• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Would you?

  • Yes. Easily.

    Votes: 388 73.5%
  • Yes. But it wouldn't be a trivial decision.

    Votes: 60 11.4%
  • No. But I would consider it.

    Votes: 18 3.4%
  • No. Not having a canon is a fundamental aspect of Mass Effect.

    Votes: 62 11.7%

  • Total voters
    528

Apollo

Corrupted by Vengeance
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,124
I'd really rather just they made a new ending lol. I can't ethically choose destroy or synthesis and reject is basically a giant "fuck you" to fans, so control was the only ever viable option (and it feels super shitty to pick it because you spend the whole game shitting on the illusive man for wanting to control the reapers).
 

Dr. Mario

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,042
Netherlands
Yes. Though not if it's synthesis ending.
But a new ME dealing with the aftermath of Destroy, where squabbling factions try to conquer nu-earth, or Control, where you play a rebellion against the Shepard, both could make for interesting games.

But until EA can prove that they can publish a quality singleplayer RPG without microtransactions and galactic readiness shenanigans, I'd rather they leave the franchise the fuck alone.
 

Tortillo VI

Member
May 27, 2018
1,963
My ideal Mass Effect 4 starts as a post-apocalyptic game set on earth after the events of 3, and it´s plot would be a ´Star Trek 09' time travel sheanigan about travelling in time to prevent the events with the reapers in the original trilogy to take place.

For this, all the endings would actually work. However, the synthesis ending would allow to justify a new set of abilities for the main character and even the wild time-travel idea. Also, become a being that did not exist in the original trilogy and one able to disrupt the Reapers.

I´d just love to go back to the universe as it was at the beginning of the trilogy. I´ll take any mad plot point, even time travel, to get the chance to "begin again" without the burden of the events of the first three games.
 

MrCibb

Member
Dec 12, 2018
5,349
UK
Fuck yes. Gimme a sequel with the Universe dealing with the aftermath of the Destroy ending and Shephard having survived. I'd be there Day 1!! ... After waiting for a few reviews first.
 

Akai

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,059
Broken record and etc.:

Can we just please get a Mass Effect trilogy, where they also retcon the ME3 ending? They need to get over themselves and acknowledge one ending, at least.

It's mind boggling that they are dodging any and all question about it and would rather move to a completely different galaxy, just to avoid it. Take the loss, because it means that you can go back to an already fascinating and well established universe that you have created.

To further clarify... I'd also take the Destroy ending, but without destroying the Geth. I always loved them and Legion made them even better.
 
Last edited:

Taker34

QA Tester
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,122
building stone people
I'm really glad the destroy ending gained noticeably more support as time goes by, because out of all the endings it's also the most tweakable one. You could easily retcon what happened to the Geth.

Last time I looked Patrick Weekes was still working for BioWare, so in terms of writing we could expect some good stuff. I'd personally like to see a continuation of the old crew, maybe with new faces mixed in.

Andromeda soured me on any new attempts which distance themselves from the original trilogy. It's hard to catch lightning in a bottle twice (ideal setting, characters & story). What writers have to avoid is trying to come up with more dangerous enemy superlatives, because the Reapers already represented the end of all things. There are many interesting stories to write about in a sci-fi setting like alien/human trafficking, terrorism, hackers, corrupt governments, PMCs etc.
 

Asbsand

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
9,901
Denmark
Do you think we'll get another ME game worthy of the title? I kinda do have faith in Hudson to make something of it, considering he's still active and been speaking about ME in a way that could mean we're getting another one.
I don't think Casey has what it takes by himself. He is good at having a vision and keeping things focused on that, but I dunno about him as a people manager. I've heard different things but obviously he has gained so much experience since the ME1 days, and likely learned a lot at Microsoft that makes him qualfiied as a studio manager. I think they need a writer with a strong vision as well. Cathleen Rootsaert who has been their lead since Andromeda and Anthem is pretty okay I think. Given her work with the Angara and Anthem of Creation and the like she's up there with BioWare's finest, but it looks like there's a lot of issues surrounding her work, and it looks like BioWare has to manage those parts better so you won't get distracted by tired faces or wonky plot conditionals that breaks the continuity and flow of the game experience.

I think it's possible for BioWare to make a good solid campaign again, really. But they have work to do and who knows how EA factors in, in letting them fix their problems and side-running I've been quite wary of the amount of pride and ego and career-climbing that seems to be going on internally, just from hearesay and observations. I've done lots of casual research on BioWare and I've chatted with just a couple of employees in the past and all I can speak to is my impression from those things. I'm no insider, but I do peek a lot when I can.
 

Deleted member 9306

Self-requested temporary ban
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
962
Honestly the easiest one is to just use the Destroy ending, since that's pretty much the only one where Shepard *wins* against the Reapers and isn't intro-

Oh right that theory isn't accurate. Well it's still the best ending.
 

Enduin

You look 40
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,525
New York
Destroy's biggest issue isn't the destruction of the Geth, but the destruction of the Mass Relays. Basically every one in a cluster is now isolated. FTL travel is an option but it would take several years to travel from one cluster to another.
That's not an issue, it's an opportunity. Mass Relays were a crutch that limited species as much as it advanced them. To lose or have them be heavily damaged means breaking that cycle of dependency and forcing them to create a new means of FTL.

ME was in large part about discovery. We the player were new to this Galaxy as we're humans at large within the setting. It was a journey of discovery, learning what was out there and what other shorebird were like as well as what it meant to be human in this much bigger universe. By ME3's end that's not so much the case. We've traveled to every corner, learned all about the current societies and governments of the Citadel species and beyond. It's not a new or foreign setting for us to explore and discover.

To me an ME4 is an opportunity to recapture that sense of discovery and newness. It's an opportunity to explore the aftermath of an unimaginably huge war that destroyed and irreparably damaged core pillars of galactic society. How would different species, societies, governments and the like react and deal with survival and how would they change and adapt to the challenges that faced them when the foundation of that galactic society is no longer what it was, fracturing and isolating then from one another.

Losing all or much of the Mass Relays would be one of the best ways to kind of reshuffle the galactic order. An opportunity to merge both the familiar with the foreign. If handled right and given proper care and attention to exploring how different groups would handle this, we could get a setting that is both recognizable yet fundamentally changed and different.

New governments and cultures could develop within previously known ones. The fracturing of the Galaxy could result in multiple diverging paths of the same species. How would one region and community of Turians or Salarians or Humans cut off from the rest of the Galaxy for an extended period of time respond to the challenges they compared to another group isolated somewhere else?

And how would all of these groups react when finally reconciled and reconnected with the larger galactic community. How would a century or more alone and cut off shape their new culture and society. How did their struggles to survive, the not knowing of what really happened to the Reapers, if anyone else survived and so on.

Plus there's then the other 99% of the Galaxy that was never explored as the Mass Relays provided no access to them that could be opened up by developing a new FTL system. New Allen species, new cultures, governments and technology developed independent of Reaper tech.
 

TheBaldwin

Member
Feb 25, 2018
8,316
Yeah, destroy ending probably. Think synthetic would be too boring

Although i still desperately want either a prequel or something similar to andromeda in setting. Enough of the galactic ending plots, make it more grounded
 

Kal Shintar

Member
Dec 11, 2018
322
They did canonize an ending. It was Refusal. Anybody who's played Andromeda knows that. Why you ask? Simple.

The mission to Andromeda takes approximately 633 years to cover the 2.5 Million light years to Andromeda. This averages 11 light years a day, which is a good speed for civilian ships in Mass Effect. Military Ships can do 15 light years a day and Reapers can do 30 light years a day. In two of the endings, Synthesis and Control, Reapers still exist. Which means that a Reaper could be in Andromeda 406 years before the Andromeda Initiative gets there.

So, what if the Reapers are destroyed? Still a problem A military ship would be in Andromeda 176 years before the Andromeda Initiative arrives. It's the old Wait Calculation/Lightspeed leapfrog idea. Any technological increase in the FTL speed by the Milky Way inhabitants will result in the AI arriving in Andromeda to find out that they've been beaten there.

As this didn't happen it's easy to guess that Shepard failed and everybody in the Milky Way is dead. That's why the Quantum Entanglement Devices the AI have aren't picking up the Milky way units
 

Ascenion

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,236
Mecklenburg-Strelitz
This for me too, I'd throw money at a real sequel.

....the biggest question then would be though, do I think new BioWare can handle this....and I'm not that certain they could :(
They can, Andromeda isn't THAT bad.

Yeah, destroy ending probably. Think synthetic would be too boring

Although i still desperately want either a prequel or something similar to andromeda in setting. Enough of the galactic ending plots, make it more grounded

This is the whole reason why Mass Effect 2 is the top tier of the series. It's the only one where you aren't saving the galaxy.
 

SpinierBlakeD

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 28, 2018
1,353
I'd rather Mass Effect take on small scale anthology stories. Something that doesn't involve saving the galaxy.

What about playing as a Nos Astra detective trying to infiltrate and bring down a crime ring? Something small and intimate. Hell, I wouldn't even mind a game that takes place exclusively on one planet.

It would allow the devs to continue making games set in the Milky Way without having to worry about tying in decisions from the trilogy.
 
May 26, 2018
24,106
They're short one writer and otherwise the staff that made ME3 is still largely intact. Obviously a lot of senior position members that the general public doesn't know is gone, but the biggest staff departure happened before ME2 shipped. They still have the same producers, directors and writers there that worked on ME2 DLC and ME3. Well, they're short 3 senior writers that I can think of but otherwise. The largest contributers to the most impactful things in the third game remain there, as do Casey Hudson and Mike Gamble and Mac Walters who became vision holders of the IP after people like Drew Karpyshyn left.

Biggest problem is the writers who made the first game possible have almost entirely left the franchise. That + BioWare's recent troubles = original sprit can not reasonably return.

Just enjoy the trilogy. It's all any of us can really do.
 
Last edited:

nel e nel

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,134
I'd rather Mass Effect take on small scale anthology stories. Something that doesn't involve saving the galaxy.

What about playing as a Nos Astra detective trying to infiltrate and bring down a crime ring? Something small and intimate. Hell, I wouldn't even mind a game that takes place exclusively on one planet.

It would allow the devs to continue making games set in the Milky Way without having to worry about tying in decisions from the trilogy.

C-Sec detective game set on the Citadel. Starring Garrus.
 

AimLow

Member
Dec 10, 2017
969
I'm assuming you mean continuing the story in the Milky Way into an ME 4? Because we kinda already got an ME4, it's called Andromeda (one of the most underrated games ever).

You answer the poll/question, I would totally be down for a Synthesis continuation. All of the Reaper/Synthetic hybrid augments would make for some wicked skill trees.
 

ClarkusDarkus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,734
I remember buying T-shirt merch during my Mass Effect pomp. Series died at ME3 for me, Bioware are nowhere near the same either now.

The fact they had to give the EC to fix the ending will go down in videogame history.
 
May 26, 2018
24,106
its nothing about being a believer, its about being wrong and desperating grasping to straws. honestly me3 burned its bridges with me, and i cant imagine giving a shit about the series anymore after i was a gigantic fan.

It took me a really long time to try ME again after ME3. Didn't play again until last year when I went back through the trilogy.
 

Asbsand

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
9,901
Denmark
Yeah, sorry to break it to you guys but the IT was definitvely debunked after Extended Cut. You're fooling yourself thinking we'd get 10 minutes of extended epilogues with grandstanding speeches and an emotional closer showing whether Shepard lived or died in all 3 outcomes if the real secret was that it was all a dream. It's beyond silly and it's time to realize in 2019 that there is no conspiracy. It is what it is.

There is no postmodern Kojima-style trickery here.
 

Mass Effect

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 31, 2017
16,917
lol this thread just reminds me yet again of what a narrative nightmare ME3 is from beginning to end.

Anyway, I don't even care what ending would be chosen as canon at this point. Just put us back in the Milky Way with all our favorite races and locations. There is still so much left that can be done there.
 

crimsonECHIDNA

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,642
Florida
High rating Destroy ending is the only one where they put that random shot of Shep taking a breath, so it always felt like that one they secretly considered canonical.

That being said they should KOTOR2 it and send the surviving Shepard and their crew off to the far reaches of space to monitor for further signs of unknown threats just to take them out of the equation.

Not just that but it was what the trilogy was explicitly building up. Saren tried to go the merge path and the Illusive Man tried to control the reapers and both scenarios backfired.
 

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,029
No, but mainly because I don't trust Bioware to make a decent followup, not because I think nothing should be canon.

Leave the IP alone, unless it's to remake/remaster the trilogy.
 
Feb 12, 2019
1,429
I mean, my real answer is that Bioware has poisoned the well so thoroughly for me that I don't trust them to do anything right with Mass Effect again. Just release slightly prettier versions of the original trilogy with all the DLC and I'll be good.

But, to be constructive, I'd think you can get away with making Destroy or Control canon as long as you fudge the details. (Maybe not all the geth were destroyed! Maybe the Shepard-controlled Reapers just left after a few years!) Either way, they should set far enough in the future to not use that original trilogy as a crutch.
 

Ushojax

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,942
Yeah, the one where everyone dies and only Liara's time capsule remains. That's the only one that made any sense. It allowed for future games without getting bogged down in the excruciatingly stupid details of the more complex "endings".

But I'll be honest, after ME3 I don't want any more. If BioWare ever make another scifi RPG I hope it's a new IP.
 
OP
OP
SofNascimento

SofNascimento

cursed
Member
Oct 28, 2017
21,556
São Paulo - Brazil
Yeah, the one where everyone dies and only Liara's time capsule remains. That's the only one that made any sense.

I think the first part makes sense, the latter not in the slightest. I mean, if all you needed to do was burrow a few capsules with information and the next civilization would be able to defeat the Reapers, then there is absolutely not way they could have kept the cycle going for so long.

That's the problem with overwhelming powerful enemies, it's very hard to come up with a way to defeat them that makes sense.
 

dgrdsv

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,028
All three endings majorly sucked so sure. Move ME4 storyline a couple of centuries into the future and it won't even matter much which ending was a canon one.
 

Ushojax

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,942
I think the first part makes sense, the latter not in the slightest. I mean, if all you needed to do was burrow a few capsules with information and the next civilization would be able to defeat the Reapers, then there is absolutely not way they could have kept the cycle going for so long.

That's the problem with overwhelming powerful enemies, it's very hard to come up with a way to defeat them that makes sense.

Who said anything about defeating them? A sequel could just jump a few million years into the future with new races and a different story focus, with the Reapers put on the back burner. The time capsule wasn't a guarantee that the Reapers would be defeated in the future, it was just a hopeful possibility.

In the millions of years before they show up again, I'm sure there is room for a scifi RPG that doesn't involve them.
 

Plywood

Does not approve of this tag
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,086
Do like Deus Ex did and combine all endings somehow.
Shepard chooses to control the Reapers, but the power is an immediately corrupting influence so Shepard feels that and knows they can't control for long so while still in control of themselves they choose to destroy the Reapers at the cost of the Geth, but the reapers knowing this begin to synthesize with all organic life as a way of saving themselves before Shepard could destroy anything.

tenor.gif
 
OP
OP
SofNascimento

SofNascimento

cursed
Member
Oct 28, 2017
21,556
São Paulo - Brazil
Who said anything about defeating them? A sequel could just jump a few million years into the future with new races and a different story focus, with the Reapers put on the back burner. The time capsule wasn't a guarantee that the Reapers would be defeated in the future, it was just a hopeful possibility.

In the millions of years before they show up again, I'm sure there is room for a scifi RPG that doesn't involve them.

The epilogue to that ending shows that the next cycle defeated the Reapers.