106 réponses à ce sujet

[CrutchCricket]

Canonizing a single ending is the worst thing they can do, worse than blending them together. I would find it insulting, even if it happened to be the one I preferred.

[Wayning_Star]

ME fans are so... practical!

yay!

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...
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."

I don't see how AUs invalidate choices either. That would be like saying my second or third Shepards invalidate the first.

[SwobyJ]

Almostfaceman wrote...

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. 

Thank you. I didn't mean to be offensive against, or defensive of you - I just think I did understand where you're coming from, even with what I disagree with, and I'm glad that you replied this

[Wayning_Star]

is it just me or is the star gazer ending the actual canon for the series. They claim that 'time' heals all wounds, etc. No matter what, the MEU is saved/changed/evolved in the end, and forgotten really, other than what the old star gazer can reflect upon to the kid (and us interlopers .

[Redbelle]

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) Well.... we want to know how we're going to dig ourselves out of that ending too..... So what do you think?

2) To be N7 is to reject all other forms of labeling!

3) Well, Humans for one..... but don't worry. We'll make better ones for next time! And lets see....... Elcor. We never figured out how to get our models to ride one so we're....... What? You want to ride Elcors? Well why didn't you say so! Of course we'll keep Elcors in the game! We'll even add one to the squad! As a conveyance? No more Mako's, because Elcors are going into that role!

And lesse....... Rachni. Because.... you know..... overzealous Krogan.

[GimmeDaGun]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Canonizing a single ending is the worst thing they can do, worse than blending them together. I would find it insulting, even if it happened to be the one I preferred.

Since both synthesis and control bring a new utopian or dystopian age it has no sense to continue the story of the galaxy to that direction. If you chose  one of those two options, then the reapers are still present and play a significant role in the life of the galaxy. Their presence and role as guardians would take all possibilities for the rise of a new and serious threat, conflict or problem. I think those two endings would be self-contained endings without any need of further story telling. Just like with ME2's ending if Shepard dies. 

That leaves us either destroy or refusal. Since refusal is more like an option to protest against the Catalyst and a prank from the developers part, it is highly improbable that they would carry on with the story and lore to that direction. Even if it would be an interesting scenario with full of story telling oportunities.

So if they canonize any of the endings, I think it will be destroy (most certainly mid to high ems, since low ems is another self-contained ending): it is an ending which gives you a blank slate, a fresh start if you like and also gives the developers the opportunity to import some of the biggest decisions (concerning the krogan, quarians, rachni, maybe council) to the new game (in PC). Destroy is a good starting point if you think about it. The reaper probelm is solved. The geth get destroyed. Cerberus is disbanded and annihilated. So all the "villians" of the first trilogy would be gone. The galaxy remain more or less intact. Earth, Palaven, Thessia, Surkesh are saved. The council races survived.
You can easily treat the quarian question also: you either meet the remnants of their destroyed and scattered race or members of their flourishing society which live happily in thier reclaimed homeworld. It can be solved with different dialogue variations, since we will not visit Rannoch in the new game most probably. The krogan situation is the same. You either meet happy krogan, or not so happy krogan, or none at all, so they only get mentioned. 
As for the fate of Shepard and the rest of the Normandy crew. Most probably they will be mentioned as heroes and legends, but will not play any role in the new game. We won't know about their fate following the reaper-war, nor we would get any cameos. It would not be essencial, so it is completely ok. The new story should concentrate on itself, not on the prequel. 

So if I had to bet, I'd say they will go with a mid-high ems destroy option if they choose to make a direct sequel or a sequel which would take place in the distant future. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 23 janvier 2014 - 09:48 .

[Malanek]

1) Sequel
2) Not much, no real importance to the ME setting.
3) Depends on the setting and time frame, I would prefer it to be logical above all else. There are no races that I want to get rid of nor any that I couldn't stand to lose. I wouldn't mind moving some out into the background, like Raloi, so no models are needed but without wiping them out in lore. Anyhow in order of what I think could be cut...

Elcor
Drell
Hanar
Geth
Quarians

[Wayning_Star]

lets see.. we've been around a few thousand years, the MEU a few million.

how long is a billion years? anyone know?

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
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."

I don't see how AUs invalidate choices either. That would be like saying my second or third Shepards invalidate the first.

Heh. I'm probably just conflating unrelated dislikes.

[GimmeDaGun]

Wayning_Star wrote...

lets see.. we've been around a few thousand years, the MEU a few million.

how long is a billion years? anyone know?

A long time... and a blink of an eye... it depends on how you look at it.

[GimmeDaGun]

SwobyJ wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

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. 

Thank you. I didn't mean to be offensive against, or defensive of you - I just think I did understand where you're coming from, even with what I disagree with, and I'm glad that you replied this

It's alright friend. I was not trying to flame him or make him change his mind. Me and iakus go way back with this back and forth, but it is not an antagonistic back and forth. We are two guys with very different tastes and preferences when it comes to fiction. I'm aware of his dissatisfaction concerning the ending. It's really hard to miss it if you are a regular poster around here, since he likes to talk about it (don't even try to deny that iakus ), and I like to react to it. Sometimes we are just pulling each others legs, in a way. Nothing really serious. This time I was reacting to his remark concerning the turians and the asari. I found that a bit of an exaggeration from his part, but he said that it was just a semi-serious remark.

[SwobyJ]

I am a semi-regular poster here, but yeah, I don't always know about this stuff. No problem!

[PsyrenY]

AlanC9 wrote...

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."

\\

This. I'm fine with a handwave if it means more mass effect. "Oh, when we said ALL synthetics we didn't really mean "all." And maybe a bit of Shep's consciousness is left up there regardless of choice. I wouldn't care either way.

The only ones I don't think would work at all are full Synth and full Refuse.

[eyezonlyii]

I think canonizing an ending makes the most sense as well. I mean there will be some angry fans, and I was one after Suckerpunch canonized Cole's death at the end of inFamous2. But I realized that in order for them to tell a story, they have to decide on something, if they want to move on, and making Cole the Beast would have pretty much invalidated everything you fought through 2 games for.

I view Mass Effect in this vein:
If the next game is a sequel and we DON'T play as Shepard, then canonize Destroy or Control and call it a day.

If the next game were to include Shepard, canonize Destroy and build from there.

Now to the questions.
1. Sequel
2. The best of the best of the Alliance
3. Drell and Vorcha for the reasons mentioned earlier.

[Iakus]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

It's alright friend. I was not trying to flame him or make him change his mind. Me and iakus go way back with this back and forth, but it is not an antagonistic back and forth. We are two guys with very different tastes and preferences when it comes to fiction. I'm aware of his dissatisfaction concerning the ending. It's really hard to miss it if you are a regular poster around here, since he likes to talk about it (don't even try to deny that iakus ), and I like to react to it. Sometimes we are just pulling each others legs, in a way. Nothing really serious. This time I was reacting to his remark concerning the turians and the asari. I found that a bit of an exaggeration from his part, but he said that it was just a semi-serious remark.

::Looks at banner sig::

I have no idea what you're talking about 

[Kelwing]

1. Sequel
2. Elite Human soldier...named Shepard
3. Elcor, Hanar, Vorcha

Modifié par Kelwing, 23 janvier 2014 - 11:49 .

[NeonFlux117]

BioWare is trolling hard. I can see Operation TrollWare is in effect.

N7 mean to you???

Gee BioWare, the last thing we saw was an N7 tag dangling from Shepard.

Foreshadow much.

[Wulfram]

1.) Sequel. Probably one starting from a set canon ending.
2.) Silly marketing that I'm bored of seeing stuck everywhere. Any meaning it had is sapped by stuff like the MP.
3.) Drell, Quarians. They're rare enough that their absence wouldn't cause lore issues.

[eyezonlyii]

The beginning of the next ME should be a revamped Priority: Earth...

Modifié par eyezonlyii, 24 janvier 2014 - 12:19 .

[CrutchCricket]

eyezonlyii wrote...

I think canonizing an ending makes the most sense as well. I mean there will be some angry fans, and I was one after Suckerpunch canonized Cole's death at the end of inFamous2. But I realized that in order for them to tell a story, they have to decide on something, if they want to move on, and making Cole the Beast would have pretty much invalidated everything you fought through 2 games for.

Not even close to the same thing. Games that offer cheap false-dichotomy morality system in the vein of "saint vs total ******" always canonize the "good" ending. That, and such systems are only there to make you go through the game twice and hardly place the same emphasis on the choices you make. inFamous is no exception.

Though Mass Effect's morality system is hardly more expansive, the decisions overall do form a more complex system of variables, whereas games like inFamous merely have two divergent linear progressions. And if anything positive can be said about the endings, it's that none of them definitively pander to one "moral" side or the other.

[eyezonlyii]

CrutchCricket wrote...

eyezonlyii wrote...

I think canonizing an ending makes the most sense as well. I mean there will be some angry fans, and I was one after Suckerpunch canonized Cole's death at the end of inFamous2. But I realized that in order for them to tell a story, they have to decide on something, if they want to move on, and making Cole the Beast would have pretty much invalidated everything you fought through 2 games for.

Not even close to the same thing. Games that offer cheap false-dichotomy morality system in the vein of "saint vs total ******" always canonize the "good" ending. That, and such systems are only there to make you go through the game twice and hardly place the same emphasis on the choices you make. inFamous is no exception.

Though Mass Effect's morality system is hardly more expansive, the decisions overall do form a more complex system of variables, whereas games like inFamous merely have two divergent linear progressions. And if anything positive can be said about the endings, it's that none of them definitively pander to one "moral" side or the other.

Maybe most games do, but as I understood it, Suckerpunch looked at the trophy data for which ending was completed most by the players on their first playthrough and used that to determine the ending. I could be wrong, but if not, then I wouldn't be particularly upset if Bioware did the same thing to their ending.

But even if it looks "more complex" the system really is no different, particularly because the endings have no basis on your moraliy score. The only thing that changes is the flavoring of your story on the way.There is no need to pla te game more than three times at most to see all of the endings (assuming that one isn't counting the gradiations between low, mid and high). Picking one ending and sticking with it would be the exact thing they should be going for as a "starting point" for new players instead of the third game of a trilogy. The world is built, there are things that happened in the past that the PC cannot change and thus the story begins.

[NeonFlux117]

eyezonlyii wrote...

The beginning of the next ME should be a revamped Priority: Earth...

Hahaha!!! I like this human. He understands.

[SwobyJ]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

BioWare is trolling hard. I can see Operation TrollWare is in effect.

N7 mean to you???

Gee BioWare, the last thing we saw was an N7 tag dangling from Shepard.

Foreshadow much.

TrollWare indeed.

I bet the question was Michael Gamble's idea. I'd put down 10,000 credits.

[CosmicGnosis]

I'm confused. Is this a real questionnaire from BioWare? If so, whom did they send it to?

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 24 janvier 2014 - 08:16 .