The Ending to Mass Effect 2 is Bad

You read that right. This post isn't about the ending to Mass Effect 3, because that horse has been beaten to a bloody pulp. No, this is about how I can't wrap my head around the fact that people were surprised about the Mass Effect 3 ending. Had they not played 2? Or, for that matter, had they never played a video game before?

Video games as a storytelling medium have a long history of disappointing endings to great games. Halo, a game that revolutionized first person combat, ends with you driving from one place to another place. Halo 3 ends this way (Halo 2 doesn't have an ending, it just stops). Half-Life ends with a series of frustrating jumping puzzles; Half-Life 2 ends with a repetitive God-Mode level. Bioshock ends with a generic boss fight. Assassin's Creed, a game based around climbing and stealth mechanics, has you mow down wave after wave of enemies so you can get to a generic boss fight. AssCreed 2 does basically the same thing. Batman: Arkham Asylum takes a page out of the Assassins Creed handbook, as it throws away all of its fun stealth mechanics for, you guessed it, a generic boss fight. Mirror's Edge turns into an awkward first-person shooter at the end. LA Noire throws away all of its unique crime-solving mechanics and becomes an awkward third-person shooter at the end. Etc., etc. Name any video game, bad or good, and the ending will probably be the weakest part of the game.

Spoiler Alert: This level sucks.

The reason for this is simple. Game developers are like a horny teenage boy having sex for the first time; they have a habit of blowing their load too early, and then they don't know what to do after that. Most of the work goes into the beginning of a game, because that has to be cool enough to hook in gamers (and keep them from selling their games early). Then, they add some more levels, allowing the player to experience new challenges and gain new skills. And then they run out of steam, either creatively or financially. So they tack on a boring unimaginative boss fight, add a short cutscene that tells us nothing, and that's it. It's over.

The final cutscene in every video game ever.

For an example of good final level design, just look at Portal. The end of that game is memorable because it is engaging both in terms of gameplay and storytelling. Instead of using the lazy "shoot it until it dies" boss fight strategy, you are forced to use everything you've learned for the previous duration of the game to defeat GlaDos, which makes the end mush more satisfying. And, on a story level, you are finally able to come face to face with your tormentor, and escape your strange prison. You get the feeling that as much attention was paid to the final boss fight as was to the rest of the game.

Spoiler Alert: This level is awesome.

Now, back to Mass Effect 2, another game with a serious case of Awesome Game With A Shitty Ending Syndrome. And the crazy thing is, a lot of the issues that I have with the game are the same issues that many gamers had with the end of the ME3.

First off, the ending abandons everything that made the previous 19 hours so much fun. Throughout 95% of the story you are given interesting and important decisions to make, decisions that radically affect the story and its outcome (though it doesn't really. More on that later). This gives you a personal stake in the story, and is the single most important reason why the game is so compelling and so popular. And how does ME2 end? With an extended combat level. Combat in the Mass Effect series is easily its least compelling aspect, and the developers thought that would be the most effective way to end the game. No interesting storytelling or important, dramatic choices to make; just a bunch of identical hallways filled with chest-high walls and identical enemies. And what is at the end of these hallways? Maybe a dramatic scene that wraps up all of the story threads in a unique and compelling way, you say (assuming you haven't played the game yet, in which case, spoiler alert, I guess)? Nope. What you get is the apex of disappointing generic boss fights. There's a giant but ineffective boss, glowing weak points, repetitive attack patterns, and waves of smaller enemies to fight while the main boss recharges. It wouldn't be out of place in a bad Zelda game. Yes, there are a few choices to make during the final level, but they never amount to more than "Assign a crew member to a task that they are good at."

Yes, tiny lasers make much more sense that crushing me with your enormous hands.

 
Secondly, the choices you make during the game don't affect the ending in a meaningful way. "But," you are no doubt thinking to yourself, "your decisions affect who lives and who dies in the final mission! Also, how are you reading my mind?" See, if that were true, that would be amazing, and the ending to ME2 would go down in history as awesome. However, the way it actually works is some bullshit, and here's why:

1. The ending relies on Mass Effect's stupid morality system, which works by giving you points every time you're a dick or a nice guy. In order to be a giant dick or a really nice guy, though, you have to have enough respective points. This is awful. In real life, you don't have to say some kinda mean things throughout the day if you want to say something really mean later, and you don't have to do some small good deeds in order to do a big good deed. People are nice sometimes and dicks other times, which is what makes them interesting and compelling and 3-dimensional. When a character is always just a dick or always just a good guy, that character is boring. It also puts you in a position where you can't choose the dialogue option you want, because instead of being a Raging Asshole or a Goody Two Shoes, you chose to be a Real Human Being. So your teammates die, not because you made the wrong decision or any other interesting dramatic reason, but because the right dialogue option wasn't highlighted.

2. The character's deaths are an afterthought to the story. What I was expecting from the final battle was Shepherd being forced into a difficult situation with difficult choices to make, where your teammates lives depended on your decisions. What actually happens is, you beat the boss, escape the ship, and the game says, "Oh, by the way So-and-so died, because they weren't your friend. To be continued..."

This picture seemed relevant.

So, basically, to every fanboy who bitched about the ending to Mass Effect 3: what did you expect?

Bioshock Sucks

More like Bio-Suck, amirite

Nah, just kidding. Bioshock is a brilliantly fun game that delivers an experience unlike any other. However, it is also a game that gets tossed around as an example of "art in video games" and that needs to stop. Bioshock is not great art. While lots of fun to play, artistically it's barely above the average summer tentpole film. Bioshock is a game with a lot of interesting ideas, but it is held down by its game mechanics.

The mechanics of a video game are the tools the developers give the player that allow them to explore and interact with the world of a game in a specific way. They are as important to video games as camera movement and editing is to movies. The ability of the player to interact with the narrative and change it is the main thing that defines video games as an art form, and Bioshock gets it wrong. It is in theory a game about choice and the illusion of choice, a game that analyzes and deconstructs the pure Randian view of capitalism. And what do you spend 99% of the game doing?

Dancing! No, wait, that's not it...

You run around a maze killing things and collecting other things. It's exactly the same thing you do in Modern Warfare, in Gears of War, and in Goldeneye 64. The game mechanics do nothing to further the overall themes. You could maybe argue that the gameplay sort of reinforces the theme of the illusion of choice especially when you consider the big twist near the end; however, I think you would be reading intent where there is none. While the big twist sorta kinda recontextualizes everything that came before it, it really isn't the main focus of the game. Instead, the main focus of the game, aka the thing that you spend the whole game doing, is running around shooting dudes and then maybe setting them on fire.

If we're being honest, always setting them on fire

Now, let's go back to the things Bioshock does well, because it does those things very, very well. First, there's the opening of the game. I honestly believe that the Bioshock has the greatest beginning in video game history (well, maybe second greatest). It perfectly conveys the story in a way that only video games can. You start out in the middle of an airplane wreckage in the middle of the ocean. No idea who you are or why you're here. There is a conveniently placed tower right next to your crash site (a little too convenient, you will later realize). You go inside and discover a room full of capitalist imagery. This is your first exposure to the world of Bioshock: mysterious, grand, and spooky. Then you wander down to the bathosphere (what else can you do?), which takes you underwater. After a brilliant speech that introduces Ayn Rand - I mean Andrew Ryan and all of his ideals, the world of Rapture is revealed to you in all of its glory. Its pretty amazing stuff, but something seems off.

Lots of giant statues of naked dudes stretching, for instance.

Then all your greatest fears are realized when you find yourself trapped inside the sub while it is attacked by some hand-hooked monstrosity. You wonder if there is something you should be doing to save yourself, but really, there is nothing you can do. Fortunately, a soothing voice reassures you and encourages you to step outside. I don't think any person playing this game has ever not hesitated at this point. Then you find yourself in a slowly flooding waking nightmare armed only with a wrench. It's fucking terrifying and humbling, in a way that only video games can be (the main character of a horror movie will never die in the opening scene, but the main character of a video game - aka you - totally could).

And then the game goes and gives you a gun. Then it gives you a bunch more guns, and superpowers, and suddenly its not so scary anymore because there's nothing the game can throw at you that you can't instantly obliterate. And nothing of any real consequence happens until you get to Ryan's house, but you take the most roundabout way to get there (I don't really count the bit where Atlas's family dies as "something of consequence" because you never see them and it's not like anyone thought you could escape and the game would end). This is why the game fails; it is really only interested in its narrative and themes at the beginning and at the twist near the end.

Why is there never a "resolve issues diplomatically" button?

Speaking of the twist, I'm going to be honest, it is fairly brilliant critique of the very nature of linear game design, no argument there. That moment is the only other moment in the entire game that trancends the action-horror genre. It also lasts about 5- 10 minutes of the total gameplay time; if you are going evaluate a game on its artistic merits, you must evaluate the game on a whole, not just one or two cool parts. Citizen Kane is amazing because every single part of that film is amazing, not just one or two scenes. Also important is the fact that the rest of the game after the twist pretty much robs it of all its meaning. You're still running through a maze doing stuff because a voice tells you to, only now you realize that you're doing it because this is a linear game and the level designers didn't want to model the entire city of Rapture. Then it ends with your standard Video Game Boss Fight (lots of health! Obviously telegraphed attacks!).

This can only end well.

The other thing Bioshock does well is its production design. This is where all of those big ideas about Ayn Rand and capitalism comes from. This is also how the story of Rapture is truly told (the voice tapes you find don't really count because they're lazy storytelling and nowhere near as effective). As you explore the world of the game, little details will catch your eye and flesh out the story in subtle and effective ways. An empty baby carriage here; a bloody handprint there. Of course, all this subtlety is lost in the frenetic running and gunning; you don't really notice all the little details when you're mowing down mutants with a tommy gun.

Flying Steampunk Robots are easily the least controversial tenet of Objectivism

In the end, Bioshock is a good game, Bioshock is a fun game, but Bioshock is not a great game. It suffers from the same issues as every other game with high aspirations, namely emphasizing Fun and Action over good interactive storytelling. It should be praised for what it does right and critiqued for what it does wrong. It is an important step on the path to true artistic value for games, but we are not there yet.


Also: The less said about the stupid "moral choice" system the better. For some reason the only two choices  video games like to give you are Obviously Good and Obviously Evil (just like in real life!), and it's pointless and irritating. Besides, even if you do save all the little sisters you still end up with enough Adam to turn you into the most powerful person in Rapture. Not really a "difficult choice."

Guns Should Be Banned From Video Games

Every image here is from a different game.

Let's start this off with a little story, one that I promise has a point and is going somewhere. My first year of film school, whenever we had to make a film for class, we only had one constraint: no guns. We could make a movie about anything we could imagine and anything we could afford to put on screen, but we were not allowed to put guns in our films. Why? Because if you give an 18-19 year old male a camera and tell him to make a movie, 90% of the time he will make a movie about a bunch of dudes shooting at a bunch of other dudes. Just look at Youtube; there is a whole genre of Youtube shorts about dudes shooting each other in warehouses;no story, no plot, just guys and prop guns. These guys have absurd amounts of fancy equipment and special effect talent, and all they can think to make is a Die Hard homage/ripoff. Take away their guns, however, and you force them to come up with films that don't involve people shooting each other. Suddenly they are forced to be creative, and out of this forced creativity amazing things can happen. Most of them never go back to the people shooting other people genre, because there is so much else to explore with film. Those that do go back will often do so in a way that's new and refreshing. It is for this same exact reason that I think the video game industry needs to ban guns for a little while.

I should say that, despite my open dislike for the Call of Duty franchise, I have enjoyed the crap out of games where you run around shooting at other dudes. Some of my favorite games of all time heavily involve shooting other dudes. I'm not anti-violence either; video games are a place where you can do things that you (hopefully) can't or wouldn't do in real life. Also, this isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment, because I'm not the government. The fact is, I'm bored of shooting dudes. I've done it a hundred million times, and despite the advances in computing power and whatnot, it is always exactly the same. You put the little crosshairs over the guy you want dead, then you press a button and he dies. Sometimes you have to press the button more than once. "But," you say aloud at your computer, "there are all sorts of different types of guns. Surely that must add variety!" Unfortunately, you are wrong, you silly strawman. There are only five types of guns, and every single gun in every single video game ever falls into one of these categories.

• Pistols: These guns are small, and fit in one hand. They fire one bullet at a time, and don't do much damage. These will be the first gun you are given in a game.
• Machine Guns: These guns are larger, and usually require two hands. They fire a whole bunch of bullets in quick succession.
• Shotguns: These guns do a whole bunch of damage, but only at close range. They also take a frustratingly long amount of time to reload.
• Sniper Rifles: For shooting things that are very far away. Usually kills in one shot. Much less effective at close range.
• Rocket Launchers: Shoots bullets that explode, doing a whole bunch of damage. Holds very little ammo and takes a long time to reload. This is the most fun gun to play with in any game, and is therefore the most rare.

Look at the Covenant guns from Halo. These are weapons that were presumably engineered by alien races that evolved light years away from humanity, but for some reason they all fit neatly into each one of these human-defined categories. On the flip side, you have the Portal gun and the Gravity gun, neither of which fall into any category neatly, and aren't really guns at all. Unlike the Covenant guns, they introduce a new gameplay mechanic that actually changes gameplay (I love how Valve games have become the go-to for examples of good things in video games).

The root of the problem is that video games have become reliant on an unchanging gameplay mechanic instead of exploring new and different ideas. There have been so many times where a game will introduce something interesting, like being able to control your enemies, only to fall back on standard cover-based shooting for most of the game. Look at the E3 trailer for Watch Dogs (seriously, look at it, it looks awesome). It starts out interesting, introducing the gameplay mechanic of hacking powers, which seem like they could radically change the gameplay into something new and interesting. Then, at the end of the trailer, you make that awesome pile-up happen, and BAM: we're back to running around, hiding behind cover, and shooting dudes. Obviously, this is just a trailer, and hopefully Watch Dogs will have more "sneaky hacking" and less "shooting dudes," but you have to wonder, what if the game had no shooting bits at all? What if the only way to complete your objectives was to figure out clever ways of hacking stuff?

Now, imagine other games with their guns taken out. Let's say that for Uncharted 4, Nathan Drake becomes a buddhist to atone for all the people he's killed. You still get to stumble around collapsing buildings searching for ancient treasure, but now you have to figure out creative non-lethal ways of dispatching enemies. Or imagine Mindjack with all the shooting bits taken out, so now the only way of getting rid of enemies is by mind-controlling other enemies. Or a Bioshock game where you can only use plasmids. Or maybe, just maybe, a game that isn't based around killing other dudes. Maybe then you could take that game and show it to your mom/girlfriend/Roger Ebert and say, "See? These are actually pretty cool," and they'd finally understand that games can be about so much more than just killin' dudes.

This game is 17 years old. Think about that for a second.