1056 réponses à ce sujet

[iOnlySignIn]

It's simple. They don't.

[thefallen2far]

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

You spend most of the game building an army. Tutchanka, Rannoch, Palivin, the Citadel, the Racchni, you spend the whole game building an army to fight the Reapers. In the background, the device was made, but you never needed to see it. All you had were fetch quests or side missions that fell flat. All he while, the device came across as a weapon whose sole purpose is to magically destroy the Reapers... that's at the edge of DEM. A magic device that solves the problem is the primary characteristic of DEM, but it could be moved past bcause the other heavy portion of the game is army building. A weapon with the army building is consistent. If the device was sticlty speaking, just a weapon and you didn't have choice it wouldn't come across as DEM, but the end made the army builing moot, the only way to win was the magic device that inexplicably solved the problem and any questions about how or why are swept away and you're just supposed to accept the device saved the day. That's the god machine aspect. To follow the trend of the game, you'd have to cut out Tutchunka and Rannoch, Palevin and the Leviathan sub plots to take away the army building aspect to focus on the device.... you'd have to defend thedevice from invasion, Star Kid should have been speaking to you throughout the game, the synthetics/organics conflicts should have ben focal points of the action with no peaceful resolution between the geth andthe quarians and everyone should have known what the device did while they were creating it and installing it. These would have moved away from the DEM. it would have ben less interesting and focused more on what most people didn't care about, but it would have countered the DeM.

Again, DEM is not bad, but when it undermines the rest of the story, is awkwardly presented with little to no critical thought, becomes the focus of the entire story and removes narrative coherence, it becomes an anticlimactic disappontment only appreciated by those who find interest in the DEM itself. I.e. the idea of bacteria killing aliens or the idea of Eagles swoopin in to save the day or the idea of God coming down and solving everyone's problms.[I guess not many people were interested in Star Jar, circular logic and quasi cyborgs.]

[HiddenInWar]

I think a huge part of what people would enjoy about it is the next iteration of MP.

ME3 MP is so much freaking fun. I cant wait to see what perks will be in the next game.

[crimzontearz]

HiddenInWar wrote...

I think a huge part of what people would enjoy about it is the next iteration of MP.

ME3 MP is so much freaking fun. I cant wait to see what perks will be in the next game.

right......no

the franchise needs to be split

[Jonathan Sud]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

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.

More people need to realize this.

And if people honestly pull out the "must be green" card, it's a simple cosmetic appearance that could be redesigned or scrapped altogether.

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...
You spend most of the game building an army. Tutchanka, Rannoch, Palivin, the Citadel, the Racchni, you spend the whole game building an army to fight the Reapers. In the background, the device was made, but you never needed to see it. All you had were fetch quests or side missions that fell flat. All he while, the device came across as a weapon whose sole purpose is to magically destroy the Reapers... that's at the edge of DEM. A magic device that solves the problem is the primary characteristic of DEM, but it could be moved past bcause the other heavy portion of the game is army building. A weapon with the army building is consistent. If the device was sticlty speaking, just a weapon and you didn't have choice it wouldn't come across as DEM, but the end made the army builing moot, the only way to win was the magic device that inexplicably solved the problem and any questions about how or why are swept away and you're just supposed to accept the device saved the day. That's the god machine aspect. To follow the trend of the game, you'd have to cut out Tutchunka and Rannoch, Palevin and the Leviathan sub plots to take away the army building aspect to focus on the device.... you'd have to defend thedevice from invasion, Star Kid should have been speaking to you throughout the game, the synthetics/organics conflicts should have ben focal points of the action with no peaceful resolution between the geth andthe quarians and everyone should have known what the device did while they were creating it and installing it. These would have moved away from the DEM. it would have ben less interesting and focused more on what most people didn't care about, but it would have countered the DeM. 

Again, DEM is not bad, but when it undermines the rest of the story, is awkwardly presented with little to no critical thought, becomes the focus of the entire story and removes narrative coherence, it becomes an anticlimactic disappontment only appreciated by those who find interest in the DEM itself. I.e. the idea of bacteria killing aliens or the idea of Eagles swoopin in to save the day or the idea of God coming down and solving everyone's problms.[I guess not many people were interested in Star Jar, circular logic and quasi cyborgs.]

I agree with a little of this. It wasn't made very clear why fleets and armies would be necessary to deliver the Crucible... and of course, up until the big Citadel plot twist they werent' actually necessary except to slow the Reapers down long enough to finish the Crucible

[AlanC9]

Jonathan Sud wrote...

Really, homogenizing the endings isn't hard.

(snip)

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.

More people need to realize this.

And if people honestly pull out the "must be green" card, it's a simple cosmetic appearance that could be redesigned or scrapped altogether.

Are people saying that homogenizing the endings would be hard? I thought the argument was that homogenizing the endings would really, really suck.

[Epic777]

AlanC9 wrote...

Jonathan Sud wrote...

Really, homogenizing the endings isn't hard.

(snip)

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.

More people need to realize this.

And if people honestly pull out the "must be green" card, it's a simple cosmetic appearance that could be redesigned or scrapped altogether.

Are people saying that homogenizing the endings would be hard? I thought the argument was that homogenizing the endings would really, really suck.

Deus Ex:IW

[Lunch Box1912]

The whole story started to go south with the cerberus cou to take over the citidel, the seat of government for the galaxy almost toppled by a human terrorist group.

Started loosing coherence around this point in the game

[Lunch Box1912]

Will have to wait and see... does anyone start to worry that this may turn into Legacy of Kane (story wise)

[Jeep_girl]

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...".

OK, I agree the results of using ME4 are annoying, but what do you suggest we call it?

I think the problem is that "The next game set in the Mass Effect universe" is pretty long an awkward and lacks a convenient abbreviation. I imagine you guys don't call it that around the office. You probably use some internal project name for convenience. You probably don't want to give that one away, but maybe you could come up with a project name for the public to use? Or let people come up with ideas and pick one. I suspect any suggestion from or approved by BW would catch on pretty quick. It doesn't have to give away any ideas you might be working on, just something that's convenient language-wise. 

So, basically, I'm saying tha the power is yours!

[EnvyTB075]

They're not. Its going to appeal to shooter fans, and the dialogue wheel will be nixed.


Because the shooter market is the only one worth contesting apparently.

[pinkandblack84]

the simple answer is you cant keep everyone happy with next installment, they found that out over the course of the three games. I remember some people moaning about the changes in ME2 when it first come out and now the whole ending for ME3 drives some people insane.

So in the long run they wont be able to keep every satisfied for the next game, but hopefully they can strike a good counter balance and actually listen to what the fans of the series want from the next game.

[Optimus J]

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...".

So, how about Mass Effect: The Duct Tape Chronicles?

Yeah, if you intrepreted that in more than one manner, then it's up to you to figure out what I meant with my artistic view.

[AlanC9]

Well, at least its only an 11 day necro.

[N-Seven]

Jeep_girl 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...".

OK, I agree the results of using ME4 are annoying, but what do you suggest we call it?

I think the problem is that "The next game set in the Mass Effect universe" is pretty long an awkward and lacks a convenient abbreviation. I imagine you guys don't call it that around the office. You probably use some internal project name for convenience. You probably don't want to give that one away, but maybe you could come up with a project name for the public to use? Or let people come up with ideas and pick one. I suspect any suggestion from or approved by BW would catch on pretty quick. It doesn't have to give away any ideas you might be working on, just something that's convenient language-wise. 

So, basically, I'm saying tha the power is yours!

NMEG (Next Mass Effect Game), or drop the 'game' and called it NME.

Or 'Next Effect'.

[N-Seven]

crimzontearz wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

I think a huge part of what people would enjoy about it is the next iteration of MP.

ME3 MP is so much freaking fun. I cant wait to see what perks will be in the next game.

right......no

the franchise needs to be split

I wouldn't mind this.  Allocate more resources to each project.   I'd buy both.  I surprisingly love the MP portion.

[giftfish]

HarbingerShep wrote...

Consider all 3 endings, 4 if you count refusal.. They all have 3 differences that would have to effect the way in some way.
Destroy: All reapers dead, Geth dead.
Control: Reapers alive, Geth alive.
Synthesis: Reapers alive, Geth alive.. BUT everything is green.

I know I'm looking at it irrationally but depending on your choices, if they wanted to make EVERYONE happy wouldn't they have to write the game in 3 different ways? With the exception of control/synthesis because I think you could wave off the fact that everything that's green.. I reckon the best way to go for bioware would be going post Mass effect to something before.

Sorry for the horrible point making.. Had no idea how to express it.

It should be abundantly clear at this point, that if there is one thing that BW/EA doesn't care about, it's "making everyone happy".

Modifié par giftfish, 07 février 2013 - 06:11 .

[Applepie_Svk]

they won´t and they´ll start with crap like synthesis is inevitable...

[CronoDragoon]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

they won´t and they´ll start with crap like synthesis is inevitable...

Where is the quote where they said that?

[Tootles FTW]

With each pre-order of ME4 you get a free month prescription for prozac.

[GunWraith]

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...".

To me at least, Shepard IS Mass Effect. I would gather that many feel that way, since there was such an incredible outcry over the terrible endings of ME3. I can tell you that many of us are on the fence about even considering the next Mass Effect game because there is still a bad taste over the direction the series has went.

[oblique9]

The next game is said to be set in the ME universe, but if it doesn't have to come before, after or alongside the existing storyline.... I guess I lack the imagination to imagine how it would still be set in the same universe...

[Applepie_Svk]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

they won´t and they´ll start with crap like synthesis is inevitable...

Where is the quote where they said that?

Their art said it... 

[Dr.Freeman]

Chris Priestly wrote...
 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.

Oh come on, the game will be set in the ME universe, there's actually a difference between all species being partly synthetic or not. So how could you ignore that ?
Oh I see... there will be a BIG impact in the past which changes the timeline, like in Star Trek.

Modifié par Dr.Freeman, 07 février 2013 - 11:34 .