751 réponses à ce sujet

[saladinbob]

Considering you just advocated for yet another "Shepard-centric" tale, count me skeptical. Bioware being done with Commander Shepard was announced before ME3's release. Is this genuinely about ME:A's direction, or is this another attempt at bringing Shepard back somehow? We tend to get a lot of that around here.

​

But as much as some people here are claiming concern for the integrity of the ME universe, it often sounds like they don't actually want the endings tackled. Your alternate universe is as much a "cop-out" in terms of addressing the ending as Andromeda is. If our concern is honestly Bioware tackling the endings head on, why not go the Synthesis route? That one does seem to take the most hits when people criticize the ending. I can't say it gets more head on than that.

 

 

Not necessarily. In that example - and that's all it is - you could use Shepard as the starting point, uncovering a whole new plot along the way. It's a reference point, not the centre point of the plot. You start out by trying to uncover the fate of Shepard only to uncover a new threat to the galaxy allowing the story to move beyond that allowing a new story to unfold but within a familiar setting.

 

The entire point is not to continue Shepard's story but to show what a post-apocalyptic, post-Reaper invaded Milky Way was. A chance to show a darker side of Mass Effect, a chance to change the entire dynamic of the game setting, for example, by showing a Council struggling for legitimacy, a developing arms race in reaper technology recovery. In the same way ME2 was still within the same setting as ME1, but by moving out of Council space and to the frontier, it allowed for Bioware to tell a darker tale. As you uncover the new threat, you would move to the fringes of known space which opens up the exploration the new game wants to focus on. 

 

As for Synthesis, I think that's the ending that would present the most difficulty in canonisation, given that it would create far more problems than it solved. Here's an enemy that that since time immemorial no race has been able to stand up to, including their creators, who is suddenly living alongside the races of the galaxy, helping them rebuild and sharing technology with them, so who becomes the antagonist in the new game? The game's enemy would have to be so supremely powerful in order to represent a threat the Reapers couldn't contend that any suggestion that mere mortals could defeat them would be laughable to put it politely. That particular ending is a can of worms that should never be opened.

 

.

[spinachdiaper]

If Bioware had the intestinal fortitude ME4 would of happened after a Canon Destroy ending in ME3 and then ME4 starts a very long time after the rebuild of the post destroy galactic society.

[Dean_the_Young]

If Bioware had the intestinal fortitude ME4 would of happened after a Canon Destroy ending in ME3 and then ME4 starts a very long time after the rebuild of the post destroy galactic society.

 

Why a destroy ending? Why wouldn't a synthesis ending demonstrate intestinal fortitude?

[ZoliCs]

Did my time machine work and I'm back in May?

[Han Shot First]

Why a destroy ending? Why wouldn't a synthesis ending demonstrate intestinal fortitude?

 

In terms of sheer 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!' bravado...definitely Synthesis fits the bill more than Destroy.

 

No ending except Refuse would be likely to trigger as much nerd rage as Synthesis being announced sole canon for a sequel.

[Fredward]

If Bioware had the intestinal fortitude ME4 would of happened after a Canon Destroy ending in ME3 and then ME4 starts a very long time after the rebuild of the post destroy galactic society.

 

If Bioware had the intestinal fortitude they would've stuck with the original ending. That's the one where the relays exploded right?

[Mathias]

Some people are just stupid. Nothing you can do about that.

 

That's the best post I've seen you make. Really. I love brutal honesty.

[FKA_Servo]

A lot of what has been shown can easily be found in other sci-fi series.

So basically what you're saying is that it's like all three previous Mass Effect games and every single other artistic endeavor ever?

I love Mass Effect to tiny little pieces, but I'd never accuse it of being staggeringly original. It's an artfully assembled pastiche of a bunch of stuff we've all seen a million times before. It's all in the execution, and that doesn't hinge on where in the universe everything goes down.

I really, really don't understand your perspective on this.

[Mathias]

Why a destroy ending? Why wouldn't a synthesis ending demonstrate intestinal fortitude?

 

If they had to canonize an ending, Synthesis is easily the worst one to go with for many reasons. Forget intestinal fortitude, it would take a special kind of stupidity.

[Chealec]

I'm pretty Shepard did save the galaxy by blowing up the reapers.

 

Maybe, maybe not (depending on Catalyst BS levels) - but he did so at the expense of an entire sentient species (not including the Reapers). Destroy is the worst possible outcome, even including Refuse... you're emulating the Reapers.

 

To save life on Earth from the Holocene Extinction you have to kill all humans; if you were given that choice, would you take it?

[Mathias]

Synthesis is essentially "The Borg Wins". Destroy is way more preferable in my eyes. 

 

My favorite thing about it is there's an entry on Sanctuary where you can listen/read a woman who actually woke up during the process of her being huskified, and her nightmarish reaction of her realizing that she is now a Husk. And now remember the moment in the Synthesis ending where the Green Magic BS wave hits the Husks and they become self aware. And that's not even getting into Scions, Banshees, and my personal favorite, the Cannibals. The ones who have a 2nd Husk head attached to them.

 

No exaggeration, Synthesis is possibly the most laughable and yet the most horrifying ending I've ever seen in any work of fiction. It's downright insulting Bioware sold it off as the best ending. 

[Chealec]

Synthesis is essentially "The Borg Wins". Destroy is way more preferable in my eyes. 

 

...

 

No exaggeration, Synthesis is possibly the most laughable and yet the most horrifying ending I've ever seen in any work of fiction. It's downright insulting Bioware sold it off as the best ending. 

 

Synthesis is creepy but I kind of agree with the Catalyst on it - I think that working together on Rannoch long enough there's a chance the Quarians and Geth could have evolved towards a symbiotic existence - the Geth are already "upgrading" Quarian immune systems by the end of ME3. Shepard himself is a cyborg. Eventually, given time, I think it's possible that something like the Synthesis ending could evolve "naturally"... the "wrong" bit about it, to me, is Shepard ramming it down everyone's throats, imposing his (or more likely the Catalyst's) version of what it should be (stupid circuit-board leaves). That way Banshees lie.

 

My personal order of preference for the endings:

• Stop playing after the Citadel DLC group photo
• Control
• Refuse (shoot the starbrat)
• Synthesis
• Destroy

Destroy is the Fascist ending - you must destroy all synthetic life to preserve current organic purity.

[Sartoz]

If Bioware had the intestinal fortitude ME4 would of happened after a Canon Destroy ending in ME3 and then ME4 starts a very long time after the rebuild of the post destroy galactic society.

 

                                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

But it's a new story about new characters.

[Sartoz]

Why a destroy ending? Why wouldn't a synthesis ending demonstrate intestinal fortitude?

                                                                                                 <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Synthesis? really?

No thank you. I like to keep my quads organic... LOL

[Han Shot First]

 

Destroy is the Fascist ending - you must destroy all synthetic life to preserve current organic purity.

 

That was forced into the story only to try and guide players towards Synthesis, which the two leads thought was the ideal ending.

 

In any case it isn't xenocide, as the destruction of the Geth is an example of collateral damage and not the intended function of the Crucible. It is only revealed in the last few minutes of the game, and the only alternative is allowing the Reapers to continue exist. Considering the Reapers were responsible for annihilating countless past civilizations and nearly succeeded in wiping out the current one, any outcome that allows them to continue to exist is simply not an option at all.

[Gtacatalina]

For me Shepard is Mass Effect so I'm a little sceptical on how Andromeda is going to pan out.

[Chealec]

That was forced into the story only to try and guide players towards Synthesis, which the two leads thought was the ideal ending.

 

In any case it isn't xenocide, as the destruction of the Geth is an example of collateral damage and not the intended function of the Crucible. It is only revealed in the last few minutes of the game, and the only alternative is allowing the Reapers to continue exist. Considering the Reapers were responsible for annihilating countless past civilizations and nearly succeeded in wiping out the current one, any outcome that allows them to continue to exist is simply not an option at all.

 

For me, if destroying the Reapers means destroying the Geth and EDI as well, then I'll take Control instead; Control or Destroy the Catalyst is still defunct which is the main thing.

 

If Destroy only destroyed the Reapers ... then maybe, just so I don't have to take The Illusive Man's ending.

[Zatche]

Not necessarily. In that example - and that's all it is - you could use Shepard as the starting point, uncovering a whole new plot along the way. It's a reference point, not the centre point of the plot. You start out by trying to uncover the fate of Shepard only to uncover a new threat to the galaxy allowing the story to move beyond that allowing a new story to unfold but within a familiar setting.

The entire point is not to continue Shepard's story but to show what a post-apocalyptic, post-Reaper invaded Milky Way was. A chance to show a darker side of Mass Effect, a chance to change the entire dynamic of the game setting, for example, by showing a Council struggling for legitimacy, a developing arms race in reaper technology recovery. In the same way ME2 was still within the same setting as ME1, but by moving out of Council space and to the frontier, it allowed for Bioware to tell a darker tale. As you uncover the new threat, you would move to the fringes of known space which opens up the exploration the new game wants to focus on.

But Bioware seems to have other ideas. How can you compare your vague theoretical ideas to Bioware's story ideas, of which we do not know what they are? What are they running away from by not using ideas that only seem to exist in your head?

[Matthias King]

they've decided on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Moving along.

 

It's too funny because as I was reading the OP's post, this was the exact phrase that sprung to my mind, then I scroll down and see it in your reply.
 

[Killdren88]

Why a destroy ending? Why wouldn't a synthesis ending demonstrate intestinal fortitude?

 

Synthesis was poorly conceived trite. At least with destroy you can argue that synthetics do survive considering Shepard is capable of surviving, and chalk up what the Catalyst said as simple lying. Plus as Han said, The Reapers don't deserve to live. Their crimes are too many and too cruel, and I hate the fact that EDI and the Geth must pay for their crimes as well. But since Bioware demands we head canon this crap, I will say then that the Catalyst lied and only the Reapers were destroyed.

[kajtarp]

there are choices still. we defeated the reapers but the leviathan are out there. cerberus is not destroyed. the krogan and the rachni is rebuilding. lots of choices left...

[Dean_the_Young]

If they had to canonize an ending, Synthesis is easily the worst one to go with for many reasons. Forget intestinal fortitude, it would take a special kind of stupidity.

 

 

Synthesis was poorly conceived trite. At least with destroy you can argue that synthetics do survive considering Shepard is capable of surviving, and chalk up what the Catalyst said as simple lying. Plus as Han said, The Reapers don't deserve to live. Their crimes are too many and too cruel, and I hate the fact that EDI and the Geth must pay for their crimes as well. But since Bioware demands we head canon this crap, I will say then that the Catalyst lied and only the Reapers were destroyed.

This is moving the goal posts. The standard wasn't 'is it a good idea'- or else, we could argue that moving out of an andromedea is a good idea on its non-intestinal merits. The merit, or lack of it, was based on intestinal fortitude.

 

It's a question we could also push towards the other endings. Refuse, for example- takes guts to abandon all the established races but keep the MIlky Way, which a lot of people have insisted is Really Important. Or even Control- considering the elephant in the room, it'd be rather brave for the writers to stand up for the inevitably furious fans of what their Shepard would be implied to do/not do.

 

These might not be particularly good ideas... but that's a seperate sort of argument that could be applied to Destroy as well. Which was claimed that the reason for not doing it was intestinal fortitude.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Considering the Reapers were responsible for annihilating countless past civilizations and nearly succeeded in wiping out the current one, any outcome that allows them to continue to exist is simply not an option at all.

 

I actually think the Reapers are truly "responsible" for very little. They were the tools of the Catalyst, which in turn was created by the Leviathans for entirely unjustifiable reasons, and I seriously doubt that the Catalyst allowed them to think about the ethics of what they were doing. They're sentient weapons, basically, who may have an entirely different perspective once the Catalyst's control is severed.

 

The Catalyst is probably not guilty by reason of insanity. I don't agree with its reasoning at all, and it's working from a set of flawed assumptions, but it's not sadistic or power-hungry.

 

The Leviathans, however, should be confined to Despoina if they aren't willing to renounce their predecessors' imperialism, and I'm assuming that a general order goes out to destroy all their enthrallment spheres once the war is over.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

See the dominant force on the board here is "destroy enders". Yet I know some people who chose synthesis and loved the ending of the game. They're waiting on the next Mass Effect game and are wondering how Bioware will deal with the endings. We should assume the same is with control. Do you throw these people under the bus? I've read too many posts that say: Bioware should make a canon and it should be my canon. Well, they can't do that. 

 

But ME3 is over. Three years over. Bioware's apology was The Citadel DLC which was pure fan service. They're not going to say "we're moving to Andromeda because the ME3 ending f&cked up the Milky Way so bad there is no way of continuing." They could say - "The Milky Way is still a wasteland. Aside from those showing the individual characters, the slides in the EC that showed everything rebuilt were a few thousand years later. We didn't want to write a prequel, nor did  we  want to write something that far out. We wanted to write something new and exciting only a few hundred years in the future."