1056 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

NightShadow1800 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

NightShadow1800 wrote...

I like the saying "You can call Fecal Sculptures art all you want, in the end it's still a pile of ****."

I don't.  After all, a painting's nothing but a bunch of oily colored crap slathered onto stretched heavy-duty fabric.

Haha well enjoy your **** and don't worry about it. 

Nah. That kind of art stinks.

[NightShadow1800]

dreamgazer wrote...

NightShadow1800 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

NightShadow1800 wrote...

I like the saying "You can call Fecal Sculptures art all you want, in the end it's still a pile of ****."

I don't.  After all, a painting's nothing but a bunch of oily colored crap slathered onto stretched heavy-duty fabric.

Haha well enjoy your **** and don't worry about it. 

Nah. That kind of art stinks.

To clarify the saying is just pointing out that art is subjective. One persons idea of art is an others idea of crap... like ME3's ending for example. Bioware has a choice right now with the last DLC, claim what they made was good enough or decide that the majority of the fans are right and add more to the games ending. In the end it's up to Bioware and no one else... and the consequences of that choice is also theirs to live with.

Modifié par NightShadow1800, 26 janvier 2013 - 07:10 .

[thefallen2far]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Nicely said - I think this needs to be shouted from the rooftops by Bioware devs, because a *lot* of misconceptions (or hopeful delusions) persist about the Montreal ME game.

You could shout anything from the rooftops.  You could say "Mass Effect 3's ending was awesome"
 from a rooftop, it's not going to change anyone's mind.

[Yakko77]

Chris Priestly wrote...

To call the next game Mass Effect 4 or ME4 is doing it a disservice and seems to cause a lot of confusion here. We have already said that the Commander Shepard trilogy is over and that the next game will not feature him/her. That is the only detail you have on the game. I see people saying "well, they'll have to pick a canon ending". No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. Wherever, whenever, whoever, etc will all be revealed years down the road when we actually start talking about it.

I do not call the game ME4 when I talk about it ever, bucause that makes people think of it more as "what happens after Mass Effect 3" rather than "what game happens next set in the Mass Effect Universe", which is far more accurate at this point. Obviously fans are going to speculate content, character and story until we actually reveal details in the years or months to come as you have almost no actual details, just don't get bogged down in "well how are they going to continue ME3...".

Either I'm simply not understanding or this makes absolutely no sense and is contradictory.  The events at the conclusion of ME3 are not local but span the galaxy in the ME Universe.  Unless "ME4" is a prequel to the ME1-3 story arc or is a completely new Sci-Fi story then the events of ME1-3 will HAVE to play a part in Mass Effect Universe story.  Either the Reapers are dead or they aren't.  Either the Geth are alive or they aren't.  Either God-Shep is controlling the Reapers or he/she is dead.  Either everyone is genetically manipulated or they aren't.

Tell me how those factors and more can't have a impact on a ME Universe story that isn't a prequel.

[Risselda]

 As far as most people recognize and can comprehend...it would have to be present past or future.... Unless bioware has determined it will take place on an alternate dimension paralleling the universe we experienced in me3

[JBPBRC]

Yakko77 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

To call the next game Mass Effect 4 or ME4 is doing it a disservice and seems to cause a lot of confusion here. We have already said that the Commander Shepard trilogy is over and that the next game will not feature him/her. That is the only detail you have on the game. I see people saying "well, they'll have to pick a canon ending". No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. Wherever, whenever, whoever, etc will all be revealed years down the road when we actually start talking about it.

I do not call the game ME4 when I talk about it ever, bucause that makes people think of it more as "what happens after Mass Effect 3" rather than "what game happens next set in the Mass Effect Universe", which is far more accurate at this point. Obviously fans are going to speculate content, character and story until we actually reveal details in the years or months to come as you have almost no actual details, just don't get bogged down in "well how are they going to continue ME3...".

Either I'm simply not understanding or this makes absolutely no sense and is contradictory.  The events at the conclusion of ME3 are not local but span the galaxy in the ME Universe.  Unless "ME4" is a prequel to the ME1-3 story arc or is a completely new Sci-Fi story then the events of ME1-3 will HAVE to play a part in Mass Effect Universe story.  Either the Reapers are dead or they aren't.  Either the Geth are alive or they aren't.  Either God-Shep is controlling the Reapers or he/she is dead.  Either everyone is genetically manipulated or they aren't.

Tell me how those factors and more can't have a impact on a ME Universe story that isn't a prequel.

Space Magic. :wizard::wizard:

[Sulious Vandomar]

Chris Priestly wrote...

"... and then Shepard woke up in bed and it had all been a dream....."

Ok, there is NO way we would do that becuase it is among the cheesiest McGuffin around, but it is an example of what can be done. I can't say the more "real" possibilities because I may accidentally mention what may really happen. I'm just saying that people who think it MUST be X or XY are really limiting their vision.

I agree. It's right up there with a a super powerful machine capable of defeated the Reapers the main characters find the EXACT moment they need it. 

Oh, wait. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Yakko77 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

To call the next game Mass Effect 4 or ME4 is doing it a disservice and seems to cause a lot of confusion here. We have already said that the Commander Shepard trilogy is over and that the next game will not feature him/her. That is the only detail you have on the game. I see people saying "well, they'll have to pick a canon ending". No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. Wherever, whenever, whoever, etc will all be revealed years down the road when we actually start talking about it.

I do not call the game ME4 when I talk about it ever, bucause that makes people think of it more as "what happens after Mass Effect 3" rather than "what game happens next set in the Mass Effect Universe", which is far more accurate at this point. Obviously fans are going to speculate content, character and story until we actually reveal details in the years or months to come as you have almost no actual details, just don't get bogged down in "well how are they going to continue ME3...".

Either I'm simply not understanding or this makes absolutely no sense and is contradictory.  The events at the conclusion of ME3 are not local but span the galaxy in the ME Universe.  Unless "ME4" is a prequel to the ME1-3 story arc or is a completely new Sci-Fi story then the events of ME1-3 will HAVE to play a part in Mass Effect Universe story.  Either the Reapers are dead or they aren't.  Either the Geth are alive or they aren't.  Either God-Shep is controlling the Reapers or he/she is dead.  Either everyone is genetically manipulated or they aren't.

Tell me how those factors and more can't have a impact on a ME Universe story that isn't a prequel.

You're not understanding Priestly's argument. The different Or statements are singular, not collective: Priestly's comment is about individuals who are making specific assumptions about what the franchise must do to have another game. These claims are contradictory, yes, but that's fine because they're being made by different people.

There's a difference between something being necessary and something existing, and Chris's ME4 statement is about people confusing something existing with it being necessarily that in particular. So long as it's on the same timeline (and, honestly, it doesn't have to be), ME4 will be before, during, or after the ME trilogy. It has to be one of these in general... but it doesn't have to be any one of these in particular. It doesn't have to be a sequel... but just because it doesn't have to be a sequel doesn't mean it has to be one of the other two either. It could simply just be the sequel because they choose it to be out of the possibilities.

Your example of the endings brings up the boundaries of the possibilities collectively, but Priestly is talking about people who insist it must be one of those possibilities specifically.

[Dean_the_Young]

Sulious Vandomar wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

"... and then Shepard woke up in bed and it had all been a dream....."

Ok, there is NO way we would do that becuase it is among the cheesiest McGuffin around, but it is an example of what can be done. I can't say the more "real" possibilities because I may accidentally mention what may really happen. I'm just saying that people who think it MUST be X or XY are really limiting their vision.

I agree. It's right up there with a a super powerful machine capable of defeated the Reapers the main characters find the EXACT moment they need it. 

Oh, wait. 

Tali's data file was a poor way to start off the series, wasn't it? And the Reaper IFF didn't help ME2 either.

Thankfully they learned their lesson about the Crucible. It was introduced well before it actually came to exist and function, and they allowed an entire game to pass as they built it. It also had the virtue of being introduced to the characters after the need for it was demonstrated, rather than showing up and solving the problem immediately like a deus ex machina.

[JBPBRC]

The Crucible worked because Liara had it in a data file.

The Council always immediately acts when a data file gets involved. Simple logic.

[TheRevanchist]

Yakko77 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

To call the next game Mass Effect 4 or ME4 is doing it a disservice and seems to cause a lot of confusion here. We have already said that the Commander Shepard trilogy is over and that the next game will not feature him/her. That is the only detail you have on the game. I see people saying "well, they'll have to pick a canon ending". No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. Wherever, whenever, whoever, etc will all be revealed years down the road when we actually start talking about it.

I do not call the game ME4 when I talk about it ever, bucause that makes people think of it more as "what happens after Mass Effect 3" rather than "what game happens next set in the Mass Effect Universe", which is far more accurate at this point. Obviously fans are going to speculate content, character and story until we actually reveal details in the years or months to come as you have almost no actual details, just don't get bogged down in "well how are they going to continue ME3..."

 

Either I'm simply not understanding or this makes absolutely no sense and is contradictory.  The events at the conclusion of ME3 are not local but span the galaxy in the ME Universe.  Unless "ME4" is a prequel to the ME1-3 story arc or is a completely new Sci-Fi story then the events of ME1-3 will HAVE to play a part in Mass Effect Universe story.  Either the Reapers are dead or they aren't.  Either the Geth are alive or they aren't.  Either God-Shep is controlling the Reapers or he/she is dead.  Either everyone is genetically manipulated or they aren't.

Tell me how those factors and more can't have a impact on a ME Universe story that isn't a prequel.

-cough- Alternate Universe Mass Effect -cough-

Modifié par kylecouch, 26 janvier 2013 - 08:26 .

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sulious Vandomar wrote...
I agree. It's right up there with a a super powerful machine capable of defeated the Reapers the main characters find the EXACT moment they need it. 

Oh, wait. 

Tali's data file was a poor way to start off the series, wasn't it? And the Reaper IFF didn't help ME2 either.

Anyone who's bothered by this sort of thing probably shouldn't be playing video games at all, and certainly shouldn't be playing Bioware games.

[ChurchOfZod]

Getting rid of Shepard is a decision on par with New Coke or Netflix trying to charge its users double the price for the same content.

"We've created a protagonist that our audience loves and wants to see the further adventures of"

"KILL HIM WITH FIRE"

[thefallen2far]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Tali's data file was a poor way to start off the series, wasn't it? And the Reaper IFF didn't help ME2 either.

Thankfully they learned their lesson about the Crucible. It was introduced well before it actually came to exist and function, and they allowed an entire game to pass as they built it. It also had the virtue of being introduced to the characters after the need for it was demonstrated, rather than showing up and solving the problem immediately like a deus ex machina.

No, it is deus ex machina. There are 2 different aspects of deus ex machina.   The theatrical version in greek theater as is part of your definition and the generalized version that means any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot. As an example, War of the Worlds is a modern example of Deus Ex Machina in that human bacteria kill the aliens; even though the second line of the book was:
that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
So, the god hand was mentioned at the beginning of the book.  It was an improbable device that resolved the plot, though, so it's the most famous example of Deus Ex Machina.

The Catalyst is definately an artificial device that resolves a nonsensical forced thematic conflict that was amaturishly reintroduced after previous resolution and then shoehorned it's resolution as if it was magic.  That is Deus Ex Machina, even if you mention there is a device throughout the piece. [which you never actually made, you spent the whole game building an army and forming alliances for no reason because of the magic device]

It's like Tragety as defined by theatrical terms as a protagonists own fault leads to his downfall as is the greek theatrical definition or the generalized difinition of a series of unfortunate and uncontrollable events that lead to a sombre conclusion of reflection.... like most of Shakespeare's trageties.  [Julius Ceasar, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, etc] .  So the addition of the crucible is a type of Deus Ex Machina, but albeit; it's not the strictest definition.  That said, Deus ex Machina isn't inherently a bad thing.  People use Return of the King as a critical comparison of this game as an example of where it just doesn't measure up.... Return of the King's also of a Deus Ex Machina where giant birds come out of nowhere and pick up the heroes and take them home.   There's nothing inherently wrong with Deus Ex Machina, but the ending itself was foolishly  thought up, badly written and horribly presented and comes across as nihilistic garbage.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 26 janvier 2013 - 08:53 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Do you remember those words ? ... We can´t ... we won´t please everyone....

and judging by the influence of EA over few of the other different titles i can say that they will please COD crowd...

[CMD-Shep]

No clue what bioware can do, but I'm not holding my breath.
I have other things to worry about, real things.
Also, until they come out and say what the plan  is for the next ME game, what's the point of even speculating about such things?  Personally, I'd rather save my energy for when they actually make some sort of announcement and then I can speculate and ponder.

Modifié par CMD-Shep, 26 janvier 2013 - 08:53 .

[L_B_123]

I can imagine what they'd do if synthesis is canon, I mean would there be conflict any more? The species all have interlinking consensus to an extant. I struggle to see what a sequel could possibly do or got to. Add to that you'd never get another Shepard like character as all minds have been significantly changed so less free will.

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...
No, it is deus ex machina. There are 2 different aspects of deus ex machina.   The theatrical version in greek theater as is part of your definition and the generalized version that means any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot. As an example, War of the Worlds is a modern example of Deus Ex Machina in that human bacteria kill the aliens; even though the second line of the book was: 
that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
So, the god hand was mentioned at the beginning of the book.  It was an improbable device that resolved the plot, though, so it's the most famous example of Deus Ex Machina.

So you're saying that there's a colloquial sense of DEM which suits the Crucible even if it doesn't fit the formal definition? OK... but a definition of DEM which includes something the heroes spend almost a third of the story trying to build and use is an awfully loose one. It would take in the Death Star's exhaust port, for instance.

[Slashice]

It's not just the game itself but think about the novels. I doubt they're going to release a red, blue and green novels... with these endings it's impossible to continue the story without canonizing which will ofcourse ****** off people. BioWare mastered how to ruin a brilliant franchise in 15 minutes (tho it's not just the endings, but I could live with the other silly lore mistakes they've made. No surprise after the deception novel... it was crap, so it foreshadowed the failure of ME3 for me. Really is it that hard for the writers, especially the lead writer to sit down and replay ME1 and ME2 or at least read the codex entries? Goooooood....). And people get good money for such a weak writing....

[Killdren88]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Do you remember those words ? ... We can´t ... we won´t please everyone....

and judging by the influence of EA over few of the other different titles i can say that they will please COD crowd...

A sad day for Rpgers everywhere when EA fully converts Bioware to genericness. I suppose the will make Dragon Age 3 a Skyrim copy.

Modifié par Killdren88, 26 janvier 2013 - 10:08 .

[TheRevanchist]

Killdren88 wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Do you remember those words ? ... We can´t ... we won´t please everyone....

and judging by the influence of EA over few of the other different titles i can say that they will please COD crowd...

A sad day for Rpgers everywhere when EA fully converts Bioware to genericness. I suppose the will make Dragon Age 3 a Skyrim copy.

That would honestly be a pretty awsome game, an open world Dragon Age game would be amazing.

[Sil]

As long as Mass Effect "4" isn't an MMO, doesn't involve Synthesis, returns Star Trek style exploration like ME1 and 2, and doesn't involve Reapers... I'll be happy.

Oh, and not an FPS please.

[Davik Kang]

It won't be Synthesis don't worry.

What it will be though... I really have no idea. From the general way they talk, it does seem like they'll go sequel... but how could they possibly... *shrug*

I guess they would probably go with Destroy just cos afaik it's what the majority of players picked... could cause a problem in demeaning some players' efforts and choices though...

[RiptideX1090]

Davik Kang wrote...

It won't be Synthesis don't worry.

What it will be though... I really have no idea. From the general way they talk, it does seem like they'll go sequel... but how could they possibly... *shrug*

I guess they would probably go with Destroy just cos afaik it's what the majority of players picked... could cause a problem in demeaning some players' efforts and choices though...

Really, homogenizing the endings isn't hard.

In the sequel, say it takes place twenty or fifty years later or something. Synthesis is achieved no matter what, either by Shepard's actions, Reaper Shep giving everyone the tech for it, or by salvaging the tech from the Reaper Corpses.

Likewise, the Reapers are all gone. Either destroyed, or having left for Dark Space in Control and Synthesis, waiting in case they are ever needed to protect the galaxy or whatever.

The geth are gone in all endings as well. Either destroyed, or having uploaded to the Dyson Sphere, or possibly having uploaded to the Dyson Sphere in all endings, as rebuilding them was always a possibility.

The Quarians are on Rannoch no matter what, either having resettled with the help of the Geth, or having moved in after the geth were killed, or if the Quarians were wiped out, those that survived the war recolonized it after the geth were killed/uploaded to the Dyson Sphere.

The Krogan's numbers are critically low no matter what, either because of the Genophage or because of the War if it was cured. If it was not cured and Mordin lived, he later developed a cure. If he was dead, they evolved past it again, and without him there was no one to develop a countermeasure this time.

The Rachni survive everything. They survived the last cycle, they could survive this one, somehow, some way. Or maybe they just went away after the war. Who knows?

My point being, they can explain their way out of anything if they want to bad enough. And this is just what I came up with in ten minutes. I wonder what a group of writers thinking about this for months on end could do.