393 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

 I wouldn't be surprised if the way Mac Walters and Casey Hudson set up the ending, was a deliberate attempt to torch the franchise and run.

It seems to me that Mac Walters is more suited to the kind of incoherent comic book plotting typical of DC comics, where no attention is paid to continuity, than to novels, multiple-game series, or anything where he has to pay attention to what happened in previous installments of the story.

It would be good if Mac Walters wrote absolutely nothing for the next Mass Effect game, and let other people do the full story plotting; other people seem to have more capability to remember and research what has happened in previous versions of the Mass Effect series.

That's not fair, at least let him write a few of the characters. Garrus's writer deserves that at least.

[crimzontearz]

Robosexual wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

.....you do realize a sequel is only possible in 3 instances right? now you are broadening to whole selection to not only the people whom (you think) are saying a sequel is impossible but also those who. add a qualifier? come the **** on

Oh no I can assure you my point has remained the same.

no, there is a difference between "impossible" and "impossible without it being far enough in the future/canonization"

[AresKeith]

Robosexual wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Hey there, big control ending fan here.

I think a sequel would be difficult to do becasue of the 4 endings. Not impossible, just hard to do.

Technically you wouldn't fall into the category I mentioned, as you think a sequel is possible. I mean the people who are incredibly negative and don't think an sequel is possible at all, and perhaps even the people who think a sequel would only be possible if one of the endings are canonized.

The people saying it's impossible is for the reason that its very difficult to do

[Clayless]

xlegionx wrote...

Control doesn't keep the status quo entirely, as you now have this police force of Reapers. while under Shep-AI, they may be benevolent, ultimately what they say goes. Disagreements are bound to happen somewhere along the road.

The Geth were never a major part of galactic society. besides the wars with the Quarians, the only major interactions they had with organics prior to allying with them was the Battle of the Citadel, which was done under the influence of a Reaper.

As for the relays, they are damaged just as much in Control as in Destroy, the only difference is that they would likely be repaired faster in Control thanks to the Reapers

Which is why the plot wouldn't be "a day in the life of" and would instead be about some sort of threat.

"Most likely" and "would". We know they get repaired in Control, but Destroy all we get is a comment from Hackett speaking in future tense.

Destroy changes the galaxy far more than Control does.

[xlegionx]

Robosexual wrote...



Which is why the plot wouldn't be "a day in the life of" and would instead be about some sort of threat.

"Most likely" and "would". We know they get repaired in Control, but Destroy all we get is a comment from Hackett speaking in future tense.

Destroy changes the galaxy far more than Control does.

I just don't see it. in Destroy there are no more Reapers and no more Geth, which is what the galaxy was basically like before the Reapers influenced the heretics to leave the Perseus Veil.

In Control, you now have a permanent peacekeeping force that will become a major (possibly commanding) voice in important decisions.

In Destroy, I doubt it would take more than a year for the major relays to be reapired. You've got the brightest minds in the world together after building the crucible and there's a bunch of Reaper tech lying around.

But in any case, Agree to Disagree?

[Clayless]

crimzontearz wrote...

no, there is a difference between "impossible" and "impossible without it being far enough in the future/canonization"

Never said the far enough into the future part, but the canonising part I did play around with, but I don't really see why that's a problem as that just includes more people and makes my theory easier to debunk.

So far it hasn't.

xlegionx wrote...

But in any case, Agree to Disagree?

Sure.

[StarcloudSWG]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

That's not fair, at least let him write a few of the characters. Garrus's writer deserves that at least.

Fine, but then he needs to be demoted from his Lead Writer position. He can't be Lead Writer and write a character at the same time.

[crimzontearz]

Robosexual wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

no, there is a difference between "impossible" and "impossible without it being far enough in the future/canonization"

Never said the far enough into the future part, but the canonising part I did play around with, but I don't really see why that's a problem as that just includes more people and makes my theory easier to debunk.

So far it hasn't.

xlegionx wrote...

But in any case, Agree to Disagree?

Sure.

it has been debunked 2 pages ago

[sharkboy421]

The thing that makes me nervous about a sequel is, as people have said, is that we have four wildly different outcomes. 

While there is an arguement to be made about "going far enough into the future", I'm afraid it will have to be really, really far.  As in another 50,000 or more years.  I feel that going that far into the future we will no longer be in the Mass Effect universe we are familar with.

And by that point I feel you might as well just make a whole other IP.  Personally, as much as I love Mass Effect, I'd kinda wish they would just leave it alone.

[Clayless]

crimzontearz wrote...

it has been debunked 2 pages ago

Post it here then, I can't find it.

[crimzontearz]

speaking of sequels.....what if all the endings happened?

I am not even kidding you it came to me in a dream....

I guess I played too much DAO, TW2 and LOK....or maybe read too much about bioshock infinite but whatever, anyways, imagine the next mass effect deals with multiple realities and someone (our protagonist) willingly or unwillingly rifting through 4 realities (possibly at insanely inconvenient times) meeting multiple versions of the same characters in the universes created by destroy, synthesis, control and refuse trying to jump back to a reality where the reapers never came.......


and when by the end of the game the protagonist manages to make that final jump .....a twist is bound to happen to set up the sequel

[crimzontearz]

Robosexual wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it has been debunked 2 pages ago

Post it here then, I can't find it.

a control fan forced you to rectify your original theory

[Megaton_Hope]

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.

I hereby dub this the "Lensman Hypothesis."

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Uhh, have you seen their fans?? I'd be reluctant to make any one of them a turkey sandwich, let alone video-game! 

And I'd be reluctant to accept one 

"Don't knock it 'til you've tried it."

To quote Zaeed.

Wait, you were talking about my sandwiches, right??

[MegaSovereign]

I don't see any implication of reluctance.

I can imagine that a sequel will be more difficult to pull off, but not impossible.

[David7204]

I'm not going to read through this thread, but I'm willing to bet that plenty of people are referencing that quote that's over a year old.

That doesn't mean much now. It was before release, and before they realized how much players hated the ending.

Modifié par David7204, 23 mai 2013 - 02:20 .

[Clayless]

crimzontearz wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it has been debunked 2 pages ago

Post it here then, I can't find it.

a control fan forced you to rectify your original theory

My original theory that the only people who think a sequel is impossible happen to be Destroyers and/or anti-enders? And then a Control fan who thought a sequel is possible forced me to rectify my original theory?

Could you post this here? I'm not sure if you're trolling me.

[AresKeith]

Robosexual wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

it has been debunked 2 pages ago

Post it here then, I can't find it.

a control fan forced you to rectify your original theory

My original theory that the only people who think a sequel is impossible happen to be Destroyers and/or anti-enders? And then a Control fan who thought a sequel is possible forced me to rectify my original theory?

Could you post this here? I'm not sure if you're trolling me.

And I've been constantly telling you that the reason some people say its impossible because the reason that its really difficult to do to the point where it probably won't happen

[Clayless]

AresKeith wrote...

And I've been constantly telling you that the reason some people say its impossible because the reason that its really difficult to do to the point where it probably won't happen

So you're trying to change what I said and you're wondering why I'm ignoring it? You don't seem to understand why people, who haven't said they think it's impossible, aren't somehow countering my theory about people who say it's impossible?

Or is it that you think that people who say it's impossible are just exagerating "really hard to do", therefore people who aren't exagerating "really hard to do" are also saying it's impossible? Even though that's not a two way street?

[chemiclord]

I do believe a sequel that manages to incorporate all three ending possibilities is FEASIBLY impossible. It's TECHNICALLY possible in a world where there are no budgets on dialogue or programming or game size, where they could slowly bring in those divergent starting points into one coherent narrative without handwaving some silliness... but I don't think any publisher would sign off on such a large project.

[AresKeith]

@Robo they aren't going say anything because you'll just ignore it and say your theory still stands because someone earlier who picked control already disproved your theory but you changed it so it'll still stand

So I'm pretty much done trying to deal with you

[Clayless]

AresKeith wrote...

@Robo they aren't going say anything because you'll just ignore it and say your theory still stands because someone earlier who picked control already disproved your theory but you changed it so it'll still stand

So I'm pretty much done trying to deal with you

Where? Could you quote it here?

Like seriously, if you make a claim that I'm contridicting myself, back it up, don't chicken out.

[AresKeith]

Robosexual wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@Robo they aren't going say anything because you'll just ignore it and say your theory still stands because someone earlier who picked control already disproved your theory but you changed it so it'll still stand

So I'm pretty much done trying to deal with you

Where? Could you quote it here?

Like seriously, if you make a claim that I'm contridicting myself, back it up, don't chicken out.

Darth Brotarian saying it would be very hard to do, and he chose control

And as someone also said earlier "there is a difference between "impossible" and "impossible without it being far enough in the future/canonization"

[Clayless]

AresKeith wrote...

Darth Brotarian saying it would be very hard to do, and he chose control

Fantastic found it:

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Hey there, big control ending fan here.

I think a sequel would be difficult to do becasue of the 4 endings. Not impossible, just hard to do.

Which part of this contradicts what I said? Is it the part where he said it's not impossible? Heavy emphasis on the "not". Is that the part that debunks my theory that the only people who think a sequel is impossible happen to be destroyers and/or anti-enders?

If yes, could you explain how?

And as someone also said earlier "there is a difference between "impossible" and "impossible without it being far enough in the future/canonization"

I never said far enough into the future, and like I pointed out I played around with the canonising thing, which in fact makes my theory easier to debunk. I'm not changing anything, I was contemplating adding to it to make it easier to debunk.

[Mathias]

It's 2014

Bioware announces the next Mass Effect

It's a Prequel spinoff, with heavy focus on MP