184 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

I am arguing that the next mass effect game will be a sequel, because the events of the previous games will have more than likely still occurred, and not altered for the story.

I don't know what you are arguing about.

Than again, without solid evidence from either of us at to what bioware's plans are, or even a title for the game, this entire exercise may in fact be little more than pointless subjective arguments which lead no where and accomplish nothing.

[JonathonPR]

Retcon ME2 and ME3. Create an alternate timeline that is post Shepard story arc. I propose Mass Effect: Alternity. Make an RPG like the first and true Mass Effect.

[dez walker]

i'll take anything that aint a prequel

Modifié par dez walker, 12 juillet 2013 - 01:09 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Wait a minute, time out a sec.

Mcfly, are you arguing that shepard, his or her crew, and the reapers should be removed from the lore ans canon and than set the games in thr future? I hope I'm wrong, because that would be ansolute insanity.

[Mcfly616]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I am arguing that the next mass effect game will be a sequel, because the events of the previous games will have more than likely still occurred, and not altered for the story.

I don't know what you are arguing about.

Than again, without solid evidence from either of us at to what bioware's plans are, or even a title for the game, this entire exercise may in fact be little more than pointless subjective arguments which lead no where and accomplish nothing.

I know, I'm a bit lost on what you're saying as well (oh well, can never expect to understand all context through text on the internet)


Ok. So you're saying the next game will take place after the events of ME3? That's a possibility. Imo I dont think it'll happen, simply because they will have to canonize one of the endings from ME3. I'm predicting that Bioware will go with an alternate timeline/universe in order to avoid canonizing an ME3 ending.


And you're saying that if the next game takes place after the events of ME3, you would consider a sequel? I'm saying that even if it does take place after the events of ME3, I won't consider it a sequel unless it continues the same story/narrative. Which I dont think it will, nor do I want it to.


Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now....as long as you get what I'm saying in this post, I think we're starting to understand eachother.

[jacob taylor416]

@ Mcfly616
A story set in the future after mass effect 3 would be considered a sequel in the sense of it's expanding the universe of Mass Effect, but it's not a direct sequel because it doesn't continue the Sheppard or Reaper story line, and therefore is known as a "stand-alone sequel".

Definition of stand alone sequel from wikipedia:
"When sequels are set in either the same universe or one very similar to that of their predecessors yet have very little if any connection to said predecessors, then the work is referred to as a stand-alone sequel"

[JamesFaith]

Mcfly616 wrote...

On the topic of sequels: if a story is told further down the current timeline ("after" ME3), but the narrative focus has changed, then it isn't a sequel.

It is sequel. It is just "loose sequel" (in my language).

In fictional universe is crucial time setting for classification, because all works set in such universe are considered part of it. 

One of classical example of "loose" sequel is F. Pohl: Gateway which is "loose" sequel to F. Pohl; C.M. Kornbluth: The space merchants.

When The Space merchants and its direct sequel The Merchants' war concentrated on colonisation of Venus and bussinnes practices of future, Gateway started completely new "loose" sequel series Heechee fully concentrated on alien race just mentioned in second book.

[Mcfly616]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Wait a minute, time out a sec.

Mcfly, are you arguing that shepard, his or her crew, and the reapers should be removed from the lore ans canon and than set the games in thr future? I hope I'm wrong, because that would be ansolute insanity.

No. Absolutely not. In fact, its the exact opposite of what I'm saying.


I'm saying the next game should be set in an alternate timeline/universe so that they can let the Shepard Trilogy stand on its own. They should make the next game AU so they dont have to choose a Canon history of who Shepard actually was and what ending/future he chose for the galaxy. (That would ruin a lot of fans own canon.)


Trust me, if it were possible to import our final ME3 choice into the next game, and have it take place like 500-1000 yrs later with an entirely new story/cast of characters/threat......that's what I would want. That's exactly what my dream set-up would be for the next game. But sadly, it seems impossible to import our choices to the new game on next gen hardware.


Since they can't import, I want an AU. I don't want them to tell me what ending my Shepard picked, and what future he created, and then throw me into that future. (Because there's a possibility that my Shepards story will differ from whatever they railroad us into.....as will many other peoples)

The last thing I want is Shepard to be removed from the lore. In fact, I want Shepard and his crew and the Reapers to have their own lore. I think Shepard and the Reapers are at the tippy top of the Mass Effect Hero/Villain caste. I don't think Bioware should alter or belittle that by trying to outdo themselves further along in the same timeline. They should just start an AU with the same species and Relays, while creating a narrative and experience entirely seperate from the Shepard Saga. It should stand on its own merits.

[Morty Smith]

peer reviews, peer reviews, peer reviews.

There is enough peer to go around. Use it!

[Mcfly616]

jacob taylor416 wrote...

@ Mcfly616
A story set in the future after mass effect 3 would be considered a sequel in the sense of it's expanding the universe of Mass Effect, but it's not a direct sequel because it doesn't continue the Sheppard or Reaper story line, and therefore is known as a "stand-alone sequel".

Definition of stand alone sequel from wikipedia:
"When sequels are set in either the same universe or one very similar to that of their predecessors yet have very little if any connection to said predecessors, then the work is referred to as a stand-alone sequel"

now we're talking semantics. JamesFaith and I were doing the same earlier. I don't bother with the "loose" or "direct". I just cut right to it. I guess its more "black and white" for me. If the narrative is a continuation of Shepard/his crew/Reapers, then consider it a sequel. See, I only consider the MEU to be the "setting". Just because a story takes place within the same setting and timeline like the First Contact War or 1000 yrs after ME3, doesn't make them a legitimate prequel or sequel (imo). I just think of them as separate stories in the same fictional universe.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 12 juillet 2013 - 01:49 .

[AlanC9]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Ok. So you're saying the next game will take place after the events of ME3? That's a possibility. Imo I dont think it'll happen, simply because they will have to canonize one of the endings from ME3. I'm predicting that Bioware will go with an alternate timeline/universe in order to avoid canonizing an ME3 ending.

I don't see the advantage of an AU. The problem with a canon ending is that your own choices don't happen? Well, if it's an AU doesn't that mean everyone's choices don't happen?

[Jorji Costava]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Ok. So you're saying the next game will take place after the events of ME3? That's a possibility. Imo I dont think it'll happen, simply because they will have to canonize one of the endings from ME3. I'm predicting that Bioware will go with an alternate timeline/universe in order to avoid canonizing an ME3 ending.

I don't see the advantage of an AU. The problem with a canon ending is that your own choices don't happen? Well, if it's an AU doesn't that mean everyone's choices don't happen?

This doesn't seem quite right. An alternate universe doesn't imply that your choices didn't happen in the prime universe anymore than it's being 10:00 EST implies that it's not 9:00 CST. Canonizing one choice in the same continuity threatens to write your decision out of that very continuity. An alternate universe, merely by virtue of being an alternate universe, says absolutely nothing about what happens in the original continuity.

I know this is not going to happen, but if it were up to me, I would go different route: Make a new space opera IP that is similar to ME but set in a different universe; not an alternate one, but a wholly different one with different races, settings, etc. Then say that it's the spiritual successor to ME in the same way that DA:O was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate.

[AlanC9]

I don't see the distinction. If the next game is set in an AU, or if it's set in the same continuity with different choices than the ones I mad, the result is the same. I'm not getting any more games set in the same continuity as my choices. So what's the advantage of an AU?

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 juillet 2013 - 03:45 .

[Jorji Costava]

The distinction seems completely obvious to me. I'm honestly having trouble understanding the source of your confusion. The difference lies in what the next game says retroactively about what happened in the previous ones. A game set in the same continuity that canonizes one ending says that the other endings 'never happened'; for many, this is tantamount to saying that if you made those choices, they 'don't count.' This is what bothers people about stuff like Leiliana or Zevran showing up in DA2 even though you got them killed in DAO.

An alternate universe, by contrast, says absolutely nothing about what happened in the previous games. Sure, it still means that there won't be more games set in the original continuity, but why think that this is the only possible consideration that could favor doing an alternate universe over sticking with original continuity. An alternate universe has the benefit of not appearing to poop all over people's experiences of the prior games. You may not think it is a good reason, but the reaction to the above-mentioned events in DA2 shows that it is a serious consideration for a lot of people.

[AlanC9]

DA2 is a separate issue. That game is importing a save, and so it's supposed to be in the continuity of that particular save, rather than being set in one of the possible futures DA:O could have gone to.

[Jorji Costava]

The point is that people don't want an officially sanctioned version of what choices were made in their continuity. If you don't like the DA2 example, there's the canon Revan example from KOTOR: Some folks didn't like that, and one imagines there would have been an even stronger negative reaction had that canonization come right off the heels of KOTOR.

If you insist that every playthrough is already a kind of alternate universe with its own continuity (which you seem to be doing with your comment about 'possible futures'), then I can see how that would muddle the issue, but that would be moving the goalposts, because that certainly isn't how you explained the issue a few posts ago, where you set things up as a choice between a game "set in an AU versus a game set in the same continuity with different choices than the ones I made."

[AlanC9]

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't see the advantage of an AU. The problem with a canon ending is that your own choices don't happen? Well, if it's an AU doesn't that mean everyone's choices don't happen?

Isn't that hilarious?  

"I want Bioware to acknowledge and respect my choices by not giving the possibility for the next title to acknowledge and respect my choices."

Yeah, pretty much.

But I was being imprecise. The problem isn't that the new game is set in an AU  -- if there's no save import the new game's set in an AU anyway. What I don't get is why it's considered good to set  the new game in a universe that the earlier games could never have gone to.

[AlanC9]

osbornep wrote...
The point is that people don't want an officially sanctioned version of what choices were made in their continuity. If you don't like the DA2 example, there's the canon Revan example from KOTOR: Some folks didn't like that, and one imagines there would have been an even stronger negative reaction had that canonization come right off the heels of KOTOR.

Having played  through the horrible mess KotOR 2 made of the KotOR 1 endings, I absolutely would have preferred straight-up canon.

If you insist that every playthrough is already a kind of alternate universe with its own continuity (which you seem to be doing with your comment about 'possible futures'), then I can see how that would muddle the issue, but that would be moving the goalposts, because that certainly isn't how you explained the issue a few posts ago, where you set things up as a choice between a game "set in an AU versus a game set in the same continuity with different choices than the ones I made."

Looks like the italed bit was confusing.

Let's substitute "set in a continuity that the earlier games might had gone to if I had made a particular set of choices."

[Wolfva2]

I think DragonAge and Baldur's Gate pretty much showed that Bioware WILL pick an ending that they like and stick to it. Regardless of what SOME fo the fans did, or want. The past is often an indicator of the future, after all.

I dunno, I get the feeling they're going to go the 'Fallout' series route; the next game will take place a few decades after the last one. It won't be in an 'alternate reality' where the Reapers never existed or anything like that.

[Jorji Costava]

Wolfva2 wrote...

I think DragonAge and Baldur's Gate pretty much showed that Bioware WILL pick an ending that they like and stick to it. Regardless of what SOME fo the fans did, or want. The past is often an indicator of the future, after all.

I dunno, I get the feeling they're going to go the 'Fallout' series route; the next game will take place a few decades after the last one. It won't be in an 'alternate reality' where the Reapers never existed or anything like that.

Probably true. My guess is that Bioware will canonize an ending, and that their choice of which ending to canonize will be governed by two things: 1) Which will cause the least fan outcry (Destroy, b/c it's the most popular), and 2) which requires the least amount of explaining for people who didn't play the previous games. Again, that's probably Destroy. It would just be clunky to explain via some kind of exposition that in the previous game, all synthetic and organic DNA was merged, or that the protagonist from the previous game you didn't play merged with some weird AI kid to take control of these giant robot cuttlefish who are now just roaming around the galaxy.

[Clayless]

osbornep wrote...

1) Which will cause the least fan outcry (Destroy, b/c it's the most popular)

What are you basing that on? The Internet minority?

2) which requires the least amount of explaining for people who didn't play the previous games.

Control would be the easiest to explain, as the status quo is effectively kept.

[Jorji Costava]

@Robosexual:

I am pretty much basing it on BSN. Yes, that's very unscientific, but there is some history of the developers making concessions to forum demand. People hated the Mako, so it disappeared in later games, they hated planet scanning and Harbinger, so those were hardly anywhere to be seen in ME3, etc. Add to that the appearance of forum memes (i.e. "Prothy the Prothean") in the game, and yes, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Bioware might use teh internets to gauge likely fan reaction to future developments.

[aznjoez]

With destroy, they can pull some space magic and fix the relays using tech pulled from the destroyed reapers. They must have some way of pulling the blueprints from the mind of the reapers. Only problem with fixing a mass relay is that they all point to some other relay. The Krogan for example, to get back they have to fix both relays, the Sol relay and the one in the Krogan system. By the time they get down there to fix it, the Krogans in the ships could have died of old age finally. There are relays that can be pointed to a specific point in space, but they better hope they can point it to the right location and not out into dark space or something. There also the time contraints with anyone that can't survive because they have no food that they can eat.

If shepard survives with destroy, he can still be a part of the sequel, just as a cameo/support role, while you play the next hero since he would be burnt out from saving the galaxy so much or would be to old if they set it like 50 years in the future. He could be the next Admiral Hacket. And there are many possibilities for the story at this point and it is anyones guess.

With control, the reapers will fix the relays and eventually things will be somewhat back to normal eventually but the problem I see with that is that those who are allied with the council would have the reapers as their new task force. Even with some of their numbers diminished due to the war they still could (maybe) drawf the entire armada they originally faced again. So any new foe, such as the yahg or something, would be no match for the council races with the reapers in their back pockets. So there is no dramatic enemy that will make the sequel fun with control. Unless god shepard kills the reapers and himself after he fixes everything because he realized he becomes mad with power with them, or it distrupts the balance of the galaxy to much for them to exist within the galaxy.

Synthesis would be a similar issue as control just with more green faces.

There are many possibilites but for a "direct sequel", destroy is the best bet in my opinion, with some space magic and good writing.