892 réponses à ce sujet

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1.It still all started with Shepard as the central character, with the crew supporting him/her.
The Normandy is Shepard's ship. It's as much a piece of Shepard as each of the squad-mates are.
Shepard is the driving force of the Normandy. It's captian and commander.

And in regards to Halo, they still brought back the Chief for a new trilogy, instead of starting a new character.
Think of Mass Effect: Infiltrator as the ME counterpart of Halo: ODST. Yes, it's possible, but it's still not the same game anymore really.

And in regards to the ending, BioWare has already began asking if fans want a prequel, which seems to be indicative of that being the general direction they are headed. No sequel could florush with the baggage of ME3's endings on it's back.

If anything Anderson would be the start based on how Anderson commanded the Norandy.

Yet Chief isn't alone based on how Cortana and Humanity as a whole accompany with him on his journey.

Thats odd when a sequel was asked before a prequel.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. But in any new games, the crew (analouge to the Spartans) and the home-ground of the Normandy (well, I'll just say analouge to Cortana), would not be there. It would be starting from scratch, with none of those things present. It is starting fresh, with none of the other characters that you related to in the lase games included. Also, the series was centered around the Reapers (analouge to the Flood) and stopping them, so unless a new threat comes jumping out of nowhere, it's usless. All these core peices could not be in a new game. They want as far away from the game and it's sour note ending as possible, by starting fresh.
None of these familer things could be in a sequel. Not if they wanted it to work wothout more backlash coming their way.

Cheif and Shepard are far from alone in their journies while they can't do it without support.  Btw the Flood is more of a comparison to the Zerg then the Reapers and the Spartans isn't comparable to Shepard's crew.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. So, are you admiting that you have nothing that makes what you say fact?
You keep claiming that your word is based on fact, yet have shown nothing that supports this. Not once have you put up an article that makes your word any more or less based on fact.

How is that when I'm focusing on the facts not opinion unlike you.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. That was ONE synthetic starting trouble -Sovergien. And Reapers are organic-synthetic hybrids.  If it had stayed away from the geth, none of them would have become Heretics. And besides, the Reapers clearly had no love for the true geth, as Sovergien appearently directed them to spy on them, in case they start becoming a threat. And the Reapers made a point of wiping out everything, organic and synthetic.
So no, just because the Reapers, geth, and A.I's exist in the game, does not instantly mean it's a Organic vs Synthetic motif.

Reapers are cyborgs while they're synthetic based on how they are created.  If there were no organics vs synthetics then the Geth and EDI wouldn't have existed.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1. Again, I never once said that perfection was what people expected. They just thought that it would be as good as ME2's ending. Or hell, ME1's. Obviously, that is not the case, as the general opinion is that ME3's endings sucked.

And also those parings are the only ones in which a spawn of Shepard can exist in a sequel. And again, the only romance between other squad-mates was Tali and Garrus. And if one of them was the LI of Shepard, what now?
Besides, like I said, there is no way they can work around the endings in their current state.

And those movies are good based on the general consensis of those who watched it. It is the same with how games are. General consensis is applicable to all these catagories you listed.

Yet you do expect perfection when you want Bioware to focus on an individual basis while making a game.

A Shepard 2.0 can easily be anyone and doesn't need to be someone that has Shepard's genetics.

Its odd on how its okay for movies but its wrong with games.  There is a thing called opinion and everyone has an opinion on everything.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. Not really.
Here is an atricle from cinemablend.com. BioWare has hinted and suggested a prequel before, and with how making a sequel that can survive the baggage of the sour note endings of ME3 is most likely an excersize in futilaty, a prequel is looking like the one.

http://www.cinemable...tion-49570.html

Also, with details comming out this quick, it gives the impression that BioWare is trying to rush this and get a new game out quick so that fans can bury what happened in ME3's ending. They have already revealed the game engine - DICE's Frostbite engine, the same as Assassin's Creed 3.

Yet you seem to avoid that ME4 was being talked about as a sequel before as a prequel.  Its like how Ubisoft listed a wide range of after the release of Revelations, which will focus more so around Eve then Adam.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. You do realize that that IS my view on the endings killing a sequel, right?
I think thahe endings close the story so tight that a sequel is currently impossible.

I know its an opinion but to treat others without respect is hypocritical.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't follow the argument here. Why does a game become pointless just because its choices aren't imported into a later game set in that universe? By that logic, Fallout 1 is pointless since Fallout 2 doesn't take Fallout 1 choices into account, Starflight 2 is pointless because it doesn't take Starflight 1 choices into account, Baldur's Gate 2 is pointless because your character carries over but not his decisions, and so forth.

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

No, because those games were ment to be played stand-alone. There was no import system from one game to the next. correct? I mean, was there an import save system for Baldur's Gate, Starflight, or Fallout? No, there was not. Mass Effect was spicificly designed to take the choices from the previous games into account, which the games you mentioned were not designed to do.
But now, the game lore is so backed into a corner that any sequel will have to be so far-forward, that it is starting from scratch, in order to avoid any backlash from the endings of ME3. No camios from any characters. Nothing that indicates any of the Choices that Shepard made. More then 2,000 to 3,000 years ahead, in other words.
if it truly is a sequel, starting a new trilogy from scratch is the only way to ensure that no backlash would come to pass.
And if they try to build a direct follow-up to the game, that's what would render the choices pointless. Because the only to make a direct follow-up plausable is to cannonize one of the endings. Doing that would make the final choice meaningless, and therefore make ME3, and the two games that led up to it worthless, if it all had a set storyline anyway. that would come back to bite BioWare, like it did when they cannonized to much of the story of Revan from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. There would be uproar about how their "Artistic Integrety" was total BS if they were just going to connonize an ending and make the choice meaningless anyway. It wouldn't even matter who you'd think  was in the right or wrong, AlanC9. The bad PR and bad fan reactions would kill the series DOA.

That's what makes a sequel so risky. At least right now. Maybe in the future, perhaps. But not right now, if they know what's good for them.

In reality most game franchises aren't made to be independent from each other unless if we're talking about the Farcry series, which ME, Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Halo, CoD, and etc.  For most games like ME3 there is nothing called bad PR especially when the Internet complains about everything and anything.

[Blueprotoss]

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.

I'm sure that most people would agree with you and I saw the possibility of death just by playing ME1.

Lyrandori wrote...

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

Everyone won't be pleased and its nice to know that you know that.

I'll look into that and it sounds interesting.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Yep and this is nothing new while I'm surprised that wasn't as issue before.

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.

How is that  when the switching of the main protagonist isn't anything new in Assassin's Creed, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, CoD, Halo, AvP, Starcraft, CnC, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Lost Planet, Zelda, and Darksiders are a few examples for video games.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 03 décembre 2012 - 04:17 .

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1.It still all started with Shepard as the central character, with the crew supporting him/her.
The Normandy is Shepard's ship. It's as much a piece of Shepard as each of the squad-mates are.
Shepard is the driving force of the Normandy. It's captian and commander.

And in regards to Halo, they still brought back the Chief for a new trilogy, instead of starting a new character.
Think of Mass Effect: Infiltrator as the ME counterpart of Halo: ODST. Yes, it's possible, but it's still not the same game anymore really.

And in regards to the ending, BioWare has already began asking if fans want a prequel, which seems to be indicative of that being the general direction they are headed. No sequel could florush with the baggage of ME3's endings on it's back.

If anything Anderson would be the start based on how Anderson commanded the Norandy.

Yet Chief isn't alone based on how Cortana and Humanity as a whole accompany with him on his journey.

Thats odd when a sequel was asked before a prequel.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. But in any new games, the crew (analouge to the Spartans) and the home-ground of the Normandy (well, I'll just say analouge to Cortana), would not be there. It would be starting from scratch, with none of those things present. It is starting fresh, with none of the other characters that you related to in the lase games included. Also, the series was centered around the Reapers (analouge to the Flood) and stopping them, so unless a new threat comes jumping out of nowhere, it's usless. All these core peices could not be in a new game. They want as far away from the game and it's sour note ending as possible, by starting fresh.
None of these familer things could be in a sequel. Not if they wanted it to work wothout more backlash coming their way.

Cheif and Shepard are far from alone in their journies while they can't do it without support.  Btw the Flood is more of a comparison to the Zerg then the Reapers and the Spartans isn't comparable to Shepard's crew.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. So, are you admiting that you have nothing that makes what you say fact?
You keep claiming that your word is based on fact, yet have shown nothing that supports this. Not once have you put up an article that makes your word any more or less based on fact.

How is that when I'm focusing on the facts not opinion unlike you.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. That was ONE synthetic starting trouble -Sovergien. And Reapers are organic-synthetic hybrids.  If it had stayed away from the geth, none of them would have become Heretics. And besides, the Reapers clearly had no love for the true geth, as Sovergien appearently directed them to spy on them, in case they start becoming a threat. And the Reapers made a point of wiping out everything, organic and synthetic.
So no, just because the Reapers, geth, and A.I's exist in the game, does not instantly mean it's a Organic vs Synthetic motif.

Reapers are cyborgs while they're synthetic based on how they are created.  If there were no organics vs synthetics then the Geth and EDI wouldn't have existed.

1. Not really, as that connection is never really substancial. Anderson was never seen in command really. It was always Shepard we saw at the reigns. And Anderson was put in charge of the Normandy only for her first flight. That doesn't really give much connection.

And like I said, any sequel would not have any of those fimilar elements in it. An advantage possessed by Halo.
That's the price of closing the story on a character so diffinitively.

And like I said, any sequel that took place directly after the 3rd game would be crushed by the baggage dunped on it by the much-disliked endings.

2. But Chief has the advantage of these fimilar enviroments and themes and characters, because they are ones you accociate with him anyway. You cannot just toss one element out and expect the others to just pick up where it leaves off. It will more likely fall apart then work. Especally since you cannot built off of any other squad-characters in a future game, since every squad-mate has the potental to be dead by the end of ME3.
And the spartians are still comparable, as they are like the army of the Chief, even though he stands head and shoulders above them in terms of narrative.
The same is true of Shepard's crew. They are the Commander's army. They support Shepard, but Shepard will always be more central to the narrative then them.
So it really is the same comparison.

3. Again I say, you have still not put up anything that proves that. You have different opinions then eveyone else. It isn't that I begrudge. It's that you say tha your word is "fact", even though tou have no proof of such bold claims. Don't preach your word as fact unless you have substancial proof to actually back it up.

4. Not true, since both EDI and the majority of geth oppose the Reapers. It was never a case of Organic vs Synthetic. It was always a case of Organic vs Reaper.
Or, Organic + Synthetic vs Reaper.

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1. Again, I never once said that perfection was what people expected. They just thought that it would be as good as ME2's ending. Or hell, ME1's. Obviously, that is not the case, as the general opinion is that ME3's endings sucked.

And also those parings are the only ones in which a spawn of Shepard can exist in a sequel. And again, the only romance between other squad-mates was Tali and Garrus. And if one of them was the LI of Shepard, what now?
Besides, like I said, there is no way they can work around the endings in their current state.

And those movies are good based on the general consensis of those who watched it. It is the same with how games are. General consensis is applicable to all these catagories you listed.

Yet you do expect perfection when you want Bioware to focus on an individual basis while making a game.

A Shepard 2.0 can easily be anyone and doesn't need to be someone that has Shepard's genetics.

Its odd on how its okay for movies but its wrong with games.  There is a thing called opinion and everyone has an opinion on everything.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. Not really.
Here is an atricle from cinemablend.com. BioWare has hinted and suggested a prequel before, and with how making a sequel that can survive the baggage of the sour note endings of ME3 is most likely an excersize in futilaty, a prequel is looking like the one.

http://www.cinemable...tion-49570.html

Also, with details comming out this quick, it gives the impression that BioWare is trying to rush this and get a new game out quick so that fans can bury what happened in ME3's ending. They have already revealed the game engine - DICE's Frostbite engine, the same as Assassin's Creed 3.

Yet you seem to avoid that ME4 was being talked about as a sequel before as a prequel.  Its like how Ubisoft listed a wide range of after the release of Revelations, which will focus more so around Eve then Adam.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. You do realize that that IS my view on the endings killing a sequel, right?
I think thahe endings close the story so tight that a sequel is currently impossible.

I know its an opinion but to treat others without respect is hypocritical.

1. No. They just wanted the endings to be as good as the ones of the previous games were. They were not perfect endings, but they were still considered extermely good endings. ME3 by stark contrast, was not considered so. No one expected a perfect ending. But they expected it to be as goos and satisfying as the ones before it were.

And didn't BioWare themselves say that they spicifically didn't want a "Shepard 2.0" as stated in this very post?

And I said that the judgeing system was no different between games and movies. If the majority of people think a movie is good or bad, it's no different then if the majority of people think a game is good or bad.
Example:
The majority of people saying that Silent Hill: Revalations is bad, is no differend a judgeing process then the majority of people saying that ME3's endings are bad.
you were the one who said differently.

2. If BioWare was confident a sequel was the right path, they would not have asked. They are scared about messing this up, as it will kill the series if they do. And if it turns out to indeed be a sequel, it would have to be a totally blank slate, so that there is no baggage of the endings, or possible bias of fan opinions on the past events.
A fresh start. It's the only any form of sequel could work.
Besides, there are people that have started to request the first contact war as a setting for the next game.

3. That's you. And again, I have doubts that any sequel that is directly based off the ending will be well receved by fans.

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't follow the argument here. Why does a game become pointless just because its choices aren't imported into a later game set in that universe? By that logic, Fallout 1 is pointless since Fallout 2 doesn't take Fallout 1 choices into account, Starflight 2 is pointless because it doesn't take Starflight 1 choices into account, Baldur's Gate 2 is pointless because your character carries over but not his decisions, and so forth.

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

No, because those games were ment to be played stand-alone. There was no import system from one game to the next. correct? I mean, was there an import save system for Baldur's Gate, Starflight, or Fallout? No, there was not. Mass Effect was spicificly designed to take the choices from the previous games into account, which the games you mentioned were not designed to do.
But now, the game lore is so backed into a corner that any sequel will have to be so far-forward, that it is starting from scratch, in order to avoid any backlash from the endings of ME3. No camios from any characters. Nothing that indicates any of the Choices that Shepard made. More then 2,000 to 3,000 years ahead, in other words.
if it truly is a sequel, starting a new trilogy from scratch is the only way to ensure that no backlash would come to pass.
And if they try to build a direct follow-up to the game, that's what would render the choices pointless. Because the only to make a direct follow-up plausable is to cannonize one of the endings. Doing that would make the final choice meaningless, and therefore make ME3, and the two games that led up to it worthless, if it all had a set storyline anyway. that would come back to bite BioWare, like it did when they cannonized to much of the story of Revan from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. There would be uproar about how their "Artistic Integrety" was total BS if they were just going to connonize an ending and make the choice meaningless anyway. It wouldn't even matter who you'd think  was in the right or wrong, AlanC9. The bad PR and bad fan reactions would kill the series DOA.

That's what makes a sequel so risky. At least right now. Maybe in the future, perhaps. But not right now, if they know what's good for them.

In reality most game franchises aren't made to be independent from each other unless if we're talking about the Farcry series, which ME, Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Halo, CoD, and etc.  For most games like ME3 there is nothing called bad PR especially when the Internet complains about everything and anything.

Again I say, none of those games that you listed are designed with the Save Game carry-over that ME had.
The only way any sequel could work is by leaving everything regarding any and all of the events in the trilogy ambiguis, and open to personal cannon.
Leave that trilogy alone. There is nowhere else you can take it without envoking a backlash that wouldn't DOA it.

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

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.

I'm sure that most people would agree with you and I saw the possibility of death just by playing ME1.

Lyrandori wrote...

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

Everyone won't be pleased and its nice to know that you know that.

I'll look into that and it sounds interesting.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Yep and this is nothing new while I'm surprised that wasn't as issue before.

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.

How is that  when the switching of the main protagonist isn't anything new in Assassin's Creed, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, CoD, Halo, AvP, Starcraft, CnC, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Lost Planet, Zelda, and Darksiders are a few examples for video games.

1. It's not that having no Shepard is nessessary a bad thing. Just, where are they supposed to go? A prequel is part of a timelone we know is not going to end an a way that many like. Same with a spin-off. And a sequel is going to have to be a completely blank slate. Fresh start.
It how they are going to go on from here that worries people, not the fact that Shepard isn't the protoganst.

2. That is sonething that I actually do agree with, and it's one of the things that scares me the most on this game. I can't help but believe that no matter which way the devs go with this, it will get alot of negetive reactions, weather it's a sequel, prequel, or spin-off.
It's obvious that not many are going to forget the bad conclusion to the endings. That's fine with me.

3. I already posted a response to that earlier.

The thing I have a problem with is the lack of willingness to forgive. The fans will never be happy with the sour note the game ended on. But I fear that the unwillingness to let BioWare prove they can still make a worthwhile storyline will kill the series, no matter what direction they pick.
A prequel, or blank slate sequel is the safest way to go in terms of that.
But again, that is me, I suppose.


4. Okay. To adress all that.
Assassin's Creed followed the family line of Desmund Miles. HE was considered the main character as time went on, and was the constant in all three games.
AvP's main characters are the Aliens and Predators, which are never defined in a way that we get to attached to a spicific one.
Mortal Kombat has had many of the same core characters (Raiden, Scorpian, Sub-Zero, Lu Keng, Kung Lau, Jonnhy Cage, Sonya Blade, Jax, Kitanna, Jade, Meliena, Shang Tsung, Baraka, Reptile) in all of it's adaptations.
Halo has started a new trilogy with the Chief returning, and there was enough interesting background lore to warrent spin-offs, because the main story was not so stapled shut that it was backed into a corner, metaphoracly speaking, the way ME3 is.
Elder Scrolls left us with the option of continuing our characters on to infinaty if we wished it. It only ended when we wanted it to.
Zelda has the near tha same story every time: Link saves Zelda.
Darksiders follows the four horsemen of the appoclipse. And no one complains about a protoganist change if it's done right. Besides, that is a parallel game, not a sequel or prequel.
CoD is the same story about war. War never changes, no matter who you play as, so that's an easy hurdle to pass.
Fallout didn't drastically change in terms of story, or loactions, or in-game lore.
Starcraft is a direct sequel that picks up with characters we knew from the last game.
Resident Evil has just about become the Final Fantasy of zombie games.
Just about the same as ^ happened with Silent Hill.

I am not saying that a game can and must have the same protagonest to be good. But none of those games were in a situation tha mirrors ME.

It's the same thing that happened with Deus Ex. Making a good direct sequel to ME3 is the same as trying to make a good dierct sequel to Deus Ex: Invisible War. It's not possible to make. At least in a way that fans would consider good.
There is nothing that would work that fans would accept. They tried it with Deus Ex, and it's sequel, Invisable War, met with markedly less popularaty.
Deus Ex instead went with a self-contained prequel, and despite knowing how things played out in the future, you still felt like what you did mattered in an epic way.
That might be the best way to go from here.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:51 .

[silverexile17s]

So, this protoganist. I'm thinking he'll probably be human, so we can relate to him better. Just like Shepard was.

[Kalo Windu]

Blueprotoss wrote...

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.

How is that  when the switching of the main protagonist isn't anything new in Assassin's Creed, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, CoD, Halo, AvP, Starcraft, CnC, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Lost Planet, Zelda, and Darksiders are a few examples for video games.

I have played most of those games, own several of them, even love some of them and the connection between the player and Shepard is by far superior to the connection between the player and the characters of the games you listed.

" Player <---------> Shepard " attachment level is almost unprecented in modern gaming.

Modifié par Kalo Windu, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:39 .

[Blueprotoss]

Kalo Windu wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

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.

How is that  when the switching of the main protagonist isn't anything new in Assassin's Creed, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, CoD, Halo, AvP, Starcraft, CnC, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Lost Planet, Zelda, and Darksiders are a few examples for video games.

I have played most of those games, own several of them, even love some of them and the connection between the player and Shepard is by far superior to the connection between the player and the characters of the games you listed.

" Player <---------> Shepard " attachment level is almost unprecented in modern gaming.

How is that when Fallout and the Elder Scrolls are way more personal then ME would ever be while thats a fact more then opinion.  Also some people would argue that one of those titles is more personal then ME based on opinion or vice versa like you.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1. Not really, as that connection is never really substancial. Anderson was never seen in command really. It was always Shepard we saw at the reigns. And Anderson was put in charge of the Normandy only for her first flight. That doesn't really give much connection.

And like I said, any sequel would not have any of those fimilar elements in it. An advantage possessed by Halo.
That's the price of closing the story on a character so diffinitively.

And like I said, any sequel that took place directly after the 3rd game would be crushed by the baggage dunped on it by the much-disliked endings.

Yet Anderson is one of the 1st people that talk to you in ME1 and Shepard addresses him as so.

How is that when sequels continue the story, which is nothing new since a story can continue with a new main character.

Also how is that when thats pure opinion to say ME4 would be crushed even when some people could say the same about ME2 based on ME1.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. But Chief has the advantage of these fimilar enviroments and themes and characters, because they are ones you accociate with him anyway. You cannot just toss one element out and expect the others to just pick up where it leaves off. It will more likely fall apart then work. Especally since you cannot built off of any other squad-characters in a future game, since every squad-mate has the potental to be dead by the end of ME3.
And the spartians are still comparable, as they are like the army of the Chief, even though he stands head and shoulders above them in terms of narrative.
The same is true of Shepard's crew. They are the Commander's army. They support Shepard, but Shepard will always be more central to the narrative then them.
So it really is the same comparison.

Opinion is opinion even when Master Cheif and Shepard are two completely heros in two different games and two different universes.  Heck there's more Starcraft references in Halo partially because Halo was originally going to be a RTS.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. Again I say, you have still not put up anything that proves that. You have different opinions then eveyone else. It isn't that I begrudge. It's that you say tha your word is "fact", even though tou have no proof of such bold claims. Don't preach your word as fact unless you have substancial proof to actually back it up.

So you're contradicting yourself since everyone doesn't have the same views like how they wouldn't have the same opinion.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. Not true, since both EDI and the majority of geth oppose the Reapers. It was never a case of Organic vs Synthetic. It was always a case of Organic vs Reaper. 
Or, Organic + Synthetic vs Reaper.

EDI was the crazy VI that was actually an early AI that occured on a Moon base in ME1 that Shepard came into contact with.  In reality most of the Geth sided with the Reapers, which this was based on consensus throughout ME1, ME2, and ME3.  Cyborgs will always be synthetic especially when the Reapers' organic and synthetic parts are manufactured.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1. No. They just wanted the endings to be as good as the ones of the previous games were. They were not perfect endings, but they were still considered extermely good endings. ME3 by stark contrast, was not considered so. No one expected a perfect ending. But they expected it to be as goos and satisfying as the ones before it were.

And didn't BioWare themselves say that they spicifically didn't want a "Shepard 2.0" as stated in this very post?

And I said that the judgeing system was no different between games and movies. If the majority of people think a movie is good or bad, it's no different then if the majority of people think a game is good or bad.
Example:
The majority of people saying that Silent Hill: Revalations is bad, is no differend a judgeing process then the majority of people saying that ME3's endings are bad.
you were the one who said differently.

This is odd even when some people talked about the endings in every other Bioware game before ME3.  If you don't want perfection then why compain abot everything that you don't personally like.

Yet they still labeled the new main character as Shepard 2.0 as a place holder and to say that Shepard's story is over.

So you're still spliting hairs even when more people will disagree with you then agree with you.  Either way individuality isn't the funding that film, game, book, and comic makers don't focus on.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. If BioWare was confident a sequel was the right path, they would not have asked. They are scared about messing this up, as it will kill the series if they do. And if it turns out to indeed be a sequel, it would have to be a totally blank slate, so that there is no baggage of the endings, or possible bias of fan opinions on the past events.
A fresh start. It's the only any form of sequel could work.
Besides, there are people that have started to request the first contact war as a setting for the next game.

How is that when some people will always complain about anything and everything while being connected to the Internet.  Also Bioware has noticed this since Baldur's Gate 2.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. That's you. And again, I have doubts that any sequel that is directly based off the ending will be well receved by fans.

So its now the "rubber and glue" defense and I guess some people only want to hear what they want to hear.

[Blueprotoss]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

In reality most game franchises aren't made to be independent from each other unless if we're talking about the Farcry series, which ME, Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Halo, CoD, and etc.  For most games like ME3 there is nothing called bad PR especially when the Internet complains about everything and anything.

Again I say, none of those games that you listed are designed with the Save Game carry-over that ME had.
The only way any sequel could work is by leaving everything regarding any and all of the events in the trilogy ambiguis, and open to personal cannon.
Leave that trilogy alone. There is nowhere else you can take it without envoking a backlash that wouldn't DOA it.

So you're turning this into a save game issue even when most games don't have that feature and the few haven't matched ME.  Two series that come to mind is the Witcher series and the two .Hack trilogies.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:51 .

[Blueprotoss]

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

1. It's not that having no Shepard is nessessary a bad thing. Just, where are they supposed to go? A prequel is part of a timelone we know is not going to end an a way that many like. Same with a spin-off. And a sequel is going to have to be a completely blank slate. Fresh start.
It how they are going to go on from here that worries people, not the fact that Shepard isn't the protoganst.[/quote]Yet Shepard not being the main character is what you're focusing and a sequel is far from a "fresh start".

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

2. That is sonething that I actually do agree with, and it's one of the things that scares me the most on this game. I can't help but believe that no matter which way the devs go with this, it will get alot of negetive reactions, weather it's a sequel, prequel, or spin-off.
It's obvious that not many are going to forget the bad conclusion to the endings. That's fine with me.[/quote]Thats far from a bad thing because people will complain no matter what happens while Bioware is trustworthy unlike Lionhead.  Oddly enough you shouldn't be looking too much into ME since it will never belong to you just like most IPs.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

3. I already posted a response to that earlier.

The thing I have a problem with is the lack of willingness to forgive. The fans will never be happy with the sour note the game ended on. But I fear that the unwillingness to let BioWare prove they can still make a worthwhile storyline will kill the series, no matter what direction they pick.
A prequel, or blank slate sequel is the safest way to go in terms of that.
But again, that is me, I suppose.[/quote]Some people will never be "happy" because they think Bioware screwed up.  To be fair they didn't create ME.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

4. Okay. To adress all that.
Assassin's Creed followed the family line of Desmund Miles. HE was considered the main character as time went on, and was the constant in all three games.[/quote]Desmond isn't the constant while his family as a whole is the constant.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

AvP's main characters are the Aliens and Predators, which are never defined in a way that we get to attached to a spicific one.[/quote]Yet they still have their own stories.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Mortal Kombat has had many of the same core characters (Raiden, Scorpian, Sub-Zero, Lu Keng, Kung Lau, Jonnhy Cage, Sonya Blade, Jax, Kitanna, Jade, Meliena, Shang Tsung, Baraka, Reptile) in all of it's adaptations.
Halo has started a new trilogy with the Chief returning, and there was enough interesting background lore to warrent spin-offs, because the main story was not so stapled shut that it was backed into a corner, metaphoracly speaking, the way ME3 is.[/quote]Mortal Kombat is ever changing especially when look at Deadly Allaince, Deception, Armageddon, and the last interation that spans the whole series in a different view along with a differing storyline.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Elder Scrolls left us with the option of continuing our characters on to infinaty if we wished it. It only ended when we wanted it to.[/quote]While the basic storyline connects with every game in the series.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Zelda has the near tha same story every time: Link saves Zelda.[/quote]Yet there are diferent heros that are named Link like how there are different princesses named Zelda.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Darksiders follows the four horsemen of the appoclipse. And no one complains about a protoganist change if it's done right. Besides, that is a parallel game, not a sequel or prequel.[/quote]1 and 2 happens at the same time but most of what War does is after Death while the main characters are the Four Horsemen.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

CoD is the same story about war. War never changes, no matter who you play as, so that's an easy hurdle to pass.[/quote]Yet different scenarios occur and different characters are used.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Fallout didn't drastically change in terms of story, or loactions, or in-game lore.[/quote]Yet each Fallout game connects to the other what happens to the Elder Scrolls series.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Starcraft is a direct sequel that picks up with characters we knew from the last game.[/quote]Brood War, yes.  Wings of Liberty, no.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Resident Evil has just about become the Final Fantasy of zombie games.
Just about the same as ^ happened with Silent Hill.[/quote]Yet couldn't say this since every RE game connects to the other games like how most of the SH games connect to each other, which this doesn't happen in Final Fantasy.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

I am not saying that a game can and must have the same protagonest to be good. But none of those games were in a situation tha mirrors ME.[/quote]But you act like it and ME is far from alone in that situation.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

It's the same thing that happened with Deus Ex. Making a good direct sequel to ME3 is the same as trying to make a good dierct sequel to Deus Ex: Invisible War. It's not possible to make. At least in a way that fans would consider good.
There is nothing that would work that fans would accept. They tried it with Deus Ex, and it's sequel, Invisable War, met with markedly less popularaty.
Deus Ex instead went with a self-contained prequel, and despite knowing how things played out in the future, you still felt like what you did mattered in an epic way.
That might be the best way to go from here.
[/quote]There will alwys be some people raging and that can't be stopped no matter what happens.

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kalo Windu wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

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.

How is that  when the switching of the main protagonist isn't anything new in Assassin's Creed, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, CoD, Halo, AvP, Starcraft, CnC, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Lost Planet, Zelda, and Darksiders are a few examples for video games.

I have played most of those games, own several of them, even love some of them and the connection between the player and Shepard is by far superior to the connection between the player and the characters of the games you listed.

" Player <---------> Shepard " attachment level is almost unprecented in modern gaming.

How is that when Fallout and the Elder Scrolls are way more personal then ME would ever be while thats a fact more then opinion.  Also some people would argue that one of those titles is more personal then ME based on opinion or vice versa like you.

He means that the character attachment mirrors that level, not surpasses it. Honestly, you will attack anyone over anything, won't you?
And again, weather or not those are better to connect to or not is always going to be a matter of opinion. There is no "fact" that states one is better in the character attachment level then the other. That is just your personal opinion.

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1. Not really, as that connection is never really substancial. Anderson was never seen in command really. It was always Shepard we saw at the reigns. And Anderson was put in charge of the Normandy only for her first flight. That doesn't really give much connection.

And like I said, any sequel would not have any of those fimilar elements in it. An advantage possessed by Halo.
That's the price of closing the story on a character so diffinitively.

And like I said, any sequel that took place directly after the 3rd game would be crushed by the baggage dunped on it by the much-disliked endings.

Yet Anderson is one of the 1st people that talk to you in ME1 and Shepard addresses him as so.

How is that when sequels continue the story, which is nothing new since a story can continue with a new main character.

Also how is that when thats pure opinion to say ME4 would be crushed even when some people could say the same about ME2 based on ME1.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. But Chief has the advantage of these fimilar enviroments and themes and characters, because they are ones you accociate with him anyway. You cannot just toss one element out and expect the others to just pick up where it leaves off. It will more likely fall apart then work. Especally since you cannot built off of any other squad-characters in a future game, since every squad-mate has the potental to be dead by the end of ME3.
And the spartians are still comparable, as they are like the army of the Chief, even though he stands head and shoulders above them in terms of narrative.
The same is true of Shepard's crew. They are the Commander's army. They support Shepard, but Shepard will always be more central to the narrative then them.
So it really is the same comparison.

Opinion is opinion even when Master Cheif and Shepard are two completely heros in two different games and two different universes.  Heck there's more Starcraft references in Halo partially because Halo was originally going to be a RTS.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. Again I say, you have still not put up anything that proves that. You have different opinions then eveyone else. It isn't that I begrudge. It's that you say tha your word is "fact", even though tou have no proof of such bold claims. Don't preach your word as fact unless you have substancial proof to actually back it up.

So you're contradicting yourself since everyone doesn't have the same views like how they wouldn't have the same opinion.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. Not true, since both EDI and the majority of geth oppose the Reapers. It was never a case of Organic vs Synthetic. It was always a case of Organic vs Reaper. 
Or, Organic + Synthetic vs Reaper.

EDI was the crazy VI that was actually an early AI that occured on a Moon base in ME1 that Shepard came into contact with.  In reality most of the Geth sided with the Reapers, which this was based on consensus throughout ME1, ME2, and ME3.  Cyborgs will always be synthetic especially when the Reapers' organic and synthetic parts are manufactured.

1. But again, he is not someone we resonate with as being in charge. And the first people we meat are Kaiden, Joker, and Nihilus, followed by Pressly, Dr. Chakwas, and Jenkens. We only talk to Anderson that one scene, and then in the med bay after Eden Prime. Those are the only times he is ever on the Normandy. Not to mention that he was captian of the ship for it's first voyage only. Imeediately after the maden voyage of the ship, Shepard gets it.
And again, we never saw Anderson in command. It was always Shepard that was the driving force of the Normandy.

And no sequel that picks up directly after the endings will survive the fan critisisums and (not to be mean) trolling on how the endings were the bane of the franchise. There is no way to do it in which it would be accepted by fans. Not unless it was a totally blank slate. No Normandy, no Shepard, No old crew. Total fresh start.

And do you have anything that proves otherwise? Look at how badly the ending was receved. Look how many still do not really like it. No game built directly off that will work. It will just crash and burn. Only a blank slate can work at this point. Right now, touching the endings again this soon is throwing a lit match into a fireworks wherehouse.

2. But they basically are cut from the same cloth. At least, that was according to your own comparison.

3. Again, talking about yourself. Have you put up anything that ever proved your word was based on "fact?" Not according to just about everyone who comments on you. So don't preach that your word is fact when nothing has proven that.

4. That was when she was just a V.I. The same can be said of the geth. Once they evolved, they didn't repeat their mistakes. Also, according to the codex, only 5-10% of geth sided with the Reapers.
Source: http://masseffect.wi...n-Council_Races
Codex Enrty: Non-Council Races: Geth: Geth Heretics.

Again, this entire trilogy has been Reaper vs Galaxy.

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1. No. They just wanted the endings to be as good as the ones of the previous games were. They were not perfect endings, but they were still considered extermely good endings. ME3 by stark contrast, was not considered so. No one expected a perfect ending. But they expected it to be as goos and satisfying as the ones before it were.

And didn't BioWare themselves say that they spicifically didn't want a "Shepard 2.0" as stated in this very post?

And I said that the judgeing system was no different between games and movies. If the majority of people think a movie is good or bad, it's no different then if the majority of people think a game is good or bad.
Example:
The majority of people saying that Silent Hill: Revalations is bad, is no differend a judgeing process then the majority of people saying that ME3's endings are bad.
you were the one who said differently.

This is odd even when some people talked about the endings in every other Bioware game before ME3.  If you don't want perfection then why compain abot everything that you don't personally like.

Yet they still labeled the new main character as Shepard 2.0 as a place holder and to say that Shepard's story is over.

So you're still spliting hairs even when more people will disagree with you then agree with you.  Either way individuality isn't the funding that film, game, book, and comic makers don't focus on.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. If BioWare was confident a sequel was the right path, they would not have asked. They are scared about messing this up, as it will kill the series if they do. And if it turns out to indeed be a sequel, it would have to be a totally blank slate, so that there is no baggage of the endings, or possible bias of fan opinions on the past events.
A fresh start. It's the only any form of sequel could work.
Besides, there are people that have started to request the first contact war as a setting for the next game.

How is that when some people will always complain about anything and everything while being connected to the Internet.  Also Bioware has noticed this since Baldur's Gate 2.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. That's you. And again, I have doubts that any sequel that is directly based off the ending will be well receved by fans.

So its now the "rubber and glue" defense and I guess some people only want to hear what they want to hear.

1. I don't. I am simply repating what everyone else has stated: ME3's ending was not up to par with ME2. There was never anything about perferction. You are the one that keeps trying to drag that into this, when I never said anything about fans wanting perfection. They just wanted it to be up to par with the last game's ending. Which it is widely considered to have failed to do.

And No. They said, "We don't want Shepard 2.0." That's what they said they wanted to avoid.
Right now, it's just the next ME protaganest. Nothing else, except that they do not want it to be Shepard 2.0.

Also, the way a wide group of people agree with each other on that premise that a movie, or aspects of it, was bad is no different the the way a wide group of people agree on the premise that a game, or aspects of it, was bad.
There is no difference between how movies and games are judged by group consensis.

2. Again, you don't seem to understand that was when BioWare was independant. Now, they have bosses. They are a division of a larger company.
Besides, I never herd complaints over Baldur's Gate that matched ME3's ending fiasco.
It's not possible to build on those endings, without killing the series.

3. Again, talking about yourself, as you do not want to hear the cold, hard, truth: Any sequel based directly on the endings of ME3 will not be well receved, as it is not possible to make a game that can tell three different storylines like that. And cannonizing an ending to make it possible will make the entire trilogy worthless to have bought, and that will start another uproar that will snowball into the series being abandoned indefinately.
Only a blank slate in the far-futue would work.

[silverexile17s]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

In reality most game franchises aren't made to be independent from each other unless if we're talking about the Farcry series, which ME, Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Halo, CoD, and etc.  For most games like ME3 there is nothing called bad PR especially when the Internet complains about everything and anything.

Again I say, none of those games that you listed are designed with the Save Game carry-over that ME had.
The only way any sequel could work is by leaving everything regarding any and all of the events in the trilogy ambiguis, and open to personal cannon.
Leave that trilogy alone. There is nowhere else you can take it without envoking a backlash that wouldn't DOA it.

So you're turning this into a save game issue even when most games don't have that feature and the few haven't matched ME.  Two series that come to mind is the Witcher series and the two .Hack trilogies.

I'm simply saying that you cannot compare those games to ME3 when they were not designed with a save file transfer system.
Also, the way the Witcher and Witcher 2 work is arguably better then the choice and consiquence system in ME3.
And I havent played the .Hack trilogies, so I cannot comment on that.

[silverexile17s]

[quote]Blueprotoss wrote...

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

1. It's not that having no Shepard is nessessary a bad thing. Just, where are they supposed to go? A prequel is part of a timelone we know is not going to end an a way that many like. Same with a spin-off. And a sequel is going to have to be a completely blank slate. Fresh start.
It how they are going to go on from here that worries people, not the fact that Shepard isn't the protoganst.[/quote]Yet Shepard not being the main character is what you're focusing and a sequel is far from a "fresh start".

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

2. That is sonething that I actually do agree with, and it's one of the things that scares me the most on this game. I can't help but believe that no matter which way the devs go with this, it will get alot of negetive reactions, weather it's a sequel, prequel, or spin-off.
It's obvious that not many are going to forget the bad conclusion to the endings. That's fine with me.[/quote]Thats far from a bad thing because people will complain no matter what happens while Bioware is trustworthy unlike Lionhead.  Oddly enough you shouldn't be looking too much into ME since it will never belong to you just like most IPs.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

3. I already posted a response to that earlier.

The thing I have a problem with is the lack of willingness to forgive. The fans will never be happy with the sour note the game ended on. But I fear that the unwillingness to let BioWare prove they can still make a worthwhile storyline will kill the series, no matter what direction they pick.
A prequel, or blank slate sequel is the safest way to go in terms of that.
But again, that is me, I suppose.[/quote]Some people will never be "happy" because they think Bioware screwed up.  To be fair they didn't create ME.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

4. Okay. To adress all that.
Assassin's Creed followed the family line of Desmund Miles. HE was considered the main character as time went on, and was the constant in all three games.[/quote]Desmond isn't the constant while his family as a whole is the constant.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

AvP's main characters are the Aliens and Predators, which are never defined in a way that we get to attached to a spicific one.[/quote]Yet they still have their own stories.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Mortal Kombat has had many of the same core characters (Raiden, Scorpian, Sub-Zero, Lu Keng, Kung Lau, Jonnhy Cage, Sonya Blade, Jax, Kitanna, Jade, Meliena, Shang Tsung, Baraka, Reptile) in all of it's adaptations.
Halo has started a new trilogy with the Chief returning, and there was enough interesting background lore to warrent spin-offs, because the main story was not so stapled shut that it was backed into a corner, metaphoracly speaking, the way ME3 is.[/quote]Mortal Kombat is ever changing especially when look at Deadly Allaince, Deception, Armageddon, and the last interation that spans the whole series in a different view along with a differing storyline.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Elder Scrolls left us with the option of continuing our characters on to infinaty if we wished it. It only ended when we wanted it to.[/quote]While the basic storyline connects with every game in the series.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Zelda has the near tha same story every time: Link saves Zelda.[/quote]Yet there are diferent heros that are named Link like how there are different princesses named Zelda.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Darksiders follows the four horsemen of the appoclipse. And no one complains about a protoganist change if it's done right. Besides, that is a parallel game, not a sequel or prequel.[/quote]1 and 2 happens at the same time but most of what War does is after Death while the main characters are the Four Horsemen.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

CoD is the same story about war. War never changes, no matter who you play as, so that's an easy hurdle to pass.[/quote]Yet different scenarios occur and different characters are used.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Fallout didn't drastically change in terms of story, or loactions, or in-game lore.[/quote]Yet each Fallout game connects to the other what happens to the Elder Scrolls series.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Starcraft is a direct sequel that picks up with characters we knew from the last game.[/quote]Brood War, yes.  Wings of Liberty, no.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

Resident Evil has just about become the Final Fantasy of zombie games.
Just about the same as ^ happened with Silent Hill.[/quote]Yet couldn't say this since every RE game connects to the other games like how most of the SH games connect to each other, which this doesn't happen in Final Fantasy.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

I am not saying that a game can and must have the same protagonest to be good. But none of those games were in a situation tha mirrors ME.[/quote]But you act like it and ME is far from alone in that situation.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

It's the same thing that happened with Deus Ex. Making a good direct sequel to ME3 is the same as trying to make a good dierct sequel to Deus Ex: Invisible War. It's not possible to make. At least in a way that fans would consider good.
There is nothing that would work that fans would accept. They tried it with Deus Ex, and it's sequel, Invisable War, met with markedly less popularaty.
Deus Ex instead went with a self-contained prequel, and despite knowing how things played out in the future, you still felt like what you did mattered in an epic way.
That might be the best way to go from here.
[/quote]There will alwys be some people raging and that can't be stopped no matter what happens.
[/quote]
1. Shepard was the core of the series, bassically, Not haveing Shepard in the series is the epitimy of a fresh start for ME.

2. I never argued that. And unlike many, I am one of the ones that think having a new protaganest in the next game is a good idea. I am just worried on how it will be pulled off. Just becasue I didn't like the ending of ME3 doesn't mean I don't like the series, or BioWare in general, or that I wish them ill.
I'm just commenting on how many don't seem to have high faith in BioWare anymore. Raging "BioWare deserves to close down for making a dissipointment like ME3" trolls like Maxstor_ are what worry me. BioWare isn't going to be in a good state if more fans don't give any actual constructive feedback to work off of, insetad of the butthurt trolling that Maxstor_ promotes.

3. I know that!
I'm just conserned. I don't think anyone is going to forget ME3s' ending, or how many considered it sucked. But in the end, we all have to move on, right?
The fan's don't seem to want to forgive BioWare, and the lack of positive feedback is just going to come back on them. I argued that any bad DLC released will be because they don't see the point in putting effort into something the fanbase is appairently no longer intrested in supporting. It's fine to list the cons of something, as long as you list all the pros to compare them to as well.

4. Desmund is the one through which we see all this. He is the link to his family and history.

5. But we never miss the character of the past game, or complain when a new one comes along. They don't attach us too much to a spicific alien, predator, or marine to the point that fans will complain if a new one comes along.

6. But all of them maintain the same core characters, and their background stories. That's a stable background to build and innovate off of. It's hard to say "ever changing" when the characters and game mechanics don't drastically change from game to game.

7. The background lore does. But the game itself didn't end unless we deciede that we wanted it to. And there is never anything that really cannonizes a certin set of events in any of the games.

8. Still the same theme in every one, though.

9. Actually, that is arguble, as we never see for sure what happened first. They end at the same time, and begin at the same time, so it's considered a parallel storyline.

10. But the overall theme never changes drastically. Modern War is a pretty constant theme.

11. What?? What does Fallout have to do in connceting to the Elder Scrolls? I think there was a typo there.
And they have the same concept: They do not cannonize anything that happened in previous games. They share lore, but are blank slates for the the story. Nothing in terms of previous characters are used, aside from some camios here and there.

12. I point you to Jim Raynor, who was protagonest of all the games. As well as Sarha Kerrigan. And both will be in the upcomming Heart of the Swarm. According to the timeline, they all follow each-other, with Wings of Liberty indeed being a follow-up to Starcraft II, taking place 4 years later.

13. The point is that Resident Evil is more a mass of zombie shooting galleries then a coherent storyline. Same for the horrors of Silent Hill.

14. No. I'm concerned that others will act like that. Have you not seen the posts here saying that ME is not ME withou Shepard?
It's not my opinion. It's what I've observed others saying.

15. But Deus Ex stopped all that with it's self-contained prequel. It was a blank slate, and it worked beutifuly.
The only way to go from here is a blank slate for a sequel, or a self-contained prequel. That's the only direction it can go in now.

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

[How is that when Fallout and the Elder Scrolls are way more personal then ME would ever be while thats a fact more then opinion.  Also some people would argue that one of those titles is more personal then ME based on opinion or vice versa like you.

He means that the character attachment mirrors that level, not surpasses it. Honestly, you will attack anyone over anything, won't you?
And again, weather or not those are better to connect to or not is always going to be a matter of opinion. There is no "fact" that states one is better in the character attachment level then the other. That is just your personal opinion.

I see you're speaking for others again and I see you missed what I said especially with the whole "vice versa" thing.

[ryn_wolf]

it will be difficult for me to play as a new protagonist i love my paragon Shepard

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1. But again, he is not someone we resonate with as being in charge. And the first people we meat are Kaiden, Joker, and Nihilus, followed by Pressly, Dr. Chakwas, and Jenkens. We only talk to Anderson that one scene, and then in the med bay after Eden Prime. Those are the only times he is ever on the Normandy. Not to mention that he was captian of the ship for it's first voyage only. Imeediately after the maden voyage of the ship, Shepard gets it.
And again, we never saw Anderson in command. It was always Shepard that was the driving force of the Normandy.

And no sequel that picks up directly after the endings will survive the fan critisisums and (not to be mean) trolling on how the endings were the bane of the franchise. There is no way to do it in which it would be accepted by fans. Not unless it was a totally blank slate. No Normandy, no Shepard, No old crew. Total fresh start.

And do you have anything that proves otherwise? Look at how badly the ending was receved. Look how many still do not really like it. No game built directly off that will work. It will just crash and burn. Only a blank slate can work at this point. Right now, touching the endings again this soon is throwing a lit match into a fireworks wherehouse.

You forget that Anderson is in charge before Shepard is and Shepard is nothing withot his/her crew.

How is that when everything gets criticized and nothing is free of that, which its a bad point to use based on its flawed.

There's a lot that will prove you worng especially when you leave the nest that is BSN and Youtube.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. But they basically are cut from the same cloth. At least, that was according to your own comparison.

Saying that Shepard and MC are cut from the same cloth is like saying Sonic and Mario are cut from the same cloth, which neither comparison is correct.

silverexile17s wrote...

3. Again, talking about yourself. Have you put up anything that ever proved your word was based on "fact?" Not according to just about everyone who comments on you. So don't preach that your word is fact when nothing has proven that.

How is that when I'm practicing what I preach unlike you what you have been doing.

silverexile17s wrote...

4. That was when she was just a V.I. The same can be said of the geth. Once they evolved, they didn't repeat their mistakes. Also, according to the codex, only 5-10% of geth sided with the Reapers.
Source: http://masseffect.wi...n-Council_Races
Codex Enrty: Non-Council Races: Geth: Geth Heretics.

Again, this entire trilogy has been Reaper vs Galaxy.

The Geth and EDI can't evolve because they aren't organic but they did change with the guidance of humans.

How is that when the Galaxy has been fighting the Geth and Cerberus since ME1 while the Galaxy hasn't fought the Reapers until ME3.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 05 décembre 2012 - 04:01 .

[Blueprotoss]

silverexile17s wrote...

1. I don't. I am simply repating what everyone else has stated: ME3's ending was not up to par with ME2. There was never anything about perferction. You are the one that keeps trying to drag that into this, when I never said anything about fans wanting perfection. They just wanted it to be up to par with the last game's ending. Which it is widely considered to have failed to do.

And No. They said, "We don't want Shepard 2.0." That's what they said they wanted to avoid.
Right now, it's just the next ME protaganest. Nothing else, except that they do not want it to be Shepard 2.0.

Also, the way a wide group of people agree with each other on that premise that a movie, or aspects of it, was bad is no different the the way a wide group of people agree on the premise that a game, or aspects of it, was bad.
There is no difference between how movies and games are judged by group consensis.

Yet you are far from speaking for eveyone  and you are indirectly expecting perfection because you don't want to be disappointed.

Yet you seem to forget that Shepard 2.0 is a place holder.

How is that when there will always be small complaints and nothing can be done about that based on what an opinion is.  If Silent Hill: Revelation was that bad then why did it make over $41 million with a $20 million budget.

silverexile17s wrote...

2. Again, you don't seem to understand that was when BioWare was independant. Now, they have bosses. They are a division of a larger company.
Besides, I never herd complaints over Baldur's Gate that matched ME3's ending fiasco.
It's not possible to build on those endings, without killing the series.

3. Again, talking about yourself, as you do not want to hear the cold, hard, truth: Any sequel based directly on the endings of ME3 will not be well receved, as it is not possible to make a game that can tell three different storylines like that. And cannonizing an ending to make it possible will make the entire trilogy worthless to have bought, and that will start another uproar that will snowball into the series being abandoned indefinately.
Only a blank slate in the far-futue would work.

How is that when Bioware is mosty independent to this day until they sell their majority rights to EA or another company.  Btw "killing the series" is a matter of opinion like 'hating the endings".

How is that when the cold hard truth is that fact overrules opinion.

silverexile17s wrote...

I'm simply saying that you cannot compare those games to ME3 when they were not designed with a save file transfer system. 
Also, the way the Witcher and Witcher 2 work is arguably better then the choice and consiquence system in ME3. 
And I havent played the .Hack trilogies, so I cannot comment on that.

I see how you avoid that ME is the only series to have import saves on this scale even when the Witcher and .Hack fail on that respect.  Nothing is perfect hence why you sholdn''t expect perfection.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 05 décembre 2012 - 04:14 .

[Blueprotoss]

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

1. Shepard was the core of the series, bassically, Not haveing Shepard in the series is the epitimy of a fresh start for ME.
I'm simply saying that you cannot compare those games to ME3 when they were not designed with a save file transfer system. 
Also, the way the Witcher and Witcher 2 work is arguably better then the choice and consiquence system in ME3. 
And I havent played the .Hack trilogies, so I cannot comment on that.[/quote]I see how you avoid that ME is the only series to have import saves on this scale even when the Witcher and .Hack fail on that respect.  Nothing is perfect hence why you sholdn''t expect perfection.[/quote]If thats the case then Shepard wouldn't be in a squad.

How is that when most of the choices in the Witcher including the endings don't transfer into the Witcher 2.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

2. I never argued that. And unlike many, I am one of the ones that think having a new protaganest in the next game is a good idea. I am just worried on how it will be pulled off. Just becasue I didn't like the ending of ME3 doesn't mean I don't like the series, or BioWare in general, or that I wish them ill.
I'm just commenting on how many don't seem to have high faith in BioWare anymore. Raging "BioWare deserves to close down for making a dissipointment like ME3" trolls like Maxstor_ are what worry me. BioWare isn't going to be in a good state if more fans don't give any actual constructive feedback to work off of, insetad of the butthurt trolling that Maxstor_ promotes.[/quote]If thats a bad idea then why complain this much and the person thats emotional here is definately you.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

3. I know that!
I'm just conserned. I don't think anyone is going to forget ME3s' ending, or how many considered it sucked. But in the end, we all have to move on, right?
The fan's don't seem to want to forgive BioWare, and the lack of positive feedback is just going to come back on them. I argued that any bad DLC released will be because they don't see the point in putting effort into something the fanbase is appairently no longer intrested in supporting. It's fine to list the cons of something, as long as you list all the pros to compare them to as well.[/quote]You're worrying way too much even when some people are mad over the same trival things from ME1 and ME2, which this is nothing new in franchises.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

4. Desmund is the one through which we see all this. He is the link to his family and history.

5. But we never miss the character of the past game, or complain when a new one comes along. They don't attach us too much to a spicific alien, predator, or marine to the point that fans will complain if a new one comes along.

6. But all of them maintain the same core characters, and their background stories. That's a stable background to build and innovate off of. It's hard to say "ever changing" when the characters and game mechanics don't drastically change from game to game.

7. The background lore does. But the game itself didn't end unless we deciede that we wanted it to. And there is never anything that really cannonizes a certin set of events in any of the games.

8. Still the same theme in every one, though.[/quote]How is that even with Desmond's father and Subject 16.

How is that when they all have their bakgrounds whether they're an Alien, Predator, or Maine while they don't need a detailed one.

How is that when Mortal Kombat (2010} changed the MK series as a whole.

The lore in general changes because you play as the unnamed hero lost to legend.

The theme doesn't drastically change but there are still different Links and Zeldas though.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

9. Actually, that is arguble, as we never see for sure what happened first. They end at the same time, and begin at the same time, so it's considered a parallel storyline.

10. But the overall theme never changes drastically. Modern War is a pretty constant theme.

11. What?? What does Fallout have to do in connceting to the Elder Scrolls? I think there was a typo there.
And they have the same concept: They do not cannonize anything that happened in previous games. They share lore, but are blank slates for the the story. Nothing in terms of previous characters are used, aside from some camios here and there.[/quote]How is that arguable when Death shows up on Earth and humanity is already gone, which that happens War sees that after his imprisonment.

Yet  WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and 13 years into the future aren't modern.

As a series Fallout is pretty much another Elder Scrolls and thats nothing new.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

12. I point you to Jim Raynor, who was protagonest of all the games. As well as Sarha Kerrigan. And both will be in the upcomming Heart of the Swarm. According to the timeline, they all follow each-other, with Wings of Liberty indeed being a follow-up to Starcraft II, taking place 4 years later.

13. The point is that Resident Evil is more a mass of zombie shooting galleries then a coherent storyline. Same for the horrors of Silent Hill.[/quote]Jim Raynor and Sarah Kerrigan are far from the only charcaters hat Starcraft revolves around like how it also revolves around Mengsk, Tassadar, Zeratul, and the Overmind as a few examples.

[quote]silverexile17s wrote...

14. No. I'm concerned that others will act like that. Have you not seen the posts here saying that ME is not ME withou Shepard?
It's not my opinion. It's what I've observed others saying.

15. But Deus Ex stopped all that with it's self-contained prequel. It was a blank slate, and it worked beutifuly.
The only way to go from here is a blank slate for a sequel, or a self-contained prequel. That's the only direction it can go in now.
[/quote]If you weren't concerned at all then you wouldn't listen to opinion.

Human Revolution isn't a blank slate especially when it transitioned into Deus Ex with Denton just like Halo: Reach into Halo: Combat Evolved with Cheif and Cortana.