(which was a bit weird given that when you last see Joker he is going to join the holding action). Also how did Tali, EDI or anyone else who climbs out of the Normandy get there? Last time I saw them they were sitting on Earth with no feasible way of getting off it!?!

This is why the "Ending" is a tonal shift, not because Shep dies but because everything after the Reaper shot is off and everything after Anderson dies is abject bullshit!

On another note, has anyone noticed that when you do the Destroy ending after Shep takes the first shot his weakness and injuries seem to vanish. He takes the first shot hunched over and barely conscious and all of a sudden straightens up as though absolutely nothing is wrong with him?

This will be the last time I will comment on ME 3 as I am firmly in the indoctrination camp and will be vindicated within the next few weeks

 

[Kiardras]

I like Angry Joe's Theory, that Sheperd was indocrinated.

Spoiler: In case if you are interested

Everything in it makes sense (except the kid), and makes me more hopefull that bioware is working in ending the series properly.

This is what gives me hope. Because there are too many things that only make sense if you follow Indoctrination theory for it to be anything else. Otherwise, if it wasn't indoctrination, none of the "little" clues seen through the whole game make sense.

 

[Hyper-space]

Maybe I've been playing a different series, because the theme was always "hope" there's always hope no matter how grim things look, defiance and victory through co-operation and diversity. I seriously can't comprehend where people are seeing all this hopeless grim fatality in the series, especially after ME2 where you could walk away with no losses. It smacks of grasping at straws to justify the ending to me.

The OP has more proof of sacrificing for the greater good being the theme of the games than you do for hope. It seems less like he is grasping straw when he provides a ton of examples (major plot-points and events) that support it, perhaps it might just be that you expected it to be about hope and overcoming every obstacle (because lets face it, that describes the themes of 90% of all video-games).

 

[Deadyawn]

I hate to be the asshole who doesn't actually read the OP or contribute anything particularly meaningful to the discussion but does anyone else find it a bit odd that the this thread is the OP's only post? And that the account was made today? And that the post is in direct opposition to the popular opinion of the majority of escapist members?
Bit of a coincidence.

 

[Sparrow]

but what about all the plot holes? You're kinda missing the point of why people didn't like the ending

Yeah, I'm starting to get sick of people pointing out that the ending has good qualities so the people who disliked the endings should just put it all down to opinion.

No. The ending has numerous, obvious plotholes. That is what I'm pissed about, not the fact that I didn't like the ending. It is entirely inconsistent with the lore, especially considering the ending for ME2 pretty much entirely deals with the fact that when the relays blow up, everyone a few billion miles near them dies.

So, yay for committing mass genocide.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I hate to be the asshole who doesn't actually read the OP or contribute anything particularly meaningful to the discussion but does anyone else find it a bit odd that the this thread is the OP's only post? And that the account was made today? And that the post is in direct opposition to the popular opinion of the majority of escapist members?
Bit of a coincidence.

OP was too busy getting a degree in literature with a minor in film studies to waste time piffling about on forums, clearly.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

-snip-

This was a pretty solid analysis, and you do have some valid points. I have to disagree that the end of ME3 was thematically consistent though.

For one, the series has not been about sacrifice. It's been about defiance of fate and the fight against the inevitable. Sacrifice plays a large role in that, but it's far from the defining characteristic. Every game presented the Reapers as an invincible force, that we would never win against them, that fighting was futile. Shepard did it anyway. This is best expressed in the suicide mission in ME2. They literally spend an entire game banging on about how you're going to die on this mission, but Shepard puts together their crew and survives in spite of that. The themes of defiance of fate and optimism in the face of annihilation are heavily ingrained in the series, most likely due to the source material it draws inspiration from. The end of ME3 directly contradicts this. Shepard just accepts the Deus ex Machina, without even thinking to question it, and blindly accepts the Catalyst's words as gospel. They could have fixed this one fairly well with an expanded dialogue there, where you get to actually question the thing, but it never happened.

Also, another major recurring theme of the series is strength through unity because of diversity. In ME1 and even moreso in 2, you're bringing together a team with wildly divergent backgrounds and forging a sum greater than its parts out of it. In ME3, the same theme is applied on a significantly larger scale. You're bringing together whole species, arbitrating disputes and bringing the entire galaxy together to achieve something never before seen. At least one of the end choices (synthesis) spits in the face of this. It goes from "our strengths used cooperatively make us better", to "conformity and sameness is the best". It's a rather jarring transition.

Finally, I would say the biggest theme of the entire series is the importance of free will, the impact of choice, and what it means to be a person. This is explored countless times throughout the series, most prominently with Legion and EDI. There's several instances where they learn what it means to be an independent, sapient being, and the privileges (and responsibility) that come with having free will. The Catalyst directly states that free will is irrelevant, and choices are meaningless. It's not a matter of choices having an impact on the end cutscene. The problem is that the Catalyst explicitly says that no matter what choices are made or what happens in the future, synthetic life will kill organic life. It's a complete rejection of the base concept the game is centered on. It says that no matter what, things will always play out exactly this way, but the game spent the last 100+ hours telling the player the exact opposite. That is very much a severe thematic shift.

That's just the major thematic problems with the ending, there's also a wide variety of other mechanical problems with the way it was handled, especially the lack of foreshadowing of and blatant (and literal) deus ex machina that is the Catalyst.

i 100% agree with all of this, and this is why i'm so distraught about the ending, as these themes are EXACTLY what i felt throughout 99% of the trilogy, then the ending just...fuck. can't even really put into words.

OP you made quite possibly the longest post i have ever seen on here, it was well written, but i can't help but disagree with a ton of it, as the poster i quoted put it, that's exactly what i felt about the series and why i think your wrong about the ending.

also....plotholes. dear lord, you could make the great wall of china with the facepalm of the ending in raising questions and plotholes.

 

[Shinigami214]

5n1p

Couple of thoughts - I was on board with your interpretation of the narrative themes underpinning the ME narrative. I also agree with the manner in which you interpreted the themes, even if I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions in so far as they support the ending presented

To give one example, I agree with the elements of entropy and sacrifice (even if I still think that the theme of entropy does not make up for the fact that the game did not allow players to reject the reapers' defence for their existence. In a game where players are able to choose, constraining those choices should be done through consequences, not through simply removing options)

Also, I contest you idea that the reapers were 'unbeatable' - Sovereign was beaten before, and the Human Reaper-in-construction was also beaten. Clearly, the idea that the reapers are an unassailable force is your assumption.

I also did not comprehend your conclusion regarding forgiveness. I don't necessarily agree with the notion that forgiveness comes through death or self-sacrifice, even if I always assumed that Shepard would be willing to sacrifice himself if the need came up. So I'm not contesting his death, for I recognise its narrative resonance with the rest of the game.

Also, you miss out on a number of other themes, namely Unification (or Working Together, or Overcoming Prejudices), and Defiance of Fate (or Overcoming the Odds), which contest your conclusion in the sense that they clash with how the ending plays out, and thus your defence of it.

But what really threw me were your closing remarks, especially concerning those of us 'so caught up in the fact that the final cutscene randomly shows the Normandy fleeing, or the fact the mass relays are exploding, then you really need to stop it' turned me completely off what you were saying.

Really? That's your grand conclusion? That we should all stop whining and like it because your interpretation of the narrative fits the half-assed craptastic ending ME fans got served, and that we must all be morons for not getting it?

Re your claim that 'decisions mattered' - did they? We didn't see how they did, so to all intents and purposes, they did not. We did not see any sort of closure or epilogue that would suggest they did.

Also, I would remind you that the themes you outlined are but your interpretation of the themes. Arguing in their favour is fine and you make a compelling argument, but dismissing anyone who did not like the ending because 'they didn't understand it' is neither enlightened or intelligent.

You also ignore the other arguments against the ending: numerous plot holes and gross inconsistency with overarching narrative, cookie cutter endings which obliterate player agency, lack of closure, and profiteering DLC plug at the very end.

Not to mention misleading advertising and hype perpetuated by Bioware/EA in the run-up to the release which pledged closure and multi-layered endings befitting a narrative characterised by the players' decisions over the course of the entire narrative culminating in a varied and 'tailored' ending.

 

[BabuNu]

*Ensure

But seriously, good essay. Would have been top marks if not for the perpetual spelling mistake.

I totally agree with all of your points but my issue with the ending is the lack of choice. The option for Shepard to fight (and beat) the reapers should have been there but only if you were properly prepared. Having said that, I'd have went for a "Sacrifice for the greater good" ending regardless, because the ending of 24 was shit and the ending of Prison Break was amazing

 

[malmodir]

Thank you OP for putting my feelings about the ending and the series as a whole in (a lot of) words. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I hate to be the asshole who doesn't actually read the OP or contribute anything particularly meaningful to the discussion but does anyone else find it a bit odd that the this thread is the OP's only post? And that the account was made today? And that the post is in direct opposition to the popular opinion of the majority of escapist members?
Bit of a coincidence.

OP was too busy getting a degree in literature with a minor in film studies to waste time piffling about on forums, clearly.

The only thing that keeps my cynicism at bay for adding yet another "ME3 Ending" thread to the pile, is that the analysis is more than just the usual glob of condescending bullshit, subjective resentment, or anything with the words "Art" or "Entitlement" as the core arguments.

So, respect is given where respect is due.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The only thing that keeps my cynicism at bay for adding yet another "ME3 Ending" thread to the pile, is that the analysis is more than just the usual glob of condescending bullshit, subjective resentment, or anything with the words "Art" or "Entitlement" as the core arguments.

So, respect is given where respect is due.

Oh there's plenty of condescending bullshit. He just snuck it in towards the end.