5257 réponses à ce sujet

[Meuterei]

Well, no matter what ending you go with, ME3 really ruins the idea of sequels. They banjaxed the whole damn setting, and I can't see anything making sense after that. It would almost have to be a prequel for anything to happen now.

[spinachdiaper]

they should start a new section of the forums for the unannounced next Mass Effect already

[Rodus Maxumus]

Establish cannon from the trilogy. For example Shepard is a man, he chose to destroy the reapers (synthesis is just creepy and control takes away everyone’s freewill), he did not kill Wrex and stoped the genophage, save the counsel and so on. If not and all the choses from 1 to 3 are accounted for it will be a massive game that will only go for five minutes.

[Mangalores]

Rodus Maxumus wrote...

Establish cannon from the trilogy. For example Shepard is a man, he chose to destroy the reapers (synthesis is just creepy and control takes away everyone’s freewill), he did not kill Wrex and stoped the genophage, save the counsel and so on. If not and all the choses from 1 to 3 are accounted for it will be a massive game that will only go for five minutes.

They should probably just jump ahead sufficiently that it is a non issue like us not talking much about the effects and repercussions of the Napoleonic Wars anymore. I guess you could handwave destroy and control (Reapers somehow disappeared) but mainly make it unimportant to the story at hand.

[RampantBeaver]

It's obvious when you got three of the same ending they were making it easy for themselves for more sequels. I think they've probably already decided on what they're doing.

It will be some time forward from the events in ME3. All the mass relays were destroyed so it will deal with the consequences of that.

I just hope they leave out some of the stupid decisions made in ME3. Don't get carried away with this ridiculous 'sexy' tagline they seem to have attached to the franchise. I want a believable futuristic action RPG. An example is the over 'glamor-ification' of Ashley. She was a character I could really get into in ME1, it made sense that her hair was in check because she was a soldier; function over fashion. Then in ME3 she just looked like a glamor model. Immersion breaker right there.

Please make it so our choices matter as well. Also make it actually hard to get the good endings. I'm pretty sure everyone who cared could have whatever ending they pleased without much thought going into it. Cause and effect doesnt work like that in reality. Sometimes unforseen consequences really catch you by surprise.

For example, imagine if in ME3, you went out your way to get the geth on yourside and in the final battle the reapers just assumed control and they turned on you. Nobody could have predicted that and simple unexpected twists like that make the world feel all the more real.

I never fealt like I was making any meaningful decisions even before the ending when I realised I definitely hadnt made any meaningful decisions. I wanted **** to hit the fan and to see everyone dying around me and my well laid plans going ****** up in ways I couldnt have predicted so that I had to make some last ditch effort to kill the reapers whatever the cost. There was no tension at the end of ME3.

Anyway, no specific suggestions there for ME4 but more some guidence on making the franchise kick-ass again.

[Aethgeir]

Rodus Maxumus wrote...

Establish cannon from the trilogy. For example Shepard is a man, he chose to destroy the reapers (synthesis is just creepy and control takes away everyone’s freewill), he did not kill Wrex and stoped the genophage, save the counsel and so on. If not and all the choses from 1 to 3 are accounted for it will be a massive game that will only go for five minutes.

Hell No! I would hate that. I've always played as paragon-femshep, that's who Commander Shepard is to me!

The easiest way to deal with imported characters and past choices is the same way they've always dealt with them: Make them not matter anymore.

In ME2 and 3 it really didn't make much difference to the story if you saved the council or not. It really doesn't matter if you saved Ashley or Kaidan. Sparing Wrex is probably the most meaningful decision you ever make and even that has pretty limited consequences in the grand scheme of things.

So what if Shepard cured the genophage or not? The krogan are either rare because they're dying out, or rare because they've all gone back to Tuchanka for the cure. Either way, they are going to be rare in the sequel.  Same goes for the quarians and geth. If you killed either of them off, they'll be gone or rare members of a dying race. If the quarians are still around, they've mostly gone home to Rannoch to settle and acclimatize. If the geth are still around they're probably still staying out of everyone's way as usual. Again, we probably won't see much of them in ME4.  And as for the ending: After a few years/decades, everything will go pretty much back to normal, no matter what "ending" you chose.

I don't particularly like it, but that IS BioWare's usual MO in these situations. 

[Rodus Maxumus]

The (lazy) endings, the genophage and did Wrex live are the big things that I believe need to be established in cannon for the next ME games. They are too big to ignore, some can be ignored but not them. As for the endings is the Universe going to be filled with creepy half machine people or controlled by Catalyst/Shepard via the Reapers or with all AIs destroyed. If the genophage is cured then there will be a population explosion of Korgan, the ramifications of that will depend on who is in charge of the Korgan. Either Wrex is in charge and he is keeping their destructive impulses in check or Wreav is in charge and a new Korgan rebellion is on the cards.

[Aethgeir]

Rodus Maxumus wrote...

The (lazy) endings, the genophage and did Wrex live are the big things that I believe need to be established in cannon for the next ME games. They are too big to ignore, some can be ignored but not them. As for the endings is the Universe going to be filled with creepy half machine people or controlled by Catalyst/Shepard via the Reapers or with all AIs destroyed. If the genophage is cured then there will be a population explosion of Korgan, the ramifications of that will depend on who is in charge of the Korgan. Either Wrex is in charge and he is keeping their destructive impulses in check or Wreav is in charge and a new Korgan rebellion is on the cards.

Those examples are exactly what I'm talking about. The lazy endings won't matter: synthetics vs. organics and the consequences of that conflict likely won't play any part in the story of ME4 as that would require the writers to account for past choices. BioWare has already pretty much admitted blank slate on ME4, so probably all we'll get, is some reference to the galaxy rebuilding from the Reaper invasion that was stopped by Commander Shepard. They almost certainly won't elaborate on HOW the Reapers were stopped or who Commander Shepard was (and no, I don't think we'll see any 'creepy half machine people'!)

Same goes for Wrex and the genophage, whatever happens in ME4, it will likely also be far removed from the consequences of those choices. We might get nothing more than some dialogue or reference to the the krogan making trouble over the false genophage cure, or making trouble because of their rapidly increasing numbers.

I don't like it anymore than you do. Personally, I'd be thrilled if they incorporated "destroy", "control", or both into the story of ME4 (mostly because I despise the very idea of "synthesis" on a fundamental narrative level) and brought back Shepard as a kind of "Illusive Man" character that you could either support or clash with; and we'd go around sorting out the consequences of our choices in ME3.  But realistically, I think we're just going to see a whole lot of glossing over of ME3 as a whole.  In all honestly though, dropping some the baggage Mass Effect has accumulated at this point, is not such a bad thing.

Modifié par Aethgeir, 29 janvier 2014 - 04:00 .

[xaliqen]

Split the series into two distinct genres.

Develop a game similar to Star Wars: Republic Commando filled with intense strategic action.  Then, develop a separate game focusing on choice and role-playing similar to KOTOR.

Modifié par xaliqen, 29 janvier 2014 - 10:41 .

[EliotNesss]

Wow! Sometimes I feel like I played a completely different game from a lot of people who are commenting. In my trilogy; Wrex Lived; Grunt Lived; The Genophage was eradicated even though poor Mordin died heroically; Both Quarians and the Geth survived and allied; Miranda lived; Edi lived; Joker lived; Kaidan lived; Tali lived; Garrus lived; Samara lived; Javik lived; Jack lived; Liara lived and made an inspiring love interest for me; and the Mass Effect endings were inspiring instead of lazy or unfulfilling to me. There were some tragedies along the way. But that was what made the trilogy so endearing to me. So I just don't get some of the disdain.

Man itself is nothing but an organic machine. One who is searching for the God or Answers of its creation. All Mass Effect suggested was that "Organic Machinery" merge with "Artificial Synthetic Machinery" under a common bond of intelligence; Or one man (Shepard) Synthesize with Catalyst to help guide all forms of life down a new path (Solution). Of course the final 2 Renegade options proposed that nothing changes. And Everything just continues down a Hellish path of Mutually Assured Destruction. I am totally fine with those choices. They were no different than the ones Modern Religion versus Industrial/Technology Society proposes to us all. I reject that Bioware should have simply forced someone else's singular favorite Ending on me. Or mine on them. Maybe they should have just exposed everyone to the ending dictated by their singular choices instead of giving them options. Now that would have been "Lazy" IMO. I'm personally glad they did it exactly how they did.

I loved this Trilogy so much, that IMO Bioware could just remake all three episodes in a Next Gen way for all platforms (including VR), that it plays like one, huge, contiguous game with all DLC added in. Then make completely new DLC episodes at a rate of 2-3 per year, though 2016, to follow up events of the trilogy for about 100-200 years. They could call this the Definitive Mass Effect One Trilogy and make a boatload. And I wouldn't care if they even subtly changed a few things in each games canon to improve the storytelling. I would buy it just to experience the changes and adjustments. But with the Next trilogy, whenever they release the first episode; I would make a complete break with the first trilogy.

There is nothing in the way to prevent Bioware from doing the "Anniversary" type trilogy I suggested above with new "DLC" while simultaneously launching the first game of the new trilogy. It would most definitely keep the money flowing in huge amounts, while limiting their risks with the new trilogy.

Modifié par EliotNesss, 29 janvier 2014 - 06:55 .

[Iakus]

Aethgeir wrote...


Those examples are exactly what I'm talking about. The lazy endings won't matter: synthetics vs. organics and the consequences of that conflict likely won't play any part in the story of ME4 as that would require the writers to account for past choices. BioWare has already pretty much admitted blank slate on ME4, so probably all we'll get, is some reference to the galaxy rebuilding from the Reaper invasion that was stopped by Commander Shepard. They almost certainly won't elaborate on HOW the Reapers were stopped or who Commander Shepard was (and no, I don't think we'll see any 'creepy half machine people'!)

Same goes for Wrex and the genophage, whatever happens in ME4, it will likely also be far removed from the consequences of those choices. We might get nothing more than some dialogue or reference to the the krogan making trouble over the false genophage cure, or making trouble because of their rapidly increasing numbers.

I don't like it anymore than you do. Personally, I'd be thrilled if they incorporated "destroy", "control", or both into the story of ME4 (mostly because I despise the very idea of "synthesis" on a fundamental narrative level) and brought back Shepard as a kind of "Illusive Man" character that you could either support or clash with; and we'd go around sorting out the consequences of our choices in ME3.  But realistically, I think we're just going to see a whole lot of glossing over of ME3 as a whole.  In all honestly though, dropping some the baggage Mass Effect has accumulated at this point, is not such a bad thing.

I certainly hope this is true.  I despise the endings with a passion.  Seriously, they've pretty much wrecked Mass Effect for me, and I have no interest in revisiting a Red, Green, or Blue galaxy.  The best thing they can do is a tabula rasa as far as I'm concerned.  Don't mention Shepard, Liara, Wrex, or any previous characters.  No cameos.  Mention the Reapers as little as possible (preferably not at all).  

No baggage, not even a carry-on bag. 

[CptData]

Still alive, just retreated to Ashley's Sanctuary for most time

I still would love to see a full reboot of the original series with a more refined story (less logic holes), more RP, consistent combat & loot system, less Cerberus, more ways to solve a mission (non-combat approach, for example) ... you name it. And less "drop-the-ball"-characters. If you introduce a new guy to the crew, make sure he has a purpose three games later - not like Zaeed, for example. Or Grunt.

Just reboot the series. I'm pretty sure there are enough supporters for that job - and it would allow you to refine characters as well. There are still stories to tell about Grunt, Miranda, Ashley, Tali and co.

*sigh*

Yes, I'm still caring for that g*wddamn series. It's like a good book I'm reading sometimes - once you're at the end, you know you can't go back without knowing everything already. And you feel sad since it's over, despite the fact you also couldn't wait for the day when you start to read the last few chapters ...

Hell, I even would do it via crowd funding, do the writing stuff, whatever. Just give me a reboot.
*shakes fist*

(It won't happen).

Modifié par CptData, 30 janvier 2014 - 12:03 .

[EliotNesss]

iakus wrote...

I certainly hope this is true.  I despise the endings with a passion.  Seriously, they've pretty much wrecked Mass Effect for me, and I have no interest in revisiting a Red, Green, or Blue galaxy.  The best thing they can do is a tabula rasa as far as I'm concerned.  Don't mention Shepard, Liara, Wrex, or any previous characters.  No cameos.  Mention the Reapers as little as possible (preferably not at all).  

No baggage, not even a carry-on bag. 

While I disagree with the reasons for your last 3 sentences. I do agree whole heartedly with them. I say make a 100% break in the new trilogy. No mentions, hints or anything. As I said in the comment right above yours; I think they should remake the entire Mass Effect One Trilogy with all of the DLC added in. They can airbrush, change, enhance, diminish, any character, situation, circumstance or ending they want too. But make the entire game trilogy the definitive version of the Edition for PC, Xbox One and PS 4. Make it a seamless experience. Meaning the game physics, play through, graphics, texture, lighting and etc all seem alike. Then give us 2-3 years of new DLC off of that "Definitive" remake and I will be a happy camper.

When I say change things, I mean use the remake to take advantage of character enhancements. Make the DLC characters count throughout the story from the moment they are introduced into the storyline. Or Bounce them. Move Zaeed around the ship and environs for example. So that he really matters. They can do a ton with this approach. For example; by letting us play as the different character in the new DLC adventures. That would be really cool. And add much value and emotion to the endings. I suggest they create a motherload of new independent adventures with all of those characters within the same  ME universe. So I say, c'mon Bioware! Give me a definitive old trilogy with new episodes. And a very challenging new saga too. Continue to create for both platforms. This is truly a situation where a company can have its cake and eat it too.

Modifié par EliotNesss, 30 janvier 2014 - 12:06 .

[EliotNesss]

I just thought about this one. Remember the kid Shepard saved at the beginning of ME3? And had to watch him die or disappear under Reaper fire? And the scene haunted him through out the ME3 story as a tortured vision, or as a prophecy to come, of Catalyst?

Wouldn't it be neat if Bioware resurrected a story and game around the life and destiny of that kid? Who somehow miraculously survived the Reaper attack on Earth. Let us play out the story/role of that kid and his encounters in the precursor to the attack, to the cataclysm and reconstruction of Earth in a comprehensive new saga. That would be an intriguing game. And one with a lot of potential future outcomes IMO. Sort of like the kid in the movie "Ender's Game". But with much more tragedy to overcome. That could be a ton of fun, creating a character like that for us to play.

Modifié par EliotNesss, 30 janvier 2014 - 07:47 .

[Iakus]

CptData wrote...

Still alive, just retreated to Ashley's Sanctuary for most time

I still would love to see a full reboot of the original series with a more refined story (less logic holes), more RP, consistent combat & loot system, less Cerberus, more ways to solve a mission (non-combat approach, for example) ... you name it. And less "drop-the-ball"-characters. If you introduce a new guy to the crew, make sure he has a purpose three games later - not like Zaeed, for example. Or Grunt.

Just reboot the series. I'm pretty sure there are enough supporters for that job - and it would allow you to refine characters as well. There are still stories to tell about Grunt, Miranda, Ashley, Tali and co.

*sigh*

Yes, I'm still caring for that g*wddamn series. It's like a good book I'm reading sometimes - once you're at the end, you know you can't go back without knowing everything already. And you feel sad since it's over, despite the fact you also couldn't wait for the day when you start to read the last few chapters ...

Hell, I even would do it via crowd funding, do the writing stuff, whatever. Just give me a reboot.
*shakes fist*

(It won't happen).

Yeah I don't think it'll happen either.  It would take a lot more than a few tweaks and refinements to turn the trilogy into a coherant story.  And more than likely it would just bring the first two games down so they'd fit ME3 rather than the other way around.  Like putting Ash into a "Little Blue Dress" rather than a real uniform, more railroading Shepard's angst, etc.

[CptData]

iakus wrote...

Yeah I don't think it'll happen either.  It would take a lot more than a few tweaks and refinements to turn the trilogy into a coherant story.  And more than likely it would just bring the first two games down so they'd fit ME3 rather than the other way around.  Like putting Ash into a "Little Blue Dress" rather than a real uniform, more railroading Shepard's angst, etc.

Which totally is understandable since there's no interest to deal with the mistakes (more or less) done before. While I'm writing here, I'm also thinking about my very own fan project "retelling" the story. Of course, not the complete story, just one particular path - with changes I'd loved to see in the series as well. Like an option in ME2 to stay loyal towards the Alliance, where you STILL work for the Alliance. I'd introduce Cerberus in ME1 as a real threat with a complete story arc, but also would reduce their presence in ME3 to very few highly specialized teams - specialists, who're a real match to Shepard and his/her crew.

Combat? Tweak it a bit, keep the combat system of ME3, but also provide non-combat approaches. Remember those biotic extremists? Instead shooting through their ranks to get to their leader (and talk 'em down / kill him), why not avoiding the bloodshed entirely? Why's that not possible?
And maybe the next time you run into the Eclipse, you might be able to use your intimitation to talk them out of combat. If it works, it should be possible.

Shepard's nightmares? Make them more intense! Instead of a dead child, add fallen squad- and crewmembers. A renegade Shepard doesn't suffer from PTSD that much, but a full paragon Shepard nearly breaks entirely 'cause of those dreams. Make them intense, important and not just something annoying. Shepard is HAUNTED by the dead. At least in my interpretation, of course. A renegade Shepard doesn't mind the loss of his/her comrades that much, a paragon Shepard does for sure.

There are plenty of opportunities. Yes, it's not just tweaking a thing here or adding a feature there. A reboot with all the stuff added I have in my mind would feel like an entirely new game series. Typing that stuff down would surely excess one or two postings- it's pretty much stuff for a real project. And yet - entirely impossible since BW and EA want to create a new trilogy with - and that's what I fear most - emphasis on combat only.

Modifié par CptData, 30 janvier 2014 - 10:44 .

[Aethgeir]

@EliotNesss

Nope, in my first playthrough I had exactly the same results as you, right down to my choice of romance!

The only difference was my reaction to the "endings"  - and for the very reason you describe: BioWare simply forced someone else's singular favourite ending on us: That synthetics and organics can't co-exist.  It is upon that singular perspective that all three endings are based.

And in the game that I played, that perspective is clearly false: [Spoiler Alert] The Joker-EDI relationship demonstrates that organics and synthetics are capable of forming emotional bonds.  And reconciling the geth and quarians proves (at least within the context of this particular story and playthrough) that not only are synthetics and organics able to co-exist for mutual benefit, but even share common values and are even willing to unite against a common enemy.

The Reapers by contrast, already embody "Synthesis". They are the product of synthetics, and genetic material harvested from whole organic species - and they're the game's principal villain!  In fact I can't think of a single example throughout the entire Mass Effect trilogy where "Organic-Synthetic Fusion" is portrayed in a positive light: Husks, Saren, The Collectors, Project Overlord, even Shepard's implants are forced on them by a known enemy that subsequently has Shepard do their bidding. The reason this concept is so frequently reviled in the series, is because it flies in the face of one of the game's primary themes: Strength in diversity. "Synthesis" implies making everone the same.

Strength-in-diversity has been a recurring theme in BioWare games since Baldur's Gate. As players we're always required to assemble a motley band of colourful characters from all over the place and so ultimately overcome the villain.  And it's never been more obvious than in ME3: We spent nearly the entire game uniting the galaxy's disparate people to defeat the Reapers: That IS the primary plot of ME3.  Yet all that effort is to... "Deliver"... a Deus ex Machina device...  that arbitrarily presents us with 3 "endings"...  that are based on a false assumption... and unrelated to the game's primary plotline... huh?  It seems to me, that this is the real reason so many players complained that "their choices didn't matter", I'd say it goes beyond that: "playing most of the game" didn't matter!

"Synthesis" makes no sense within the larger context of the game or the trilogy, and that's before you consider that nowhere in the lore or the narrative, is there any indication that the Crucible, Citadel, Mass relays, or indeed any technology can bring about this "change" - hence the complaints about "space magic".

"Control" falls flat for me because it's basically siding with the game's other principal enemy. If I was Shepard and I did pursue this option, the first thing I would do, is use the Reapers to destroy each other! They're simply too dangerous to try to control or keep around for any reason.

"Destroy" was always the natural conclusion to which this game was headed. There was no doubt that we would ultimately defeat Saren; there was never any doubt that we would take down the Collectors. So why would we suddenly make nice and accept the world-view of the intergalactic genocide machines? It is painfully obvious that "destroy" was deliberately made "less appealing", so that players would consider the "alternatives". (That whole "Reaper Code" idea practically ruined the Rannoch story arc for me.)  As a writer, if you have to make one of your "endings" less appealing than the other two, than you shouldn't be doing a multiple-choice ending! ME1 didn't need that and it was great. ME2 didn't need it and was also good. ME3 didn't need it either.

I hope you don't take this overlong rant the wrong way. I am NOT trying to ruin your enjoyment of these games. I'm happy for you that you enjoyed the entire trilogy from start to finish.  I loved Mass Effect, and I desperately wish I could feel the same way.  I just hope that, at least now, you can understand why so many of us were so bitterly disappointed with how it all went down.

Modifié par Aethgeir, 31 janvier 2014 - 03:58 .

[Caldari Ghost]

A more in-depth and flexible player shield mechanic.

[Aethgeir]

CptData wrote...

iakus wrote...

Yeah I don't think it'll happen either.  It would take a lot more than a few tweaks and refinements to turn the trilogy into a coherant story.  And more than likely it would just bring the first two games down so they'd fit ME3 rather than the other way around.  Like putting Ash into a "Little Blue Dress" rather than a real uniform, more railroading Shepard's angst, etc.

Which totally is understandable since there's no interest to deal with the mistakes (more or less) done before. While I'm writing here, I'm also thinking about my very own fan project "retelling" the story. Of course, not the complete story, just one particular path - with changes I'd loved to see in the series as well. Like an option in ME2 to stay loyal towards the Alliance, where you STILL work for the Alliance. I'd introduce Cerberus in ME1 as a real threat with a complete story arc, but also would reduce their presence in ME3 to very few highly specialized teams - specialists, who're a real match to Shepard and his/her crew.

Combat? Tweak it a bit, keep the combat system of ME3, but also provide non-combat approaches. Remember those biotic extremists? Instead shooting through their ranks to get to their leader (and talk 'em down / kill him), why not avoiding the bloodshed entirely? Why's that not possible?
And maybe the next time you run into the Eclipse, you might be able to use your intimitation to talk them out of combat. If it works, it should be possible.

Shepard's nightmares? Make them more intense! Instead of a dead child, add fallen squad- and crewmembers. A renegade Shepard doesn't suffer from PTSD that much, but a full paragon Shepard nearly breaks entirely 'cause of those dreams. Make them intense, important and not just something annoying. Shepard is HAUNTED by the dead. At least in my interpretation, of course. A renegade Shepard doesn't mind the loss of his/her comrades that much, a paragon Shepard does for sure.

There are plenty of opportunities. Yes, it's not just tweaking a thing here or adding a feature there. A reboot with all the stuff added I have in my mind would feel like an entirely new game series. Typing that stuff down would surely excess one or two postings- it's pretty much stuff for a real project. And yet - entirely impossible since BW and EA want to create a new trilogy with - and that's what I fear most - emphasis on combat only.

Yeah, I've been down the same road myself!

I've practically written an entire alternate outline for ME3, where the overwhelming power of the Reapers is downplayed by slowly retracing the steps of Sovereign as you go around trying to unite the galaxy. The major implication being: The invasion is more than 2000 years late: There are more species than the Reapers had counted on, with technology the galaxy should not have (Thanix canons, QECs, etc.), an adaptable co-operative rather than dominant galactic society, and most critically: the Citadel (and Relay Network) are still beyond Reaper control.  Faced with these new odds, the Reaper's strategy would depend on using their indoctrinated agents (like Cerberus) to pit the various species against each other - an effort Shepard continuously thwarts!  Desperate, after Cerberus' failure to capture the Citadel for them, the Reapers build a conduit on Earth and try to capture the Citadel themselves. Realizing what was happening, Shepard leads his/her forces to Earth, fights through to the conduit, rides it to the Citadel and turns the Reapers own tactics against them by seizing control of the Relay Network and trapping the Reapers in all the systems they'd spread to trying to destroy Shepard. This would allow the allies to concentrate their forces, paving the way for a conventional victory and driving the Reapers, under normal FTL, into the dark corners of the Galaxy to remain a specter of dread for ME4!!!  Sadly, it's all just a pipe dream!

Your ideas of making Cerberus a larger story arc in ME1 and allowing Shepard to be more Alliance or Cerberus friendly in ME2 had occurred to me as well. It's amazing how, even with the way ME3 went down, this series continues to inspire people!

I had another idea for ME2, where the whole Collector story arc is embedded within the "Arrival" plot line: The Collectors would be building a replacement "Sovereign" for the purpose of locating and activating the "Object Rho" homing beacon. In thwarting this, Shepard again succeeds in buying the galaxy time.

Your idea of expanding on Shepard's nightmares is certainly interesting! I think it would fit in really well with a plot-twist where Shepard becomes indoctrinated. Perhaps as the PTSD or indoctrination grows worse over the course of the game, imagery from Shepard's dreams: burnt trees, ash, voices, shadowy figures, even the ghostly child, start intruding on actual missions, subtly at first, but increasingly as the game progresses, until at the end, Shepard would struggle to tell what's real and what isn't!

However, all these flights-of-fancy demonstrate the main problem I have with ideas for re-booting, updating or re-telling the Mass Effect Trilogy: We don't all agree on what we'd like to see changed, fixed, expanded, etc. For my part, Mass Effect just wouldn't be the same without Jennifer Hale as the voice of Shepard. Same goes for Garrus, Wrex, Grunt, Tali and many others! On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a total redesign of the Normandy, but I'm sure there are other fans who would consider that sacrilege.

In the end, I think any alterations to the existing trilogy would only create more disappointment. Better to let it rest in peace and let people like us have our fantasies!

Modifié par Aethgeir, 02 février 2014 - 12:11 .

[Rodus Maxumus]

Aethgeir wrote...

@EliotNesss

Nope, in my first playthrough I had exactly the same results as you, right down to my choice of romance!

The only difference was my reaction to the "endings"  - and for the very reason you describe: BioWare simply forced someone else's singular favourite ending on us: That synthetics and organics can't co-exist.  It is upon that singular perspective that all three endings are based.

And in the game that I played, that perspective is clearly false: [Spoiler Alert] The Joker-EDI relationship demonstrates that organics and synthetics are capable of forming emotional bonds.  And reconciling the geth and quarians proves (at least within the context of this particular story and playthrough) that not only are synthetics and organics able to co-exist for mutual benefit, but even share common values and are even willing to unite against a common enemy.

The Reapers by contrast, already embody "Synthesis". They are the product of synthetics, and genetic material harvested from whole organic species - and they're the game's principal villain!  In fact I can't think of a single example throughout the entire Mass Effect trilogy where "Organic-Synthetic Fusion" is portrayed in a positive light: Husks, Saren, The Collectors, Project Overlord, even Shepard's implants are forced on them by a known enemy that subsequently has Shepard do their bidding. The reason this concept is so frequently reviled in the series, is because it flies in the face of one of the game's primary themes: Strength in diversity. "Synthesis" implies making everone the same.

Strength-in-diversity has been a recurring theme in BioWare games since Baldur's Gate. As players we're always required to assemble a motley band of colourful characters from all over the place and so ultimately overcome the villain.  And it's never been more obvious than in ME3: We spent nearly the entire game uniting the galaxy's disparate people to defeat the Reapers: That IS the primary plot of ME3.  Yet all that effort is to... "Deliver"... a Deus ex Machina device...  that arbitrarily presents us with 3 "endings"...  that are based on a false assumption... and unrelated to the game's primary plotline... huh?  It seems to me, that this is the real reason so many players complained that "their choices didn't matter", I'd say it goes beyond that: "playing most of the game" didn't matter!

"Synthesis" makes no sense within the larger context of the game or the trilogy, and that's before you consider that nowhere in the lore or the narrative, is there any indication that the Crucible, Citadel, Mass relays, or indeed any technology can bring about this "change" - hence the complaints about "space magic".

"Control" falls flat for me because it's basically siding with the game's other principal enemy. If I was Shepard and I did pursue this option, the first thing I would do, is use the Reapers to destroy each other! They're simply too dangerous to try to control or keep around for any reason.

"Destroy" was always the natural conclusion to which this game was headed. There was no doubt that we would ultimately defeat Saren; there was never any doubt that we would take down the Collectors. So why would we suddenly make nice and accept the world-view of the intergalactic genocide machines? It is painfully obvious that "destroy" was deliberately made "less appealing", so that players would consider the "alternatives". (That whole "Reaper Code" idea practically ruined the Rannoch story arc for me.)  As a writer, if you have to make one of your "endings" less appealing than the other two, than you shouldn't be doing a multiple-choice ending! ME1 didn't need that and it was great. ME2 didn't need it and was also good. ME3 didn't need it either.

I hope you don't take this overlong rant the wrong way. I am NOT trying to ruin your enjoyment of these games. I'm happy for you that you enjoyed the entire trilogy from start to finish.  I loved Mass Effect, and I desperately wish I could feel the same way.  I just hope that, at least now, you can understand why so many of us were so bitterly disappointed with how it all went down.

I agree with your analysis, I believe EA/BW painted themselves into a corner with the multiple endings they were advertising and did not know how to end it. Either they ran out of time and/or money, written by committee with interference from on high or just poor writing for me it was a confused anti-climax.
For me (and this is what I just came up with in the last hour) I would have made the crucible into a reaper communions jammer stopping the reapers from coordinating their attack and not being able to control the husks (and all the other race variants) and the non-sapient ships in the reaper fleets. The loss of control of the husks could have been as simple as they stop fighting and stand round looking confused and be gunned down or they could go berserk and attack anything near them including other husks. This would have made your war assets really count for something in the results of the final battles. It could have ended with a montage of what battles were won and lost depending on the choices you made.

[Grizzly46]

What Aethgeir wrote earlier is the most perfect conclusion I've seen regarding Mass Effect. Very eloquent.

Aethgeir wrote...

@EliotNesss

Nope, in my first playthrough I had exactly the same results as you, right down to my choice of romance!

Me too, but that's less important...

Aethgeir wrote...
And in the game that I played, that perspective is clearly false: [Spoiler Alert] The Joker-EDI relationship demonstrates that organics and synthetics are capable of forming emotional bonds.  And reconciling the geth and quarians proves (at least within the context of this particular story and playthrough) that not only are synthetics and organics able to co-exist for mutual benefit, but even share common values and are even willing to unite against a common enemy.

Also consider when Legion shows how geth function with the reaper code: "we find it[...] indicative of life."

Which I happen to agree with - Life is not necessarily the product of sperm meeting egg or some equivalent of that.

Aethgeir wrote...

The Reapers by contrast, already embody "Synthesis". They are the product of synthetics, and genetic material harvested from whole organic species - and they're the game's principal villain!  In fact I can't think of a single example throughout the entire Mass Effect trilogy where "Organic-Synthetic Fusion" is portrayed in a positive light: Husks, Saren, The Collectors, Project Overlord, even Shepard's implants are forced on them by a known enemy that subsequently has Shepard do their bidding. The reason this concept is so frequently reviled in the series, is because it flies in the face of one of the game's primary themes: Strength in diversity. "Synthesis" implies making everone the same.

God this needs a 'Like' - because you are 100% right.

Aethgeir wrote...

"Synthesis" makes no sense within the larger context of the game or the trilogy, and that's before you consider that nowhere in the lore or the narrative, is there any indication that the Crucible, Citadel, Mass relays, or indeed any technology can bring about this "change" - hence the complaints about "space magic"

I'd say that since it is also the principal force of the baddies (Saren, the reapers etc) it is also a way to surrender to them - Saren might have been misguided, Starchild's dad maybe didn't hug him enough when he was a kid and so on, but it doesn't matter - baddies do bad things for bad reasons.

Aethgeir wrote...

"Control" falls flat for me because it's basically siding with the game's other principal enemy. If I was Shepard and I did pursue this option, the first thing I would do, is use the Reapers to destroy each other! They're simply too dangerous to try to control or keep around for any reason.

Absolutely. Or possibly use them to haul ass into the nearest star. Because it has also shown throughout the series that you can't control anything 100% for an indefinite amount of time (case in point: the rebellious keepers), and it also goes against a core principle with most people, namely freedom. Now the reapers are free-willed independent machines who happens to use their free will to destroy civilizations...

Aethgeir wrote...

"Destroy" was always the natural conclusion to which this game was headed. There was no doubt that we would ultimately defeat Saren; there was never any doubt that we would take down the Collectors. So why would we suddenly make nice and accept the world-view of the intergalactic genocide machines? It is painfully obvious that "destroy" was deliberately made "less appealing", so that players would consider the "alternatives". (That whole "Reaper Code" idea practically ruined the Rannoch story arc for me.)  As a writer, if you have to make one of your "endings" less appealing than the other two, than you shouldn't be doing a multiple-choice ending! ME1 didn't need that and it was great. ME2 didn't need it and was also good. ME3 didn't need it either.

Technically you do have a choice at the end of ME2 to save the collector base or blow it up, but the result is the same.

The problem is not that there were three ways to end ME3, the problem was that in no way did anything else actually matter when it came to resolve the conflict. Sure tradition demands that any game ends with a big boom (Dragon Age Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 with a Destroy ending), but that is kind of tiresome in the long run since very few conflicts actually ends that way and for me cheapens the experience. Had we been through an actual war grinding down the reapers one by one, I would felt a lot more satisfaction.

Aethgeir wrote...

I hope you don't take this overlong rant the wrong way. I am NOT trying to ruin your enjoyment of these games. I'm happy for you that you enjoyed the entire trilogy from start to finish.  I loved Mass Effect, and I desperately wish I could feel the same way.  I just hope that, at least now, you can understand why so many of us were so bitterly disappointed with how it all went down.

Word.

[Shepard Drake Marston]

Aethgeir wrote...


"Synthesis" makes no sense within the larger context of the game or the trilogy, and that's before you consider that nowhere in the lore or the narrative, is there any indication that the Crucible, Citadel, Mass relays, or indeed any technology can bring about this "change" - hence the complaints about "space magic".

Not so sure about that. If you helped EDI and Legion/helped make peace with between the Geth and the Quarians, invested time and energy to do this, synthesis seemed liek the best option to me. So you'd have to weigh the positive up against the negatives, as in many choices one makes in life. That's not to say I think it was the perfect option, though neither was control. Destroy was close, as on a larger scale it felt the most natural conclusion considering the long battle you've had with the reapers. Though sadly at the expense of your new friends, EDI and the loayl geth.

Anyway, like others have suggested, I'd rather they moved the game away from those endings, and the best way to do that is to move forward in time, I ould think. That said, the ME trilogy focuses on a galactic threat, one that every species in the galaxy eventually became aware of. Unless the new game is moved to another galaxy, those events surely will be remembered in some way, but keep it minimal, a distant memory.

If indeed the new game is set in the same galaxy – and why shouldn'it – there is still plenty of places to explore, like I've said previously in this thread. My thoughts at this juncture: move away from a galactic threat, such things don't come around too often. You have all these established plantes and places to play around in, and probably several more left to explore (or at least to exlore further).

So why not focus on several, but smaller scale though still important, threats. Such as exposing and combating slavers, taking on an "evil" tycoon (or maybe siding with him/her?), and similar things. Some of them like The Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC, for example. Keep and tweak the improved combat system, but make different combat styles more distinct (I thought this worked slightly better in the ME3 multiplayer, actually – I'll play an adept a lot differently than an infiltrator, for example. But that said it did make sense that the greatest hero in the main game(s) would have more combat options and hence surpass strict class style). In certain instances, have the option of negotiating or fighting (as was suggested by somebody above). Make at least certain planets/cities/places more open world-ish and open to exploration.


Now for more coffee.

Modifié par Shepard Drake Marston, 31 janvier 2014 - 10:54 .

[Rodus Maxumus]

I thought about it some more and this is how I would have gone about the ending.
When Shepard goes into the conduct, the game goes into a cut scene “The Day Before”. Commander Bailey of C-Sec is in his office and he is being visited by Thane’s son Kolyat Krios (if he is available or some other Citadel character) when the reapers (I’m using reapers as an inclusive term for all reaper forces) attack the Citadel. You play as Commander Bailey as he helps oversee the evacuation of the Citadel and fights off the reapers with Kolyat and a C-Sec officer. The evacuation is stopped when the reapers move the Citadel, by then the reapers control the Presidium but not yet the Ward. The new C-Sec Executor is in command of the defence of one of the Wards, the same one Bailey is in. After Bailey has defended a section of the Ward, the Executer contacts his to tell him that the reapers have captured some civilians and orders Bailey to rescue them with reinforcements to follow. Bailey, Kolyat and a third follow the reapers with the civilians into a part of the Citadel that was only accessed by the keepers. After they catch up to the reapers and rescue the civilians sends them back with the reinforcements while he and his team go deeper into the keeper tunnels “To see what trouble we can stir up.”
It is deeper into the tunnels that they find Shepard. Shepard is pretty out of it and Bailey wants to take him back to safety but Shepard insists that they keep going to turn on the Crucible. (So still playing as Bailey) Bailey leads Kolyat and the Third who is helping Shepard to walk deeper into the tunnels. Eventually they come to a hidden control room for the Citadel and kill the Reapers. Shepard tells Bailey to hold off the reapers coming to take back control of the control room. After a wave of reapers are killed you switch back to playing Shepard as he searches the control room for a way to turn on the Crucible.
The Crucible turns out to be a reaper communions jammer stopping the reapers from coordinating their attack and not being able to control the husks (and all the other race variants) and the non-sapient ships in the reaper fleets. The loss of control of the husks could have been as simple as they stop fighting and stand round looking confused and be gunned down or they could go berserk and attack anything near them including other husks. This would have made your war assets really count for something in the results of the final battles. It could have ended with a montage of what battles were won and lost depending on the choices you made.

[CptData]

Aethgeir wrote...

[...]
However, all these flights-of-fancy demonstrate the main problem I have with ideas for re-booting, updating or re-telling the Mass Effect Trilogy: We don't all agree on what we'd like to see changed, fixed, expanded, etc. For my part, Mass Effect just wouldn't be the same without Jennifer Hale as the voice of Shepard. Same goes for Garrus, Wrex, Grunt, Tali and many others! On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a total redesign of the Normandy, but I'm sure there are other fans who would consider that sacrilege.

In the end, I think any alterations to the existing trilogy would only create more disappointment. Better to let it rest in peace and let people like have our fantasies!

Well, I think it's entirely possible to reboot the series with known characters and the correct voices. In some case, like Zaeed, it's kinda complicated since his VA died , 'though if you really want to bring back Zaeed, you'll also find a fitting VA.

Thing is: you're right if you say some people won't like a reboot 'cause of details. Changing the Normandy's interior to make sense is one thing - the neck section is far too short, for instance. Also, life pods are missing, there are not enough crew quarters, all the jazz. There are a thousand details I'd change here already.

Just three ideas out of 'em:

- The MAKO can be upgraded and used throughout the entire series to explore worlds. And worlds get generated randomly - thanks to a more modern engine, it shouldn't be too hard to generate fresh new worlds without looking too cheap. Some missions won't allow you to take the MAKO, but the KODIAK - and this time, Steve (or the guy before him) will be the pilot.

- The Normandy also gets a more prominent role: at least one idea for a mission revolves around intercepting a pirate ship. You, as the commander, can decide if Joker hunts down or cripples the ship, then you may enter the ship and do whatever job you have to do there.
Of course, upgrading that ship should play a role. For instance, the SR1 can be upgraded in ME1. With enough upgrades, it won't get destroyed in ME2, but survive - barely. Shepard won't die at the beginning of ME2 (since his death doesn't make sense and feels like space magic), but depending on the Normandy's status, s/he'll either ends in hands of Cerberus (badly injured) or Alliance (still badly injured). So the Normandy SR1, if upgraded properly, may decide Shepard's starting point in ME2.

- Crew interacts with each other. Not just by script, but by "real" interactions. Garrus won't hang out in his room, calibrating guns, but may also check if Ashley's still there. Joker may leave his seat from time to time to fetch some food. Liara isn't sitting in her room all day but roams here and there, talking with random crew members. Add a day-night-cycle, give the impression it takes time to go from A to B. All the jazz that adds immersion.

And yeah, as you said: some people may dislike such reboot. However, other people may like it. And tbh: I think most people fear BW may sink the ship again with a nonsensical ending ... that's something that shouldn't happen again for sure.