172 réponses à ce sujet

[Nole]

Wow, OP, you are obviously a very original person.

[von uber]

Obadiah wrote...

Usually do Leviathan after the Ardat Yakshi mission on Lessus, just so Leviathan doesn't ruin the reveal of the Banshees at the monastery.

Good point, that is a little jarring if you do it before.

[SwobyJ]

I agree von. It and EC were likely bumped up and Omega was probably (totallyyy guessing here) made longer than it was going to be plus raised up in price.

~~~

I do the following for my very personal canon (as in, my 'Main Shepard', not 'RP alts' or 'Bioware setup') run, second half of game:

-Citadel Coup (Thane involved)
-Omega DLC story arc (I like to go Paragon Aria actually, but let her kill Oleg)
-Ardat Yakshi Monastery (Samara involved, save daughter)
-Cerberus Scientists (Jacob involved)
-Geth Dreadnaught
-Save Admiral
-Geth Consensus (... very... interesting level)
-Rannoch Conflict (Peace, I like both sides, despite their actions)
-Leviathan DLC story arc (mix of Paragon and Renegade, Ann survives)
-Citadel DLC story arc (quite the...field trip...)
-Thessia (bring Javik in this case)
-Sanctuary (Miranda involved)
-Citadel arena, visits, ending with party (I see it as Shepard's mental break in more than one way , yes I don't see it as quite 'real', but ..it's complicated)
-Cronos Station
-London
-Citadel/Crucible (Destroy, but more Paragade in general before it; largely Paragon to everyone but Reapers, "Don't let them take away your will to fight!")

Modifié par SwobyJ, 06 janvier 2014 - 01:01 .

[SwobyJ]

WittingEight65 wrote...

Wow, OP, you are obviously a very original person.

Is this you being polite as per request?

Thank you... I try.. whether I'm right or wrong, flexing my imagination is just something I enjoy doing, and I finally had the courage to lay it out in my own thread on BSN, instead of misc posts on other threads.

Not all of it laid out though. I'm waiting for the right questions to be brought up before I spill more of my insanity.

[Barkbiten]

There! Finnaly! I just read through the whole thread (and several others) and the clock is 05:40 in the morning.

SwobyJ wrote...

1)Like you said, skip well into the future. What I like about this is that it would mean they're willing to go for an almost entirely fresh start, which maybe this franchise needs? What I don't like about it is that, like I was saying, I don't *feel* finished with Shepard. I don't mean him (I don't need to play as him, don't need to have convos as him.. none of that stuff), but I don't think the endings we saw were the truth and dammit I want to see the truth if I'm right about it! If, if, if.

2)Have it after ME3 but not very far. Have the main story of the next game be unrelated to ME3, but still answer stuff from ME3 (including fates of characters, side references, etc) at least as long as we took the time to do an import/Keep-style function. It can even just be flavor for the most part, as long as the key stuff is covered.

Both of these are 'fresh start' suggestions, but to different degrees. Of course, my real wish is:

3)Have at least a sequence of the game be right after ME3, show 'the reveal' (lol), have us play as Shepard or whatever his body becomes for a while (requires import for the specifically, as to not annoy new players), still tell the same core story, and then have that lead into the next story, which will not be closely related to ME1-3 but still have ties, especially referential ones, to it.
(Example is how DA2 involved the escape from Lothering, but Lothering was not exactly tied to the story of Kirkwall much beyond that, right? Sorry, I only got to Act 2 so far, but if I'm right about that, you'd know what I mean; We can have the Battle of Earth without it wrecking the progress of the next game)



In the end, I just don't want Bioware to behave as though Shepard never happened, in the next game. That's the minimum I want. I think those people who want a 100% reboot or 100% forgetting of Shepard/Normandy are wrong. These things were a giant part of what Mass Effect was and is, and I like to think Bioware recognizes that too, even as they move onto more things. They probably will. The question to me is the extent they believe this.

I agree with everything you said except your "minimum", about the next game not mentioning Shepard at all.
I'd rather have a sequel not mentioning Shepard than a prequel or a parallel universe crap. I seriosly don't want to play anything before Shepard since i already know how it will play out, the reapers come kill everyone, protheans become extinct, Asari finds mass relays yadayayada.

However I do want Bioware to mention him or reference him but not make it into a big deal, it's not like we go around talking about Christofer Columbus, Abraham lincoln (or whatever) everyday if you know what i mean, but your third (start?) would be nice

Good night....

Modifié par Barkbiten, 06 janvier 2014 - 04:44 .

[Nightwriter]

SwobyJ wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Wtf is going on with your sig.

Mine? Read the Hyperion Cantos, as Jokers line there really brings up the potential of even more connections between those stories over time.

ElSuperGecko's. Page 1.

[Nightwriter]

SwobyJ wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

References to Shepard, the Normandy, and the events of the first trilogy would call up feelings that would damage my ability to play the next game. I would like to play the next game, and give BioWare a second chance. Therefore I do not want references. This is not wrong for me unless rejecting the next game is right.

Honestly, you just sound jaded then.

I guess you can want the Final Fantasy route of almost never truly relating anything in one game to another game (except the hints of a multiverse dealio like they're gradually doing now), but so far, every Mass Effect game (even mobile ones) have had at least an indirect relation to the other games.

And I'm even potentially going to be fine with a lack of relation, but reference would be needed (even a frickin timeline) in order to feel this is really the IP that Bioware worked on for several years.

Unless the game takes place far into the past or there is some even weirder deal happening in the story ("Everyone forgot Shepard!" lolll..), to expect even references to not exist is really to the point of disregard for the series itself, and I gotta at least politely wonder why you're here. The combat? The general style? The music? The character writing as long as they're not botched by being attached to what feels like a terrible plot?

Sorry, I don't really know you, so I'm just wondering.


I guess they could even go 1000s or more years into the future, but even then, if we take the presentation of the ending literally, "The Shepard" was seemingly a thing? Maybe? Not a good sign for your tastes, at least.

1. I am jaded. Being reminded of the endings isn't just being reminded of the endings. It's being reminded of the controversy and the headache-inducing debates and every person online who told you your reaction to the game was stupid and your frustrations with BioWare's insistence on acting like everyone loved it and blah blah blah blarghity blah. It has to be remembered that whatever a person's feelings about the endings were, exposure to the BSN may have exacerbated them beyond proportion. 

2. Even if I wasn't jaded, and my desire to not see too many references to games 1 through 3 was innocent or practical, you'd probably still think it was just bitterness because someone who is cool with the ending can't relate to someone who is so dissatisfied with it they just want it to sort of go away. After all, if it would require an effort on your part to feel that way, wouldn't you think it would require an effort on my part to feel that way? Suddenly you arrive at the conclusion that I am going out of my way to be spiteful.

3. Everything we know about the Mass Effect universe comes from the original trilogy so it would be silly to screen out everything. Certainly it would be ridiculous if the game ignored the Reaper almost-apocalypse, which would be remembered for millenia. What I don't want are too many things that remind me of my personal emotional journey since my personal emotional journey was screwed. I would like broad, sparing, or vague references.

4. I am here because: 
- My opinions about the game are still being debated and therefore I am still invested in debate.
- I hope that my confidence in the franchise can someday be repaired and am willing to watch for signs of that reparation. Whatever my feelings about ME3's ending were, I don't want to hate Mass Effect or BioWare. I want to be a fan again. My objections do not come from a place of malice. To be upset you first must care.
- The BSN provides interesting spectacle much like an explosion, bug zapper, or wreck of your choice.
- I have friends here.
- Enchantment!

[SwobyJ]

I want to address:

"Even if I wasn't jaded, and my desire to not see too many references to games 1 through 3 was innocent or practical, you'd probably still think it was just bitterness because someone who is cool with the ending can't relate to someone who is so dissatisfied with it they just want it to sort of go away. After all, if it would require an effort on your part to feel that way, wouldn't you think it would require an effort on my part to feel that way? Suddenly you arrive at the conclusion that I am going out of my way to be spiteful. "

No, it doesn't require much effort. I've always understood at least the more common reasons why people don't like stuff about Mass Effect and specifically why they want things from the ending to go away. It's not hard stuff to comprehend, and I hope Bioware keeps it in mind, even if you and I individually disagree with how it should be addressed.

[ElSuperGecko]

Nightwriter wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Wtf is going on with your sig.

ElSuperGecko's. Page 1.

Sorry, didn't see that post.  Basically, I have strong reservations about the concept of Synthesis.  In that I believe we were warned about it from the very start.

[AlanC9]

von uber wrote...
Leviathan introduced too much that was relevant to the plot and the ending to be DLC. I agree that it should be done between Tchunka and Rannoch as it (should) set up the confrontation with the Reaper nicely (and is where I usually stick it in).

I suspect the fact it was bumped up was to give more explanation for the ending, as it explains the origins and motivations of the catalyst (without which it literally feels like it was pulled from their arse). Poor choice by Bioware there.

Wait... what choice would that be? AFAIK Bioware doesn't have access to a time machine, so sending Leviathan back into the past to become part of the original game wasn't an option.

[Bizantura]

Deviation from the traditional "hero ending" gave hickups in ME3. At least we got various choises, probably to many.
The choise option least mentioned is the one that was given thru the extended cut dlc. Even in this post it is not spoken about. That choise must be the most fearfull one and often rationalized thru the least sensible since everyone dies. I thank Bioware for putting that possiblility in.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Sorry, didn't see that post.  Basically, I have strong reservations about the concept of Synthesis.  In that I believe we were warned about it from the very start.

What does that have to do with Synthesis?

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
What does that have to do with Synthesis?

Don't worry your little head too much about it Alan, it's my interpretation, nothing more.

The Prothean Beacon vision is unanimously considered a warning, and it shows organic material fusing with synthetic material.  We of course find out it depicts the fate of the Protheans, but, when considered alongside Saren's monologues and Sovereign, Harbinger, Leviathan and the Catalyst's incessant talk of evolution and ascension, it's hard for me at least not to draw parallels.

[FlyingSquirrel]

von uber wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Usually do Leviathan after the Ardat Yakshi mission on Lessus, just so Leviathan doesn't ruin the reveal of the Banshees at the monastery.

Good point, that is a little jarring if you do it before.

Leviathan also makes everyone sounds a little dense on Thessia for not connecting Leviathan's revelations about the Catalyst to Vendetta's suggestion that something other than the Reapers drive the repeating cycles. I usually do most of Leviathan shortly after the coup and then figure Shepard decides it's more trouble than it's worth after Ann warns that Leviathan wants to kill Shepard. Then I go back and do Despoina after Sanctuary, figuring Shepard is desperate for anything that could possibly help before initiating the endgame. That way nobody knows about the Leviathans creating an AI when they get to Thessia.

[SwobyJ]

Bizantura wrote...

Deviation from the traditional "hero ending" gave hickups in ME3. At least we got various choises, probably to many.
The choise option least mentioned is the one that was given thru the extended cut dlc. Even in this post it is not spoken about. That choise must be the most fearfull one and often rationalized thru the least sensible since everyone dies. I thank Bioware for putting that possiblility in.

I only didn't mention it because I felt I was getting too wordy already.

Not scared of it. In fact, I view it as the most properly resistant choice.

However, it is NOT the most defiant. In my view, Shepard has been down his destined road (exceptions being Game Overs, Morinth Lovey, Suicide Mission Death) for too long to come out of it fully intact.

At this point, you fight or you die (OMG THAT LINE GUYZ).

You can die fully free-willed.
You can die struggling against oppression.
You can live struggling (but imo never be the same again).
You can die for the sake of a better future.
You can die for the sake of peace.

But you can't die fully free-willed, at this point, without a major, major cost to it.

[von uber]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wait... what choice would that be? AFAIK Bioware doesn't have access to a time machine, so sending Leviathan back into the past to become part of the original game wasn't an option.

It is likely that it was at the very least in concept form when the game was being developed and was thus decided not to include it within the main game but sell it as DLC. Of course this is just my personal opinion.

[Nightwriter]

Oh I see Synthesis is being likened to the gross fleshy machiny flashbacks from ME1. That were gross. And it says "ascend" and "evolve" while it flashes the grossness.

So I think I am right in saying you are of course a Synthesis supporter.

jk jk jk

Found it interesting that the OP even mentions Saren in the Synthesis section, normally defenses of Synthesis don't acknowledge the Saren similarities. So, props for that I guess.

SwobyJ wrote...

I want to address:

"Even if I wasn't jaded, and my desire to not see too many references to games 1 through 3 was innocent or practical, you'd probably still think it was just bitterness because someone who is cool with the ending can't relate to someone who is so dissatisfied with it they just want it to sort of go away. After all, if it would require an effort on your part to feel that way, wouldn't you think it would require an effort on my part to feel that way? Suddenly you arrive at the conclusion that I am going out of my way to be spiteful. "

No, it doesn't require much effort. I've always understood at least the more common reasons why people don't like stuff about Mass Effect and specifically why they want things from the ending to go away. It's not hard stuff to comprehend, and I hope Bioware keeps it in mind, even if you and I individually disagree with how it should be addressed.

[SwobyJ]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

von uber wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Usually do Leviathan after the Ardat Yakshi mission on Lessus, just so Leviathan doesn't ruin the reveal of the Banshees at the monastery.

Good point, that is a little jarring if you do it before.

Leviathan also makes everyone sounds a little dense on Thessia for not connecting Leviathan's revelations about the Catalyst to Vendetta's suggestion that something other than the Reapers drive the repeating cycles. I usually do most of Leviathan shortly after the coup and then figure Shepard decides it's more trouble than it's worth after Ann warns that Leviathan wants to kill Shepard. Then I go back and do Despoina after Sanctuary, figuring Shepard is desperate for anything that could possibly help before initiating the endgame. That way nobody knows about the Leviathans creating an AI when they get to Thessia.

That's a good idea actually. Doing the first two missions before Thessia, then the last after it or Sanctuary.

[SwobyJ]

von uber wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Wait... what choice would that be? AFAIK Bioware doesn't have access to a time machine, so sending Leviathan back into the past to become part of the original game wasn't an option.

It is likely that it was at the very least in concept form when the game was being developed and was thus decided not to include it within the main game but sell it as DLC. Of course this is just my personal opinion.

Or as I think Mac put it: "We don't need to know."

Why? IMO it's because all this backstory and justifications and elaborations and lore are interesting, but not AS important as the task at hand in this specific game.

And yes, that's destroying the Reapers. But yes, you can do something else, and at the very least mechanically-wise, that's OK!

And if I'm right, the next game will be much more Control friendly anyway (which we may have been guided into for the past two games).

You'll have to wait a while for a full Synthesis friendly story though . I think it'll happen, however.


So yeah, the writers would then obviously think that all that stuff is 'extra' to Shepard's Story. It will NOT be extra (or at least extra type of info) as the franchise continues. But then also obviously, this is all speculation

Still BS to hide major story details (as I still consider them those, especially as I'm a lore addict..) behind DLC instead of at least a *full* expansion.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 06 janvier 2014 - 10:08 .

[AlanC9]

von uber wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Wait... what choice would that be? AFAIK Bioware doesn't have access to a time machine, so sending Leviathan back into the past to become part of the original game wasn't an option.

It is likely that it was at the very least in concept form when the game was being developed and was thus decided not to include it within the main game but sell it as DLC. Of course this is just my personal opinion.

Thanks for qualifying that. IIRC Bio's stated that they didn't think of the Leviathans until after ME3 shipped, and there's certainly no trace of them in any of the leaked scripts. But I suppose they could just be lying, right?

I guess I just don't see what you figure Bio had come up with before wrapping up the game. That someone built the Reapers? Yeah, I guess they knew that. Who they were? Why think about that?

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 janvier 2014 - 10:25 .

[von uber]

AlanC9 wrote...


Thanks for qualifying that. IIRC Bio's stated that they didn't think of the Leviathans until after ME3 shipped, and there's certainly no trace of them in any of the leaked scripts. But I suppose they could just be lying, right?

I have no idea. But there was only 5 months inbetween releases, so it is pretty impressive if they did it that quickly from having no thoughts whatsoever of Leviathan.

[crimzontearz]

No I agree with Alan, if anything out of Hubris they really thought they could get away with "yeah you guys don't need to know, you do not know them and there is no time to explain"

[SwobyJ]

von uber wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


Thanks for qualifying that. IIRC Bio's stated that they didn't think of the Leviathans until after ME3 shipped, and there's certainly no trace of them in any of the leaked scripts. But I suppose they could just be lying, right?

I have no idea. But there was only 5 months inbetween releases, so it is pretty impressive if they did it that quickly from having no thoughts whatsoever of Leviathan.

IKR.

I'd more guess that Leviathans were on their mind, even concepts were, but they were not totally pinned down as "THIS is what they are and THIS is what they did, EXACTLY" until around ME3's shipping time.

Enough to create ME3, but not enough to integrate fully into ME3.

Honestly I think that's the case with a lot of story stuff. Like a TV show writing crew, a lot of things are hashed out, there might even be what equates to as 'story Bibles', but in the end, things are decided on while they're being worked on, and not long before that.

So yeah, I wouldn't think that they planned the Crucible and Catalyst (especially since it was 'Guardian' in the leaked script, along with a much more ...overt? presentation it seemed, instead of vague) during ME1 times, but during ME2 it was maybe one of the possibilties at least in the mind of a writer.

[SwobyJ]

crimzontearz wrote...

No I agree with Alan, if anything out of Hubris they really thought they could get away with "yeah you guys don't need to know, you do not know them and there is no time to explain"

I still go with that. I'm just speculating on their motives regardless.
 
"ME3 isn't really really about the creation of the Reapers, but the end of their threat." kind of thing.

I don't think it was appropriate as long as they were selling the game as the end of an epic trilogy. Ugh.

[AlanC9]

Oh, I imagine the writers moved on to thinking about this stuff well before the game shipped, sure; they're mostly done with their part quite a bit before release. But that's not at all the same thing as saying that the stuff was written in time to be cut.

They probably could have done a late additional VO recording session and have the Catalyst mention the Leviathans by name. Would that have done any good, or would it have just made you feel worse? I'd think it would have just brought up tons more whining about being an obvious DLC plug. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 janvier 2014 - 10:30 .