If you make a sequel that will be followed by two other games where many choices will affect some outcomes then you have to canonize an ending because if you don't you would have to make a very generic universe where the three decisions you can make are acknowleged in a way that none is disproven but at the same time none is explicitly declared and this generic universe and plot would become more and more generic as the plot and your choices in those games advance because the three choices the game must incorportate are too divergent.
Take deus ex: invisible war for example. That game didn't canonize any of the three decisions you could take in the original deus ex and that's why the game felt extremely generic with a disconnected plot that couldn't give you much details because that would mean canonizing one of the endings. The game wasn't good at all and a husk of the original.
So If Bioware wants to make a new trilogy that can even compare with the original then they have to canonize an ending for the sake of the plot and I understand this. Let's analyse each ending:
-In Refuse the next cycle beats the reapers but the humans have gone extinct and a new trilogy without humans wouldn't sell well because after all this games would be sold to humans
and besides canonizing that commander shepard failed to stop the reapers after everything we did and that others achieved wouldn't be too welcomed either.-In Control we would still have the reapers around and that would shape a plot that must accept them as one of its central elements, considering their power it would be ridiculous to ignore them. Canonizing this ending would be acceptable although having the reapers around yet in a new trilogy could become too tiresome.
-In Synthesis we would have all the species with green implants and the reapers still around. Leaving aside the countless moral dilemmas that many have with this ending, introducing a new plot with a new conflict in this so called utopy would be ilogic because conflicts are born from hate and differences and theoretically every species have now become one and the same and new and even oldfans that haven't played the original would feel lost in a universe in this state. Not only that but it would be ankward and even ridiculous for the audience and even the writers to depict a universe where lifespan and emotions have changed radically. I don't see how a new trilogy with this ending could work.
-In destroy we wouldn't have the reapers around anymore and new conflicts between species could arise without them policing the galaxy or without synthesis transforming everyone into the same thing. Destroy is an ending that leaves a blank slate to work on a new story from scratch thousands of years after the first trilogy and it also avoids having the reapers in a new story. This could potentially show a "what's next" situation after the reaper cycles have been stopped with them destroyed, with a completely different balance of power and a possible new threat and how it could lead to an even more dangerous crisis that a new protagonist has to stop.
Considering all the possibilities I think destroy would be the easiest way to create a new trilogy with a good story that can develop in different paths depending of our choices. I won't hide that I like destroy ending the most but it is the most logical solution to continue the story considering all options.
What do you guys think? Which ending would you make canon to continue the story?
Modifié par darkiddd, 09 décembre 2012 - 04:22 .
Retour en haut
