106 réponses à ce sujet

[Ithurael]

Full reboot

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ok, but Desolation of Smaug isn't a great metaphor for your position. You want something where the original is worse. How about Battlestar Galactica?

Well, it was supposed to reflect GimmeDaGun's disgust for the movie more than being a metaphor for my position.

I have never seen the original Battlestar, but if it's worse than the reboot, then sure, go with that.

Though Bioware did seem to try too hard to mimic BSG's grim atmophere in ME3

[CrutchCricket]

dreamgazer wrote...

Sure.  That's far from a first in this franchise.

If the universe goes in a direction I don't like, I won't advance through the story anymore.  Simple as that.

So doing something wrong is justification for doing more wrong?

And why should it get to the point of going in a direction you don't like?

[dreamgazer]

CrutchCricket wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Sure.  That's far from a first in this franchise.

If the universe goes in a direction I don't like, I won't advance through the story anymore.  Simple as that.

So doing something wrong is justification for doing more wrong?

When it comes to moving past the forked ending state, sure.  And I wouldn't necessarily use the word "wrong" here. 

And why should it get to the point of going in a direction you don't like?

Because some of the alternatives are even less palatable. 

[Iakus]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Indeed. I have no interest in a new Mass Effect but I'm a little surprised by all the people saying sequel.

Do you want even your final choice steamrolled or otherwise overlooked? As ****ty as the RGB is, even its fiercest detractors have at least made a choice, whether it be one of the colors, refuse or MEHEM and I think most have made some peace with that choice. Whether that peace is final closure or whether the consequences going forward fuel some personalized headcanon, at least give us that. Leave it alone.

I would personally despise an AU/reboot, mostly because I hate reboots and prefer unbroken continuity in a franchise.

The only choice left is prequel, though I don't like it either because prequel implies covering main events that lead up to the events already covered and the obvious question is what's the point? We know enough about past events to make a game about them redundant.

So if pressed, I'd have to say go back to your roots- character focus. Small scale story set before the war (or during), apart from the Shepard saga, where you can focus on characters and the interpersonal. We've seen the galaxy at stake and it wasn't pretty. Less is more.

Normally, I'd share your love of continuity.  The screwups in the game's lore and history bugged me.

But the way the trilogy ended disgusts me so much I am willing to reboot.  It broke the universe for me so badly I simply can't see returning to it..  At least with a reboot we can have a fresh start.  Make right what once went wrong

Mass Effect:  Quantum Leap

[BioWareM0d13]

iakus wrote...

Though Bioware did seem to try too hard to mimic BSG's grim atmophere in ME3

Mass Effect 3 certainly had some flaws, but I don't think the overall grim atmosphere was one of them. With the Reapers invading, millions (billions?) dying, and galactic civilization facing total collapse, I don't think any mood other than grim would have been appropriate for the setting.

I do think Bioware stumbled a bit in rolling with a grimdark conclusion to the series (prior to EC), but up until the finale I think the overall mood of the game was one of the areas where Bioware got it right.

[Matthias King]

1) Sequel

2) To me, N7 means the Alliance, Shepard, Special Forces, the elite, bravery

3) Exclude the vorcha, drell, and hanar, and maybe volus

[Almostfaceman]

Artifex_Imperius wrote...

How would BSN answer the questions asked in the so called biowares closed group meetings!

1.) Prequel, Sidequel, Sequel & Alternate Universe. [sequel; overwhelming]

2.)  What does N7 mean to you? [what kind of question is that]

3.) Two races to exclude from the "Next Mass-Effect" [wtf BW are you having budget constraints?] for the good of the series I hope their answers where not selfish!. (the true meaning of the question would be what races would you want your next squaddie be or less likely be). coz no you cant just delete a race in me verse.

1.) Sequel - because it'll be Alternate Universe anyway after they retcon the bleh of ME3's finale (they'll have to).

2.) N7 means Navy Seals in space.

3.) Easy, hanar and elcor, two "background" races that can be replaced with two other "background" races. 

[Wayning_Star]

Artifex_Imperius wrote...

How would BSN answer the questions asked in the so called biowares closed group meetings!

1.) Prequel, Sidequel, Sequel & Alternate Universe. [sequel; overwhelming]

2.)  What does N7 mean to you? [what kind of question is that]

3.) Two races to exclude from the "Next Mass-Effect" [wtf BW are you having budget constraints?] for the good of the series I hope their answers where not selfish!. (the true meaning of the question would be what races would you want your next squaddie be or less likely be). coz no you cant just delete a race in me verse.

1. none of the above. New story, old universe.

2. military

3.reaper and prothean races are no longer functional

[CrutchCricket]

dreamgazer wrote...
When it comes to moving past the forked ending state, sure.  And I wouldn't necessarily use the word "wrong" here.

What else would you call invalidating choices in an environment billed to be about choices? Especially choices that are supposed to change the galaxy?

Because some of the alternatives are even less palatable. 

None more so than the betrayal of the very premise we were sold on when we got into this series.

[Vertigo_1]

Artifex_Imperius wrote...

How would BSN answer the questions asked in the so called biowares closed group meetings!

1.) Prequel, Sidequel, Sequel & Alternate Universe. [sequel; overwhelming]

2.)  What does N7 mean to you? [what kind of question is that]

3.) Two races to exclude from the "Next Mass-Effect" [wtf BW are you having budget constraints?] for the good of the series I hope their answers where not selfish!. (the true meaning of the question would be what races would you want your next squaddie be or less likely be). coz no you cant just delete a race in me verse.

1. Sequel.

2. A lot more than it meant with regards to the game itself.  As others have pointed out it was a symbol for Shepard.

3. Drell and Vorcha.

[dreamgazer]

CrutchCricket wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
When it comes to moving past the forked ending state, sure.  And I wouldn't necessarily use the word "wrong" here.

What else would you call invalidating choices in an environment billed to be about choices? Especially choices that are supposed to change the galaxy?

Either "necessary" or "practical" for the creation of a new story or trilogy?  Better than completely abandoning the environment they've already built.  The Shepard trilogy is over, but just like Thedas, the galaxy moves forward.  And neither you nor I knows how they'll handle the choices. 

Because some of the alternatives are even less palatable.

None more so than the betrayal of the very premise we were sold on when we got into this series.

Where did they say that your choices would be nurtured all the way into a new set of stories? Time to move forward---perhaps many, many years in the timeline---instead of tiptoe around elaborate headcanon and bitter people who may or may not play the next game anyway, if their word's to be taken seriously.

Personally, I kinda like the idea of fast-forwarding, like Lazarus (nonsensically) did to Shepard in ME2.  A reboot in the same universe. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 23 janvier 2014 - 07:50 .

[Wayning_Star]

it may seem that fans might be expecting more than a dime novel can provide...

(VG's can only present so much, or they'll become sloth like. Cool to look at but...hard to play?)

[Lady Sif]

1. Sequel
2. Shepard
3. I don't really want any of the established races gone, but if I had to choose it would be the Vorcha and Volus

[Chashan]

Han Shot First wrote...

iakus wrote...

Though Bioware did seem to try too hard to mimic BSG's grim atmophere in ME3

Mass Effect 3 certainly had some flaws, but I don't think the overall grim atmosphere was one of them. With the Reapers invading, millions (billions?) dying, and galactic civilization facing total collapse, I don't think any mood other than grim would have been appropriate for the setting.

I do think Bioware stumbled a bit in rolling with a grimdark conclusion to the series (prior to EC), but up until the finale I think the overall mood of the game was one of the areas where Bioware got it right.

Stumbling continued with the EC, as well, really.

[FlyingSquirrel]

iakus wrote...
Mass Effect:  Quantum Leap

"Oh boy."

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

1) Sequel
2) N7 means you got some kind of special training.
3) Elcor and Batarians - they didn't do anything with the Elcor, and the Batarians pretty much got chewed up by the reapers.

[SwobyJ]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

The Turians and the Asari? Come on man! They are a fundamental part of the universe! You should not associate everything with your endless disdain of the trilogy's ending. When it comes to your opinion about pretty much anything concerning the ME universe, somehow it is always related to the ending. I just don't get the amount of grudge you hold to something you happen not to like.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want offend you, but I think you (and a few others) take this whole ending issue way more serious than it should be taken. It's what it is. You have mehem, enjoy it, but rebooting the whole universe just because you did not like one aspect of the game is a bit over the top for me. 

I did not like some aspects of the trilogy myself, like the cheesy and constant kissing up to Shepard from every characters part, and I just hate the juvenile power-trip fantasy aspects of it, but I can live with them. If I had a chance to direct the trilogy I can guarantee you that you would get lot darker and more philosophical, mistery oriented, sci-fi horror style hardcore investigation-war story than what we got and you would not be able to play it through without serious sacrafices and getting your main character's hands dirty. You would get more ending options (4 or 5), but each of them would have its share of moral ambiguity and mercilesness. The game is not like that, yet I do not hate it or complain all the time.

Just an example. I'm a hardcore Tolkien fan. A much bigger fan of his writing than of the ME-trilogy. I was 7 years old when I read The Hobbit, I was 11 (that was 18 years ago) when I read the TLOTR-trilogy. Ever since I have re-read those books in every two or three years and of course I read all the other Tolkien books as well. I just love Tolkien.
When Peter Jackson decided to create a film-trilogy I was thrilled as hell. The trilogy came out and I enjoyed it despite the obvious changes. Some of them I liked, some of them I did not. They are far from being perfect, but they are good films and are mostly true to the spirit of Tolkien's writing.
Ten years later we get The Hobbit trilogy. I was not happy when I heard that they were going for a trilogy with such a short book. Two films? Great! Three films? I smell milk here... The first film came out, and while it was certainly not TLOTR, it was still a good movie which I liked a lot. A year later comes The Desolation of Smaug... the complete hollywoodisation of Tolkien and totally new level of cheese, sloppy writing, editing and video-gamey moments on the silver-screen. Ok, maybe not as bad as Pacific Rim and the likes of it were, but still. While the film had great Tolkien moments was a complete waste of money and effort and took way too much liberty and straied too far away from the written word and the spirit of the book. In one word: I dislike it a lot. To me, it is like the ending of ME3's ending to you. And guess what. I walked out of the cinema and haven't cared about the film ever since. I will give it another shot when the director's cut comes out, but until then I don't care about it and I would certainly not rage about it. 

He's not really raging.
However, you're not going to change his mind. MEHEM makes the story acceptable enough for him. The game that Bioware made was broken enough to heavily modify. That's who you're dealing with. And it's OK. I personally, could not stand playing MEHEM and I value pretty much all the species and societies in Mass Effect. Hell, I even value the ending of ME3! Was it poorly done? At least in terms of gearing towards player satisfaction, absolutely yes.

But it was part of the universe. Bioware can create a 'fresh start', and I'd roll with that if that fresh start was great, but acting like the trilogy ending didn't happen doesn't really strike me as being secure in themselves and their work.

Yet yes, for others, it's exactly what they want. Gloss over it, have MEHEM, never think about it again except to say it shouldn't be addressed by Bioware.
And that's their right. It's not 'raging', at least not at this point. Stubborn? Eh, maybe.

[SwobyJ]

dreamgazer wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

Do you want even your final choice steamrolled or otherwise overlooked?

Sure.  That's far from a first in this franchise.

If the universe goes in a direction I don't like, I won't advance through the story anymore.  Simple as that.

[CrutchCricket]

dreamgazer wrote...
Either "necessary" or "practical" for the creation of a new story or trilogy?  Better than completely abandoning the environment they've already built.  The Shepard trilogy is over, but just like Thedas, the galaxy moves forward.  And neither you nor I knows how they'll handle the choices.

It's neither actually. They have plenty of space (and time) to fit in all the stories they want within what we already have.
The galaxy does indeed move forward but in a vastly different way depending on what you chose. Glossing over the differences simply can't be done without making them meaningless.

Where did they say that your choices would be nurtured all the way into a new set of stories? Time to move forward---perhaps many, many years in the timeline---instead of tiptoe around elaborate headcanon and bitter people who may or may not play the next game anyway, if their word's to be taken seriously.

Personally, I kinda like the idea of fast-forwarding, like Lazarus (nonsensically) did to Shepard in ME2.  A reboot in the same universe. 

They said your choices matter. No more no less. And since they've **** all over that and everything else in the last five minutes, the least they could do is let that final choice lie.

Moving forward doesn't help as much as you think. Move too little and you can't avoid invalidating the choices. Move too far and the galaxy becomes unrecognizable, and if that's the case why bother calling it Mass Effect at all? And if it's too far but it's still the same, that brings its own problems, not the least of which is that it still didn't matter what we did.

Also Lazarus didn't do anything to fast-foward, it was just a contrivance to get rid of your squad and get a new Normandy. ME2 could've been set two years later without it.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 23 janvier 2014 - 08:22 .

[Wayning_Star]

choices matter, somewhat, relating to what the catalyst 'wishes' for you, as well as the unmentioned crucible designers, who listen or bound by no plot within ME. They are the MIB..

[Almostfaceman]

SwobyJ wrote...
He's not really raging.
However, you're not going to change his mind. MEHEM makes the story acceptable enough for him. The game that Bioware made was broken enough to heavily modify. That's who you're dealing with. And it's OK. I personally, could not stand playing MEHEM and I value pretty much all the species and societies in Mass Effect. Hell, I even value the ending of ME3! Was it poorly done? At least in terms of gearing towards player satisfaction, absolutely yes.

But it was part of the universe. Bioware can create a 'fresh start', and I'd roll with that if that fresh start was great, but acting like the trilogy ending didn't happen doesn't really strike me as being secure in themselves and their work.

Yet yes, for others, it's exactly what they want. Gloss over it, have MEHEM, never think about it again except to say it shouldn't be addressed by Bioware.
And that's their right. It's not 'raging', at least not at this point. Stubborn? Eh, maybe.

I like this human, they understand. 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 23 janvier 2014 - 08:31 .

[Wayning_Star]

I never liked Mehem, I put it up there with the clone shep vs. party Shepard'n friends.

Trust the star gazers, they know!!

[CronoDragoon]

CrutchCricket wrote...
It's neither actually. They have plenty of space (and time) to fit in all the stories they want within what we already have.
The galaxy does indeed move forward but in a vastly different way depending on what you chose. Glossing over the differences simply can't be done without making them meaningless.

I suppose it depends on what they go with.

Let's say they canonize an ending. If it's Destroy then there's no problem for me. If it's Control I won't have a problem because I think Control creates an interesting setting for the future. If it's Synthesis I'll probably find it boring. So in my case it's not a matter of invalidating choices, but purely whether the new setting is interesting in its own right.

I can always just assume that a Controlverse or Synthesisverse is AU.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 23 janvier 2014 - 08:38 .

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
When it comes to moving past the forked ending state, sure.  And I wouldn't necessarily use the word "wrong" here.

What else would you call invalidating choices in an environment billed to be about choices? Especially choices that are supposed to change the galaxy?

I wouldn't use invalidating there in the first place. I'd use that to talk about an AU or Kotor 2-style handwave.

I get the feeling there are very different definitions in play for what makes an RPG choice "matter."

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 janvier 2014 - 08:55 .