27765 réponses à ce sujet

[Sion1138]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Same thing happened to the KotOR games.

Somehow that was accepted.

...

Basically, I think KoTOR is a false comparison to make. Nobody expected the sequel to reflect our decisions from the first game, because nobody imagined that it was possible. 

There's a higher bar for Mass Effect precisely because of the hype that Bioware created for its save-import system over the years. That we'd be deciding the fate of civilisations, of planets, and of the galaxy itself by ME3. The games haven't always lived up to the expectations that they've created, in terms of showing the consequences of player choices, but they've done it far more than any other franchise, ever.

... 

I was referring to TOR, not TSL. Obsidian actually made the effort to acknowledge at least some player choices from KotOR 1.

The Old Republic canonized everything about what the player characters did and who they were in the prior games.

Even their names and gender were set.

Modifié par Sion1138, 09 février 2014 - 05:56 .

[Beerfish]

Sion1138 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I'd definitely prefer a 200-year time skip over a ten-years-after down a certain narrow road which from a certain point of view rather, ahem, destroys the rest of them in the process.

Skipping ahead 200-years will not avail them. 

If synthesis happened, it would definitely show. Same for the other two scenarios.

All three endings have huge and unique consequences for the universe and there is no number of years, or no reasonable number at least, by which they could skip ahead to have them all amalgamate into one.

Universe or galaxy?  Was this ever stated inj concrete fashion that the choices were to affect the whole universe or only the galaxy?

[Sion1138]

Beerfish wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I'd definitely prefer a 200-year time skip over a ten-years-after down a certain narrow road which from a certain point of view rather, ahem, destroys the rest of them in the process.

Skipping ahead 200-years will not avail them. 

If synthesis happened, it would definitely show. Same for the other two scenarios.

All three endings have huge and unique consequences for the universe and there is no number of years, or no reasonable number at least, by which they could skip ahead to have them all amalgamate into one.

Universe or galaxy?  Was this ever stated inj concrete fashion that the choices were to affect the whole universe or only the galaxy?

Universe as in that world in which the games take place.

And they are not going to take it to other galaxies, that would be too much.

[Lady Sif]

Jay Watamaniuk ‏@JayWatamaniuk
Leaving on a jet plane for secret meetings. #Space!

[JeffZero]

MENext confirmed to feature space. Insert Into Darkness joke here.

[ElitePinecone]

dead_goon wrote...

Amalgamateing into one is actually pretty easy, all it needs is the passage of enough time, and a bit of creative writing to allow them to be reduced to a mere Codex entry.

I don't doubt that they could do it, but my point is that this would completely undermine the point of ME3 - of the entire Mass Effect series to date, actually. If all our choices are handwaved down to meaning little or nothing via Codex entries, what was the point of making them? 

If all the consequences of the endings disappear in a few decades/centuries so we get a fresh start again, then Shepard died for nothing? What was the point of playing the games, or offering those choices in the first place? It would be an insult to the players who made those decisions sincerely, and a pretty stupid way to reverse course on Bioware's part,

I hardly think Bioware would spell out the future of the galaxy in the Extended Cut, just to go and amalgamate all the endings in a sequel. 

[felipejiraya]

I still think NME will not be a sequel because of all the problems it would create because of the endings. BioWare know that and I don't think they'll throw everything up in the air just to make a sequel.

[Sion1138]

felipejiraya wrote...

I still think NME will not be a sequel because of all the problems it would create because of the endings. BioWare know that and I don't think they'll throw everything up in the air just to make a sequel.

A prequel would be equally, if not more problematic. People already know too much via the codex, the novels and the comics.

[B.Shep]

If the rumors from some time ago are really true a sequel is more likely...

[ElitePinecone]

Sion1138 wrote...

A prequel would be equally, if not more problematic. People already know too much via the codex, the novels and the comics.

I've said this before but I just don't think this is true.

If MENext is a new story, by definition it doesn't have to have anything to do with what's been covered in the comics and novels. It doesn't need to mention Cerberus, the squadmates or anything that happened in Revelation/Ascension/Retribution/etc.

And the writers are perfectly capable of telling a story that never made it into the Codex - which is, of course, Shepard's Codex. How much real history from 30 years ago is prominent enough to be widely known today? How much history from non-Western sources is ignored or never makes it into official recordings? And we only occupy one planet, not an entire galaxy. 

The example I saw someone use previously is: why would a soldier fighting in World War II know or care about the story of someone who fought in World War I, thirty years earlier? Or the story of a smuggling gang in some South American city? Or an archaeological expedition to Papua New Guinea? 

The argument that there's no space to tell a new story really, to me, seems to be more about people lacking imagination. There is literally an entire galaxy of stories to tell in that time period that have nothing to do with anything we've ever heard of.

[Sion1138]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

A prequel would be equally, if not more problematic. People already know too much via the codex, the novels and the comics.

...

The argument that there's no space to tell a new story really, to me, seems to be more about people lacking imagination. There is literally an entire galaxy of stories to tell in that time period that have nothing to do with anything we've ever heard of.

The scale would be very small and that's not what I've come to expect from BioWare games. They have never done a small scale story.

If they want to go there, then by all means go there, but I'm sitting it out.

I couldn't bring myself to care about a personal story of some soldier during a minor skirmish 30 years ago, when I know that something infinitely greater is waiting just beyond the horizon.

Modifié par Sion1138, 10 février 2014 - 12:16 .

[Shermos]

Sion1138 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

A prequel would be equally, if not more problematic. People already know too much via the codex, the novels and the comics.

...

The argument that there's no space to tell a new story really, to me, seems to be more about people lacking imagination. There is literally an entire galaxy of stories to tell in that time period that have nothing to do with anything we've ever heard of.

The scale would be very small and that's not what I've come to expect from BioWare games. They have never done a small scale story.

If they want to go there, then by all means go there, but I'm sitting it out.

I couldn't bring myself to care about a personal story of some soldier during a minor skirmish 30 years ago, when I know that something infinitely greater is waiting just beyond the horizon.

I agree with this. If a prequel is to honor the law and history of the universe before Shep comes along, it will be severely limited in scale and scope. NME has really GOT to be a sequel, or at least a midquel occurring while the galaxy is to busy with the Reapers to give a rat's arse about what's going on. But even then, you run into to the problem of knowing the Reapers are out there and we're not doing anything to help. I won't buy the next game (Hi Uncle Torrence) on principle if it's a prequel, and a midquel make me very skeptical.

We've all had this conversation before and we're going to have to agree to disagree. Some of this comes down to psersonal taste. 

[EatChildren]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I don't doubt that they could do it, but my point is that this would completely undermine the point of ME3 - of the entire Mass Effect series to date, actually. If all our choices are handwaved down to meaning little or nothing via Codex entries, what was the point of making them? 

If all the consequences of the endings disappear in a few decades/centuries so we get a fresh start again, then Shepard died for nothing? What was the point of playing the games, or offering those choices in the first place? It would be an insult to the players who made those decisions sincerely, and a pretty stupid way to reverse course on Bioware's part,

I hardly think Bioware would spell out the future of the galaxy in the Extended Cut, just to go and amalgamate all the endings in a sequel. 

Though I can appreciate this perspective, it's one that fixates on the notion that a "sequel" is your sequel, and if it is a sequel odds are it wont be. This is a fundemantal component of what many believe would be intended by a sequel, whether it retcons the endings or picks one as canon. Your adventure does not change, because your adventure is over. Really think about this. The consequences and undermining of Mass Effect 3 and your trilogy are irrelevant because any reputed sequel would not continue your story, it would be a new story. Your Shepard arc is over. That doesn't just mean "You don't play as Shepard", it means your adventure, your pespective, your choices, your context; over. Done. Finished.

A sequel doesn't undermine that adventure because it doesn't claim to cater to it. A direct sequel that intentionally takes core themes from the trilogy and continues them would indeed undermine choices, as would the return of Shepard, as here the intentions are to continue a story. A "sequel" to the universe but totally new story in terms of themes and adventure does not, because it makes no effort to continue them, only use part of the existing universe as a template.

Think of it like how Mass Effect 3 is a sequel to Mass Effect 2, but importing a dead Shepard is not an option, because it disrupts the story the writers intend to tell and a continuation of dead Shepard breaks the running themes. Even though someone can reach the end credits and find closure in a squence where Shepard is rubbed out of of the story, continuation is not an option. 

Look at it kind of like Abram's Star Trek, only the "alternate universe" doesn't take place from the start, but from the end of the trilogy. After all, there are several "alternate universes" already in place, simply due to the wealth of potential universe states from options made by the player. You've made yours, and I've made mine, as has everyone else, but a hypothetical sequel couldn't cater to all of them. Instead it would need to pick one, or craft something new. The "sequel" would take place in this universe and continue along this narrative thread as a new adventure. This isn't an attempt to undermine what you established, it's just a way of saying that what you established is still your adventure but it has come to an end. And BioWare has reiterated this many, many times.

I don't necessarily think you fit this description, but I've said before that I think if they are making a sequel one of the biggest hurdles will be drilling into fans that their Shepard trilogy is over and what being "over" actually means. A lot of fans are deeply fixated on their adventure continuing in some form instead of accepting that nothing actually "continues" at all. Unverse state is just context, and that could be anything.

In a perfect world, and in a selfish world, I'd get a sequel that caters exclusively to my Shepard, my choices, and my adventure. But it's not going to be that. The trilogy is over. The themes are gone. My adventure is still my adventure, and what I did still "happened", even if a new game is a sequel and takes place in a universe that doesn't perfectly allign with my own. I don't really see it as any different than having done multiple runs in the trilogy with different characters. I've got my Paragon Femshep, which is my "main", but I've also done a Renegade Shep too, to see the story from that perspective. That's two different narratives, both impossible to co-exist. But that fact doesn't undermine my enjoyment of the developing plot. It's just two different stories using a single universe as a basis and shaping it in different ways.

A sequel with a chosen or new ending would be the same thing to me. Maybe it doesnt continue my Paragon Femshep's story. Maybe it doesn't continue my Renegade Shep story. Maybe it fudges up both. Doesn't matter, because it's not a sequel to their story, but a new story in a new universe state that is a just one narrative thread of many potential options. I won't be playing as Shepard, and I won't have expectations that certain races or themes fit a certain mold, because they're not supposed to. It's not a sequel to my Shepard Mass Effect trilogy. It's not even a sequel to the Mass Effect trilogy. It's a sequel to the Mass Effect franchise, the narrative in spirit.

[IntrepidProdigy]

A sequel of some kind would appear to make the most sense. No matter if it's a prequel or "midquel" you run the risk of downplaying the reaper threat by hyping up a threat which is no where near on par IMO.

[dead_goon]

ElitePinecone wrote...

If all the consequences of the endings disappear in a few decades/centuries so we get a fresh start again, then Shepard died for nothing? What was the point of playing the games, or offering those choices in the first place? It would be an insult to the players who made those decisions sincerely, and a pretty stupid way to reverse course on Bioware's part,

I hardly think Bioware would spell out the future of the galaxy in the Extended Cut, just to go and amalgamate all the endings in a sequel. 

The whole point to METNG is it's a fresh start, its a new game set some where and some when in the Mass Effect universe, now i don't know about you but the point of playing games to me is to be entertained one way or another, how ever that may be, if BW have to play fast & loose with the lore ( yet again ), from my point of view the world won't stop turning, as long as they tell a compelling story that draws me into the MEU again i can quite happily look beyond any shens with the ending of ME3, the MEU's a big place, if BW so wish it, Sheps story can & will be relegated to the stuff of legend.

[Vapaa]

Sion1138 wrote...

They have never done a small scale story.

Have they never ?

In the ME franchise, only ME3 has a really big scale with the reaper war, but ME1 has us chasing Saren on the Traverse; on uncharted planets and third-class colonies (the pioneer reserch colony of Feros, the corporate world of Novéria and the uncolonizable eden of Virmire)...It only goes big when Saren attacks the Citadel, until then, it remains a mission far from the ears of your run-on-the-mill galactic citizen.

It's even truer with ME2, the entire game is set the Terminus system among pirates and criminals, and the finale takes place hidden from everyone's eyes.

What you call "big scale" can be totally hidden from view in the general picture.

[Shermos]

Thing is, a lot of the choices you make in ME1 and 2 (not only in ME3) are big scale. They effect the whole galaxy regardless of whether or not the average dude on Citadel knows it or not at the time. Choosing to allow the Rachni to live and talking to a Geth rather than sending it to Cerberus for study are just two examples. That's what Sion is on about. Bioware, and certainly not the ME series, has never really done a story which has no world shattering impacts.

I do get what you're saying about being hidden from the average joe, but you're wrong to say ME1 and 2 where small scale. In the new game, the character and his.her team will eventually have to do something which is really big and can't be hidden from the wider galaxy, or it wouldn't be ME. And that's something the devs have made clear. The next game will feel like ME.

[Sion1138]

Vapaä wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

They have never done a small scale story.

Have they never ?

In the ME franchise, only ME3 has a really big scale with the reaper war, but ME1 has us chasing Saren on the Traverse; on uncharted planets and third-class colonies (the pioneer reserch colony of Feros, the corporate world of Novéria and the uncolonizable eden of Virmire)...It only goes big when Saren attacks the Citadel, until then, it remains a mission far from the ears of your run-on-the-mill galactic citizen.

It's even truer with ME2, the entire game is set the Terminus system among pirates and criminals, and the finale takes place hidden from everyone's eyes.

What you call "big scale" can be totally hidden from view in the general picture.

Billion year old machines destroying all civilization, the scale doesn't get any bigger than that.

It doesn't matter what you do on the side or on the way there and who else knows about it, that threat is still the driving force. Given a prequel, there could be no such threat, no galaxy in the balance. 

Whatever else they could set up would pale in comparison.

Modifié par Sion1138, 10 février 2014 - 12:14 .

[Vapaa]

Sion1138 wrote...

Billion year old machines destroying all civilization, the scale doesn't get any bigger than that.

The scale doesn't have to be big, the game just have to be coherent and interesting

[ElitePinecone]

EatChildren wrote...

A sequel with a chosen or new ending would be the same thing to me. Maybe it doesnt continue my Paragon Femshep's story. Maybe it doesn't continue my Renegade Shep story. Maybe it fudges up both. Doesn't matter, because it's not a sequel to their story, but a new story in a new universe state that is a just one narrative thread of many potential options. I won't be playing as Shepard, and I won't have expectations that certain races or themes fit a certain mold, because they're not supposed to. It's not a sequel to my Shepard Mass Effect trilogy. It's not even a sequel to the Mass Effect trilogy. It's a sequel to the Mass Effect franchise, the narrative in spirit.

That's all very well and good as an opinion, but - in my view - it would fundamentally compromise the promise of choices and consequences that they've been talking about for more than eight years. The fact that the story in this new trilogy is separate doesn't eliminate the other one from existence. I want the choices I made to stay made, and the consequences to stay as they were described in the game.

More to the point, I think that deliberately undermining or retconning Shepard's trilogy is silly, and crazy. They just had three games to think of ideas for stories and plan out where the series was going. If they need to start again from a blank slate, what does that say about the ability of the writers to think ahead? If someone had an idea for a sequel three years ago when ME3 was in development, why give us the option to blow up the galaxy or turn everyone into ridiculous glowy things with space magic? Why include the possible destruction of the geth/quarians/krogan?

Setting up the scale of choices they did in ME3 (and reinforcing them with the Extended Cut, I have to add) only to turn around and completely ignore them in the next game would be immensely aggravating. It would smack of a knee-jerk reaction to the endings based on trying to appeal to fans, which in the process also compromises the integrity of the original vision for ME3.

And, as much as you can argue this point, I really do think it makes Shepard's trilogy - and possible death - pointless and futile. If the enormous consequences of ME3 can be altered by authorial fiat later on just because it makes their job easier, and because some fans are grumbling about it, then the entire foundation of "we have no canon" and "your choices shape the galaxy" is even more of an absurd fiction.

[EatChildren]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I can see your angle and like mine it's a totally subjective thing, how we view the construct of narratives in a "franchise" like this, what matters most, and where we think the series would be most valued/devalued in decisions made for the continuity. Main point I don't agree with is that it compromises anything re: trilogy, and Mass Effect 3's ending. I personally don't feel anything is compromised in the slightest, because the expectation that this is a continuation of the trilogy's plot arc, and more importantly continuation of escalating player choices are to extend beyond the Shepard arc into potentially infinite sequels. I can see why some fans (like yourself) believe this so, given EA/BW's weight on player choice, player canon, and involvement in decision making, but I guess I've been exposed to enough alt-universe, canon disruption, and other stuff in games, literature, television, movies, and so on that I personally don't feel it matters.

I look at it like this double layered cake:

Top: [-------------Mass Effect "franchise", limitless potential "universe states"------------]
Bot: [---Shepard trilogy arc, player choices---][--------ME4+ arc, player choices--------]

There is no universal franchise canon. There is no broad sweeping locked choices. The top layer is just the franchise, a template of many choices that can be shaped and moulded to whatever BioWare/Devs see fit for the new story framework they want to tell in what ever narrative arc. And underneath you've got the game specific series/arcs that start with a template then let you wiggle around with your own choices to shape your adventure, but limited to that arc.

Can appreciate why some fans want both top and bottom layers totally uniformed, but I don't, and disagree with the notion that separating them constitutes as pointless, disruptive, undermining, compromising, or aggravating.

And I think this is something, no matter how I feel, BioWare/EA is going to have to wrestle with (and rightly so) when the announce what I'm 99% sure is a post-trilogy game. I might not care, and I might be very confident in why I think it's the right choice and why it doesn't matter, but fans expecting and hoping otherwise have the right to be heard and answered. I hope they can provide those fans the right arguments and support.

[Beerfish]

Sion1138 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I'd definitely prefer a 200-year time skip over a ten-years-after down a certain narrow road which from a certain point of view rather, ahem, destroys the rest of them in the process.

Skipping ahead 200-years will not avail them. 

If synthesis happened, it would definitely show. Same for the other two scenarios.

All three endings have huge and unique consequences for the universe and there is no number of years, or no reasonable number at least, by which they could skip ahead to have them all amalgamate into one.

Universe or galaxy?  Was this ever stated inj concrete fashion that the choices were to affect the whole universe or only the galaxy?

Universe as in that world in which the games take place.

And they are not going to take it to other galaxies, that would be too much.

Then one should not use 'universe' but rather galaxy when talking about the future potential of the series.  That really leads to one of the easiest 'outs' for the developers if the don't want to be tied down by the ME3 result.  Onward to a different galaxy and leave the Shepard games behind.

[ElitePinecone]

Beerfish wrote...
Onward to a different galaxy and leave the Shepard games behind.

It's been brought up a few times but I could totally see that happening. People have suggested an ark ship that gets waylaid and ends up in a new galaxy, or something.

It's probably the easiest way to get that "stranger in a strange land" feel that Mike Gamble apparently mentioned in the PAX fan panel, and if they arrived in a new galaxy before Shepard made their final decision, Bioware can completely sideswipe the endings.

It'd also fit nicely with something that Chris Priestly said ages ago while he was still at the company:

To call the next game Mass Effect 4 or ME4 is doing it a disservice and seems to cause a lot of confusion here. We have already said that the Commander Shepard trilogy is over and that the next game will not feature him/her. That is the only detail you have on the game. I see people saying "well, they'll have to pick a canon ending". No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. Wherever, whenever, whoever, etc will all be revealed years down the road when we actually start talking about it.

I do not call the game ME4 when I talk about it ever, bucause that makes people think of it more as "what happens after Mass Effect 3" rather than "what game happens next set in the Mass Effect Universe", which is far more accurate at this point. Obviously fans are going to speculate content, character and story until we actually reveal details in the years or months to come as you have almost no actual details, just don't get bogged down in "well how are they going to continue ME3...".

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 10 février 2014 - 04:43 .

[ElitePinecone]

And it's amusing to notice that we've practically done nothing else but talk about "well, they'll have to pick a canon ending" or "well how are they going to continue ME3" for the past two years or so, despite Chris saying that they weren't necessarily even relevant questions to ask.

[EatChildren]

Many have discussed the alt universe / new galaxy theory. It's just, like picking a canon ending, one of those "how are they going to justify it, when is it going to take place" kinda questions that we don't know the answer to. I suspect a lot of fans avoid "new galaxy" discussion out of dislike for what it would mean in terms of setting/lore abandonment (justified or not). Sequel, canon or no, has more interesting application due to taking existing, known content and doing something with it. New galaxy does not, so there's a lot less to discuss, other than just making things up out of nothing.

I also don't put too much stock in what Priestly says, especially that quote, which is blanket dismissal of commitment to any particular direction and pretty obvious PR weasel wording of a game that would have still been in very, very early development. By saying "No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side.", and taking it literally, he's leaving room for only one thing: alternative universe. Otherwise the rest of the quote is really what was reiterated by (I think) Yanick Roy; this is not a continuation of Shepard's trilogy, characters and narrative arc.

I agree that "new galaxy" would be the easiest, safest rout. Will be interesting to see if they take it. If the PAX leak is legit then the team asking fans if they want a sequel to me would imply it's not, and I can't really see them totally abandoning the wholllllle galaxy they'd been working with just like that, even if it would make for a really interesting setting. But we'll see.

WOULD BE NICE TO SEE SOON HEY BIOWARE