Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
54 
Denunciar este mensaje
I do think that they would be best served if they managed to canonize at least three of the four options (I think it would be acceptable to most that Refuse would not be part of that).
However, as I said in one of my other posts here, that's a whole lot of production effort in order to pull that off. Higher cost = higher sales expectations. And with the market as volatile as it is at the moment, that might not be a risk that they'll be able to take. So they might simply be forced to go with one and hope most everyone will accept it as is.
Which I think they can pull off if the game itself is great. (Which, of course, is also very heavily in the eyes of the beholder and/or gamer).
So personally, I'll wait and see what happens. In the meantime, it's fun to speculate :)
Huh? Destroy is literally genocide and leaves the galaxy in chaos forever by wiping out the Reapers (the only force in the galaxy that can enforce order) and all synthetic life. So basically, it's just a bunch of worthless organics running around warring against each other for territory. Only a short-sighted pyjak would find that ending worthy enough to even be considered for canonization lol. Control, on the other hand, leaves the galaxy in order, with God-Shepard ensuring peace and stability among all races and it allows the superior synthetics to prosper and keep evolving. That's a far superior ending in every way and it's not even close. Even Synthesis would be a better ending to canonize than Destroy, though I'm not a fan of Synthesis either, but at least it doesn't leave the galaxy in utter chaos.
As I explained to you in that other topic, you are wrong on this. The game pushing you towards Destroy does not mean Destroy is the better ending or the "right" ending, but the opposite. It's the ending that's shoved down the player's throat since ME1, the ending that players who don't think and who just want to shoot things are destined to get. It's why it's the short-sighted organic characters who advocate for it in the games, whereas the wiser characters like TIM are against it.
Again, fear-mongering and hypotheticals are not very convincing arguments against Control. What we have with Destroy is tangible genocide and the destruction of the Mass Relays, which plunges the galaxy in a dark age of chaos. Throughout the trilogy we see that organics are worthless, constantly warring and committing atrocities like the genocide of Rachni by the Krogan, the senseless persecution and attempted genocide of the Geth by the Quarians, etc. So, yes, you can sit there all day and make hypotheticals that God-Shepard, an ascended being far above the petty temptations of organics, will somehow go rogue, but the fact is you have zero evidence to back that up.
Nah, as I said, their only real chance at making an ME4 that is not a complete and utter failure is if they just do a series reboot. We had our fun with Shepard in the OT, it's time for the series to move forward with a quality new story and cast. Canonizing an ending from ME3 would be the end of Bioware, I'm shocked there are people here who cannot see this.
The indoctrination theory was started by bored redditors or forum dwellers who wanted to come up with an excuse to justify to themselves why picking Destroy (the ending where they commit genocide just to get an easter egg 3 second cutscene of Shepard taking one last breath) is better than picking the other endings that are far superior. It has been officially debunked by Bioware devs, but people still bring it up out of personal cope and headcanon to make themselves feel better about picking Destroy.
Yeah what could go wrong with a 100K year old species commanding an authoritarian regime using technology as old as the galaxy itself. Absolute power has definitely never corrupted anyone ever.
Yeah, sums up how 99% of Destroy fanboys think lol.
What Shepard is, is human - good and bad combined. Take a human mind, isolate it from everything that made it human and give it ultimate power. That's a recipe for disaster. All you're doing there is replacing the Starchild with another petulant child (one that I bet hung up on the Council every chance they got).
The Shepard that chooses control is a greedy, power hungry being in my opinion. It's a prime example of hypocrisy that Shep decides that the Illusive Man is unfit to take control only to take control themselves.
I feel the same about synthesis. Why did you bother killing Saren if you were just going to blindly follow his plan anyway? Sure, Synthesis promotes universal understanding and peace, but it was only able to do so because Shep took that choice from the galaxy. Shepard revokes their free will in making that choice because "they know better."
There's no point in having another game if Control is the canon ending. The galaxy has no need for the player to even have an adventure when God-Shep just sends out the Reapers to clean up problems.
Synthesis removes the possibility of conflict since everyone can link together and understand each other's motives and desires. Once again, there is no need for player intervention because there are no (internal) problems in the galaxy. You would need an outside threat for the galaxy to face, and once again the Reapers are still around to annihilate that problem.
With Destroy the Reapers and synthetics are gone, yes. That just leaves the organics with their messy diplomacy and mundane desires. A perfect breeding ground for conflict and player agency.
Even with Refusal being the worst ending (and yes, I see it as an ending since it shows you the consequences of refusing to choose) it's more fit than Synthesis/Control to allow a problem to arise that requires the player acting. It's just you won't be having Asari or Krogan or Turians running around, you'd have new races like the "Qualolos" or "Exnarls". Although in this case the Reapers would still be the antagonists since they killed off the Shepard Cycle.
What we're discussing is for argument's sake only and yes, Control is the best ending by far. The only arguments people have against control are inane hypotheticals and fear-mongering.
Yeah billions of people combined forces and sacrificed their lives ( synthetics included ) so Shepard could have the chance to destroy the reapers. They didn't do that so Shepard could change everyone without their consent via synthesis, or rob them of the choice to shape their own futures with control. Sorry but after Anderson dies next to him, Shepard would have to be straight up evil to do anything but follow through with the plan.
More like an educated observation on human behavior based on empirical data spanning thousands of years. As a human myself, I know better, we're not to be trusted.
But I guess with Leviathan DLC it's ok.
Point is, you can ascribe all the epithets you want to try to present Control as bad and Destroy as good ,but facts are facts. Destroy is the worst ending, it genocides the only races worth keeping around while giving the greedy, reckless organics who know nothing other than constant war and chaos the freedom to turn the galaxy into their personal playground with no one around to keep them in line. It's what would happen if we allowed anarchists to get their way. Society would crumble immediately, all hierarchical structures would cease to exist and then you're left with a lawless wasteland until everyone inevitably wipes each other out.
If you think it's evil to impose order, but think the alternative to that which I described above is preferable, then you've already made my argument for me lol.
Control isn't the ending that trusts humans, that's Destroy. Control is the ending that trusts God-Shepard, an ascended being, to bring order to the galaxy. Shepard after Control is not a human being anymore, he's the impartial judge, the only form of life capable of making the determinations that will keep the organic scum in line. So, we agree that organics are not to be trusted, but then why are you putting them in charge of everything with Destroy? You make no sense.
Can we agree that this is all opinion and that all of our opinions on this are equally valid?
I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this. The Reapers already bring "order" every 50,000 years (by destroying all spacefaring life), only to find that the victims of their strategy are not happy about it. Seeing the Reapers being changed to "hey, we're really your friends now, promise, because there's this one person who controls us all" would probably not convince many people. And so what happens when they resist the "new" Reapers and this new self-made god (who absolutely will be corrupted by that power - but that's not the point here)?
Never in either of the three games does Shepard ever utter that they want to become god or god-like or that Control is even an option they are considering (nor do I think they even are that in the end). They are taking up a responsibility that they are uniquely qualified for and have the resilience to see through to the end, and they say over and over again that the goal is to destroy the Reapers. I'm not sure that they would change their mind in the last minute.
Never said it was the "right" ending - I said it was the intended ending. Also, I don't "just want to shoot things"- in my opinion, Destroy is what Shepard sets out to do, so ending the game that way to me is the only logical choice in-game (also the correct one IMO within the framework provided by the game).
Technically, that's a hypothetical as well, is it not?
Similarly, you have nothing to back up your claim that Shepard has in any way ascended to god status. Special, certainly. Resilient, yes. Unique, absolutely. God? No.
My mistake - I interpreted reboot as "remake".
Also, though, I think there would be quite a number of people who would be willing the canonization of one particular ending if the game ends up being awesome.
Ya know, not everyone who picks Destroy needs to make themselves feel better about it since apparently it was the right choice for them in the game.
Like... a human who's spent their entire life in the military who has now usurped the greatest fighting force in known existence (the reapers) and is now turning the galaxy into their personal playground with no one around to keep them in line?
Hitler also wanted to impose order on the world. As did Mao, Stalin, Guevara... the list goes on.
At least with Destroy the survivors are allowed to self determinate their future. Control just makes Shepard the authoritarian.
I don't agree that the next game needs to be a reboot. It might well be.
Seeing as we can't even agree on much in this particular thread, it'll be impossible for the producers (and by extension the devs) to fulfill everyone's desires. It'll be interesting to see how they handle it. Whether or not we agree with or like what they end up doing, is a discussion for when the game is released, I suppose.
However, if they did end up making Control the canon ending, this would make Shepard and his army of Reapers a formidable antagonist in the next game.