Since finishing Mass Effect 3 last week, I've been pondering how I should write about it. I've not gone back to the game since - it was an exhausting, harrowing adventure, that left me feeling like the story had come to an end. Friends died, romances were rekindled, new romances blossomed, and the Reapers were vanquished. The galaxy promised to never be the same again.
I had closure with my Commander Shepard.
But since finishing it, I've been encountering the fan backlash. Some of it I agree with (such as the fact that the three major ending choices pretty much amount to the same thing), but some I don't. To be honest, I felt satisfied by the ending I chose, even if Bioware subscribed to the standard Hard SF trope of a Deus Ex Machina. However, I felt they'd written themselves into a corner where that was the only possibly way out. and to be fair, while the universe was brilliantly realised, the story was average, though I must admit to liking the idea that the Crucible had been built and designed over millions of years and countless cycles, each cycle adding to it. The logic behind the Reapers and said cycle, on the other hand? Not so much.
The problem with telling your audience why your big bad threat does what it does, is that it stops being scary. Perhaps some of the writers at Bioware should read the works of Neal Asher, Iain M. Banks and Peter F. Hamilton.
That the big bad is actually a computer program who takes the shape of a boy who Shepard failed to save ... That's a bit silly. Oh, and if you questioned why the catalyst takes on that shape? Because it probably read his mind, and assumed it would be something he'd be comfortable with, as the boy was prominent in his thoughts. He has been having nightmares about the kid, and we've already established the idea that things take on an appearance the character would be familiar with: the video logs of the Quarians on their homeworld. Why do you need it spelt out for you?
Yesterday, I read that Bioware are releasing a new ending. Do I agree with this? Yes and No. Yes, because the three endings (I know there are 16 possibles, but in actuality they amount to the same three choices) felt a little rushed and need to be more different. At the very least it needs to amount to more than a different coloured explosion. And no, because the story belongs to Bioware. If that's how they choose to end Mass Effect, then that's still their choice. Woudl you ask a writer to change the ending of their book if you didn't like it? No, because again, it's their story to tell.
Anyway, back to Mass Effect 3. I loved the adventure, and the underlying sense of urgency, that the Reapers are finally, truly here to wipe out all advanced civilisation. Gameplay was excellent and gripping. It's interesting the way the series has moved away from its RPG roots, only to come back to them, yet still manage a rather good cover-based 3rd person shooter at the same time.
I fully intend to make another playthrough at some point. I've still got Liara to romance, afterall.
