892 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

What makes any other choices less important then these? There could have been other ideas that were just as important.

....Then again, that depends on the eye of the beholder.
So lets just say he wanted different options to replace those.

Weather or not those options would be of lesser of greater calibur then whats' already there is something you and I could only ever speculate on, seeing as the two of us have different opinions on what the greater or lesser choices would be.

2. That is the point.
No matter what they did, a sequel would never repair the damage.
Either cannonize an ending, or make it so far-forward, that none of the impact from the choices exist anymore.
The advantage the latter has, is that they would have a blank slate to work from, which is considerably easer, as it doesn't get bogged down by any of the things that the fanbase hated about the endings. As well as leaving the original trilogy ambiguis, so that we can have our personal cannon of Shepard remain intact.

They went down this road with Revan from KotOR. They cannonized to much or Reavn's story, to the point of the game's choices being pointless, as Revan now had a spicific path.
So they would most likely try to avoid doing that again.

A clean slate is the best way to make any form of sequel, without getting caught up in the war over the endings, and the bad rep that follows.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

1. Tell that to the people who wasted their money on a story that has no purpose in customizing. The entire point of RPGs is to make your own cannon. Take that away, and it just becomes an FPS with the illusion of being an RPG. It kills any replay value, because there is supposed to be no real wrong way to play an RPG, and cannonizing a set path does exactally that, making one feel like choosing any path besides the one outlined is wrong. It runs counter to the entire point of an RPG.

It makes them feel like making their own custom story was nothing but a waste of time.

2. Destroy is no more likely then that. Unless you are a hardcore renagade, which does not work well for all. It still feels like you are forcing the story down a spicific path, which is counter to the point of an RPG in general. Cannonizing a set path will kill the series.

3. No. A sequel will only add to it. It will make the ending of the game pointless, since the choice becomes pre-determined. The point of playing an RPG is to make your own cannon, and forcing a game down a set path, especally with the blow-up that took place over it's endings, will just re-open old wounds, and deliver the death blow that the first blow-up didn't.
There are no further possibilaties regarding the endings continuing into a sequel that the fans would accept. It would just blow up in their face again.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 décembre 2012 - 04:06 .

[Lyrandori]

It won't be "the same" without Commander Shepard, without the SSV Normandy and the crew. It won't be the same without Garrus, Liara, Wrex, Joker, Anderson and the threat of the Reapers. But the universe of Mass Effect can continue (I do believe this, genuinely) with new characters that only wait to be created by the devs and to be loved by the players. The thing is we've been with Shepard & Company since 2007 so the transition will be difficult for many, but some people out there will embrace it and are already salivating to the idea that it's going to be much different.

For me, however, there will be a problem and it will persist through the franchise's development over time. From Mass Effect 4 to... God knows how far they'll milk it down the road... ultimately the bitter taste of the "original trilogy"'s ending will remain and the feeling in my gut that something went terribly wrong is not going to be gone any time soon. Sure, you can move on to tell other stories within the ME's universe but you cannot expect all the fans to "just forget", won't happen.

The franchise will continue, sure, but ME3 - for many though not everyone obviously - will always be remember for the wrong reasons, and that's a shame. I know what I'm going to say in about ten years from now when I'm being asked on discussion forums or by friends " so how was Mass Effect 6? " and I might say " well this one wasn't as good as ME5 but at least it helps forget about ME3 ".

Modifié par Lyrandori, 02 décembre 2012 - 01:30 .

[Maximazed]

Halo 3 was supposed to be the end of the Master Chief's story too.
Halo 4 sucked but really the guys at Montreal could really do a good job by listening to some people. Nah they won't do that.

[WheatleyHQ]

I already assumed Shepard wasn't going to be in ME4. Hopefully I wasn't the only person who thought that.

Use common sense, people. Shep. Is. Gone. Deal. With. It.

[silverexile17s]

WheatleyHQ wrote...

I already assumed Shepard wasn't going to be in ME4. Hopefully I wasn't the only person who thought that.

Use common sense, people. Shep. Is. Gone. Deal. With. It.

No kidding. Yes, Shepard's story is finished. It may have been a bad way to end it.

But you are right. The next game will not have Shepard in it.
Like you are saying, If the series has any hope of surviving, it must learn to adapt to new protagonests, just as Halo did with, (or without) Master Chief.

I doubt a sequel that takes place directly after the game will work, for obvious reasons regarding the volitile subject that is the endings. And a prequel may feel too much like re-hashing a story that already ended.

But the thing that seems the most sure, is that this is the last game where Shepard is the protaganest.

[Horus Blackheart]

I just have misgivings about how the Montreal team will Handel things. I'd rather a prequel/ sequel be done than a "spin off" In other words I don't. want some cheap cash grab with mess effect slapped on it. ME3 was already to heavily slanted to favor shooter elements with striped down to the bone rpg stuff. The devs have a chance for a clean slate whether they are allowed to take is is down to EA and marketing types however.

[Cayleafgirl]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

I just have misgivings about how the Montreal team will Handel things. I'd rather a prequel/ sequel be done than a "spin off" In other words I don't. want some cheap cash grab with mess effect slapped on it. ME3 was already to heavily slanted to favor shooter elements with striped down to the bone rpg stuff. The devs have a chance for a clean slate whether they are allowed to take is is down to EA and marketing types however.

Not sure if "Mess" Effect was on purpose or not, but it made me chuckle regardless.

I'm not sure how I feel about returning to the series with a new character. I love multiplayer and would like to play as some of the other species, but I will be a bit cautious about the next game.

[Horus Blackheart]

yeah I'm to sarcastic for my own good at times. As far as mp goes I don't think anyone was really happy with how it was handled. Forcing a connection between sp and mp in the way they did was really jarring, not to mention those readiness points we continue to get with the dlcs like they matter a dam at this point. MP is just a shallow cash grab that could only be designed by an accountant.

Modifié par Horus Blackheart, 02 décembre 2012 - 04:23 .

[Lyrandori]

A lot of people would be ready to get in a new journey within the ME's universe without Shepard, but perhaps equally a lot of people wouldn't like it, or would at least feel that it "ain't the same".

I created a thread related to the absence of Shepard in ME4 (or beyond) a few months ago and it led to interesting replies. That's the thread in question: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11195214

Modifié par Lyrandori, 02 décembre 2012 - 05:19 .

[Thepeak12]

Can we have mass effect 4 playing as Aria?

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

How is that simple, when there are series and franchises that have done just that and gone on with life quite happily?

Since I can't see into the future I can't confidently say there won't be, but the prediction seems a bit undermined by examples to the contrary. Even Mass Effect did it within its own series, particularly the finale choices of ME1 and ME2. If anything ignorring finale choices and going the way they want is a Mass Effect tradition.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 02 décembre 2012 - 12:15 .

[clarkusdarkus]

Well considering shepard is nothing more than a torso & dog tag in rubble than just give us a cardboard cutout to use ingame so we dont get attached to it.

[Kalo Windu]

KOM_95 wrote...

He'll be back.

Amazing.

Yeah, he'll be back, I'm sure.

[ChurchOfZod]

Whether it's in the next game or not, Shepard will return if EA realizes that there is more money to be made with him, than without him.

[Diurdi]

ChurchOfZod wrote...

Whether it's in the next game or not, Shepard will return if EA realizes that there is more money to be made with him, than without him.

Pretty much

[ThomasN7]

Love the Shepard character but people need to get over it. The ending was a pretty lame way to get rid of him with so many unanswered questions still remaining but the show must go on! Looking forward to new things in the Mass Effect universe.

[DoomsdayDevice]

It's all lies. Shepard will be back to fight the Reapers in ME4.

[GreenFlag]

How can someone tells: "Shepard story is finished, move along!"?
Sorry, I just don't accept this nonsensible, stupid, horrible ending ever and I'm not alone.

Star Wars 3 still win in this.

[Mcfly616]

Maximazed wrote...

Halo 3 was supposed to be the end of the Master Chief's story too.
Halo 4 sucked but really the guys at Montreal could really do a good job by listening to some people. Nah they won't do that.

hate to disappoint you, and everyone else I see make that statement, but Halo 3 was never ever stated as being "the end to Master Chief's story..."

Bungie only ever said that it was the end to the Covenant War story arch. (Fact)

And Halo 4 has been highly praised in reviews, with many of them reiterating that its the best Halo campaign since Combat Evolved. I personally love the Multiplayer.(the real magnum is finally back). Ofcourse everybody has an opinion, and are completely entitled to it. Just saying, there's a great many people who will disagree with you on the whole "Halo 4 sucks" deal....

Modifié par Mcfly616, 02 décembre 2012 - 04:22 .

[Mcfly616]

ChurchOfZod wrote...

Whether it's in the next game or not, Shepard will return if EA realizes that there is more money to be made with him, than without him.

I think Bioware will re-imagine/reboot the Shepard Trilogy by the end of next console generation or 2 consoles from now (even if EA is part of the picture still or if they part ways before then)

[Dr_Extrem]

WheatleyHQ wrote...

I already assumed Shepard wasn't going to be in ME4. Hopefully I wasn't the only person who thought that.

Use common sense, people. Shep. Is. Gone. Deal. With. It.

sometimes it is not about the fact that a story ends - it is more about how it ends.   

the people would be mote open to new perspectives, if mass effect could have ended in a different way - more personal and with the possibility, that shepard can live a relativly happy life after all the s**t he/she went through. many of us disliked the idea of a dictated sacrifice. it could have been handled better.

[pmac_tk421]

mackan__s wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

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

always "we". talk for yourself

Yeah. Don't assume everyone hated ME3. I think ME3 deserves GOTY, so don't assume your speaking for everyone.

[silverexile17s]

Dean_the_Young 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.

How is that simple, when there are series and franchises that have done just that and gone on with life quite happily?

Since I can't see into the future I can't confidently say there won't be, but the prediction seems a bit undermined by examples to the contrary. Even Mass Effect did it within its own series, particularly the finale choices of ME1 and ME2. If anything ignorring finale choices and going the way they want is a Mass Effect tradition.

No, they have not gone on and been quite happy, as we don't even know what the game is yet.
And the other games events change and are based on the finale of the one before it. That's the point of the import save system.

ME2 did not invaladate ME1's endings, and I would like to know how you think that, because ME1 had a standpoint that could be built off of easily. It was literally designed to be able to build a sequel from easily, just as ME2's was.

ME3 is not. It was designed to be a diffinitive closer. But was too diffinitive. And the fan dissipointment with the ending will just be re-ignited if they pick one spicific ending to work from.

It will make the ending choices they defended so hard with the're "Artistc Integrity" completely worthless in choosing from, as there is a pre-set path now.  That will invaladate the entire series, as they built the three games to lead up to that final choice. Invaladate that choice, the trilogy becomes worthless. That happens, the fan backlash will kill the series DOA.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 décembre 2012 - 08:03 .

[silverexile17s]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Maximazed wrote...

Halo 3 was supposed to be the end of the Master Chief's story too.
Halo 4 sucked but really the guys at Montreal could really do a good job by listening to some people. Nah they won't do that.

hate to disappoint you, and everyone else I see make that statement, but Halo 3 was never ever stated as being "the end to Master Chief's story..."

Bungie only ever said that it was the end to the Covenant War story arch. (Fact)

And Halo 4 has been highly praised in reviews, with many of them reiterating that its the best Halo campaign since Combat Evolved. I personally love the Multiplayer.(the real magnum is finally back). Ofcourse everybody has an opinion, and are completely entitled to it. Just saying, there's a great many people who will disagree with you on the whole "Halo 4 sucks" deal....

They never said there would be more then one trilogy either, if I recall.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 décembre 2012 - 08:05 .