215 réponses à ce sujet

[Leozilla]

at OP, the Halo comparison does not work because
1. Bungie nor Microsoft said that 3 would be the end of Master Chief's story
2. Halo 4 did not come out of the blue I imagine most people were like me and were waiting for the anouncement
3. Bioware said that this was going to be the final game for Shep's story, now while I believe that EA would not be too fond of that idea, I doubt Bioware would be forced to not finish a story

[FBI-Azzurri]

Leozilla wrote...

at OP, the Halo comparison does not work because
1. Bungie nor Microsoft said that 3 would be the end of Master Chief's story
2. Halo 4 did not come out of the blue I imagine most people were like me and were waiting for the anouncement
3. Bioware said that this was going to be the final game for Shep's story, now while I believe that EA would not be too fond of that idea, I doubt Bioware would be forced to not finish a story

For your number 3 reason, EA has a reputation of milking franchises to make more money. Why wouldn't they do the same with Shepard's story that makes them big bucks? And I use the Halo 4 comparison because you just can't have a majorly successful Halo game without Master Chief. Halo: ODST was terrible and Halo: Reach was not as epic as Halo 3 because it was a prequel and I really didn't care about the characters. Mass Effect without Shepard would be bad for business because you are taking away the face of the franchise that made you the most money and the characters like Garrus that got people invested in these games. I guarantee without Shepard and his squadmates, Mass Effect 4-6 will not be nearly as good as Shepard's story and EA knows this. You know for a fact this isn't the end of the Mass Effect series. I doubt prequels will be made, sequels seem likely at this point. Shepard's story is not over, regardless of what BioWare has said.

Modifié par FBI-Azzurri, 15 avril 2012 - 11:55 .

[logan23tom78]

If I was from EA I would be against the ending that us in the game because.....EA would see it ok.... You have one major out cone that alters the entire universe and since there is no Canon....How are we going to make ME4 take place outside of these endings...

Someone raises hand and says... It was all a story told by and old man to depress the kid with confusion.

EA: What?! You didn't for shadow this..... How am I going to make money from a franchise ME4 when you altered the actual DNA of the universe???

EA could of gave then more time abd resources to make a more flesh out ending but this would still give use an ending star kid scene that just feels forced.

[Skvindt]

This is what I have been thinking for some time now.

I just don't see why EA of all companies would allow the end of Shepard's journey when you think of all the money they can make out of it.

[txmn1016]

Hexley UK wrote...

All good points and I have been thinking along the same lines myself and to be quite honest i'd be quite happy to see another ME game with Sheperd and crew as long as they don't over milk it.

Why they just haven't come out and said this i'm not really sure as it would probably allay some peoples concerns over the endings.

Give them a 3-4 year production cycle and let them have at it I say, quality not quantity.

And try to get the ending right first time this time eh?

After all we all love ME, why else would we be here?

This is why I never feel bad about there being usually nearly half a decade in between Zelda titles.  They always come out pretty amazing (with a few exceptions) and virtually (but not totally) bug free.  If they decide to make another ME related game, I say we give them a few years to complete it.  I don't really care if Shepard is involved or not.  I just love the universe.

[Ultra Prism]

Even there is ME4 ... then it probably will take a longer time to be release ... and wont be developed by Bioware ... who knows some other EA studio

[FBI-Azzurri]

txmn1016 wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

All good points and I have been thinking along the same lines myself and to be quite honest i'd be quite happy to see another ME game with Sheperd and crew as long as they don't over milk it.

Why they just haven't come out and said this i'm not really sure as it would probably allay some peoples concerns over the endings.

Give them a 3-4 year production cycle and let them have at it I say, quality not quantity.

And try to get the ending right first time this time eh?

After all we all love ME, why else would we be here?

This is why I never feel bad about there being usually nearly half a decade in between Zelda titles.  They always come out pretty amazing (with a few exceptions) and virtually (but not totally) bug free.  If they decide to make another ME related game, I say we give them a few years to complete it.  I don't really care if Shepard is involved or not.  I just love the universe.

Exactly. If you give them time, Shepard's story can damn sure continue. Having Shepard be the main guy and his squadmates follow going foward would be the better way to go for business and for players like us who love these characters. I know for a fact Mass Effect is not over and I have a good feeling Shepard's story is not over either.  There are many ways to coninue the story. Look at my sig for an example. I love the universe too, but love the characters even more. All new characters would be depressing because I know I would care less about them and wish Shepard and friends were still the focus, as I am certain others would too, even if they deny wanting Shepard's story to continue.

Modifié par FBI-Azzurri, 16 avril 2012 - 12:11 .

[FBI-Azzurri]

Ultra Prism wrote...

Even there is ME4 ... then it probably will take a longer time to be release ... and wont be developed by Bioware ... who knows some other EA studio

I think BioWare will develop it and the more time it takes the better. Quality is what matters most.

[eddieoctane]

Hexley UK wrote...

KaeserZen wrote...

Casey Hudson said that no other installments of the ME series will take place after ME3, rather during or prior the events of the series.

Casey Hudson said alot of things....

99% of them lies anymore.

[FBI-Azzurri]

eddieoctane wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

KaeserZen wrote...

Casey Hudson said that no other installments of the ME series will take place after ME3, rather during or prior the events of the series.

Casey Hudson said alot of things....

99% of them lies anymore.

I think Casey Hudson said somewhere he would not continue wrtiting if Mass Effect continued. So long, Casey. Plus, Casey Hudson is not the one who decides if Mass Effect continues, EA holds all the power. It's their logo going on this game. BioWare works for EA, it's not the other way around.

Modifié par FBI-Azzurri, 16 avril 2012 - 12:22 .

[ahandsomeshark]

viperabyss wrote...

And one thing that really puzzled me is this....canon.

It is obvious that Mass Effect 4 cannot set place in Mass Effect Universe, otherwise Bioware would have a very difficult time explaining to people why their synthetic + organics meld suddenly become only organics (I presume the protagonist of Mass Effect 4 would be organics).

And this brings me to another question: if they know they're going to make Mass Effect 4 all along, and they know they might reuse the universe they carefully crafted, why did they give us such difference in outcomes depending on your choice? Wouldn't it be better just to have one ending, and multiple cutscenes in which it detailed how you defeated the Reapers?

not sure if serious

[ahandsomeshark]

FBI-Azzurri wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

KaeserZen wrote...

Casey Hudson said that no other installments of the ME series will take place after ME3, rather during or prior the events of the series.

Casey Hudson said alot of things....

99% of them lies anymore.

I think Casey Hudson said somewhere he would not continue wrtiting if Mass Effect continued. So long, Casey. Plus, Casey Hudson is not the one who decides if Mass Effect continues, EA holds all the power. It's their logo going on this game. BioWare works for EA, it's not the other way around.

he's not a writer, but whether EA has all the power isn't really clear. It's possible for them to own bioware and for bioware to still retain rights to their IPs which predate the merger.

[tomcplotts]

sorry if anyone's posted this somewhere else, but there *is* a precedent for the move described by the OP in EAs past. A little series called Command and Conquer, Tiberian Wars, was set to end after Tiberian Sun came out in 1997. EA acquired Westwood and began to pump out C&C games again shortly thereafter. EA would prime the GDI/NOD pump a few times before the last C&C title they just released went boobs up because they ditched everything to try and force feed an MMO friendly game (sound familiar?) onto an audience that didn't want C&C without the base architecture.

As far as theories go, the OPs as plausible as any other. All this points to transitioning the ME title into some form of MMO architecture in the future. EA failed in the C&C attempt and maybe this is another try or them to find the "microtransaction" game of their dreams.

[txmn1016]

tomcplotts wrote...

sorry if anyone's posted this somewhere else, but there *is* a precedent for the move described by the OP in EAs past. A little series called Command and Conquer, Tiberian Wars, was set to end after Tiberian Sun came out in 1997. EA acquired Westwood and began to pump out C&C games again shortly thereafter. EA would prime the GDI/NOD pump a few times before the last C&C title they just released went boobs up because they ditched everything to try and force feed an MMO friendly game (sound familiar?) onto an audience that didn't want C&C without the base architecture.

As far as theories go, the OPs as plausible as any other. All this points to transitioning the ME title into some form of MMO architecture in the future. EA failed in the C&C attempt and maybe this is another try or them to find the "microtransaction" game of their dreams.

OH PLEASE GOD NO!

[Cecilia L]

Attempting straw grasp:

If their intention is a ME4 that continues right where ME3 ends, that could be a reason why the whole story of ME3 has been so streamlined. If they had had many branching endings and the major differences in the story based on previous decisions that everyone was hoping for, that would have made it more difficult to continue the story.

Not so sure I like this new theory though. Unless the entire fourth game is Shepard waking up from being manipulated by Harby, as in IT, and finishing the fight against the reapers in another 30 hours of gameplay.

That would redeem bioware. But they have still handled public relations with the fans like solid waste excretions.

[Cecilia L]

Luc0s wrote...

That would NOT redeem BioWare, that would KILL them. If EA/BioWare would pull this stunt, they're gonna be incredibly F**KED! Lots of people would give them the finger, including me.

This is how desperate I am for my real ending.

I'm still never gonna trust them again.

Modifié par Cecilia L, 16 avril 2012 - 12:50 .

[tomcplotts]

txmn1016 wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

sorry if anyone's posted this somewhere else, but there *is* a precedent for the move described by the OP in EAs past. A little series called Command and Conquer, Tiberian Wars, was set to end after Tiberian Sun came out in 1997. EA acquired Westwood and began to pump out C&C games again shortly thereafter. EA would prime the GDI/NOD pump a few times before the last C&C title they just released went boobs up because they ditched everything to try and force feed an MMO friendly game (sound familiar?) onto an audience that didn't want C&C without the base architecture.

As far as theories go, the OPs as plausible as any other. All this points to transitioning the ME title into some form of MMO architecture in the future. EA failed in the C&C attempt and maybe this is another try or them to find the "microtransaction" game of their dreams.

OH PLEASE GOD NO!

ha! yeah, that would suck, but let's face it, they've already started doing it within 3. Think about it: why would you just now spend the money and time (and what was probably the reason for the delay) to introduce MP into this series just as it ends? When ME2 came out, the verdict wasn't completely in on the C&C 4 experiment. I think the two games came out within a year of each other (but I could be wrong on that). EA made no move to extend ME2 into MP at that time, even though they had owned Bioware now for two years already.

So if the OP's theory is generally correct, then basically ME fans can blame the C&C fans for rejecting the last game (similar to this outcome) for what happened to ME3.

I don't have any idea what's true, obviously. The one thing I do know is that the dude who runs EA is totally dedicated to milking microtransaction cash, and the platform of choice for that milking is MMO. He's not the only one, either. That's where every corporate CEO in this biz wants to go. Good news are most efforts are failing badly, but at the cost of core gamer fans. Ask Stronghold fans about the recent release of that game.

WIth all the technological integration happening right now--see Apple's model--the future is poor for SP titles that aren't easily convertible into MP/MMO experiences.

[k-stigus]

FBI-Azzurri wrote...
Plus, Casey Hudson is not the one who decides if Mass Effect continues, EA holds all the power. It's their logo going on this game. BioWare works for EA, it's not the other way around.

I hope your not saying this like its a positive thing, this is EA we're talking about

[Spectre Impersonator]

They are in damage control mode and now is the time to press our advantage. The facts are with us and the facts are that they falsely advertised this product. Argue with facts.

[marstinson]

OK, I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion (I'm wearing my asbestos skivvies).

1. BioWare has made it clear ths Shepard's story is a trilogy. Were I in charge of ME4 development, I'd give serious consideration to not including Shepard. The problem with sequels is that they can turn awful very quickly by becoming forumlaic. I do not want to see BioWare getting into the position of jumping the shark and am pretty sure they don't want to go there, either.

2. As for not changing the ending, there is plenty of speculation on that point and no one at BioWare is being terribly forthcoming with their reasoning unless you buy the "artistic integrity" argument. I don't agree with the decision, but it's their game and their call on how to deal with the issue. I don't see EA as being the big bad wolf on this one, though. They're the parent company, not the developer. As long as ME3 turns a good profit, I suspect that EA doesn't really care. I'll grant that EA doesn't have the best track record in the "get the best and then get out of their way" department.

3. I'm doubtful on a couple of points. Are they in damage control mode? Probably. And they're probably a little concerned about the future of the franchise, but consider the "Deus Ex" experience (the game, not the ending). The original is pretty much a classic. The sequel sold a lot on the strength of the first, but disappointed many. The third was able to overcome the bad feelings about the second, though, and appears to have done relatively well. ME doesn't suffer from that kind of problem. All three are strong games in their own right and one stinker doesn't destroy a franchise. Bethesda tried to capitalize on the success of Arena and ended up with a lot of egg on their face from the bug-ridden Daggerfall. But the game was strong enough on its own that the franchise has cranked out three more top-notch games (five more if you include a couple of failed spin-offs which also didn't do much harm to the overall franchise).

4. So if I'm understanding the argument correctly, had BioWare decided to redo the ending rather than do the EC, there would be no ME4? That doesn't make much sense.

5. It's an awfully big galaxy and the lore is solid enough that good writers could come up with another good story or two (or dozen), even if they had to go with the prequel route. I think you do the team a grave disservice by claiming that they couldn't do it without Shepard. I'll grant that doing a Zelda game without Link might be a chore (or perhaps an impossiblity), but ME is doable without Shepard.

6. You're just restating previous arguments, but just because Halo brought back the Master Chief is not proof that BioWare intends to reuse Shepard. It's possible that they will, it's also possible that they won't. None of which is a sure indicator that an ME4 is anywhere on the horizon.

The best indicator of an ME4 is how well ME3 sells. Thus far it's pretty solid in spite of fan disappointment with the ending. Are they going to crank one out in the next year or two? I'm doubtful. Will they turn out another one eventually? Almost certainly.

Go for it. I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster.

[tomcplotts]

@marstinson....no sure why you need to be waving that space hamster around... perfectly reasonable post.

I honestly think Shephard's done. But I also think ME as a primarily SP platform is done as well. Personally, it should be done as a series, but I don't think it will be. THe more I think about my C&C comparison that I just threw out above as a lark the more merit I see in that comparison.

I agree that they'll probably sit on this title a bit to recover from this experience and see if they can reengineer it in a way that retains playership but makes the kind of money EA wants.

[kaidanluv]

Leozilla wrote...

at OP, the Halo comparison does not work because
1. Bungie nor Microsoft said that 3 would be the end of Master Chief's story
2. Halo 4 did not come out of the blue I imagine most people were like me and were waiting for the anouncement
3. Bioware said that this was going to be the final game for Shep's story, now while I believe that EA would not be too fond of that idea, I doubt Bioware would be forced to not finish a story

The tagline for Halo 3 was "Finish the Fight". Halo was meant to be a trilogy. Then Halo 4 came along anyway (although I will concede that Halo 3's ending made it seem like there would be more).

[sky99cap]

Luc0s wrote...

I believe the Indoctrination Theory could be true, only we won't find out about it until Mass Effect 4.


My guess: The Mass Effect 4 hype will start with a trailer which tells us that we all thought this was over, we all thought Shepard died, but we were all wrong. Something like this.

"We all thought it was over..."

"We all thought the reapers were defeated..."

"We all thought WRONG!"


*dun dun dun dun*

Shepard wakes up in the rubble, the fight against the Reapers still going on. The trailer reveals that the entire ending of Mass Effect 3 was a hallucination caused by Shepard's injuries in combination with indoctrination.

After a lot of media and press hype, a 2nd trailer will be revealed. This trailer will reveal that we're finally going to take back earth (for real this time). The 2nd trailer will reveal the true purpose of the Crucible and it will show us that the Reaper war will not be over, not at all. We still have a lot to do before we can defeat the Reapers for real.

Then, a year later, Mass Effect 4 will be released. But it will be rushed, buggy and ****ty, like Dragon Age 2. Typical EA quality.

Come on!  You've milked me for $60, did a bait and switch on me with the whole 3 color ending,  and now you want me to pay you another $60 for a game that I thought I was buying in the first place?

Your space magic maybe strong, but it ain't that strong!! 

In fact it's beginning to smell.

Modifié par sky99cap, 16 avril 2012 - 03:22 .