Mass Effect 3 EndingGate--A Reflection after two years.

After blowing through my Steam sale purchases I have fallen back into my all time favorite gaming series Mass Effect.  I have this weirdly OCD way of playing through them. I'm replaying the entire series from start to finish including all the DLC.  This is a pretty tall order considering that there is quite a bit of DLC for Mass Effect 2.  My new Commander Shepard is now 95% through Mass Effect 3 and I am preparing for my final assault on the reapers (for roughly the fifth time).  The DLC for ME3 has altered the way that I playthrough the final game in the series and before I send Commander Shepard on her last great mission I am enjoying some shore leave with my crew in the "Citadel" DLC.  All the happiness in "Citadel" makes me forget the sadness I felt the first time I finished ME3.

An accurate depiction of my initial feelings.

The ending to ME3 and the backlash that followed aren't exactly breaking news.  The game is now almost three years old and people have moved on.  I think there's a lot to be learned from the ending of ME3 and how BioWare responded to fan criticism of it's ending.  Should they be applauded for their efforts to respect fans and remake the ending or should they be criticized for caving to pressures and straying from their own artistic vision?  (Possible spoilers ahead if you've never played Mass Effect)

 The first time I finished ME3 I was really taken aback.  It wasn't that I was upset that Shepard died (two year old spoilers), it was more that there were so many unanswered questions and obvious lapses in the way the world of Mass Effect was supposed to work.  The biggest point of contention for me was the destruction of the mass relays.  In the "Arrival" DLC in Mass Effect 2 Shepard is presented with a plan to destroy the "alpha" relay.  The alpha relay connects to numerous other relays in the galaxy and destroying it will greatly delay the invasion of the reapers.  It is in this DLC that you learn that destroying mass relays will result in the destruction of all life within that specific system.  Here you are faced with the decision to destroy the relay and with it destroy a batarian colony with a population of over 300,000.  Shepard decides that the sacrifice of these 300,000 lives is necessary to allow the rest of the galaxy valuable time to prepare for the invasion of the reapers.  Ugh, what a choice--I am reminded of it when in ME3 Garrus and Shepard have a discussion about the defense of Palaven and the tough decision for the turian's to stop offensive operations against the reapers in an effort to protect their remaining forces.  Garrus refers to the "ruthless calculus of war" and how sacrificing lives in one place will save lives in another.

So now you reach the ending of ME3 and make your series ending choice--you can choose to control the reapers (the Cerberus option), you can destroy the reapers and all synthetic life with it (the Anderson option), or you can choose synthesis and bring together all organic and synthetic life (or I suppose the do nothing option, which I think is the worst option of the three and one I have accidentally embarked on through some angry shooting of the star kid).  As you remember from the pre-patched ending you then witness the crew of the Normandy trying to outrun a colored burst from the Crucible--red, green, or blue depending on your choice.  You watch as your beloved ship is engulfed in the explosion.  The next part of the sequence showed all the mass relays blowing up in catastrophic fashion.  Wait, did I just unwittingly wipe out all life in the galaxy through my use of the Crucible?  Apparently not as in the next scene you witness the crash site of the Normandy on a seemingly inhabitable planet.  Joker, EDI, and Liara struggle out of the ship having survived and take in their new surroundings.  What a huge contradiction when the galactic codex even states that the energy released from the destruction of a mass relay was enough to wipe out all life in a galaxy and render terrestrial worlds unlivable.  I couldn't help but feel a little confused over this obvious lapse in lore.

Beyond this lapse I also had questions about the future of the series.  It was heavily implied that the mass relays were the sole reason why the universe was able to function the way it did and without the relays intergalactic travel would take months or years.  The door on my favorite series appeared to be closing for good.  From a business standpoint this seemed foolish since the Mass Effect series was popular and had a large fan base.

Many people were also upset about the fact that they were promised very different endings based on the choices that they made.  Initially these endings were simply a change to the color of the energy released by the Crucible.  Did fans have a right to be upset?  Sure.  You have a huge gaping hole in the carefully crafted world as well as three games worth of decisions that boil down to the same ending with different colors.  People angrily took to the web to express their outrage and amazingly BioWare chose to respond.  They released a patched ending that fleshed out the final sequence and seemed to address these two big complaints.  As a huge fan of the series I was pleased that they made this decision.  The new ending addressed the major weaknesses and also added in more content that explained how the crew of the Normandy escaped.

I also worry that the decision to change the ending might have set a dangerous precedent.  Does this now mean that every time fans don't like how a game ends they can take to the web and demand change?  Shouldn't studios have the right to make their own artistic decisions?  The Mass Effect fan in me is glad that changes were made but the artistic integrity part is a little twitchy.