Shinobu wrote...
At this point I believe ME4 is already in production and probably builds on the Synthesis ending. IIRC, at the very beginning of the endings uproar a post from someone at Bioware appeared saying "we're so sorry you feel this way but we've already started ME4 and it features Synthesis." (Anybody have a screencap?) The post lasted a few hours and then was removed. This coupled with Bioware "doubling down" on Synthesis via the EC, trying to make the other choices less attractive in Leviathan, and the rumor of Jessica Merizan telling someone's brother that Synthesis is it, makes it appear that too many resources have been already spent on ME:Synthesis for them to change course now.
There are a few problems:
Many people don't like Synthesis
Many people don't want one ending made canon (especially if it's Synthesis)
The endings are different enough that you can't shoehorn all of them into a single game (Is everybody green -- or not? Are there Geth -- or not? Are husks doing my laundry -- or not?)
I suggest that Bioware continue with ME:Synthesis because they can't do anything else, but instead of trying to make a post-Synthesis trilogy, instead they make four different alternate universe sequels:
ME4a: Synthesis
ME4b: Successful Refuse
ME4c: Destroy
ME4d: Control
This would free them from having to make choices in ME4 "importable" because there would be no ME5. Also, very different stories could be told given the different starting points. This could also win back some of the fanbase because while I have very little interest in ME:Synthesis if it is going to be the ONE future of the ME universe, I'd be interested to play it as an AU if I knew there would eventually be other endings to explore.
How do you feel about it?
Edit: I should add: ME4e: Indoctrination Theory
The thing is: if they make 4 seperate games to handle each ending, each would yield only very marginal profits, if not a net loss. Don't like Synthesis? Well, why bother buying a synthesis game? Don't want to control? Don't buy a control game. You think Refuse is just a joke? Refuse to buy a refuse-game. Destroy isn't a solution? Don't play it.
I doubt any one of those games would manage to even top ME1 in sales. However, the production costs of those 4 games combined would be at least three times the production costs for just ME3, while each game would end up smaller in scope than ME3. That is sooo not gonna happen! But it's the simple truth: a canon-ending based Mass Effect game simply won't be a success: too many people will get peeved because either their ending wasn't picked, their favourite species no longer exists or whatever, or because they simply refuse to play by someone elses' savegame, which is what a canon ending basically is, even if the canon savegame shares similarities with their own.
And if you're going to develop those 4 different themes anyway for 4 different games, why not combine them into one single game? That will most definitely save a lot of development resources, while keeping ALL the fans happy as well. It'd most definitely be a challenge for the writers, somewhat less for the programmers and designers. Production costs would end up at maybe half the production costs of 4 seperate games, if not less, but result in a game of similar scope as ME3, if not larger.
And the best part is: it allows the writers to work out the 4 different endings from ME3 towards one singular ending in ME4, where the state of the game universe is the same, regardless of the ending picked in ME3. Stabilizing the universe for more future games, though this stabilizing does not mean the universe is suddenly at peace. It'd only mean that there is one single version of the game universe, where we now have eight or nine different ones.
So that's the challenge for the writers: to write a script that braids the game into a single reality again after it has been unraveled during the past 3 games.
I seriously don't buy into the "we must have canon" nonsense. It's a sad sign of indoctrionation, about as bad as the Indoctrination Theory was a few months ago. I have little doubt that it's the same sheep advocating canon now, that were advocating the IT before. Canon also shows lack of imagination, meaning I'm happy that those supporting it aren't writers at all.
Then there's the "it's too expensive" excuse. Sorry, but that's nonsense as well. I'm definitely sure those saying that have little to no development skills. Something being a challenge or unorthodox does NOT mean it costs a lot of resources. It simply means it's a challenge or unorthodox. It requires a different approach, a different mind to solve, a different design philosophy. Those things may affect resource costs, or they may not. They may actually affect resource costs in either direction as well.
A canon ending is simply NOT necessary
Retour en haut
