75 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

In other words, you're suggesting that they canonize MEHEM.

No thanks.

Is MEHEM  now the "rainbows and butterflies" accusation?

What's being proposed here doesn't sound like MEHEM.

In MEHEM:

Shepard never encounteres the Catalyst
The Crucible only does Destroy
Destroy only destroys Reapers
Shepard is rescued.

What seems to be proposed here is

Shepard meets the Catalyst
The Crucible does all three colors, though Destroy is chosen
Destroy gets rid of the Reapers and devestates (though doesn't wipe out) synthetic life, as EDI and  some geth survive
Shepard is rescued.

The only thing they have in common is "Shepard is rescued"

It's a rather dark setting for me, but I'm not afriad to admit it would make for an interesting scenerio.  The geth, as individual AI retain their individuality rather than being reduced to mechanical varren if they had remained a consensus.   They will remember what happened in the battle, and if the other choices come to light (like, say, if SHepard lives to tell the tale), they will know that Shepard chose to risk them rather than find another way.  What would that do to strain an organic-synthetic peace?  Recall how p*ssed EDI gets if Shepard chooses the quarians over the geth on Rannoch.

What's being proposed isn't MEHEM.  It's Destroy with survivors.  

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

Are they Destroy types? I don't talk to many here. I think that guy iakus picks Refuse.

If by Refuse you mean "uninstalled the game until MEHEM came along" then yes 

[PsyrenY]

iakus wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

In other words, you're suggesting that they canonize MEHEM.

No thanks.

Is MEHEM  now the "rainbows and butterflies" accusation?

What's being proposed here doesn't sound like MEHEM.

In MEHEM:

Shepard never encounteres the Catalyst
The Crucible only does Destroy
Destroy only destroys Reapers
Shepard is rescued.

What seems to be proposed here is

Shepard meets the Catalyst
The Crucible does all three colors, though Destroy is chosen
Destroy gets rid of the Reapers and devestates (though doesn't wipe out) synthetic life, as EDI and  some geth survive
Shepard is rescued.

The only thing they have in common is "Shepard is rescued"

It's a rather dark setting for me, but I'm not afriad to admit it would make for an interesting scenerio.  The geth, as individual AI retain their individuality rather than being reduced to mechanical varren if they had remained a consensus.   They will remember what happened in the battle, and if the other choices come to light (like, say, if SHepard lives to tell the tale), they will know that Shepard chose to risk them rather than find another way.  What would that do to strain an organic-synthetic peace?  Recall how p*ssed EDI gets if Shepard chooses the quarians over the geth on Rannoch.

What's being proposed isn't MEHEM.  It's Destroy with survivors.  

Exactly, thank you. It's nice to see we can still have common ground and understand one another even after all this time. (Which further strengthens my view that this path can be beneficial.)

There will be cries of "copout!" and "our choices don't matter" in the beginning, to be sure. Just as there were at the beginning of ME2, KOTOR2 and other titles, that are today looked back on very fondly even so.

[CronoDragoon]

Well it's clear that if ME4 is to be a sequel then some level of compromise will need to happen, even if it's something such as retconning every organic glowing green in Synthesis.

[durasteel]

Optimystic_X wrote...
...
There will be cries of "copout!" and "our choices don't matter" in the beginning, to be sure. Just as there were at the beginning of ME2, KOTOR2 and other titles, that are today looked back on very fondly even so.

But my choice, at least on the Catalyst platform, already doesn't matter. Sure, it would make a big difference to the fictional galaxy, I suppose, but it really doesn't make a difference to me at all. They're all bad choices, they all depend on taking the reaper god at face value, they all sidestep a "win" and require acceptance of what limited options the Catalyst and the Crucible offer you. It's like a choice between lasagne with rat poop, enchiladas with rat poop, or beef stew with rat poop. None of it is appetizing in the least, so I really don't care which one is the special of the day.

The way I see it, they should just canonize a world state where Shepard won, the reapers are "gone" and the rest of galaxy is pretty much restored to "status quo ante" with some additional ruins and maybe a few toxic or irradiated wastlands on selected planets. Genophage is cured, Geth are living with Quarians (which allows the Quarians to remain outcasts) and all the main plots of the trilogy are resolved, alowing ME4 to focus on new stories and new characters in the same familiar galaxy.

Modifié par durasteel, 03 janvier 2014 - 07:20 .

[durasteel]

CronoDragoon wrote...
... something such as retconning every organic glowing green...

That would be like adding extra rat poop to everything on the menu.

[CronoDragoon]

durasteel wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
... something such as retconning every organic glowing green...

That would be like adding extra rat poop to everything on the menu.

I'm talking about Synthesis players dealing with the green glow not being in ME4 even if Synthesis happened.

[durasteel]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I'm talking about Synthesis players dealing with the green glow not being in ME4 even if Synthesis happened.

Yeah, I don't see synthesis as being a possibility for the galaxy going forward, really. It's just too ridiculous, with every strand of DNA in the galaxy rewritten and every computer having mood swings... Maybe it's just me, but that jumps the shark. I'm not interested in playing in that sandbox.

They'd be better off with an AI that thinks it's Elvis ressurected being the Earth representative on the Citadel Council. When you reach a certain level of silliness, you might as well accept that you're spoofing yourself.

[CronoDragoon]

I don't think Synthesis players want a sequel anyway. It's sort of contrary to the tone of the ending.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I don't think Synthesis players want a sequel anyway. It's sort of contrary to the tone of the ending.

I can't actually think of anyone here ever saying that he's really looking forward to playing in a post-Synth universe. I suppose thorough digging might turn up examples; we could start by asking Ieldra2, since I figure that "Different Ascenscion " thread would have posts like that if they exist anyplace.

And AFAIK Control fans don't actually ever have much trouble with any ending. Some produce worse outcomes for the galaxy, but it's not a big deal

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 janvier 2014 - 07:46 .

[PsyrenY]

There is no possible way to improve Synthesis by defining exactly what it does or means. The imagined potential and promise in EDI's ending is always going to be superior than any attempt at saying "well, this is what happened." Trying to hash it out would do nothing except limit it.

@durasteel - I'm sorry you didn't feel like you won at the end of the game but I did. Even Refuse is a win (for principles, if nothing else) and the Reaping is stopped.

[AlanC9]

I'm still trying to figure out what problem is being solved by this proposal. The costs are obvious, but I don't see the benefit.

Edit: OK, I can see that it solves iakus' problem with the morality of the choices, but that's a bug, not a feature.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 janvier 2014 - 07:48 .

[durasteel]

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm still trying to figure out what problem is being solved by this proposal. The costs are obvious, but I don't see the benefit.

It simply wipes the slate for the next run of Mass Effect games, nothing more.

[AlanC9]

Doesn't saving the galaxy imply saving the people in it?

[durasteel]

Optimystic_X wrote...
@durasteel - I'm sorry you didn't feel like you won at the end of the game but I did. Even Refuse is a win (for principles, if nothing else) and the Reaping is stopped.

I think for certain Shepards it was a definate win. For mine, based on the choiced made and positions taken, it wasn't. Furthermore, by the time the magic elevator reached the Catalyst platform after Shepard passed out from blood loss, I had quit feeling anything. I was detached, I wasn't role playing. It was a win tin the "beat the game, roll credits" sense, but there was no sense of triumph or victory.

[PsyrenY]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm still trying to figure out what problem is being solved by this proposal. The costs are obvious, but I don't see the benefit.

Edit: OK, I can see that it solves iakus' problem with the morality of the choices, but that's a bug, not a feature.

Okay.

Why it's better than Destroy as presented: It allows us to keep and continue to explore the Geth - who are also needed for there to be maskless Quarians in less than a century - while sidestepping the problem of their constant pursuit for perfection without said Quarians waging war to keep them in check. Partial destroy also removes the thorny issue of a Paragon Shepard willing to commit genocide when there were other options available. And finally, partial destroy can result in the plausible preservation of more technology too - including some surviving Reapers if they wanted to plant a narrative seed for much further down the line.

Why it's better than Control/Synthesis as presented: Whatever else the blue and green endings mean for the galaxy, they both mean one thing - a fleet of super-advanced AI-piloted dreadnaughts on our side that can solve any plot problem serious enough to be worth the name in a moment's notice. If the problem is too small for them to be concerned with, then there is no tension as there are no stakes; if the problem is too big for them to take care of, then everyone is screwed anyway. In other words, as I said before, Control and Synthesis (as presented) are much more interesting universes to daydream or write stories about, than to play actual games in.

Why it's better than Refuse as presented: There is pretty much zero chance of Refuse coming to pass, because a galaxy without humans - or indeed any of the great races we've spent almost the last decade getting to know and love (except maybe Asari) - is going to be impossible to relate to or be engaging for old players and new alike. It would be a colossal mistake for Bioware to go this route.


Basically, the way I see it, compromise is going to be necessary to move forward, even if it means the Catalyst was slightly mistaken on some points. I'm willing to live with that for more mass effect. Refuse and Synthesis I feel are both too extreme to continue the franchise from; Destroy or Control however can work so long as we tweak the details enough to make either of them palatable (or even combine them in some way.)

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 03 janvier 2014 - 08:25 .

[Seival]

I really doubt BioWare will ever go beyond ME3 ending. All other Mass Effect stories will happen before the ending most likely... How long before? Who knows. Maybe in the previous cycle?

[AlanC9]

Optimystic_X wrote...
Why it's better than Control/Synthesis as presented: Whatever else the blue and green endings mean for the galaxy, they both mean one thing - a fleet of super-advanced AI-piloted dreadnaughts on our side that can solve any plot problem serious enough to be worth the name in a moment's notice. If the problem is too small for them to be concerned with, then there is no tension as there are no stakes; if the problem is too big for them to take care of, then everyone is screwed anyway. In other words, as I said before, Control and Synthesis (as presented) are much more interesting universes to daydream or write stories about, than to play actual games in.

I don't 100% agree with this. There are a lot of serious problems that blowing everything up with a bunch of super battleships will make worse, not better.( I'm not a huge fan of another galactic apocalypse story anyway.) However, there is plenty of room to doubt that Bio has the chops to pull off such a story.

As for Destroy, I don't see preserving the geth or maskless quarians as being worth the cost.

But I wasn't at all clear above. I meant to question the value of compromise itself. It looks to me like you're incurring 100% of the cost of canonizing MEHEM, or even IT, without gaining 100% of the possible benefits.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm still trying to figure out what problem is being solved by this proposal. The costs are obvious, but I don't see the benefit.

Edit: OK, I can see that it solves iakus' problem with the morality of the choices, but that's a bug, not a feature.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  I'm not saying this scenerio "solves" anything.  But it is one i'm willing to explore.  Bascially because the possibility of a few survivors means synthetics won't simply be brushed aside.  There would be some who remembered the sacrifice made, who may not regard Shepard as "The Shepard" and who may remind the galaxy of the price exacted in defeating the Reapers.  And who may be resentful at the whitewash being done.

Think of Balak and Ghorek in ME3, calling Shepard out on the events of Arrival.  Regardless of whether or not Shepard's actons were "necessary"  there is a cost.

[AlanC9]

You've explicitly said that the existing endings are a dealbreaker for you, while this ending is not.Sounds like a solved problem to me.

Defining the problem as "make an ME4 that iakus can stand to play," that is. A different statement of the problem would evaluate differently.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

You've explicitly said that the existing endings are a dealbreaker for you, while this ending is not.Sounds like a solved problem to me.

Defining the problem as "make an ME4 that iakus can stand to play," that is. A different statement of the problem would evaluate differently.

Except this isn't an existing ending.  It's a modified variation of one of the endings.  Saying this is an existing ending is like saying MEHEM is an existing ending.

And I'm not saying this is an ME4 I'd care to play.  I'm saying it's a possibility I'm willing to explore.  It's an idea I don't hate as much as others I've heardI'm willing to toss around ideas that would make this scenerio interesting.  

. 

[Reorte]

The only real negative for a sequel with Destroy is the geth. Things like Shepard's fate bother me but they're only relevent to ME3, there's no reason for Shepard to have any impact on a sequel whether she survives or not. The geth, on the other hand, were a very, very interesting alien race before the upgrades, so arguably their best features were screwed up before the ending anyway. EDI is also not really a dealbreaker, she doesn't have to have any direct influence whatsoever with the next game even if she is around.

If the "damaged but not wiped out" idea also removed the Reaper upgrades from the geth you'd keep the interesting part but it seems rather too neat and contrived, although it's actually marginally more believable than wiping them out altogether.