892 réponses à ce sujet

[Alien Number Six]

Asharad Hett wrote...

That's fine. We don't want ME4.

Don't speak for me.

[silverexile17s]

scyphozoa wrote...

Glad shep is over. He was a cool guy, but it is important to rip the bandaid off. Now we can have a new entry into the ME franchise, with fresh characters and a fresh perspective.

But that won't matter if the prespective sucks anyway, from what happened IN the Shepard trilogy. Honestly, the best they can do is a spin-off or prequel at this point, and in that case, just as all the other lore has done, Shepard will be central to the lore. It will be more recyled then fresh, I'm afarid.

[silverexile17s]

LeandroBraz wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

LeandroBraz wrote...

JohnShepard12 wrote...

AndreasShepard wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Toolbox 24 wrote...

Thought they already said the ME3 was the end of Shepard's story arc?

Yes. Repeatedly. Casey said it. Miek Gamble & Mac Walters have said it. Jessica and I have said it.

Commander Shepard's adventures took place in ME1-ME3 (and DLCs). We are working on another ME game, but it is not a Commander Shepard game.

We have no other details as to what the new ME game will be, who what where when, etc it will be. It will likely be over a year before we start talking about what the new game will be, but you're welcome to contribute what you would like to see in it until then.

quote from Casey Hudson:

“And we’ll keep listening, because your insights and constructive
feedback will help determine what that content should be. This is not
the last you’ll hear of Commander Shepard.”

This quote seems contradictory now, unless he was only referring to pre-ending ME3 DLC, which would be LAME.

Bioware representatives have contradicted themselves constantly since hooking up with EA. Step by step, they seem to be losing touch.

God, why?

 Do you guys ever heard about DLC? You know, like the one we will get in November 27? This is what they mean when they said "this is not the last you'll hear of Commander Shepard". There's no contradiction here. We still getting some Shepard stuffs (DLC), but he won't be in the next game, his story end with ME3.

 It's that hard to understand that?

They didn't announce Shepard not being in the next game until a little after the next game's announcememt.

Weird, I remember it was pretty clear that the trilogy was the end of Shepard's story long before ME3 was released.

I also remember it being perfectly clear that there was JUST ONE trilogy.
I don't remember a forth game in that announcement. Yet we have that. Since it WAS NOT part of the original announcement, no one knew for sure weather or not Shepard was or wasn't in it yet.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 16 novembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[LisuPL]

Since someone already decided, that Black Ops series and Mass Effect series are basicly the same thing, why not make David Mason the new ME4 protagonist.

[Fedi.St]

What would be **** is if they do a mass effect 4 which doesn't have shepard but they decide to bring him back some how in a mass effect 5 or smth. They must program ahead for the next game and not decide it along the way

[Dr_Extrem]

Fedi.St wrote...

What would be **** is if they do a mass effect 4 which doesn't have shepard but they decide to bring him back some how in a mass effect 5 or smth. They must program ahead for the next game and not decide it along the way

sure .. they set up a plan for the next trilogy .. after the next game, they find out, that something is missing/wrong and then they scrap the plans ... or rewrite them.

thats what happened to this trilogy ... mass effect was planned as a trilogy but imo, they changed the course between the 2nd and 3rd game.


it would not be the first time, they bring a hero back to save the company ... or .. day.

[silverexile17s]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

What would be **** is if they do a mass effect 4 which doesn't have shepard but they decide to bring him back some how in a mass effect 5 or smth. They must program ahead for the next game and not decide it along the way

sure .. they set up a plan for the next trilogy .. after the next game, they find out, that something is missing/wrong and then they scrap the plans ... or rewrite them.

thats what happened to this trilogy ... mass effect was planned as a trilogy but imo, they changed the course between the 2nd and 3rd game.


it would not be the first time, they bring a hero back to save the company ... or .. day.

True enough. Master Chief's return in Halo 4 is proof of that.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 16 novembre 2012 - 04:01 .

[AlanC9]

Dr_Extrem wrote...


thats what happened to this trilogy ... mass effect was planned as a trilogy but imo, they changed the course between the 2nd and 3rd game. .

You're fooling yourself. There never was any course to change. Unless you believe that all the writers are lying and have been for years.

[SAVIOUR OF ORB]

I don't mind if the series goes forward into the deep future leaving Shepard’s ultimate fate an the squads futures lost to history. The Stargazer segment hinted that was the case. I got my after story based on the destroy ending that I’m doing, that handles what comes next for my MEverse. It really did feel like the EC was trying to make things open enough that we could say what came afterwards and not feel wrong. If they keep the Shep and co. stuff a secret then good. All of our desired after story’s stand has our personal cannon and feels official.

What I kinda don’t want to do is go backwards to the First Contact War. I’ve seen some people ask for it but honestly we know how it ended. Theirs not much their to explore. Also it seems a bit off to go from uniting the galaxy to I want to shot the Turians in the face. I wouldn’t mind playing around in the 2 year time frame that Shep was dead after two’s intro.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...


thats what happened to this trilogy ... mass effect was planned as a trilogy but imo, they changed the course between the 2nd and 3rd game. .

You're fooling yourself. There never was any course to change. Unless you believe that all the writers are lying and have been for years.

Like when they said that the geth in the intro tralier (Legion) would not be a squad mate, and we got him anyway?
Drew had a plot that was fleshed out for ME1 & 2, but left before he could flesh out 3. Mac and Casey tried instead, and created the Deus Ex endings that were in the game.
There WAS a course change. From Drew's Dark Energy plot, to this time-worn out "Organic vs Synthetic" plot that was ALREADY SOLVED in the Quarian/Geth war part of the game.
And Leviathen, I realize, was created after the EC, FOR the EC, so as to give some further justification to their "Artistic Integrity."

[Ithurael]

silverexile17s wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

What would be **** is if they do a mass effect 4 which doesn't have shepard but they decide to bring him back some how in a mass effect 5 or smth. They must program ahead for the next game and not decide it along the way

sure .. they set up a plan for the next trilogy .. after the next game, they find out, that something is missing/wrong and then they scrap the plans ... or rewrite them.

thats what happened to this trilogy ... mass effect was planned as a trilogy but imo, they changed the course between the 2nd and 3rd game.


it would not be the first time, they bring a hero back to save the company ... or .. day.

True enough. Master Chief's return in Halo 4 is proof of that.

So Bungie planned to give the Halo Franchise to 343?

I am just being cute.

Seriously though, Halo 3 didn't end with Chief dying at all. So it was obvious that he could return and there was a good amount of lore that could be used for a new conflict (forerunners, reclaimers, flood?) In Mass Effect the only thing the lore could use in maybe the Leviathans (or a new foe but I hate when they introduce a new enemy into the lore with no foreshadowing just for the sake of a new enemy).

In the end I still think they will do a prequel/Spinoff.

[Dr_Extrem]

Ithurael wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

What would be **** is if they do a mass effect 4 which doesn't have shepard but they decide to bring him back some how in a mass effect 5 or smth. They must program ahead for the next game and not decide it along the way

sure .. they set up a plan for the next trilogy .. after the next game, they find out, that something is missing/wrong and then they scrap the plans ... or rewrite them.

thats what happened to this trilogy ... mass effect was planned as a trilogy but imo, they changed the course between the 2nd and 3rd game.


it would not be the first time, they bring a hero back to save the company ... or .. day.

True enough. Master Chief's return in Halo 4 is proof of that.

So Bungie planned to give the Halo Franchise to 343?

I am just being cute.

Seriously though, Halo 3 didn't end with Chief dying at all. So it was obvious that he could return and there was a good amount of lore that could be used for a new conflict (forerunners, reclaimers, flood?) In Mass Effect the only thing the lore could use in maybe the Leviathans (or a new foe but I hate when they introduce a new enemy into the lore with no foreshadowing just for the sake of a new enemy).

In the end I still think they will do a prequel/Spinoff.

... the masterchief was shelved .. just like shepard. they could always canonise high ems destroy and bring him/her back ... not very plausible but effective.

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...


thats what happened to this trilogy ... mass effect was planned as a trilogy but imo, they changed the course between the 2nd and 3rd game. .

You're fooling yourself. There never was any course to change. Unless you believe that all the writers are lying and have been for years.

the inconsistancies regarding the me1-2 plot (humanities place and the frequent mentioning of dark energy) and the 3rd game are solid leads, that indicate a plotchange after the 2nd game. 

the conflict between organics and synthetics was totally pointless in me1 - the geth were just a tool and meet. in me2, the geth were transformed into a divided culture, where only a few of them joined saren, to gain gifts from the old machines. why recruit/buy the geth, if they are the damocles sword of the cycle? illogical.

the conflict (organics vs. synthetics) being the driving force of the reapers, came up very late during the story.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 16 novembre 2012 - 08:45 .

[silverexile17s]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Still, it feels like the more you build a character up, the more likely the end of their story will be a bittersweet self-sacrifice. It seems to be a fad with game trilogies. I fear for what will happen to the Chief in Halo 6. As well as poor Issac Clarke in Dead Space 3.

We already lost Cortana...:crying:

- cortana
- shepard

whos next on the list? ...

club 27 of gaming history is forming up.


sacrificing the protagonist is basicly ok - but the way mass effect 3 did it, was absolutely disappointing.

You forgot Dominic "Dom" Santiago, of the Gears of War series.

Issac Clarke, the protaganest of "Dead Space", is most likely going the same way as Ellen Ripley of "Aliens." The fact that Dead Space is a horror genre is bad chances right there. Then couple it with the fad of the protaganests of trilogies diying bittersweet deaths...

I'd put $10 that he'll be the next one to join Cortana, Dom and Shepard in "Club 27 of Gaming History."

Modifié par silverexile17s, 25 novembre 2012 - 08:46 .

[archangel1996]

If the ending is not fixed, they can take ME4 and put it in their............
And yeah, i am a ****ing hater father ****er who lives to hate and hates to live!

Modifié par archangel1996, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:44 .

[mackan__s]

I hope you have butter ^

[Shinobu]

Regardless of what has or has not been said by Bioware, I would still like another game with Shepard. Sure, it may be as bad as Alien 4, but at least the franchise wouldn't end with Alien 3.

Shepard deserved a better end.

[shodiswe]

I wonder that the protagonist in ME4 will be... Hopefully someone who has to work hard to get anywhere.. Shepard feelt like he/she was getting pushed along in First class... Actualy... Having the most expensive ships to carry you from point A to point B made first clas look silly

Shepard was a little bit like a 007 with expensive spaceships and gadgets instead of expensive cars and gadgets...

Modifié par shodiswe, 25 novembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[Harorrd]

hopefully they timetravel and get the real ending

[WhiteKnyght]

Considering the variance of the endings of ME3, a sequel wouldn't be wise. Unless the story involves colonizing other galaxies and making no mention of ME3's endings, save small comments and the green tint in people's skin.

A prequel would be best, I think.

Maybe show the founding of the Systems Alliance, the discovery of the archives on Mars, the first Contact War, and humanity's rise in the galactic community.

[abch4]

Alien Number Six wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

That's fine. We don't want ME4.

Don't speak for me.

Or me. Who is this WE?!

[Dr_Extrem]

well .. imho, they should fix the endings first and give shepard a chance to turn from mega-moron back to a relativly reasonable character.

without changing be state of me3 however, it is better to put shepard on the sideline. for shepards own sake and with the little dignity that is left.

[Blue Liara]

Going to be a prequel. So they can escape the giant pile of crap that is the ending. You just can't reconcile the ending of the game. You can't make the same game where one the reapers are controlled by Shep, one shep lives, one synthetics are unified with humans.

They made their mind up on a prequel in my opinion. Shameless money Grab. Any conflict or struggle of any grand consequence in a prequel would be meaningless because we already know the ending.

Hope I'm wrong. Hope it turns out to be a sequel and it turns out to be great. I hope that Bioware ACTUALLY listens to fans. Although I'm almost certain that they don't care.

[AlanC9]

As long as the thread's been necro'd anyway....

Dr_Extrem wrote...
the inconsistancies regarding the me1-2 plot (humanities place and the frequent mentioning of dark energy) and the 3rd game are solid leads, that indicate a plotchange after the 2nd game.  

Like I said, to believe this you have to believe that the devs are simply lying when they say that they never had written out a trilogy. After ME 2 they had a few different ideas for what to do next, dark energy being one they decided not to use. And for good reason, considering where they were going to go with that one.

 why recruit/buy the geth, if they are the damocles sword of the cycle? illogical.

They made useful tools, didn't they? What's illogical about using useful tools?

the conflict (organics vs. synthetics) being the driving force of the reapers, came up very late during the story.

Well, if you mean why the Reapers do the cycles, then sure. But organic/synthetic conflict itself is all over ME1. 

[Sajuro]

I remember when ME1 was coming out, Bioware said that Shepard's story was going to be a trilogy and they would continue the Mass Effect Universe after his story was over. I do not know why people are outraged about th- *checks the site*ohhhhhhh

[xsdob]

Why do people have such narrow minded thoughts when it comes to a sequel? It's either gotta canonize a single ending choice or be set in the far future?

Not really, no. They can just use the same solutions they used in ME2 and ME3, and have the outcomes shown with news sound clips, some npc dialouge, and codex entries on life in the galaxy today.