184 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

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."

umm as I've stated several times: if it were possible to import our ME3 ending choice into the new game on next gen consoles, set a good amount of time after the events of the Shepard Trilogy, that's the game i would want. But, importing doesn't seem like a possibility. Since that isn't possible, I would be fine with an AU

There's a difference between having an AU (and keeping everything that Shepard did, within that respective universe) and literally telling the player what his Shepard did and what choice Shepard actually made.

Basically, it sounds like Alan would rather have Bioware tell him what his Shepard did (totally ignoring any choices he actually made). If anything you're saying that you don't care about Shepard or his choices because you want BW to railroad you into a Canon ME3 ending. Whereas I want an AU because I don't want them to tell me what my Shepard did. I know what my Shepard did. Create an AU and let the Shepard Trilogy and all of it's choices stand on its own.

If you care so much about your Shepards choices, you wouldn't be so eager to have Bioware start the next game by telling you: "your Shepard romanced Ashley, and you chose Synthesis"......umm no, I romanced Liara and chose Destroy. That's how I want it to remain.

[Synergizer]

Morocco Mole wrote...

I don't really care about what choices you made. Just as I expect you to not care about the choices I make. Bioware should focus on making a canon that makes the best story. If that means a lot of babies who are made their romance (though I don't see why a canon romance would matter in a sequel) and ending isn't canon. Well, so be it. An AU or Prequel is just a lazy copout.

I agree. I can even play the game more than once and make different choices each time creating multiple personalised "cannons" - so then, why should Bioware writers be limited to a new story that fits with all the possible outcomes from Mass Effect 1-3?

These are the options I see are available to Bioware:
Timeline - in the future or in the past vs. a cannonised "present" after ME3
Setting - a different galaxy, a different dimension vs. a cannonised galaxy resulting from ME3

I don't know much about Final Fantasy or Elder Scrolls, but I think they base each new game in a different location, that's a possibility for Mass Effect IV. 

Anyway, they could make a sequel, cause I said so 

[Mcfly616]

Morocco Mole wrote...

I don't really care about what choices you made. Just as I expect you to not care about the choices I make. Bioware should focus on making a canon that makes the best story. If that means a lot of babies who are made their romance (though I don't see why a canon romance would matter in a sequel) and ending isn't canon. Well, so be it. An AU or Prequel is just a lazy copout.

actually, I respect the choices you and everybody else made. Which is why I don't want Bioware to tell all of us we made the same exact choices. That, more than anything, is saying "your choices don't matter".


I'd rather they leave my choices alone, instead of telling me they didn't matter. And I don't really care what you think is a "cop-out". I never said I wanted a prequel. But I'm not sure what all the fuss is about with that either. There's like 3 decades of time between the First Contact War and the Shepard Trilogy. There's a lot of potential for many stories to be told in such a span. An AU gives everybody the MEU they know and love with all the same species and relays. Whether you like it or not, a prequel or AU is the best options for the least backlash. After the ME3 Ending outrage, I dont think Bioware is going to be too eager to ****** off a good portion of their fans again.

I think BW telling us what our Canon ending is for the Shepard Trilogy is a much bigger cop out. That's the easy way out. Creatively speaking, coming up with something entirely different, a new narrative within the confines of 2153-2183.....thats much more difficult. Creating an AU in a way that it works, takes a lot more creativity than simply going: "okay, we're going with Destroy. Shepards dead. No Reapers. No Geth(but AI's are starting to be created again), throw in a few cameos of Shepards crew, etc etc..."

Yeah, I'd rather they challenge themselves creatively, instead of telling us that we all had the same story and Shepard never really had a choice at all.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 12 juillet 2013 - 11:53 .

[katamuro]

I would vote for a reboot of ME universe. Keep most of the story with improvements and changes. Also add more exploration on the ground and in space. Add an option of heatsink reload or wait till it cools down.

[AlanC9]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Basically, it sounds like Alan would rather have Bioware tell him what his Shepard did (totally ignoring any choices he actually made). If anything you're saying that you don't care about Shepard or his choices because you want BW to railroad you into a Canon ME3 ending. Whereas I want an AU because I don't want them to tell me what my Shepard did. I know what my Shepard did. Create an AU and let the Shepard Trilogy and all of it's choices stand on its own.
.

My Shepard? Absolutely not. Some Shepard? Yes.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 juillet 2013 - 02:56 .

[AlanC9]

Mcfly616 wrote...
I think BW telling us what our Canon ending is for the Shepard Trilogy is a much bigger cop out. That's the easy way out. Creatively speaking, coming up with something entirely different, a new narrative within the confines of 2153-2183.....thats much more difficult. Creating an AU in a way that it works, takes a lot more creativity than simply going: "okay, we're going with Destroy. Shepards dead. No Reapers. No Geth(but AI's are starting to be created again), throw in a few cameos of Shepards crew, etc etc..." .

Again, I don't get the distinction. In an AU your Shepard never existed, some other one did -- unless there never was a Shepard in the AU, which is conceivable.

[agentN7]

I'd be quite keen on Javik, under human leadership, taking on Leviathan. Whichever ending you chose at the end of ME3 could have only destroyed the active mass relays, and not the inactive ones. It could open up the potential to explore the ancient worlds which were advanced, which again could add to the plot in some way. I'm not going to rattle on about it, as i think it's a prequel anyway. I also think that in the unlikely event of a sequel, it would be set hundreds of years after the end of ME3. Then again, i suppose the purists would mock the existance of Leviathan, what age would the one who met shepard be if he has lived through all of those cycles ? ....i'm just wondering if somehow Javik or Leviathan could be involved in the next game. Other than that, from a selfish point of view i'd like to see any game include some drell.

Modifié par agentN7, 12 juillet 2013 - 05:46 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

You guys are so focused on the small detials and semantics of what your doing, your failing to notice the result is exactly the same.

And bioware will canon the decisions of the previous games going to the next gen. Don't belive me? Well, they gave a canon to both revan and the exile in swtor, and you know what? They did a damn good job at it too. The quest was done well, and they seemed to actually respect the character, even if he and she wasn't the way I played them, it was still nice seeing them played out in game.

You can scream "It's a sequel" or "It's an AU" till the earth is little more than a barren rock being absorbed into the sun, that doesn't change the fact that the result is the exact same in either case. Sit back, enjoy the ride, and don't get so bent out of shape over the tiny details.

[conjmk]

"How could BW make a sequel?"

Easy, they're not...

[SpamBot2000]

Someone mentioned WW2 movies. It should be pointed out that both The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan are indeed two different fictional universes. There is no reason to expect that Private Ryan could get transferred to the Pacific and meet the guys in ...Red Line. Because they don't exist in the same world, unless the makers of those movies specifically decide that they do. See how it works? A movie set in WW2 is not real.

As for BW making a sequel, they can't. At least not without ignoring the big EPIC CHOICE they ruined Mass Effect with. So it would have been all for nothing. Hah.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 13 juillet 2013 - 07:02 .

[Mcfly616]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
I think BW telling us what our Canon ending is for the Shepard Trilogy is a much bigger cop out. That's the easy way out. Creatively speaking, coming up with something entirely different, a new narrative within the confines of 2153-2183.....thats much more difficult. Creating an AU in a way that it works, takes a lot more creativity than simply going: "okay, we're going with Destroy. Shepards dead. No Reapers. No Geth(but AI's are starting to be created again), throw in a few cameos of Shepards crew, etc etc..." .

unless there never was a Shepard in the AU, which is conceivable.

This.

[AlanC9]

Mcfly616 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

unless there never was a Shepard in the AU, which is conceivable.

This.

Honestly, I could live with a no-Shepard AU. I'm mostly opposed to the kind of AU iakus has been pushing, where Shepard was real but the choices he faced are retconned out.

[Dubozz]

pick destroy or scrap the current endings (thanks god only shepard saw them). ME 3 ending will be a mystery (lol speculations!!!) or allow us to be some guy on the citadel who saw what happened after the beam (some cerberus guy or something)

[Tyzx]

free roam and open world rpg where the protagonist can go around and collect minerals and resources like in ME1. And you can also play different species and their perspective on a certain scenario, each having their own chapter.

[hiraeth]

so it sounds like the cleanest/least offensive option sequel-wise is an AU where Shepard didn't exist.

man, you know it's a horrible ending when you're only option is "lol jk none of that ever happened!"

[Cainhurst Crow]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Someone mentioned WW2 movies. It should be pointed out that both The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan are indeed two different fictional universes. There is no reason to expect that Private Ryan could get transferred to the Pacific and meet the guys in ...Red Line. Because they don't exist in the same world, unless the makers of those movies specifically decide that they do. See how it works? A movie set in WW2 is not real.

As for BW making a sequel, they can't. At least not without ignoring the big EPIC CHOICE they ruined Mass Effect with. So it would have been all for nothing. Hah.

Those two movies don't share the same title though. They're not "Thin red line" and thsn "Thin red line: The rescue of private ryan", they don't have anything to indicate they are related to one another.

The next mass effect game I'm pretty sure will have "Mass Effect" in it's title, indicating the previoue games with mass effect in their title are related to this new game as well.

Otherwise all they've done is juet created a new IP all together with nothing to do with mass effect at all.

[SpamBot2000]

Indeed, which would make a Mass Effect game that takes place after the events of ME3 a sequel. The WW2 movies point is a comment on what Mcfly said a few pages ago, suggesting that a Mass Effect game that takes place after the events of ME3 would somehow not necessarily be a sequel, comparing the situation to different WW2 movies. I was merely pointing out that those movies are in fact "fictional universes", and their relation to each other is the relation of two different fictions. A Mass Effect game using the same universe as ME 1-3 would have a different relationship to them, in effect taking place within the same fiction. Thus, a sequel, if set after.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 13 juillet 2013 - 05:14 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

I see, thank you for the clarification.

[Mcfly616]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

unless there never was a Shepard in the AU, which is conceivable.

This.

Honestly, I could live with a no-Shepard AU. I'm mostly opposed to the kind of AU iakus has been pushing, where Shepard was real but the choices he faced are retconned out.

yeah. I'm not trying to retcon anything. Shep and his/her choices are absolutely real. They exist within his/her respective timeline/universe.

The AU that I imagine, wouldn't have Shepard or Reapers.

[Mcfly616]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Indeed, which would make a Mass Effect game that takes place after the events of ME3 a sequel. The WW2 movies point is a comment on what Mcfly said a few pages ago, suggesting that a Mass Effect game that takes place after the events of ME3 would somehow not necessarily be a sequel, comparing the situation to different WW2 movies. I was merely pointing out that those movies are in fact "fictional universes", and their relation to each other is the relation of two different fictions. A Mass Effect game using the same universe as ME 1-3 would have a different relationship to them, in effect taking place within the same fiction. Thus, a sequel, if set after.

and I explained that I dont view it as a sequel based on whether its set in the same fictional universe or not. The MEU is simply the "setting". If the next games plot does not continue the narrative of the Shepard Trilogy, then I won't consider it a sequel. (Loose or direct or otherwise).

Just because it shares the same setting, doesn't make it a sequel. The story needs to be a continuation of where we left off. If its set hundreds of years after ME3, but it has entirely new characters and a story that has no connections whatsoever with the original trilogy.....then I don't consider it a sequel. It's simply a separate story within the same universe. (Which is fine, because I don't want a continuation of Shepards story. That saga is over)


That's like saying you went to the candy store for your 10th birthday. And one day, my grandchild will go to the zoo. And since they occured in the same "reality", you would consider my grandchilds trip to the zoo as a "sequel" to your experience in the candy store. However, I wouldn't consider it a sequel at all, because they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. They're just two separate events that happened to two different people, at two different times, in the same world/reality. That isn't a sequel imo

Modifié par Mcfly616, 13 juillet 2013 - 08:55 .

[JamesFaith]

Mcfly616 wrote...
That's like saying you went to the candy store for your 10th birthday. And one day, my grandchild will go to the zoo. And since they occured in the same "reality", you would consider my grandchilds trip to the zoo as a "sequel" to your experience in the candy store. However, I wouldn't consider it a sequel at all, because they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. They're just two separate events that happened to two different people, at two different times, in the same world/reality. That isn't a sequel imo

Why are you still using counter-arguments from real life reality when I and other here already explained you that this type of sequel works only in whole fictional universes?

Every other story in this universe would expand and evolve this universe and its lore presented in first work from this universe and because of it it is sequel.