195 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

Chashan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Superweapons work well enough for this story, but I still think it sucks on a gaming level. You don't get to actually do much with them. There isn't much interactivity and gameplay to those kind of plot devices. They tend to just be passive, cutscene/cinematic type of affairs. And that's what happened here.

Superweapons are preferable to a conventional military victory however, because it does give the player character a way to affect the outcome. Without some form of a superweapon as a plot device, Shepard would have been a spectator to a victory won by either Admiral Hackett or Primarch Victus. If Shepard is going to end the Reaper War, you need to use a superweapon. I think that was likely the biggest reason a superweapon was introduced to the plot, though no doubt the writers needing a way to offset the Reapers technological superiority also played a role.

The Crucible was just poorly executed.

I call bull on that being much of a reason at all.

I'd love to see a fan rewrite of the ending that doesn't involve a superweapon of some kind, keeps Shepard as the agent of the Reaper's destruction/defeat, and remains plausible or viable as a route Bioware could have conceivably went. I've seen lots of people argue that they'd prefer a 'conventional victory' as a conclusion to Mass Effect 3, but none demonstrate how that could have been carried out.

Chashan wrote...

Part of the problem with the Crucible is that the effort of the allied forces is pushed pretty much aside and "ending the war" is demoted to what amounts to button-pushing by a sole individual.

That is pretty much a staple of nearly all RPGs. How is Dragon Age: Origins any different for example? The war ends when the Warden sinks their blade into the archdemon. The reason why this is a staple in all RPGs, is because you need to have the protagonist resolve the crisis that forms the basis of the plot. In DA:O it was the Blight. In ME3 it is the Reaper War.

ME1 did not really require that either. Shepards' big-time choice for ME3's end could have been a tactical decision similar to that: make the call on which portion of the troops hold down the fort till the device does its thing and ends the Reapers, say, with the effects that has on the post-war galaxy made prominent.

Shepard didn't resolve Mass Effect 1 with a tactical decision. He resolves it by defeating Saren/Sovereign in combat, lowing Sovereign's shields and rendering it temporary helpless. After all the tactical decision that Shepard makes ultimately has no impact on the outcome of the Battle of the Citadel. Regardless of whether you choose to sacrifice the Destiny Ascension or save it, Sovereign ends up destroyed.

In any case having Shepard resolve the Reaper War with a tactical decision doesn't work for a number of reasons. Shepard is not the supreme commander of the Alliance fleet, and placing Shepard in a position where he gets to be the galaxy's Dwight D. Eisenhower would strain suspension of disbelief. And once you get him to that position of Commander-in-Chief, what do you do with him? Mass Effect isn't an RTS, so how do you implement command of a fleet battle in an RPG? Having it play out via the dialogue wheel would be both anti-climactic and boring. Finally the last issue is that the technological disparity between the galactic fleets and that of the Reapers was presented as too great, for any form of conventional victory to have been possible. In order to set up a plausible conventional victory Mass Effect 2 has to be a very different game where the qualitative advange of the Reapers is greatly reduced.

I don't see any way Mass Effect 3 could have been resolved except with the use of a superweapon. And there's notjing wrong with that, as there is nothing inherently bad about a superweapon as a plot device. It was just executed poorly in ME3.

[Chashan]

Han Shot First wrote...
That is pretty much a staple of nearly all RPGs. How is Dragon Age:
Origins any different for example? The war ends when the Warden sinks
their blade into the archdemon. The reason why this is a staple in all
RPGs, is because you need to have the protagonist resolve the crisis
that forms the basis of the plot. In DA:O it was the Blight. In ME3 it
is the Reaper War.

Since you mentioned DA:O: It is different in that the Blight's irrevocable end is the set condition rather than a last-minute negotiation with the source of the Blight being thrown in out of nowhere. Who takes the blow, and whether the one to do so dies in the process is what is left up to the player.

Seeing how ME3 gave me "DA:O-in-space"-vibes quite early on, I don't see how that could not possibly have worked in a similar way.

Shepard didn't resolve Mass Effect 1 with a tactical decision. He
resolves it by defeating Saren/Sovereign in combat, lowing Sovereign's
shields and rendering it temporary helpless. After all the tactical
decision that Shepard makes ultimately has no impact on the outcome of
the Battle of the Citadel. Regardless of whether you choose to sacrifice
the Destiny Ascension or save it, Sovereign ends up destroyed.

It does have an impact: namely how the new kid, the Systems Alliance, is perceived in the galaxy based on that. ME2 and 3 marginalise that, true, but that's hardly a fault of ME1 itself. And with ME3 as the end of the trilogy BW would not have needed to worry about further import-data.

One can argue that they already did not do so with the three coloured choices as they are, but then again those may have gone several steps too far in that regard.

Modifié par Chashan, 28 janvier 2014 - 09:46 .

[liggy002]

@HanShotFirst

The difference is that the battle with the Archdemon was both climactic and exciting. Limping up to a tube and having unlimited time to shoot it is not.  Add to this the long series of cinematics we had to sit through with no action.

Modifié par liggy002, 28 janvier 2014 - 09:47 .

[windsea]

i doubt they need to canonize a endings.

but if they did then it would be control, the Geth (if alive) and EDI would still be alive and still like they were in the past, mass relay and citadel would be easy and fast to fix, wreav would still be the bad leader of the Krogan if he is the leader, reapers keep the peace keeping pirates and slavers from be a bigger problem when all governments are lack ships and men-power from after the war, and so on

[AlanC9]

Chashan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
That is pretty much a staple of nearly all RPGs. How is Dragon Age:
Origins any different for example? The war ends when the Warden sinks
their blade into the archdemon. The reason why this is a staple in all
RPGs, is because you need to have the protagonist resolve the crisis
that forms the basis of the plot. In DA:O it was the Blight. In ME3 it
is the Reaper War.

Since you mentioned DA:O: It is different in that the Blight's irrevocable end is the set condition rather than a last-minute negotiation with the source of the Blight being thrown in out of nowhere. Who takes the blow, and whether the one to do so dies in the process is what is left up to the player.

Seeing how ME3 gave me "DA:O-in-space"-vibes quite early on, I don't see how that could not possibly have worked in a similar way.

What does this have to do with H-S-F's point? I've never quite understood why less choices in an RPG are suddenly good, but  take away the choices and the Crucible is still a superweapon. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2014 - 10:19 .

[AlanC9]

liggy002 wrote...

@HanShotFirst

The difference is that the battle with the Archdemon was both climactic and exciting. Limping up to a tube and having unlimited time to shoot it is not.  Add to this the long series of cinematics we had to sit through with no action.

So it isn't enough to have a superweapon, Bio should have contrived a final boss fight with it too?

[Chashan]

AlanC9 wrote...
What does this have to do with H-S-F's point? I've never quite
understood why less choices in an RPG are suddenly good, but  take away
the choices and the Crucible is still a superweapon.

Which, in itself is not really a problem when it is just that. It's not the most original of approaches, but works when things are kept simple.

BW needlessly complicated, even convoluted this when they packed a parley with the Reapers at the direct end of the game, without any serious build-up whatsoever to that in the story that preceded it.


Choices are well and good for an RPG, yet the nature* of them being plausible is what adds value to them, rather than them possessing value for their mere existence. There could have been different possibilities for final decisions for Shepards, as I pointed out.

*PS: In case this gets misunderstood, I do not mean this in a "moral" sense.

PPS:

AlanC9 wrote...
So it isn't enough to have a superweapon, Bio should have contrived a final boss fight with it too?

BW not including an awkwardly slow slog with no real value as far as gameplay goes is hardly too much to ask for, is it.

Modifié par Chashan, 28 janvier 2014 - 10:34 .

[eyezonlyii]

Mcfly616 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...


He says in the Final Hours app that he just wanted people to think about this stuff.  That's it. To consider the possibilities and problems. I think it's just meant to be a big brainstorming session, if anything. Not that he's distancing himself.

I'd quote it for you, but it's an embedded video in Adobe AIR.

I'm aware of what he said. He was certainly a part of the ending. And approved of it. All he was saying in Final Hours was that he wanted it to be thought-provoking. Not unlike a lot of writers out there.




While we're talking about such things, I'll go off on a slight tangent just to say that imo I didn't find The Last of Us too "thought-provoking". I finished it a week ago. After hearing everyone ranting and raving about the shear brilliance of what it does for story in the gaming industry, and how touching the flawed characters are....and the ending. Amaaaaazing.

NOT. I finished the game and couldn't help but laugh at the contrast between the love and praise TLoU got, and how much hate and rage ME3 got. The writing in TLoU was not better than ME3 by any stretch. That goes for the characters too. The ending was laughable (okay, maybe not 'laughable', but I certainly laughed due to people's claims of brilliance). I'll just say it plainly: imo The Last of Us didn't venture anywhere Bioware hasn't already been. And Bioware has done it better.


I know, I know. Nobody even said anything about TLoU. But I've just had that whole thing on my mind since I beat it, and this is pretty much the only place I come to talk about anything gaming related nowadays. So yeah, it's not flame-bait. Don't get it twisted. I just needed to get it out. This game being universally praised for not doing anything new imo, whereas my favorite series gets trashed for the very same things it did better and long before.

I feel the exact same way. I finished the game over Thanksgiving and was thoroughly "meh" about it. Honstly, I couldn't stand Ellie as a character and what they did to Sam and his brother was just...cliche. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Han Shot First wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Superweapons work well enough for this story, but I still think it sucks on a gaming level. You don't get to actually do much with them. There isn't much interactivity and gameplay to those kind of plot devices. They tend to just be passive, cutscene/cinematic type of affairs. And that's what happened here.

Superweapons are preferable to a conventional military victory however, because it does give the player character a way to affect the outcome. Without some form of a superweapon as a plot device, Shepard would have been a spectator to a victory won by either Admiral Hackett or Primarch Victus. If Shepard is going to end the Reaper War, you need to use a superweapon. I think that was likely the biggest reason a superweapon was introduced to the plot, though no doubt the writers needing a way to offset the Reapers technological superiority also played a role.

The Crucible was just poorly executed.

I call bull on that being much of a reason at all.

I'd love to see a fan rewrite of the ending that doesn't involve a superweapon of some kind, keeps Shepard as the agent of the Reaper's destruction/defeat, and remains plausible or viable as a route Bioware could have conceivably went. I've seen lots of people argue that they'd prefer a 'conventional victory' as a conclusion to Mass Effect 3, but none demonstrate how that could have been carried out.

Keystone army gambit works.

After ME2, when we learned that the Human Reaper would have been inside the cuttlefish shell, I had an idea that ME3's finale would involve Shepard going to the Dark Citadel (the Dark Space counter-relay for the Citadel Relay), where we'd find all the Reaper 'embryos' left nice, safe, but effecitvely defensless in Dark Space. Shepard would then trigger the Dark Citadel to go nova to kill the embryos, which would then kill the Reapers in the galaxy.

Not quite the same, but there.

I don't see any way Mass Effect 3 could have been resolved except with the use of a superweapon. And there's notjing wrong with that, as there is nothing inherently bad about a superweapon as a plot device. It was just executed poorly in ME3.

Well, besides super weapon and keystone army, there could also be negotiation. That tends to work better when you have a keystone army or super weapon to fall back onto, but it doesn't have to.

In one of my dark energy proposal somewhere in my story corner group, I wrote out a scenario in which the Crucible was basically a Dark Energy Engine of galactic effects. It had two functions and three proposed endings, but only one of them was as a superweapon.

As a superweapon, you would use the Crucible to turn all element zero in the galaxy into inert lumps, killing the Reapers by destroying the power cores (and also destroying mass effect-based civilization, but not AI's specifically). Basically a hard galactic reboot, albeit one that solved the Dark Energy threat as well as the Reapers.


Alternatively, you could set it in reverse (or forward?) and trigger so much dark energy that the galaxy was doomed to die in super novas in the next few centuries. The Reapers, their preservationist goals defeated and not wanting to waste any more Reapers for a lost cause, abandon the galaxy and vanish into Dark Space. The species of the galaxy have only a limited amount of time to organize an exodus and try to flee to another galaxy, where they hope to restart properly.


The Third Way was basically a stare down in which Shepard threatens to use the Crucible one way or the other if the Reapers don't stop immediately. Since the Reapers lose regardless of which option is used, with enough persuasion/war assets and checks, Shepard can stare down Harbinger. The Reapers back down and what's left is a very, very shakey cease-fire with a hope that a solution for the Dark Energy problem can be found. Hope exists, but is very shakey as the Galactic Coalition is fragile and may not sustain itself, and while the Reapers are helping there's the fear that some of them are scheming to seize control of the Crucible and restrat the Harvest at the first opportunity.

[Dean_the_Young]

Vortex13 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I'd set a sequel a few hundred years out. Say, 700 years or so.

That is a very long time. I personally don't see how such a setting could still have the whole ME 'vibe' to it if we have 700 years worth of developed technology to add to the setting; to say nothing of the advances gained from reversed engineered Reaper corpses.

Galatic society has remained more or less the same because of the Reaper cycles, but with that artifical limitation gone, wouldn't a MEU 700 years in the future look as comparativly different to players as a person from 700 years ago being brought to the present age would think of our technology? 

Why would it? The amount of recovery, advancement, and aesthetic is arbitrary. You (or rather, the writers) can simply claim that the post-Destroy Galactic Dark Age set back development for centuries and that we're just now starting to match/surpass the Council Age. Giving enough time to let old characters pass away and reorganize galactic politics doesn't mean technology has to appreciably change.

It's not like the trilogy ever claimed that the Reapers were keeping the Council's technological level static either.

[Dean_the_Young]

starlitegirlx wrote...

www.t3.com/news/mass-effect-4-release-date-trailer-cheats-news-and-rumours

This isn't the one that I read before but it is a bit implied. Here is what Chris Priestly said:

“To call the next game Mass Effect 4 or ME4 is doing it a disservice
and seems to cause a lot of confusion here,” BioWare community manager
Chris Priestly said.
“We have already said that the Commander Shepard trilogy is over and
that the next game will not feature him/her. That is the only detail you
have on the game. I see people saying 'well, they'll have to pick a
canon ending'. No, because the game does not have to come after. Or
before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or
yaddayaddayadda.”SNIP

I am sure I read some kind of quote like this that it could be taking place during the timeline before the reapers hit. Of course, knowing about the reapers might be bizarre because as you are playing the game, you know the reapers are coming, so that is sort of weird. Still can't find what I read orginally. If I remember correctly it was a quote that said one of the things they COULD do that sounded like it was what they were planning to do along with introduce more aliens and expand on the MEU.

Priestly said that in response to people who were saying 'the next ME game will have to be X/Y/Z for reason Z,' where X/Y/Z was sequel/prequel/midquel and Z was whatever reason people had for picking whichever one they were fixated on. His point, which he elaborated on, was that it didn't have to be any of these in particular because it could be any of them. Calling ME4, which implies it would be an immediate sequel to ME3, could cause a false assumption that it would carry forward the same immediate story with the same supporting cast.


It was a rejection that Bioware would have to choose any setting in particular.

[Mcfly616]

Yeah, see I don't consider it a true sequel or prequel unless it's a direct continuation or precedecessor to the last narrative. If it's just taking place in the same timeline and has no connection whatsoever to Shepard and the Reapers, well, imo it's technically not a sequel or prequel.

For instance there is a set of novels by Alastair Reynolds called the Revelation Space Series. Now, there's an overarching narrative that takes place over 3 books (Revelation Space, Redemption Ark, Absolution Gap aka The Inhibitor Trilogy). These books were actually the main inspiration for the concept of the Reapers (not their looks...pretty much everything else). These three novels tell the story of a group of characters who discover the mystery of the Fermi paradox is the result of extermination events over a millennia, they accidentally awaken said exterminators, and try to find a way to not have the human race go the way of so many other past space-faring civilizations.

So that's the trilogy, but Reynolds also has standalone novels and collections of short stories that take place within the same universe (before, during, and after the events of the Inhibitor Trilogy) . He doesn't consider them prequels and sequels. They're different stories altogether. Just set in the same fictional world. Detective mysteries. Corporate conspiracy. Smuggling runs.

The current MEU timeline is still ripe and fertile for many more standalone tales.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 29 janvier 2014 - 03:03 .

[Big Destiny]

i hope they canonize synthesis just because

[AgentWhite1416]

Interesting I always though that the control ending would be the easiest canon.

- Relays get rebuilt
- All synthetic life isn't wiped out
- People aren't glowing green

Personally I assume that they'll let you pick your ending like DAI and then barely reference it in the game.

[Excella Gionne]

I don't think they should mess with the Shepard universe since it ended in many endings. I mean, what's the point of having the other endings if you're gonna cannonize the obvious?

[windsea]

AgentWhite1416 wrote...

Interesting I always though that the control ending would be the easiest canon.

- Relays get rebuilt
- All synthetic life isn't wiped out
- People aren't glowing green

Personally I assume that they'll let you pick your ending like DAI and then barely reference it in the game.

i guessing you will be right or all the effects will be happening off screen like the news stories in ME2.

Modifié par windsea, 30 janvier 2014 - 12:50 .

[Vortex13]

AgentWhite1416 wrote...

Interesting I always though that the control ending would be the easiest canon.

- Relays get rebuilt
- All synthetic life isn't wiped out
- People aren't glowing green

Personally I assume that they'll let you pick your ending like DAI and then barely reference it in the game.

The problem I see with a sequel wherein all the Reapers are still alive, is how does one have any form of conflict or threatening antagonist if you have an immortal race of godlike machine that can take on the entire combined forces of the galaxy without so much as breaking a sweat; since they were 'holding back' the whiole time? 

Even if the galaxy hated the Reapers still, the fact that they still are out there would overshadow any conflict a and color any decisions about the next game, and its villian. It just like the time travel device in the Harry Potter novels/movies; if you have this element that can instantly trump anything, why would you not use it if it is still present in the setting, and how can you introduce new conflict without your audience going 'Why don't they just use the time necklace again?"

[N7 Banshee Bait]

Control is the best ending by far! Shepard survives & becomes the protector of the entire universe. Synthetics survive. And most importantly the Banshees survive. The Banshees are just too freakin awesome!

And when the Leviathans try to start their crap again we're gonna need the Reapers to stop them.

Modifié par N7 Banshee Bait, 30 janvier 2014 - 05:09 .

[Massa FX]

No more Reapers. Gawd please no more...
I don't even want to read Codex entries in ME4 that involve Reapers.

Reapers hopefully are gone for good. (Destroy ender here. Can you tell?)

[RZIBARA]

Canonize destroy, but retcon the geth getting destroyed in the process.

Everyones happy.

This would be a perfect setup for ME4

[AlanC9]

RZIBARA wrote...

Canonize destroy, but retcon the geth getting destroyed in the process.

Everyones happy.

This would be a perfect setup for ME4

Eww...

[Vortex13]

Massa FX wrote...

No more Reapers. Gawd please no more...
I don't even want to read Codex entries in ME4 that involve Reapers.

Reapers hopefully are gone for good. (Destroy ender here. Can you tell?)

I don't want to have Reapers being the antagonists again for ME:Next, but I personally would like to see at least one or two of them in future installments.

Like the Darkspawn of Dragon Age, they are an intrinsic part of the lore; even moreso then the Archdemons and their Blights since without Reapers there would be no Mass Effect; it would (IMO) be a shame to have all traces of them stricken from the mythos of the setting. If you are going to do that to any faction, it should be Cerberus and their apparently limitless budget and increasingly overt anime fetish. I don't want to see Control or Synthesis levels of Reapers still alive out there, but one or two vanguards of our destruction, operating from the shadows would be perfect.

I know most people would point to the Leviathans as our new source of Cuthulu-esqe monstrosities, but they come off more as 'not-Reapers' than anything original to the setting, and this is coming from someone who loved the un-fathomable nature of the Leviathan DLC. The only difference that the Leviathans have from the Reapers; at least in how they come across to the player; is that they are really arrogant and they are essentially organic Reapers (in attitude, powers, and appearance).

Personally, I would much rather have a few Reaper survivors, taking queues from Sovereign and distancing themselves as much as possible from the Catalyst; then some cheap knock off,  pseudo-Reapers.

[windsea]

Vortex13 wrote...

AgentWhite1416 wrote...

Interesting I always though that the control ending would be the easiest canon.

- Relays get rebuilt
- All synthetic life isn't wiped out
- People aren't glowing green

Personally I assume that they'll let you pick your ending like DAI and then barely reference it in the game.

The problem I see with a sequel wherein all the Reapers are still alive, is how does one have any form of conflict or threatening antagonist if you have an immortal race of godlike machine that can take on the entire combined forces of the galaxy without so much as breaking a sweat; since they were 'holding back' the whiole time? 

Even if the galaxy hated the Reapers still, the fact that they still are out there would overshadow any conflict a and color any decisions about the next game, and its villian. It just like the time travel device in the Harry Potter novels/movies; if you have this element that can instantly trump anything, why would you not use it if it is still present in the setting, and how can you introduce new conflict without your audience going 'Why don't they just use the time necklace again?"

they just need a story were the reapers help would not be useful, say a plot where the character needs to be covert say track down a terrorist cell, as they usually are attack people who are way strong then them. Big robots would not be very easy to hide during a man hurt.
or the story could be more political where people would not allow the reapers to have influence.
or the leviathan could find a way to take control over some of the reapers and starting a reaper civil war

[Bakgrind]

Who's to say that Bioware wont just canonize destroy?  Will it canonize anything ? Read on and see... culturemob.com/mass-effect-4-ambitious-beautiful

People may have not heard a lot of about the Mass Effect 4 for a while now, ever since it was first announced in the market.
But then the company who is behind the game, Bioware, has this to say – the game is ambitious and beautiful. This was the exact message that the General Manager of the company has posted on Twitter.According to him, the game is ambitious, beautiful and fresh, but not recognizable. He further added that he has tried his hands on the game and it was absolutely enjoyable. This message has added to the excitement of those who are eagerly anticipating the release of the game.

Teaser Posts
Bioware has recently announced that they are very much pleased with the current development of the upcoming Mass Effect game, known as the Mass Effect 4. The Bioware team has also been boasting about how well the new game will be like along with some teaser posts on Twitter in the recent days.Indeed, fans have become so excited and even caused mass hysteria to those who are dying to play this new game on their console. The company’s executive producer, Casey Hudson, has been tweeting a lot recently, along with their producer, giving fans a little bit of insight on the current development of the game.

New Fictional World
Hudson added that they are having so much fun in working on the overall design of this new fictional world. He added that they are now taking their first steps on it and are currently looking around. They have also announced that the Mass Effect 4 would be taking place in a new fictional world. It will be a totally fresh and new universe.With this announcement, fans have gotten very much intrigued which adds up to the excitement. A lot are excited to know when and where this upcoming installment will be taking place.Another tweet of Hudson has fueled to the excitement of fans, when he said that the development team of the Mass Effect 4 has been doing outstanding work because the game is looking fun, beautiful and ambitious, which is exactly what they want for the game.

Development Period
With all these teasers that the Bioware is spreading, it seems clear that the game is already on its development period. It is only six months ever since Hudson has confirmed that the game is currently in production, but the Bioware development team is already feeling so excited about it.So far, only a few details were released regarding the Mass Effect 4, but it is clear from the teasers and sneak peeks that this game will be as great, or maybe even better, as the previous Mass Effect games. The only thing that the developers can confirm is that you will not be playing as Commander Shepard on this game, although he might be making an appearance on some parts of the game. According to some reports, you could be playing as one of the characters that were featured on the original trilogy

Modifié par Bakgrind, 31 janvier 2014 - 01:17 .