892 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1. Are you talking about the changes to the ship, or the web series?
Either way, that is still my POINT. EVERYTHING gets retconned. ME will be no different. You are the one who denyed that ME would get major retconns, when that's not the case foe ANYTHING.

I'm pretty sure you haven't watched "Forward Unto Dawn" since it happens before Halo :CE.  Everything doesn't get retconned and a great example of that is Fallout.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. First, Examples please?
Second, it's only easy to dislike a plot twist when you have NO idea how it would turn out. The Dark Energy plot was NEVER GIVEN a chance, I saw simalar reactions when the "Shepard is KIA" tralier with Legion came out. I'm SURE people hated THAT plot twist, until it was fleshed out. You CAN'T say they hated it when it was NEVER fully developed. If this had happened to the "Shepard is KIA" plot, you would be saying the same about that.

How can I give examples when Mac and Drew haven't commented on who wrote who in ME3, while that question itself is a strawman.  Its odd that you say the dark energy plot was "never given a chance" while you aren't giving a chance to the ME3 endings as a whole.

silverexile17s wrote...

3.... I NEVER said anything about Shepard needing or not needing to be in the next game.
I was talking about Mac Walters and Drew Karpyshyn's writing, and how the ending would have turned out had he stayed as lead writer. I NEVER brought Shepard into this. Please stay on topic.
Now, as I said, Drew most likely was the one who built the base for the Crucible plot. And the fact that it's ment to connect to the Citadel, which Manipulates dark energy and controls the entire mass relay network, means that the plot was simalir up to where they scrapped the original ending, and made it Casey Hudson's Deus Ex knock off.
If anything, the EC was what Walters WANTED to do in the first place, but Hudson superceeded him, wanting to keep it "High-level." I admit in this case, I place the blame on Hudson for this, because had he let Walters just go with what he already had, we would have gotten something that was at LEAST more original then what we DID get

Hindsight is 20/20 because you can only guess what wold have happened if Drew stayed for the entirity of ME3.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. But they CAN'T have it anywhere else. I doubt the Reapers went to OTHER galaxies and made Relays there. And if they DID, it would be like re-hashing the first games, almost a re-boot.
It really ISN'T all that vast and rich. Since nearly ALL the lore was built around fighting the Reapers, it really isn't all that vast, since it's just the same cycle over and over until the games. And now that the Reaper fight's done, none of the lore is really all that rich anymore, since it's all now just expanding on a diffinaitvely closed story. Every real question and answer was linked to the Reapers and the fight against them. Any other question is just micilanious at this point.

How is that a rehash when the Reapers are still mostly shrouded in mysterious and nothing has been shown outside of the Milky Way galaxy.

silverexile17s wrote...

Besides, they won't leave the Milky Way galaxy, when the Codex stated there was only 1% of the galaxy explored. Even though in truth, no one really want's to explore a story whose ending is already knowen at this point.
The problem is, they only THINK that ME is vast and rich, even though it really isn't anymore, with the Reapers gone.

Yet you assume this and thats a bad assumption.

1.Fallout 3 had the Broken Steel DLC that gave a new ending. Not a good point for you.

2. In other words, you have nothing but smoke to blow.

3. If THAT'S true, how can you instantly assume that it would have been any WORSE the what we got?.
YOU CAN'T. You have contrididcted your arguement again.

4. It's still the Reapers. No one wants to think there was NO point at ALL to those endings, if you just fight them AGAIN.

5. The same can be said for you, I might point out.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1.No, I'm not. According to the polls taken, it is FACT that more people considered ME2 more fulfilling then ME3.

If thats a "fact" then you wouldn't be looking at unofical polls on BSN.

silverexile17s wrote...
2. Not according to the critics and fans. That standpoint you used is again, a strawman:bandit:
The fans and critics all agree that ALL those movies, including the ones you listed, were horrible representations of their respective games.

If thats a strawman then most critics would agree with you but in reality that isn't the case.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. Well, congradulations. You know the world isn't flat. (scarcasm) Serously, you mirrror what YOU do. EVERYONE says that of you. There IS a reason for it.
You STILL didn'd give a straight answer. POST IT.

I see you're still not interested in the truth.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. You and I both know I haven't, but when I ask YOU if you know any more what they would do, you never directly responded, dancing around the issue like a damn scarecrow. AGAIN I ask, what exactally makes you more qualified on this then everyone else?
DID. YOU. WORK. WITH. ANY. OF. THEM???

Logic is only based on fact while you have only focused on opinion because of personal taste.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1. I DON'T harbor any anger. Just dissapointment. ANY anger you pick up is just everyones natural responce to how you typaclly treat them.

If thats the case then you wouldn't be using words in all caps.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. ...WHAT????
YOU said that star wars was MULTIPLE GALAXIES. What I just said proves that it's NOT. It;s SEPERATE TIME PERIODS. NOT STEPERATE GALAXIES. How the HELL can you say that, when EVERYONE SAW THE POSTS?!?! You CAN'T be this petty!!

If you disagreed with that then you wouldn't have said that KotOR does have multiple galaxies.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. LOOK at the game book. It's printed in Black and Friggin White.

Yet thats not the case because thats not from those books.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. Yet, it seems very few of those people ever FINISHED the game, according to numbers taken straight from BioWare.

You do know on average that most people don't finish Single Player games and that isn't a valid reason to create a strawman.

silverexile17s wrote...

5. STAR WARS IS ONE GALAXY. STAR TREK IS THE MILXY WAY ONLY.
STARCRAFT IS A SEGMENT OF THE DAMN MILKY WAY GALAXY.
Just like THEY don't expand into several galaxies, ME won't either.

Yet Star Wars doesn't take place ony in one galaxy.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

It sounds like you're arguing just to argue because Wikipedia really isn't an issue when opinion is in play.

YOUR opinion was that it was easaly edited to show flawed info, when I told you that's not the case. Try it yourself. It can't be edited to show false info that easaly.

It isn't an opinion that Wikipedia isn't reliable and accurate but it is opinion to say that Wikipedia is reliable and accurate.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1.Fallout 3 had the Broken Steel DLC that gave a new ending. Not a good point for you.

Brotherhood of Steel is just DLC and DLC in general is optional content.  To say that BoS is a nw ending would be saying that the Shilvering Isles is a new ending for Oblvion.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. In other words, you have nothing but smoke to blow.

If that was true then I would have to be acting like you to deny logic.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. If THAT'S true, how can you instantly assume that it would have been any WORSE the what we got?.
YOU CAN'T. You have contrididcted your arguement again.

Hindsight is still 20/20 and yo can't fight it with assumption.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. It's still the Reapers. No one wants to think there was NO point at ALL to those endings, if you just fight them AGAIN.

You act like the only villians would be the Reapers.

silverexile17s wrote...

5. The same can be said for you, I might point out.

How is that when I'm not assuming anything.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 02 novembre 2012 - 11:43 .

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1.No, I'm not. According to the polls taken, it is FACT that more people considered ME2 more fulfilling then ME3.

If thats a "fact" then you wouldn't be looking at unofical polls on BSN.

silverexile17s wrote...
2. Not according to the critics and fans. That standpoint you used is again, a strawman:bandit:
The fans and critics all agree that ALL those movies, including the ones you listed, were horrible representations of their respective games.

If thats a strawman then most critics would agree with you but in reality that isn't the case.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. Well, congradulations. You know the world isn't flat. (scarcasm) Serously, you mirrror what YOU do. EVERYONE says that of you. There IS a reason for it.
You STILL didn'd give a straight answer. POST IT.

I see you're still not interested in the truth.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. You and I both know I haven't, but when I ask YOU if you know any more what they would do, you never directly responded, dancing around the issue like a damn scarecrow. AGAIN I ask, what exactally makes you more qualified on this then everyone else?
DID. YOU. WORK. WITH. ANY. OF. THEM???

Logic is only based on fact while you have only focused on opinion because of personal taste.

1. It WASN'T. These were numbers taken from BioWare's own player tracking system, that they released to the public.

2. The reviews posted for the public to view discredits that claim.

3. And that is WHAT? If you KNOW as much as you keep SAYING you know, Bloody POST IT!

4. You haven't put up anything that makes your statements any less personal opinion, I remind you.
And you STILL have not answered the question.
DID YOU WORK WITH ANY OF THEM????

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1. I DON'T harbor any anger. Just dissapointment. ANY anger you pick up is just everyones natural responce to how you typaclly treat them.

If thats the case then you wouldn't be using words in all caps.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. ...WHAT????
YOU said that star wars was MULTIPLE GALAXIES. What I just said proves that it's NOT. It;s SEPERATE TIME PERIODS. NOT STEPERATE GALAXIES. How the HELL can you say that, when EVERYONE SAW THE POSTS?!?! You CAN'T be this petty!!

If you disagreed with that then you wouldn't have said that KotOR does have multiple galaxies.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. LOOK at the game book. It's printed in Black and Friggin White.

Yet thats not the case because thats not from those books.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. Yet, it seems very few of those people ever FINISHED the game, according to numbers taken straight from BioWare.

You do know on average that most people don't finish Single Player games and that isn't a valid reason to create a strawman.

silverexile17s wrote...

5. STAR WARS IS ONE GALAXY. STAR TREK IS THE MILXY WAY ONLY.
STARCRAFT IS A SEGMENT OF THE DAMN MILKY WAY GALAXY.
Just like THEY don't expand into several galaxies, ME won't either.

Yet Star Wars doesn't take place ony in one galaxy.

1...If someone wrote "I shot someone today." would you just BELIEVE that?
It's called accenting a point. Making it clear. People pay more attention to the POINT of the words when you cap.

2 I DIDN'T.
"Because KotOR is 4,000 YEARS BEFORE THE OTHER TWO!!!!! They TELL you this RIGHT on the BLOODY TITLE CRAWL!!!!!.   
Remember the part that said "4,000 years before the rise of the
Galactic Empire"?!?! ALOT changes in 4,000 years!!!! For
BETTER OR WORSE!!!! And Republuc Commando takes place in the same time
period as the Star Wars Movies. Geonosis was kind of a dead givaway. And
it takes place 16-18 years before The Force Unleashed.
And if you recall, the wookiee homeworld, Kashyyyk, is in ALL of those games!!!
This IS THE SAME GALAXY!! Just different TIME POINTS!!!!"
That was my exact post.

HOW did you come up with "Multiple galaxies" from reading what was basically:
"Things were different between Kotor and the other two, because they are seperated by 4,000 years of change, NOT because they are multiple galaxies."?
Alot changed in the galaxy between the 4,000 years that seperate KotOR and the other two games, RC and TFU.
They are the same galaxy. The thing that changes is the time period.

3. Buy the game book. Those numbers came direct from it. You can even google it and see for yourself that those numbers came from the book!

4. Then why buy it?
The point is, More people finsihed, replayed, and enjoied ME2 then they did ME3.

5. Yes, it does. Thats' why it's CALLED the Star Wars GALAXY. Thats' when you google "Map of the Star Wars Galaxy," you always get a map of ONE galaxy, not SEVERAL.
Star Wars is ONLY one galaxy.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 05 novembre 2012 - 10:19 .

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

It sounds like you're arguing just to argue because Wikipedia really isn't an issue when opinion is in play.

YOUR opinion was that it was easaly edited to show flawed info, when I told you that's not the case. Try it yourself. It can't be edited to show false info that easaly.

It isn't an opinion that Wikipedia isn't reliable and accurate but it is opinion to say that Wikipedia is reliable and accurate.

It's called "General Consensis." No different then when gamer critics collectively say a game is good or bad.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...


1. It WASN'T. These were numbers taken from BioWare's own player tracking system, that they released to the public.

What numbers were those, precisely?

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1.Fallout 3 had the Broken Steel DLC that gave a new ending. Not a good point for you.

Brotherhood of Steel is just DLC and DLC in general is optional content.  To say that BoS is a nw ending would be saying that the Shilvering Isles is a new ending for Oblvion.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. In other words, you have nothing but smoke to blow.

If that was true then I would have to be acting like you to deny logic.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. If THAT'S true, how can you instantly assume that it would have been any WORSE the what we got?.
YOU CAN'T. You have contrididcted your arguement again.

Hindsight is still 20/20 and yo can't fight it with assumption.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. It's still the Reapers. No one wants to think there was NO point at ALL to those endings, if you just fight them AGAIN.

You act like the only villians would be the Reapers.

silverexile17s wrote...

5. The same can be said for you, I might point out.

How is that when I'm not assuming anything.

1. Aren't they? Isn't Shivering Isles a new add-on that gives you a new way to end the game?
And it's BROKEN STEEL  that gave a new ending. Not BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL.

2. Then post a supporting article that offers creditance to your claims! You already have denied logic by saying that Dictionaries are not factual sources of information, but subjective information.

3. That's what YOU've done. Answer the question please. You say that we shouldn't assume a finished, fully fleshed out Dark Energy theroy ending that Drew wrote directly would be any better then what we got, but what supports YOUR assumption that it wouldn't have been so? Or that it would be worse?

4. The Reapers were too central to the mythos. Now that they are gone, there really is nothing left to build on that matters to the fans anymore.

5. You assume there is much to build on now that the central, core pieces of the mythos - The Reapers and Shepard - are gone.  Everything else was like supports for that, and were supported by them in turn. With them gone, it collapses the entire thing.
It's like starting totally from scratch. You assume that's good, and critisize me for fearing the bad implications of that.
Truth is, I don't see any positive way this can end for the series.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 03 novembre 2012 - 05:37 .

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...


1. It WASN'T. These were numbers taken from BioWare's own player tracking system, that they released to the public.

What numbers were those, precisely?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/08/13/only-42-of-players-finished-mass-effect-3/
The numbers say that ME2 is over ten to twelve percent higher then ME3 in how many people completed it.
The numbers themselves are:
ME1: 40%
ME2: 56%
ME3: 42%
DA:O: 36%
DA2: 41%
It's close, but ME2 is the most popular choice. More people who bought it actually finish it.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 novembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[Redbelle]

silverexile17s wrote...

*snip*

4. You haven't put up anything that makes your statements any less personal opinion, I remind you.
And you STILL have not answered the question.
DID YOU WORK WITH ANY OF THEM????

That's got my curiousity piqued. Did you work with any of them?

[Redbelle]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...


1.Fallout 3 had the Broken Steel DLC that gave a new ending. Not a good point for you.

Brotherhood of Steel is just DLC and DLC in general is optional content.  To say that BoS is a nw ending would be saying that the Shilvering Isles is a new ending for Oblvion.

You mean to tell me that the Game of the Year edition of Fallout 3 contained an ending.......... That was not the actual ending? Well where was the ending? It certainly wasn't at the radiation chamber since I sent the mutant in there......... casue, you know, radiation immunity and all.

I think the problem is you are ignoring continuity. Shivering isles was an addon that could be done at any point. It therefore can be classed as DLC in game content.

BoS by comparison took place after the radiation chamber event. You can't get to this content without going through the radiation chamber. Therefore, what was once the ending has now been pushed back as the timeline of events has been extended to that the chamber is no longer the end game scenario. BoS events take the place of the Radiation chamber.

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 novembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[N7 Assass1n]

Will both of you shut up? Its a perilous argument that seems to have no end. Get over what ever both of you are arguing about.

[silverexile17s]

N7 Assass1n wrote...

Will both of you shut up? Its a perilous argument that seems to have no end. Get over what ever both of you are arguing about.

I know. I'm sorry. I actually think that an entire thread was closed because of this bickering between me and @Blueprotoss.
So, back to topic...
Any votes on what the protagonist of this next game might be? Human? Alien? Synthetic?
Is it still going to be an RPG? Will it be a ful FPS?
And the most important question to date, in my opinion: Where to go from here? Where to start? What can they build from, now that the two core pieces of the mythos -Shepard and the Reapers- are out of the way?
Sequel?
Prequel?
Spin-off?
Who has an opinion?

Modifié par silverexile17s, 03 novembre 2012 - 08:10 .

[Redbelle]

silverexile17s wrote...

N7 Assass1n wrote...

Will both of you shut up? Its a perilous argument that seems to have no end. Get over what ever both of you are arguing about.

I know. I'm sorry. I actually think that an entire thread was closed because of this bickering between me and @Blueprotoss.
So, back to topic...
Any votes on what the protagonist of this next game might be? Human? Alien? Synthetic?
Is it still going to be an RPG? Will it be a ful FPS?
And the most important question to date, in my opinion: Where to go from here? Where to start? What can they build from, now that the two core pieces of the mythos -Shepard and the Reapers- are out of the way?
Sequel?
Prequel?
Spin-off?
Who has an opinion?

Regarding who the protag will be? Imma gonna go with human again. The idea of adding race character generation was appealing way back, but to make the character any race would likely force such a character to use his or her own institutions as a point to untangle whatever web of conspiracy or design requires untangling. The way around this is naturally, make the protag a specter with the support taht comes with the position. However, once we got past ME1 the role of Specter got pushed to the background. And frankly, if we are seeing the end of Shepard and the next protag will not be a soldier as BW have seemingly indicated, then it seems we are in for an entirely new angle to view the galaxy from.

I'm going with Sequel. Prequel's tend to be the death knell of franchises. Only MGS3 escaped this fate, but only because those behind it's development innovated like madmen to make the play style entirely unique. Bioware seem to lack this spirit of innovation and I doubt it's something they can just pick up and run with in relation to affecting game design. Shepard's identikit dream sequence's and events after the Harby beam seem to bear this out as these events could have tied into one another as a narrative instead of events that just happen for little player gratification

[Dr_Extrem]

the conceps is really half baked now and statements like, no shepard 2.0, are very dangerous.

who are we going to play? .. a c-sec customs clerc? a hitman? a trader? 

if the new game is set in the mass effect universe, wich is more limited than you think, and it is still an action rpg, it would be logical to play a character, that has at least basic firearms training, a biotic implant ot a grasp on engineering.
not like commander shepard ... will i have to book passage on a commercial transport to get to the places i need to go? ... well "waiting for the bus" adds playtime. no squadmates? no crew?


the new protagonist will be more like shepard, than you want to admit. the new character will have a spaceship, a crew, a li and squadmates.


fix the endings first - then go for a new one.

though i would prefer to continue shepards journey, i could acept a new protagonist. as long, as my shepard gets her well deserved ending and a bit happiness (including kids). she deserves it after saving the galaxy 3 times.

you could at least stop giving us hope in high ems destroy and give shepard a good death.


if the endings are left untouched, it is highly unlikely, that i will buy the new "mass effect" - and i have played almost every bioware game, that has been released.

[silverexile17s]

Redbelle wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

N7 Assass1n wrote...

Will both of you shut up? Its a perilous argument that seems to have no end. Get over what ever both of you are arguing about.

I know. I'm sorry. I actually think that an entire thread was closed because of this bickering between me and @Blueprotoss.
So, back to topic...
Any votes on what the protagonist of this next game might be? Human? Alien? Synthetic?
Is it still going to be an RPG? Will it be a ful FPS?
And the most important question to date, in my opinion: Where to go from here? Where to start? What can they build from, now that the two core pieces of the mythos -Shepard and the Reapers- are out of the way?
Sequel?
Prequel?
Spin-off?
Who has an opinion?

Regarding who the protag will be? Imma gonna go with human again. The idea of adding race character generation was appealing way back, but to make the character any race would likely force such a character to use his or her own institutions as a point to untangle whatever web of conspiracy or design requires untangling. The way around this is naturally, make the protag a specter with the support taht comes with the position. However, once we got past ME1 the role of Specter got pushed to the background. And frankly, if we are seeing the end of Shepard and the next protag will not be a soldier as BW have seemingly indicated, then it seems we are in for an entirely new angle to view the galaxy from.

I'm going with Sequel. Prequel's tend to be the death knell of franchises. Only MGS3 escaped this fate, but only because those behind it's development innovated like madmen to make the play style entirely unique. Bioware seem to lack this spirit of innovation and I doubt it's something they can just pick up and run with in relation to affecting game design. Shepard's identikit dream sequence's and events after the Harby beam seem to bear this out as these events could have tied into one another as a narrative instead of events that just happen for little player gratification

I agree.  But the problem is, how would they make a sequel?

I don't think that they could make a main plotline for each of the three endings, and the sidequests that would change because the main plot could not be the same for ALL of the options. Something that would work in a post-Destroy senario would fail in a post-Synthesis or post-Control senario. And I don't think that the current level of technology will handle that many questlines in a single game.

So, that would leave the option to either put the game so far into the future that everything Shepard did is near-forgotten, well past the effects of anything he did.
(Talking thousands of years, with either synthesis being rejected eventually, somehow, or synthetics being rebuilt long after Destroy, or that the Shepard A.I. controled Reapers dissapear and never return.)

OR.... Cannonize one of the spicific endings, like what was done for KotOR and TOR.

....That thought haunts me more then any other.

Cannonizing one spicific ending would make it seem like not even the final choice mattered in the game, if there is a connoncal ending that is chosen. It will make it seem like the ENTIRE TRILOGY was just a waste of time, effort, and money. And the backlash from THAT....

For BioWare, Cannonizing an ending is like tap-dancing, Gene Kelly-style, on an active Anti-Tank mine, while juggling live grenades, in front of a firing squad. It would kill the series Dead On Arrival.

Still, that's MY take on it. What's yours? Any ideas on how this can work?

Maybe that kid with the Stargazer. The one being told the story of "The Shepard."
THAT could be the protaginast, if it's made to be a follow-up to the series.

Also, how will this NOT be Shepard 2.0?  Shepard is the generic template for a player. Shepard was who and how we WANTED him to be. So, how can ANY protoganest for a ME RPG be otherwise? Shepard's template is the template for RPG Player Characters in general.
HOW do they intend to break that mold?

Modifié par silverexile17s, 04 novembre 2012 - 12:17 .

[Redbelle]

@ silverexile17s

My take on a sequel is that it would have to be set far on into the future, but instead of Shepard's actions being forgotten or rendered immaterial, have the effects of the ending/Shepards presence just up and leave without explanation so as to create mystery as to the motive. In this way we automatically create a plot point for the PC to resolve. Why did Shreaper leave, why did synthesis wear off. etc etc.

I agree such a take would be hard to plot out given the varying nature of how ME3 ended. But one of the problems with ME3 is the lack satisfaction by players in the endings as they were portreyed. This approach gives the player the chance to see how the galaxy turned out and what, if anything, the Catalyst had up his sleeve when he directed Shepard to the 3 endings.

Maybe it's just me, but taking advice from the enemy of all organic and synthetic life is not advice I'm keen to entertain as whatever advice given will, in some way, promote his agenda rather than Shepards.

On the matter of how they intend to break the mold........ maybe they'll give us the chance to play as a space hamster?

Modifié par Redbelle, 04 novembre 2012 - 01:12 .

[silverexile17s]

Redbelle wrote...

@ silverexile17s

My take on a sequel is that it would have to be set far on into the future, but instead of Shepard's actions being forgotten or rendered immaterial, have the effects of the ending/Shepards presence just up and leave without explanation so as to create mystery as to the motive. In this way we automatically create a plot point for the PC to resolve. Why did Shreaper leave, why did synthesis wear off. etc etc.

I agree such a take would be hard to plot out given the varying nature of how ME3 ended. But one of the problems with ME3 is the lack satisfaction by players in the endings as they were portreyed. This approach gives the player the chance to see how the galaxy turned out and what, if anything, the Catalyst had up his sleeve when he directed Shepard to the 3 endings.

Maybe it's just me, but taking advice from the enemy of all organic and synthetic life is not advice I'm keen to entertain as whatever advice given will, in some way, promote his agenda rather than Shepards.

On the matter of how they intend to break the mold........ maybe they'll give us the chance to play as a space hamster?

1. You mean something like how Revan dissapeared in the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games?
I admit, if the next game is in fact a sequel, finding the truth as to what happened to Shepard/ Shepard-Reaper A.I./ Synthesis would be compeling. Provided they give an explination that doesn't blow up like the original endings for ME3 did.

2. That would actually worry me a bit. Thinking that after the PAIN of going through those Deus Ex endings that the Reapers are STILL infulencing the galaxy. Well, I just worry about the state of the community. They are still dealing with the dissapointment bread by the ending fiasco. Thinking that even after that, there are STILL Reaper-based problems out there will be another fan-problem.

3. LOL.
That would be funny:P
I wonder what exactally they think they can pull off, though.

[Seival]

I think this thread deserves to be sticky.

[Kerilus]

A more important question would be:Will there be save import? Will what happened in ME1-3 matter in later games? Cuz...you know, my Shepard might just live through the destroy ending, see as he drew breath. Will there be a cameo of my Shep?

[silverexile17s]

Kerilus wrote...

A more important question would be:Will there be save import? Will what happened in ME1-3 matter in later games? Cuz...you know, my Shepard might just live through the destroy ending, see as he drew breath. Will there be a cameo of my Shep?

Sadly, I doubt it. The only fesable way they could build a sequel would be to canonize the endings.
Think about it, if one spicific ending is made cannon, not even the ending choices of ME3 will matter, meening why COULDN'T we have different endings?
THAT will re-ignite the fan protests, and damage the seires even further.
I doubt they want to revisit the first series any further, other then for DLC.
If it's a new story arc (though I have no idea how they will pull that off) it will most likely be a fresh start, with no factors from the last game trilogy having an impact on it.

[uzivatel]

silverexile17s wrote...

If it's a new story arc (though I have no idea how they will pull that off) it will most likely be a fresh start, with no factors from the last game trilogy having an impact on it.

Other than the green thing, there wont be some huge difference to people born few decades after the events of ME3. As such they may mention it at some point, but its not going to be very important.

[Kalo Windu]

Chief Commander wrote...

Bioware need to pull a Halo 4. That alone should show them that you can´t just leave the fate of such a popular hero in the balance. Halo without Chief is the same as Mass Effect without Shepard.

This. One hundred million times this.