Guys, I liked the original trilogy too, and I loved the characters. But ME3 ended bad. Yeah they could canonize destroy (the best ending), but that would anger alot of people too. This is the best route, lets just get a fresh take on ME. Hopefully a more personal story too.
Destroy is not the best ending, not by a long shot.
As it is, I'm happy with their direction.
Personally, I consider Destroy to be the best ending in that I think it would have been the best ending for the series as a whole.
As they're going beyond the original trilogy and continue past that, were I making the hard decision to canonize one of the endings, I'd go with Control. Offers the most options going forward without imposing the weirdness of Synthesis on the series.
Just my opinion.
Destroy is not the best ending, not by a long shot.
As it is, I'm happy with their direction.
It's hard to pick which genocide endorsing ending is the "best" (or "worst"). I suppose it depends on how you want to come out as pro-genocide.
I guess it's part of the Shepard fixation, which I just will never understand. The guy was cool (if you made him cool and applied some headcanon to fill in the gaps), but was really just a brick.
The bigger thing, which I do understand, is the loss of the ME setting. With a new galaxy filled with new races, we are leaving a lot of the stuff we learned/heard about in the trilogy behind, which is a bit of a pity. To what degree we're moving on remains to be seen I suppose.
Eh. I'm more optimistic about Andromeda than bothered about leaving the trilogy behind. Although I'm a tad disappointed we won't see what became of most of the Milky Way, if any, I'm not mad about moving to Andromeda. It is kind of annoying that the MW might be completely gone now though, thanks to the ending.
It's hard to pick which genocide endorsing ending is the "best" (or "worst"). I suppose it depends on how you want to come out as pro-genocide.
Now hold on. Control involves no form of genocide. That's my go to option. 
Destroy is the best ending,you save billions of lives at the expense of some talking toasters.The other options are stealing everyone's individuality and creating the Borg 2.0 or enslaving everyone by becoming imprint of the new Reaper overlord of the Galaxy
Honestly I'd be up for paying a higher price for the game if they were willing to put the work in to create vastly different world states depending on the decisions of the player. If they're putting in the effort to essentially put three divergent worlds into one game, I think the replay value of that would justify a higher price.
Though I honestly think time is a factor as well. EA dictates a development cycle for them, so even if they'd be willing to put that effort into it - which I don't know if they are or aren't - they likely simply don't have the time to do it.
I wouldn't mind going that route either. But even in that scenario there are a few issues to consider: people have a habit of venting at $60 games as it is and EA being the developer to break the barrier is likely to make them the target of outrage.
The other issue is recouping those costs. Bioware's words/stats haven't left me 100% confident that most of their players are into replays much as we might be. So even if we're paying a $70 base price, it takes at least 6 people to make up for the price of an additional ME3 copy. If even one person says "I'm not buying it" that's now a $60 deficit, depending on if they buy it cheaper or not at all, etc.
Now hold on. Control involves no form of genocide. That's my go to option.
But but space dictator or something
But but space dictator or something
Julius Caesar was a dictator too. All we gotta do is stab Star Shepard when he comes to the Senate House.
On the other hand, you can't undo genocide.
Julius Caesar was a dictator too. All we gotta do is stab Star Shepard when he comes to the Senate House.
On the other hand, you can't undo genocide.
Kinda hard to stab something that has become a gestalt hive mind,so while you figure that out enjoy your slavery.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Control Shep is no Caesar. He's more like Dune's God Emperor + Galactus. And this time, more creative than the Reapers. The galaxy is eternally screwed.
Julius Caesar was a dictator too. All we gotta do is stab Star Shepard when he comes to the Senate House.
On the other hand, you can't undo genocide.
I was sarcastic. Too many people want to portray control Shep as the next Hitler to make it seem like Destroy is not less moral.
yeah right, it's not like something stopped them from doing it before like with anderson not being a councillor or collector's base that always ends up in cerberus hands. good old bioware always cares about our choices
Relax, you'll still have plenty to complain about even if Bioware decides to completely ignore the endings from ME3.
If you're starting clean slate on a new series why would you want to create something based upon the ending of the former trilogy. Why give someone to complain about coming out of the gate? This starts someone off that choose a different ending with a negative perception towards the new storyline, also makes it confusing for players just starting to play Mass Effect.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I was sarcastic. Too many people want to portray control Shep as the next Hitler to make it seem like Destroy is not less moral.
Any all powerful force looming over everyone sucks. It doesn't matter if they're Hitler or not. They could be the fairy godmother. It still sucks. Except for Shepard.
It's one thing to believe in omnipotent gods watching over our lives.. and helping out. It's another to actually KNOW it at all times... every second of the day.
I think the thing people are most angry about isn't the fact that Bioware is sidestepping the terrible endings. They're angry because if Bioware hadn't messed up the endings of ME3 so badly and left the lore and universe in such a broken state, they wouldn't be forced to throw it all out and start over.
It's not the fact that they've moved on, it's the fact that it was the only option they had because they forced themselves into that position through their incompetent handling of the endings.
Had they not screwed up so badly, they could have moved on in a much more organic way, rather than the way they are now which feels like both a hail Mary and a copout.
The problem boils down to this: They didn't go to Andromeda because it was an exciting choice. They aren't going there because it makes sense or because it's the next logical step. They aren't going there because there was nothing left to explore in the Milky Way, physically or narratively. No, they went there because they broke the Milky Way as a setting so badly that they were screwed, so if they were going to continue the series, they HAD to move to a new galaxy. It's not organic. It feels forced and desperate, because that's exactly what it is. Grasping at straws and trying to make gold out of it. They didn't go there because it was an exciting choice, they went there because it was the ONLY choice.
If that doesn't encapsulate the scale of their blunder, nothing does.
I don't know. I hated the ending of ME3 but I would've been fine with the start of this series being a journey beginning before the Reaper War either way.
I feel like if you lock yourself into incorporating so many previous decisions in as canonized lore that it kind of diminishes the player decisions in previous games and restricts your creative direction going forward.
Destroy is the best ending,you save billions of lives at the expense of some talking toasters.The other options are stealing everyone's individuality and creating the Borg 2.0 or enslaving everyone by becoming imprint of the new Reaper overlord of the Galaxy
Though I give the geth more credit than "talking toasters" (a discussion for another thread), I otherwise wholeheartedly agree with this post. I find the geth to be an extremely unpleasant sacrifice, but it still the best option IMO.
On Destroy, the catch is that there's nothing preventing people from simply rebuilding the synthetics who were wiped out.
But yeah, the other two options are horrific. Turn the galaxy's hero into a Cthulu overlord, or forcibly warp everyone into cyborgs permanently.
Cosmic Horror
vs
Body Horror
vs
Fixable Genocide.
Yeah Destroy is the best ending.
I wasn't aware they were ignoring the old trilogy. I mean I believe I saw a guy walk towards the camera with the N7 logo... N7 was a huge part of the original trilogy, correct? I for one would just like to know why we end up in Andromeda and where exactly does this game fit in with the past three.
I'm not super hyped for this game, I'm looking forward to Fallout 4 and Dishonored 2, but I will get this game of course, but the hype level, I'm just waiting it out, see what Bioware releases in the future. I'd rather reserve my opinions for the game based on future content, rather than instantly shaming it based on a one minute teaser...
I think that if they weren't willing to canonise an ending(i'd of picked Destroy personally), couldn't Bioware of just made out like Shepard's story happened in alternate time line and that these new characters at somepoint during Shepard's story stumbled upon an say a temporal anomaly and went through it and then that caused a split in, disrupted the spacetime continuem and so they emerged in an alternate reality where none of the reaper/shepard stuff happaned etc. I mean that way we'd still get to stay n see the old locations and explore the 300 Billion+ stars, the 99% of the Milkyway that still remains to be seen. Star Trek uses that device alot n has no issues, i don't see why Mass Effect couldn't have done it.
I think that if they weren't willing to canonise an ending(i'd of picked Destroy personally), couldn't Bioware of just made out like Shepard's story happened in alternate time line and that these new characters at somepoint during Shepard's story stumbled upon an say a temporal anomaly and went through it and then that caused a split in, disrupted the spacetime continuem and so they emerged in an alternate reality where none of the reaper/shepard stuff happaned etc. I mean that way we'd still get to stay n see the old locations and explore the 300 Billion+ stars, the 99% of the Milkyway that still remains to be seen. Star Trek uses that device alot n has no issues, i don't see why Mass Effect couldn't have done it.
It's hard to pick which genocide endorsing ending is the "best" (or "worst"). I suppose it depends on how you want to come out as pro-genocide.
Ive heard that argument before...
One option is totalitarian, a second is genocide, the third is enforced evolution.
All of them are tough choices with a lot of pros and cons.
I wasn't aware they were ignoring the old trilogy. I mean I believe I saw a guy walk towards the camera with the N7 logo... N7 was a huge part of the original trilogy, correct? I for one would just like to know why we end up in Andromeda and where exactly does this game fit in with the past three.
I'm not super hyped for this game, I'm looking forward to Fallout 4 and Dishonored 2, but I will get this game of course, but the hype level, I'm just waiting it out, see what Bioware releases in the future. I'd rather reserve my opinions for the game based on future content, rather than instantly shaming it based on a one minute teaser...
for the record, no, N7 WASNT a big part of the original trilogy. It was just Shepards service ranking, a badge of honor on his armor. It's just iconic.
Personally couldn't care less about fallout or dishonored, both bored me to tears with the previous games.
I think that if they weren't willing to canonise an ending(i'd of picked Destroy personally), couldn't Bioware of just made out like Shepard's story happened in alternate time line and that these new characters at somepoint during Shepard's story stumbled upon an say a temporal anomaly and went through it and then that caused a split in, disrupted the spacetime continuem and so they emerged in an alternate reality where none of the reaper/shepard stuff happaned etc. I mean that way we'd still get to stay n see the old locations and explore the 300 Billion+ stars, the 99% of the Milkyway that still remains to be seen. Star Trek uses that device alot n has no issues, i don't see why Mass Effect couldn't have done it.
That is WAY too complicated.
They coulda just had it happen in milky way, in a remote location, with only vague references that SOMETHING happened.
As for time passing, there could easily have been some quarians and geth not affected by the war on rannoch, and the krogan are still long lived like Asari. Hell, Grunt could show up as the ancient warlord that Wrex is in the original trilogy.
Actually now that I think about it, Grunt, Liara, and EDI could easily have still shown up a century later.
I wasn't aware they were ignoring the old trilogy. I mean I believe I saw a guy walk towards the camera with the N7 logo... N7 was a huge part of the original trilogy, correct? I for one would just like to know why we end up in Andromeda and where exactly does this game fit in with the past three.
It's completely separate from the trilogy
Retour en haut