But why? As a story, what does Mass Effect gain from this?
With this theory, you get the following: 1) a mental, rather than physical fight against Harbinger, which is more unexpected; 2) a showcase of Shepard's mental state and a first-hand account of how tricky indoctrination can be; and 3) a way to test Shepard's resolve and see through the Catalyst's bullshit and trust in the forces you've built up this whole time.
Granted, this isn't necessarily about what is gained, but what ties the elements together best. Even still, what does Mass Effect gain from interpreting the Catalyst as a God child? Is it really any better or more logical than that indoctrination idea?
There's really no reason to not believe you are shooting the Illusive Man, either. What would be proof enough? An email in NG+ that says "ow shepard getting shot really hurts"? Again, all I can really ask is: why? What does ME3 have to gain, as a story, from the ending being a hallucination?
In a way, it allows the writers to cop-out of an explanatory ending by using a psychological one. It centers on Shepard's mental fragility, embodied in her physical weakness. Considering chunks of the game have focused on Shepard doubting herself, not only in terms of capability but also in terms of how organic she is really (following her rebuilding in ME2), and the dream sequences add to this doubt, I'd say this interpretation lines up nicely with the established themes.
It's not a replacement for a complete epilogue; but it also provides an opportunity for Bioware to leave the ending open-ended enough that they can go in pretty much any direction they want.
I'd say that it's equally cliche, honestly. I think most forms of media recently have tried too hard to provide "deep" endings than actual endings for a while now, because for whatever reason everyone is far too clever for classic story structure these days.
Again, I'm not saying it's perfectly executed. Clearly, it's not. But I do suspect that the writers wanted to at least "do something different," something out of left field. This is made apparent in the CE art book, when they talk about how they scrapped their idea of the Illusive Man transforming into a monster for a final boss, and instead focused on an "intellectual battle."
I don't want to be angry at ME3 - I spent good money on it, and a lot of time with the franchise, and I want something that at least makes sense. This theory makes a lot of sense. Maybe it's a pattern weaved from disconnected strands, and I'll admit that it could be. But considering how well it
could work, how well it aligns with information across all three games, I don't see why I should torture my mental and emotional state with blind hatred, just because it's fun to knock Bioware. The writers should be criticized for various things, without a doubt, and I've said multiple times that this theory is troubled by their possibly being too subtle. But I see no reason to think that the writers
can't be that subtle. Doing so is suffering a superiority complex, I think - and also ignoring the fact that being too subtle is not necessarily a talent reserved for professional writers. Hack writers can be too subtle, too clever - a good writer will find a balance. I don't think there is a balance here, hence so much discontent over the ending, but that doesn't mean the theory is invalidated.
.
