Can "Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut" Fix the Ending?

So, this morning BioWare announced "Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut", a free downloadable content extension to the ending of the game that is supposed to help clarify some of the things people were confused about as well as provide closure through " additional cinematic sequences and epilogue scenes," due to be released sometime this summer. These words suggest to me that what I wrote the other day is correct: the so-called "Indoctrination Theory" is wrong. The ending we got is, for better or worse, exactly as bad as it seems.

So, now that we have some idea of what BioWare is doing to address the concerns of the fans, will it manage to satisfy those who have been so angered? Maybe. BioWare's founder and CEO, Dr. Ray Muzyka, has stated that he believes they've managed to find the right balance between addressing the biggest issues the fans had with the ending, while also maintaining the "artistic integrity" of the team (I put "artistic integrity" in quotes mainly just because I don't think the original ending had much "integrity" in it at all).

First, we have the problem of the destruction of the Mass Relays themselves. It is established canon in Mass Effect, starting with the Arrival DLC for Mass Effect 2, and reaffirmed in the Codex in Mass Effect 3 itself, that rupturing a Mass Relay will release an amount of energy roughly equivalent to a star roughly the size of our sun going supernova. This would mean that destroying ALL the Mass Relays throughout the Milky Way would cause untold amounts of destruction, becoming, effectively, galactic genocide. Now, since the energy released during the ending of ME3 is a special color, we might assume that this is somehow a special case that would NOT cause said destruction. This leads to another problem, however: galactic populations and the importance of trade.

There are two significant species in the Mass Effect universe, the Turians and the Quarians, whose biology is based upon dextro-amino acids, as opposed to levo-amino acids, which almost every other sentient species in the galaxy is based on (yes, including humans). Now, at the ending of the game, when the Mass Relays are destroyed, huge numbers of the military force of both of these species, and perhaps even the entirety of the Quarians in the galaxy, are in the Sol system, on or orbiting Earth. Dextro-based lifeforms cannot subsist on levo-based foods, and it is almost unheard of that the two would be found in the same star system, meaning that neither of these two species would be able to survive indefinitely in our solar system. Since the Mass Relays are the only means of traveling rapidly across the galaxy, that leaves only conventional Faster-Than-Light travel, meaning that if they started traveling immediately, it could be years, perhaps even decades, before they reach a star system with any renewable food sources.

Now, even worse than the idea that these two huge fleets would starve to death is the idea that, with so many billions of people of all different species stranded in the Sol system, which has only one habitable planet, how could all those people survive long on such limited resources? It seems inevitable that war will break out sooner or later as groups begin fighting for survival against starvation, unless they can manage to discover the technology to build Mass Relays on their own REALLY fast.

These are just the BIGGEST issues I feel would have to be addressed in an "extended" ending. There are others, but those are the biggest, and certainly not the only ones that would need to be there for me to feel like it's even worth it. Other issues include:

The fate of your crew. The crew of the Normandy includes a Turian and a Quarian, who, along with the rest of the crew, are stranded on an uninhabited garden world. Either the life on that planet is levo based, in which case both those characters will inevitably starve to death if they don't die of an allergic reaction first, or it is dextro based, which means everyone else will starve to death.

The Catalyst and the Crucible. It is still entirely unexplained how the two devices, built hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years apart with no prior knowledge of the existence of the other, become somehow compatible. Did the Reapers design the initial version of the Crucible? Is the Catalyst just magic? The convenience of this is never even mentioned, let alone explained.

The Reapers. So, the Reapers were created to harvest organic life every 50,000 years before it can develop synthetic life that will destroy them? Ignoring the circular logic there for a moment, what exactly does that mean? Who created them to do this? Does this mean they just ignore the Geth, an already existing synthetic lifeform? More than that, they actually through the course of the game EMPOWER the Geth by providing them with more advanced technology. If synthetic life is so dangerous, why make them MORE dangerous? Furthermore, if the Catalyst "controls" the Reapers, as it says it does, does that mean the Reapers are not really AI because they have no free will? By extension, since the Catalyst is all of a sudden able to do something differently but can't (or won't) do so on its own, does that mean that it isn't truly an AI? I have my own theories, but they are all based entirely on conjecture at this point. While some things can be vague, things being too vague can just become ridiculous.

And finally, pardon my French, but what the fuck is "Synergy?" In the Synergy ending, in which all life, synthetic and organic, are supposed to be merged somehow to create a "perfect evolution" somewhere between the two. What does that mean? We see that the Normandy's crew, climbing out of the crashed ship, now have glowing green "circuitry" on their skin, including EDI, who was already a machine, so are we to assume that the green "circuitry" is also somehow representative of organic life? Does it flow with glowing, digital sap?

Okay, that last one is just me ranting a little bit, and I really don't care that much, but it does feel nice to just let my mind screw around with it. As for the rest, though, these are legitimate concerns I have. I could accept an expanded ending if it at least addresses these clear problems. It doesn't need to be perfect, but I would at least like to know if these major questions can be answered. If not, then it will just seem like a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

Why I Think the Indoctrination Theory is Bullshit

So, there is a major theory regarding the ending to Mass Effect 3 that has been making its way around the Internets that attempts to claim that the ending is actually so clever it just goes over people's heads. It is explained in detail in a long video on YouTube, but for those with ADHD who don't have time or energy to watch the whole video, I'll attempt to sum it up.

Essentially, the theory claims that the protagonist of the game, Commander Shepard, is experiencing the process of Reaper Indoctrination. Indoctrination, in this sense, is a literal form of technological mind-control that, with prolonged exposure, makes it essentially impossible for an individual to fight the Reapers, and usually results in active, even willing, servitude to them. The events in the final moments of the game are essentially hallucinations brought on by the finalizing of Shepard's Indoctrination, and the ending cinematic after Shepard makes his/her choice is, essentially, hopeful visions of the future rather than an actual conclusion.

Many people have argued for or against the truth to this claim, and I personally am of the opinion that there is some truth to it. That does not, however, mean that it is in any way brilliant or even fully true. I have a feeling that the intention behind it is somewhere in the middle.

The game's developers have hinted as much by saying they were trying to make an ending that would be talked about for a long time (and Obi-Wan told Luke his father was dead, but that's another story). This suggests, so far as I can guess, that they intended for things to be a bit vague, and if they wanted to be vague, Indoctrination would have been the way to go. Ever since the very first game, Indoctrination has been known to be something that causes hallucinations and can cause people to guess what is and is not real. In fact, I would go so far as to say that would have been an ending truly worthy of the word "awesome." It would have been a brilliant plot twist worthy of high praise. However, it isn't.

My reasoning for this is twofold. First, there are major flaws in the logic used to explain the theory. First, of the three options the player is given at the end of the game, the one that supposedly would be the only choice in which Shepard actually resists the Indoctrination is the only one available no matter what. In the game, you have to gather War Assets in preparation for the final fight against the Reapers. You earn an Effective War Asset value, and the higher it is, the better the ending is supposed to be. The theory claims that the choice of "controlling" the Reapers or "merging all organic and synthetic life" are, supposedly, the wrong choices and would indicate Shepard giving in to the Indoctrination. However, those options are only presented at all if your Effective War Assets are high enough. The supposedly correct choice, "destroying all synthetic life," is the only one available no matter how low your score might be. It makes little sense that the options offered would provide no reward at all for doing better. The only part of this that would suggest truth to the Indoctrination Theory is that, if your score is low enough, you actually wind up destroying all life in the galaxy, not just synthetic life. It's never explained why that would be, so my only guess would be that there weren't enough scientists working to complete the Crucible and fix certain flaws. Regardless, it doesn't make sense that it would be the only option the Catalyst offers, because it would be directly counter to the Reapers' goals, both if what the Catalyst says is taken at face value and if it is, in fact, lying, since it would destroy the Reapers as well.

The second reason I think the Indoctrination Theory is wrong is my issue with the claim that it is somehow "so brilliant" that it just "goes over our heads." Perhaps it does go over our heads, but that does not mean it is brilliant. In fact, I would argue that the reason it fails is exactly because it goes over our heads. It comes down to a matter of understanding the audience. It is wise not to fall into the trap of thinking your audience is stupid, but it is also important to avoid the idea that your audience is too smart. Part of the reason the Indoctrination Theory has become so popular is because it fills in all the blanks. Unfortunately, the fact that there are so many blanks is a problem in and of itself: it is exactly the same as the "God of the Gaps" argument, in which one makes a claim that something is true because there is no other reasonable explanation for things we don't know. In essence, it's trying to justify things that can't otherwise be explained by drawing inferences and conjecture based on clues that are sketchy at best. In fact, some of the "clues" cited in the video are SO sketchy, it is arguable whether they were even things anyone ever intended to be noticed at all, including one-off lines from the first Mass Effect game that are so vague they could be interpreted almost any way one likes and may not even have any connection at all.

Occam's Razor, which can be paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one," leads me to conclude that, in fact, the idea that the Indoctrination Theory is true is based so much on conjecture and speculation that, while it might be the only explanation that accounts for all the plot holes and continuity errors, it is little more than grasping at straws at best. In short, even though the ideas proposed in it might be very clever, if it is, in fact, true, then it is so ineptly executed as to cancel out any genius inherent in its conception. In fact, in this case, it would go so far as to undermine any brilliance, as has been seen in the many blogs, videos, magazine articles, etc., that have analyzed the ending.

The Ending Must Not Be Abstract

Fiction is about characters. There are many styles of writing, and many ways to tell a story, but in order for the audience to connect on an emotional level, the story must be about characters. Not in the abstract sense, either: if the audience is to feel something about the story, they must be able to relate to the story, and that means there must be people that the audience likes.

Without likable, relatable characters that the audience can invest in, the story becomes little more than a thought experiment. This, I think, is the largest part of why Mass Effect 3's ending was so unsatisfying: it disconnected from the characters that held us in the story so much that it became abstract and lost its connection to the people who clearly cared so much. The choice provided at the end of the game makes for an interesting thought experiment in which the player is asked to think of what the implications of their choice might be, but at the end of the day, it was the characters that held the player's interest. They were likable and many players would go so far as to claim they even fell in love with them, and to have their fate glossed over in a broad few seconds of footage showing that they essentially had "not died in a crash landing" does little to resolve the concerns of the fans who had grown so attached.

This is an important lesson for writing in general, but I believe video game designers in particular should take note. The investment people give in a story in which they make key decisions and literally become involved in the outcomes such as this means that people will make attachments that become difficult to disentangle. Even in a tragedy, it is relieving to know that the characters you sought to aid would have not died in vain. To rush past all this and pretend that it was just about "saving the world" or "fighting the enemy" misses the point of having a story altogether. While some games, such as games heavily focused on multiplayer deathmatches like Team Fortress, can get away with minimal focus on plot, it is notable that to create a game that is heavily focused on storytelling such as BioWare tends to make, you cannot simply pretend the players will not care about the characters.

A great example to look at is Halo: Reach. While the game is heavily focused on action, it does have a well thought-out story in the single-player campaign. In particular [spoiler alert, for those of you who care and have had your heads stuck in the sand], it is relevant in that the story IS a tragedy that does end with the protagonists, including the player's character, dying in battle. While I had actually bought the game to play with a friend, I found myself deeply involved in the story and the characters. They had likable personalities, unique quirks, and, above all, they were watching MY back. Not just each others', but MINE. That is a key thing that you don't get in any other medium: not only do these people become likable personalities, but they can become people you TRUST, in spite of being fictional.

The ending, in contrast to Mass Effect 3, is sad, but not disappointing. That is a key thing that is so often missed by critics of the fans' complaints: it is NOT about wanting a happy ending; it is about wanting an ending that feels like an ending. Noble Team, in Halo: Reach, dies off throughout the course of the story while fighting to get critical strategic resources safely off-world, as well as helping to get the people evacuated. Yes, they die, but they die fighting for a chance. Even if they hadn't succeeded in securing the cargo they needed onto a transport, it would have meant something that they died fighting.

By comparison, it is also possible to have a happy ending that is totally meaningless. Deus Ex Machina, a narrative device in which something or someone shows up to save the day without the need of the heroes' help, is not always a poor plot development when used sparingly, but it is an easy one to misuse. If victory is achieved and the heroes did not struggle, had no triumph of their own, then the ending will feel hollow because it is disconnected from the characters themselves. This often comes directly into gameplay when it comes to video games: there is a fine line to walk between cinematic immersion and technical gameplay. On the one hand, gameplay can seem rather dull from a storytelling perspective. Fighting a boss is often more instinct than drama. On the other hand, it can feel incredibly disappointing if you had a boss you wanted to fight and instead it was relegated to a simple cutscene in which your character performs a spectacular move.

To put it all together: a satisfying ending in fiction must include the characters heavily. While it is interesting to explore complicated ideas in science fiction, it is always abstract if not viewed through the eyes of characters we have come to identify with. The ending must include triumph of some kind, even if that "triumph" is emotional instead of literal, such as dying in battle failing your mission; the "triumph," in this example, being that the character did not succumb to despair even when all hope for success was crushed. It is the "triumph" that brings catharsis to the audience, and without that catharsis we find ourselves left hanging as though the final episode of our favorite tv show never saw the light of day. You'll never know what happened to the characters you were so worried about, and now you don't only have to mourn the show but to do so knowing that you will be left on a cliffhanger forever.

Mass Effect and Midichlorians

At the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader discover that the galaxy will forever remain in a cycle of endless death and destruction as the Light and Dark Sides of the Force constantly vie for control because the “midichlorians demand it.” In order to end this cycle, they both dive into the Death Star's core in order to destroy the Emperor, and in the process destroy both the Force and hyperspace in a colorful explosion that spreads across the galaxy. Fade to black; roll credits.

Obviously, that's not actually how the movie ends, otherwise Star Wars would have faded into obscurity the same way the disappointingly awful Matrix sequels dragged the first film into the mud. The prequels may have done some damage to the series, but as a whole the original trilogy remains intact as an amazing story. However, the Mass Effect trilogy of video games created by BioWare has had an ending much like the one I just described, and as you can probably guess, many of the fans are PISSED.

Let me be clear: I am not a fan of “changing the ending.” To do something like that would be a slap in the face to anyone like myself who considers video games worthy of being considered an art. I do, however, recognize when something is not of a particular quality, much as many critics out there can recognize a bad film, book, or game, many of us can recognize a poorly thought-out ending. The video gaming media has responded to the fan outrage largely by saying “suck it up” and throwing the fans' concerns back in their faces as if they don't matter. It's now time to set the record straight: the fans DO matter, and I intend to demonstrate this using the above described ending to Return of the Jedi.

Imagine that was the actual ending released in theaters back in 1983. How many people would have left the theaters entirely confused? How many people would have seen the sudden change in tone as entirely unfitting of everything up to that point? How many people would be fully insulted by the massive plot holes introduced by the sudden mention of “midichlorians,” a word up to that point never even hinted at, let alone actually UTTERED. Even in spite of the otherwise brilliant quality of the film, the ending makes much of it seem contrived in an attempt to create some incredible light show instead of bringing any meaningful closure to the story. There is no explanation of what happens to the rebels suddenly finding themselves stranded on a remote, unsettled planet, or the civil unrest left in the wake of an entire empire that has essentially had all communication and travel cut off, isolating billions, if not TRILLIONS, of citizens from trade routes critical to their planets' infrastructure.

But the real slap in the face is that word, again, “midichlorians.” What the hell is that? No explanation? No reason for why that is? Just saying “midichlorians did it?” What possible sense would that even make? Ask any Star Wars fan old enough to have been a fan before the prequels came into existence what midichlorians are, and 9 out of 10 of them likely wouldn't even answer the question. It's a topic brought up one time in one film, and was so utterly despised that it has essentially been completely written out of its fictional existence, and most critics would acknowledge that instead of trying to pretend that it somehow enriches the experience.

The fact of the matter is that video games may be an art, but much like film, they are also an industry. This is a business, for good or ill, dependent on customers, and BioWare has taken a step in this case that threatens their credibility, whether that threat is justified or not. Changing the ending is not necessary, nor is acknowledgment of whether the ending was good or bad, but accepting the fact that people are upset is not the same as agreeing with them, nor is attempting to shame them the same as telling them you disagree with them.