184 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Steelcan wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Yeah, they said there won't be a sequel.

Source?

its old news. Just Google it

[Steelcan]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Yeah, they said there won't be a sequel.

Source?

its old news. Just Google it

I remember a twitter poll asking for a sequel or prequel, and some possible rumor, but no official confirmation

[Seboist]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Canonizing an ending.

And if you think they won't canonize choices or endings at some point you are really naive.

Indeed, the story states that synthesiss is inevitable and the reapers are intact in some form or another in the three endings.

[Steelcan]

Seboist wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Canonizing an ending.

And if you think they won't canonize choices or endings at some point you are really naive.

Indeed, the story states that synthesiss is inevitable and the reapers are intact in some form or another in the three endings.

I think we can ignore what the story says, it gets changed so often who can keep track?

And those reapers are as intact as the geth are over Rannoch.

[AlanC9]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Yeah, they said there won't be a sequel.

Source?

its old news. Just Google it

I did that and ended up with this.

Not a sequel? Depending on your definition, maybe not . But he's talking like it's a game set in the future of the ME universe:

“If you had three games centered around a group of key soldiers in the US army during World War I and then decided to make a game about another group of people during the second World War, the games could have many points in common and feel true to one another, and you likely would have to recognize how the events of the first war influenced the ones of the second, but you would not necessarily think of it as a sequel.”

[AlanC9]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Well for once we're in agreement, because I can't see them proceeding with a canonized ending of one of the three. I don't want Synthesis or Control rammed down my throat, and I'm sure the others don't want Destroy rammed down theirs either,

I don't think this is a realistic worry. There aren't all that many Control and Synthesis fans, and Control fans aren't often susceptible to the rabid hatred that sometimes infects Destroy and Refuse fans. Not sure about Synthesis fans since the sample size is so small.

[Armass81]

They will find a way, if they go the sequel route.

How much sense it makes is another thing.

[Wolfva2]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

that's like saying The Next Generation isn't good, or that you don't like it, simply because it has no connections with the original series. Spock and Kirk actually happened. Just as Shepard and Crew and the Reapers happened. They are just self-contained standalone adventures within a Universe of stories.

Spock was on The Next Generation. Kirk was in one of the movies. Heck, Scotty was in a TNG episode...
TNG is a sequel in the same time line a hundred years in the future...

Actually 75 years.  And you forgot that McCoy was in the premier episode as well.  I think Voyager would have made the analogy perfect...but who wants to remember THAT show? <LOL>

[Wolfva2]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Well I would start with an artistic vision for the next game and write it. Not everyone would like it which is a given. I would stand by my artistic integrity. I would just make sure it was a good story and that everything was as well done as it could be.... if I were a writer. I'm not a writer. Nor would everyone like your idea of a perfect game. Ask 6 people here what their idea of a perfect game is and you will have 12 opinions.

Soooo, you would do EXACTLY what Bioware did (start with artistic vision and write it, then stand by artistic integrity).  Btw, THEY made sure it was a good story as well, and that it was as well done as it could be.  But not everyone liked it.  I do like how you finish with the same argument that I have been making for years.  That everyone has their own likes and dislikes and you can't please everyone. 

Dunno why you threw in that bit about not everyone liking my idea.  I mean, D'UH.  That's the argument *I* keep making to YOU.  The difference being, YOU are the one who keeps saying you can do a better job and your ideas are better, and I very rarely actually say WHAT I think would make a better game.  I just support THEIR right to make the game THEY want to make.  Just as I support YOUR right to do the same, if you ever do.  Yet you persist in claiming that because you don't like it it all sucks and you could do a better job, then you turn around and admit I'm right while insinuating I've been making YOUR argument instead <LOL>.

Honestly, I don't know HOW someone makes a good story out of omnipotent, invincible enemies.  There's always going to be some type of deus ex machina which boils down to a cop out to save the day.  The aliens are allergic to the cold virus, the aliens don't know what a firewall is, the aliens actually decide to listen to you when th ere's no reason to do so, the alien falls in love with the manly pecs of the oft shirt ripped captain, you discover an ancient weapon that's been built over many cycles without the enemy knowing that will shoot a beam that can do 1 of 3 things.  Knowing that the most likely outcome will be some cheap deus ex machina, I go into the game (0r movie) with the intention of just enjoying myself.  HEY!  I succeeded!  I enjoyed myself!  Guess what?  I win.  Meanwhile, some other people go into the game apparently expecting writing that would have made Chekov or Tolstoy weep in frustration at their ineptitude, containing science which would confound Einstein or Stephen Hawking, a love story that puts Romeo and Juliet to shame, and high drama of such depth that you could distill all of the soaps from the last 20 years (Mexican soaps included) and still not come close.  Then they spend the next year complaining about how the game is awful because it didn't live up to their expectations.  <Shrug>  It's just a stupid game.  Play it, enjoy it, move on.  Don't overthink it so much.

[kobayashi-maru]

There's a huge number of ways to go:

- Make one ending cannon
- Set game 1000 years later and do damage control, massaging implications to make more universal
- Alternate Timeline
- Set it on ship travelling new galaxy meaning implications more codex/dialogue based
- Have intro begin with an event which negates much of the differences e.g. dark matter event fries all synthetics killing Geth, Reapers if alive, Quarians and if space magic ending it fries synthesis without killing people.
Or my favourite
- Deal with it. Have some missions with different species if various ones are dead. Have the glowy aspect of Synthesis be a short time event as DNA alters so now it not obvious but has only minor implications to story. If Reapers didn't die they returned to where they came from at some point after rebuilding. Krogan get cured anyway later by others if you didn't, quarian remain on planet to acclimate and you just avoid Rannoch. Make ME4 100 years later and if Shepard lived he would be dead anyway. It's not that difficult really, more akin to ME2 style import than the extreme variables in 3.

[Mcfly616]

AlanC9 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Well for once we're in agreement, because I can't see them proceeding with a canonized ending of one of the three. I don't want Synthesis or Control rammed down my throat, and I'm sure the others don't want Destroy rammed down theirs either,

I don't think this is a realistic worry. There aren't all that many Control and Synthesis fans, and Control fans aren't often susceptible to the rabid hatred that sometimes infects Destroy and Refuse fans. Not sure about Synthesis fans since the sample size is so small.

I'm not sure what your source is. But I wouldn't trust any online polls. Only a minuscule fraction of players go online to actually take part in game discussions and polls. And surprisingly enough, most of the Mass Effect fans that I meet in person actually picked Synthesis (I know, it sounds craaaazyyyy after spending so much time here on the BSN. But I'd say approximately 7 out of every 10-12 people I meet have told me they chose and "liked" synthesis)

Modifié par Mcfly616, 10 juillet 2013 - 09:02 .

[Erez Kristal]

Easy. they start over.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The non-BSN people I know who played the game, many of them picked synthesis on their first and typically their only play of the game. It usually happened by accident when seeing what's out this ramp, and suddenly the ending triggered. It is considered the "golden ending". Those who saw it in the original ending did not like it. The EC version was liked more. The destroy in the EC was liked less.

Whether or not you like it is YMMV. I don't happen to like it because it doesn't fit my personality. Quite honestly I don't like any of them which is why I don't want to see any of them become canon. So we may agree on a principle but for different reasons, thus showing that consensus can be reached even among differing viewpoints.

[Erez Kristal]

i picked it, it was the most logical choice. still hated it, it ruined the universe. synthesis is the sick and twisted version of lived happily ever after. but between 3 evils it was the lesser one.
1) Red Ballon- shoot the tube and destroy the crucible, reapers win.
2) Blue ballon - Try to control the reapers and fail - cycle continues.
3) Green ballon - Hope Satan takes pity on you since he got what he wanted- path of saren.

Modifié par erezike, 10 juillet 2013 - 10:14 .

[Mcfly616]

I prefer Destroy, myself. But there's really just no way to know what the majority prefers. That type of information isn't available.

If they can make next games world continuous with our final ME3 choice (by import), then I'm fine with that. It'd be nice, but it doesn't seem possible. And since its not possible, I'd like an AU. I want the Shepard Trilogy to stand on it's own. I can always come back to it whenever I want.

I just hope that Bioware doesn't try to make the next protagonist live up to Shepard. They shouldnt try to make the next villain live up to the Reapers either. I feel like they're at the tippy top of the Mass Effect Hero/Villain caste. Just do something different. New protagonist, new adventure, and entirely new threat.

Some people support an alternate timeline because they just want to bury/erase/forget the Shepard Trilogy. I actually support it for nearly opposite reasons. I don't want any of my memories of the Shepard Trilogy being tainted by having a railroaded canon ending, and running into Shepard's crew mates in future games. You can only drag out a characters story for so long (idc how long their lifespan is). The whole universe needs a fresh coat of paint and an entire cast of fresh faces.

But I'll come back to Shepard and crew regularly.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 10 juillet 2013 - 10:22 .

[fchopin]

Bioware is not doing a sequel to ME3 as Shepards story with the reapers is done and finished.

The new game will have nothing to do with Shepard or the reapers as they will not exist in the game.
It will be a similar mass effect universe but in another multi universe reality with a different story.
It is not possible to continue after ME3 as it was written in such a way that it would not be possible to continue without breaking some persons canon.

[Wolfva2]

Yeah, much as I liked him, Shep had his run. Just as the Warden, and Hawke, did. Time for a new protagonist!

Just as long as it's not 'Blasto the Jellyfish'. Can you imagine the complaints then?

[fchopin]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Why should Bioware, or any company, give a crap about someone's canon? They make the story. Not you.

Because they want to make money and not upset people.

[Tonymac]

They would have to begin by hiring a good lead writer.

Let me know when they get that done, then we will see.

[Wolfva2]

fchopin wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Why should Bioware, or any company, give a crap about someone's canon? They make the story. Not you.

Because they want to make money and not upset people.

Exactly.  They want to make money.  So, they're going to do what THEY think will bring the most amount of money to the board.  Not what some random player wants, or considers canon.  It's why Lelianna, Zhevran, and others were in DA2, Awakenings, etc. 

It's THEIR world.  We just play in it.  Most of us are ok with that.  Those that aren't?  Well, I doubt they bring enough money to the game to really matter in the long run.  Call it 'the cold hard calculus of capitalism' if you will.