429 réponses à ce sujet

[Warhawk7137]

Mesina2 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Maybe the next game will be a post-apocalyptic space opera.. nobody said the ending had to be uplifting or "good". It's still the Mass Effect universe, it's just going to be a lot different next time we see it (unless future games take place in the past).

If they don't retcon endings, it's doomed before it starts.

Warhawk7137 wrote...

Link to a thread I started a while back addressing this.

[tanuki]

Biotic Sage wrote...

lyleoffmyspace wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

rma2110 wrote...

So it will become Fallout Effect 4? A post apocalyptic setting just wouldn't feel like Mass Effect.

You know, a sequel doesn't have to take place a year or two after the original movie.

The next Mass Effect game could be thousands of years in the future. Hundreds of thousands. The possibilities are endless.

It's not Mass Effect then.

Ok...then Mass Effect was a great self-contained trilogy that had a definitive ending. And now we can explore a new universe. I fail to see what's wrong with that. People have a hard time letting go. I love the Godfather, I loved Lord of the Rings, but I don't want them to continue interminably. Eventually Michael Corleone has to stop being a gangster. Eventually the Ring must be destroyed. Eventually the mass relays, the Reapers, and the Cycle, the entire system of controls needs to be stopped.

I'd have no problems whatsoever "letting go" if I knew that my Shepard's actions across the trilogy actually meant something, you know? And where is "definitive" ending anyways? I didn't get any. Right now it's just LOTS OF SPECULATIONS FROM EVERYONE.

All 3 choices given suck and practically are the same. And honestly implications about what happens after the relays blow up are pretty horrible if you start to think. That's, of course, if they simply didn't go supernova as it was stated in Arrival.

[Baronesa]

DrowVampyre wrote...

Kmead15 wrote...

Tehzim wrote...

DrowVampyre wrote...

Nah, honestly, presented with that choice, I'd choose to fight the Reapers conventionally as well as we could. At least then if you lose the next cycle still has some sort of galactic infrastructure they can possibly use and you've caused however many losses to weaken the Reapers so that maybe they can kill them.

This +1

So your choices are:
(A) A bunch of your own people die and galactic civilization is wiped out for the foreseeable future
( All of your people die, galactic civilization is wiped out for the foreseeable future, and the Reapers are still around

And you choose the second? What did the next cycle ever do to you? Heck, without the head start the Protheans gave us, there's no telling how long it would take for those suckers to be able to use the relays. We might even be out of the dark age again before they would have developed to that point. Even in the worst case scenario where the dark age ends in our extinction, the next cycle still has it better off in option A. I suppose they'll have to build their own relay network if they want one, the poor babies. That's a much worse hardship than probably being wiped out by the Reapers

Yeah, I do choose the second. I also leave as much hidden data/tech as possible for the next cycle, so that if we do lose (not convinced we would, no matter what Hackett says - it's a longshot, but not impossible), we've done a lot of damage to the Reapers and the next cycle has an even bigger head start (and a warning that the crucible isn't worth messing with so to use their resources on something more useful), and they still have the relays to allow some sort of real galactic civilization.

Agreed agreed and AGREED

I rather go out with  a bang taking as many reapers with me and seeding information on how to fight them on the next cycle IF we lose, than go to a Dark Age.

And the Reapers are not invincible, but the strategy of the game was absurd... Massive Fleet ---> Attack the biggest contingent of Reapers in the Galaxy... lolwut?  Concentrate on other sectors witht he super big fleet, on sectors were the Reapers are winning but dont have as much forces as on Earth, and you will slowly but surely cut down their numbers, may even achieve to weaken Earth defenses as they send Reapers to reinforce other sectors.


Again... ON WHICH REALITY A GALACTIC DARK AGE IS SOMETHING UPLIFTING?

Modifié par Baronesa, 23 mars 2012 - 10:54 .

[majormajormmajor]

I LOVE SENTENCING BILLIONS TO SLOW DEATH BY STARVATION

GALACTIC DARK AGE = LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE

Modifié par majormajormmajor, 23 mars 2012 - 10:52 .

[Baronesa]

Warhawk7137 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Maybe the next game will be a post-apocalyptic space opera.. nobody said the ending had to be uplifting or "good". It's still the Mass Effect universe, it's just going to be a lot different next time we see it (unless future games take place in the past).

If they don't retcon endings, it's doomed before it starts.

Warhawk7137 wrote...

Link to a thread I started a while back addressing this.

One thing.. the Dark Age is CONFIRMED on  the Final Hours app... 

[MrFob]

You know what, I that is not even the big problem I have with the ending. If a galactic dark age is the price to pay for defeating the reapers, then that premise is actually not even a bad one.
Decide: Do you want to defeat the reapers at the cost of the unreplaceable infrastructure galactic civilisation? The question is a really good one imo and would have made for a great ending choice.
The problem is, we were never given the choice!!! We were forced into it and that make me feel very helpless as a player.
The problem is, this is completely out of character for my Shepard.
The problem is, we don't get closure because we don't see the repercussions of our action (at least the ones for the characters)
The problem is, the way this was implemented was full of plot holes.

While all of these problems are bad, the first one is really the worst. If we would have been given the choice to refuse the god child, I think the discussions here on this forum would be a lot different. I'd still like it even better if we would have had the possibility to also achieve a happy ending but the fact that we have essentially no choices, that is what breaks the neck of the ending and the whole story IMO.

[Warhawk7137]

Baronesa wrote...

Warhawk7137 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Maybe the next game will be a post-apocalyptic space opera.. nobody said the ending had to be uplifting or "good". It's still the Mass Effect universe, it's just going to be a lot different next time we see it (unless future games take place in the past).

If they don't retcon endings, it's doomed before it starts.

Warhawk7137 wrote...

Link to a thread I started a while back addressing this.

One thing.. the Dark Age is CONFIRMED on  the Final Hours app... 

OK, two things.

1. People in this thread seem to be assuming that "dark age" necessarily means widespread massive extinction events and galactic anarchy, when it could very well just mean dissolution of galactic government mechanisms, breaking up of empires into smaller self-governing units, and economic depression, and it would still qualify as a "dark age."  There's no reason to assume that the galaxy will be the equivalent of Washington DC in Fallout 3 when it's just as, if not more, likely to be the equivalent of Nevada in Fallout New Vegas.

2. The Final Hours app is only interesting as to the thought process that went into the game, and doesn't exactly constitute a binding contract that the writers of the next game must follow.  It's not like if they bring a new writer on board for ME4, the guy is going to get hit by lightning if he takes a more optimistic route.

[kyrieee]

It's storytelling, not realism
The people 10,000 years from now are not tangible, you don't feel good for saving them. Your emotional connection to the story is had through the characters. It's them we want to save, unrealistic or not.

[crazychris153]

And aren't you forgetting the other price of stopping the reapers, That everyone Dies Anyway, This includes Species that are not yet in space, remember what happens when a relay explodes, BOOM! it wipes out the entire system it exploded in. So You willingly wipe out all life in the galaxy. At least with the reapers other civilisations rise from the ashes.

[Lugaidster]

I think a galactic dark age is both grim and beautiful, bitter-sweet if you will. If the crucible offered better choices, it would be an acceptable outcome. Why? I came to destroy the reapers and regain control on our future, individual control and free will. If reaper freedom came attached with getting rid of the citadel and the relays, then so be it. I paid high prices in the past to stick to my principles, like destroying the collector base. This one would be incredibly high, but it would be one worth the outcome... if it didn't come attached with the death of all synthetics.

To be honest, both destroy and control were fair alternatives and fit the plot of the story to that point. I expected as much. Synthesis on the other hand was magic at it's finest and complete bull-crap.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 23 mars 2012 - 11:16 .

[Lugaidster]

kyrieee wrote...

It's storytelling, not realism
The people 10,000 years from now are not tangible, you don't feel good for saving them. Your emotional connection to the story is had through the characters. It's them we want to save, unrealistic or not.

Agree completely. There's this quote from Mordin that I've been using to illustrate that exact same idea:

"Hard to imagine galaxy. Too many people. Faceless. Statistics. Easy to depersonalize. [...] For this fight, want personal connection. Can't anthropomorphize galaxy. But can think of favorite [people]. Fighting for [them]." 

Modifié par Lugaidster, 23 mars 2012 - 11:18 .

[Esoretal]

It still makes the whole process of gathering War Assets utterly pointless. Shep might as well have just been going around gathering scientists if the actual fleet didn't matter anyway.

Plus, the Protheans managed to keep fighting the Reapers for over a century, and Javik mentioned that they lost because they weren't united like Shepard's fleet was. And then Shep's fleet just gets obliterated, apparently. What was the point of that whole speech if it didn't actually matter?

[Thornquist]

I think Bioware did to little to show just how hopeless this war really was. The fact that many people think they could win conventionally, shows that the game should have shown just how unbeatable the Reapers really was.

Saying that the endings couldnt be worse is wrong though. You stopped the reapers, thats what always was most important. Relays can be rebuild, my biggest problem lies in lacking a true antagonist in the next game. Nothing can beat the Reapers when it comes to that.

While the endings look similar, their consequences didnt. We are talking about making all races into cyborgs here. That seems to imply that Bioware might actually go for either a cannon choice, or just start making prequels.

[Adanu]

Baronesa wrote...

DrowVampyre wrote...

Kmead15 wrote...

Tehzim wrote...

DrowVampyre wrote...

Nah, honestly, presented with that choice, I'd choose to fight the Reapers conventionally as well as we could. At least then if you lose the next cycle still has some sort of galactic infrastructure they can possibly use and you've caused however many losses to weaken the Reapers so that maybe they can kill them.

This +1

So your choices are:
(A) A bunch of your own people die and galactic civilization is wiped out for the foreseeable future
( All of your people die, galactic civilization is wiped out for the foreseeable future, and the Reapers are still around

And you choose the second? What did the next cycle ever do to you? Heck, without the head start the Protheans gave us, there's no telling how long it would take for those suckers to be able to use the relays. We might even be out of the dark age again before they would have developed to that point. Even in the worst case scenario where the dark age ends in our extinction, the next cycle still has it better off in option A. I suppose they'll have to build their own relay network if they want one, the poor babies. That's a much worse hardship than probably being wiped out by the Reapers

Yeah, I do choose the second. I also leave as much hidden data/tech as possible for the next cycle, so that if we do lose (not convinced we would, no matter what Hackett says - it's a longshot, but not impossible), we've done a lot of damage to the Reapers and the next cycle has an even bigger head start (and a warning that the crucible isn't worth messing with so to use their resources on something more useful), and they still have the relays to allow some sort of real galactic civilization.

Agreed agreed and AGREED

I rather go out with  a bang taking as many reapers with me and seeding information on how to fight them on the next cycle IF we lose, than go to a Dark Age.

And the Reapers are not invincible, but the strategy of the game was absurd... Massive Fleet ---> Attack the biggest contingent of Reapers in the Galaxy... lolwut?  Concentrate on other sectors witht he super big fleet, on sectors were the Reapers are winning but dont have as much forces as on Earth, and you will slowly but surely cut down their numbers, may even achieve to weaken Earth defenses as they send Reapers to reinforce other sectors.


Again... ON WHICH REALITY A GALACTIC DARK AGE IS SOMETHING UPLIFTING?

The Reapers are HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS strong. Hackett is a goddamn fleet admiral who has fought the Reapers up close and personal. If he says that there is no way to win conventionally, there is no way.

No amount of niave wishful thinking on your part is going to change that.

It's uplifting when you manage to secure a future for organics instead of being harvested. You fought the Reapers and won with some help from past cycles.

Esoretal wrote...

It still makes the whole process of
gathering War Assets utterly pointless. Shep might as well have just
been going around gathering scientists if the actual fleet didn't matter
anyway.

Plus, the Protheans managed to keep fighting the Reapers
for over a century, and Javik mentioned that they lost because they
weren't united like Shepard's fleet was. And then Shep's fleet just gets
obliterated, apparently. What was the point of that whole speech if it
didn't actually matter?

Hackett described what was going to likely happen at the beginning.

You were building a giant fleet and army for one singular purpose; delivering the Crucible to fight the Reapers. There is no way you can destroy ALL the reapers without it. Sure, you can take a few dozen of them down... but that's a dozen out of hundreds.

You were basically creating the largest distraction operation in galactic history. A spear to punch through the Reapers to deliver the payload.

The whole point of the speech was to give hope. To actually inspire people to fight despite knowing how many were going to die.

Did you pay attention during the final fight? You BARELY took down that destroyer Reaper and that was with the FULL MIGHT of the combined armies of the galaxy.

Seriously people, some intelligence here.

[Manton-X2]

Speculating on any new games, remember that Hudson has already said that if there is a "Mass Effect 4" he will not set it post-ME3. He would do a prequel or set it at the same time as ME3, but not post.

I sat down at lunch and thought a bit on the ending and the implications. The first one is the burned out Earth trying to support what looked to be about a 30,000,000 person fleet and the remaining billions of humans. I do know one thing, when the food gets low and people get desperate, you've got a LOT of people packing a crap-ton of weapons of mass destruction. That's not going to be pretty.

But beyond that, the idea that, after all you've done, your legacy will be the creation of a Galactic Dark Age that, by the nature of what causes it, will probably last millenia is kind of sickening. Legendary hero? You put people in a dark age by your actions and after a few generations of the hardships they will undergo I get the feeling your name would not be linked to the word hero for long.

[Shallyah]

The worst of all is that the Galactic Dark Age scenario only really pays off if you choose "Destroy" ending. The other two scenarios bring a Galactic Dark Age, and the Reapers are still about to eat your babies whenever they feel like it.

[Adanu]

Manton-X2 wrote...

Speculating on any new games, remember that Hudson has already said that if there is a "Mass Effect 4" he will not set it post-ME3. He would do a prequel or set it at the same time as ME3, but not post.

I sat down at lunch and thought a bit on the ending and the implications. The first one is the burned out Earth trying to support what looked to be about a 30,000,000 person fleet and the remaining billions of humans. I do know one thing, when the food gets low and people get desperate, you've got a LOT of people packing a crap-ton of weapons of mass destruction. That's not going to be pretty.

But beyond that, the idea that, after all you've done, your legacy will be the creation of a Galactic Dark Age that, by the nature of what causes it, will probably last millenia is kind of sickening. Legendary hero? You put people in a dark age by your actions and after a few generations of the hardships they will undergo I get the feeling your name would not be linked to the word hero for long.

Shepard is a legend. Nothing ever said they had to be a hero.

That being said, I would think being given a second chance at life despite the cost would help out a bit. It was either that or let the Reapers win.

[Ieldra]

Baronesa wrote...
Agreed agreed and AGREED

I rather go out with  a bang taking as many reapers with me and seeding information on how to fight them on the next cycle IF we lose, than go to a Dark Age.

Again... ON WHICH REALITY A GALACTIC DARK AGE IS SOMETHING UPLIFTING?

QFT*1000000000000

I might be able to accept a dark age ending if I see it coming from a long distance. But to be surprised by one in the last ten minutes of the game? That's not  "uplifting". Quite the opposite, in fact. It's depressing. At least in DX1 I had a choice. And I never used that ending.

[KarstenKlausen]

I think galactic dark age makes sense for the "destroy" ending. If the Crucible sends out a massive selfdestruct signal to all reapers, then it seems reasonable that the reapertech-based mass effect relays would go "boom" as well. I think a little too much is being read into the explosions killing everyone in the galaxy - the explosions when self-destructing might be different to the ones occurring when they are hit by an asteroid.

Also, it seems like a reasonable sacrifice for wiping out the reapers, and makes for an interesting decision. Or, it would, if the mass effect relays didn't magically explode in the two other endings as well.

[Esoretal]

Adanu wrote...

Hackett described what was going to likely happen at the beginning.

You were building a giant fleet and army for one singular purpose; delivering the Crucible to fight the Reapers. There is no way you can destroy ALL the reapers without it. Sure, you can take a few dozen of them down... but that's a dozen out of hundreds.

You were basically creating the largest distraction operation in galactic history. A spear to punch through the Reapers to deliver the payload.

The whole point of the speech was to give hope. To actually inspire people to fight despite knowing how many were going to die.

Did you pay attention during the final fight? You BARELY took down that destroyer Reaper and that was with the FULL MIGHT of the combined armies of the galaxy.

Seriously people, some intelligence here.

No need to go insulting people here.

Which Reaper are you talking about? The one on Rannoch? Because if I remember correctly, only the Quarian fleet was present there.

Modifié par Esoretal, 23 mars 2012 - 12:01 .

[Vhalkyrie]

I would have accepted it if it was well presented. But something about those 3 choices makes it unpalatable and unbelievable.

[Tregon]

Warhawk7137 wrote...

OK, two things.

1. People in this thread seem to be assuming that "dark age" necessarily means widespread massive extinction events and galactic anarchy, when it could very well just mean dissolution of galactic government mechanisms, breaking up of empires into smaller self-governing units, and economic depression, and it would still qualify as a "dark age."  There's no reason to assume that the galaxy will be the equivalent of Washington DC in Fallout 3 when it's just as, if not more, likely to be the equivalent of Nevada in Fallout New Vegas.

Two words... Self... Sufficient...

Most worlds do not appear to be those things. At least not on population levels they boost.

For society to exist as it is, roughly, it requires 
A) Food production
Industrial capacity
C) Natural resources

If we look at worlds we "mined" in ME2, we notice that for part C the universe has huge gaps in natural resources.

Industry is another huge problem. So much technology means that odds of any given area having ability to produce EVERYTHING they need, and tools to make them, is diminishingly small. If some item is only produced on few worlds in galaxy, the moment access to those few worlds is lost we are living off spare parts.

Building equipment to build equipment we need is challenging even when you know the tech, when there are so many things you end up needing.

[Ieldra]

Shallyah wrote...
The worst of all is that the Galactic Dark Age scenario only really pays off if you choose "Destroy" ending. The other two scenarios bring a Galactic Dark Age, and the Reapers are still about to eat your babies whenever they feel like it.

Well, that's not true. Every ending stops the Reapers from reaping. I think the Synthesis gives a better chance for rebuilding since people are now part synthetic and the knowledge contained in the Reapers will eventually be available.

That doesn't change that a dark is depressing.

[Adanu]

Esoretal wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Hackett described what was going to likely happen at the beginning.

You were building a giant fleet and army for one singular purpose; delivering the Crucible to fight the Reapers. There is no way you can destroy ALL the reapers without it. Sure, you can take a few dozen of them down... but that's a dozen out of hundreds.

You were basically creating the largest distraction operation in galactic history. A spear to punch through the Reapers to deliver the payload.

The whole point of the speech was to give hope. To actually inspire people to fight despite knowing how many were going to die.

Did you pay attention during the final fight? You BARELY took down that destroyer Reaper and that was with the FULL MIGHT of the combined armies of the galaxy.

Seriously people, some intelligence here.

No need to go insulting people here.

Which Reaper are you talking about? The one on Rannoch? Because if I remember correctly, only the Quarian fleet was present there.

No, on Earth. That Reaper blocking the conduit beam. It was a destroy type and you barely managed to destroy it. The one on Rannoch took the ENTIRE QUARIAN FLEET.

Those alone should tell you your chances of dealing with hundreds of Sovereign class Reapers without the Crucible.

[Candidate 88766]

Given that we're fighting Reapers, the cost of defeating them should be catastrophic. The fact that there is any of this civilization still standing at the end of the war is nothing short of a miracle - they did nothing to prepare for the Reapers and were less advanced than the Protheans, who themselves failed.

If the price of living is a galactic dark age (this doesn't mean a technological dark age mind - it just means that a truly galactic-scale society simply cannot exist. Our eezo and ME field technology is still fine).

The only alternative is letting the Reapers win, and a splintered and separated civilization is better than an eradicated one.

Plus, its not all bad. In the destroy ending, there is a ton of deactivated Reaper tech lying around. In synthesis, problems such as starvation will no longer be a problem and the Reapers are now on your side. The worst ending is control - the Reapers will come back at some point, and unless society has managed to create a new Relay network they will be destroyed.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 23 mars 2012 - 12:04 .