|
>disagree, but I've personally interpreted it much more
>figuratively than what most of the fan critiques I've read
>have done and I think that's kinda the intention, an artistic
>intention, to create symbols + metaphors as opposed to pat
>answers. if you ask me, all great art is very interpretive --
>there's a grad student hunkered down at a desk writing an
>essay on a Shakespeare play RIGHT NOW -- and Mass Effect is
>making an effort to attain those sort of expressive heights.
>
>the first major misconception, if you ask me, is that people
>are treating the entire Citadel sequence as either "events
>that took place" or "a hallucination." is there no other
>option? like the after-life perhaps? because you just died?
>like EVERYONE IN THE UNIVERSE? or did they miss that because
>they're so inured to death in video games that the
>storytelling efforts of the team to create gravitas in the
>scene is lost on them?
>
>so basically my interpretation runs something like this --
>every human soldier is killed prior to reaching the beam that
>enters the Citadel -- Shepherd, Anderson, everyone -- but
>there IS mysticism in this universe via biotics + Asari, so
>it's not a radical shift to suddenly introduce a post-life
>consciousness that then interacts with the Citadel + Crucible.
> so Shepherd dies, then the Citadel picks up her consciousness
>and the scene on there plays out. the clues that tipped me
>off are some heretofore never seen screen wipes of white light
>that seem to suggest an after-life motif as she enters the
>forest scene, meets the burning kid, then has the inexplicable
>exchange with Anderson where they both don't know where they
>are (they are simply consciousness interacting with the
>Citadel at this point, I think). Illusive Man shows up
>because he is the other consciousness from this cycle that has
>achieved a peak so high the machine wants to interact with
>him.
>
>so once we have these characters here, the question is "why
>them, not others?"
>
>Illusive Man, surprisingly, represents the Paragon way of
>thinking -- he wants to save + nurture humanity at all costs.
>his eyes have been the Paragon blue ALL through the series,
>too, which I've always thought was weird, beause I was full
>renegade all the way through, and I got dark red eyes in sharp
>contrast to the Illusive Man, who you would think is the
>Renegade character I should be aligning with.
>
>Anderson, surprisingly, represents the Renegade way of
>thinking -- whatever it takes to preserve humanity, kill any
>enemy that stands in that way. his survival as the leadership
>of earth during ME3 is NOT a small detail.
>
>Sheperd represents the hope, that a consciosness can achieve a
>state of determination + ruthlessness that would allow them to
>navigate the marriage between synthetic + organic.
>
>so then these three characters battle it out on the stage,
>where we THINK we're being controlled by the Illusive Man, who
>is being controlled by the machines, but the truth is that
>we're ALL being controlled by the machines, because we are all
>simply existing as consciousnesses that have been pulled onto
>this stage to see which one of us will meet with God (the kid,
>who I think is a manifestation of God). then we have that
>scene play out to determine essentially which individual mind
>is strongest. it's not actual, physical events. it's just
>something we are all collectively experiencing together inside
>the framework of the Citadel + the Crucible. the other strong
>symbol to show this to me is the image you see as you finally
>approach Anderson at the controls -- it looks VERY MUCH like
>he's playing God, looking down on earth, with the control
>panel in front of him, with white light (it's there, look)
>cascading out around him.
>
>so you "win" because you have a stronger will than the other
>characters present. Anderson doesn't have the mental
>determination to defeat the Illusive Man or to stand up and
>approach the controls once you're both there bleeding out.
>Shepherd, on the other hand, finds determination where there
>should be none -- you REALLY should have given up by this
>point, but Shepherd simply won't -- so there's the scene where
>radio communications are coming in, but Shepherd is unable to
>talk back (because she's dead, experiencing these events in
>the after life) and actually never touches the controls before
>collapsing, at which point she's STILL the most "advanced"
>consciousness this cycle has to offer, because she made it
>farther than anyone else -- so close! -- so God lifts her up
>to Heaven, essentially, we see another bleed in / wipe of
>white light, suddenly she doesn't have blood running all over
>herself, and she is now asked by God to make her choice for
>this cycle.
>
>and Sheperd IS remarkable, God tells her "you've made it
>farther than anyone else." no other sentient life has EVER
>shown as much determination + willpower as Shepherd. so now
>God offers Shepherd the chance to choose -- (1) become an ally
>with God, like the Illusive Man would have done had he reached
>Heaven, control the Reapers, and reset this cycle so it can
>begin again, (2) destroy all synthetic life, like Anderson
>would have done had he reached Heaven, allowing humanity to
>persevere, although ultimately the imbalance will become so
>great that they will die (like the Krogan question "can they
>ever end the wars?"), or (3) do what no one has ever had the
>strength to do before and create a new form of life, albeit by
>sacrificing all life as we previously knew it.
>
>then we are shown that ultimately this all has a similar
>result, but what our minds can imagine as the future of the
>final scene we witness is determined by the choice we made. I
>imagined Adam + Eve on the brink of a new future. other
>players might imagine controlling the machines allowed them to
>save, at least, their friends. other players will imagine
>humanity finally allowed to move forward unfettered in a
>utopia of their own design. but you can SEE these things by
>watching the same scene, just with a different filter
>(suggested by the color filter) on it.
>
>that's new. that's sophistication and intelligence I *never*
>thought I'd see in a video game. but if you just plow through
>it thinking you're the hero and this is your grand finale
>where you save the galaxy, then yeah, you'll likely miss those
>types of themes.
>
>so I see NO plot holes, because I'm 99% certain Sheperd died
>when hit by Harbinger's laser, and everything after that is
>her consciousness meeting with God. oh yeah, the Catalyst is
>also the consciousness that reaches the Citadel + Crucible.
>no one knows what the Catalyst is, because the Catalyst has to
>prove itself -- it can be either Anderson, Illusive Man, or
>Shepherd, depending on which consciousness is able to make it
>the furthest on the Citadel's stage. by winning the
>encounter, Shepherd becomes the Catalyst. connecting the
>Crucible to the Citadel as the Catalyst is a red herring. I
>had made my mind up about that about halfway through ME3 and
>the final scene seemed to support that to me.
Mannn, what you said is wild. I'm not saying it's wrong but that is an interpretation that I've never thought about or seen about the ending before. Like, your conclusion is completely different than what it seems everyone else has been concluded (both those that like and hate the ending). And you admitted the DLC (which has some crucial points in it) is something you've never looked at before.
I'd argue that it is a completely radical shift to introduce the afterlife aspect in the final minutes of the game. The first 100+ hours of the series is basically spent uniting the galaxy...never can I basically remember is a godlike creature ever mentioned or really hinted at.
Also, Shepherd lived, sort of, in my ending. If you choose the destroy ending with a high enough EMS he is seen taking a breath as the last shot as lies in the rubble. I think that strongly suggests he never went up to the Citadel at all. And the whole old man wanting to "tell another story about the Shepherd" thing in the credits makes me think there will be another game coming with him alive.
After reading your interpretation a couple of times, I still honestly don't believe it, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Like, I'm happy for you that you are one of the few that seem to think everything wrapped up.
>see, I actually disagree with that. if anything, the theme is
>accurately stated as the ILLUSION of choice.
>
>I played full renegade, did you play full paragon? what was
>ACTUALLY different in our gameplay experience? extremely
>little -- you still do the same missions, you still reach the
>same major plot points, it's still an inevitable slog, as set
>up in the FIRST GAME, towards the extinction of advanced life
>in the universe. no matter what you choose, advanced
>civilization -- AS POINTED OUT IN THE FIRST ONE -- is going to
>end.
>
>and I don't know if you played full renegade like I did, but I
>always had a chuckle at how IMPERMANENT some of my choices
>were. like I killed the Council at the end of ME1, but the
>Council still existed in ME2+3 and I would laugh the whole way
>through the scene b/c I was like "why the fuck am I taking
>orders from you? I already proved I can KILL you!! I killed
>the last ones, I'll kill you, too, if I feel like it!" I was
>also listening to the Indoor Kids podcast, and they were
>talking about the Rachni mission in ME3, and they were saying
>"what would happen if you killed the Rachni Queen in ME1? I
>bet that mission wouldn't be there!" uhhh, it was, and the
>explanation for why the Rachni were there after I made them
>extinct was just as dumb and nonsensical as you'd guess
>yourself.
>
>and I think a lot of players approached that last scene just
>assuming that, because they'd played so many hours, did so
>many side missions, did x, y, z, were "complete," that it
>meant they were going to unlock the "good" ending where you
>are the savior of the galaxy, and they felt betrayed when that
>didn't come true.
>
>and that's what makes this game elevate itself to actual "art"
>status to me, because it WAS a bit of a "gotcha!" on the
>players. in other mediums, twist endings are generally
>celebrated. it's saying essentially you don't always win (or
>do you? b/c personally I was pretty satisfied that I was able
>to reach the final stage of the evolution of life by choosing
>the green option). it was ALWAYS inevitable that life as we
>knew it was going to end in the galaxy. that was ALWAYS
>coming. players were deluding themselves, just like Anderson
>or Illusive Man, that they could change that. they were
>literally experiencing WHAT ANDERSON + ILLUSIVE MAN WOULD BE
>EXPERIENG as they spoke with God and realized every option
>involved resetting the cycle, killing all life except for the
>most primitive.
>
>it was immersive. it was intelligent. it engendered a real
>reaction, like good art SHOULD. it was complex +
>multi-faceted. it was interpretive. it was great.
I had two saves ready for mass effect 3, one basically paragon and renegade. I started with the paragon one for Mass Effect 3. While there's no debating the conclusion as it looks right now there wasn't much of a difference, I disagree about the illusion of choice. Obviously with videogames you knew the missions would have to be the same, but that's not the illusion of choice, that's just the restrictions of videogames. I don't feel that was some grand decision by Bioware to show that nothing really matters.
But, you can decide some drastic things in this series. You can either end wars or continue them, your decisions can result in deaths of your team. There is so much that made the renegade and paragon playthroughs very different in my opinion. I think you can customize so much about the game until the very ending, and that's what is kind of infuriating.
Synthetic was basically Saren, control was the Illusive Man. I spent a game each basically discovering how evil they were...a 3 minute speech from the godchild of whatever really didn't change that for me.
>all those things you're describing? that's what I would
>expect from a "typical" video game, too. the creators of ME3
>really, really did something different here. and you can call
>it "space magic," but I think they addressed the theme of
>spirituality in a very mature (and very interesting, in terms
>of sci-fi, way). and I didn't hear fans complaining about the
>"space magic" of biotics or Asari until it reached a point
>where they felt betrayed b/c they were denied the cutscene of
>Garrus + Sheperd having a drink at the bar.
>
>Sheperd died and met God, dude. what other true "ending" is
>there? I think one of the major disconnects fans are having,
>like I said, is that lots of them interpreted the events on
>the Citadel as real events. there's enough context clues to
>point elsewhere, though, if you ask me.
>
>like I said -- Shepherd died and met God, how much more
>closure could you WANT? no lame-ass, half-assed, cash cow
>sequels when the main character is dead. if you ask me, an
>epic franchise has RARELY closed with so much balls.
>
>see above. if you still think it's "nonsensical," I would say
>critique harder.
>and that's the trick, our playthrus were actually much, much,
>much more identical than they were divergent, and that's
>another major misinterpretation I see going on. which
>characters did you have die? which did you have sex with?
>did it matter? we both reached the same end via identical
>plot points -- death and the extinction of life as we know it
>in the galaxy.
>
>and that's why it's "art" and not just another CoD, because
>it's actually addressing themes like mortality + civilization
>+ the nature of sentient life + spirituality + inevitability +
>the philosophy of survival etc. and so on, but to get at them,
>you have to STOP conceptualizing it as just another Bioware
>RPG where you can be either "good" or "evil" and then unlock
>3-5 different end CG sequences based on how many points on
>either side you have. this game is thinking BEYOND that
>expressive paradigm in games.
Spirituality largely being introduced in the final minutes after being absent through the entirety of the trilogy until doesn't do it for me.
What other true endings are there? I mean, a shit ton. It depends on how you played through the series. Like, if you were a heartless racist throughout the series there should have been an ending to satisfy that. If you didn't do shit and the galaxy wasn't united the reapers should win. They could go a lot of different ways here.
And call me cynical, but I think it's wayyy more likely they left the ending largely unexplained more because they want to charge for DLC instead of making a grand stance on art in videogames. I mean, this is EA. They did charge $10 for day 1 DLC.
Go Tigers
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
High-Tech
