195 réponses à ce sujet

[Vortex13]

windsea wrote...

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

I don't know, all of those scenarios (with the exception of the last one) would still seem rather unlikely in a Reaper dominated galaxy. I mean even Paragon Shepard's Control ending comes across as very big brother, I have a feeling that the Shep-alyst would simply say "Deal with it" to any civilizations that didn't want the massive Reaper ships policing their worlds.

In the new Catalyst's words it says that it will not forget the sacrifices of the few so that the many could live; I highly doubt that allowing a terrorist cell go unheeded, or deferring to the galactic society's demands would go over well, especially since a terrorist cell is a threat to the many, and even the most 'advanced' civilization (human, turian, asari, etc.) is prone to prejudices and violence.

Synthesis has the Reapers sharing all of their acuminated knowledge with the galaxy and integrating with society, I don't think that they would stand by as their organic/synthetic friends devolved into bickering and in-fighting.

[windsea]

Vortex13 wrote...

windsea wrote...

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

I don't know, all of those scenarios (with the exception of the last one) would still seem rather unlikely in a Reaper dominated galaxy. I mean even Paragon Shepard's Control ending comes across as very big brother, I have a feeling that the Shep-alyst would simply say "Deal with it" to any civilizations that didn't want the massive Reaper ships policing their worlds.

In the new Catalyst's words it says that it will not forget the sacrifices of the few so that the many could live; I highly doubt that allowing a terrorist cell go unheeded, or deferring to the galactic society's demands would go over well, especially since a terrorist cell is a threat to the many, and even the most 'advanced' civilization (human, turian, asari, etc.) is prone to prejudices and violence.

Synthesis has the Reapers sharing all of their acuminated knowledge with the galaxy and integrating with society, I don't think that they would stand by as their organic/synthetic friends devolved into bickering and in-fighting.

I believe people would most likely go to war with the reapers and died then rolling over when it comes most things in their life or ruling themselves and doubt Shep-alyst would kill the people they were protecting. At most I see reapers just being a police force against pirates and keeping governments form going to war by way of Mutual assured destruction for said governments.
Terrorist cell are made to go up against governments so hiding form more people who are ships or zombies would not be much harder.
In synthesis a reaper civil war may not work, but  how useful would the other races be unless they now have weapons to fight the reapers which devalue the affect reapers would be able to have on the story.
other words a reaper civil war would work if everyone can't fight the reapers or the reapers could just not be as big as a threat now that everyone's' technology is now on the same level. 
Both ways would keep them from being the same threat they were in ME3.

[Oransel]

If I had to choose between various scenarios for the future of Mass Effect, I'd prefer franchise reboot, to be honest. Like how Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy rebooted Batman franchise which has written itself in the corner, very much like Mass Effect 3 did. If you like new version more - no problem, if you like old version more - you can still play it - no problem or you can enjoy both for different reasons. Using same cinema analogy, I love both old and new Batman films (except Shumacher ones). No hate for current franchise here, btw, not at all.

I don't see any better way out of current situation: 

Refuse (playing as human survivor) would be too grim. Refuse without humans would be unrelatable to most players. 

Control on a broad scale would work only if Shepard turns mad (otherwise no threat and conflict) and there is no way anyone would win against him unless it's one billion year later and some new species will repeat Shepard's journey. Unrelatable and too bizzare and fatalist.
*Of course there can be a very small plot about small group vs other small group, like a spy plot in space with Shepard Reaper preventing any global conflict. I am not sure it would hit the Shepard trilogy heights, though. Depends on the writer.

Synthesis is too esoteric and unrelatable to work, in my opinion. Lot's of logical leaps of faith and mental acrobatics.

High EMS Destroy looks best of them all, but even there I see too many problems. How much forward into the future? Wouldn't future technologies become too advanced to limit relatability with things that would be going on? What kind of conflict will drive new game? Would it be large or small? If small, wouldn't it be lackluster compared to original trilogy? If large, what can topple the Reapers as a threat (if it's dark energy entropy - whom would we shoot?)? If it's civil war between ME races writer would have to give exceptionally believable reason for it (and people would still be angry, though). Now - all those problems can be solved in the hands of a genius writer, but if he would not be that good we would recieve very low quality product like Star Wars prequels. Speaking of which...

Prequels are utter **** most of the times. Because they are prequels and are not that interesting by default. It does not even matter how good or bad original product is. Of course good writers and screenplay can do a lot to mitigate negative effects of prequel (Halo: Reach), but I do not see this happening in the current Mass Effect situation, unless future writer would be a genius. Again. Bonus point for not solving  The only good thing I can say about the prequel is that it won't cause as much of a ****storm as picking anything above.

Midquel or spin-off may work showing us true horrors of war and struggles to build the Crucible (btw I hate Crucible and believe that it could have been avoided - for those in this thread) through the eyes of some guy/girl/alien who would visit places Shepard has not visited. It's actually a good "milk-the-franchise" strategy with lot's of combat and probably the closest thing to what Bioware is working on right now. Cameos by characters, including Shepard, especially if you have ME3 save import, planets you have not visited etc. Not that bad, it can be good like Halo: ODST or Half-Life 1 Barry episode, except that it's medquel (hard to write properly, just like a good prequel) and it won't even dream to live up to Shepard's journey. They can go as far as to begin this medquel before Reaper invasion and leave some room for ME5, but it still won't be as good as Shepard's journey and it won't solve the ME3 ending mess.

Franchise reboot will allow writers to plan their work in advance and create coherent story. ME2 story has almost nothing to do with ME1-ME3 plot and sets the stage for ME3 fall, in addition to native ME3 faults. It may be either complete rewrite or just reinterpretation which will cut least popular corners of the Mass Effect universe. Obvious downside is that some people would be pissed.

Modifié par Oransel, 31 janvier 2014 - 02:12 .

[Susty Randusky]

destroy is fake son refuse gives zero hoots and is real son

[AlanC9]

Oransel wrote...
If I had to choose between various scenarios for the future of Mass Effect, I'd prefer franchise reboot, to be honest. Like how Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy rebooted Batman franchise which has written itself in the corner, very much like Mass Effect 3 did. If you like new version more - no problem, if you like old version more - you can still play it - no problem or you can enjoy both for different reasons. Using same cinema analogy, I love both old and new Batman films (except Shumacher ones). No hate for current franchise here, btw, not at all.

Isn't it a little soon for this? I mean, again with the Reapers?

I agree about Control and Synth. Control could work, but I don't think Bio's writers have the chops for it.

As for Destroy, I'm not a fan of another extinction-level threat in the first place.. If ME really needs that to sell, the series needs to die.

[Mcfly616]

They really don't need to reboot anything. Set the game within the current MEU timeline. Still plenty of stories to tell.

[Frybread76]

If the Destroy ending in which Shepard lives is supposed to be the secret, special canon ending, then BioWare should have designed it so if you got the max EMS the races are able to perfect the Crucible enough that it targets only the Reapers. As it is I can't stand behind Destroy because it results in the slaughter of the Geth, whom I got to unite with the Quarians in my favorite play through. Oh well.

[SwobyJ]

There is no canon. There is just degrees of canon of some things over other things, which is then counteracted by really interesting results from what would otherwise be 'non-canon' in other game designs, etc.

Basically, Destroy is more appropriate.
Control is still very big.
Synthesis is new and neat.

All are things. I don't really think Control and Synth would be ignored. Not by a long shot.

Finished Control option ending last night


Also all endings happened and imo will continue onward. But where and when they do, is the question.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 31 janvier 2014 - 08:14 .

[Oransel]

AlanC9 wrote...

Isn't it a little soon for this? I mean, again with the Reapers?

Well, the problem is that Bioware went with the highest level of villain threat right from the first hour of the game. That's the important part of the ME appeal with stakes and odds set as high as galactic extermination. Problem is that you can't continue after highest possible threat is beaten. That's how human mind works in terms of storytelling. You can't really downgrade your stories (you can make highest threat more distant, but you still have to make it much real like in ME 2) because people will subconsciously believe that it will never live up to what was before. Let's be honest - what can be more powerful and awesome than a human officer destroying million years living, mind controlling robots with apex technology, robots that have killed unquantifiable number of races? Commander Shepard and his friends stop Reapers through sheer determination and power of will, unity, diversity etc. You can't really topple that, no matter what ending you have chosen in ME3, Shepard's legacy will overshadow any future attempts to continue with this timeline.

Of course it can be revealed that Reapers were serving even larger and badder robots, but it would be another shocking swerve and ass pull.

I agree with you that it's too early for a reboot at this point, so the best course of action would be some sort of midquel or a spin-off or even prequel, but not the outright continuation after the ME3

[SwobyJ]

I think you underestimate that galaxy's species' capability to screw things up for themselves.

[Oransel]

SwobyJ wrote...

I think you underestimate that galaxy's species' capability to screw things up for themselves.

Perhaps. But I can't see what can be done here, especially with all those different endings. AI revolt? Lame, boring, repetitive and solveable and it can't be geth, because, you know, destroy ending. Some uber species from the inside or outside the Galaxy? Too many problems from the meta point of view. Civil war between humans, turians etc. over resources? Very unlikely and if it's too far in the future (the only way it will work) it won't be relatable. Plague, entropy, zombie apocalypse? Some species building their own Reapers to prevent Reapers? Parallel universes and time travel?

Maybe I seriously lack imagination and creativity here, but I just don't see a threat that would at the same time be: 1) consistent with lore and won't ruin the universe in the meta sense; 2) would be at least on a Reaper level of urgency. I would applaud the writer who will manage to salvage the franchise after ME3 and give it's truly great universe another interesting challenge, but I don't really see it as possible.

[AlanC9]

Oransel wrote...

Well, the problem is that Bioware went with the highest level of villain threat right from the first hour of the game. That's the important part of the ME appeal with stakes and odds set as high as galactic extermination. Problem is that you can't continue after highest possible threat is beaten. That's how human mind works in terms of storytelling. You can't really downgrade your stories (you can make highest threat more distant, but you still have to make it much real like in ME 2) because people will subconsciously believe that it will never live up to what was before. 

Ever play Wing Commander? Kinda similar to ME in a lot of respects. After the humans win the Kilrathi War in WC3, WC4 is about an internal political threat rather than yet another extermination-level threat. 

OK, WC:P then went to yet another invading galactic whatsis, but that had more to do with creative bankruptcy than the unacceptability of WC4.

[Mcfly616]

Yeah, we don't need another quest to save the entire galaxy from extinction. No need for the next protagonist to live up to Shepard. No need for the next villain to be anything like the Reapers.

They just need to be different. Hell, the best reviewed novels in Alastair Reynolds popular Revelation Space series aren't even the Inhibitor Trilogy. They're the standalone narratives of political corruption and corporate conspiracy. And they're set in the same fictional universe.

Just set the next game within the current timeline (2150-2183) with a more personal narrative. Every person has a story to tell, and there's trillions of people that have lived over that time span. Infinite potential.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 31 janvier 2014 - 11:17 .

[AtlasMickey]

The inevitability of Synthesis is already canon. Refuse is Synthesis delayed exactly one cycle. Destroy and Control are Synthesis delayed in a more interesting manner. I do not mind "alternate universe" canons that occur after Destroy or Control.

In a Destroy universe there would be individuals attempting to build AI again and probably succeeding in short order. Synthetics may have been destroyed, but not the knowledge and materials used to create them. That's why Destroy is a "stupid" ending in the sense that it requires the lowest intelligence, the lowest resources, etc.

A Control universe would be very interesting. TechnoShepard's monopoly over AI would provoke others, wouldn't it? Even if TechnoShepard were eminently peaceful and generous with her resources, there might be people who simply don't like having a robot overlord, because in order for Shep to maintain her control over AI, she would have to enforce against the creation of AI without her will, which would mean controlling access to knowledge about creating AI, which could potentially mean controlling access to other necessary things that aren't necessarily related to AI, but could be. TechnoShep's status as overlord would not be stable. It could be interesting to have a game that explores both the side of the organic uprising and Shepard's perspective in quelling it.

Conflict can occur after Synthesis. It's just conflict of a more enlightened kind. After all Synthesis is not the end of individuality. It's not Borg-ification (that's basically Control). Examples of conflict after Synthesis could include intergalactic exploration, intragalactic resource management, scientific trial and error, archaeology, games, competitive sport, and more. Synthesis is not omnipotence.

I find the most natural conflict for a sequel after Synthesis to involve an attempt to recreate Shepard and exploring the reasons why it cannot initially be done. It might be told from the perspective of Liara. She might be having dreams about Shepard, at first thinking it is just her mind, but then gradually thinking there might be more to it. Perhaps she's acquiring info about Shepard through the Synthesis framework. She continues her scientific explorations, some of which may be controversial.

Once again Synthesis does not imply a lack of conflict. It does not mean that there won't be Synthesized beings who wish to be left alone and who would attack if bothered. It just means that they share a common framework upon which to establish a morality that facilitates their coexistence, along with an evolution that is guided by intelligence rather than blind natural selection. Morality is still capable of being violated. Like any civilization, Synthesis will have its disruptive elements.

I try not to think too much about some Synthesis rogues discovering how to travel to alternate universes.

Modifié par AtlasMickey, 01 février 2014 - 05:33 .

[thehomeworld]

Destroy or the FU ending would both be the best choices for a cannon if there would be one if BW wanted the more traditional hero tale they'd go with destroy as the narrative leads in that direction in 98% of all dialogue spoken. but if they wanted to do the FU ending it would work for a no shep + crew story perspective.

[laudable11]

I think one of these will happen: They will canonize destroy or the next Mass Effect game will be a total reboot of the series. I wouldn't mind a reboot. With those endings i would prefer it. 

Modifié par laudable11, 03 février 2014 - 07:21 .

[SilJeff]

With a couple of sentences, Control can be made canon alongside Destroy (just say reapers will protect the galaxy from darkspace and the geth [like on of control's slides says] go with the reapers. Boom, control is the same as destroy, as in, they can let you "import" your ending choice. Synthesis would require a lot more work to fit though

[Lord Watson]

I disagree that the plot has to compete in scale or is less. I'd be happy with a very well written political intrigue story.

Modifié par Lord Watson, 03 février 2014 - 07:35 .

[Bfler]

Lord Watson wrote...
I'd be happy with a very well written political intrigue story.

I would die of boredom.

[SwobyJ]

Bfler wrote...

Lord Watson wrote...
I'd be happy with a very well written political intrigue story.

I would die of boredom.

There will always be shooting and explosions. Always. And kickassness.

Just the degree of focus on it and the manner in which they happen may be changed.

[Gkonone]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

RETCONS!!!

They will happen.

There will be retcons!!!





Prepare yourself.... For their arrival.

They will happen when the next ME game is a failure and they decide to bring Shepard back to life
I wouldn't be surprised if that happened actually.

Modifié par Gkonone, 04 février 2014 - 01:57 .

[BurningBlood]

Let's assume for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that a sequel will be made which attempts to be ambivalent (or at least noncommittal) regarding Shepard's final choice in ME3. What would this require? As I see it, only three things are necessary:
1) no reapers (in case Destroy was chosen);
2) no perfect galactic utopia (in case anything other than Synthesis was chosen - and really, why would we want to play a game where there's no conflict anyway);
3) enough time has passed to effectively erase any other more minor differences.

Could these all be fulfilled?

3) is the easiest, just set it ~1000 years in the future (just short enough to allow a cameo by a very aged Liara or Grunt). Also, this way Shepard is long dead, high-EMS destroy or not.
2) could be done by downplaying the benefits of Synthesis. Yes, synthesis was a huge leap forward; but it didn't solve all conflict, just the organic/synthetic conflict; sure it eliminated a lot of health problems (for example), but so have sanitation, vaccination, and antibiotics. Alternatively, these same advances were provided by the Controlled reapers, or salvaged from the Destroyed reapers, and in the ensuing 1000 years all three possible universes have eventually reached a similar point of development despite the initial advantage provided by Synthesis (and to a lesser extent Control).
1) Remember how Sovereign explained that the galactic civilizations developed very similarly cycle after cycle, because they all made themselves dependent on the tech that the Reapers left behind for that very purpose? Remember Legion saying that the True Geth rejected the Reapers' overtures because they wanted to determine their own future, and because taking the Reapers' handouts would stunt their own development as a people? Shepard-Catalyst would remember that. Post-Synthesis Catalyst would finally understand it. Therefore, after helping the galaxy rebuild (and possibly passing along a few final bits of wisdom/lore/tech from cycles past) the Controlled/Synthesized Reapers would depart from our galaxy, to explore beyond the rim and allow the younger races to develop along paths of their own choosing.

There are still some issues to be worked out here (like how the Destroy universe was able to catch up to a Synthesis universe - maybe Synthesis really is inevitable, but in the Destroy universe synthesis occurs 800 years later), but it's not impossible to reconcile all three outcomes.

Finally, I'm assuming that Refuse didn't happen. To reconcile that one as well we'd have to go all the way into the next cycle. Still do-able, just less satisfying, at least to me.

Modifié par BurningBlood, 04 février 2014 - 02:58 .

[Massa FX]

Gkonone wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

RETCONS!!!

They will happen.

There will be retcons!!!

Prepare yourself.... For their arrival.

They will happen when if  the next ME game is a failure and they decide to bring Shepard back to life
I wouldn't be surprised if that happened actually.

Yup

Modifié par Massa FX, 04 février 2014 - 07:56 .

[spinachdiaper]

Ever since the first squeaks about the next ME I have shifted into the assumption that Destroy is going to be canon along with every alien extinction option forced in as well.This would make the next ME semi famliar while kind of rebooting in the sequel so that they would superimpose a simple background to avoid having to import too many variables.

Modifié par spinachdiaper, 04 février 2014 - 11:00 .

[Ultim Asari]

I am hoping strongly for a sequel. I see prequels as what companies do when they are afraid of backlash they might get from the fan base. Yes, they keep them safe, but in the end are uninteresting. Only by taking a leap and making a sequel can they move forward.

It's too soon for a reboot of the series, maybe in 20 years.