892 réponses à ce sujet

[KOM_95]

He'll be back.

[Horus Blackheart]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Why are prequels such a bad idea? There are plenty of games that are prequels where we know how the events have to turn out, but they're still incredible games all the same:

Halo: Reach
Final Fantasy 7: Crisis Core
Deus Ex: Human Revolution

In all these games, the characters are Doomed By Canon. None of their actions actually change or amount to anything because their "future" is already set. But these games manage to tell incredible stories and be good games as well. So don't discount prequels.

   

Well before I get in to this, I should mention that i've not played halo reach or Crisis core. That said Human revolution was in my view an exeption. Good prequals are rare and are usaly used as a cop out option cause  the publishers want a new game and the last game "tied things up." Prequels are more of a challange writting wise in that thay have to respect the caannon and creat a story with a protagonist and NPCs people can actualy engage with. It also has to be (sorry about this) "easy" for new players to get in to. which tipcaly means that lore has to be striped out or hidden away.


I'm not saying it cant be done but keep it in mind that the deusex hr team spent 5 years on that game and were able to step back from ther nostalga factor. They also listened (and more importantly) were seen to be acting on comuniity feed back ,activly engaging with the comunity. It was also the first game for the new edos They knew what was at stake if thay messed it up. Lastly I think that bioware is still to close to masseffect 3 I dont think thay can aprouch a prequel with the objectivty and care demanded  (just going by the curent track record of arguably sloppy sup-par writting and lack of qa.


ME4 needs to be done with the same care that Deus ex HR was or bioware may as well pack up shop as far as a lot of fans are concerned.

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

We were promised a trilogy and got that. We weren't promised to be able to shape the ME universe forever.

Which is why the Control and Synthesis endings have no place in Mass Effect. They would shape the universe forever. Unless of course the next game totally ignored this 'epic' choice.

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

[silverexile17s]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Why are prequels such a bad idea? There are plenty of games that are prequels where we know how the events have to turn out, but they're still incredible games all the same:

Halo: Reach
Final Fantasy 7: Crisis Core
Deus Ex: Human Revolution

In all these games, the characters are Doomed By Canon. None of their actions actually change or amount to anything because their "future" is already set. But these games manage to tell incredible stories and be good games as well. So don't discount prequels.

Exactally. We know how badly the Deus Ex sequel, Invisable War was handled because it cannonized aspects of all the endings. If they try something like that, then not only will it look even more like they riped off of Deus Ex, but the backlash from rendering the last choice of ME3 worthless anyway, despite BioWares' "Atristic Integrety" clames, will kill the series DOA. 
A prequel is really the only way the can go.

[silverexile17s]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Why are prequels such a bad idea? There are plenty of games that are prequels where we know how the events have to turn out, but they're still incredible games all the same:

Halo: Reach
Final Fantasy 7: Crisis Core
Deus Ex: Human Revolution

In all these games, the characters are Doomed By Canon. None of their actions actually change or amount to anything because their "future" is already set. But these games manage to tell incredible stories and be good games as well. So don't discount prequels.

   

Well before I get in to this, I should mention that i've not played halo reach or Crisis core. That said Human revolution was in my view an exeption. Good prequals are rare and are usaly used as a cop out option cause  the publishers want a new game and the last game "tied things up." Prequels are more of a challange writting wise in that thay have to respect the caannon and creat a story with a protagonist and NPCs people can actualy engage with. It also has to be (sorry about this) "easy" for new players to get in to. which tipcaly means that lore has to be striped out or hidden away.


I'm not saying it cant be done but keep it in mind that the deusex hr team spent 5 years on that game and were able to step back from ther nostalga factor. They also listened (and more importantly) were seen to be acting on comuniity feed back ,activly engaging with the comunity. It was also the first game for the new edos They knew what was at stake if thay messed it up. Lastly I think that bioware is still to close to masseffect 3 I dont think thay can aprouch a prequel with the objectivty and care demanded  (just going by the curent track record of arguably sloppy sup-par writting and lack of qa.


ME4 needs to be done with the same care that Deus ex HR was or bioware may as well pack up shop as far as a lot of fans are concerned.

But making a sequel is even more risky with the baggage the ending packs onto it. Not to mention coding a seperate fully crafted 30+ hour storyline for each option is time consuming, messsy, and generally hard to do effecently.
If anything, the game will be a prequel, or a spinn-off like the Mass Effect: Infiltrator OS game was.

[Sehoner]

All of the endings are viable simply because, whether they admit it or not, everyone has a standardized ending.

Are they viable under my posit? Not necessarily no, but that doesn't mean they are not viable period.

I haven't played any of the DLC and honestly, I probably won't insofar as they may attempt to alter the trilogy. I don't need them to have the story of Shepard complete.

I agree that synthesis sucks as an ending because of the exact reason you stated - genetic bottle-neck.

However, just because I don't like it, it certainly does not mean it is not a viable storyline that can be picked and tweaked.

Shepard was a renegade, plain and simple. Paragons don't kill, main and destroy things. The argument is, on that subject, was he a renegade with a conscious? Yes, yes he was.

What I have learned is that for every person that b*tches and complains about something there are 100 more than don't. So saying the community won't buy another ME game, prequel or sequel, based on some youtube videos and message board posts is fallacious logic.

As for he control option not being viable because some DLC or EC said Shepard is not a reaper or whatever...poppycock and ballswag bro. The EC looks to me like a ****** poor attempt from BW to fix something that didn't need to be fixed and just jacking it all up.

Would it not be cool to play as Shepard the reaper in anotehr galaxy trying to harvest organics? Maybe he has a change of heart and is trying to fight against the collective mind of the reaper force off and on - like the Harbinger theory.

Playing as Shepard or as someone he has indoctrinated trying to harvest would be awesome. Kind of like playing the human campaign, then the orc campaign.

How much more awesome would ME have been had you been able to play as the sqaud mates prior to joining the Normandy?

"Hey, Wrex, I need you on my team."
"Ok Shepard, but first I gotta take care of something."

Bam! Now you are Wrex going on some mission to tie up loose ends or whatever.

Or what about playing as Tali on Haestrom BEFORE Shepard arrives. Stellar.

There is still so much that can be done with this franchise, but it seems like people are pissed off because all their questions weren't answered to their satisfaction and they didn't get to see the hero walk away with the girl.

That stuff only happens in movies and SOME video games...the crappy ones usually.

Ask a wise man if he has answers and he will tel you that there are no answers, only more questions.

Thanks for the unsolicited advice bro, I logged it right next to "You'll go blind."

[Diurdi]

AlanC9 wrote...

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

It's not like a prequel will offer much more choice in the grand scheme. Whatever happens in the prequel would "have to" fit in with what happened in ME1-3. All outcomes within this repear cycle have already been determined. Cycles before will also inevitably lose to the reapers.

Modifié par Diurdi, 01 décembre 2012 - 08:48 .

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

We were promised a trilogy and got that. We weren't promised to be able to shape the ME universe forever.

Which is why the Control and Synthesis endings have no place in Mass Effect. They would shape the universe forever. Unless of course the next game totally ignored this 'epic' choice.

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

No. God no.
That's not what they want. It's what they feel they got already. The trilogy doesn't really give much leway at the end.

They don't really want those choices removed (though maybe that's what they want for Synthesis), they don't want those choices to be so linear. Just three directions to go?
He never said "less choice," and I don't know where you got that from. He said there should be other choices. Different ones, not less of them.
And he's right. You said that we weren;t going to shape the ME universe forever, but isn't that what Control, and Synthesis do? Won't any future events be shaped by that choice?

[JamieCOTC]

Bester76 wrote...

Good luck to them.

My ME journey ends with Shepard though, so if that's it, thanks and I'll be saving my $$$s.

While I never say never, I'm w/ you on this. I plan to keep a curious eye on ME4 (or whatever it will be named), but I'm not particularly excited about ME sans Shepard. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that Shepard gets a "rest" but Shepard is and always will the the heart of Mass Effect.

[silverexile17s]

Sehoner wrote...

All of the endings are viable simply because, whether they admit it or not, everyone has a standardized ending.

Are they viable under my posit? Not necessarily no, but that doesn't mean they are not viable period.

I haven't played any of the DLC and honestly, I probably won't insofar as they may attempt to alter the trilogy. I don't need them to have the story of Shepard complete.

I agree that synthesis sucks as an ending because of the exact reason you stated - genetic bottle-neck.

However, just because I don't like it, it certainly does not mean it is not a viable storyline that can be picked and tweaked.

Shepard was a renegade, plain and simple. Paragons don't kill, main and destroy things. The argument is, on that subject, was he a renegade with a conscious? Yes, yes he was.

What I have learned is that for every person that b*tches and complains about something there are 100 more than don't. So saying the community won't buy another ME game, prequel or sequel, based on some youtube videos and message board posts is fallacious logic.

As for he control option not being viable because some DLC or EC said Shepard is not a reaper or whatever...poppycock and ballswag bro. The EC looks to me like a ****** poor attempt from BW to fix something that didn't need to be fixed and just jacking it all up.

Would it not be cool to play as Shepard the reaper in anotehr galaxy trying to harvest organics? Maybe he has a change of heart and is trying to fight against the collective mind of the reaper force off and on - like the Harbinger theory.

Playing as Shepard or as someone he has indoctrinated trying to harvest would be awesome. Kind of like playing the human campaign, then the orc campaign.

How much more awesome would ME have been had you been able to play as the sqaud mates prior to joining the Normandy?

"Hey, Wrex, I need you on my team."
"Ok Shepard, but first I gotta take care of something."

Bam! Now you are Wrex going on some mission to tie up loose ends or whatever.

Or what about playing as Tali on Haestrom BEFORE Shepard arrives. Stellar.

There is still so much that can be done with this franchise, but it seems like people are pissed off because all their questions weren't answered to their satisfaction and they didn't get to see the hero walk away with the girl.

That stuff only happens in movies and SOME video games...the crappy ones usually.

Ask a wise man if he has answers and he will tel you that there are no answers, only more questions.

Thanks for the unsolicited advice bro, I logged it right next to "You'll go blind."

1.No. The whole point of RPG's is to avoid having a standerdized ending. RPG's are ment to be cannon only if the player achnonodges it  as such. Only the choices the player acknolodges as cannon are connon, and is only cannon for them. They all have a different cannon. If that "standerdized cannon" happens, then the endings' design will have completely failed.
In reality, none of the endings are viable to build off of, should one get cannonized. And even if one was chosen, no matter which one it is, the community will hate it because connonizing one spicific ending will render the ending choice as worthless as they said it was in their demands for the EC. And if the ending to ME3's final choice becomes worthless, so to does the previous games and all the DLC.
BioWare's "Artistic Integrity" will become a heap of BS, since they violated it anyway to cannonize one of the endings.

And trust me, I know that Synthesis could possibly work, if tweaked and explained. But out of all the endings, I can't help but think that would be the one the community reacts the most viloently to if cannonized.

2. Shepard's morals are no more set in stone the his/her gender was. That renagade mindset is your own personal cannon. Your own personal view on Shepard. 
It's not everyone elses. Half the hate over the ending was because they felt that the endings were only acceptable to renagades, and that prargons had little place in it, aside from the total self-sacrifice needed for Control.
Everyone has a different view on their psychoanalisis on Shepard. That generlization only fits a small number of the fanbase, as many have their own opinions on Shepard's actions.
Besides, the jedi in Star Wars were paragons if there ever were ones, and they killed to when there was no choice. Or maimed instead of killing. Is it a conscious choice? No. It's a reaction. Self-Defence. Thane talks about that in ME2.

3. Also, based on how the fanbase has shrunk drastically, whatever you see here is all that's left of the true fans. And the majority agree that in one way or another, ME3's ending sucked.
And that 100 you talk about say nothing, say nothing period. Because they gave up. They don't think BioWare is worth putting that much faith in anymore.

No one is going to be flocking to get the game, until they have walkthroughs on youtube, or some other proof that BioWare's "groove" is back.

4. The fan protests disprove that. Are you saying that you were okay with not knowing what happened to anyone? Not knowing about the Normandy's fate (stranded or not) or all the others?

You obviously are in the minority on those who thought the ending was all right, because even people who liked the ending choices hated the lack of closure for the characters. The ending's original state was full of plot holes and left too much unknown. EC fixes the majority of that.
BioWare cannonized the EC as part of the endings. If they scripted that, it's what happens if you make that choice.
If Shepard's memories and moral template were copied and given to a blank Reaper A.I., then thats' what happened there. If it says that Shepard is dead, and that it has the memroies but is a different person/entity, that's that.

It's no different from how in Caprica, Virtual Zoe was not the original Zoe. She had the same memories, but acknolodged herself as a different person/entity.
Same thing here.

5. No, it would not be accepted, and doing that "harvest" thing runs counter to the entire game. Why sacrifice Shepard to take Control of the Reapers if you are just going to harvest again anyway? That would make Control less popular, and many will be in arms again because that entire choice is now pointless. It would be like it makes you feel like it was the wrong choice to do that, when the devs wanted them to all be right or wrong based on player moral. This makes Control seem blatently wrong.
It's like the choice of rewriting the Geth Heretics was worthless because they convinced even more true geth to join them. It feels like you made the wrong choice. That will happen if someone follows your Control idea. It would still damn the series.

6. Why? What's the point? We all know that they end up on the Normandy anyway.
Wrex ends up on the Citadel regardless.
Tali's mission always ends with her rescue.

Following the character stories is something that was done in comics, like Mass Effect: Homeworlds. That four-issue series already told Tali's arrival on the Citadel with the Evidence against Saren before she meets you in ME1.  And how Liara ended up on Mars in ME3. And how Garrus ended up on Omega as Archangel. And how James became an Alliance Soldier. And now there is a movie comming out on James' incident with the Collectors.

These are things that no one has a major intrest in. Sure, it may be a cool chapter, but nothing to invoke a good game from. There is nothing that would be considered "steller" about events that have no real impact on where they end up. These are things that we more or less can guess, or already know. It would only have worked if Mass Effect was an FPS like Halo. But as is, you would have to gut the choices element, and it wouldn't really feel like ME anymore if you did that.

And I beg to differ. There are just as many good games that end with happy endings as there are good games that end with phyrric victories. The story-dirven interactive PS3 exclusive, Heavy Rain, is proof of that.
If anything, people are getting tired of the constant phyrric victories and big sacrifices. It's been done so many times now, it's become a fad.

7. And no one expected all their questions to get answered. They just expected to get some damn closure.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution had no real diffinitive end to Adam Jenson's story, but you felt like all the questions you had about "what" and "why" that were relevant to the story were answered, as well as they possilby could be. ME3 lacked that. You felt that everything that was relevent to the story was ignored for a rip-off of Deus Ex's endings, with no closure tp the story.
Now with the EC, the only thing that lacks a satisfying closure now is the bloody main character.

And I'm just trying to save you some trouble. Even if they do make a sequel, I doubt it will be anything like your head-cannon will be, in that they will not use any timeline that directly follows the endings.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 01 décembre 2012 - 09:11 .

[Bizantura]

I love my he/she Shepard and they will allways live on in the trilogy.

But no, clean slate please. I leave the "creativity" up to Bioware. A new story in the ME universe suffices.

[AlanC9]

Diurdi wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

It's not like a prequel will offer much more choice in the grand scheme. Whatever happens in the prequel would "have to" fit in with what happened in ME1-3. All outcomes within this repear cycle have already been determined. Cycles before will also inevitably lose to the reapers.

Right. I'm not plugging a prequel. I'm saying Bio should just pick one ending and go on from there.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

We were promised a trilogy and got that. We weren't promised to be able to shape the ME universe forever.

Which is why the Control and Synthesis endings have no place in Mass Effect. They would shape the universe forever. Unless of course the next game totally ignored this 'epic' choice.

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

No. God no.
That's not what they want. It's what they feel they got already. The trilogy doesn't really give much leway at the end.

They don't really want those choices removed (though maybe that's what they want for Synthesis), they don't want those choices to be so linear. Just three directions to go?
He never said "less choice," and I don't know where you got that from. He said there should be other choices. Different ones, not less of them.

See the italed lines? I don't know how you manage to interpret "have no place in Mass Effect" as a request for more choices, as opposed to having these choices removed. What is that supposed to mean? (SpamBot2000, you still around?)

And he's right. You said that we weren;t going to shape the ME universe forever, but isn't that what Control, and Synthesis do? Won't any future events be shaped by that choice?

Future events will be shaped by the choice if the future game is based on that choice. If not, then that choice goes to a different future and it isn't at all relevant to the sequel.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 décembre 2012 - 09:36 .

[Pyk]

Hi, maybe you should answer in the polls I created on when do you want the next ME game to take place and who you would like to have as the protagonist.

It will help us all quantify wishes and opinions and see what the forum really thinks in numbers.

Oh, and about choices you are arguing about: I guess video games always create only an illusion of choice and non-linearity and it's always up to you to suspend disbelief to immerse into the world (if you really expect such experience when you play). My point is, developers can actualy do whatever you want or don't want but in the end it's up to you to choose to enjoy the result or not.

They can create a story 1000 years after ME3 and make the universe look EXACTLY the same every time no matter what was your choice in ME3 and explain it in the easiest way (i.e. you can still have the Reapers out of the Milky Way, geth preserved or rebuit, glowing eyes being a cosmetic issue and so on, with only difference being the codex entry "The Reaper War Outcome"). Now it's for you to agree and move on or hate the game.

Modifié par Pyk, 01 décembre 2012 - 09:47 .

[tg0618]

I hope that Bioware changes their mind and realize that Shepard is Mass Effect and decide to continue his story in ME4.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

Diurdi wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

It's not like a prequel will offer much more choice in the grand scheme. Whatever happens in the prequel would "have to" fit in with what happened in ME1-3. All outcomes within this repear cycle have already been determined. Cycles before will also inevitably lose to the reapers.

Right. I'm not plugging a prequel. I'm saying Bio should just pick one ending and go on from there.

Ugh...I just got through telling you. If they do that, the fan backlash will kill the series. It will be making the last choice of ME3, and by extension the entire trilogy, worthless playing, since it all has a set story ending.

An ending gets cannonized, the ending choice becomes worthless. That happens, the series dies from fan backlash.

It's that simple, AlanC9. It won't even matter if the fans or devs are in the right or not. The backlash will make it too vloitile to go on. The series will effectively die.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

We were promised a trilogy and got that. We weren't promised to be able to shape the ME universe forever.

Which is why the Control and Synthesis endings have no place in Mass Effect. They would shape the universe forever. Unless of course the next game totally ignored this 'epic' choice.

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

No. God no.
That's not what they want. It's what they feel they got already. The trilogy doesn't really give much leway at the end.

They don't really want those choices removed (though maybe that's what they want for Synthesis), they don't want those choices to be so linear. Just three directions to go?
He never said "less choice," and I don't know where you got that from. He said there should be other choices. Different ones, not less of them.

See the italed lines? I don't know how you manage to interpret "have no place in Mass Effect" as a request for more choices, as opposed to having these choices removed. What is that supposed to mean? (SpamBot2000, you still around?)

And he's right. You said that we weren;t going to shape the ME universe forever, but isn't that what Control, and Synthesis do? Won't any future events be shaped by that choice?

Future events will be shaped by the choice if the future game is based on that choice. If not, then that choice goes to a different future and it isn't at all relevant to the sequel.

1. Yes, he wanted those choices removed, and replaced with new ones. This is not rocket science. What part of it said "there should be less choices"? Can you tell me that?
He didn't want those two as options, but that didn't mean he wanted less options for the ending. He wanted them replaced, not left blank.

2. There is no phesable way to make a game that directly picks up after the Reaper War. It could only work in a timeline that took place a thousand years or more afterward, in which there is nothing remaining of the previous trilogy except Shepard's name, and that the Reaper War ended. THOSE are the only things that could make it into a new game that would not cause a backlash. A totally clean slate. Importing anything like those choices will destroy what little of the series' potental is still intact. It has to be a blank slab, a completely fresh start. That's the only way it could work.

And anyway, making a sequel this soon is not a smart idea. A prequel is the best way to go at present.

[TorturousKitty]

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Diurdi wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

It's not like a prequel will offer much more choice in the grand scheme. Whatever happens in the prequel would "have to" fit in with what happened in ME1-3. All outcomes within this repear cycle have already been determined. Cycles before will also inevitably lose to the reapers.

Right. I'm not plugging a prequel. I'm saying Bio should just pick one ending and go on from there.

Ugh...I just got through telling you. If they do that, the fan backlash will kill the series. It will be making the last choice of ME3, and by extension the entire trilogy, worthless playing, since it all has a set story ending.

An ending gets cannonized, the ending choice becomes worthless. That happens, the series dies from fan backlash.

It's that simple, AlanC9. It won't even matter if the fans or devs are in the right or not. The backlash will make it too vloitile to go on. The series will effectively die.

Who says it has to be canon? It could just be assumed that it's one "dimension" that resulted from the choices in ME3. I think it would be fine as long as they do it in a way that doesn't discount anything anyone did on their past playthrough, and instead presents at as a possible outcome.
No matter what they do, certain people are going to be upset. I'm sure they'll at least TRY to pick the timeline that will upset the least amount of people...

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

We were promised a trilogy and got that. We weren't promised to be able to shape the ME universe forever.

Which is why the Control and Synthesis endings have no place in Mass Effect. They would shape the universe forever. Unless of course the next game totally ignored this 'epic' choice.

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

No. God no.
That's not what they want. It's what they feel they got already. The trilogy doesn't really give much leway at the end.

They don't really want those choices removed (though maybe that's what they want for Synthesis), they don't want those choices to be so linear. Just three directions to go?
He never said "less choice," and I don't know where you got that from. He said there should be other choices. Different ones, not less of them.

See the italed lines? I don't know how you manage to interpret "have no place in Mass Effect" as a request for more choices, as opposed to having these choices removed. What is that supposed to mean? (SpamBot2000, you still around?)

And he's right. You said that we weren;t going to shape the ME universe forever, but isn't that what Control, and Synthesis do? Won't any future events be shaped by that choice?

Future events will be shaped by the choice if the future game is based on that choice. If not, then that choice goes to a different future and it isn't at all relevant to the sequel.

Actually I would be fine with there being no final, galaxy-defining choice, for several reasons. First of all, the choice was inserted as a means to, well, end the Mass Effect universe, with the fanbase split among radically different versions of the setting. I can't support this, since I like Mass Effect and hate to see all the potential wasted.

Then there's the problem of the logic of the universe. Fine, I can see Shepard's mind somehow being uploaded to the Catamatic 64 on the Citadel, even if I personally find such a course of action utterly abhorrent. But there is no way my view of the universe can support a magic green beam blanketing the entire galaxy, mutating every living thing into a cyborgian hybrid in an instant. Nanites? Think of a number. Need moar, by a factor of even moar! And if the Citadel was capable of this... why... anything?

Then there's the 'Our Shepard, who art in Space'  factor, of the player character just remaking the universe by his sacrifice on the... er, Crucible. I mean, hero fantasies are one thing... but isn't the Gospel of Space Messiah here making anyone else a lot queasy? 

And there's the consideration of a meaningful choice as something you have to live with. Now, the final choice can be seen as of no consequence, of between different Game Over screens. But then again, the choice not being resolved in the game can just leave it hanging... nagging at us at some low intensity, with no way of addressing it except ranting on BSN. And I don't think I want a game nagging at me like that.

I could go on, but you get the gist. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 01 décembre 2012 - 11:12 .

[silverexile17s]

TorturousKitty wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Diurdi wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

It's not like a prequel will offer much more choice in the grand scheme. Whatever happens in the prequel would "have to" fit in with what happened in ME1-3. All outcomes within this repear cycle have already been determined. Cycles before will also inevitably lose to the reapers.

Right. I'm not plugging a prequel. I'm saying Bio should just pick one ending and go on from there.

Ugh...I just got through telling you. If they do that, the fan backlash will kill the series. It will be making the last choice of ME3, and by extension the entire trilogy, worthless playing, since it all has a set story ending.

An ending gets cannonized, the ending choice becomes worthless. That happens, the series dies from fan backlash.

It's that simple, AlanC9. It won't even matter if the fans or devs are in the right or not. The backlash will make it too vloitile to go on. The series will effectively die.

Who says it has to be canon? It could just be assumed that it's one "dimension" that resulted from the choices in ME3. I think it would be fine as long as they do it in a way that doesn't discount anything anyone did on their past playthrough, and instead presents at as a possible outcome.
No matter what they do, certain people are going to be upset. I'm sure they'll at least TRY to pick the timeline that will upset the least amount of people...

I don't see how that works. The only way to make a sequel that directly picks up from the end of ME3 is to cannonize one of the endings, and that would discount whichever option was not cannonized.
No matter what they do, going that route would doom the series.

[TorturousKitty]

silverexile17s wrote...

TorturousKitty wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Diurdi wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

It's not like a prequel will offer much more choice in the grand scheme. Whatever happens in the prequel would "have to" fit in with what happened in ME1-3. All outcomes within this repear cycle have already been determined. Cycles before will also inevitably lose to the reapers.

Right. I'm not plugging a prequel. I'm saying Bio should just pick one ending and go on from there.

Ugh...I just got through telling you. If they do that, the fan backlash will kill the series. It will be making the last choice of ME3, and by extension the entire trilogy, worthless playing, since it all has a set story ending.

An ending gets cannonized, the ending choice becomes worthless. That happens, the series dies from fan backlash.

It's that simple, AlanC9. It won't even matter if the fans or devs are in the right or not. The backlash will make it too vloitile to go on. The series will effectively die.

Who says it has to be canon? It could just be assumed that it's one "dimension" that resulted from the choices in ME3. I think it would be fine as long as they do it in a way that doesn't discount anything anyone did on their past playthrough, and instead presents at as a possible outcome.
No matter what they do, certain people are going to be upset. I'm sure they'll at least TRY to pick the timeline that will upset the least amount of people...

I don't see how that works. The only way to make a sequel that directly picks up from the end of ME3 is to cannonize one of the endings, and that would discount whichever option was not cannonized.
No matter what they do, going that route would doom the series.

Like I said, it's just one outcome they are branching from, it doesn't mean the other outcomes didn't happen. It's just expanding one possible story. I see what you mean though, people would see it as "canon" just because they used it.
And I wasn't thinking direct sequel, I was thinking in a few hundred years, so the effect of the ending wouldn't be the focus. 

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...


1. Yes, he wanted those choices removed, and replaced with new ones. This is not rocket science. What part of it said "there should be less choices"? Can you tell me that?
He didn't want those two as options, but that didn't mean he wanted less options for the ending. He wanted them replaced, not left blank.

He didn't actually say he wanted new ones in the posts I read.  But I'll take your word for it. He wanted less important choices, rather than specifying fewer choices.

2. There is no phesable way to make a game that directly picks up after the Reaper War. It could only work in a timeline that took place a thousand years or more afterward, in which there is nothing remaining of the previous trilogy except Shepard's name, and that the Reaper War ended. THOSE are the only things that could make it into a new game that would not cause a backlash.

I think you're completely wrong about that. There would be a backlash either way. Setting the ending in the far future and grinding all the ME choices into incoherent mush? You really think that would go over any better than canonizing Destroy?

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 décembre 2012 - 11:24 .

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Actually I would be fine with there being no final, galaxy-defining choice, for several reasons. First of all, the choice was inserted as a means to, well, end the Mass Effect universe, with the fanbase split among radically different versions of the setting. I can't support this, since I like Mass Effect and hate to see all the potential wasted.

I don't follow this. I picked Control for my primary Shep. But if ME4 is set after Destroy because that's a more interesting version of the universe to set more games in, I'm just fine with that. I wasn't going to play her again anyway, so what's the problem?

Then there's the problem of the logic of the universe. Fine, I can see Shepard's mind somehow being uploaded to the Catamatic 64 on the Citadel, even if I personally find such a course of action utterly abhorrent. But there is no way my view of the universe can support a magic green beam blanketing the entire galaxy, mutating every living thing into a cyborgian hybrid in an instant. Nanites? Think of a number. Need moar, by a factor of even moar! And if the Citadel was capable of this... why... anything?

Then there's the 'Our Shepard, who art in Space'  factor, of the player character just remaking the universe by his sacrifice on the... er, Crucible. I mean, hero fantasies are one thing... but isn't the Gospel of Space Messiah here making anyone else a lot queasy?

I seriously doubt they'd canonize Synthesis after the reception it's had. And Control would certainly be done in a non-queasy fashion, but that one isn't too likely either.

And there's the consideration of a meaningful choice as something you have to live with. Now, the final choice can be seen as of no consequence, of between different Game Over screens. But then again, the choice not being resolved in the game can just leave it hanging... nagging at us at some low intensity, with no way of addressing it except ranting on BSN. And I don't think I want a game nagging at me like that.

I wouldn't experience this as a nagging. Just a sense of further possbilities. Not every character or plot will be followed to the end, in any game. It's like a TV show -- the characetrs typically go on to further events that I'm not going to see.

But since we already have the ending choices, doesn't that mean that you do want a sequel to get rid of at least some of that nagging?

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 décembre 2012 - 11:30 .

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

But since we already have the ending choices, doesn't that mean that you do want a sequel to get rid of at least some of that nagging?

What I want is to be excited by the Mass Effect universe again. The Iron Law of bending to the Almighty Will of King Reaper is not doing it for me.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 01 décembre 2012 - 11:43 .

[silverexile17s]

TorturousKitty wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

TorturousKitty wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Diurdi wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So now you're demanding less choice in the trilogy so they can keep the universe going longer?

It's not like a prequel will offer much more choice in the grand scheme. Whatever happens in the prequel would "have to" fit in with what happened in ME1-3. All outcomes within this repear cycle have already been determined. Cycles before will also inevitably lose to the reapers.

Right. I'm not plugging a prequel. I'm saying Bio should just pick one ending and go on from there.

Ugh...I just got through telling you. If they do that, the fan backlash will kill the series. It will be making the last choice of ME3, and by extension the entire trilogy, worthless playing, since it all has a set story ending.

An ending gets cannonized, the ending choice becomes worthless. That happens, the series dies from fan backlash.

It's that simple, AlanC9. It won't even matter if the fans or devs are in the right or not. The backlash will make it too vloitile to go on. The series will effectively die.

Who says it has to be canon? It could just be assumed that it's one "dimension" that resulted from the choices in ME3. I think it would be fine as long as they do it in a way that doesn't discount anything anyone did on their past playthrough, and instead presents at as a possible outcome.
No matter what they do, certain people are going to be upset. I'm sure they'll at least TRY to pick the timeline that will upset the least amount of people...

I don't see how that works. The only way to make a sequel that directly picks up from the end of ME3 is to cannonize one of the endings, and that would discount whichever option was not cannonized.
No matter what they do, going that route would doom the series.

Like I said, it's just one outcome they are branching from, it doesn't mean the other outcomes didn't happen. It's just expanding one possible story. I see what you mean though, people would see it as "canon" just because they used it.
And I wasn't thinking direct sequel, I was thinking in a few hundred years, so the effect of the ending wouldn't be the focus. 

But if they keep building from that same standpoint, that makes that chosen ending cannon. Your way, they would need to build seperate games for each ending. That's not cost effective, nor easy to maintain. Espceally with DA3 in development and Star Wars: TOR's updates.
Look at Deus Ex. And the mass regarding Revan from Star Wars:KotOR. Those things had their endings cannonized, and it didn't jo justice to them, and caused backlash over their cannonization.
Revan was male light side in KotOR. That is diffinitive of one path, and the others diffinitively did not happen.
Deus Ex had portions of all the endings cannonized, and that didn't work well.

So yes, branching from one spicific outcome is the same as cannonizing something, so that anything based after that can work as well.