The Walking Dead vs. Mass Effect 3: Consequences and Endings

They’re both the same, and they’re both inevitable. So why is one’s ending so much better?

Posted By | On 29th, Dec. 2012 Under Article, Editorials


Telltale’s The Walking Dead is unofficially 2012’s Game of the Year (though we decided otherwise in GamingBolt’s Game of the Year Awards). Out of pretty much nowhere, Telltale Games went from small time adventure game developer to big time AAA developer. Even if that change hasn’t taken effect structurally, the developer’s profile has been significantly raised since it debuted with the Episodes. Surprisingly, it’s managed to win people’s hearts and minds over a ton of high-profile games and sequels that otherwise dominated it in the headlines. Mass Effect 3, Far Cry 3, Dishonored, Halo 4, Assassin’s Creed 3, Hitman: Absolution…the list just goes on and on. Keep in mind, all of the above games are pretty solid experiences and any gamer worth his salt should play them once before he dies (seriously).

However, when looking at Episode 5: No Time Left and how it ended with a literal cliffhanger, I couldn’t help but be reminded of another title that left gamers proverbially hanging: Mass Effect 3. Rest assured, we’ll be discussing spoilers in this article so avert your eyes if you haven’t finished either title.


For those who played Episode 4, they knew that protagonist Lee Everett had been bitten by a zombie. In The Walking Dead universe, aside from amputating the infected limb (which has a 50-50 chance of success), there aren’t remedies for this. So in Episode 5, he dutifully rescues Clementine and has himself shackled, helping her to escape amid zombies and his own out of control impulses to save her life. The game ends with Clementine seeing two zombie figures in the distance who turn to look at her, as she nervously readies her gun. Her fate is left unknown.

The amazing thing about this scene is that it resembles one of the beginning scenes from the game. It carries dual meanings of course – hope or no hope left – but also indicates that it doesn’t matter. Like in The Walking Dead comics, how you approach the situation is ultimately up to you because there is no escape.

Like a nightmarish re-imagining of Waiting for Godot, this existence is the only existence and how you choose to live it is ultimately up to you. And as the comics have showcased, just going back to the way things were doesn’t work out.

mass effect 3
By contrast, Mass Effect 3’s ending wasn’t about the end of the Reapers so much as about understanding their “how” and “why”. It also (originally) reflected Commander Shepard’s mindset – how he went from plucky newbie to a rising soldier of fame before finally falling to his own ambitions. It indicated that the Reapers aren’t a presence just anyone can escape from, and that their cycle is inevitable and continuous.

Sure, the player could choose to alter it but that wasn’t the point (and which riled up fans in the first place, as they felt that all their choices ultimately didn’t make a difference). The point is, depending on how you look at it, the Reapers’ cycle could be one of greater good or unending evil. It is what it is.

Both Mass Effect 3 and The Walking Dead killed their protagonists. And both games ended with the note that all your choices, all your sacrifices, everything, was worth nothing in averting your character’s ultimate fate. In a way, they’re both indicative tales of Fate itself. That ultimately, no matter what one does, they don’t have the ultimate say in how their story turns out, even if they are being controlled by a higher power like the Gamer.

Yet Mass Effect 3’s ending was panned universally while The Walking Dead’s was praised to the high heavens. What on Earth did they do differently?

Both are tales of ultimate redemption and sacrifice. Both are tales of insignificance and the power of fate. Both are tales of the never-ending cycle of life, and how we can choose to look at it as hopeful or full of never-ending pain.

the-walking-dead-episode-4-1
Mass Effect, for its part, never carried that stigma of being a character portrait despite Bioware practically shouting it from the rooftops all the time with “Shepard this” and “Shepard that”. The Walking Dead, on the other hand, not only put players in a universe they know is rightly screwed but laid out the fragility of life in every single character and plot instance.

In The Walking Dead, all life is sacred but it’s nonetheless disposable and nothing can stop people from dying. That’s the horror, that ever-present inevitability of death, and you’ll witness it numerous times before realizing you’re the only one it hasn’t hit.

For good measure, that makes Clementine the perfect sole survivor in plot terms. Because now she must live with that horror, that dread of inevitability. Lee was the one thing protecting her, sacrificing his will to insatiable fate. Does she live? Does she die? Either way, the cycle continues and it’s out of her hands.

Whether Bioware intended for its tale of sacrifice and heroism to reflect that cruel inevitability or not can be seen in the response. Many people just didn’t “get it”, almost a snide proclamation to their inferiority. But it’s neither the gamer’s fault nor Bioware’s. It just is what it is: inevitable.

Only, it’s the gamer in these cases who decides when he’s had enough of that inevitability, stops suspending his disbelief and attacks the game for leading him on.

Mass Effect 3 couldn’t persuade the gamer against that. The Walking Dead could, and succeeded. So even if they’re pretty much the same story, you’ll only hear a slight pause regarding the quality of the ending for one.


Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • The figures in the distance aren’t zombies. Most people assume it’s Christa and Omid, but their movement and ability to see her at range show that they’re definitively not zombies.

  • Logan Snider

    This is a rarity. For once, I must agree with the narrative logic presented by a reviewer. You are correct that the underlying themes and stories presented by both games are in effect (result) the same. If I had to guess, and this IS just a guess, why Mass Effect 3’s ending was so poorly received by such a wide audience and this is in no offense to those who enjoyed the ending; I would have to say that it was a rejection of fate. Whether this was because of the rejection of the “epic hero must die” or because of the time investment needed to play all 3 Mass Effect games is up for debate as is other potential reasons for why people would reject the ME3 ending. Overall, it would seem as though the previous 2 games gave players the illusion that they could change things and save the universe while at the same time underscoring that point with a clear indication that the universe is soooo totally doomed. When it came down to the flash point where players were expecting that emotional payoff after receiving these two contradicting messages the results was a rejection of the former in favor of the previous. They rejected the fate of inevitability of ones eventual destruction in favor of, if I may quote Knights Tale, “A Person can really change their stars.”

  • http://www.writersdigest.com/whats-new/the-dos-and-donts-of-novel-endings

    If you read this, you will know why Mass Effect 3 ending failed.

    As for the Walking Dead ending with a cliffhanger, it’s all right because we know there is gonna be a sequel. Mass Effect 3 was the last game of a trilogy, so no cliffhanger.

  • Pickle

    This doesn,t make any sense. The final choices of mass effect 3 had massive ramifications on the future of the galaxy. Yes the games are finished but that doesnt make the final choice meaningless. If that’s true then any game or film without a sequel is meaningless . of course it matters, the journey is if anything more important. The whole of Me3 was about concluding your choices from the first 2 games. Not just the last 10 mins.

  • Big I

    I haven’t played Walking Dead, but my understanding is that the narative is unchanged by player input. That is not the case with ME3.

    Here’s why people didn’t like the ME3 ending.

    1) Shepard is presented as routinely being able to accomplish the impossible. ME2s suicide mission, getting the various alien species on side in ME3, whatever, Shepard gets it done however they want. That is reversed in the final scene.

    2) The whole ME trilogy was sold as being about player agency. Most major quests and sidequests offered different options on how to resolve them, and those choices influence future content. Want to keep Mordin alive? Then you better kill Wrex in ME1 and destroy the genophage data in ME2. Having that atmosphere of player input swept away in the last ten minutes is jarring and off-putting.

    3) Bioware (originally) opted for an ending heavy on symbolism and light on explanation, and the majority of people thought that was a bad call. They didn’t want poetic imagery that raised more questions, they wanted existing questions about plot and characters answered.

    4) People identify with Shepard. When making decisions in game, they’re not asking themselves “what decision would a space marine from 2185 with an alien girlfriend make in this situation?”, they’re asking “what decision would I make here?”. Thus, when Shepard is denied a happy ending the player is denied a happy ending.


 

Copyright © 2009-2015 GamingBolt.com. All Rights Reserved.