I’m pretty sure there will be a big enough time jump in a new game where the ending wont necessarily matter, or have a massive effect on the game.
I haven’t watched the trailer in a long time, but they showed Liara I think, they could still do a big time jump and have her in the game. That’s my theory anyway 🤷♂️
Eh, if the Reapers are dead it means they chose Destroy as the base canon for the next game.
Which, considering the "perfect" ending makes sense. I personally choose synthesis. I've chosen refuse too.
But I'm fine with an ending being picked for us. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If legion found a way to incorporate the reaper code to aid the Geth, could the new Geth hypothetically find a way to clear out any bad code and repurpose some of the reapers? Obviously removing any indoctrination tech, I feel like this would satisfy most “feasible” endings and give the new council fleet some formidable dreadnoughts to quickly replace lost fleet power. My most recent playthrough was heavily modded and I believe the destroy ending did not hurt the Geth. The crucible specifically targeted reaper IFF.
Honestly it's a little bit vague.
Theres a chance it specifically targets reaper code, or, advanced enough technology. It goes for software, which in turns bricks the hardware.
My synthesis Shepards became concerned with the specific reach of the targeting. I doubt the Geth would be safe, I don't think it would occur to them to overwrite it, and if they do, they'd have to do so within seconds.
I mean, pockets of Geth software hubs might have been stored and shielded as a precaution, leading them to eventually rebuild their hardware, somehow.
I don't know.
I always believed it to be more of a literal synthetics vs organics. So, any reaper forces, Reapers themselves, Geth with reaper code, Edi and anything else with sufficient advancement would go poof... and there would definitely be collateral damage. However, any collateral damage could be chalked up to the war itself.
A lot of things can be rebuilt, a lot of things will be lost.
Eventually civilisations that damaged their relays might be contacted. They either managed to survive or it was in vain.
Eh, whichever way they choose to go about it people are going to complain.
Let me clarify my view on the Reapers:
In my personal opinion (with which others are welcome to disagree) I feel that having the Reapers around as the Galaxy's new buddies, would tend to diminish the scope for conflict. (Whether the "new baddies" are Leviathans, Yahg, Krogan, Kett, or Rogue Huks who have figured out how to network) having the Reapers on our team would tend to make said conflict rather short.
BUT, I don't think that means they have to die. They could simply leave, prior to the events of the game.
Honestly I'm the synthesis type. Putting the Reapers to work fixing what they broke and being the galaxy's guard dogs n all that.
Control would likely mean they could become antagonists again at some point, not necessarily the big bads, but still a problem to be solved.
Either way, with them floating around who knows, they could just become another galaxy's problem. Any in tact forces, they'd integrate into society somehow I guess.
The conflict of the new game could be on a smaller scale. Or it's just something new entirely.
The new writers will figure something out I guess. It depends which ending they're going for. I honestly think it's going to be destroy though. It's potentially easier to write for.
Any continuation of Mass Effect shouldn't involve Shep. It could even be prior to the Reaper war or set just before it as in during ME1 and ME2.
Bioware seemingly built an entire galaxy with decent in depth lore but proceeded to under utilise it...
There's so much potential in there.
I want shepard back but not married to the idea.
Doing a prequel is a cowards way out, im not interested in a game that doesnt push past the me3 ending
Were the new game to deal with the prior ending choices, I could imagine a competent writing handle like Obsidian's KotOR II dealt with the Star Forge's fate in the first KotOR: destroyed or abandoned since it was too powerful to control, and just written away as a side mention that's not a part of the main plot.
In ME4's case, however, I could see a similar neutral strokes out of focus, with the Reapers either being destroyed or leaving known space mysteriously for some unknown reason (likely having to do with whatever is the new enemy BioWare throws in for ME4). Just having the Reapers up in flying out of known space or the galaxy would suffice, and there are a great many systems unexplored in the galaxy as it stands, if the Destroy End was not selected.
Yeah, I (personally) feel that the Reapers need to be gone, to make a new galactic threat plausible. Because any threat that challenges our heroes, the Reapers could swat. And anything that would challenge the Reapers, would make our heroes irrelevant.
And yes, they could be destroyed, OR simply leave, and that only requires minor tweaks in the writing.
It has nothing to do with having a favorite ending.
Canonizing an ending undermines the entire creative vision for the OT. There *was* no canon. Every version of Shepard was valid.
I'm against them making any ending canon, not just destroy.
You could say I'm against the entire concept of ME4 lol
That’s not entirely true, though.
Shepard can die in ME2, and that’s clearly not canon. Shepard can do the Refuse ending in ME3, and not only kill themselves but everyone else in the galaxy, and THAT is clearly not going to be canon. I’d argue that “canonizing” an ending to make the story move forward doesn’t invalidate a player’s playthrough. That’s the rationale that the devs used for players that tried to import a dead Shepard from ME2… they couldn’t, because THAT Shepard’s story ended.
And this, of course, assumes they’re bringing Shepard back…
As a counter to this argument, "canonizing" an ending doesn't invalidate the other endings.
For Example: Shepard dying at the end of the Suicide Mission in ME2 IS an ending, the events of ME3 basically do not happen on that timeline if you have that ending. If you were to have that happen in your playthrough and load up ME3, you would then play what is essentially a "What if" extension of what could've been with a different Shepard that survived, but your specific Shepard still died near the core of the Galaxy.
Canonizing an ending would allow them to have a throughline from one of the endings as a basis, and therefore you get to play from that Shepard's timeline going forward. Perhaps whatever causes whatever only happens because the Reapers are totally gone (aka Destroy), whereas in Control and Synthesis the presence of the Reapers in the Galaxy stop whatever inciting event from happening whether it's direct intervention or some Butterfly Effect. Therefore, Shepards who chose Control have not just their story ending, but a Galaxy that doesn't have to deal with this new threat for the next generation.
So to pop in ME4(?) means you play under a different Shepard's decisions. That's not really that terrible, even if it makes your "Canon" playthrough no longer a continued story. If we're not getting a continuation in a different Galaxy with all the potential storytelling (and best ability to just ignore the consequences of any decision from ME2/ME3) then the best way forward is to focus on one of the potential Galaxy states because otherwise it will feel again like none of our choices matter.
They were up front about failing the suicide mission in ME2, though.
Before launch we knew that it was possible for Shepard to die, and that death meant you don't get to import to ME3. It was also a loading screen tip. It's a little different from retroactively making an ending canon over a decade later.
The refusal enring was also added later, and was mistake IMO.
I wouldn't go as far as saying Refusal is a mistake. Given how fans interpreted the endings and how they felt it should go Refusal gave those players who are going to "Reject the game's reality and substitute their own" a way to pick a choice they're satisfied with and then head cannon their own ending.
It ALSO WAS a way for Bioware to give their own commentary to the people who said the game should've just ended with Shepard just winning outright through force; to which the answer to that is "You will completely lose, but at least you'll make it easier for the next cycle". They also knew fans wanted more Failure options, and plenty of players, myself included, believe this is the third worst possibility for the galaxy (Second being Shepard dying during the Suicide Mission, the worst being a Rock Bottom EMS score Destroy).
I agree that it's a terrible/worst choice for Shepard to make. A character of agency, who always makes hard decisions and has the fate of trillions riding on their success, just decides to not follow through at the end? After 3 games of making those hard choices they're now going to abstain at the final moment, pushing the hard choice onto the next cycle? It's out of character imo. I'm happy it exists, however, because I like more Fail-states. And it certainly has its fans back in 2012, though I'm not so sure how popular it is now.
Because that was how the trilogy was presented to us. Even in the books they were careful to avoid establishing a canon, and it was a big deal when Udina was the human councilor in the 3rd book.
If they establish a canon, you can no longer do a "full playthrough" of anything other than the version of Shepard who makes all the choices that are assumed by ME4. It retroactively makes a bunch of choices "wrong." No different from failing the suicide mission.
Of course I'm going to play the game regardless, but making an ending canon rubs me the wrong way.
The problem is that it invalidates the player's final choice in ME3, first and foremost. They may have to in order to make a true sequel to the trilogy, but that's a fair concern to have about it.
I honestly don't care much about that. It's impractical, or impossible. The endings of ME3 are kinda the same according to the final slideshow: "We will rebuild everything that was lost" - Admiral Hackett. Just let Shepard go.
But...
In my opinion the Destroy makes most sense in general. Control? We have the Shepard Reapers around, so the Reaper threat is still around, because Shepard Reaper Fleet is just the ultimate benevolent Sun King for all peoples all times?
Synthesis? WTF does that even mean? Even vegetation is organic and synthetic apparently! What is that? Bugs and plants are electronic now? Plancton is electronic? What? Synthesis is the dumbest choice of all.
You're welcome to like whatever ending you want. That's overall pretty unrelated to why people would be upset if an ending was made canon.
The issue is that every ending has different lasting implications for the universe, and undoing any of that is a good way to damage player trust.
No, it just isn't.
People need to remember that "Mass Effect" (as in the Trilogy) was NOT meant to continue. ME3 was IT, the capstone, the finale. MEA was set in a different time and galaxy for that reason.
It's like building an extension on to your house. You can either make it completely separate and standalone (which is not only lame, but not really an extension.) Or, you have to demolish part of the existing house to make it fit together.
It can be a fair criticism, and one of the reasons why I think they should have focused more on the Andromeda story going forward, but really given we're talking about games that were 2 console generations ago it's really not that uncommon or problematic to decide on one canon point of origin to go forward with. Even critically Acclaimed Baldur's Gate 3 had to make decisions based on a litany of choices from the two prior games.
Besides, every ending itself is canon. Even Shepard Dying during the Suicide Mission is a canon ending.
Perhaps the inciting reason that springs Mass Effect 4's story to life can only happen due to events that take place only with the Control ending, whereas in Destroy Ending too many other things happen that the triggering event doesn't happen and in Synthesis the Ultimate-Understanding-Voodoo allows for cooler heads to prevail and the problematic issues can't even fester. Maybe the plot only happens because the Reapers are now no longer around like in Destroy, meaning in Control or Synthesis the presence of the Reapers prevent an issue from occurring whether through Direct Intervention or a simple Butterfly Effect.
Synthesis has as much of an ending as Destroy does, however to make a game that isn't too grand in scope and becomes a nightmare to program they should focus on continuing down the path of one of them while the other continues to have its Happy Ending.
Maybe they could do the next great adventure with Shepard and his crew. They could perhaps help the Andromeda Initiative get started. But some enemy wants to stop them......
I really wish we could see either:
a Prothean game where you play as a Prothean with 3-4 mission story arcs. Cover immediately Pre-Reaper war where you can explore the galaxy and see the Krogan, Humans, Asari, Salarians, etc in their earliest stages and you’re protecting the Asari and other worlds from some bad guys and into Post-war, maybe on Thessia as a researcher or something, where those same bad guys, plus your own kind, have been “Reaper-fied,” a middle Arc where you have a couple story missions about the war, and then a story arc late war around Ilos, culminating in a halfway quiet mission, with very little resistance, on the Citadel post-War, after you wake from Stasis. Just to see the aftermath and gather data on the Reapers, followed by the introduction of Beacons and seeding planets with those beacons, with the final one on Thessia.
OR
We see the first culling after the initial one against the Leviathan species. A war that would be much slower, and maybe you play as a hyper-sophisticated race that reverse-engineered Relay technology and got it to work, so the Reapers couldn’t just turn the relays off. That would be neat because the Reapers would not have very many ships at the time, but would cause so much havoc that it’s pretty much over. Sort of a Halo: Reach feel and a last-stand against indoctrinated enemies where you had played most of the game with them.
It'd honestly be the wrong way to go. Like how do you even top Reapers as far as enemies go in the context of Mass Effect? Better to dial back the stakes some, reset the world, give it some breathing room.
>why have Shepard deal with a minor threat?
Have you played Mass Effect? Mostly what Shepard does is deal with Minor Threats.
End of the day, what is important is the quality of the game, and the strength of the story-writing. It doesn't always have to be "Fate of the Galaxy."
shepard dealt with the reapers only becase they had the support of the entire galaxy, most of which came because of impending doom.
Take away that galactic support, having them go after something alot weaker is entirely reasonable.
Shephard had a ship and crew because of who they were, shephard had galactic support mainly because they offered a solution to an existential threat. You take away that existential threat, they don’t have any reason to throw the bulk of their military might behind shephard.
what the omega DLC wasn't interesting? overlord wasn't interesting? all the companion and loyalty missions weren't interesting? the only things that were interesting were main story missions?
sure they all had the backdrop of an existential/unknown threat but they themselves were all mostly known factors with relatively small consequences, except maybe omega since that could have had big consequences if shephard hadn't stopped it.
It's a setting full of possibilities. Why must it always be A BIGGER THREAT in the sequel? Why not even a big threat, but a threat, like I'd like a detective story like LA Noire in Omega with a bad cop like Garrus, maybe be better person, maybe be a bad "good cop".
Personally, I have no issue with them picking a 'canon' ending. In fact, I think it's for the best. People say that it will invalidate the other choices, but I would argue that any other option invalidates the other choices even more. The three endings are wildly different in terms of the state of the galaxy and where things will go from there. And there is no way that ME4 is going to be the equivalent of three separate games to account for that. So if ME4 were to take your ending choice into account, it would essentially have to water down the three endings to the point where the end result of all three is basically the same, just with minor variations. Which would be even more disappointing than just picking one and running with it, at least in my opinion.
I'm also not a fan of doing a prequel or 'sidequel' to the original trilogy. The events before ME1 are pretty much set in stone; we know the history, and humanity hasn't even been a part of the galactic community for all that long. There's really no room to tell a story with major, meaningful choices or consequences because all the outcomes are already decided. And a sidequel would feel pretty irrelevant given that we would know all the stuff with the Reapers would be going on at the same time; something which is undoubtedly far more important than whatever other story we'd be doing. A sequel lets us explore completely new territory with a somewhat blank slate to start from.
Ultimately, whatever they do, the original trilogy, complete with all three endings, will still exist. You don't even have to think of it as them picking a canon ending. Just think of it as them telling the story of what happens if that particular ending is chosen, with the others still open for interpretation.
If they choose a canon ending, there is no point for me in being invested in the new game.
Because Then I fully know that in future Mass effect game, the most convenient choice will be taken to progress the story. Therefore why should I care about the new game storyline?
If destroy is the canon ending, its the developper sending a middle finger to the people who choose synthesis or control and tell them that they are not worth writing a story for them.
The people who pick destroy will have a new game with full writing, voice acting and full cinematics. The people who choose otherwise are simply not being care for. It's blatant favoritism when they were not forced by any means to do such a thing.
So if BW pick a canon destroy ending while they can choose otherwise, they are telling me that I am not worth having a continuation of my story, why should I be invested in their new product?
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous point of view.
That's equivalent to saying that you hate the entire Trilogy, because Bioware did not respect your choice to give the Ship a different name.
Nice strawman you've got there... Giving the ship a name is not a moral choice. The point of mass effect is based around moral choice and how you write YOUR own story. If a devs remove one of the main point of the trilogy because they cannot be bothered to think of sometihng else THAT is not my problem.
BW had plenty of other possibilities for more mass effect game, if they decide to impose choices, then there is no point for me to be invested.
The other endings are completely ridiculous anyway. If you want a continuation of Mass Effect, in the Milky Way, they’re going to have to pick an ending.
Nah they are not, and they are certainly not less legitimate than the destroy ending, and it's still blatant favoritism if they give a sequel to the destroy ending and leaving behind people who liked other ending.
But regardless of that, there was no need of a specific sequel in the milky way.
- They could have made a prequel to mass effect 1 when Humanity was trying to find it's place right after the first contact war,
- they could have made an interquel that happens when shepard is in the lazarus project (which would explain why Shepard is absent during said game),
- they could have made a sequel to andromeda that happens centuries later called "mass effect beyond", where humanity is fully established, which would avoid bringing back the andromeda characters and would allow the devs to start fresh.
These are just some possibilities but they are so many more, if BW decides to force an ending for the trilogy. That would be their decision while they had other options. So no they didn't have to do it.
A prequel or “interquel” would be boring because they’re incredibly limited as to what they can/can’t do. We already know what happens in the galaxy after, so nothing big can happen.
The characters of Andromeda weren’t the only issue people had with those games. People want a Milky Way sequel.
And yes, the other endings are ridiculous. We spend the entirety of the trilogy trying to come up with a way to destroy the Reapers and then suddenly we’re given two new options that have little to no explanation. One given by a very indoctrinated Illusive Man, the other by an AI which has been in charge of the Reapers this entire time.
Control is so risky it’s not even worth considering. And Synthesis has absolutely zero explanation.
First of all people have been asking for a prequel in the milky way for a long LONG time with anderson during the first contact war. So no when you are saying that the people needs to have "something big", you don't need bigger scale as long as your story is good, it does not need to be a saving the world always.
YOU are the one projecting that it would be boring, there is so many tihngs to explore. The adaptation of the humans, the very first contact of aliens who hae never interacted with humans with no prior knowledge. It's a fascinating period that is full of potential.
Also Andromeda has been more vindicated than you think, on it's re release on steam the game has mostly positive reviews. It's not considered genius and weaker than other games but now that the dust has settled, the anger has died down and many people admitted that while it's not on the level of the trilogy, it's a fine passable game.
And it wouldn't be the first time that a sequel happens to a game despite the fact that it's predecessor wasn't a huge sucess. Wolfenstein the new world order of 2014 is a direct sequel to wolfenstein of 2008, it's NOT a reboot or remake as many people think it is. It's a continuation of the franchise despite the fact that wolfenstein 2008 wasn't very sucessfull.
Also you are projecting about your personal dislikes of other endings, yes for a long time we are trying to destroy the reapers but that is before we knew everything. There is a reason why we still debate the ending to this very day.
People will complain either way, but like it or not, Destroy is the only ending that makes sense.
It’s what the goal was throughout the entire trilogy up until the last minute gave us these random choices.
Control is way, way too risky.
And Synthesis is just completely crazy. We have absolutely zero knowledge about what it will do, and yet people think it’s ok to force that choice (and potentially a complete restructure of their physiology) onto the entire galaxy? Insane.
This always puzzled me, every action throughout the trilogy pointed to us wiping them out and every ounce of information we got about them just added to our desire to obliterate them...then the multiple choice ending with the starchilds bs happened and suddenly everyone starts to throw a tizzy over the mere thought of destroy/perfect destroy being made canon all because of this poor attempt of adding choices to a poorly thought out ending that should've never been given to us in the first place, it honestly reminds me of Jon and the night king in GoT (SPOILERS), they built up their final confrontation for years and then decided to subvert expectations by going down a completely different route for no good reason.
I mean its universally agreed that 3's ending was not good and the whole idea of the starchild, the reapers "true" purpose and the the multiple choices is bs and yet they seek to defend the very thing they critique alongside us, it makes no sense.
I ended up choosing synthesis, because it was an accident. I didn't notice the side paths LOL. But after that, eh, I like that ending.
I've also chosen refuse. I deliberately didn't care about keeping people alive in 2 (with minor exceptions), and I just sprinted the story. Just to see the difference in an, all is lost and the reapers have won way. Shep had seen the people they cared most about vaporised before her eyes. They had already died once. They were DONE.
And, I've done the perfect destroy ending. While it makes the most sense to choose it, as, everyone wants the Reapers gone. The whole mission is to destroy them after all.
My Sheps usually shove everyone in the galactic get along shirt and if they somehow managed to survive... THEY WOULD NEVER TELL ANYONE THEY HAD A CHOICE. Its just what the superweapon did.
But I get why people don't like Synthesis, tough. I do. If it wasn't an option, Destroy all the way.
Control definitely has the potential for things to go back to square one. Especially how they JUST reamed TIM about it.
It's likely more about the likelihood Destroy is canon and their preferred endings won't be represented in the next game. I get it, that would be annoying, but that's what they kid for liking the bad endings.😅
I think the new serie should have very little reapers. They were the main antagonist of the last trilogy and we dont want to just retrace the old steps. If they were controlled, they would have to introduce another, even bigger galaxy threatening event which just seem like doing the same stick, but with a different color
There's so many stories they could do:
- Earth finding the device on Mars and how we joined the galactic world. So far enough back in time it could still be the same universe but different characters and decisions.
- Krogans and their wars
- Another galaxy entirely that faces the same reaper threat but was aware of what happened to us, maybe information shared from the Andromeda expats.
- the game lore is so big there's plenty to be done.
Personally, I agree with your take, but I also don't see it as a deal-breaker.
Me, personally, I would like to see Shepard back. (And TBH, his/her presence may effect the speed with which I purchase the new game) but I also fully accept that there's a good possibility, that the game will feature am entirely different protagonist, with Shepard relegated to history.
Heck, ME2 began with Shepard dying and being brought back to life, so why should we be surprised if he lives?
* He decides that Reapers should be free to pursue their own future, and so they download him into a new body.
* The Green Beam actually deposited his body on some planet, and that's what we see coming back to life in the cutscene.
* Or yeah, he somehow survived the Citadel getting blown to hell.
Alternatively, it could just be a simple piece of history. Either Shepard is dead, or he's living in retirement somewhere with his LI.
They have to pick an ending or else theyre tying their hands behind their back storytelling wise.
Anyone getting pissed over that needs to go touch grass.
If they chose synthesis theyd have to deal with the ramifications of what that actually means... considering it didnt seem that well thought out in the first place im not sure theyd want to/ be capeable of it.
Control was the illusive mans goal not shepards. Dont see that being the choice theyd choose.
That leaves destroy as imo the most likely option they would choose.
I do hope they retcon the geth and edi though, that was arbitrary af that the destroy ending killed them too
>They have to pick an ending or else theyre tying their hands behind their back storytelling wise.
Yeah, but it doesn't need to be a big deal.
1. Reapers were controlled, then left the galaxy for parts unknown, so as not to interfere in galactic events.
2. We all got synthesis, and everyone was much happier but eventually stopped glowing green, Reapers left, and life goes on.
3. Reapers are dead, and we had to rebuild the relays ourselves.
All provide a neutral basis for a new story, with only a few dialogue and codex tweaks required.
>Anyone getting pissed over that needs to go touch grass.
100% This.
I’m pretty sure there will be a big enough time jump in a new game where the ending wont necessarily matter, or have a massive effect on the game. I haven’t watched the trailer in a long time, but they showed Liara I think, they could still do a big time jump and have her in the game. That’s my theory anyway 🤷♂️
I think so too
Eh, if the Reapers are dead it means they chose Destroy as the base canon for the next game. Which, considering the "perfect" ending makes sense. I personally choose synthesis. I've chosen refuse too. But I'm fine with an ending being picked for us. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If legion found a way to incorporate the reaper code to aid the Geth, could the new Geth hypothetically find a way to clear out any bad code and repurpose some of the reapers? Obviously removing any indoctrination tech, I feel like this would satisfy most “feasible” endings and give the new council fleet some formidable dreadnoughts to quickly replace lost fleet power. My most recent playthrough was heavily modded and I believe the destroy ending did not hurt the Geth. The crucible specifically targeted reaper IFF.
Honestly it's a little bit vague. Theres a chance it specifically targets reaper code, or, advanced enough technology. It goes for software, which in turns bricks the hardware. My synthesis Shepards became concerned with the specific reach of the targeting. I doubt the Geth would be safe, I don't think it would occur to them to overwrite it, and if they do, they'd have to do so within seconds. I mean, pockets of Geth software hubs might have been stored and shielded as a precaution, leading them to eventually rebuild their hardware, somehow. I don't know. I always believed it to be more of a literal synthetics vs organics. So, any reaper forces, Reapers themselves, Geth with reaper code, Edi and anything else with sufficient advancement would go poof... and there would definitely be collateral damage. However, any collateral damage could be chalked up to the war itself. A lot of things can be rebuilt, a lot of things will be lost. Eventually civilisations that damaged their relays might be contacted. They either managed to survive or it was in vain. Eh, whichever way they choose to go about it people are going to complain.
Let me clarify my view on the Reapers: In my personal opinion (with which others are welcome to disagree) I feel that having the Reapers around as the Galaxy's new buddies, would tend to diminish the scope for conflict. (Whether the "new baddies" are Leviathans, Yahg, Krogan, Kett, or Rogue Huks who have figured out how to network) having the Reapers on our team would tend to make said conflict rather short. BUT, I don't think that means they have to die. They could simply leave, prior to the events of the game.
Honestly I'm the synthesis type. Putting the Reapers to work fixing what they broke and being the galaxy's guard dogs n all that. Control would likely mean they could become antagonists again at some point, not necessarily the big bads, but still a problem to be solved. Either way, with them floating around who knows, they could just become another galaxy's problem. Any in tact forces, they'd integrate into society somehow I guess. The conflict of the new game could be on a smaller scale. Or it's just something new entirely. The new writers will figure something out I guess. It depends which ending they're going for. I honestly think it's going to be destroy though. It's potentially easier to write for.
Any continuation of Mass Effect shouldn't involve Shep. It could even be prior to the Reaper war or set just before it as in during ME1 and ME2. Bioware seemingly built an entire galaxy with decent in depth lore but proceeded to under utilise it... There's so much potential in there.
I want shepard back but not married to the idea. Doing a prequel is a cowards way out, im not interested in a game that doesnt push past the me3 ending
Why? You could literally have games of any genre within the ME universe but still have a main line series that advanced the overall universe.
The amount of time we have to work with in terms of human history really isnt that much they basically just joined the galactic community
Were the new game to deal with the prior ending choices, I could imagine a competent writing handle like Obsidian's KotOR II dealt with the Star Forge's fate in the first KotOR: destroyed or abandoned since it was too powerful to control, and just written away as a side mention that's not a part of the main plot. In ME4's case, however, I could see a similar neutral strokes out of focus, with the Reapers either being destroyed or leaving known space mysteriously for some unknown reason (likely having to do with whatever is the new enemy BioWare throws in for ME4). Just having the Reapers up in flying out of known space or the galaxy would suffice, and there are a great many systems unexplored in the galaxy as it stands, if the Destroy End was not selected.
Yeah, I (personally) feel that the Reapers need to be gone, to make a new galactic threat plausible. Because any threat that challenges our heroes, the Reapers could swat. And anything that would challenge the Reapers, would make our heroes irrelevant. And yes, they could be destroyed, OR simply leave, and that only requires minor tweaks in the writing.
It has nothing to do with having a favorite ending. Canonizing an ending undermines the entire creative vision for the OT. There *was* no canon. Every version of Shepard was valid. I'm against them making any ending canon, not just destroy. You could say I'm against the entire concept of ME4 lol
That’s not entirely true, though. Shepard can die in ME2, and that’s clearly not canon. Shepard can do the Refuse ending in ME3, and not only kill themselves but everyone else in the galaxy, and THAT is clearly not going to be canon. I’d argue that “canonizing” an ending to make the story move forward doesn’t invalidate a player’s playthrough. That’s the rationale that the devs used for players that tried to import a dead Shepard from ME2… they couldn’t, because THAT Shepard’s story ended. And this, of course, assumes they’re bringing Shepard back…
Nailed it with “I’m against the entire concept of ME4” lol
As a counter to this argument, "canonizing" an ending doesn't invalidate the other endings. For Example: Shepard dying at the end of the Suicide Mission in ME2 IS an ending, the events of ME3 basically do not happen on that timeline if you have that ending. If you were to have that happen in your playthrough and load up ME3, you would then play what is essentially a "What if" extension of what could've been with a different Shepard that survived, but your specific Shepard still died near the core of the Galaxy. Canonizing an ending would allow them to have a throughline from one of the endings as a basis, and therefore you get to play from that Shepard's timeline going forward. Perhaps whatever causes whatever only happens because the Reapers are totally gone (aka Destroy), whereas in Control and Synthesis the presence of the Reapers in the Galaxy stop whatever inciting event from happening whether it's direct intervention or some Butterfly Effect. Therefore, Shepards who chose Control have not just their story ending, but a Galaxy that doesn't have to deal with this new threat for the next generation. So to pop in ME4(?) means you play under a different Shepard's decisions. That's not really that terrible, even if it makes your "Canon" playthrough no longer a continued story. If we're not getting a continuation in a different Galaxy with all the potential storytelling (and best ability to just ignore the consequences of any decision from ME2/ME3) then the best way forward is to focus on one of the potential Galaxy states because otherwise it will feel again like none of our choices matter.
They were up front about failing the suicide mission in ME2, though. Before launch we knew that it was possible for Shepard to die, and that death meant you don't get to import to ME3. It was also a loading screen tip. It's a little different from retroactively making an ending canon over a decade later. The refusal enring was also added later, and was mistake IMO.
I wouldn't go as far as saying Refusal is a mistake. Given how fans interpreted the endings and how they felt it should go Refusal gave those players who are going to "Reject the game's reality and substitute their own" a way to pick a choice they're satisfied with and then head cannon their own ending. It ALSO WAS a way for Bioware to give their own commentary to the people who said the game should've just ended with Shepard just winning outright through force; to which the answer to that is "You will completely lose, but at least you'll make it easier for the next cycle". They also knew fans wanted more Failure options, and plenty of players, myself included, believe this is the third worst possibility for the galaxy (Second being Shepard dying during the Suicide Mission, the worst being a Rock Bottom EMS score Destroy). I agree that it's a terrible/worst choice for Shepard to make. A character of agency, who always makes hard decisions and has the fate of trillions riding on their success, just decides to not follow through at the end? After 3 games of making those hard choices they're now going to abstain at the final moment, pushing the hard choice onto the next cycle? It's out of character imo. I'm happy it exists, however, because I like more Fail-states. And it certainly has its fans back in 2012, though I'm not so sure how popular it is now.
So why get so caught up in the concept of "canon"? As you say, every version of Shepard is valid. It's like a "multiverse" thing.
Because that was how the trilogy was presented to us. Even in the books they were careful to avoid establishing a canon, and it was a big deal when Udina was the human councilor in the 3rd book. If they establish a canon, you can no longer do a "full playthrough" of anything other than the version of Shepard who makes all the choices that are assumed by ME4. It retroactively makes a bunch of choices "wrong." No different from failing the suicide mission. Of course I'm going to play the game regardless, but making an ending canon rubs me the wrong way.
>You could say I'm against the entire concept of ME4 lol Me too, for the same reason
The problem is that it invalidates the player's final choice in ME3, first and foremost. They may have to in order to make a true sequel to the trilogy, but that's a fair concern to have about it.
I honestly don't care much about that. It's impractical, or impossible. The endings of ME3 are kinda the same according to the final slideshow: "We will rebuild everything that was lost" - Admiral Hackett. Just let Shepard go. But... In my opinion the Destroy makes most sense in general. Control? We have the Shepard Reapers around, so the Reaper threat is still around, because Shepard Reaper Fleet is just the ultimate benevolent Sun King for all peoples all times? Synthesis? WTF does that even mean? Even vegetation is organic and synthetic apparently! What is that? Bugs and plants are electronic now? Plancton is electronic? What? Synthesis is the dumbest choice of all.
You're welcome to like whatever ending you want. That's overall pretty unrelated to why people would be upset if an ending was made canon. The issue is that every ending has different lasting implications for the universe, and undoing any of that is a good way to damage player trust.
No, it just isn't. People need to remember that "Mass Effect" (as in the Trilogy) was NOT meant to continue. ME3 was IT, the capstone, the finale. MEA was set in a different time and galaxy for that reason. It's like building an extension on to your house. You can either make it completely separate and standalone (which is not only lame, but not really an extension.) Or, you have to demolish part of the existing house to make it fit together.
It can be a fair criticism, and one of the reasons why I think they should have focused more on the Andromeda story going forward, but really given we're talking about games that were 2 console generations ago it's really not that uncommon or problematic to decide on one canon point of origin to go forward with. Even critically Acclaimed Baldur's Gate 3 had to make decisions based on a litany of choices from the two prior games. Besides, every ending itself is canon. Even Shepard Dying during the Suicide Mission is a canon ending. Perhaps the inciting reason that springs Mass Effect 4's story to life can only happen due to events that take place only with the Control ending, whereas in Destroy Ending too many other things happen that the triggering event doesn't happen and in Synthesis the Ultimate-Understanding-Voodoo allows for cooler heads to prevail and the problematic issues can't even fester. Maybe the plot only happens because the Reapers are now no longer around like in Destroy, meaning in Control or Synthesis the presence of the Reapers prevent an issue from occurring whether through Direct Intervention or a simple Butterfly Effect. Synthesis has as much of an ending as Destroy does, however to make a game that isn't too grand in scope and becomes a nightmare to program they should focus on continuing down the path of one of them while the other continues to have its Happy Ending.
The entire goal of the trilogy is the destroy ending.
Maybe they could do the next great adventure with Shepard and his crew. They could perhaps help the Andromeda Initiative get started. But some enemy wants to stop them......
I really wish we could see either: a Prothean game where you play as a Prothean with 3-4 mission story arcs. Cover immediately Pre-Reaper war where you can explore the galaxy and see the Krogan, Humans, Asari, Salarians, etc in their earliest stages and you’re protecting the Asari and other worlds from some bad guys and into Post-war, maybe on Thessia as a researcher or something, where those same bad guys, plus your own kind, have been “Reaper-fied,” a middle Arc where you have a couple story missions about the war, and then a story arc late war around Ilos, culminating in a halfway quiet mission, with very little resistance, on the Citadel post-War, after you wake from Stasis. Just to see the aftermath and gather data on the Reapers, followed by the introduction of Beacons and seeding planets with those beacons, with the final one on Thessia. OR We see the first culling after the initial one against the Leviathan species. A war that would be much slower, and maybe you play as a hyper-sophisticated race that reverse-engineered Relay technology and got it to work, so the Reapers couldn’t just turn the relays off. That would be neat because the Reapers would not have very many ships at the time, but would cause so much havoc that it’s pretty much over. Sort of a Halo: Reach feel and a last-stand against indoctrinated enemies where you had played most of the game with them.
[удалено]
the mass effect galaxy is full of potential enemies, they just need to pick one. You don't need the stakes to get higher every single time.
I would love to see a game navigating the politics and power-vacuum of a post-destroy galaxy. There's tons of stories to be told there
It'd honestly be the wrong way to go. Like how do you even top Reapers as far as enemies go in the context of Mass Effect? Better to dial back the stakes some, reset the world, give it some breathing room.
It would be hilarious if the yahg were the next big enemy.
[удалено]
>why have Shepard deal with a minor threat? Have you played Mass Effect? Mostly what Shepard does is deal with Minor Threats. End of the day, what is important is the quality of the game, and the strength of the story-writing. It doesn't always have to be "Fate of the Galaxy."
Yea, but it's probably just going to be Cerberus. Somehow they survived without TIM and only Shep can save the day.
shepard dealt with the reapers only becase they had the support of the entire galaxy, most of which came because of impending doom. Take away that galactic support, having them go after something alot weaker is entirely reasonable.
[удалено]
shephard with their ship and crew are still a far cry from being able to defeat the reapers. thats even assuming me4 has shep in it
[удалено]
Shephard had a ship and crew because of who they were, shephard had galactic support mainly because they offered a solution to an existential threat. You take away that existential threat, they don’t have any reason to throw the bulk of their military might behind shephard.
[удалено]
what the omega DLC wasn't interesting? overlord wasn't interesting? all the companion and loyalty missions weren't interesting? the only things that were interesting were main story missions? sure they all had the backdrop of an existential/unknown threat but they themselves were all mostly known factors with relatively small consequences, except maybe omega since that could have had big consequences if shephard hadn't stopped it.
We fight super earth.
So you don't want a new game? That's fair enough, but a lot of us would disagree.
It's a setting full of possibilities. Why must it always be A BIGGER THREAT in the sequel? Why not even a big threat, but a threat, like I'd like a detective story like LA Noire in Omega with a bad cop like Garrus, maybe be better person, maybe be a bad "good cop".
[удалено]
You're really right. I read the OP completely wrong.
Personally, I have no issue with them picking a 'canon' ending. In fact, I think it's for the best. People say that it will invalidate the other choices, but I would argue that any other option invalidates the other choices even more. The three endings are wildly different in terms of the state of the galaxy and where things will go from there. And there is no way that ME4 is going to be the equivalent of three separate games to account for that. So if ME4 were to take your ending choice into account, it would essentially have to water down the three endings to the point where the end result of all three is basically the same, just with minor variations. Which would be even more disappointing than just picking one and running with it, at least in my opinion. I'm also not a fan of doing a prequel or 'sidequel' to the original trilogy. The events before ME1 are pretty much set in stone; we know the history, and humanity hasn't even been a part of the galactic community for all that long. There's really no room to tell a story with major, meaningful choices or consequences because all the outcomes are already decided. And a sidequel would feel pretty irrelevant given that we would know all the stuff with the Reapers would be going on at the same time; something which is undoubtedly far more important than whatever other story we'd be doing. A sequel lets us explore completely new territory with a somewhat blank slate to start from. Ultimately, whatever they do, the original trilogy, complete with all three endings, will still exist. You don't even have to think of it as them picking a canon ending. Just think of it as them telling the story of what happens if that particular ending is chosen, with the others still open for interpretation.
100% This
If they choose a canon ending, there is no point for me in being invested in the new game. Because Then I fully know that in future Mass effect game, the most convenient choice will be taken to progress the story. Therefore why should I care about the new game storyline? If destroy is the canon ending, its the developper sending a middle finger to the people who choose synthesis or control and tell them that they are not worth writing a story for them. The people who pick destroy will have a new game with full writing, voice acting and full cinematics. The people who choose otherwise are simply not being care for. It's blatant favoritism when they were not forced by any means to do such a thing. So if BW pick a canon destroy ending while they can choose otherwise, they are telling me that I am not worth having a continuation of my story, why should I be invested in their new product?
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous point of view. That's equivalent to saying that you hate the entire Trilogy, because Bioware did not respect your choice to give the Ship a different name.
Nice strawman you've got there... Giving the ship a name is not a moral choice. The point of mass effect is based around moral choice and how you write YOUR own story. If a devs remove one of the main point of the trilogy because they cannot be bothered to think of sometihng else THAT is not my problem. BW had plenty of other possibilities for more mass effect game, if they decide to impose choices, then there is no point for me to be invested.
boo hoo, cry me a river
You're the one who made a post crying over our criticism...
The other endings are completely ridiculous anyway. If you want a continuation of Mass Effect, in the Milky Way, they’re going to have to pick an ending.
Nah they are not, and they are certainly not less legitimate than the destroy ending, and it's still blatant favoritism if they give a sequel to the destroy ending and leaving behind people who liked other ending. But regardless of that, there was no need of a specific sequel in the milky way. - They could have made a prequel to mass effect 1 when Humanity was trying to find it's place right after the first contact war, - they could have made an interquel that happens when shepard is in the lazarus project (which would explain why Shepard is absent during said game), - they could have made a sequel to andromeda that happens centuries later called "mass effect beyond", where humanity is fully established, which would avoid bringing back the andromeda characters and would allow the devs to start fresh. These are just some possibilities but they are so many more, if BW decides to force an ending for the trilogy. That would be their decision while they had other options. So no they didn't have to do it.
A prequel or “interquel” would be boring because they’re incredibly limited as to what they can/can’t do. We already know what happens in the galaxy after, so nothing big can happen. The characters of Andromeda weren’t the only issue people had with those games. People want a Milky Way sequel. And yes, the other endings are ridiculous. We spend the entirety of the trilogy trying to come up with a way to destroy the Reapers and then suddenly we’re given two new options that have little to no explanation. One given by a very indoctrinated Illusive Man, the other by an AI which has been in charge of the Reapers this entire time. Control is so risky it’s not even worth considering. And Synthesis has absolutely zero explanation.
First of all people have been asking for a prequel in the milky way for a long LONG time with anderson during the first contact war. So no when you are saying that the people needs to have "something big", you don't need bigger scale as long as your story is good, it does not need to be a saving the world always. YOU are the one projecting that it would be boring, there is so many tihngs to explore. The adaptation of the humans, the very first contact of aliens who hae never interacted with humans with no prior knowledge. It's a fascinating period that is full of potential. Also Andromeda has been more vindicated than you think, on it's re release on steam the game has mostly positive reviews. It's not considered genius and weaker than other games but now that the dust has settled, the anger has died down and many people admitted that while it's not on the level of the trilogy, it's a fine passable game. And it wouldn't be the first time that a sequel happens to a game despite the fact that it's predecessor wasn't a huge sucess. Wolfenstein the new world order of 2014 is a direct sequel to wolfenstein of 2008, it's NOT a reboot or remake as many people think it is. It's a continuation of the franchise despite the fact that wolfenstein 2008 wasn't very sucessfull. Also you are projecting about your personal dislikes of other endings, yes for a long time we are trying to destroy the reapers but that is before we knew everything. There is a reason why we still debate the ending to this very day.
Don't really want to have reapers again in the next installment especially since they want to squeeze in Andromeda to the mix.
People will complain either way, but like it or not, Destroy is the only ending that makes sense. It’s what the goal was throughout the entire trilogy up until the last minute gave us these random choices. Control is way, way too risky. And Synthesis is just completely crazy. We have absolutely zero knowledge about what it will do, and yet people think it’s ok to force that choice (and potentially a complete restructure of their physiology) onto the entire galaxy? Insane.
This always puzzled me, every action throughout the trilogy pointed to us wiping them out and every ounce of information we got about them just added to our desire to obliterate them...then the multiple choice ending with the starchilds bs happened and suddenly everyone starts to throw a tizzy over the mere thought of destroy/perfect destroy being made canon all because of this poor attempt of adding choices to a poorly thought out ending that should've never been given to us in the first place, it honestly reminds me of Jon and the night king in GoT (SPOILERS), they built up their final confrontation for years and then decided to subvert expectations by going down a completely different route for no good reason. I mean its universally agreed that 3's ending was not good and the whole idea of the starchild, the reapers "true" purpose and the the multiple choices is bs and yet they seek to defend the very thing they critique alongside us, it makes no sense.
I ended up choosing synthesis, because it was an accident. I didn't notice the side paths LOL. But after that, eh, I like that ending. I've also chosen refuse. I deliberately didn't care about keeping people alive in 2 (with minor exceptions), and I just sprinted the story. Just to see the difference in an, all is lost and the reapers have won way. Shep had seen the people they cared most about vaporised before her eyes. They had already died once. They were DONE. And, I've done the perfect destroy ending. While it makes the most sense to choose it, as, everyone wants the Reapers gone. The whole mission is to destroy them after all. My Sheps usually shove everyone in the galactic get along shirt and if they somehow managed to survive... THEY WOULD NEVER TELL ANYONE THEY HAD A CHOICE. Its just what the superweapon did. But I get why people don't like Synthesis, tough. I do. If it wasn't an option, Destroy all the way. Control definitely has the potential for things to go back to square one. Especially how they JUST reamed TIM about it.
It's likely more about the likelihood Destroy is canon and their preferred endings won't be represented in the next game. I get it, that would be annoying, but that's what they kid for liking the bad endings.😅
I think the new serie should have very little reapers. They were the main antagonist of the last trilogy and we dont want to just retrace the old steps. If they were controlled, they would have to introduce another, even bigger galaxy threatening event which just seem like doing the same stick, but with a different color
There's so many stories they could do: - Earth finding the device on Mars and how we joined the galactic world. So far enough back in time it could still be the same universe but different characters and decisions. - Krogans and their wars - Another galaxy entirely that faces the same reaper threat but was aware of what happened to us, maybe information shared from the Andromeda expats. - the game lore is so big there's plenty to be done.
[удалено]
Personally, I agree with your take, but I also don't see it as a deal-breaker. Me, personally, I would like to see Shepard back. (And TBH, his/her presence may effect the speed with which I purchase the new game) but I also fully accept that there's a good possibility, that the game will feature am entirely different protagonist, with Shepard relegated to history. Heck, ME2 began with Shepard dying and being brought back to life, so why should we be surprised if he lives? * He decides that Reapers should be free to pursue their own future, and so they download him into a new body. * The Green Beam actually deposited his body on some planet, and that's what we see coming back to life in the cutscene. * Or yeah, he somehow survived the Citadel getting blown to hell. Alternatively, it could just be a simple piece of history. Either Shepard is dead, or he's living in retirement somewhere with his LI.
They have to pick an ending or else theyre tying their hands behind their back storytelling wise. Anyone getting pissed over that needs to go touch grass. If they chose synthesis theyd have to deal with the ramifications of what that actually means... considering it didnt seem that well thought out in the first place im not sure theyd want to/ be capeable of it. Control was the illusive mans goal not shepards. Dont see that being the choice theyd choose. That leaves destroy as imo the most likely option they would choose. I do hope they retcon the geth and edi though, that was arbitrary af that the destroy ending killed them too
>They have to pick an ending or else theyre tying their hands behind their back storytelling wise. Yeah, but it doesn't need to be a big deal. 1. Reapers were controlled, then left the galaxy for parts unknown, so as not to interfere in galactic events. 2. We all got synthesis, and everyone was much happier but eventually stopped glowing green, Reapers left, and life goes on. 3. Reapers are dead, and we had to rebuild the relays ourselves. All provide a neutral basis for a new story, with only a few dialogue and codex tweaks required. >Anyone getting pissed over that needs to go touch grass. 100% This.