494 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

AllegedVixEo wrote...

I think what Jessica Merizan supposedly says makes a lot of sense. I've been saying that for awhile too. Synthesis is the only way they can create a new game chronologically after ME3, and still write in an explanation for the other two choices without completely negating them.

-To make a ME4 game that plays off destroy would completely negate the other two decisions, same with control.. It would make it like the other choices never even happened.

But using synth as a cannon ending, they leave the possibility that even if you chose destroy or control to end your Shepard saga, synthesis occurred much later anyway. As the Catalyst states, it has become "inevitable". I think that's a really smart way to proceed with ME4.

I'd buy it.

Control and Synthesis should be negated...
They are ****ing stupid...

[Malanek]

AllegedVixEo wrote...

I think what Jessica Merizan supposedly says makes a lot of sense. I've been saying that for awhile too. Synthesis is the only way they can create a new game chronologically after ME3, and still write in an explanation for the other two choices without completely negating them.

-To make a ME4 game that plays off destroy would completely negate the other two decisions, same with control.. It would make it like the other choices never even happened.

But using synth as a cannon ending, they leave the possibility that even if you chose destroy or control to end your Shepard saga, synthesis occurred much later anyway. As the Catalyst states, it has become "inevitable". I think that's a really smart way to proceed with ME4.

I'd buy it.

Gotta say I disagree completely. I believe all three endings are way too different to not pick one and ignore the others. Not having God-shep in a sythesis based story is negating the control ending. It's just too major of an aspect to leave out. You also have Reapers and Geth which would be destroyed in a destroy ending.

[AllegedVixEo]

Malanek999 wrote...

The argument that synthesis is inevitable does not make it cannon for a sequel. Firstly under a non-synthesis ending, even if you assume some form of synthesis is inevitable, it is not going to happen any time soon. That gives plenty of time for sequels in a non-synthesised story.

That may be so, but for those people who chose synthesis or whichever other ending isn't chosen as the cannon in your theory, their heads are going to get all explodey if a new ME game comes out and it's as though that choice has been erased.. I mean if you turn on the game and everything picks up from a destroy standpoint, even after you chose synthesis or control... Then that would be totally balls.

But if you use synthesis and you make the game in the future, they can write in a little segue based on save data that explains how everything came to be synthesized many, many years after your Shepard's fate was decided, and that would be less balls.  Because that actually makes sense..

[AllegedVixEo]

Bill Casey wrote...

AllegedVixEo wrote...

I think what Jessica Merizan supposedly says makes a lot of sense. I've been saying that for awhile too. Synthesis is the only way they can create a new game chronologically after ME3, and still write in an explanation for the other two choices without completely negating them.

-To make a ME4 game that plays off destroy would completely negate the other two decisions, same with control.. It would make it like the other choices never even happened.

But using synth as a cannon ending, they leave the possibility that even if you chose destroy or control to end your Shepard saga, synthesis occurred much later anyway. As the Catalyst states, it has become "inevitable". I think that's a really smart way to proceed with ME4.

I'd buy it.

Control and Synthesis should be negated...
They are ****ing stupid...

I've been around the forums long enough to know how you feel, Bill.   But thanks for sharing it with me... again.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Bill Casey wrote...

Control and Synthesis should be negated...
They are ****ing stupid...

Anything that doesn't conform to your opinion is ****ing stupid? Okay...

[Bill Casey]

There are a litany of things that don't conform to my opinion which are not ****ing stupid...
The Control and Synthesis endings to Mass Effect 3 are not among them...

They are exceptionally enragingly offensively stupid...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 20 septembre 2012 - 01:35 .

[Volc19]

AllegedVixEo wrote...

I think what Jessica Merizan supposedly says makes a lot of sense. I've been saying that for awhile too. Synthesis is the only way they can create a new game chronologically after ME3, and still write in an explanation for the other two choices without completely negating them.

-To make a ME4 game that plays off destroy would completely negate the other two decisions, same with control.. It would make it like the other choices never even happened.

But using synth as a cannon ending, they leave the possibility that even if you chose destroy or control to end your Shepard saga, synthesis occurred much later anyway. As the Catalyst states, it has become "inevitable". I think that's a really smart way to proceed with ME4.

I'd buy it.

Or they could always not choose a canon outcome, and simply make a game where our choice actually matters, and we aren't forced into any of the endings.

Why is that such a difficult concept? To get all the endings into line, they could have the Reapers go into seclusion in the Control and Synthesis endings so there wouldn't be much disconnect from Destroy other than dialogue. The Geth could always be replaced by slightly-different mock-ups in Destroy (as in, not the same species, yet fufiling the role of the Geth. They wouldn't have the memories or characteristics of Geth, but they would still be Quarian-made synthetics), taking away that variable. Synthesizers could get everything in the game with a green hue, Controllers could get a mission where they speak to the Shepalyst, and Destroyers could meet the man himself.

There isn't a whole lot of variability needed to make this work. We don't need a canon ending. Bioware may like shortcuts that somewhat invalidate choice, but they wouldn't disregard the largest choice in the entire trilogy. They aren't evil.

[XXIceColdXX]

Synthesis is lame

[Baa Baa]

This is bad.
But then again, Jess Merizan isn't the best of sources.

[Malanek]

AllegedVixEo wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

The argument that synthesis is inevitable does not make it cannon for a sequel. Firstly under a non-synthesis ending, even if you assume some form of synthesis is inevitable, it is not going to happen any time soon. That gives plenty of time for sequels in a non-synthesised story.

That may be so, but for those people who chose synthesis or whichever other ending isn't chosen as the cannon in your theory, their heads are going to get all explodey if a new ME game comes out and it's as though that choice has been erased.. I mean if you turn on the game and everything picks up from a destroy standpoint, even after you chose synthesis or control... Then that would be totally balls.

But if you use synthesis and you make the game in the future, they can write in a little segue based on save data that explains how everything came to be synthesized many, many years after your Shepard's fate was decided, and that would be less balls.  Because that actually makes sense..

Again, I'm on a completely different wave length from you. The only point about taking a players choices and importing them into a new game is to show the player what happens next and give them a sense of accomplishment and continuity. If you say you will take the players choices these need to be respected. Not to make up some unconvincing story to effectively erase all the effects and railroad it back onto a different track. If the story is not going to respect player choices it is much better to be upfront about it, that way the player can continue to imagine what their own cannon reality was like while still enjoying a different story.

[shepskisaac]

Ohh now this looks like a 100% confirmation.

Except not.

You serious with these threads guys? With all due respect to Jessica, she said other things after ME3 release that didn't turn out true. Plus she said herself that she interprets things herself. So really

[The Anti-Saint]

Heh, SNUO; Synthetics New Universal Order...terrible.

[AllegedVixEo]

Malanek999 wrote...

AllegedVixEo wrote...

I think what Jessica Merizan supposedly says makes a lot of sense. I've been saying that for awhile too. Synthesis is the only way they can create a new game chronologically after ME3, and still write in an explanation for the other two choices without completely negating them.

-To make a ME4 game that plays off destroy would completely negate the other two decisions, same with control.. It would make it like the other choices never even happened.

But using synth as a cannon ending, they leave the possibility that even if you chose destroy or control to end your Shepard saga, synthesis occurred much later anyway. As the Catalyst states, it has become "inevitable". I think that's a really smart way to proceed with ME4.

I'd buy it.

Gotta say I disagree completely. I believe all three endings are way too different to not pick one and ignore the others. Not having God-shep in a sythesis based story is negating the control ending. It's just too major of an aspect to leave out. You also have Reapers and Geth which would be destroyed in a destroy ending.

Yeah, it would be really difficult, but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility.  

Far, far in the future much could happen.  Maybe based on game save data the Reapers don't come around anymore because they returned from wence they came, or some of them hid from the destroy beam in the darkness, like Leviathan, maybe the quarians rebuilt the geth after synthesis occurs to make up for the injustices that occurred between quarian and geth all those years, these are all just examples.. They may sound dumb to some people, but it's fiction and it took me two minutes to come up with these explanations.  I am sure Bioware's writer's can come up with something better over the course of a few years.  I've liked all the games a lot, and have faith that whatever they come up with will be good.  

[Rafficus III]

I don't know how post-Synth would work with all the shiny green reflections and what not. I'm trying to reconcile the possibility of it being the canon and leaving the endings the way they are, but it's hard. I still believe Destroy or Control would be better options to continue the series should they do a new IP in the future of Mass Effect 3. I will confess though, that Merizan is a bit attractive; probably just me. 

Modifié par hornedfrog87, 20 septembre 2012 - 01:44 .

[CyberMiguel]

AllegedVixEo wrote...

I think what Jessica Merizan supposedly says makes a lot of sense. I've been saying that for awhile too. Synthesis is the only way they can create a new game chronologically after ME3, and still write in an explanation for the other two choices without completely negating them.

-To make a ME4 game that plays off destroy would completely negate the other two decisions, same with control.. It would make it like the other choices never even happened.

But using synth as a cannon ending, they leave the possibility that even if you chose destroy or control to end your Shepard saga, synthesis occurred much later anyway. As the Catalyst states, it has become "inevitable". I think that's a really smart way to proceed with ME4.

I'd buy it.

Actually, Synthesis seems a rather stupid final choice, BUT it will happen anyway, though in organics terms if you choose control or destroy. If writers choose "Synthesis", they'd have to make a sequel at least a couple of centuries after ME3 events, that way they'd be sure that if you import a save game from ME3, it would begin with a flag like "synthesis chosen = 1 or 0" and show a short prologue where they state how singularity was achieved on organics terms. 

Simple, yet beautiful....I liked the idea. I'd buy that Mass Effect

Modifié par CyberMiguel, 20 septembre 2012 - 01:49 .

[Han Shot First]

Back when those comments from Jessica Merizan were first posted, I created this poll asking people if they'd be interested in Mass Effect 4 if synthesis was canon.

'No' is winning in a landslide.

[silentassassin264]

I picked synthesis anyway so I am fine with this.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Baa Baa wrote...

This is bad.
But then again, Jess Merizan isn't the best of sources.

Yeah but I wouldn't be suprised if they end up doing this anyways.
The next game if a sequel will likely be placed hundreds of years in the future from the current story and synthesis will have occurred at that point like it or not cause it's the final evolution of life or whatever.

[Ithurael]

Dendio1 wrote...

Mac Walters said synthesis was inevitable. So there you go

Fixed

Jessica also stated that she chose green in the AMAA at reddit.

It doesn't matter what this means

What matters is their plan....

[Conniving_Eagle]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

This is bad.
But then again, Jess Merizan isn't the best of sources.

Yeah but I wouldn't be suprised if they end up doing this anyways.
The next game if a sequel will likely be placed hundreds of years in the future from the current story and synthesis will have occurred at that point like it or not cause it's the final evolution of life or whatever.

Mass Effect and Bioware

[shepskisaac]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Yeah but I wouldn't be suprised if they end up doing this anyways.
The next game if a sequel will likely be placed hundreds of years in the future from the current story and synthesis will have occurred at that point like it or not cause it's the final evolution of life or whatever.

It's possible that synthesis of the current races would've occured already. But how would they change ALL LIFE in the galaxy? Because that's what happens in Synthesis. It's not just races we already know that get changed, all life, all animals, all plants on every planet in the galaxy incuding those that are still undiscovered are changed. That means whatever new race enters the space-faring era and contacts with already established races will already be synthesized. That means every planet we would visit in post-Synthesis world would have Synthesized fauna & flora.

In natural-synthesis scenario, what would be the point of transforming everything & everyone everywhere?

[Heather Cline]

they just dumped even worse on the ME franchise and I thought it couldn't get any worse than the Catalyst and EC but it did. Yep they just took a giant turd on a steaming pile of turd. Gods how low can they go?

[Epique Phael767]

ShepnTali wrote...

Boo hiss

[GreyLycanTrope]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

This is bad.
But then again, Jess Merizan isn't the best of sources.

Yeah but I wouldn't be suprised if they end up doing this anyways.
The next game if a sequel will likely be placed hundreds of years in the future from the current story and synthesis will have occurred at that point like it or not cause it's the final evolution of life or whatever.

Mass Effect and Bioware

BSN

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 20 septembre 2012 - 01:54 .

[GreyReaver]

Han Shot First wrote...

Back when those comments from Jessica Merizan were first posted, I created this poll asking people if they'd be interested in Mass Effect 4 if synthesis was canon.

'No' is winning in a landslide.

Thanks for the link about the synthesis poll; I just voted and you should too.  Yes, that means YOU!