11 réponses à ce sujet

[Gamingboy]

The more I've thought about the ending, I've come to the realization that destroying the relays and forcing a "dark age" onto the Galaxy (thus turning Shepard, the relays, etc. into myths, legends, fairy tales etc) was needed. Not necessarily in the ways it happened, but it had to happen in someway.

The reason for this is the downside of having a universe with so much choice. It's both ME's greatest strength but also it's weakness. After awhile, it would have been effing impossible to keep making ME games with all of the previous games being built on, especially as we moved into the next generation of consoles. Hell, it already was becoming necessary- notice how Anderson resigns between ME2 and ME3 so Udina is in charge. Any attempt to do so would no doubt mess stuff up, greatly.

But, by making it a necessity that any further games (at least chronologically- I'm sure they could have a "First Contact War" game or something if they wanted to) would have to be set in the far future, they could tell a story without trying to make it fit with all of the hundreds of different personal universes we have. Since Shepard and friends would be merely legends, and the events of the trilogy would no doubt have been mixed up and misinterpreted over the centuries, all of the possible stuff could be potentially valid.

[McBeath]

Choice isn't important really post ME3. Udina dead, Anderson a hero and dead. Shepard stops the Reapers, ect.

IF they made a post ME3 game they could easily just reference the "Reaper War" and Shepard and Anderson as heroes without going into thier history or specifics. They could mention "Shepards Team" or whatever briefly and that would be ok.

People mention Winston Churchill in regards to WW2 England but don't bother to mention who he was CHOOSING to sleep with or what soldiers he lost in battle do they?

Cheers. McBeath.

[Superninfreak]

I had a similar thought here:

http://social.biowar...5/index/9744973

Before ME3, I was always curious about what they meant when they said that they wanted to do other games in the same universe. It would be strange to do a game without humanity at all, which would only leave them one time period before the main series (the First Contact War). I doubt they would want to just milk this one time period, so the obvious place to go is after ME3, but that comes with serious problems.

Anything after the main trilogy would have to deal with player choices, which by ME3 start to get staggering (after all, the Quarians/Geth could be dead, Council could be dead, etc). With Dragon Age 2, I think Bioware realized how hard it is to accomidate such diverse choices. I liked DA2, but it was annoying how it disregarded playthroughs that didn't mesh with what the developers wanted (for example, there are party members from DA1 who returned in some fashion even if they were killed off).

Bioware didn't want to repeat this, so maybe they intentionally made the ending eliminate the point of all of your choices so that they'd have a clean slate for more ME games. It's much easier to make sequels if no matter what the player did everything is destroyed anyway.

This makes sense, but if true it'd show a lot of greed on Bioware's part - prioritizing future entries in the series to actually having a decent ending.

It's pretty ridiculous on their part though if they intentionally destroyed everything just so they could make more games.

Modifié par Superninfreak, 10 mars 2012 - 06:07 .

[Gamingboy]

McBeath wrote...

Choice isn't important really post ME3. Udina dead, Anderson a hero and dead. Shepard stops the Reapers, ect.

IF they made a post ME3 game they could easily just reference the "Reaper War" and Shepard and Anderson as heroes without going into thier history or specifics. They could mention "Shepards Team" or whatever briefly and that would be ok.

People mention Winston Churchill in regards to WW2 England but don't bother to mention who he was CHOOSING to sleep with or what soldiers he lost in battle do they?

Cheers. McBeath.

Thing with ME, though, is that future games wouldn't run into problems with things on the personal scale (beyond maybe a nod, for example, that somebody is descended from Shepard, or having a ship be named after somebody), but rather on the larger scales. By the end of ME3, entire species may be wiped out, planets might be uninhabitable, etc.

To use your WW2 analogy, it's not so much "who slept with who" that matters, but rather the big picture. So instead of "Who was Churchill sleeping with and what  soldiers died because of his decisions", it's more like, "What cities were nuked? Who owned what at the end of the war?"

[AxisEvolve]

They could have done whatever they wanted. It's the end of Shepard's story.

What else is there left to do? There are no more Reapers to stop.

[Gamingboy]

AxisEvolve wrote...

They could have done whatever they wanted. It's the end of Shepard's story.

What else is there left to do? There are no more Reapers to stop.

There's always another baddie out there.

[Nineteen]

The main problem I see is with the Synthesis ending. The other two are closely related enough that they could BS their way through more future games. However, the Synthesis ending is SEVERELY different, and the galaxy would be completely changed. Bioware can't just ignore the Synthesis ending, either, because for some of us, that is how Shepard's story ends.

[kramerfan86]

So the game has to have a terrible ending so they can make future games? That isnt really a particularly good argument. "oh we had to do this because our greed will require us to slap the Mass Effect name on a new game in the future"

[NoUserNameHere]

Tales of Vesperia did the 'magic goes away' much much better in my opinion. Civilization had a moment or two to prepare for the loss of all blastia. They weren't all gathered (and then marooned) in one city following the final battle.

Any Mass Effect MMO/sequel will either take place
a) searching for Earth that was, where all the galaxy's greatest heroes are trapped, or
as a descendant of the allied fleet departing through a made-from scratch relay.

Pity they'll still have to pick a canon ending. The differences are just enough to warrant that.

[JohnCena94]

Or crazy thought, they could have made prequels,or ,I know this is just insane, do what they have done in the past and allow for some endings that do make sense, and do not screw over everyone in the galaxy.

[HeyUder]

Interesting thought, and I think my intuitive "I'm satisfied" reaction to the end of my game and subsequent confusion was based in part on this. I can definitely see why they'd need to hit the reset button; if that is the case (which I'm fairly certain it is) then I can't blame them for this ending. I thought it was brave of them to attempt it when I finished, then I thought it was mishandled a bit after reading user responses, but now I've melded the two opinions together. My biggest gripe is with multiplayer being needed to get the "best" ending.

[Tocquevillain]

HeyUder, you wrote what I thought as well. I was a bit nonplussed, then satisfied, then I came here and judged the fan's complaints, and now after reading a couple of sensible threads, I'm really happy it turned out this way. It was truly epic.

Ever notice how other successful series also end in the relative same manner? Battlestar Galactica garnered the same response, cause the same thing happened (everyone dies, vast amount of time expires, skip forward to that part). Same with the Matrix Revolutions, the hero is gone and time moves on, inexorably. It was very poetic and it's going to be on my mind for a long while!