abnocte wrote...
Well, if the IT is correct ( no EC taken into account ) I assume that the outcome of the battle, the relays being destroyed, and the Normandy's fate is all part of Shepards illusion.
After all nobody reached the Crucible and used it ( if it was usable at all, and not a Reaper ploy ).
So the real outcome of the cycle is unknown... meaning Bioware can take as starting point for ME4 whatever they want... or if we consider the scene after the credits with the kid and grampa as real that would mean that organic life is saved. That scene is exactly the same regardless of which choice you pick.
Well, that's what I think... and I certainly prefer ME4 going forward than backward... and by fordward I mean like a 1000 years after Shepard's story.
I largely agree, although I wouldn't like to go too far into the future, I'd still like to see cameos from the old crew.
I can really only see 3 ways the ME franchise could possibly continue.
1. A canonised destroy - with lots of potential conflict in the power vacuum.
2. An IT based ending which exposes all the existing endings as hallucinations and allows Bioware to retcon the story in whatever way is necessary.
3. Successful refuse - based on something like the Puzzle Theory.
All three run the risk of alienating those who like one or more endings interpreted literally. However I think the potential benefits of option 2 (and to a lesser extent option 3) outweigh the risks.
It enables Bioware to write off the plot holes as the confused imaginings of a partially indoctrinated Shepard.
It keeps the Geth and Edi alive.
Lastly and most importantly it gives an opportunity for an uplifting, victorious, feel good ending, where Shepard triumphs over Harbinger. It also resets the stage back to, more or less, where we were in ME1, with lots of potential for new stories.
Modifié par Eryri, 09 novembre 2012 - 12:05 .