98 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

You do realize that you don't HAVE to kill off a character to end a character's story arc, right? People without the ability to say "no" kill off characters.

Forgetting control/synthesis.

It would have been just as easy to have had Shepard survive the ending and just end it with a cutscene with their LI or crew watching the sunrise, and just fade to black.

[xeNNN]

romeoblue wrote...

I've never really understood why there was such a need by Bioware to "end Shepard's story". I guess I can see them possibly not wanting to be shackled to one character, but I think for most Shepard IS Mass Effect. It just seems strange trying to continue the Mass Effect universe with another protagonist.

yeah i dont get it either, halo 3 was supposed to be the end of master cheif's story (btw im getting halo 4 TEHEHEH)  but he's coming back in halo 4 because of the legendary ending soooooooooooo idk maybe they will be like OH NOES LETS GET SHEPARD BACK lol. 


still a galaxy to clean up i guess.

Modifié par xeNNN, 21 septembre 2012 - 10:22 .

[xeNNN]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

You do realize that you don't HAVE to kill off a character to end a character's story arc, right? People without the ability to say "no" kill off characters.

Forgetting control/synthesis.

It would have been just as easy to have had Shepard survive the ending and just end it with a cutscene with their LI or crew watching the sunrise, and just fade to black.

you forgot one incredibly important detail..............................................





























artistic vision.

[TNT1991]

It would be nice to have Shepard and crew back in the next game that doesn't have anything to do with reapers for once--could be interesting. Gives a reason for that breathe scene...
But very unlikely, unfortunately.

[o Ventus]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Or they can take the sequel a couple centuries in the future so all the endings blur together over the expanse of time. That way Synthesis/Control people are happy too and Destroy isn't forced on people who don't like it in order to continue the story.

Still wouldn't work. Everybody in Synthesis is supposed to be a cyborg-esque superman (presumably with a longer lifespan). People are still normal in Control, only Shepard is dead. In the long term for Destroy, nothing has really changed. Refuse is too ambiguous as to how the Crucible was used.

Nevermind that the Reapers still exist in 2/4 of the endings, so what purpose would a timeskip have, other than to contrive a new setting?

[Hellmessenger]

TNT1991 wrote...

It would be nice to have Shepard and crew back in the next game that doesn't have anything to do with reapers for once--could be interesting. Gives a reason for that breathe scene...
But very unlikely, unfortunately.

Agree... Would be nice to see shepard involved in spectre duties without the reaper threat lying on his/her shoulders.

[CaIIisto]

Strongest part of the entire franchise for me are the characters. The Reaper storyline, for the most part, was great too. I could, however, get on board with another storyline, but not with a new set of characters. What is ME to me? It's Shepard, it's Garrus, it's Liara, etc. Without them, it's just another game.

If BW are intent on creating a game with new characters, then do it, and call it something else.

[Hellmessenger]

Bester76 wrote...

Strongest part of the entire franchise for me are the characters. The Reaper storyline, for the most part, was great too. I could, however, get on board with another storyline, but not with a new set of characters. What is ME to me? It's Shepard, it's Garrus, it's Liara, etc. Without them, it's just another game.

If BW are intent on creating a game with new characters, then do it, and call it something else.

Too true. I agree.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Bester76 wrote...

Strongest part of the entire franchise for me are the characters. The Reaper storyline, for the most part, was great too. I could, however, get on board with another storyline, but not with a new set of characters. What is ME to me? It's Shepard, it's Garrus, it's Liara, etc. Without them, it's just another game.

If BW are intent on creating a game with new characters, then do it, and call it something else.

I agree. If Shepard isn't back. Do a different Sci-fi universe. Wipe the slate clean. I'll just go with the Arrival and ME3 aren't canon, trade the games in, just keep ME1 and ME2 as the Mass Effect series.

If they do not change the ending of ME3, true fans of Mass Effect will not consider Mass Effect 3 to be canon.

[LilLino]

dead_goon wrote...

Hellmessenger wrote...

Everyone will agree that the ending of ME3 poses a serious problem for a sequel. In the previous Mass effect games the choices you made did have a lot of impacts on the course of the storyline. But these choices, though importants, had only an impact on precises elements of the plot. The ending of ME3 howerver, gives you a choice which lead to 3 entirely diffent futures.

Unfortunately the only way to include the 3 diffent paths into a Mass effect sequel would be to literally make 3 different games. Or at least include 3 largely different storylines in a single game. 

I'm going to have to disagree.
 
The ending of ME3 can be reduced to a footnote in the history of the ME universe if the next game is set far enough after the events of ME3.

For the purpose of my explanation, i'll set ME4 250 years after the events of ME3.

Control: 100 years after the conclusion of ME3, machine god Shep realises his presence is no longer needed or wanted for that matter, as his existence is just a constant reminder of the horrors of the war with the reapers, so he gathers up the reapers on mass, & dissapears thru the Omega 4 relay, deactivating it as he goes, never to be seen or heard from again. over the course of the following century & a half, machine god shep slips into the realm of myth & legend.

Destroy: Blank slate time, anything goes as the reapers are dead, so the next game can be written any way they see fit, once again, over the following 250 years, Sheps fight with the reapers slips into the realm of myth & legend.

Synthesis: Whilst at first Synthesis appears to work, within a matter of years problems start to arise, the enforced "melding" of Synthetic & Organic life starts to fail, until eventually the process fails completely, & synthetic & Organic life diverges to once again take there seperate paths. ultimatley, the cause of the failure is traced back to a rogue Salarian STG group, seeking to find a way to reverse engineer the Synthesis process as a method of speeding up the uplfting of lesser species.

Refuse: Blank slate time yet again, can be treated exactly the same way as Destroy.

So, if you saved your save game from ME3 & imported it into ME4, you would get a Codex entry along those lines, depending on what your chosen ending was from ME3. If you where an all new player, you would get a default canon ending pretty much along the same lines.

In short, ME4 could be treated like a whole new game & trilogy jump off point.

Dude, if all 3 endings lead to same thing, it's pointless to not-cannonise. It just kills them completely.

The point of anyone picking Synthesis is that they want eternal peace and give galaxy it's benefits. If it is doomed to fail anyway and people are gonna suffer then this mind-body raping ending has no ground to stand on whatsover.

Pretty much the same idea about you with control. If Reapers dissapear, don't interfere and do nothing then this ending is killed too. Shepard is supposed to rebuild and watch over the galaxy. It's just how it works.

So what I mean is that people who pick control/synthesis do it for safety. If they lead to same outcome as destroy ultimately then they're gonna be more pissed than when destroy is cannonised.

I prefer cannonising destroy as it'd not betray anyone's beliefs. It's the only ending with limitless possibilities. Galaxy rebuilds and solves problems on it's own without any intervention. It's also the only one where we have a chance of Shepard living. I don't really want to play as Shep anymore, but a cameo would be really nice.

And about save import, why would there be problems? Witcher 1/2 use totally different engines and there weren't any probs with the import. If it doesn't work it's because Bioware is lazy. 

Modifié par LilLino, 22 septembre 2012 - 12:32 .

[KevShep]

Bioware killed my Shepards conon playthrough. I will not be returning to any playthrough untill ME3 is cleaned up.

[CyberMiguel]

IsaacShep wrote...

Having Shep in ME4 would be the perfect excuse to pick Destroy to follow, but it's not gonna happen, not with changing console generation and save games transfer problem it creates

What problem? I used my PC saves on my Xbox and both worked fine. I can see them offering a free "transfer tool" on their website (for cross-platform transfers) or even cloud sync for people that continues in the same platform, so I see absolutely no problem there.

Modifié par CyberMiguel, 22 septembre 2012 - 06:05 .

[Kataphrut94]

It doesn't need Shepard. His/her story is done, and now is time for a new protagonist. No need to get bogged down in our favourite intergalactic ass-kicker or s/he'll become stale.

[Iakus]

Most compelling reason for ME4: Shepard's conclusion was so badly screwed up it needs a do-over.

Mass Effect 4: The Mulligan.

[Calamity]

I've always said MOAR Shep is a good thing.

[CroGamer002]

And where's the part OP should convince me that this is a good idea?

[LilLino]

It doesn't need Shepard, but it'd be cool if depending on our import we could or couldn't meet him/her, talk to him/her, or at least learn a little about his/her retirement to somewhere warm and tropical with his/her LI

[Eterna]

There isn't going to be a sequel. The ending allows too much variance for it to be possible.

[CrazyRah]

Mass Effect = Shepard for me so without Shepard i got no interest in the franchise but i rather let Shepard go now then see Shepard being used too much and used in games that really don't need Shepard. If they have to make another game then i would prefer if they called it something else but the power of known IP's is just too strong i suppose

[Aslanasadi]

The Mass Effect series is Shepard's story for me. It's hard to imagine any Mass Effect game without a Shepard, because I love this character and that's what made the series so special for me.

[Sanunes]

Personally, I am a little sad that the journey with Shepard and crew is over, but at the same time a new beginning is what this franchise needs for there is a lot of baggage inside and outside of the game. One thing I have hope for is that the story might be better for they won't be looking for places to insert choices from previous games, which is one of my bigger complaints about ME2/ME3.

As far as the reason to kill off Shepard is to try and stem the flow of people saying they want Shepard to return, if you look at the Dragon Age boards, people are attached to the Warden just as much as Shepard and they were disappointed the Warden wasn't part of Dragon Age 2 and are asking for the Warden to return in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

[JamieCOTC]

Mass Effect = Shepard to me too, though I'm fine w/ letting her go. I don't have to buy the next game (and probably won't.)

[Captain Crash]

N7 Assass1n wrote...

I completely agree. SHEPARD IS MASS EFFECT.

The Mass Effect Universe is vast.  We have grown to love characters such as Garrus, Wrex, Liara, Tali ect just as much as the main protagonist.   The game doesn't have to be solely about Shepard and her endeavors.   Just like Star Trek is about Kirk, Picard, Janeway and Sisko over many years of human exploration and discovery. Theres lots to do outside one person and a lot of time and places to do it. 

[themikefest]

have me4 with femshep and give her the proper closure she so rightfully deserves

[Kathleen321]

I just thought Shepard's story was going to end in ME3. I didn't like the way it ended but I still feel like another game is overkill.