5. Fans are upset that it’s over at all: This one I find the most ridiculous. There have been dozens of videos and hundreds of write-ups stating very clearly and intelligently the exact reasons WHY so many fans are upset with the ending. I shouldn’t have to go into that, look those up. We knew this was ending the moment we started playing, and until the last few scenes it was putting a perfect cap on Commander Shepard’s story. Besides that – it is NOT over. BioWare has made it very clear that there will be sequels, spin-offs, and additional content. The last two words you see in the game are “downloadable content”. We KNOW the series isn’t over, we know there will be more Mass Effect – but THIS story was poorly concluded.
4. Fans wanted a happy ending: I agree that there are some fans who really just wanted a happy ending. They wanted Commander Shepard to live and retire with his/her love interest. I would have loved to see that too – but it is NOT the primary reason that we dislike the ending. There are hints throughout the entire game that Commander Shepard will probably have to die to stop the Reapers. We saw that coming. But this isn’t just a “sad” or “bittersweet” ending – this is an ending where Commander Shepard has failed to save Galactic Civilization as he/she knew it. That isn’t a tragedy, that’s “the hero loses in the end”. Tragedies are based on character flaws, failed relationships, and (most importantly) a tragic main character. An epic Space Opera like Mass Effect with an almost superhuman, flawless protagonist like Commander Shepard is NOT a tragedy. Shepard has no tragic flaw, no pre-existing hint at his/her inevitable failure – nothing to indicate that things won’t turn out in the end. Yes, Shepard may die, but he/she will do say saving the galaxy. The reaction to the fact that the ending is “sad” is because people expected a victorious end, because that has been the structure of this story for three games. You can’t slap a “tragic” ending on a Space Adventure and pretend it was a tragedy all along.
And again, like the “they’re upset because it’s over at all” – there are literally hundreds of reasons people have posted about why they dislike the ending, and they have nothing to do with the fact that Shepard dies. Yeah, I'd like my blue babies too, but I'd like the ending to make sense and fit into the series even more.
3. Fans don’t understand the ending: This is usually followed by an insult to our collective intelligence. We’re told we don’t get it because “they don’t read enough science-fiction”, or “they don’t understand the implications”, or “they’re missing the point or the symbolism behind each ending”. First of all, most fans that I’ve met through the Mass Effect community are fans BECAUSE they read a ton of science-fiction. Many of us know that The Reapers were lifted almost directly from Fred Saberhagen’s Berserker series. We trade reading recommendations on forums between games, and discuss the deeper meanings of Hyperion and The Forever War at length.
But okay, let’s say the average Mass Effect fan isn’t that pretentious about classic Science-Fiction – that still doesn’t excuse the plot holes and mistakes. There are legitimate narrative problems with those last 10 minutes that no amount of analysis or guesswork can explain. Why is the Normandy fleeing? Why and how did your squad get on board? Why didn’t the Mass Relay explosions kill everyone? Did they? Why can The Illusive Man use the Reaper control powers? Why does the God-Child look like the child from Shepard’s visions? Why does Shepard accept his logic? These aren’t just ambiguous questions left intentionally unanswered so that players can speculate and discuss them – These are basic storytelling problems and plot holes. I am ruling the “Indoctrination Theory” out, because if that was their goal then the game is intentionally unfinished, and I'm not sure how that's a good thing.
2. Fans are asking BioWare to sacrifice their artistic integrity: Here’s the one I’ve been seeing the most from “respected” game journalist websites, and even BioWare itself. While it’s true that we have no right to force a company to alter their product, we do have every right to recommend or request that they do so. Art is and always has been based on patronage. Art has monetary value assigned to it, is commissioned by patrons of the arts, and is bought and sold based on how society reacts to it. There are certain degrees of commercialism in the arts, of course. On the less commercial side is the studio artist living in a loft and selling his paintings in a coffee shop for $50 each – on the MOST commercial side of art is the multi-billion dollar video games industry. They are making art specifically as a product to be sold to a target audience. Their customers ARE their patrons. We are the Pope Julius II to their Michelangelo, if you will. Yes, they do the work and have the final say - but we write the check. If they want to keep our patronage, they will do their best to keep us happy while maintaining their artistic integrity. And, as has been said before, we aren't questioning the artistic integrity of the story or the product. We are specifically questioning the artistic integrity of the ending. There is an important distinction to make there.
Besides, all artists have deadlines. Things have to be finished eventually, and Video Games are notorious for the industry’s harmful 1-2 year development cycle. As the saying goes, “Art is never finished, only abandoned”. Games have the luxury of an extension in this age of high-speed internet – there are patches, add-ons, expansions, downloadable content, and sequels. Does patching out a bug in a game invalidate its artistic merit? Does removing a character and selling him as DLC invalidate artistic merit? Why should patching or releasing a better conclusion to your story?
1. Fans are acting entitled by asking BioWare to change their art: This is the biggest one, especially when this whole thing first got started. To a certain degree this is true. We are customers and we feel we are entitled to the product that we were promised. The term “entitlement” has been so abused for the past few weeks that its almost lost all meaning. We aren’t asking for more than what was expected or promised. The negative connotation for “entitled” is supposed to refer to someone that expects more than they deserve. Asking that a game meet the promises that a developer made is not being “entitled”, neither is saying that said developer will lose business if they don’t meet those promises. That’s just how capitalism works. If you aren’t happy with a product you can either take it back, ask for it to be changed so that you will like it, or simply take your business elsewhere. That is how a competitive business environment works – customers make demands and they give their money to whichever company or product best meets those demands. If your definition for “entitlement” is “asking for a better quality product” – then I wish there was more entitlement in the gaming community. $65-85 is not a small investment for most people. Developers should be competing to meet our demands and earn our money, because that’s how the system works.
