Blueprotoss wrote...
silverexile17s wrote...
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?
Its not impossible at all to create a sequel for ME especially when Shepard isn't the center of ME. It sounds like you prefer that ME doesn't expand upon itself but most of the real fanbase wants to have another protagonist in the ME universe to control whether its another trilogy or a single installment.
LeandroBraz wrote...
silverexile17s wrote...
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.
To be fair if ME was only a trilogy then most of the Expanded Universe would focus around Shepard and ME was announced as 3 games that would focus around Shepard, which means that Bioware never stated that ME was only a trilogy. Don't forget about ME3: Infiltrator.
silverexile17s wrote...
I do agree. I have trouble believing in how the next game will recapture the love the community had previously for the game. It seems they literally backed themselves into a corner.
If thats in deed to be true then in reality ME3 would be the only ME game to receive complaints from the "fans". Nothing is perfect thus nobody should expect perfection when its an impossible goal to reach in the 1st place. Everyone will have their opinions whether they're biased or unbiased but at the end of the day opinions are just opinions. If Bioware really backed themselves in a corner then ME would have ended with ME1. Oddly enough that Owlman36 person reminds me of a Fox News rant especially with the one femenist trying to tear down ME1 for having "full blown nudity" when in reality it doesn't.
silverexile17s wrote...
The exact opposate. ME3 was a whale, and the others were salmon, in terms of fish.
Don't you mean how ME3 didn't change anything that was previously established in ME1 and ME2, which means you're trying to create a problem when there was no problem. Its odd that you're going down the same path that always people to call BS n you based on how you're focusing on opinion rather then the facts. Btw you can disagree with someone without trying to start a measuring contest even when you're losing before the ignition.
1.Shepard is half the core of the mythos. The entire trilogy
is centered around Shepard. The other half of the mythos is the Reapers, and the entire series is focused on the ripples that both create as Shepard tries to stop them.
Up to this point, Shepard HAS been the center of ME. That was almost half the
point. Such a big emphesis is put on the actions of Shepard, that the series would no longer feel like Mass Effect anymore.
As an example, Halo 4 brought back the Master Chief, because in the end, they figured that Just as Shepard is iconic to ME, Master Chief is iconic to Halo, and they came to the conclusion that Halo is not Halo without Master Chief.
You cannot easily start fresh when near the entire series was centered around the actions of the character you, for all intents and purposes, just killed off.
2. They announced a trilogy, and never said anything about a forth game, so people had hope that since a new game was not part of the initial announcement, that perhapse Shepard's story was not as finished as the trilogy made it out to be. They though that a forth game announced, after the planned trilogy, would be indicative of Shep's return. We had no knolodge of a new game beforehand, so open speculation was all to go on.
3. When did I say that any game is, or ever was, perfect? ALL games will have problems. Some minor, like the mako, and the inventory system. And some major, like the ending fiasco. Fan complaints are still feedback that can be drawn from to possibly improve a game.
And ME was nowhere near backed into a corner with the first game. At least from there, the story had an open-ended direction in could move forward from. That's not backed into a corner, and nothing involving ME1 could have done so, so I don't know where this "they would have stopped at ME1" opinion is comming from.
And you yourself say, opinions are opinions, but what makes YOURS any more "Fact" then anyone else?
4. First off, that is how the game
works. The last two are supposed to affect the third, not the other way around. Second, you claimed that the Mako and the Inventory System were bigger disputes, when the complaints on the Mako in ME1 and the Inventory in ME2 were small fish compaired to the whale of a dispute that was ME3's endings.
You did not state any factual source that discredits what I said. Google the BBC news report on Mass Effect 3's ending. That is my "proof of statement".
What is yours?
Modifié par silverexile17s, 27 novembre 2012 - 06:54 .
Retour en haut
:crying:
