It's been a while since I published my last post, talking about my pre-Extended Cut views on the Indoctrination Theory for Mass Effect 3, but the past few months have given me some time to reflect on exactly how I feel about that particular interpretation of the trilogy's end. Unsurprisingly, I no longer feel that the Indoctrination Theory as a whole is really the answer to all the questions Mass Effect 3's ending left. It was a wonderful example of literary (or video-gamerary #it'sgonnabeathing) interpretation and how a loyal fanbase can extrapolate fantastic narratives out of ambiguous endings. And while it seems that Bioware has brought the hammer down on the Indoctrination Theory with the Extended Cut, I still believe the basic idea—an outside force playing with Shepard's perceptions—is valid.
On the surface, this may seem a contradiction, since the Indoctrination Theory revolves around the idea that the Reapers are trying to indoctrinate and control Shepard. They are acting as an outside force to play with Shepard's perceptions, to bring him to their side of the argument. And I believe this happens throughout most of Mass Effect 3: the child, the dreams, the dark tendrils in the confrontation with the Illusive Man, etc. I'll go along with the Indoctrination Theorist community that far. But I still believe that Shepard makes it up to the Citadel and that he is given a choice, at the end, of how he wants to handle the Reapers. Will he control them, destroy them, or join them?
And this is where the twist comes in. You see, since this is a role-playing game, we are Commander Shepard. We have been taught throughout this game series that certain actions are designated by certain colors and certain positions. Blue and the right button equal Paragon actions; red and the left button equal Renegade ones. But in the Decision Chamber, these are swapped, with blue on the left and red on the right. Doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that the Illusive Man would be shown taking the apparently Paragon choice of controlling the Reapers? And that Admiral Anderson would be shown taking the seeming Renegade option of destroying all synthetic life in the galaxy? Bioware has changed the paradigm, and by extension, this could show that the Reapers are subtly altering how Shepard perceives the world, hoping to convince him that their point of view is the right one. (Not to mention that they're hedging their bets by giving Shepard two options where they survive.)
And so we are given our choices. Will we control the Reapers, following the Illusive Man? Will we join with the Reapers, accomplishing what Saren wanted to do in the first Mass Effect? Or will we follow our orders and destroy the Reapers, even if it means there are some innocent lives lost in the balance? The real ending to the game isn't concerned with the Reapers being eliminated as a threat; that happens no matter which of the three standard endings you choose. What matters is how you choose to do get the job done, how your Shepard's story ends. This isn't a game simply concerned with saving the galaxy. Otherwise, BioWare would have let us duke it out with Harbinger. This is a game concerned with how one person overcame incredible odds to become the savior of the galaxy, and how that person changed the life of every other person he or she came into contact with.
Is the ending perfect? No, it's not. There are plenty of holes that I wish were filled. But in the end, we're allowed to choose how we, as Shepard, go out, and that's what I appreciate. Personally, I chose to take the metal monsters down with me.*
*Incidentally, my ending was the only one Shepard lives through. :)
3 comments: