In this thread, post your ending choice, and then the galaxy in which you want the next game to take place.
I'll use myself as an example:
Ending: Synthesis
Setting: Milky Way or Andromeda; I'm fine with either one
I suspect that those who favor Destroy are more likely to want the next game to remain in the Milky Way, whereas those who favor Control or Synthesis are more willing to accept, or are even excited about, the Andromeda setting. This is all just a guess, though.
Interesting experiment. Not quite so simple for me though :/
I thought Control was the best option but Destroy was the safest and one I picked first time through.
And the order I would prefer things for ME next is
1) Milky way canon ending
2) Andromeda
3) Milky way with save import
I'm all for discussion, but there's already 2-3 other threads devoted to this exact issue.
However, If you want statistics, I suggest making a Google survey. At least then you could easily read and graph results.
I'm all for discussion, but there's already 2-3 other threads devoted to this exact issue.
However, If you want statistics, I suggest making a Google survey. At least then you could easily read and graph results.
Those threads are not focused on people's preferred ending and how that may influence their attitude towards the Andromeda setting. And I'm too lazy to make a survey. 
I suppose I'm just concerned about the backlash towards the possibility of a new galactic setting. I'm concerned that Destroy supporters are more likely to hate it because they, more than anyone else, want BioWare to address the consequences of the ending choice. Why? Because BioWare would likely use the Destroy ending as the basis for a sequel in the Milky Way. By moving the setting to another galaxy, BioWare is suggesting that Control and Synthesis are viable choices that should be respected. Naturally, this offends some people.
I suppose I'm just concerned about the backlash towards the possibility of a new galactic setting. I'm worried that Destroy supporters are more likely to hate it because they, more than anyone else, want BioWare to address the consequences of the ending choice. Why? Because BioWare would likely base a sequel set in the Milky Way on the Destroy ending. By moving the setting to another galaxy, BioWare is implicitly validating Control and Synthesis as viable choices that should be respected. Naturally, this offends some people.
I am a Destroy supporter and I am not opposed to a new galactic setting.
I get the feeling that you set up a strawman to get a rise out of people though. In particular, I don't see why someone who wants the setting to remain in the Milky Way would somehow be more likely to be offended by Control and Synthesis as viable ending choices. It really seems like you're just trying to pick a fight here.
Ending: Synthesis
Setting: Milky Way
Those threads are not focused on people's preferred ending and how that may influence their attitude towards the Andromeda setting. And I'm too lazy to make a survey.
You could probably steer the conversation in that direction but hey, I'm not about to get in the way of an interesting discussion.
I chose destroy and would have preferred a Milky Way in reconstruction, attempting to rectify a shattered government, deal with the no doubt traumatic process of integrating the Geth and Quarians, quell a possible second Krogan rebellion, stymie the potential Turian martial law, and settle Asair religious upheaval. So yes, I would certainly have liked a canon destroy ending. Post war politics are always the juiciest.
However, I've never been averse to going where no man has gone before. It is annoying to leave everything behind especially since I had a hand in its history, but new things are interesting, and I'll go on any ride as long as it's well written.
Also, I do highly recommend making a survey though. Nothing's more powerful than a solid statistic.
Ending choice: MEHEM
Galaxy: Milky Way, with no references to an ending at all. (Reapers gone, no details as to how)
I chose Destroy.
I'd prefer postwar Milky Way (like RoboticWater said, "Post war politics are always the juiciest"), but I'm not inherently opposed to a new galaxy to explore.
Now, given the trajectory of the ME series, do I have faith that the game will be good? Not really. There's no way I'm going to consider buying this game until I hear glowing reviews from the few trustworthy sites out there.
I am a Destroy supporter and I am not opposed to a new galactic setting.
I get the feeling that you set up a strawman to get a rise out of people though. In particular, I don't see why someone who wants the setting to remain in the Milky Way would somehow be more likely to be offended by Control and Synthesis as viable ending choices. It really seems like you're just trying to pick a fight here.
I admit that it's based in pessimism and paranoia. I've endured so many intense debates with Destroy supporters who were determined to invalidate Control and Synthesis that I can't help but be suspicious. I don't want BioWare to give in and cater to those people.
I might be completely wrong. Maybe the majority of the fanbase doesn't want to abandon the Milky Way, regardless of their ending choices. I just don't want the writers to feel pressured to ignore the non-Destroy choices.
Edit: I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I was just so taken aback by the immediate condemnation of the Andromeda possibility, that my more conspiratorial side was expressed.
I chose destroy and would have preferred a Milky Way in reconstruction, attempting to rectify a shattered government, deal with the no doubt traumatic process of integrating the Geth and Quarians, quell a possible second Krogan rebellion, stymie the potential Turian martial law, and settle Asair religious upheaval. So yes, I would certainly have liked a canon destroy ending. Post war politics are always the juiciest.
Plain Old Destroy, post-war Milky Way. Not opposed to Andromeda in certain contexts, but not as some placating hideaway. Make choices and move forward, not to the side.
Indeed I'm okay with exploring another galaxy but that should be a future title not the upcoming one and leaving the Milky Way galaxy forever and never returning (which major part of ark theory) is a huge no no. It'll be nothing but wasted potential for a galaxy that was well developed.
I admit that it's based in pessimism and paranoia. I've endured so many intense debates with Destroy supporters who were determined to invalidate Control and Synthesis that I can't help but be suspicious. I don't want BioWare to give in and cater to those people.
I might be completely wrong. Maybe the majority of the fanbase doesn't want to abandon the Milky Way, regardless of their ending choices. I just don't want the writers to feel pressured to ignore the non-Destroy choices.
I, for one, did not like ME3's ending at all, particularly the Synthesis and Control bits; however, that's not the only reason I support a cannon Destroy. Obviously, I'm biased, but I just think that Destroy assumes the least. The start of the next game wouldn't be laden with abstruse explanations of what exactly Synthesis did or what Shepard eventually decided to do with the Reapers.
Destroy just leaves people who have to deal with tragedy, and that's where the best stories tend to start.
There might be some deeper connection between the two settings than we currently realize. That is, if the leak is even accurate. Moving to Andromeda might not necessarily equate to an abandonment of the Milky Way.
But do we really want to revisit the genophage and the quarian-geth conflict all over again? Those stories feel complete. We experienced them, and we made our choices. I mean, it would be interesting to experience the consequences, but then it would kind of be the same story all over again.
I, for one, did not like ME3's ending at all, particularly the Synthesis and Control bits; however, that's not the only reason I support a cannon Destroy. Obviously, I'm biased, but I just think that Destroy assumes the least. The start of the next game wouldn't be laden with abstruse explanations of what exactly Synthesis did or what Shepard eventually decided to do with the Reapers.
Destroy just leaves people who have to deal with tragedy, and that's where the best stories tend to start.
That's fair. I think Synthesis actually has the most potential for amazing storytelling, but I will also admit that I lack confidence in BioWare's ability to do it justice. The whole thing might come off sounding more mystical than scientific.
Ultimately, I don't know what the writers should do. It seems like they lose no matter what they do. The endings are just too different. A compromise must be made.
There might be some deeper connection between the two settings than we currently realize. That is, if the leak is even accurate. Moving to Andromeda might not necessarily equate to an abandonment of the Milky Way.
But do we really want to revisit the genophage and the quarian-geth conflict all over again? Those stories feel complete. We experienced them, and we made our choices. I mean, it would be interesting to experience the consequences, but then it would kind of be the same story all over again.
Not simply revisit them, evolve them. Racism in America didn't end after the Civil War, nor did the institution of slavery completely. There were years of moral, ethical, and litigious debates before even a semblance of equality was reached. if nothing else, reintegration would bring up some of those debates; however, the major part of the story could focus on the Turians, Salarians, and Asari, the races we thought were perfectly stable, but were actually on the brink of collapse. Part of me just wants to see a cold war between Turians and Salarians from the perspective of humanity, who just needs support after their home was destroyed, but that's getting too far into my extensive fan fiction.
I think it's interesting to push through a story which seems wrapped in a bow. Very few games have the chance to do this, nor the writing pedigree.
There might be some deeper connection between the two settings than we currently realize. That is, if the leak is even accurate. Moving to Andromeda might not necessarily equate to an abandonment of the Milky Way.
But do we really want to revisit the genophage and the quarian-geth conflict all over again? Those stories feel complete. We experienced them, and we made our choices. I mean, it would be interesting to experience the consequences, but then it would kind of be the same story all over again.
On the contrary, it would be the first time in the series that the Quarians have a homeworld, or that the Krogan have a future (depending, of course, on what BW deemed to be canon). I think a lot of people, including me, would like to see how these species contribute to the Galaxy moving forward. There's a lot of potential there.
I'll no doubt still play ME4 if it's set in Andromeda (as long as we actually get controller support for pc), but it's going to have to be amazing to justify leaving the Milky Way behind when there was potentially a great post-war setting for a new instalment. I don't want to be cynical but I can't help but think the Andromeda direction - if true - is just a way to avoid dealing with the consequences of ME3's endings and has nothing to do with good storytelling.
Choice: Synthesis
Preference: Fine either way; find Andromeda fairly appealing
I am fully with RoboticWater. A cannon Destroy ending + post war politics and a storyline that is more focused on the protagonist itself and has the other galaxy-wide stuff more providing the background for that personal story, that would be my favorite.
Ending: Destroy
Shepard survives the blast and retires shortly after the war.
Setting: Milky Way or Andromeda. But they can't just leave the trilogy behind completely if the decide to go to Andromeda. I want them constantly making references to the civilization of the Milky Way galaxy - what changed post-Reaper war, the geth, Krogan genophage, you know, all the important stuff.
Praise the Sun, the Goddess, the Maker, Mara and any other virtual Gods we're out of the Milky Way (No offence intended to its supporters) but I for one love this idea. I went with Synthesis (My only regret is Shepard was not around to see his Legacy and his/her sweetheart was left alone) and the extended cut left me more or less satisfied with the Utopia Shepard left behind. Mass Effect was always meant to be about exploration, mystery, and adventure (oh and some romance too) and now that we've already saved the Milky Way a few times I think we need to move on to somewhere new where we can embrace a new galaxy and new races and try to recapture those base concepts. I still wanna see us pull some of our classic races with us, and I wanna keep that Mass Effect charm but I want to move forward and start a epic new adventure, not repeat all of Shepards adventures with the same races, places, and setting.
Ending: Destroy
Setting: Ideally, I would like to see a game in a post-destroy Milkyway, but even though I personally hate the control and synthesis endings, I wouldn't want those fans who preferred them to be ignored, and thus I would not like to see any ending, even destroy, canonized. As such, the only logical way to proceed, IMO, is to go to Andromeda.
And I'm trying to stay positive. It may not be my preferred ME4, but as long as they do the best with what they have I still think it could be an excellent game.
Retour en haut