80611 réponses à ce sujet

[dorktainian]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

If IT is correct, they don't even have to "force" an ending. Then destroy is the only ending that can be expanded upon.

are you sure about that?  

[Norlond]

You know, with or without IT, I think a decent sequel is almost impossible. We have a ton of variables, small ones like did you kill Major Kyle in ME1, which are unimportant I guess, but also major ones like is the genophage cured? Have quarians/geth/both survived?
The endings are even worse (literal POV): Are the Reapers destroyed? Is everyone synthesized?

They have to force at least some of the major plot variables to make a sequel

There're only 2 easy ways to avoid at least the ending variety:
1: Set the sequel 1000+ years in the future
2. IT

[Kira Sierra Cyrus]

^
>are you sure about that?
Control ending would allow for some kind of "Shepard goes the way of previous Catalyst and starts harvesting civilizations"

Synthesis ending would only allow for some kind of anti-utopia game

[Kira Sierra Cyrus]

>You know, with or without IT, I think a decent sequel is almost impossible

They could just force/ignore player's decisions, like they did so many times before

[draconian139]

Kira Sierra Cyrus wrote...

With the way things were left in some of ME3's endings, Bioware has little choice about ME4:
1. retcon everything
2. make a prequel (worst scenario)
3. force "destroy" ending and make a sequel (I hope this will be the case)
4. force "refusal" ending and make a game set in the next cycle. They won't go with this one, because no humans

5. Force "Control" ending and make a sequel.
They won't do this but I'd love it if they did.  A universe watched over and controlled by an AI based off of a renegade Shepard would be an extremely interesting setting in my book.  There's multiple reasons they wouldn't do this though, for one most of the people that don't choose control wouldn't like it, for another those that did would probably get upset that the game would revolve around finding a way to destroy this AI and the reapers.  I would simply view it as an alternate universe and thoroughly enjoy it.

[DoomsdayDevice]

dorktainian wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

If IT is correct, they don't even have to "force" an ending. Then destroy is the only ending that can be expanded upon.

are you sure about that?  

Yes, because I don't believe for a second that Bioware will reward the player for abandoning the mission. (Refuse)

The whole game is chock-full of references and foreshadowing for destroy. There's no such thing for refuse. Rather, the opposite.

Example:

Lt. Victus: Commander Shepard. My men and I are in your debt. Thank you for saving so many.
Shepard: What happened here?
Soldier: He screwed up!
Lt. Victus: Stand down, soldier.
Soldier: These men are dead because of him!
Lt. Victus: I said: stand down.
Shepard: Hey! I just saved all your asses, so everyone just calm down. Lieutenant, what's going on here?
Lt. Victus: I made a bad call. This is all on me. I chose caution and clever tactics over a head-on attack, and... my men paid the price. (...) We could see on holo that Reaper forces were blocking our intended path--staying on course guaranteed heavy casualties. So I chose a safer route, skirting the enemy, and that took us low and through these ruins. When we encountered resistance, there was no room to maneuver. Suddenly, we were in a fight for our lives. A lot of my men lost that fight.
Shepard: Making hard decisions and dealing with the consequences--that's what being a leader is about.
Lt. Victus: You're right, Commander. Our mission is still a failure. When we've stabilized the injured, we'll head back to the fleet.
Shepard: You're abandoning your mission?
Lt. Victus: We're down over thirty men! It would be suicide.
Shepard: What exactly did you come here to do?
Lt. Victus: There's a bomb on the planet. We were sent to defuse it.
Shepard: A bomb? How big?
Lt. Victus: Enormous. Cerberus has it.
Shepard: Lieutenant, if Cerberus has that bomb, you have to finish your mission.
Lt. Victus: Haven't these men sacrificed enough?
Shepard: Sacrifice is what we sign on for. They know that, and so should you.
Lt. Victus: My men have lost hope, Commander. Even if I wanted to finish the mission, they don't.
Shepard: It's your job to make them want to.
Lt. Victus: How?
Shepard: What's wrong with you? Inspire them! Threaten them! Lieutenant, if Cerberus succeeds, the Reapers divide and conquer us, and then that is on them.
Lt. Victus: Listen up! This isn't about your fears and grievances!
Soldier: Fears? We're only afraid of the next messed up order you give.
Lt. Victus: Irrelevant! Court martial, death and dishonour awaits anyone who balks (*) at his duty. We are Turian! We finish what we came here to do, or we die trying.
(...)
Shepard: Victus, I've given you a second chance. Don't screw this up.


(*) balk [bawk] verb (used without object)

1. to stop, as at an obstacle, and refuse to proceed or to do something specified (usually followed by at  ): He balked at making the speech.

2. (of a horse, mule, etc.) to stop short and stubbornly refuse to go on.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 03 janvier 2013 - 03:28 .

[Humakt83]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

If IT is correct, they don't even have to "force" an ending. Then destroy is the only ending that can be expanded upon.

I can easily see how they can expand upon all four endings with IT.

[Norlond]

Kira Sierra Cyrus wrote...
They could just force/ignore player's decisions, like they did so many times before

I hope not, DA2 was bad enough.. WHERE THE F*** IS MY WARDEN?!

[draconian139]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

If IT is correct, they don't even have to "force" an ending. Then destroy is the only ending that can be expanded upon.

are you sure about that?  

Yes, because I don't believe for a second that Bioware will reward the player for abandoning the mission. (Refuse)

The whole game is chock-full of references and foreshadowing for destroy. There's no such thing for refuse. Rather, the opposite.

Example:

Lt. Victus: Commander Shepard. My men and I are in your debt. Thank you for saving so many.
Shepard: What happened here?
Soldier: He screwed up!
Lt. Victus: Stand down, soldier.
Soldier: These men are dead because of him!
Lt. Victus: I said: stand down.
Shepard: Hey! I just saved all your asses, so everyone just calm down. Lieutenant, what's going on here?
Lt. Victus: I made a bad call. This is all on me. I chose caution and clever tactics over a head-on attack, and... my men paid the price. (...) We could see on holo that Reaper forces were blocking our intended path--staying on course guaranteed heavy casualties. So I chose a safer route, skirting the enemy, and that took us low and through these ruins. When we encountered resistance, there was no room to maneuver. Suddenly, we were in a fight for our lives. A lot of my men lost that fight.
Shepard: Making hard decisions and dealing with the consequences--that's what being a leader is about.
Lt. Victus: You're right, Commander. Our mission is still a failure. When
we've stabilized the injured, we'll head back to the fleet.
Shepard: You're abandoning your mission?
Lt. Victus: We're down over thirty men! It would be suicide.
Shepard: What exactly did you come here to do?
Lt. Victus: There's a bomb on the planet. We were sent to defuse it.
Shepard: A bomb? How big?
Lt. Victus: Enormous. Cerberus has it.
Shepard: Lieutenant, if Cerberus has that bomb, you have to finish your mission.
Lt. Victus: Haven't these men sacrificed enough?
Shepard: Sacrifice is what we sign on for. They know that, and so should you.
Lt. Victus: My men have lost hope, Commander. Even if I wanted to finish the mission, they don't.
Shepard: It's your job to make them want to.
Lt. Victus: How?
Shepard: What's wrong with you? Inspire them! Threaten them! Lieutenant, if Cerberus succeeds, the Reapers divide and conquer us, and then that is on them.
Lt. Victus: Listen up! This isn't about your fears and grievances!
Soldier: Fears? We're only afraid of the next messed up order you give.
Lt. Victus: Irrelevant! Court martial, death and dishonour awaits anyone who balks (*) at his duty. We are Turian! We finish what we came here to do, or we die trying.
(...)
Shepard: Victus, I've given you a second chance. Don't screw this up.


(*) balk [bawk] verb (used without object)

1. to stop, as at an obstacle, and refuse to proceed or to do something specified (usually followed by at  ): He balked at making the speech.

2. (of a horse, mule, etc.) to stop short and stubbornly refuse to go on.

How exactly is wanting starbrat to shutup with his lies and shooting him in the head "abandoning the mission"?

[DoomsdayDevice]

Humakt83 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

If IT is correct, they don't even have to "force" an ending. Then destroy is the only ending that can be expanded upon.

I can easily see how they can expand upon all four endings with IT.

I mean expand in the context of giving us an entire new game. Unless the indoctrination is not final, and you can get rid of it in some way, sure. But if it's game over, then all you'll get for the other endings is glorified game over scenes.

[DoomsdayDevice]

draconian139 wrote...

How exactly is wanting starbrat to shutup with his lies and shooting him in the head "abandoning the mission"?

Because you came there to destroy them.

[draconian139]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

How exactly is wanting starbrat to shutup with his lies and shooting him in the head "abandoning the mission"?

Because you came there to destroy them.

Seems like Shep shooting at the actual avatar of a reaper instead of a tube that he has no reason to believe will destroy them holds to this motive even more.

Modifié par draconian139, 03 janvier 2013 - 03:20 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

draconian139 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

How exactly is wanting starbrat to shutup with his lies and shooting him in the head "abandoning the mission"?

Because you came there to destroy them.

Seems like Shep shooting at the actual avatar of a reaper instead of a tube that he has no reason to believe will destroy them holds to this motive even more.

Yeah, because shooting at the visual manifestation of an AI is obviously going to accomplish a lot more.

Shepard doesn't know (s)he's in an illusion. The only reason for not choosing destroy is listening to the Reaper AI and not wanting to sacrifice some of your allies.

[Humakt83]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

I mean expand in the context of giving us an entire new game. Unless the indoctrination is not final, and you can get rid of it in some way, sure. But if it's game over, then all you'll get for the other endings is glorified game over scenes.

Why Shepard being dead or indoctrinated would mean that the game is over? We could just as easily play with some other character or even as indoctrinated Shepard.

Hopefully we won't even play as Commander Shepard in Mass Effect 4.

[draconian139]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

How exactly is wanting starbrat to shutup with his lies and shooting him in the head "abandoning the mission"?

Because you came there to destroy them.

Seems like Shep shooting at the actual avatar of a reaper instead of a tube that he has no reason to believe will destroy them holds to this motive even more.

Yeah, because shooting at the visual manifestation of an AI is obviously going to accomplish a lot more.

Shepard doesn't know (s)he's in an illusion. The only reason for not choosing destroy is listening to the Reaper AI and not wanting to sacrifice some of your allies.

It won't accomplish anything other than sending a message.  There is more than one reason for choosing refuse and as this battle is happening in Shepard's mind intent is important.  If you don't choose destroy because you're unwilling to sacrifice the Geth/EDI that's one thing.  If you don't choose destroy because you don't believe that ANY of the three options would do what starbrat says that's another.  Also, I think its entirely possible for Shepard to recognize that its an illusion, just as its entirely possible to recognize if you're dreaming in real life.

Modifié par draconian139, 03 janvier 2013 - 03:30 .

[dorktainian]

how is refusing 'abandoning the mission'?

So refusing to condemn all organics to whatever the reapers are going to do with them is 'abandoning the mission'?

"I learned about choices and consequences and responsibility. I learned that we all have choices, even when we don't recognize them, and that those choices have consequences, not just for ourselves, but for others. We must assume responsibility for those consequences." John Sheridan : B5

Modifié par dorktainian, 03 janvier 2013 - 03:32 .

[Kira Sierra Cyrus]

>I hope not, DA2 was bad enough.. WHERE THE F*** IS MY WARDEN?!

While I agree that forcing is a bad thing, I would rather have them force destroy and play as a guy rebuilding relays/tech/whatever

>The only reason for not choosing destroy is listening to the Reaper AI and not wanting to sacrifice some of your allies.

Shepard should be able to understand that refusing catalyst's options will allow the cycle to continue

[DoomsdayDevice]

Humakt83 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

I mean expand in the context of giving us an entire new game. Unless the indoctrination is not final, and you can get rid of it in some way, sure. But if it's game over, then all you'll get for the other endings is glorified game over scenes.

Why Shepard being dead or indoctrinated would mean that the game is over? We could just as easily play with some other character or even as indoctrinated Shepard.

Hopefully we won't even play as Commander Shepard in Mass Effect 4.

Yeah, okay. I meant 'with Shepard'.

But I can't imagine them making a game in which you play either Shepard or some other dude(tte). It's either Shepard, or no Shepard at all.

And I'd like to think that breath scene is there for a reason.

I would hate for them to get rid of Shepard, for this story.

Sure, if it's a new story in the ME universe, why not. But as long as the Reaper threat isn't over, Shepard should be there, IMO.

[Kira Sierra Cyrus]

>its entirely possible to recognize if you're dreaming in real life.

It is not that easy though

[paxxton]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

If IT is correct, they don't even have to "force" an ending. Then destroy is the only ending that can be expanded upon.

If Destroy is the correct way to go with IT in mind, the Crucible is most likely not a trap. Shepard accepts that the Crucible is what can stop the Reapers.

In Refusal Shepard decides against utilizing the Crucible and hence the war is lost.

Modifié par paxxton, 03 janvier 2013 - 03:34 .

[dorktainian]

Kira Sierra Cyrus wrote...

>I hope not, DA2 was bad enough.. WHERE THE F*** IS MY WARDEN?!

While I agree that forcing is a bad thing, I would rather have them force destroy and play as a guy rebuilding relays/tech/whatever

>The only reason for not choosing destroy is listening to the Reaper AI and not wanting to sacrifice some of your allies.

Shepard should be able to understand that refusing catalyst's options will allow the cycle to continue

  

why?

earlier i equated the citadel to a loaded gun.  if you dont pull the trigger the gun does not fire.  also maybe the right choice is....not to choose at all.  (thanks JMS)

[Kira Sierra Cyrus]

>I would hate for them to get rid of Shepard, for this story.

There is a new DLC coming. With luck, it will expand on post-war events

[DoomsdayDevice]

draconian139 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

How exactly is wanting starbrat to shutup with his lies and shooting him in the head "abandoning the mission"?

Because you came there to destroy them.

Seems like Shep shooting at the actual avatar of a reaper instead of a tube that he has no reason to believe will destroy them holds to this motive even more.

Yeah, because shooting at the visual manifestation of an AI is obviously going to accomplish a lot more.

Shepard doesn't know (s)he's in an illusion. The only reason for not choosing destroy is listening to the Reaper AI and not wanting to sacrifice some of your allies.

It won't accomplish anything other than sending a message.  There is more than one reason for choosing refuse and as this battle is happening in Shepard's mind intent is important.  If you don't choose destroy because you're unwilling to sacrifice the Geth/EDI that's one thing.  If you don't choose destroy because you don't believe that ANY of the three options would do what starbrat says that's another.  Also, I think its entirely possible for Shepard to recognize that its an illusion, just as its entirely possible to recognize if you're dreaming in real life.

But that is not the reason that Shepard refuses. The dialogue doesn't go "I don't believe this situation is real, I refuse to go along with you, because I think you're indoctrinating me." No, you refuse because you don't like the consequences of the choices.

[draconian139]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

How exactly is wanting starbrat to shutup with his lies and shooting him in the head "abandoning the mission"?

Because you came there to destroy them.

Seems like Shep shooting at the actual avatar of a reaper instead of a tube that he has no reason to believe will destroy them holds to this motive even more.

Yeah, because shooting at the visual manifestation of an AI is obviously going to accomplish a lot more.

Shepard doesn't know (s)he's in an illusion. The only reason for not choosing destroy is listening to the Reaper AI and not wanting to sacrifice some of your allies.

It won't accomplish anything other than sending a message.  There is more than one reason for choosing refuse and as this battle is happening in Shepard's mind intent is important.  If you don't choose destroy because you're unwilling to sacrifice the Geth/EDI that's one thing.  If you don't choose destroy because you don't believe that ANY of the three options would do what starbrat says that's another.  Also, I think its entirely possible for Shepard to recognize that its an illusion, just as its entirely possible to recognize if you're dreaming in real life.

But that is not the reason that Shepard refuses. The dialogue doesn't go "I don't believe this situation is real, I refuse to go along with you, because I think you're indoctrinating me." No, you refuse because you don't like the consequences of the choices.

Shepard doesn't make a stupid speech if you shoot it.

Refusal A:Shep believes starbrat and refuses to make sacrifices

Refusal B:Shep thinks starbrat's full of it

Modifié par draconian139, 03 janvier 2013 - 03:38 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

paxxton wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

If IT is correct, they don't even have to "force" an ending. Then destroy is the only ending that can be expanded upon.

If Destroy is the correct way to go with IT in mind, the Crucible is most likely not a trap. Shepard accepts that the Crucible is what can stop the Reapers.

In Refusal Shepard decides against utilizing the Crucible and hence the war is lost.

I disagree. I think the destroy option was always on Shepard's mind. The catalyst can't change that. It's the ending in which Shepard keeps fighting. He chooses a violent confrontation, and that is why he snaps out of the indoctrination.

Note how you don't actually 'activate' the crucible in destroy, you blow it up. Hence shooting at the tube.