Control, Synthesis And Andromeda Were Bad For Mass Effect #masseffect

Introduction

Mass Effect 3's control and synthesis endings are as bad for the franchise and IP moving forward as Andromeda. Let's talk about why and it may not be what you think. Obviously, that's a pretty hot take, and this video could be seen as very clickbaity. However, I promise it's not as toxic or negative as it could be. I’ve seen those videos as well. My goal here is to discuss why, in hindsight, not having the control and synthesis endings might have been better for the trilogy overall, and it’s for similar reasons I believe Andromeda’s existence has been detrimental to the Mass Effect universe.

Firstly, it's essential to clarify that while I personally don’t favor the synthesis or control endings, I completely understand why some fans do. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying those endings. I merely want to discuss why eliminating these endings would have benefitted the franchise, much like how Andromeda, despite being an interesting game, has posed problems for the series moving forward. I even encourage every Mass Effect fan to play Andromeda at least once. Although I don’t love it, it’s worth exploring.

At the climax of Mass Effect 3, players are presented with three primary endings:

1. Synthesis: Combining AI and organics into a state of supposed perfect harmony.
2. Control: Where Shepard sacrifices themselves, transferring their consciousness to control the Reapers.
3. Destroy: The total annihilation of the Reapers, with varying consequences based on in-game actions.

One of my principal issues with the synthesis and control endings is they had already been implicitly explored throughout the trilogy. For instance:

• Synthesis: In the first game, we witness the antagonist trying and failing to achieve synthesis.
• Control: Seen in Mass Effect 2, where Reapers controlled the Collectors—the heavily modified Protheans—which ends disastrously for the controlled entities.

Additionally, these themes manifest through characters like the Illusive Man, who becomes progressively more controlled and synthesized. By the end of the trilogy, options like synthesis and control feel redundant, as they mirror failed attempts seen in previous entries. Conversely, characters like Anderson and Hackett consistently emphasize that the Reapers must be eradicated.

This brings me to the link with Andromeda. The issues with Mass Effect 3’s endings make it challenging to move forward in the franchise. Andromeda’s creation—an attempt to sidestep these complications—results in a quasi-reboot, distancing the narrative significantly from the original trilogy. While Andromeda borrows elements from Mass Effect 1, it ultimately contributes to a fragmented storyline.

One significant problem with Andromeda is its placement in the timeline, occurring long after the events of Mass Effect 3. This creates a continuity hurdle for future games, potentially preventing us from revisiting beloved characters like Shepard and crew. Given Andromeda’s mixed reception, it’s debatable whether it should steer the series' future narrative direction.

Moving forward, the new Mass Effect game might need to disregard the synthesis and control endings, perhaps canonizing the Destroy ending to streamline the story. Balancing the canon while acknowledging player choices is a delicate task for the developers. Nonetheless, it seems more coherent than keeping multiple disparate endings in play.

In conclusion, both Mass Effect 3’s multiple endings and Andromeda’s narrative choices impose unnecessary burdens on the franchise. However, I remain optimistic and eager to see how the developers navigate these challenges. If you're curious about how I feel or have different opinions, feel free to share in the comments.

Consider supporting my channel if you found this discussion insightful. Whether you prefer BioWare news, speculation, reviews, or updates about other games, subscribing ensures you don’t miss out on future content. Also, becoming a YouTube member offers exclusive early access and additional benefits.

Until next time!

Keywords

• Mass Effect 3
• Synthesis ending
• Control ending
• Destroy ending
• Andromeda
• Franchise future
• Narrative continuity

FAQ

Q: Why do you think the synthesis and control endings were bad for the franchise? A: Both endings replicate themes explored and failed in previous games, making them feel redundant. They also complicate narrative continuity for future titles.

Q: What should have been the ideal ending for Mass Effect 3? A: A refined Destroy ending with significant variants, ranging from minimal to perfect, would have streamlined the narrative and better accommodated future installments.

Q: How is Andromeda detrimental to the Mass Effect franchise? A: Andromeda's narrative and timeline placement create continuity challenges, distancing it significantly from the original trilogy and complicating future story integration.

Q: Can Andromeda be placed earlier in the timeline? A: Ideally, placing Andromeda closer to the events of Mass Effect 3 might have enabled easier integration into the series' broader narrative.

Q: How might BioWare handle future Mass Effect games? A: They might canonize the Destroy ending, allowing a more streamlined narrative that acknowledges past events while paving the way for new storylines.