For those who might be unfamiliar with it, above is a basic diagram of the dramatic structure. And at first glance, Mass Effect 3 seems to line up nicely. There's a good setup in the exposition, plenty of rising action as more conflicts and obstacles pile on top of each other, a thrilling climax in the final confrontation with The Illusive Man, and . . . that's where most fans are lost. But regardless of how you feel about the Catalyst, it does wrap up the remaining conflicts, the purpose of the falling action. And, yes, the resolution is a bit vague, but it makes its overall point: at great personal cost, Commander Shepard defeats the Reapers, saving the galaxy from the Cycle. Banner headline: YOU WIN! So it's all good, right?
Well, let's dig a little deeper.
Most stories are broken up into three acts (notable exceptions: tv shows and Shakespeare's plays use a five act structure). Act One contains the exposition, Act Two the rising action, and Act Three the climax, falling action, and resolution. Screenwriter and author of Save the Cat Blake Snyder describes this structure as Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. Act One, the Thesis, sets up the world as we know it. Whether it's ancient Egypt, modern-day America, or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, it establishes the known world of the story and the rules there-in. Act Two, the Antithesis, is the upside-down world or the bizzarro world. The known rules no longer apply. Moses is banished into the desert. Neo is out of the Matrix. Luke discovers Yoda. Act Three, Synthesis, the hero takes what they've learned in Act's One and Two, and uses that to create a third new world. Moses leads his people out of Egypt. Neo controls the Matrix. Luke saves his father from the Dark Side. This structure seems to follow Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey" quite well. Let's take a look at Mass Effect 3 using this structure, first as a stand-alone story, then as part of a trilogy.
You might be thinking that it fits this structure, especially the ending. After all, it's called Synthesis, and "synthesis" is one of the final choices in the game. In fact, the game even suggests that this is the best choice to make. But is the ending a true synthesis in the way that Snyder and the three act structure mean it, as a combination of thesis and antithesis?
In Mass Effect 3, the first act is the events leading to and immediately following the initial Reaper invasion. It establishes a thesis world of impending doom. The galaxy is divided. Old grudges (Krogan and Salarian/Turian) prevent cooperation. And those most able (Asari) are unwilling to help. The second act, the antithesis or upside-down world, shows those divides beginning to break. With every completed mission, more peoples are flocking to your call. Century old differences are put aside or even resolved! Hope, however small, is kindled. So how does the third act wrap it up; what's the third synthesis world that you create? After doing the impossible and amassing the largest interstellar force in the galaxy, Commander Shepard alone decides between three choices, some of which sacrifice your new found allies, all of which sacrifice the unity you're created heretofore. Some of the minor details are forgivable; a story that involves choice and user-interaction will always involve decisions that are morally questionable. But it's the destruction of the Mass Relays (the one element of the ending that no choice can avoid) that undoes the effects of all your previous efforts. Without them, the galaxy is once again divided, each race is isolated, and all peoples must look to their own survival.
This isn't synthesis. This is Prethesis. This effectively undoes everything previously established by the story. It hits the reset button and demands a fresh start oblivious to the lessons learned in order to get to this point. It's the same when you look at the series as a whole.
Mass Effect 1 establishes a thesis world of a large, galactic community with complex issues and political pitfalls. We learn that this community is under threat of Reaper invasion, and thus, annihilation. Mass Effect 2 gives us the antithesis, the upside-down world where Shepard breaks into unknown territory, exemplified by the new location of the Terminus Systems and by working for Cerberus. But Mass Effect 3 doesn't give us a synthesis world where Shepard uses his newfound freedom to get the job done and save the galactic community. No, instead Shepard is forced back into his/her old job and effectively destroys the galactic community you were fighting for. When you look at it this way, is the banner headline still: YOU WIN?
There's been plenty of nitpicking regarding this ending, and there will continue to be, but the ultimate failure is that at the most critical moment Mass Effect 3 could not engage its audience in any meaningful way. It's just bad storytelling. Granted, the forthcoming "Extended Cut" could potentially change everything. But the unfortunate truth is that Mass Effect, one of the most important series in story-driven video games, will forever be remembered for its bad ending.
Now, to throw a little salt on the wound, imagine that this whole mess could have been avoided with just a little bit of peer review.
But what do you think? Were you satisfied with the conclusion? Are you excited for the Extended Cut? Do you think the fans are whining or entitled?
