184 réponses à ce sujet

[Epic777]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

^^ It wouldn't be a problem normally, but Bioware literally sold three games on the"Players story"

And? You got to make your story. But Bioware is within their rights to throw it out and it make their own set of events.

And? If I am a customer why do I bite

[Epic777]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

^^ It wouldn't be a problem normally, but Bioware literally sold three games on "Shepard's story", the player being part of the author.

BioWare isn't going to tell people their ending was wrong. If they do base ME4 off an ending, it will be with the qualification that, "Your own ME3 ending is still valid for your story, this is just what happens in a timeline where Destroy is picked." or Control or Synthesis.

SE did this with Nier, which is a sequel to one of the endings to Drakengard II (one not usually considered the canon ending by fans).

If that is case, it only works for two endings, Destroy and Control. Refuse and Synthesis would be unsuitable

[CronoDragoon]

I can understand why they would not do Refuse, but why wouldn't Synthesis work for the above scenario?

[Epic777]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I can understand why they would not do Refuse, but why wouldn't Synthesis work for the above scenario?

Why? Too uptopic. What conflicts are going to come from synthesis? Example the genophage is cured in synthesis regardless of what you do, and Wreav will commit to peaceful building. The reapers rebuild everything, no one cares that their previous genocidal enemy is helping now. No future synthetic-organic conflict. See my point?

[Fixers0]

 They shouldn't cannonize a specific single ending scenario but instead  go on with "established canon" ending, these include:

-Reapers are gone.
-Shepard's gone.
-Relay's damaged.
-Citadel damaged.
-Geth still exist.

[zakdillon]

Easiest way to "fix" Mass Effect: Go with the refuse ending. But change it so that the extended cut sequence for ME3 Refuse is the "worst case scenario". ME4 picks up right after ME3. It's kind of like retconning the endings, but at least it has context. We would be fighting for a conventional (or at least not-catalyst) victory.

As for characters, it would be a great opportunity to get the ME2+ME3 squad back on the normandy like so many people wanted. Introduce new characters/squad mates. For unpopular characters, send them off the normandy to go fight on Thessia or something. I don't care. Bump into them every once in a while if the story allows it. Lots of freedom here.

I think this is bioware's best hope to win back its existing customer base that is so unhappy, and have a great game.

[JamesFaith]

You know what is interesting?

When BW made Udina Councilman for everyone in ME3 without retcon of previous choice, there where dozens complaining threads on BSN about it.

But making cannon from one ending to everyone and retcon others suddenly isn't so big problem for many people here. Of course, it has to be "right one."

[Mcfly616]

Nope. Easiest thing to do is go with an AU. This way they aren't forced to canonized anything, nor do they have to bastardize their endings and mishmash them up as if everybody picked Destroy, yet the Geth are still alive.


I'll call it now: it won't happen. (Only time will tell, though)

[DukeOfNukes]

I personally think Udina should have been councilman in ME2 no matter what. You didn't pick the councilman in ME1, you voiced your support for one candidate or the other. The simple fact is that Anderson was a soldier, not a politician. But, if I were to voice all my problems with ME2, we would be here a while.

As for the matter at hand, any sequel will choose a definitive canon. Most likely the "destroy" ending, because the other two are kind of frightening when you think about them (Shepard turns into Shai Halud or the frightening implications of every being in the universe having the same "DNA".) They'll find a way to make it so the Geth survive, and basically just retcon everything, because why not, they've already done it twice before.

[AlanC9]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

I personally think Udina should have been councilman in ME2 no matter what. You didn't pick the councilman in ME1, you voiced your support for one candidate or the other. The simple fact is that Anderson was a soldier, not a politician. But, if I were to voice all my problems with ME2, we would be here a while.

Isn't that a problem with ME1, for giving you the impression that Shepard was making the choice? I agree that ME2 should have retconned the ME1 endings a bit, though.

They'll find a way to make it so the Geth survive, and basically just retcon everything, because why not, they've already done it twice before.

They could, but why should they?

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 juillet 2013 - 07:22 .

[DukeOfNukes]

AlanC9 wrote...

Isn't that a problem with ME1, for giving you the impression that Shepard was making the choice? I agree that ME2 should have retconned the ME1 endings a bit, though.

Did it? The way it all turned out, was the council asking for Shepard's input, saying "your recommendation will carry a lot of weight". That's a far cry from saying his choice is the ultimate decision. In ME2, they could have easily said "screw you, we elected Udina instead."

As a general rule, I find that retconning is nothing but an inability to work within existing limitations, and is sloppy story telling. Particularly since the first Mass Effect was made from the ground up with limitations in mind, this is all the more offensive. From a story perspective, there was no need to retcon ANYTHING from Mass Effect 1, and doing so was an early sign of decline.

[DukeOfNukes]

AlanC9 wrote...

They could, but why should they?

As I said, what could it possibly hurt? They've already crapped all over their own lore...so why pretend it's important now?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Mcfly616 wrote...

They're not making a sequel. They've already confirmed this. I've been predicting an alternate timeline for awhile now.


Like the original Star Trek (Spock and Kirk) and The Next Generation (Picard and Data). It'll be the same Mass Effect we all know and love. There just won't be any Reapers or Shepard or his/her crew. It'll be a new adventure with the same pillars and staples of the series all dressed up in pretty graphics for a new generation (Citadel, Relays, Asari, Turian, Krogan, Human, Salarian)

...that's still a sequel. An alternate timeline would be setting it in some parrell world where a drastic detail of the current series is altered. Like what if there were no reapers? Or what if garrus was the main character?

Setting it in the future of the timeline makes it a sequel. Even without any of the other characters. For example, Dragon Age 2 doesn't have the same main character or crew as dragon age 1 and is set in the future of the first game. It is still a sequel.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 11 juillet 2013 - 09:07 .

[Mcfly616]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

They're not making a sequel. They've already confirmed this. I've been predicting an alternate timeline for awhile now.


Like the original Star Trek (Spock and Kirk) and The Next Generation (Picard and Data). It'll be the same Mass Effect we all know and love. There just won't be any Reapers or Shepard or his/her crew. It'll be a new adventure with the same pillars and staples of the series all dressed up in pretty graphics for a new generation (Citadel, Relays, Asari, Turian, Krogan, Human, Salarian)

...that's still a sequel. An alternate timeline would be setting it in some parrell world where a drastic detail of the current series is altered. Like what if there were no reapers? Or what if garrus was the main character?

Setting it in the future of the timeline makes it a sequel. Even without any of the other characters. For example, Dragon Age 2 doesn't have the same main character or crew as dragon age 1 and is set in the future of the first game. It is still a sequel.

sequel: A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.

No, just because a story is told further along in a fictional universes timeline, doesn't make it a sequel. It needs to be a continuation of the events and/or characters from the previous installment.

And an Alternate Timeline/Universe is definitely not a sequel.

[JamesFaith]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

They're not making a sequel. They've already confirmed this. I've been predicting an alternate timeline for awhile now.


Like the original Star Trek (Spock and Kirk) and The Next Generation (Picard and Data). It'll be the same Mass Effect we all know and love. There just won't be any Reapers or Shepard or his/her crew. It'll be a new adventure with the same pillars and staples of the series all dressed up in pretty graphics for a new generation (Citadel, Relays, Asari, Turian, Krogan, Human, Salarian)

...that's still a sequel. An alternate timeline would be setting it in some parrell world where a drastic detail of the current series is altered. Like what if there were no reapers? Or what if garrus was the main character?

Setting it in the future of the timeline makes it a sequel. Even without any of the other characters. For example, Dragon Age 2 doesn't have the same main character or crew as dragon age 1 and is set in the future of the first game. It is still a sequel.

sequel: A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.

No, just because a story is told further along in a fictional universes timeline, doesn't make it a sequel. It needs to be a continuation of the events and/or characters from the previous installment.

And an Alternate Timeline/Universe is definitely not a sequel.

This is still sequel.

A sequel (also called a follow-up) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre or music that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work. In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work, usually chronologically following the events of that work.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 11 juillet 2013 - 11:10 .

[Mcfly616]

JamesFaith wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

They're not making a sequel. They've already confirmed this. I've been predicting an alternate timeline for awhile now.


Like the original Star Trek (Spock and Kirk) and The Next Generation (Picard and Data). It'll be the same Mass Effect we all know and love. There just won't be any Reapers or Shepard or his/her crew. It'll be a new adventure with the same pillars and staples of the series all dressed up in pretty graphics for a new generation (Citadel, Relays, Asari, Turian, Krogan, Human, Salarian)

...that's still a sequel. An alternate timeline would be setting it in some parrell world where a drastic detail of the current series is altered. Like what if there were no reapers? Or what if garrus was the main character?

Setting it in the future of the timeline makes it a sequel. Even without any of the other characters. For example, Dragon Age 2 doesn't have the same main character or crew as dragon age 1 and is set in the future of the first game. It is still a sequel.

sequel: A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.

No, just because a story is told further along in a fictional universes timeline, doesn't make it a sequel. It needs to be a continuation of the events and/or characters from the previous installment.

And an Alternate Timeline/Universe is definitely not a sequel.

This is still sequel.

A sequel[/b] (also called a follow-up[/b]) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre or music that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work. In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work, usually chronologically following the events of that work.

just because something is set in the same universe does not make it a sequel. It would have to continue the narrative of the first 3 games. If it does not continue the narrative of the Shepard Trilogy it does not qualify as a sequel. It would be a completely separate story within the same universe, therefore it wouldn't be a sequel.

That's like saying the Thin Red Line is a sequel to Saving Private Ryan (even though they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother) simply because they both took place during WW2. It doesn't work that way.

[JamesFaith]

Mcfly616 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
This is still sequel.

A seque (also called a follow-up) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre or music that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work. In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work, usually chronologically following the events of that work.

just because something is set in the same universe does not make it a sequel. It would have to continue the narrative of the first 3 games. If it does not continue the narrative of the Shepard Trilogy it does not qualify as a sequel. It would be a completely separate story within the same universe, therefore it wouldn't be a sequel.

That's like saying the Thin Red Line is a sequel to Saving Private Ryan (even though they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother) simply because they both took place during WW2. It doesn't work that way.

You obviously missed that part about fictional universes. In this case direct connection to previous story isn't necessary, because relevant connection is fictional word itself.

In such case we speak about "direct sequels" and "loose sequels".

Continuation of Shepard or Liara story would be direct sequel because it is directly tied to events or main characters of previous work.

Story with no or minor characters from original trilogy and without direct connection to Reapers plot (Reaper war would be just event, not main plot element) would be loose prequel.

Such direct/loose  sequels, prequels and midquels are specific for fictional universe, it rarely work in real world stories.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 11 juillet 2013 - 11:24 .

[Mcfly616]

JamesFaith wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
This is still sequel.

A seque (also called a follow-up) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre or music that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work. In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work, usually chronologically following the events of that work.

just because something is set in the same universe does not make it a sequel. It would have to continue the narrative of the first 3 games. If it does not continue the narrative of the Shepard Trilogy it does not qualify as a sequel. It would be a completely separate story within the same universe, therefore it wouldn't be a sequel.

That's like saying the Thin Red Line is a sequel to Saving Private Ryan (even though they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother) simply because they both took place during WW2. It doesn't work that way.

You obviously missed that part about fictional universes. In this case direct connection to previous story isn't necessary, because relevant connection is fictional word itself.

In such case we speak about "direct sequels" and "loose sequels".

Continuation of Shepard or Liara story would be direct sequel because it is directly tied to events or main characters of previous work.

Story with no or minor characters from original trilogy and without direct connection to Reapers plot (Reaper war would be just event, not main plot element) would be loose prequel.

Such direct/loose  sequels, prequels and midquels are specific for fictional universe, it rarely work in real world stories.

now we're talking semantics.


Honestly I'm not sure where you got your definition from. Heres the first 4 definitions provided by the top links on Google search: 1. A published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.

2. A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work

3. the next installment (as of a speech or story) ; especially : a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one

4. a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work




Now, I can't be positive.....but you view the fact that it's "set" in the MEU, as meaning that its a continuation of the narrative?? Because that's not how I see it. The MEU is nothing but the "setting". There can be completely separate and entirely different stories/narratives within the MEU and they would not be considered sequels (in my subjective opinion of the term "sequels")

[JamesFaith]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Now, I can't be positive.....but you view the fact that it's "set" in the MEU, as meaning that its a continuation of the narrative?? Because that's not how I see it. The MEU is nothing but the "setting". There can be completely separate and entirely different stories/narratives within the MEU and they would not be considered sequels (in my subjective opinion of the term "sequels")

This "setting" is the core of problem and reason why basic definition of sequel is expanded for fictional universes.

Fictional universes are created by author and first work from such world is considered "point zero" of new fictional universe and all other works set in same universe are prequels, midquels and sequel of this work. Sure, there are exceptions from this - f.e. author could wrote few short stories but it would be his first book about this world which first time trully describe - but this is most common case and case of ME universe.  And because all next works would used key elements of this world, this "element using" will create connection necesserally for calling something sequel. 

When in real world you need story or character connection to call something sequel, because they are only "proof" that two works are connected, in fictional universe its characteristic setting is enough to prove this connection. Terms sequels, prequels and midquels then showing place in inner chronology of fictional universe and terms "loose" and "direct"  relation to original story.

[rashie]

I'm not quite sure how they would manage to pull out a sequel with that canon ending, the mass relays are broken making galactic travel a pain even with FTL drives and im not sure where they would pull a threat out of their behinds that is powerful enough with the reapers almost wiping out all galactic life with them now being destroyed.

Only option that won't be a massive fail is a complete reboot of the universe at this point shoving the events of the previous 3 games under the rug completely.