160 réponses à ce sujet

[Armass81]

Destroy would be the easiest.

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...
 so you're saying you wouldn't be for a game that takes your "Final Choice" into account? Why? Or are you one of those people that completely disregards the notion and imply it's an impossibility?

I'm normally big on choices mattering.  This is one situation where I would make an exception.  I find all the "canon" choices so repulsive I want nothing to do with them.

And that includes as a jumping off point for a sequel.

Modifié par iakus, 10 décembre 2012 - 05:54 .

[Mcfly616]

Oh well, then

[Lyrandori]

I'd go with Control, as much as I dislike it for Shepard herself/himself, but if I didn't picked up Control it'd be a selfish, self-satisfactory move (speaking for myself here, that is if I myself was the one to make the decision). For the sake of the potential coming from post-Control and mostly because post-Control continuity of the ME's universe seems to just fit right in line and just mirrors the "real" intentions that the writers had for Shepard's journey and the Reapers War story arc. So while we're at it better just continue in the same line of thoughts.

If I had to steer clear of any extent of objectivity then, of course, I would instead choose to continue the universe based on post-Destroy (high ESM Destroy).

[Lookout1390]

Destroy

The goal from ME1 has been clear since the beginning

Organics and Reapers cannot, and never will co-exist.

[WolfForce99]

KingZayd wrote...

Destroy, because it preserves the vast majority of what people found interesting in the series.

I couldn't have said much better. High EMS Destroy.

Modifié par WolfForce99, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:37 .

[Ryoten]

Destroy

[Sweawm]

Destroy and forget the downsides ever existed!

*Player sees Geth in new trilogy*
P: "Wait, weren't you destroyed?"
*Geth pauses*
G: "..No data available"

[daaaav]

In all honesty,

Wouldn't use any of them.

Shepard stopped the Reapers. That is all. No synthesis, no more Reapers, no AI genocide. The war was paid for with the blood of billions, but what was won was the right of every sentient being (screw the Reapers) to forge their own path.

A new beginning.

[JPN17]

Doesn't matter what I'd choose, Bioware's canon ending is synthesis.

[Siran]

BioWare already said many times that there is no canon ending. So, no?

[thefallen2far]

Indoctrination theory.

[TNT1991]

MEHEM

[George Costanza]

Destroy, for a few reasons.

It's the ending that makes most sense and brings with it the least amount of plot problems. It's the ending that best draws a line under the original trilogy to move on to a new story. And it's the ending that was most popular with the fanbase.

I've heard that Synthesis is Bioware's darling (seen no evidence of it, but I trust you people wouldn't be making it up), but I think it would be a ludicrous move to go with that as a canon ending. First and foremost, because it's the ending that has the most issues - it doesn't make sense in almost any level, as well as the ethical implications of Shepard making such a decision. Plus it seems to be the ending most reviled by fans.

Destroy all the way.

[Ieldra]

It depends on which kind of story they want to tell in the new game.

An absence of Reapers could easily be explained for every ending.
(1) If you chose Destroy, they're gone of course
(2) If Control, AI!Shepard has chosen to limit her involvement in galactic civilization. Everyone knows they're still out there somewhere, but they don't appear anymore.
(3) If Synthesis, the freed Reapers have chosen to go their own way after giving post-Synthesis civilization a head start to ascension.

So, there's really nothing that prevents any ending from being used as a basis for the timeline of the next game. If they want continuity, Control may work best, for a transhuman future Synthesis would work best. Destroy would work well for an exploration-themed story.

If I were Bioware, I would want the new story to feature nothing connected with Shepard in order to not unnecessarily limit the story I want to tell. I would want to maximize creative freedom after having been hampered by continuity problems for two games. I would ignore those fans who have nothing more to contribute than "If X is canon ending I will boycott the next game" and instead look for constructive post-ending scenarios for each of the three major choices which may fit the story I want to tell. The story I want to tell with the next game would then determine which ending will be chosen as a basis, with a preference of (**insert writer's preferred ending**) if more than one fit equally well and my preferred one is one of them.

@George Constanza:
Which ending makes sense and which doesn't is very much a subjective matter.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 décembre 2012 - 10:27 .

[Aurora313]

I'd make it so at the start to can select what universe the new characters exist in, and dialogue and cosmetics of characters may change accordingly.


Also - there is no such thing as what makes 'sense' in works of fiction like Mass Effect. Every choice is valid to the player in question. If it doesn't work for you - fine. Feel free to reject it, but don't force your opinions on others.

[Seival]

If I was the one who makes decisions about next ME game, then I would choose another way:
http://social.biowar.../index/13740862

None of endings are canon, but Synthesis is inevitable.
 - Easy enough to implement.
 - Choices made in ME Trilogy still matter.
 - Almost limitless possibilities for the new story. 

[RainbowDazed]

Synthesis

[George Costanza]

Ieldra2 wrote...
@George Constanza:
Which ending makes sense and which doesn't is very much a subjective matter.

Plot issues are plot issues. It's not subjective, really. If Darth Vader had walked in at the end of Mass Effect 3 and lightsabred Harbinger in half and won the war for the galaxy it wouldn't make sense. That's not subjective. It just doesn't make sense. Extreme example, I know. But just pointing it out.

There's issues with all three of the endings. There's things that don't tally up. But Destroy brings the least of these issues, and Synthesis, probably, the most. You could try and explain them perhaps in a future game, or with DLC, but with the information we've got, and the constraints of the lore we've been given, some things about the endings, objectively, just don't make sense. Subjectively, you can allow that to slide because they entertain you, or you think the philosophical implications outweigh slight plot inconsistencies - that's fine. But we can't ignore that some things just don't make sense, and some endings are affected more than others.

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...

If I was the one who makes decisions about next ME game, then I would choose another way:
http://social.biowar.../index/13740862

None of endings are canon, but Synthesis is inevitable.
 - Easy enough to implement.
 - Choices made in ME Trilogy still matter.
 - Almost limitless possibilities for the new story. 

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 10 décembre 2012 - 10:47 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

I'd cut my losses and do a prequel or interquel for the next ME game.

[Dubozz]

fiendishchicken wrote...

High EMS Destroy.

[Ieldra]

George Costanza wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@George Constanza:
Which ending makes sense and which doesn't is very much a subjective matter.

Plot issues are plot issues. It's not subjective, really. If Darth Vader had walked in at the end of Mass Effect 3 and lightsabred Harbinger in half and won the war for the galaxy it wouldn't make sense. That's not subjective. It just doesn't make sense. Extreme example, I know. But just pointing it out.

There's issues with all three of the endings. There's things that don't tally up. But Destroy brings the least of these issues, and Synthesis, probably, the most. You could try and explain them perhaps in a future game, or with DLC, but with the information we've got, and the constraints of the lore we've been given, some things about the endings, objectively, just don't make sense. Subjectively, you can allow that to slide because they entertain you, or you think the philosophical implications outweigh slight plot inconsistencies - that's fine. But we can't ignore that some things just don't make sense, and some endings are affected more than others.

Let's say it this way: whether or not an ending's inconsistencies have enough weight to reject it as the basis for a sequel is very much a subjective matter. Some of the inconsistencies themselves are also a subjective matter.

As I see it, the EC ending scenarios themselves (everything described after you make the choice) are all consistent and very much acceptable. The problem lies in how they to come to be and in certain parts of the exposition. Which means, any of them can serve as the basis for a sequel, and the sequel would automatically answer some of the unanswered questions.

[Vlk3]

Destroy, but not necessarily high EMS. Players wouldn't visit certain places, so their description would just vary depending on EMS<looks at Earth>
Set up some time after defeating Reapers - with Mass Relays rebuild, focusing on the places that weren't much changed depending on ME3 events. It is possible.
And it doesn't have to invalidate other endings - that would be just ME Universe after destroy, because some events wouldn't happen in synthesis or control. This way those, who choose synthesis or control shouldn't feel cheated - their endings are in EC.