How about in ME2 when the rachni (if alive promise to fight at Shepard's side against the Reapers:
"We know you seek the ones who soured the song of our mothers. When the time comes, our voice will join with yours. And our crescendo will burn the darkness clean"
Then in ME3 it turns out they promised to run and hide. 
How about in ME2 when the rachni (if alive promise to fight at Shepard's side against the Reapers:
"We know you seek the ones who soured the song of our mothers. When the time comes, our voice will join with yours. And our crescendo will burn the darkness clean"
Then in ME3 it turns out they promised to run and hide.
Well, they eventually did (can) after Shepard fixed their indoctrination problem.
The irony of this thread is that all the people going yes they should override player choice to expand the narrative have just painted themselves into a logical corner. If it is okay to ignore player choice to expand the narrative in the OP example and you agree with the reasoning then you should shut up about the game being in Andromeda. Bioware has overruled all your rants, opinions and QQing about the game not being in the Milky Way to expand the narrative beyond the setting of the Milky way.
So thanks for agreeing now stop the whining about the setting.
That should have been a thing we could do in the game.
I don't think player choices should have any affect on anything outside the game which it takes place. The Mass Effect trilogy has convinced me of that. Expecting them to carry over into future games is just a headache for the writers and frustrating to the players.
Heck, Baldur's Gate 2 has a more-or-less canonized outcome for BG1, and it's actually a superior game to the original.
While I'm not much of a fan of the import feature, it can add nice little touches if you keep things small in scale. Also, I don't see BioWare moving away from it any time soon. So hopefully they don't give us any more world/galaxy altering choices.
I don't think player choices should have any affect on anything outside the game which it takes place. The Mass Effect trilogy has convinced me of that. Expecting them to carry over into future games is just a headache for the writers and frustrating to the players.
Heck, Baldur's Gate 2 has a more-or-less canonized outcome for BG1, and it's actually a superior game to the original.
I agree, to me it doesn't make sense to have large diverging plots between games for it just hurts the end product of the game. Basically having a canonized ending at the end of each game where the major choice has an impact on the game we are playing, but the consequences have the same result moving into the next game. Smaller more intimate choices are what I enjoy for it adds flavour, but it doesn't dramatically alter the progression of the game franchise.
All the polls I've seen, regardless of how many participated, destroy was always chosen the most
That's because that's the only ending in which Shepard can survive; if the Destroy extended cut ended showing 5000 years in the future, with all organic life being harvested by a new AI and used as batteries in a giant Matrix style machine, proving that the Catalyst was right - people would still probably choose the Destroy ending because Shepard survives.
That's because that's the only ending in which Shepard can survive; if the Destroy extended cut ended showing 5000 years in the future, with all organic life being harvested by a new AI and used as batteries in a giant Matrix style machine, proving that the Catalyst was right - people would still probably choose the Destroy ending because Shepard survives.
Destroy was a kill first ask questions later type of solution and the underestimated threat of also eliminating the Geth and Edi wasn't much of a deterrent for the gung ho 'Merica population.
Canonizing an ending isn't really necessary for a game set in Andromeda, particularly if the colonists set out at some point either during or before the Reaper War, which seems likely.
It is something that Bioware would have to consider were they to ever create a sequel to ME3 set in the Milky Way, but that currently isn't in the works and may not ever happen.
Bioware has delivered: The Rachni Queen dead in ME1 then cloned in ME3, Udina or Anderson and Anderson steps down from the council and Udina steps in, Leliana dead in DAO yet lives in DAI.... So let's just tie up one little loose end and Canonize Destroy from ME3, It's not like we haven't seen it done before.
Every time they had excuse for it - Rachni captured by Reapers or finded another, Anderson never wanted to be off field, Leliana was right next to the Urn.
What would be the excuse if they canonize the Destroy Ending? I can't come up with anytning that includes the Synthesis. More likely they somehow merge every ending into the eventual Synthesis. That sounds like them much more, IMO.
Canonizing an ending isn't really necessary for a game set in Andromeda, particularly if the colonists set out at some point either during or before the Reaper War, which seems likely.
It is something that Bioware would have to consider were they to ever create a sequel to ME3 set in the Milky Way, but that currently isn't in the works and may not ever happen.
And also this. So we are probably solving dead thing here.
Can't we all just forget the endings and go to Andromeda already?
That's because that's the only ending in which Shepard can survive; if the Destroy extended cut ended showing 5000 years in the future, with all organic life being harvested by a new AI and used as batteries in a giant Matrix style machine, proving that the Catalyst was right - people would still probably choose the Destroy ending because Shepard survives.
Do you have anything that supports your post?
Whether or not Shepard survives, I still pick destroy
I hate the endings, but retconing them at this stage is bad for many reasons. If they were gonna flat out change them, the time to do that was 3 years ago. Just because Bioware has overuled and ignored player choice before, doesn't mean we should encourage them to do it again, even if some of us feel this particular case would be beneficial. I've already gone into how homogenizing the endings won't work in another thread.
I felt like the team who worked on Dragon Age: Inquisition did a good job addressing player choice from the previous two games. It seems like they made a real effort to get things organized with the Keep. Andromeda is a fresh start. Bioware has learned a lot about how to handle player choice in the past few years. Let's see what they can do with it.
Can't we all just forget the endings and go to Andromeda already?
I'm going to Andromeda, in order to forget about the endings. It's a clean slate for me to fall in love with Mass Effect again, the way I used to.
That's because that's the only ending in which Shepard can survive; if the Destroy extended cut ended showing 5000 years in the future, with all organic life being harvested by a new AI and used as batteries in a giant Matrix style machine, proving that the Catalyst was right - people would still probably choose the Destroy ending because Shepard survives.
Some people prefer Destroy because it is the only ending where Shepard can survive, but I don't know if it is accurate to say they're a majority.
Destroy is by far my favorite ending, and Shepard's survival never mattered to me. In fact I was fully expecting Shepard to die at the end of the game. Had Destroy been the only ending where Shepard dies, but saves galactic civilization, it still would have been my choice. I know from interacting with other people here in the years since ME3 released that I'm also far from alone in that opinion.
If you're looking to boil the popularity of Destroy down into a single reason, a more accurate one would be because it destroys the Reapers. People want the villains to lose regardless of whether or not the protagonist surviving is a must for them. Destroy is fairly clear cut in the villains losing. It ends with them dead. It is less clear with Control and Synthesis.
Do you have anything that supports your post?
Whether or not Shepard survives, I still pick destroy
http://www.escapistm...ending-spoilers
Granted it's only a limited sample size of 1 forum survey though so it's by no means statistically significant.
Synthesis: 7
Control: 3
Destruction (Shepard dies): 1
Destruction (Shepard lives): 34
Some people prefer Destroy because it is the only ending where Shepard can survive, but I don't know if it is accurate to say they're a majority.
Destroy is by far my favorite ending, and Shepard's survival never mattered to me. In fact I was fully expecting Shepard to die at the end of the game. Had Destroy been the only ending where Shepard dies, but saves galactic civilization, it still would have been my choice. I know from interacting with other people here in the years since ME3 released that I'm also far from alone in that opinion.
If you're looking to boil the popularity of Destroy down into a single reason, a more accurate one would be because it destroys the Reapers. People want the villains to lose regardless of whether or not the protagonist surviving is a must for them. Destroy is fairly clear cut in the villains losing. It ends with them dead. It is less clear with Control and Synthesis.
The "villain" to me is the Catalyst; the Reapers themselves are pretty much slaves... no matter whether you pick red, green or blue, the Catalyst is destroyed, so the options then become:
1: the Red (renegade) option : kill the Catalyst, its slaves, the Geth and EDI - save the organics. I say this is the Renegade option because it gets the job done, no matter the cost.
2: the Blue (paragon) option : kill the Catalyst, gain control over the slaves and save everyone else. I only say this is the Paragon option because you're getting the job done at the cost of your own life - although it's a slightly grey area since you've become the Reaper-god.
3: the Green (wtf) option : kill the Catalyst and "Reaperise" everything else! Every plant, every fungus, every bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian becomes partly synthetic... the Geth and EDI presumably get Reaper upgrades, like when Legion upgrades the Geth, mixed with some organic components somehow. Everybody lives but there's nobody cheering in the Extended Cut ending. Everything about it is a bit wtf...
1: the Red (renegade) option : kill the Catalyst, its slaves, the Geth and EDI - save the organics. I say this is the Renegade option because it gets the job done, no matter the cost.
I guess you like the geth and edi bot that you posted destroy being renegade? I don't care about them. The other thing is that the quarians destroyed the geth when I chose them. Destroying the reapers gives people a future free from the reaper threat
2: the Blue (paragon) option : kill the Catalyst, gain control over the slaves and save everyone else. I only say this is the Paragon option because you're getting the job done at the cost of your own life - although it's a slightly grey area since you've become the Reaper-god.
Yes the reapers are stopped, but as long as the reapers are still around, people will be looking over their shoulder wondering when/if the red beam of death will return.
The only way I would pick control is if the former human known as Shepard turned catalyst part 2 changes its speech in the epilogue. It says it will help rebuild the galaxy and then fly its toys into the nearest sun and have a slide showning the reapers are flying into the sun
3: the Green (wtf) option : kill the Catalyst and "Reaperise" everything else! Every plant, every fungus, every bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian becomes partly synthetic... the Geth and EDI presumably get Reaper upgrades, like when Legion upgrades the Geth, mixed with some organic components somehow. Everybody lives but there's nobody cheering in the Extended Cut ending. Everything about it is a bit wtf...
The green stuff. I cannot come up with a reason why I would want to pick that.
I guess you like the geth and edi bot that you posted destroy being renegade? I don't care about them. The other thing is that the quarians destroyed the geth when I chose them. Destroying the reapers gives people a future free from the reaper threat
Of course it's the Renegade option - you're prepared to allow an entire sentient species to be destroyed (whether you care about them or not) so that you can kill the Reapers. It's at least as renegade as not attempting to warn the Batarian colony when destroying the Alpha relay, or allowing the missile to hit the city rather than the military base ... and besides, it's red! 
Every interaction you have with Legion from ME2 onwards is designed to make you sympathise with the Geth or at least see them as being as flawed or noble as any organic species. Even Tali says that Legion has a soul if you make peace between the Quarians and Geth (which I did in 3 of my 4 play-throughs). The Geth then go on to help the Quarians start to rebuild Rannoch and they work together; both sides then provide War Assets.
The only way choosing Destroy isn't an entirely Renegade option is if you got Legion killed in ME2 or failed to make peace between the Quarians and Geth (which isn't possible if Legion is dead I don't think) and sided with the Quarians. Then the Geth are already destroyed at that point - you're still killing EDI though.
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
Hm...
This has anything to do with ME:A?
Bioware has delivered: The Rachni Queen dead in ME1 then cloned in ME3, Udina or Anderson and Anderson steps down from the council and Udina steps in, Leliana dead in DAO yet lives in DAI.... So let's just tie up one little loose end and Canonize Destroy from ME3, It's not like we haven't seen it done before.
I don't see your examples as BW canonizing choices. We still killed the Rachni Queen, we still installed Anderson. (Not going to speak of the Leliana example)
The Rachni Queen was cloned despite Shepard's decision. It's not like Cerberus (or whoever cloned her, I honestly forget) said to themselves "Hey, Shepard killed the Queen. We aren't allowed to bring her back!" Anderson still became councilman, then decided he didn't want the job. Neither of these choices were invalidated, they were just evolved due to later choices made by characters beyond our control.
Saying one particular ME3 ending is "What Happened" would, IMO, invalidate the choice we made.
This has anything to do with ME:A?
Saying one particular ME3 ending is "What Happened" would, IMO, invalidate the choice we made.
I can't understand why anyone would pick the red one honestly. Except if it's with the idea in mind of creating an easy place for a sequel to take place. But as like a canon ending? Why? Its pissing in the wind. Eventually there will be more AIs, there will be something reaper like again be it in hundreds of years or thousands or millions or billions. It'll happen again. Control is kinda eh cuz I really don't think Shepard was enough of a saint to be incorruptible for all eternity. Synthesize was the only reasonable choice from my perspective.
Destroy was a kill first ask questions later type of solution and the underestimated threat of also eliminating the Geth and Edi wasn't much of a deterrent for the gung ho 'Merica population.
Or it was the least evil and most rational choice. But hey feel free to believe what you believe.
Retour en haut
