First let me make clear that, at time of writing (15/03/2012; 11:00), I have not completed Mass Effect 3. I am close, perhaps too close for comfort, but it is not completed as yet.

I understand the situation that you placed yourself in with these games. Letting us, the players, have a little power in your world has done something that hasn’t, really, been done in the same way before. Yes, I’m sure you’ll hear people say “Fallout does X, Y, Z”, but Fallout as a series of games are only linked by a common theme, not characters, not even locations. The endings can be as ambiguous and unique as Interplay (Or, Bethesda now) wanted – Because the next one isn’t going to be a direct sequel, with the same characters, or save game importing. It’s the same system (In that you’re a character, you have a world to make choices in, and you play the game to suit your personal style (Although you will often find people playing their way, and then the exact opposite to “see all the content”), and then the game wraps up), but it’s so very different when you scratch beyond the surface. Scratch Fallout, and all you get is more surface in a sandbox environment. Scratch Mass Effect and you get the beating heart of modern Sci-Fi, with a linear tang to it.

Hard as it is for people to admit, Mass Effect is linear. There are two paths, really, that you can play –The Renegade and the Paragon. Both get you to roughly the same conclusion point, through pretty much identical corridors, but the feeling of freedom comes from the doors along the corridor – You’re free to open as few, or as many, of them as you like. They enrich the story, but are not necessary to see the game to its conclusion. That gives the player the essence of freedom in an otherwise tightly controlled environment. We can’t kill certain people, because they’re the anchor points of the story. The ones that don’t matter, though, we can – Our squad mates, we can let them die, we can choose not to save some of them, we can choose to save them all (Mass Effect 2, the Collector base). We have “freedom” with things that don’t matter. Most players don’t understand this (as evidenced by the needless outrage over the “From Ashes” DLC for Mass Effect 3 – I saw the people boycotting the game, I saw their reasons, I respected them. I bought the game anyway, the N7 edition, and was rewarded for my faith with another door (Hey, corridor analogy again!) with some supporting story that, really, made next to no difference to the main plot), and falsely believe they have complete freedom in the Mass Effect universe, and moreover, deserve the right to choose how their story is written – As if your universe was theirs. The pitfalls of giving us the illusion of control, of freedom, of power, I suppose.

So why are so many people confused by the ending? I suppose it’s the lack of clarity. Throughout the series the game has been known well for the Paragon/Renegade paths that can be played and how clear-cut the choices have been to date. Mass Effect 3 changed that, though. I don’t believe that clouding of the choices has come from poor writing (Let’s face it, Bioware are celebrated for their ability to weave stories and lore). It wouldn’t make sense for you to rush the lore (Although, the stage I have reached in the game, the narrative does feel accelerated beyond the scope of the game, perhaps my generally laid back attitude to just about everything is making the urgency of the narrative not match my interpretation of the situation I find Shepard in), and nor would it make sense for you to have crafted a game so expertly, in a series so rich in little quests (By the way, I love that overhearing peoples conversations can spark quests – I only wish it were something available to some of the more heart breaking stories (The mother trying to find her son through Alliance Navy members in the D24 Dock)) that can be, frequently, completed without even knowing it if you’re a story whore (I scanned every system I could find, often before I even encountered the quest, which lead to a lot of immediate completions for the little things). It was satisfying, and no doubt made up for my galactic readiness (I didn’t play online, I really don’t gel well with online play) being capped at 50%. As an aside, I don’t quite understand why you felt the need to incorporate a multiplayer aspect so entwined with the game’s resolution. Fair enough wanting to include a multiplayer aspect in the game, but personally, I would have appreciated an on/off option for each “career”.

I have read about the endings, and yes, that would be a spoiler to most people, I don’t much care – The tale from someone else is never matched by experiencing the event yourself. I’m sure I’ll be playing the game through again, at least twice (For the other two careers), so knowing the ending isn’t really something that would fuss me greatly. From what I’ve read, due no doubt to omissions in the retelling of the story, it does sound bizarre in some ways. The descriptions paint a picture of Shepard being with the crew one scene, and the whole lot of them being gone the next, leaving Shepard alone. As with anyone trying to make their point, I expect there are omissions to support their point (See: Some creationists and their incomplete quoting of the Second law of Thermodynamics to support their argument (Which, in its incomplete form, it does)). From what I’ve read, I’m likely to have to take the outwardly Renegade option to play the game the way I want – I have played this series wanting to destroy the Reapers, no, knowing I must destroy the Reapers. They are the clear and present enemy, Cerberus have been nothing but an annoyance in the first game, a source of bankrolling in the second, and an arm of the Reapers (It was obvious The Illusive Man was indoctrinated, or at least in bed with the Reapers, from almost the very first mission (Perhaps before that, if you accept the “eye” theory that’s doing the rounds, and it does sit nicely with his desires in ME2, and then the remains of the proto-reaper in ME3. Perhaps there’s even argument that the Reapers tried to use Saren directly in ME1, and when that failed they tried to use The Illusive Man to indirectly help them in ME2, and ME3, knowing that controlling them was not going to happen) – When you unmasked one of the Cerberus troops. The undeniable resemblance to a Husk, the synthesis of biological and mechanical life – Very much the Reapers MO). I don’t understand the general distaste of players towards fighting Cerberus. They have always been the opposite of Shepard, one way or another. Perhaps gamers are quick to forget the times that Shepard disobeys The Illusive Man, the times that the two all but square up in their conversations. I don’t know, perhaps I was playing a different game to the rest of the world, but thus far, it makes sense, and in my opinion, flows properly.

I don’t know if Mass Effect 3 will daub my opinion of the series with its ending. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps the supposedly glaring plot holes will rupture the suspension of disbelief the series has so far successfully allowed me. Perhaps they’re not so glaring. We’ll see.

On the one hand, I want the ending to not be the ending. On the other, I know it has to be. The games have been leading to this, time and time again, Shepard cannot live. The ending cannot be “happy” in the conventional sense. While your character may be dead, the happiness has to come from the fact that He/She died saving the galaxy, giving the galaxy the chance to prove the Reaper cycle wrong, that the birth of AI and synthetic life is not the end of biological life. The investment of time and emotion into the characters, some of them have to die. You can make your way through the games losing very few people, Kaiden or Ashley in the first, I don’t recall a forced death in the second, Legion (Mordin, perhaps, I hear rumours that you can save him. Don’t see how..), and I’m confident Shepard has to go. To wind the series up, to finish it how it started, He/She has to die. They are the tragic hero, doomed from the outset not to live. The fact that you spend three games, over sixty hours, building relationships, making friends, establishing reputations, all to save the galaxy from a threat, that until almost the very end, is unseen by the rest of the species – Shepard has to die. It disappoints me that this is the case, but the story wouldn’t be the story it is without the death of loved ones, and given the NPC’s apparent expendability, the multitude of choice for who to start relationships with, what kind of relationship to develop with them? It can only be the main character that dies. I’ve known it since I very first stepped into Mass Effect and came to understand the true enemy was not Saren, but in fact, the Reapers. So, really, should everyone else.

To a degree, biological life itself is the enemy – Resistant to change as it is, forcing them to co-operate with what has been so long the enemy (Quarians and the Geth) is a challenge not lightly accepted (Which, in a game layout sense, makes the scene understandably late in the gameplay (Needing to have a reputation that precedes you, the groundwork of a high paragon or renegade rating)).

I don’t know where I’ll go with Mass Effect 3. Whether I’ll join the disgruntled, believing that the ending was not the ending we deserved after such an investment of time and emotional energy, or whether I’ll join the few who accepted the ending, knowing that the story was not, really, our own to begin with. Perhaps the sense of ownership is why the disgruntled are so disappointed with what happened to their Shepard.

Time will tell, I suppose.