172 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Sorry, by 'in my interpretation', I meant 'my belief that ME3 tells a very specific kind of story in its base form, and future games will address things that we learned in ME3 DLC and EC anyway'.

Like, ME3 is about the war against the Reapers. That's it, in the end.

Is everything else in it confusing, annoying, incomplete FEELING? Yes.

But it's my personal belief that this is, to some good degree, by design, because MASS EFFECT itself isn't over yet, despite the PR feeling we're getting from Bioware sometimes.

I just get the sense that the devs, when it comes to several big lore concepts and such, are 1-2 games ahead of us, and while they kept a good balance in ME2 (probably because many things were not as solid for them yet anyway), ME3 seems VERY ahead of itself.

I'm taking a long view here and assuming in this case that Bioware is as well.

Many people are also assuming that Reapers and/or Reaper intelligences won't play a role in the next game, and I'm not so sure.

Anyway, I guess I'm believing that all the Catalyst stuff is just a distraction and it is meant to be one. A red herring. It may end up very very important in future games, but in ME3, we don't *need* to care about it. It's literally a distraction from Shepard's path of, you know, fighting the Reapers.

[Frybread76]

If there is a sequel, how do you think Bioware will handle the ending/s/ from ME3? Do you think the Destroy ending will be retconned to include the survival of some synthetics (such as EDI and/or a pocket of Geth)? Or will they combine the different endings the way it was done with Deus Ex?

[SwobyJ]

Frybread76 wrote...

If there is a sequel, how do you think Bioware will handle the ending/s/ from ME3? Do you think the Destroy ending will be retconned to include the survival of some synthetics (such as EDI and/or a pocket of Geth)? Or will they combine the different endings the way it was done with Deus Ex?

(I want to preface this with saying that my interpretation is HIGHLY speculative and more of it is hypothesis than even theory.)

Both.

Elements of all the endings happened.

Our choice reflects more than nothing, but less than it appears.

Yes, I think indoctrination is occuring. No, I don't think it's as simple as it seems, or that we 'lose' with non-Destroy decisions.


Deus Ex is a bit of a good idea, but I think they'll do a Bioware twist on it

[MrMrPendragon]

McFlurry598 wrote...

What? People still care about the ending?
/thread

Yes. People still care about the ending.

Toto explains this situation best:

As soon as my heart, stops, breakin'
Anticipating
As soon as forever is through
I'll be over you (the ending)

Modifié par ArcherTactlenecks, 10 janvier 2014 - 12:48 .

[SwobyJ]

That's beautiful, Archer. :'(

[MrMrPendragon]

Thanks lol

I think the song fits perfectly with what fans are feeling about ME3 and its ending.

[dorktainian]

Interpretation. Because of 'speculation for everyone' we have no closure. If speculation is allowed to exist within the endings there can never be closure. No "and he lived happily ever after' in this franchise....nope. just a 'well it could have been this, but it also could have been this, but hey it could also have been this'.

It's like a test.

What will actually be remembered about the trilogy? Lets say jump forwards a few hundred years. Commander shepard will be remembered. His choices or decisions will be remembered, but not why he made them. In history.. you see or read about facts and are given a general background as to why certain things happen, but can you gain information as to what was going through said historical figures mind at the time of the decision? how the decision was formed?

Wait. Why would you not destroy the reapers?

How would you find an individual who would be able to focus on the mission? Be able to be single minded enough even with outside influences thrown into the equation? How many marks out of 10 would you give choosing the synthesis ending? How many marks for Control?

Each decision... has a value attached.

[AlanC9]

This is what's left after IT goes away, I guess.

[Frybread76]

Another possibility is Bioware going with the Control ending. Shepard/AI and the Reapers help galactic civilization rebuild before vanishing, thereby leaving the galaxy to its fate.

[MrMrPendragon]

Frybread76 wrote...

Another possibility is Bioware going with the Control ending. Shepard/AI and the Reapers help galactic civilization rebuild before vanishing, thereby leaving the galaxy to its fate.

Yeah. Destroy and Control could almost play the exact same way.

I'm sure ME4 isn't immediately after ME3 so ME4 could play out as the Reapers disappearing forever - which could happen at both Control & Destroy. The only difference is the geth and EDI, and Shepard.

EDI & Shepard can be easily taken care of, but the geth are a different matter. I'm not sure how would they work out the "geth or no geth" situation without pulling a cheap move.

Modifié par ArcherTactlenecks, 10 janvier 2014 - 06:52 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is what's left after IT goes away, I guess.

Bitterness.  Cynicism.  Jaded outlook.  Suspicion towards future projects.

Are these the "speculations for everyone" Bioware wanted?

[Frybread76]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

Another possibility is Bioware going with the Control ending. Shepard/AI and the Reapers help galactic civilization rebuild before vanishing, thereby leaving the galaxy to its fate.

Yeah. Destroy and Control could almost play the exact same way.

I'm sure ME4 isn't immediately after ME3 so ME4 could play out as the Reapers disappearing forever - which could happen at both Control & Destroy. The only difference is the geth and EDI, and Shepard.

EDI & Shepard can be easily taken care of, but the geth are a different matter. I'm not sure how would they work out the "geth or no geth" situation without pulling a cheap move.

The only way for the Geth to survive Destroy is for the writers to come up with a scenario that a pocket of Geth did not receive the Reaper code.  Of course EDI would still be toast.

[AlexMBrennan]

I'm not sure how would they work out the "geth or no geth" situation without pulling a cheap move.

If all the technology that gets destroyed in Destroy can be "easily rebuilt" (good luck fixing a spaceship without life support or artificial gravity before you run out of oxygen... without tools) then it should be just as easy to rebuild the geth. Or just side-step the issue by saying that the geth, if they survived, are now back on Rannoch making sandwiches for their masters.

[AlanC9]

Why would anyone rebuild the geth? OK, Xen might, but good luck selling the rest of the quarians on that.

[wright1978]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

Another possibility is Bioware going with the Control ending. Shepard/AI and the Reapers help galactic civilization rebuild before vanishing, thereby leaving the galaxy to its fate.

Yeah. Destroy and Control could almost play the exact same way.

I'm sure ME4 isn't immediately after ME3 so ME4 could play out as the Reapers disappearing forever - which could happen at both Control & Destroy. The only difference is the geth and EDI, and Shepard.

EDI & Shepard can be easily taken care of, but the geth are a different matter. I'm not sure how would they work out the "geth or no geth" situation without pulling a cheap move.

If you decide the reapers can sail off over the Horizon, then surely the geth could too. I'm not backing that as a pitch but if it is why not smooth too rumples with one iron if that's the plan.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why would anyone rebuild the geth? OK, Xen might, but good luck selling the rest of the quarians on that.

Because the average temperature on Rannoch is 48 C, and they need a labor force to rebuild. That's summer in Phoenix AZ. This means there are places that are hotter, and of course cooler. I'm sure the polar regions are a comforatble 20 C. At the moment the Quarians are stuck in those suits. They rebuild them with proper programming this time to make sure they remain loyal, and build them with a vulnerability to a particular weapon issued to everyone. And individual units that do not network.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, but why build more geth? Why not build something like what the geth were supposed to be?

[MrMrPendragon]

Build more EDI's

Or model future geth after EDI.

[Iakus]

Even if you rebuild the geth, the geth who died are still dead.

You don't bring people back to life by having a bunch of babies

[wright1978]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Build more EDI's

Or model future geth after EDI.

well, i've always from the outset viewed that in that scenario the geth's sacrifice would be remembered but it would be EDI's model that all future AI's would be templated on.

[o Ventus]

iakus wrote...

Even if you rebuild the geth, the geth who died are still dead.

You don't bring people back to life by having a bunch of babies

The message of this post being...?

[MrMrPendragon]

iakus wrote...

Even if you rebuild the geth, the geth who died are still dead.

You don't bring people back to life by having a bunch of babies

The main thing is that the result looks the same ---- there's still geth.

"The Geth" aren't NAMED characters like, say, EDI.

So they can be replaced.

[AlanC9]

So replace real geth with fake geth. Ick.