214 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

IsaacShep wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

In order to remove the reapers and geth from the narrative you basically have to just ignore the effects of the choices.  One major factor for some people, in choosing Control or even Synthesis was that the geth could survive-not the only issue, but one issue.  So, in order to make that work with a Destroy ending, you have to say that Destroy doesn't mean what it suggests.  Also, in order to make the reapers a non-issue, you have to have some way of making them go away that seems plausible.  But why would they go away?  In Control, you could send them away, they could say that, but why when Shepard reaper commander says s/he/it will protect the Many-seems the reapers are better suited to that then repairing everything.

But, in Synthesis, they would have to decide to leave for some reason.  Does anyone still control them post-synthesis?  Why would they leave?

It's just that they'd have to make up some conveniently contrived story to explain the differences or there are no differences and no choice mattered.  I think they will decide to do this, ignore what should be big differences.

Removing Geth/Reapers from central narrative doesn't have to equal negating the choices. For example, let's say that one of the main arcs in ME4 is about restoring Drell Homworld. In order to do that, Shep needs a a couple of pieces of some technology. One of the is by Geth. If Geth are alive, you travel for 1 mission to their Dyson Sphere and get that piece. If they're dead, you instead travel to a planet were all Geth bodies/tech was stored, "Geth Cementary" and geth some tech and get it assembled into a working piece you need. This would honour the choice you've made in ME3 and at the same time bring real difference between Geth!Alive and Geth!Dead variable from ME3. And without making them take the central narrative. (of course this is just an exmaple I put together in 2 seconds, plz, don't judge it on the 'writing quality' lol ;P )

The problem is here you are expecting Bioware to essentially write 3 different versions of ME4 so that if I pick Destroy and would never consider the other choices, I'd get a one third smaller game than if Bioware had simply decided that it was ok to have a canon ending.  Or, in order to make three sizable games they'd have to charge us three times what the game might otherwise cost, to make up for those vast differences.  And you are talking about a really minor type of thing within a new game.

The reality is in order to have each ending really mean something different, Bioware would have to created not just 3 but 4 different ME4 game versions, with one being a lot different from the others.

Consider how many people really hate Control and Synthesis.  And I've considered what you have said here.  Some people are totally revolted by those 2 choices so they choose Destroy, always.  You are forcing them to buy a game that must either be smaller or cost a lot more just to incorporate choices they hate.  What this will do is force another large group of people to leave Bioware behind.

Far better to make one final epic ending to this game that creates a canon ending.  And then let the dust settle and see just who the ending haters are then.

[Mcfly616]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
 that's not true at all. If they carry over the final choice, they do not have to be involved in the story being told in any way whatsoever. That doesn't mean they can't still be a part of the universe. If you chose control, the Reapers can be distant guardians in the sky. If you chose synthesis the Reapers can be seen roaming around the landscape of hubworlds and other places. The Geth can be seen, involved in everyday society on hubworlds. In Destroy, just remove them from the landscape. Either way, just because Geth and Reapers may still be around, they don't have to play a role in the story.

The rachni weren't involved in ME2's story at all.(besides the 1 conversation with that Asari on Illium.) Does that mean they were non existent? No, they're a part of the universe. They're out there.

The thing is if you set the reapers up as existing then no threat can gain entrance into the galaxy that does not involve at least some dialogue about them.  Like Vega should shout, "where are the reapers?  Where's the meat?"  Any story must have some type of conflict or there's no reason to shoot them thar guns.  And that means the big bad protectors of the galaxy should intervene or that's a pretty big plot hole right from the start.  As well since this is sci fi that revolves a lot around tech, ignoring a couple of the biggest tech and ending issues of this game will create a huge hole in the game.  Not that they won't do that, since I think they will but it will make it even more juvenile than the beginning of ME3.

The Rachni are not even a fair comparison.  They are not even featured at the end, they are not the central issue of the game (up till the last ten minutes of it), they are not the core adversaries within the game, and they wanted to be just left alone, never wanted to fight or any such thing.  The Rachni story is way more nuanced than just big bad bugs that wanna kill everyone.  And they are never set up as the galaxy's protectors in any ending.

Ignoring the biggest issue in ME3 will probably happen, but it will make ME4 laughable.

the Reapers surely can't and won't be able to police everyday criminal activity. Obviously they'll be around to defend the Galaxy against an overwhelming force, and also be able to prevent all out wars.....but as I've already stated multiple times: the next game should Not be about an intergalactic force that threatens the entire galaxy. The story should be on a much smaller scale.

[shepskisaac]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The problem is here you are expecting Bioware to essentially write 3 different versions of ME4 so that if I pick Destroy and would never consider the other choices, I'd get a one third smaller game than if Bioware had simply decided that it was ok to have a canon ending.  Or, in order to make three sizable games they'd have to charge us three times what the game might otherwise cost, to make up for those vast differences.  And you are talking about a really minor type of thing within a new game.

The reality is in order to have each ending really mean something different, Bioware would have to created not just 3 but 4 different ME4 game versions, with one being a lot different from the others.

Consider how many people really hate Control and Synthesis.  And I've considered what you have said here.  Some people are totally revolted by those 2 choices so they choose Destroy, always.  You are forcing them to buy a game that must either be smaller or cost a lot more just to incorporate choices they hate.  What this will do is force another large group of people to leave Bioware behind.

Far better to make one final epic ending to this game that creates a canon ending.  And then let the dust settle and see just who the ending haters are then.

How is 1 mission suddenly 3 different games? And why should Bioware care more about Destroyers and how "disgusted" they are about other endings than people who picked Control or SYnthesis? They should care and consider all equally, regardless how much Destroyers scream and whine. This is not "Paragon only" series, at least it's not suppoused to be.

[Iakus]

IsaacShep wrote...

]How is 1 mission suddenly 3 different games? And why should Bioware care more about Destroyers and how "disgusted" they are about other endings than people who picked Control or SYnthesis? They should care and consider all equally, regardless how much Destroyers scream and whine. This is not "Paragon only" series, at least it's not suppoused to be.

"Scream and whine"?  Really?

You realize that unless each ending is distinctly reflected in a sequel, people regardless of what choice was made, will consider the choice rendered worthless or ignored.  it won't be just Destroyers.  And if Bioware does that, the entire game will end up as diluted as ME2 squadmember content.

Ignore the endings.  Galaxy was saved, that's all that matters.  Keep the can of worms closed.

Modifié par iakus, 17 décembre 2012 - 02:27 .

[Mcfly616]

Why ignore the endings? Because you don't like them?

Good reason

[spirosz]

IsaacShep wrote...

They should care and consider all equally, regardless how much Destroyers scream and whine. 

Tbh, they tend to consider the most popular over anything else - Tali Squadmate, Liara focus, Paragon heavy, etc. I don't expect any different for a future game. 

[shepskisaac]

iakus wrote...

"Scream and whine"?  Really?

You realize that unless each ending is distinctly reflected in a sequel, people regardless of what choice was made, will consider the choice rendered worthless or ignored.  it won't be just Destroyers.  And if Bioware does that, the entire game will end up as diluted as ME2 squadmember content.

Ignore the endings.  Galaxy was saved, that's all that matters.  Keep the can of worms closed.

But 3DandBeyond only focused on Destroyers, that they would be unsatisfied if they had to share resources with other endings to honour all 3 choices and that because of their dissatisfaction, and not others, Bioware shouldn't go with all 3 endings.

[Fingertrip]

Did you play Dragon Age 2?

Yeah, think that adapation.

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

]How is 1 mission suddenly 3 different games? And why should Bioware care more about Destroyers and how "disgusted" they are about other endings than people who picked Control or SYnthesis? They should care and consider all equally, regardless how much Destroyers scream and whine. This is not "Paragon only" series, at least it's not suppoused to be.

"Scream and whine"?  Really?

You realize that unless each ending is distinctly reflected in a sequel, people regardless of what choice was made, will consider the choice rendered worthless or ignored.  it won't be just Destroyers.  And if Bioware does that, the entire game will end up as diluted as ME2 squadmember content.

Ignore the endings.  Galaxy was saved, that's all that matters.  Keep the can of worms closed.

Given how the Mass Effect series positively made a tradition out of ignoring the end-game choices and settling on a preferred pathway to canon, I see little reason why the outrage would be any more debilitating now than it was before. Especially considering the relative ease by which Bioware could assage such fears (such as pointing out that a continuation-canon doesn't invalidate other choices, and pointing out that choosing a base-line scenario allows greater use of carry-over).

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Why ignore the endings? Because you don't like them?

Good reason

Because everyone has a canon.

In some playthroughs earth is a cinder and all the Reapers are dead
In some playthroughs everyone has green eyes and are bestest buddies with the Reapers
In some playthroughs there's an invincible Reaper fleet keeping the peace
In some playthroughs the reapers won
In some playthroughs all synthetics were wiped out.
And that's not even counting the other changes the Mass Effect trilogy could have had upon the galaxy.

Unless Bioware takes all of these into account, people will be upset that their canon got ignored, that their choices were rended pointless.There will be accusations of favoritism, of laziness, that their ending got "Thaned" or whatever.

And yes, many of us just plain hated teh endings anyway.

So I say nip it in the bud.  Ignore what happened and just focus on making a decent rpg without being beholden to what came before.

And in the future, try asking my reasoning rather than making assumptions.  I do think some things through, you know.

[PrimeOfValor]

Doesn't really matter anyway just make all the good choices canon if it gets us another mass effect game the only problem (for me) the franchise doesn't much wiggle room when humanity comes to the galactic community how stories can bioware make in prequels if other mediums can do it such as books.

Dang, now i know how bungie feels about continuing the halo franchise after 3 then again this proves fans want answers and (at leastsome ) speculations must end in the process such as how is the galactic community doing after the mass relays are destroyed many years later.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Why ignore the endings? Because you don't like them?

Good reason

Because everyone has a canon.

In some playthroughs earth is a cinder and all the Reapers are dead
In some playthroughs everyone has green eyes and are bestest buddies with the Reapers
In some playthroughs there's an invincible Reaper fleet keeping the peace
In some playthroughs the reapers won
In some playthroughs all synthetics were wiped out.
And that's not even counting the other changes the Mass Effect trilogy could have had upon the galaxy.

Unless Bioware takes all of these into account, people will be upset that their canon got ignored, that their choices were rended pointless.There will be accusations of favoritism, of laziness, that their ending got "Thaned" or whatever.

And yes, many of us just plain hated teh endings anyway.

So I say nip it in the bud.  Ignore what happened and just focus on making a decent rpg without being beholden to what came before.

And in the future, try asking my reasoning rather than making assumptions.  I do think some things through, you know.

Is that slang for death or something?

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Why ignore the endings? Because you don't like them?

Good reason

Because everyone has a canon.

In some playthroughs earth is a cinder and all the Reapers are dead
In some playthroughs everyone has green eyes and are bestest buddies with the Reapers
In some playthroughs there's an invincible Reaper fleet keeping the peace
In some playthroughs the reapers won
In some playthroughs all synthetics were wiped out.
And that's not even counting the other changes the Mass Effect trilogy could have had upon the galaxy.

Unless Bioware takes all of these into account, people will be upset that their canon got ignored, that their choices were rended pointless.There will be accusations of favoritism, of laziness, that their ending got "Thaned" or whatever.

And yes, many of us just plain hated teh endings anyway.

So I say nip it in the bud.  Ignore what happened and just focus on making a decent rpg without being beholden to what came before.

And in the future, try asking my reasoning rather than making assumptions.  I do think some things through, you know.

Is that slang for death or something?

I take it to mean pushed aside and forgotten about.  like Thane's romance.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Why ignore the endings? Because you don't like them?

Good reason

Because everyone has a canon.

In some playthroughs earth is a cinder and all the Reapers are dead
In some playthroughs everyone has green eyes and are bestest buddies with the Reapers
In some playthroughs there's an invincible Reaper fleet keeping the peace
In some playthroughs the reapers won
In some playthroughs all synthetics were wiped out.
And that's not even counting the other changes the Mass Effect trilogy could have had upon the galaxy.

Unless Bioware takes all of these into account, people will be upset that their canon got ignored, that their choices were rended pointless.There will be accusations of favoritism, of laziness, that their ending got "Thaned" or whatever.

And yes, many of us just plain hated teh endings anyway.

So I say nip it in the bud.  Ignore what happened and just focus on making a decent rpg without being beholden to what came before.

And in the future, try asking my reasoning rather than making assumptions.  I do think some things through, you know.

Is that slang for death or something?

I take it to mean pushed aside and forgotten about.  like Thane's romance.

Jacob'd would be more appropriate, though that doesn't sound as good.

[djspectre]

I totally agreed that ME4 or the next game should be totally separate. I'm perfectly fine with Shepard being dead.

I really hope Bioware doesn't go back on their statement. It would be a bold move forward unlike the Halo series where they brought back Master Chief because they simply caved to fans demands.

[garrusfan1]

How could they make an import option if it is next gen consoles and if it isn't next gen chances are ME4 will be release next year so I doubt it

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Jacob'd would be more appropriate, though that doesn't sound as good.

Same principle.  People will be p*ssed no matter what.  Bioware couldn't properly account for the survival of twelve individuals.  How are they going to manage the survival of entire species, destruction of worlds, and the possible alteration of all life in the galaxy?

Tabula Rasa time.

[Epic777]

@IsaacShep My question is how can Bioware honor all three endings? These are galaxy altering choices. My thing, is this to honor all the choices Bioware will have to marginalize and retcon the essential parts of them with a splash of contrived reasoning.

Example: ME4 most likely will be a hero stopping some evil/misguided/deceived + organization/person etc. For Control to be honored the reapers will have to be here. If they are there, why need a hero, why can't the reapers fix the previously mentioned conflict. It will have to be a contrived reason. If the reapers have left, what happened to 'protecting the many'? Again it will be a contrived reason.

ME4 doesn't have the luxury that ME2 of another game, there is no wait till the next game to see how the choices play out. Gamers will want to see the choices play out not contrived reasoning. Example, why don't we hear from the rachni in ME4? I did save the queen in ME1 and ME3.

[shepskisaac]

Epic777 wrote...

@IsaacShep My question is how can Bioware honor all three endings? These are galaxy altering choices. My thing, is this to honor all the choices Bioware will have to marginalize and retcon the essential parts of them with a splash of contrived reasoning.

Example: ME4 most likely will be a hero stopping some evil/misguided/deceived + organization/person etc. For Control to be honored the reapers will have to be here. If they are there, why need a hero, why can't the reapers fix the previously mentioned conflict. It will have to be a contrived reason. If the reapers have left, what happened to 'protecting the many'? Again it will be a contrived reason.

ME4 doesn't have the luxury that ME2 of another game, there is no wait till the next game to see how the choices play out. Gamers will want to see the choices play out not contrived reasoning. Example, why don't we hear from the rachni in ME4? I did save the queen in ME1 and ME3.

Unless the enemy is completly different. This is where I think bringing back the Dark Energy concept could be a great solution (after modifications of course). This is not an enemy that can be 'fought' by having the Reapes just go and destroy it.

[garrusfan1]

Destroy ending will be cannon that is all

[liggy002]

I don't care. They messed up this story with ME3.

[Iakus]

Epic777 wrote...

@IsaacShep My question is how can Bioware honor all three endings? These are galaxy altering choices. My thing, is this to honor all the choices Bioware will have to marginalize and retcon the essential parts of them with a splash of contrived reasoning.

Example: ME4 most likely will be a hero stopping some evil/misguided/deceived + organization/person etc. For Control to be honored the reapers will have to be here. If they are there, why need a hero, why can't the reapers fix the previously mentioned conflict. It will have to be a contrived reason. If the reapers have left, what happened to 'protecting the many'? Again it will be a contrived reason.

ME4 doesn't have the luxury that ME2 of another game, there is no wait till the next game to see how the choices play out. Gamers will want to see the choices play out not contrived reasoning. Example, why don't we hear from the rachni in ME4? I did save the queen in ME1 and ME3.

I can just imagine trying to come up with a stroy:

"Okay then this quarian captain tells the player..."
"Wait, what if the quarians were wiped out?"
"Okay, this krogan merc has some info-"
"What if the genophage wasn't cured?"
::sigh:: Okay this drell..."
"Kaje got hit?"

FRAK!!!! 

[Degs29]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
(personal note) but it is doubtfull, that i buy another me-game in the first place.

If you're still in the ME forums, you'll buy another ME game. 

[Mcfly616]

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Why ignore the endings? Because you don't like them?

Good reason

Because everyone has a canon.

My point exactly.....


And your solution to this is to make a Canon ending....?

That makes a lot of sense.

[shepskisaac]

iakus wrote...

I can just imagine trying to come up with a stroy:

"Okay then this quarian captain tells the player..."
"Wait, what if the quarians were wiped out?"
"Okay, this krogan merc has some info-"
"What if the genophage wasn't cured?"
::sigh:: Okay this drell..."
"Kaje got hit?"

FRAK!!!! 

Which is not different to "And then Mordin says... And then Wrex says..." in ME3. There would obviously have to be replacement content. And yes, it backfired in ME3 but there was allllllllllllot more variables with ME2 squadmates than Krogan, Quarian, Geth, Rachni. And they can totally not make the most important characters be Krogan/Geth/Rachni/Quarian at all. There are tons of other races. The choice can be honored in many other ways. Having an exclusive mission to Rachni homeworld if they survived. Exclusive mission to Dyson Sphere if Geth are alive. Or have an exclusive squadmate from one of these races.