184 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Mcfly616 wrote...

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.

But if the result is the same, than where is this difference betweeen retconing it out of exsistence, and simply saying it exist in it's own world which will never be mentioned, revisited, or brought up ever again?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Are you familiar with the ledgend of korra? It's a show set 100 years after the show avatar the last air bender, with the new protagonist inheriting the title of the pervious main character as avatar, defender of peace and balance in the world.

Most characters from the pervious show are either incredibly old or dead, the story follows the next generation, with almost no recurring characters say for the occasional flashback.

Since it doesn't have to do with the previous characters struggles, but an entirely new threat and a setting in a new city with more advanced technology, would you consider it an AU?

[Mcfly616]

JamesFaith wrote...

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. 

how do you figure? Lol that's completely subjective. The term "sequel" isn't bound to fictional universes.

And let's just say my little candy shop/zoo scenario was from two seperate movies based in NYC. (For your arguments sake)....it still wouldn't be a sequel. Just because it adds to the universes lore, doesnt make it a sequel. It has to continue the story that was previously being told. If its a seperate story all together, then it isnt a sequel. Regardless of whether its set in the MEU.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 13 juillet 2013 - 09:55 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Really? Your really making that argument?

Okay, I'm done. Hasta La Vista, Sayonara, Au Revoir, Auf Wiedersehen, Aloha, A hui hou.

[Mcfly616]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

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.

But if the result is the same, than where is this difference betweeen retconing it out of exsistence, and simply saying it exist in it's own world which will never be mentioned, revisited, or brought up ever again?

who said that universe can't be revisited or brought up again? I've already mentioned the fact that theres 3 decades of time between the First Contact War and the Shepard Trilogy. Plenty of time for countless stories.

And there's certainly a difference between Shepards Saga existing in its own universe, or completely retconning the consequences of his choices and selecting a canon in which everybody's Shepard makes the same choice and meets the same end.

[JamesFaith]

Mcfly616 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

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. 

how do you figure? Lol that's completely subjective. The term "sequel" isn't bound to fictional universes.

From few definition on net.
From many articles about fictional universes like Star Trek, Star Gate, Dune and others.  
From bibliography of F. Pohl when sequel Heechee series is mentioned in this way.
From discussion about book continuity with few our national authors and literal scientist (originally about inner structure of our biggest fantasy world which is formed by stand-alone romans and small separated series, but with a lot of theory and world examples).

I'm sorry but only subjective thing here is your denying of it. 

[Mcfly616]

JamesFaith wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

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. 

how do you figure? Lol that's completely subjective. The term "sequel" isn't bound to fictional universes.

From few definition on net.
From many articles about fictional universes like Star Trek, Star Gate, Dune and others.  
From bibliography of F. Pohl when sequel Heechee series is mentioned in this way.
From discussion about book continuity with few our national authors and literal scientist (originally about inner structure of our biggest fantasy world which is formed by stand-alone romans and small separated series, but with a lot of theory and world examples).

I'm sorry but only subjective thing here is your denying of it. 

I'm in denial of nothing. I've already listed the top definitions from Google search within this thread. They back my beliefs entirely.


And let's just say my little candy shop/zoo scenario was from two seperate movies based in NYC. (For your arguments sake)....it still wouldn't be a sequel. Just because it adds to the universes lore, doesnt make it a sequel. It has to continue the story that was previously being told. If its a seperate story all together, then it isnt a sequel. Regardless of whether its set in the MEU or not.

[mass perfection]

Low EMS Destroy as canon ending.

[Mcfly616]

"Sequel"


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





Hmm seems like every single definition literally states that it has to be a continuation of the narrative from the installment that preceded it. In other words, the next game will not be a sequel unless it continues the narrative that we left off with at the end of ME3. Doesn't get more cut and dried than that. Argue away. It'll fall on deaf ears.

[JamesFaith]

Mcfly616 wrote...

"Sequel"


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

Hmm seems like every single definition literally states that it has to be a continuation of the narrative from the installment that preceded it. In other words, the next game will not be a sequel unless it continues the narrative that we left off with at the end of ME3. Doesn't get more cut and dried than that. Argue away. It'll fall on deaf ears.

Your own first definition say something different. You probably missed that OR after story (narrative) condition.

Also why didn't you used most basic definition of sequel?

1.  Something that follows; a continuation.

And any game set after ME3 would be continuation (sequel) of ME universe introduced in original trilogy.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:20 .