215 réponses à ce sujet

[RyMann88]

As far as "finding more dangerous enemies than the Reapers" notions...

Simple. The Reaper creators. Think about it, you're playing ME4, thinking you're just helping to rebuild civilization only to learn one jaw dropping element:

The Original Species has learned of their creation's failure and are coming to finish the job. It wouldn't be too far-fetched honestly. These things created Reapers, I'm sure they could survive in dark space, maybe in another Galaxy.

I'm sure Bioware wouldn't have too much of a hard time coming up with a compelling story.

[Sublyminal]

So basically you're saying that Bioware is pulling a Square-Enix? Mass Effect 3-2 anyone? Sort of like FFX-2 and FF13-2, makes a lot of sense.

[FBI-Azzurri]

k-stigus wrote...

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

No way this is a positive. rEApers

[JaylaClark]

Sublyminal wrote...

So basically you're saying that Bioware is pulling a Square-Enix? Mass Effect 3-2 anyone? Sort of like FFX-2 and FF13-2, makes a lot of sense.

FFX and FFXIII had actual endings to them, though. The cliffhanger-to-nowhere really doesn't need to be here for that. Tidus disappeared but the world was saved, the next game was getting him back and steering the world's direction, for example.

That's my continuing issue with this ending, it doesn't qualify as a satisfying ending on any sense of the term.

[Sublyminal]

JaylaClark wrote...

Sublyminal wrote...

So basically you're saying that Bioware is pulling a Square-Enix? Mass Effect 3-2 anyone? Sort of like FFX-2 and FF13-2, makes a lot of sense.

FFX and FFXIII had actual endings to them, though. The cliffhanger-to-nowhere really doesn't need to be here for that. Tidus disappeared but the world was saved, the next game was getting him back and steering the world's direction, for example.

That's my continuing issue with this ending, it doesn't qualify as a satisfying ending on any sense of the term.

Well, no one ever said that Bioware was any good at making true RPGs like SE.  Also, I agree 100% that Bioware screwed us with a cliffhanger type ending, to try to end a trilogy. 

Modifié par Sublyminal, 16 avril 2012 - 03:41 .

[Area42T]

FBI-Azzurri wrote...
Wall of Text

The REAL Reason why they want an ME4 with shepard.

www.youtube.com/watch

[cavs25]

Mass Effect 4 with no Mass effect!

[Dead_Meat357]

I have to agree with the OP and I've said as much myself in other threads. It's a cash cow EA can't walk away from. While they could easily use another character, people are attached to their Shepards. I think in the end most of what we've seen will turn into some kind of dream type deal. I'm not sure indoctrination will be adopted or was the intention, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The game also seems to be a lot shorter than ME2 was. I think what we'll probably see is that much of what was alluded to by Casey Hudson, Mac Walters and Patrick Weeks prior to release, was cut from the final game to be included in Mass Effect 4. They made up a lot of time with fetch quests and other little things. But I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't lose nearly 33-50% of the original planned content. Note I said planned. I'm not saying all of that was finished, especially in light of the development time. Mass Effect 2 started development before Mass Effect 1 was shipped, and it still took 3 years to make release and was fairly well polished. This game wasn't nearly as well polished and is shorter, but came out in about 2 years. (With some overlapping development with ME2.) So yeah, I agree with the OP. I think this is mostly an open ended finish which is designed to generate controversy and keep interest alive for ME4.

[FBI-Azzurri]

marstinson wrote...

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.

Certainly they will put out another Mass Effect game in the future, Mass Effect 4 to be exact, which probably won't come along anytime soon. They need to actually take their time this time around in making sure they have enough time to develop a proper ending. The one thing people fail to understand is the logic behind it all on why Mass Effect just can't continue without Shepard and the squadmates. You as a Mass Effect fan have to admit that other than the story and experience, it was these characters that got you hooked on Mass Effect. Characters like Garrus and Tali and of course Commander Shepard.

Going on with Mass Effect without Shepard on the cover is like making a Halo 4 without Master Chief. Halo: ODST was terible and Halo: Reach, I never cared once for any of the new characters. In fact, I along with many others began to miss playing as Master Chief and it just didn't feel like Halo is supposed to feel. Sure it was a prequel, but that just goes to show taking away a character that fans are invested in is like taking away the heart of the franchise. The same goes for what Shepard is to Mass Effect. I guarantee that people playing Mass Efect 4 without Shepard, Garrus, Ashley, Tali, Liara, and the others would feel like it is missing something. I also guarantee that I along with many others would care less about this new main character because we had already spent 5 years playing as our beloved Commander Shepard. I would have no interest in playing more Mass Effect games that are sequels without Shepard/Squadmates. EA knows this and they know Shepard is a money-maker. Also, think about not having the squadmates in future Mass Effect games. How could any future character in Mass Effect top Garrus and the bond him and Shepard share? They have hit gold here with these characters. Why stop now? There is no point in putting the characters that made your franchise succesful to rest. It would be a dumb decision in my honest opinion and would turn away a lot of people who play Mass Effect to see their favorite characters.

The point is Shepard's story is as good as it is going to get. I know for a fact there is nothing out there that will appeal more to fans than playing as Shepard one more time. Think about the Shepard breathing scene. Why include this at all? It is because they don't want t kill off Shepard just yet. BioWare said this is the end, but do they really mean it? They certainly lied to us a number of times in the past year or so. EA also never said this is the end of Shepard and I am sure they would love to make more money off the Shepard name. Would I like more Mass Effect with Shepard and friends who I have come to know and love? Yes. Do I agree with EA's tatics if I am indeed right? Not at all. This could have been handled in a much better way. I guess we will have to wait and see then. No need to be armed. We can continue arguing for hours and just keep repeating ourseleves or wait for this DLC and see if I am right about Shepard's story not being over.

[FBI-Azzurri]

Dead_Meat357 wrote...

I have to agree with the OP and I've said as much myself in other threads. It's a cash cow EA can't walk away from. While they could easily use another character, people are attached to their Shepards. I think in the end most of what we've seen will turn into some kind of dream type deal. I'm not sure indoctrination will be adopted or was the intention, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The game also seems to be a lot shorter than ME2 was. I think what we'll probably see is that much of what was alluded to by Casey Hudson, Mac Walters and Patrick Weeks prior to release, was cut from the final game to be included in Mass Effect 4. They made up a lot of time with fetch quests and other little things. But I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't lose nearly 33-50% of the original planned content. Note I said planned. I'm not saying all of that was finished, especially in light of the development time. Mass Effect 2 started development before Mass Effect 1 was shipped, and it still took 3 years to make release and was fairly well polished. This game wasn't nearly as well polished and is shorter, but came out in about 2 years. (With some overlapping development with ME2.) So yeah, I agree with the OP. I think this is mostly an open ended finish which is designed to generate controversy and keep interest alive for ME4.

Thank you for agreeing. I am just using basic logic here and people seem to be just hanging on the response that BioWare said no more Shepard after Mass Effect 3. They have certainly lied in the past, who is not to say they are lying here?

Modifié par FBI-Azzurri, 16 avril 2012 - 04:03 .

[legionaireshen]

I always believe control and synthesis ending mean that they cant continue the story with shepard.

[FBI-Azzurri]

Legionaire-Shen wrote...

I always believe control and synthesis ending mean that they cant continue the story with shepard.

Which is why you would need to pick the red ending to live and have a high EMS. Just like in ME2, if you are lazy and do the Suicide Mission without preparing and die, then you must replay the game or your Shepard can't be used in ME3. Luckily, there is an autosave right before you take the beam up to the citadel where you can choose the right ending, which is red.

[legionaireshen]

FBI-Azzurri wrote...

Legionaire-Shen wrote...

I always believe control and synthesis ending mean that they cant continue the story with shepard.

Which is why you would need to pick the red ending to live and have a high EMS. Just like in ME2, if you are lazy and do the Suicide Mission without preparing and die, then you must replay the game or your Shepard can't be used in ME3. Luckily, there is an autosave right before you take the beam up to the citadel where you can choose the right ending, which is red.

Control/syntheis/destroy is the same as the control and destroy of the collector base in the me2, there is no right or wrong

The preparing in me3 is represented by ems, if you rush the game and without mp, you cant survive the destroy ending

Of course my canon ending is high ems red, but I dont think it makes a high ems blue and green ending wrong. I only consider the low ems ending where earth is partially or completely burned as the wrong ending.

[FBI-Azzurri]

Legionaire-Shen wrote...

FBI-Azzurri wrote...

Legionaire-Shen wrote...

I always believe control and synthesis ending mean that they cant continue the story with shepard.

Which is why you would need to pick the red ending to live and have a high EMS. Just like in ME2, if you are lazy and do the Suicide Mission without preparing and die, then you must replay the game or your Shepard can't be used in ME3. Luckily, there is an autosave right before you take the beam up to the citadel where you can choose the right ending, which is red.

Control/syntheis/destroy is the same as the control and destroy of the collector base in the me2, there is no right or wrong

The preparing in me3 is represented by ems, if you rush the game and without mp, you cant survive the destroy ending

Of course my canon ending is high ems red, but I dont think it makes a high ems blue and green ending wrong. I only consider the low ems ending where earth is partially or completely burned as the wrong ending.

Red ending is the only ending where you can get that special scene, so wouldn't that make it the right choice? Plus, BioWare already hinted that StarChild is a liar because he basically said you would die and so would EDI if you pick destroy, but you live and so does EDI. Makes the IT partially right imo.

[Cirreus]

What EA wants is something to compete with GoW, Halo & ultimately CoD. EA doesn't care if it's ME4 or Reaper Harvest Moon.

I shout this from the roof tops, the franchise is being sold off. The ending cuts virtually all ties to the previous games so the next developer can do what they want with the story & IP. Don't be surprised when Respawn Entertainment helps out on the Extended Cut and kill streaks show up in multiplayer.

[legionaireshen]

FBI-Azzurri wrote...

Legionaire-Shen wrote...

FBI-Azzurri wrote...

Legionaire-Shen wrote...

I always believe control and synthesis ending mean that they cant continue the story with shepard.

Which is why you would need to pick the red ending to live and have a high EMS. Just like in ME2, if you are lazy and do the Suicide Mission without preparing and die, then you must replay the game or your Shepard can't be used in ME3. Luckily, there is an autosave right before you take the beam up to the citadel where you can choose the right ending, which is red.

Control/syntheis/destroy is the same as the control and destroy of the collector base in the me2, there is no right or wrong

The preparing in me3 is represented by ems, if you rush the game and without mp, you cant survive the destroy ending

Of course my canon ending is high ems red, but I dont think it makes a high ems blue and green ending wrong. I only consider the low ems ending where earth is partially or completely burned as the wrong ending.

Red ending is the only ending where you can get that special scene, so wouldn't that make it the right choice? Plus, BioWare already hinted that StarChild is a liar because he basically said you would die and so would EDI if you pick destroy, but you live and so does EDI. Makes the IT partially right imo.

The child said even you are partially synthetic, doesnt really said shep would die, since it only kills synthetic life and shep is organic with syntheic implant.
Not sure about EDI, since she only come out in green ending for me, how can you know EDI survive, or maybe there are something else I need to do to see her come out in red ending?

[Voods07]

Opsrbest wrote...

Well if EA wants to transfer the title from Bioware they can by all means do that. But I doubt at this point the people of ME really want to continue the series. I find the entire notion dubious at best however. Without the Reapers, which are a major focal point for the entire galactic civilization, what the next baddie going to be? The guy that finds a way to bring the Reapers back?

Also if your going to speculate be a little less conspiracy theorist.

You just spoilerd Mass Effect 4, 5 and 6. I'm not kidding, I'm sure Casey and another guy from EA were thinking of doing this kind of s*** and calling it "Art".

[kglaser]

You know what I want? Whatever will cause EA the most physical and financial pain.
Vengeful much? You bet your !@#$%.

[FBI-Azzurri]

Cirreus wrote...

What EA wants is something to compete with GoW, Halo & ultimately CoD. EA doesn't care if it's ME4 or Reaper Harvest Moon.

I shout this from the roof tops, the franchise is being sold off. The ending cuts virtually all ties to the previous games so the next developer can do what they want with the story & IP. Don't be surprised when Respawn Entertainment helps out on the Extended Cut and kill streaks show up in multiplayer.

And more campers......

[EricHVela]

When Christopher 'Maverick' Blair's story ended, EA made a prequel movie (with the voice of Mr. Vega as the starring role of Blair) and a sequel game with a new hero and a new galactic enemy. Both failed hard. (It is worthy to note that the story was created under Origin Systems, Inc., a recent acquisition of EA which suffered and was dissolved under EA's control.)

Now that Shepard's story is over, EA is making a movie (likely a prequel) and probably a seqel game with a new hero and a new galactic enemy. I expect the same result. (It is worthy to note that the ME series was created under BW, a recent acquisition of EA which seems to be suffering under EA.)

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 16 avril 2012 - 01:33 .

[Flextt]

It makes a bit sense, once you distance yourself from viewing ME as a trilogy.... and would bring the IT back onto the playing field.

[PluralAces]

You cant have Mass Effect 4 with Shepard.

That would assume every one chose the ending with Shepard shooting the thing and everyone having enough EMS or whatever its called to have Shepard take a breath at the end.

You cant compare Halo to Mass Effect...Halo is linear, every game player does the same thing, there are no choices to make. Mass Effect obviously is not made the same way.

[Baihu1983]

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.

Someone think of the plot holes! The whole trilogy will be made pointless with any more games.

Modifié par Baihu1983, 16 avril 2012 - 01:42 .

[Sarah_SR2]

I say let's leave Mass Effect at the third game. It's like films. The first one is great. The second one is bigger and bolder and may actually be better. The third one generally isn't on a par with the first two and the fourth one descends into a pure cash cow money spinning pile of rubbish. Make use of the Mas Effect universe and its lore with new games sans Shepard and let the current trilogy of games end here.