393 réponses à ce sujet

[CJHook]

Robosexual wrote...

I'm going to throw out a little theory of mine here:

Only destroyers and/or anti-enders don't think a sequel is possible.

My canon Shep destroyed and I think a sequel is possible.

Really really really difficult. But possible.

[AresKeith]

Robosexual wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I'm going to throw out a little theory of mine here:

Only destroyers and/or anti-enders don't think a sequel is possible.

Theory is false

Which are you?

anti-ender/destroyer

[XI BlackHawx IX]

CJHook wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I'm going to throw out a little theory of mine here:

Only destroyers and/or anti-enders don't think a sequel is possible.

My canon Shep destroyed and I think a sequel is possible.

Really really really difficult. But possible.

[_aLucidMind_]

One, because they know they royally screwed up. Another reason could be that Dragon Age is getting it's third game soon and they may be wanting to bide time until people either forget about ME3 or are planning on giving ME4 the same treatment ME1 and ME2 got: quality writing AND gameplay rather than just gameplay.

[Clayless]

CJHook wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I'm going to throw out a little theory of mine here:

Only destroyers and/or anti-enders don't think a sequel is possible.

My canon Shep destroyed and I think a sequel is possible.

Really really really difficult. But possible.

Ah I'll clarify my wording:

The only people who don't think a sequel is possible are anti-enders and/or destroyers. Not that all anti-enders and/or destroyers do, I mean that the people who don't think an sequel is possible always happen to be either of those.

[AlexMBrennan]

Please just be a little respectful to thier opinions. I do not agree with Seivai, but it is their opinion none-the-less. Plus I do not wnat this forum getting locked.

Trolling is against forum rules. Seriously, just don't feel the troll and he will go away.

As for a sequel, the problem of the massively divergent engines has been mentioned, and Bioware was forced to realise with Me3 that they just can't deal with that but canonizing one outcome will ****** off fans of the other endings.

Then there is the scope of the conflict - after having defeated a race of elder space cods anything other than even bigger and older space cods (I.e. the leviathans) will be underwhelming at best.

Finally, people care about the Me series because of the setting and the people - if you change all of that (any of the endings - galactic dark age, ultimate police state or Borg collective), you are gonna lose fans. Spin-offs focussing on scenes Shepard didn't see will avoid that - e.g. That dreadful iOS game would have been decent if it hasn't been quite so dreadful (I can't see why they bothered with a touchscreen interface at all rather than just hooking up a gamepad)

[crimzontearz]

Robosexual wrote...

CJHook wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I'm going to throw out a little theory of mine here:

Only destroyers and/or anti-enders don't think a sequel is possible.

My canon Shep destroyed and I think a sequel is possible.

Really really really difficult. But possible.

Ah I'll clarify my wording:

The only people who don't think a sequel is possible are anti-enders and/or destroyers. Not that all anti-enders and/or destroyers do, I mean that the people who don't think an sequel is possible always happen to be either of those.

incorrect again, there are control and synthesis supporters that think the same

note also that most who claim it is impossible add a qualifying statement for it

[AresKeith]

Robosexual wrote...

CJHook wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I'm going to throw out a little theory of mine here:

Only destroyers and/or anti-enders don't think a sequel is possible.

My canon Shep destroyed and I think a sequel is possible.

Really really really difficult. But possible.

Ah I'll clarify my wording:

The only people who don't think a sequel is possible are anti-enders and/or destroyers. Not that all anti-enders and/or destroyers do, I mean that the people who don't think an sequel is possible always happen to be either of those.

Or it could be that Bioware basically wrote themselves into a corner, and making a sequel (which everyone knows is possible) will ****** off a group of people because of the high possibility of a canonized ending

[Auld Wulf]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Seival wrote...
Almost as fresh and brilliant as sequel based on synthesized universe.

Still spouting the same tired bull**** I see.

Still spouting the same, bile-filled hatred, I see.

It reflects badly upon you, not on anyone else. And you wonder why better people see Destroy fans as being so vile. You bring on the Destroy hate yourself with these uncalled for attacks.

[KaiserShep]

Robosexual wrote...

I'm going to throw out a little theory of mine here:

Only destroyers and/or anti-enders don't think a sequel is possible.

As a destroyer, I do think that a sequel is possible, but I do think that the options are very limited, for the reasons I stated earlier. 

The dilemma I see with alternate endings is that it's not just about crafting multiple story lines to fit each, but also the idea that some endings may simply be far too final to leave room for a sequel to begin with. Refuse and Synthesis are pretty much the most "final" options, but I guess fans spanning across all these endings still want a game that continues the universe they enjoy, but how do they do that if their Shepard died to create an idealistic universe where everything is apparently going to be peaceful indefinitely, or creates a new benevolent overlord to serve as a galactic protector for all time? This is the reason why people tend to think that a sequel isn't possible, because it's not just a matter of complexity, but also a matter of having to pick one or two options and let everyone else just forget what they picked altogether and start fresh. 

[BioWareM0d13]

Probably because Bioware made the massive error of writing three endings that result in three wildly different versions of the Mass Effect universe. If Bioware planned on doing another Mass Effect game it would have made more sense to go the Dragon Age route. By that I mean you have the Reapers destroyed in all versions of the endings just as the Archdemon was destroyed in all versions of DA:O's endings. Like DA:O the main difference between endings should have been in epilogues for various characters and factions, and the differences shouldn't have been anything so major that it would be difficult to account for them all in a sequel.

[Clayless]

crimzontearz wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Ah I'll clarify my wording:

The only people who don't think a sequel is possible are anti-enders and/or destroyers. Not that all anti-enders and/or destroyers do, I mean that the people who don't think an sequel is possible always happen to be either of those.

incorrect again, there are control and synthesis supporters that think the same

note also that most who claim it is impossible add a qualifying statement for it

That's great, but you're neither of those, so we have nothing to talk about.

[HiddenInWar]

If bioware were to do a prequel, it should shed light on a completely different subject not covered in the comics or books. For instance: the background races described in the Mass Effect wiki reveal many species that predate Prothean times. ME4 could put us in the perspective of the Thoi'han, who waged war with the Inusannon over colonization of the world Eingana.

[Astartes Marine]

Auld Wulf wrote...
Still spouting the same, bile-filled hatred, I see.

You're one to talk, how many times have you insulted people here?  Oh plenty, yet you feign the innocent victim routine.

Auld Wulf wrote...
It
reflects badly upon you, not on anyone else. And you wonder why better
people see Destroy fans as being so vile. You bring on the Destroy hate
yourself with these uncalled for attacks.

Oh ****** off Wulf, the high horse routine is older than dirt and you're not fooling anyone.

[crimzontearz]

Robosexual wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Ah I'll clarify my wording:

The only people who don't think a sequel is possible are anti-enders and/or destroyers. Not that all anti-enders and/or destroyers do, I mean that the people who don't think an sequel is possible always happen to be either of those.

incorrect again, there are control and synthesis supporters that think the same

note also that most who claim it is impossible add a qualifying statement for it

That's great, but you're neither of those, so we have nothing to talk about.

you still ignore the nearly universal (and generally true) qualifiers

[Karlone123]

_aLucidMind_ wrote...

One, because they know they royally screwed up. Another reason could be that Dragon Age is getting it's third game soon and they may be wanting to bide time until people either forget about ME3 or are planning on giving ME4 the same treatment ME1 and ME2 got: quality writing AND gameplay rather than just gameplay.

I hope so, I wasn't throughly pleased with ME3 taking plots in different directions in the last chapter of the series.

[Archonsg]

Han Shot First wrote...

Probably because Bioware made the massive error of writing three endings that result in three wildly different versions of the Mass Effect universe. If Bioware planned on doing another Mass Effect game it would have made more sense to go the Dragon Age route. By that I mean you have the Reapers destroyed in all versions of the endings just as the Archdemon was destroyed in all versions of DA:O's endings. Like DA:O the main difference between endings should have been in epilogues for various characters and factions, and the differences shouldn't have been anything so major that it would be difficult to account for them all in a sequel.

QFT. 

[adayaday]

Creating a Sequel will require to either canonize the controversial endings-which will end badly no matter what they pick.or water down the endings which will cause them to suck even more,for example: giving the catalyst ultimate solution an expiration date,or Shepalyst Disappearing after his rousing speech about protecting the galaxy for eternity.

Modifié par adayaday, 22 mai 2013 - 10:02 .

[Clayless]

KaiserShep wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I'm going to throw out a little theory of mine here:

Only destroyers and/or anti-enders don't think a sequel is possible.

As a destroyer, I do think that a sequel is possible, but I do think that the options are very limited, for the reasons I stated earlier. 

The dilemma I see with alternate endings is that it's not just about crafting multiple story lines to fit each, but also the idea that some endings may simply be far too final to leave room for a sequel to begin with. Refuse and Synthesis are pretty much the most "final" options, but I guess fans spanning across all these endings still want a game that continues the universe they enjoy, but how do they do that if their Shepard died to create an idealistic universe where everything is apparently going to be peaceful indefinitely, or creates a new benevolent overlord to serve as a galactic protector for all time? This is the reason why people tend to think that a sequel isn't possible, because it's not just a matter of complexity, but also a matter of having to pick one or two options and let everyone else just forget what they picked altogether and start fresh. 

I like you're theory but I have a different one, mainly due to the fact that it could easily be an inter-galactic threat. It would honestly be that simple, it doesn't matter what ending you picked or how much peace it creates throughout the galaxy, it's all pointless if another galaxy attacks.

My theory is that people who are pissed with the ending/Bioware may or may not know this, in the end it makes no difference to them, hatred and negativity takes precendence over sense or optimism, but for the people who picked Destroy like yourself, perhaps you just haven't looked at that possibility? When I see Synthesis I don't see it as "the end" like most Destroyers do, I see it as the beginning, but I also realise that it wouldn't stop an inter-galactic threat.

That's my input there. I'm just going to wait a bit until I see a Controller/Synthesiser who doesn't think a sequel is possibly though. Because right now it's looking like my theory rings true.

Modifié par Robosexual, 22 mai 2013 - 10:04 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

iakus wrote...
I'll go a step futher:

I'm going to say ME3 was made without the intention of a sequel at all.  In fact, I doubt it was meant to be an ongoing franchise at all past the trilogy.  But a bunch of suits saw dollar signs, now they have to unfrak this situation...

I don't know if they were trying to wrap up the franchise altogether, but I do think it was written without any real intention of having further stories set after the end of ME3. They probably just figured that they could do prequels or games set around the same time where your character just doesn't cross paths with what Shepard and the Normandy crew are doing.

I think it would be *possible* to do a sequel set fairly far into the future from where ME3 left off, but in a way they'd probably end up validating the "red/blue/green" complaints about the original version of the ending, since they'd have to find a way to downplay potential differences. A game that picks up, say, 50-100 years into the future would have to do all of the following, at a minimum:

(a) Synthetics would have to be a minor plot point in non-Destroy imports and/or a Destroy import would trigger dialogue about new synthetics being built in the meantime;

( The Reapers will have to have finished their reconstruction work in a Control or Synthesis import so that we don't see much of them and they have minimal impact on the story;

© The benefits of Synthesis would have to be minor enough that whatever conflicts drive the story are the same as could arise in a post-Control or post-Destroy galaxy.

[AresKeith]

Robosexual wrote...

That's my input there. I'm just going to wait a bit until I see a Controller/Synthesiser who doesn't think a sequel is possibly though. Because right now it's looking like my theory rings true.

Because your constantly ignoring what others are saying, a sequel is possible but its very difficult without causing a problem.

Which makes others say its not possible

[adayaday]

Robosexual wrote...

I like you're theory but I have a different one, mainly due to the fact that it could easily be an inter-galactic threat. It would honestly be that simple, it doesn't matter what ending you picked or how much peace it creates throughout the galaxy, it's all pointless if another galaxy attacks.

My theory is that people who are pissed with the ending/Bioware may or may not know this, in the end it makes no difference to them, hatred and negativity takes precendence over sense or optimism, but for the people who picked Destroy like yourself, perhaps you just haven't looked at that possibility? When I see Synthesis I don't see it as "the end" like most Destroyers do, I see it as the beginning, but I also realise that it wouldn't stop an inter-galactic threat.

That's my input there. I'm just going to wait a bit until I see a Controller/Synthesiser who doesn't think a sequel is possibly though. Because right now it's looking like my theory rings true.

Synthesis create galaxy wide peace,which remove conflict,and if you havn't noticed  what makes the charaters in the MEU or any other game is conflict.
Ofc it might not  create galaxy wide peace,but then you removes the main reason to pick it in the first place.

Modifié par adayaday, 22 mai 2013 - 10:13 .

[Clayless]

AresKeith wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

That's my input there. I'm just going to wait a bit until I see a Controller/Synthesiser who doesn't think a sequel is possibly though. Because right now it's looking like my theory rings true.

Because your constantly ignoring what others are saying, a sequel is possible but its very difficult without causing a problem.

Which makes others say its not possible

Others who happen to be Destroyers and/or Anti-Enders? I ignore the people who don't think a sequel is possible and fall exactly into the catagory I said they would? You mean I haven't ignored one person who goes contrary to my theory? You mean I've in fact openly engaged with the Contollers and Synthesisers who blow it straight out the water?

Weird.

adayaday wrote...

Synthesis create galaxy wide peace,which remove conflict,and if you havn't noticed  what makes the charaters in the MEU or any other game is conflict.
Ofc it might not  create galaxy wide peace,but then you removes the main reason to pick it in the first place.

That's why I said Intergalactic.

Modifié par Robosexual, 22 mai 2013 - 10:18 .

[Clayless]

*Double post*

Modifié par Robosexual, 22 mai 2013 - 10:17 .

[KaiserShep]

Intergalactic may be the only way to make a conflict that can happen to every single ending, but the difference between the reapers and geth existing to otherwise does present the same dilemma.