300 réponses à ce sujet

[shepskisaac]

iakus wrote...

Post-MEHEM world or not interested.

Well, you may stop being interested then because it's MEHEM is a mod and will never be canon.

[Iakus]

Just pointing out that, in addition to the problems of the extreme divergence between the various endings, the endings themselves are also NOT popular. If Bioware tries to "embrace" these radioactive outcomes, it's going to further alienate a lot of people.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

Just pointing out that, in addition to the problems of the extreme divergence between the various endings, the endings themselves are also NOT popular. If Bioware tries to "embrace" these radioactive outcomes, it's going to further alienate a lot of people.

What's wrong with the outcomes?

[shepskisaac]

iakus wrote...

Just pointing out that, in addition to the problems of the extreme divergence between the various endings, the endings themselves are also NOT popular. If Bioware tries to "embrace" these radioactive outcomes, it's going to further alienate a lot of people.

And you think the decision to disregard the choice of one of the 3 endings would be popular? The franchise has neglected enough choices already throughout the first 3 games

[spirosz]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

Just pointing out that, in addition to the problems of the extreme divergence between the various endings, the endings themselves are also NOT popular. If Bioware tries to "embrace" these radioactive outcomes, it's going to further alienate a lot of people.

What's wrong with the outcomes?

The fans.

[MegaSovereign]

spirosz wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

Just pointing out that, in addition to the problems of the extreme divergence between the various endings, the endings themselves are also NOT popular. If Bioware tries to "embrace" these radioactive outcomes, it's going to further alienate a lot of people.

What's wrong with the outcomes?

The fans.

It was a geniune question. I myself thought the endings were pretty weak in terms of narrative coherence, but the outcomes (at least the high EMS variants) point to Reconstruction and Advancement. Aside from divergence issues, a new adventure taking place post-EC would do just fine.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 23 août 2013 - 11:49 .

[sr2josh]

I'm very excited and eagerly await any news coming from BioWare on the development of the story and game itself.  Fully intend to buy it and feel confident I'll enjoy it as much as I did with the original trilogy.  I am a little concerned as to the setting and timeline of the next game.  I really hope it's not some silly private detective on the Citadel plot as I've heard.

[sr2josh]

MegaSovereign wrote...

spirosz wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

Just pointing out that, in addition to the problems of the extreme divergence between the various endings, the endings themselves are also NOT popular. If Bioware tries to "embrace" these radioactive outcomes, it's going to further alienate a lot of people.

What's wrong with the outcomes?

The fans.

It was a geniune question. I myself thought the endings were pretty weak in terms of narrative coherence, but the outcomes (at least the high EMS variants) point to Reconstruction and Advancement. Aside from divergence issues,  a new adventure taking place post-EC would do just fine.

Unfortunately BW has said repeatedly that the next game will NOT be a sequel(i.e. after ME3) but also not before or during the same time as Shepard's story arc according to Chris Priestly.  Very confusing 

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

Just pointing out that, in addition to the problems of the extreme divergence between the various endings, the endings themselves are also NOT popular. If Bioware tries to "embrace" these radioactive outcomes, it's going to further alienate a lot of people.

What's wrong with the outcomes?

Yeah, let's not start that here

And you think the decision to disregard the choice of one of the 3 endings would be popular? The franchise has neglected enough choices already throughout the first 3 games

Any sequel will ignore choices.  There is no getting around that short of advancing the timeline so far ahead the choice becomes irrelevant, which is just another way of ignoring the choices anyway.

Better to start fresh, I say.  Keep the setting, dump all the baggage Shepard's story left behind.  No good will come from keeping it.  It'll p*ss off at least as many people as it pleases.

[JamesFaith]

Makai81 wrote...

Unfortunately BW has said repeatedly that the next game will NOT be a sequel(i.e. after ME3) but also not before or during the same time as Shepard's story arc according to Chris Priestly.  Very confusing 

Didn't he say that new ME wouldn't be sequel, midquel or prequel to Shepard story or something in similar meaning?

In such case it would be only denying of return of Shepard or connection to Reaper plot. 

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...
It was a geniune question. I myself thought the endings were pretty weak in terms of narrative coherence, but the outcomes (at least the high EMS variants) point to Reconstruction and Advancement. Aside from divergence issues, a new adventure taking place post-EC would do just fine.

"Aside from divergence issues"?  That's like saying water is "a little wet"

High EMS Destroy or Low EMS Destroy?
Paragon Control or Renegade Control?
Synthesis? (Sure, let's p*ss off 80% of the portion of ME3 players who actually liked the endings )

Genophage cured or not cured?  Wrex or Wreav in charge?  With or without Eve?

Quarians?  Geth?  Both?  Neither?

Was Kaje saved?
Was Omega cleared?

And that's just from people who'd be willing to return to that galaxy after ME3's ending.

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

Didn't he say that new ME wouldn't be sequel, midquel or prequel to Shepard story or something in similar meaning?

In such case it would be only denying of return of Shepard or connection to Reaper plot. 

I think what they said was attatching a term such as "sequel" to the next game would be a misnomer.  Like saying a story set in WWII wouldn't necessarilly be a sequel to a story set during WWI just because it's set at a later date.

I think it's kind of like how DA2 isn't exactly a sequel to DAO.  It's set after teh events of DAO, but it focuses on a different character and set in a different location.  So it's not exactly a "sequel"

[shepskisaac]

iakus wrote...

"Aside from divergence issues"?  That's like saying water is "a little wet"

High EMS Destroy or Low EMS Destroy?
Paragon Control or Renegade Control?
Synthesis? (Sure, let's p*ss off 80% of the portion of ME3 players who actually liked the endings )

Genophage cured or not cured?  Wrex or Wreav in charge?  With or without Eve?

Quarians?  Geth?  Both?  Neither?

Was Kaje saved?
Was Omega cleared?

And that's just from people who'd be willing to return to that galaxy after ME3's ending.

If it's set, say, 1000 years after the trilogy, then a lot of this stuff would be irrelevant. The big ones that would be long-lasting choices - whether Krogan, Quarian, Geth & Rachni are alive or not and the 3 endings.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 24 août 2013 - 12:32 .

[Iakus]

IsaacShep wrote...

iakus wrote...

"Aside from divergence issues"?  That's like saying water is "a little wet"

High EMS Destroy or Low EMS Destroy?
Paragon Control or Renegade Control?
Synthesis? (Sure, let's p*ss off 80% of the portion of ME3 players who actually liked the endings )

Genophage cured or not cured?  Wrex or Wreav in charge?  With or without Eve?

Quarians?  Geth?  Both?  Neither?

Was Kaje saved?
Was Omega cleared?

And that's just from people who'd be willing to return to that galaxy after ME3's ending.

If it's set, say, 1000 years after the trilogy, then a lot of this stuff would be irrelevant. The big ones that would be long-lasting choices - whether Krogan, Quarian, Geth & Rachni are alive or not and the 3 endings.

And you still have the long-lasting choices to deal with.  That's still a lot of diversion to deal with.  And it you set things a thousand years later to make them irrelevant, how is that any different from ignoring the choice and rebooting the series anyway?

[David7204]

20 bucks says they're going to canonize high EMS destroy, including Shepard surviving.

[DarthLaxian]

Linkenski wrote...

No. I'll judge it when I play it, but I can't pretend to be excited about it. I expect it to be more of the same that I didn't like in ME3, maybe even turned to 11. To elaborate, I'm talking about a dumb narrow-minded plot, more autodialogue, dorky to competent dialogue writing and way too much emphasis on long stretches of Gears of War-esque combat. No. What hooked me in Mass Effect has been forgotten by the people who made it. That's really how I see it. I don't think Bioware is gonna turn the tides on their direction since ME2. The tide overflowed in ME3 and I think ME4 will be flooded by all the things I don't like.

I might play it, but i'm skeptical.

well, that pretty much describes my feelings after finishing ME3 the first time (about a week after release) and not much has changed (i am a little more hopefull, but not much - even more so as the extended-cut, although i commend them for trying, was just as horrible IMHO as the un-altered game (in that it didn't bring much closure, the endings were still horribly bad etc.))

so no, i am a little resigned (even more as they didn't announce much yet and they didn't have the guts to say they are sorry for ME3 (hell, that rushed shooter was worse then the already rushed DA2...) or at least tell us, that they will turn back to the roots of Mass Effect more or something)

greetings LAX
ps: some of the ideas on the forums are nice though, I hope their pride (saying ME3 was more or less fine with the EC-DLC and continuing to sell DLC for that failure of a game) does not hinder them taking up good ideas by the fans and make ME4 more like ME1 (and even 2 - also that had flaws, too...well ME1 did as well, but they were less obvious IMHO)

[Tron Mega]

Makai81 wrote...

Unfortunately BW has said repeatedly that the next game will NOT be a sequel(i.e. after ME3) but also not before or during the same time as Shepard's story arc according to Chris Priestly.  Very confusing 

at what point in  being a fan of bioware do you ever stop believing what they say?

or is MP still not in ME3?

enough is known after you said the the words "christ preistly."

Modifié par Tron Mega, 24 août 2013 - 12:46 .

[David7204]

BioWare said no such thing.

[KaiserShep]

David7204 wrote...

20 bucks says they're going to canonize high EMS destroy, including Shepard surviving.

It's the only sensible one to go with. If you canonize destroy at all, there's no reason not to go all the way and use the optimal outcomes of this choice.

[shepskisaac]

iakus wrote...

And you still have the long-lasting choices to deal with.  That's still a lot of diversion to deal with.  And it you set things a thousand years later to make them irrelevant, how is that any different from ignoring the choice and rebooting the series anyway?

Because at least the big choices would be honored? Is Conrad Verner's fate really important going into new Trilogy? I say it would be best to focus on the few big choices. Better than ignoring all of them IMO

[David7204]

That, and they seem to have been backing away from Synthesis and Control and towards Destroy with Leviathan and Citadel.

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

20 bucks says they're going to canonize high EMS destroy, including Shepard surviving.

That may p*ss off fewer people than most other options.  But that's still going to anger a lot of people.  Especially since Bioware has stated over and over there is no canon but what you make for yourself

[Lucy The Alien]

No not really.

[Iakus]

IsaacShep wrote...

iakus wrote...

And you still have the long-lasting choices to deal with.  That's still a lot of diversion to deal with.  And it you set things a thousand years later to make them irrelevant, how is that any different from ignoring the choice and rebooting the series anyway?

Because at least the big choices would be honored? Is Conrad Verner's fate really important going into new Trilogy? I say it would be best to focus on the few big choices. Better than ignoring all of them IMO

And how can these chocies be honored? 

Never have a krogan, quarian, or geth appear in future games, ever?

Never mention the Reapers or what happened to them?  Green eyes and circuitry "just went away"?

One would think everyone achieving "perfect understanding" with each other would have a very differnt outlook than one who has Reapers patrolling the galaxy, which would be different from a galaxy that had to pick itself up after the synthetic holocaust that ended the Reaper War. 

No, even these few choices will cause way too much divergence.  This isn't just a few characters alive or dead or in different stituation.  The entire galaxy changes (for the worse, imo, but that's a matter for elsewhere)  They would need to make separate games for each one, and maybe even that wouldn't be enough (is Earth still around in Destroy?)

[jtav]

Well, the krogan adapted to the genophage once, they can do it again. Not all quarians died at Rannoch. Geth, you got me there, but a gethlike species could be created. Synthesis can happen organically if it's indeed inevitable. Old friends die..And there you have a reasonably coherent universe without nullifying anything.

Anything but the canonization of Destroy.