71 réponses à ce sujet

[Madcat 124]

I posted this elsewhere, but im hoping we can have a discussion about this here.

I personally don't think so.

Firstly, anything that happens before the end of the trilogy will just not be exciting or suspenseful, namely because we already know the general outcome of the galaxy. To me, at least, there's nothing fun or engaging in knowing how this story will conclude (Probably one of the reasons I disliked Halo Reach)

Second, During the time of the trilogy, nothing noteworthy (at least in regards to the Reaper threat) happens that, I feel, would warrant making more games about. Any story would just mostly be overshadowed by the whole Reaper ordeal; you'd probably hear about Shepard's exploits and remember that there are bigger things in the galaxy. Besides, it would kind of seem like a downgrade, going from saving the galaxy to... not doing that.

Third, everything would be set in stone. Part of the appeal of Mass Effect to me is making changes effect the world around me. If it was a prequel we wouldnt have any of the big decisions such as (spoilers) curing the geophage, making peace between Quarians and Geth, or saving the council (even though it didnt really matter in the end).

Lastly, I really want to see how the Galaxy has been effected by the whole Reaper thing. I'd like to see a new threat, new race relations, new technology... New Story... stuff like that...

I just feel as if there would be no real reason to want to play a prequel or side story. I see a lot of complaints that they dont want Bioware to pick a canon ending, but when you think about it, they dont need to.  (some spoilers again)  

The destroy ending is the easiest ending to make a sequel from. The reapers are destroyed amd the galaxy is left to rebuild. While Shepard united the galaxy against a common threat, old hatreds wont die so easily. 

The control ending can be a bit trickier. The way I see it, the reapers can just mysteriously disappear one day creating a new mystery to discover and leave the galaxy to fend for itself 

The synthesis ending. Well, this is the only ending there cant be a sequel for. But why would you want one. It is essentially just galactic peace. Theres no more conflict, so the players who picked this would just have their series end with ME 3.

Modifié par Madcat 124, 22 février 2014 - 03:33 .

[Sanunes]

No matter what BioWare does people are going to have differing opinions on what they want to see, heck I am pretty sure there are going to be a group of people that will be angry the game will be only available on Origin for the PC version or the status of Shepard.

My expectations no matter what BioWare does its going to be at least an enjoyable game for me and that is all I really want no matter how they decide to treat the previous games.

[RangerSG]

I've no desire to play a 'side story' during the Reaper War. There's no way that kind of character can be anything but a bit player in the end. All the major elements of Galactic Politics are filled by ME 1-3 characters already. So the only way to fix that is retcons. Not interesting.

And for me, the only prequel I'd want to see would be the Rachni Wars and Krogan Rebellions. That's the one period of Galactic history that's actually interesting, pre-Reaper War. Problem: No humans. And I doubt EA will green light a game without humanity. There's not enough conflict in the "First Contact War" to sustain a game. So while maybe an open-galaxy sandbox in this period would be interesting. A story-driven one would not.

And the prohibiting factor on an open world game is the cost of voice acting.

Modifié par RangerSG, 22 février 2014 - 04:23 .

[wickerman4]

Sanunes wrote...

No matter what BioWare does people are going to have differing opinions on what they want to see, heck I am pretty sure there are going to be a group of people that will be angry the game will be only available on Origin for the PC version or the status of Shepard.

My expectations no matter what BioWare does its going to be at least an enjoyable game for me and that is all I really want no matter how they decide to treat the previous games.

I agree.

it seems with all the bits and bobs of info being talked about, the time setting is a prequel.

this has EA all over it. minimum input to cash in on the success of the trilogy = more profits.

the potential for story and plot for a sequel is almost endless and would have been very interesting and exciting. the only sticking point would be agreeing on an ending from ME3 to run with. seeing as shepherds goal throughout ME trilogy is to destroy the reapers, that would seem like the most logical future setting for me.

set in the future with the races repairing the ME gates and establishing contact again, while developing new political, social, economic and military goals/agendas would yield an amazing ME4. but sadly milking fans to maximise profits is the priority.
 
only when all the blood has been drained from the dead horse, with fans starting to walk away ME, will EA authorise bioware to release a sequel because it'll be more profitable to do so.

I hate moaning and being cynical (especially when i'll but ME4 at some point because I love ME) but EA has a clear history in this department.

[NuclearPowers]

No matter what BioWare does, people will be unhappy. It's just going to happen. Some people don't want to give up Shepard, some people will want to. Some people just don't care. Some people may not have even liked Mass Effect 2 and 3, and only like the first. There will always be a steady flow of likes and dislikes with game series. 

As for a prequel, there are some out there that are worth wild to see.. But, unlike other games, we know what happens. The Contact War: humans surrender. Krogan Rebellion ends in the genophage. Protheans lose to the reapers. It's just not worth a game, it's like reading a spoiler in a book by mistake. You know what happens, and you're expecting it. 

A side story would be worthless. Really, it'd be overshadowed. Lord and Savior Shepard saving the world while you're a little soldier, sitting about, twiddling their thumbs. I can't think of a possible interesting story line for this without giving up the shooter aspect of Mass Effect.

A sequel would still be difficult. Three different stories to juggle, that's why they (spoiler) let Shepard live in the ending of destroy in my opinion. If they fail, they can bring him back easily and say, "Oh. He took a breath. Here's your favorite protagonist and his mates back!" 

I simply think the endings wrote them in a corner, a sequel COULD have been a great idea, but they messed it up. And picking a canon ending would be the worst idea yet. 

Another thing in my mind is they're writing is simply incompetent. If I want to watch a Michael Bay movie, I would. You don't need buildings falling and explosives to make a good game. The whole reason anyone played Mass Effect was for getting to know the characters, and they basically took it away in 3. Now it's just auto-dialogue and explosions, not worth a game. 

Oh, and I just remembered one other. They basically ruined the paragon/renegade system. If you're renegade, their response is, "Shame on you!". Another aspect of Mass Effect, ruined. Unless they fix all of this, a sequel and a prequel will still fail in my eyes. Even the story, will probably fail. 

Modifié par NuclearPowers, 22 février 2014 - 06:03 .

[DWH1982]

I think they can make a prequel or a sidestory that is interesting, but I'd prefer to have something that moves the universe forward.

If they do a prequel, I wonder how they'll handle the thermal clip issue.

[JamesFaith]

First point - this one is purely subjective. There are people with urge to constantly compare prequel with original and there are those who simply play game in their popular known world, especially when prequel is only loose and not direct.

I would compare it to historical movies, f.e. Save private Ryan. You know Germans would be defeated at the end of the war but how much it really influenced this particular story? When end of whole war was set in stone, real source of thrill were uncertain fates of main heroes and current local conflict.


Second point - rather smaller threat then futile try for "new Reapers". I really don't need to be savior of universe in every game, smaller scale story with good old revenge motivation or spy games sounds much better to me.


Third point - Again, why made only pan-galactic choices with eternal consequences? You can easily make big choice of local character or short termed ones which would influence only this new, lets say, self contained trilogy.

F.e. you can be spy and compromise/secretly support one of candidates for chief position in Batarian secret service. In next game you could have profit from it but in Shepard trilogy you never became in contact with batarian secret agents so there is no risk of retcon in both cases.

Last point - you want to see how galaxy would look like after Reaper war? Well I personally want to see more how it looked before war. I want to visit Earth, Palaven, Thessia, Katje or Dekkuna before Reapers war destroyed them. I want closer look on Hanar, Elcor and Drells societies before Reapers irreversibly change them.

See, there are many reason why prequel can be good. Main problem is that many fans are condemning it without knowing anything about it just because :

a) They had bad experience with another prequels and dislikes them all
They want sequel and prequel goes directly against their personal wishes
c) They created their own vision of awful prequel and using it as paragon for all possible prequels ideas and proof of "prequel have to bad".

[katamuro]

The big part about the prequel or midquel would be the fact that its literally the last thing they did in ME universe was to put a huge question mark on its future. Without resolving the question mark the whole franchise could cool off so that the people will no longer be interested in buying it at the start or preordering it. And considering how many games today are measured by their sales in the first few weeks that could be fatal. I want to see the ME universe, what happens next in it not what has already happened.

[SwobyJ]

About 90% sure it'll at least effectively be a sequel.

Maybe not literally, but, uh, my interpretation of things is *weird*.

[RangerSG]

NuclearPowers wrote...

No matter what BioWare does, people will be unhappy. It's just going to happen. Some people don't want to give up Shepard, some people will want to. Some people just don't care. Some people may not have even liked Mass Effect 2 and 3, and only like the first. There will always be a steady flow of likes and dislikes with game series. 

As for a prequel, there are some out there that are worth wild to see.. But, unlike other games, we know what happens. The Contact War: humans surrender. Krogan Rebellion ends in the genophage. Protheans lose to the reapers. It's just not worth a game, it's like reading a spoiler in a book by mistake. You know what happens, and you're expecting it. 

A side story would be worthless. Really, it'd be overshadowed. Lord and Savior Shepard saving the world while you're a little soldier, sitting about, twiddling their thumbs. I can't think of a possible interesting story line for this without giving up the shooter aspect of Mass Effect.

A sequel would still be difficult. Three different stories to juggle, that's why they (spoiler) let Shepard live in the ending of destroy in my opinion. If they fail, they can bring him back easily and say, "Oh. He took a breath. Here's your favorite protagonist and his mates back!" 

I simply think the endings wrote them in a corner, a sequel COULD have been a great idea, but they messed it up. And picking a canon ending would be the worst idea yet. 

Another thing in my mind is they're writing is simply incompetent. If I want to watch a Michael Bay movie, I would. You don't need buildings falling and explosives to make a good game. The whole reason anyone played Mass Effect was for getting to know the characters, and they basically took it away in 3. Now it's just auto-dialogue and explosions, not worth a game. 

Oh, and I just remembered one other. They basically ruined the paragon/renegade system. If you're renegade, their response is, "Shame on you!". Another aspect of Mass Effect, ruined. Unless they fix all of this, a sequel and a prequel will still fail in my eyes. Even the story, will probably fail. 

Actually, the humans evicted the Turians from Shianxi in a counterattack a month after Williams' surrender. The Council negotiated a cease fire after. So technically, it's a draw, not a 'surrender.'

[DextroDNA]

DWH1982 wrote...

I think they can make a prequel or a sidestory that is interesting, but I'd prefer to have something that moves the universe forward.

If they do a prequel, I wonder how they'll handle the thermal clip issue.

Simple fact, they can't. If there's going to be a prequel (I really hope not), then we'll have to go back to the old cooling system.

That, or play as Geth.

[SwobyJ]

I think cooling will be back.

[katamuro]

Lets agree on one thing at least, no matter how well done a prequel would be it still is going to be a huge letdown if it happens. .

[Barkbiten]

katamuro wrote...

Lets agree on one thing at least, no matter how well done a prequel would be it still is going to be a huge letdown if it happens. .

Yep.

[RangerSG]

Barkbiten wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Lets agree on one thing at least, no matter how well done a prequel would be it still is going to be a huge letdown if it happens. .

Yep.

Unless it's a Wayback prequel (Rachni Wars/Krogan Uprising) yes. There's enough distance in time there for 'fudge factor' to allow things to appear different from the 'history' we know.

But since everyone seems to agree no chance at a game that doesn't have humans in it, I doubt this is an issue. So yes.

[JamesFaith]

katamuro wrote...

Lets agree on one thing at least, no matter how well done a prequel would be it still is going to be a huge letdown if it happens. .

Nope, I would hardly call my preferred setting as letdown. 

[78stonewobble]

Madcat 124 wrote...
1: Firstly, anything that happens before the end of the trilogy will just not be exciting or suspenseful, namely because we already know the general outcome of the galaxy. To me, at least, there's nothing fun or engaging in knowing how this story will conclude (Probably one of the reasons I disliked Halo Reach)

2: Second, During the time of the trilogy, nothing noteworthy (at least in regards to the Reaper threat) happens that, I feel, would warrant making more games about. Any story would just mostly be overshadowed by the whole Reaper ordeal; you'd probably hear about Shepard's exploits and remember that there are bigger things in the galaxy. Besides, it would kind of seem like a downgrade, going from saving the galaxy to... not doing that.

3: Third, everything would be set in stone. Part of the appeal of Mass Effect to me is making changes effect the world around me. If it was a prequel we wouldnt have any of the big decisions such as (spoilers) curing the geophage, making peace between Quarians and Geth, or saving the council (even though it didnt really matter in the end).

4: Lastly, I really want to see how the Galaxy has been effected by the whole Reaper thing. I'd like to see a new threat, new race relations, new technology... New Story... stuff like that...

I just feel as if there would be no real reason to want to play a prequel or side story. I see a lot of complaints that they dont want Bioware to pick a canon ending, but when you think about it, they dont need to.  (some spoilers again)  

5: The destroy ending is the easiest ending to make a sequel from. The reapers are destroyed amd the galaxy is left to rebuild. While Shepard united the galaxy against a common threat, old hatreds wont die so easily. 

The control ending can be a bit trickier. The way I see it, the reapers can just mysteriously disappear one day creating a new mystery to discover and leave the galaxy to fend for itself 

The synthesis ending. Well, this is the only ending there cant be a sequel for. But why would you want one. It is essentially just galactic peace. Theres no more conflict, so the players who picked this would just have their series end with ME 3.

1: We all know how life is gonna end. In death... people still play.

Yes, the background overarching story of the reapers is known. There are plenty of other stories in the lore to pick from or invent other stories.

2: I kinda agree here. If the setting is during the reaper war that (and shepards story) will tend to overshadow everything else. I don't mind not saving the galaxy though singlehandedly (allmost) though. Allways felt silly.

3: That is true for certain stories within the mass effect universe. There are plenty of stories that haven't been told or only briefly mentioned and where we don't know what happened or how it happened or why it happened. That leaves room for pretty much everything.

Like the other guys example with saving private ryan... What about the movie Titanic? Sure the ship sinks, but it isn't the story. It's just the background for the story.

Again I don't mind that we don't get to decide matters on a galactic / nationwide level, which would be like only seeing movies featuring the US president. It seems silly anyway to do that as a nobody. If the story is good, it doesn't matter which level it's on.

4: And before the reapers it wasn't affected by the reapers. Again ... Plenty of room for stories.

5: I'd say that they would prefer to not touch anything ending related with 10 foot pole.

Pick destroy: Upset people who picked synthesis or control (if they exist and aren't just trolling) and people generally unsatisfied with the endings.
Pick control: Upset people who picked destroy or synthesis and people generally unsatisfied with the endings.
Pick synthesis: Upset people who picked destroy or control and people generally unsatisfied with the endings.
Pick an entirely new ending: Upset people who liked destroy, control and synthesis.

Sure I wouldn't mind a post me3 ending game either... As long as I get myself a new fix of mass effect.

But I really don't care about where the setting is or on what level... Whether I'll like it depends on 2 things.

Is the gameplay entertaining? Are the stories and the characters interesting and are they told decently.

[katamuro]

Well I can only speak for myself but I think a prequel or a mid-quel would be a huge disappointment. they literally run away from the problems they caused themselves. A prequel be it set in rachni wars, krogan rebellions, first contact war or even in prothean times, hell even if they set it millions of years ago during a previous cycle, we know that at a certain point something happens that eliminates the main threat, the reapers. Going over something else while knowing that reapers are out there would be kinda like solving political intrigue while a huge meteor is crashing on earth. Possibly entertaining but meaningless.

[SwobyJ]

-A game without humans is simply not going to happen.

-At the same time, a pre-ME game with humans might have to involve time travel or something else that's crazy. This *may* happen, but at the risk of angering a ton of players.

-First Contact War was tiny, almost totally Turians and Humans. It would be new side info about and in it that could be the juicy stuff.

-Rachni War was large, and involved Asari, Salarians, Turians (pre-Council joining I think), Krogan, Rachni, and more. Potential for interesting story is very much there, but lack of humans makes it difficult to sell. See: time travel (a term I'm just using for convenience, but anything could be figured out).

-Krogan Rebellions were large, and involved Asari, Salarians, Turians (joining the Council), Krogan, and more. Again, potential for interesting story is very much there, but lack of humans make it tough to sell.

-Asari haven't had much internal or external strife since being spacefaring, but they likely have older conflicts and secrets from when they were pre-spacefaring.

-Turians had their Unification War which likely kept them from being the powerhouse we now know them as. This only involved Turians though, except if we get some new information.

-Anything else would be too minor to count, from this Cycle. Even humanity's history isn't so notable that we could have a whole main title game based on it. They fought Turians, Batarians, beasts, and possibly had tensions between colonies and Earth, but that's it really. Always up for a twist though.

~~~

-In terms of other Cycles before this one, I'm open to that. In particular, I have three concepts I'm open to: Leviathan, Prothian, and entirely new. Still has the problem of no humans. I have my own crazy ideas on how this could/may play out, but I'm going to keep things literal here

-In terms of sidequel, I'm also open to that, and again have my own ideas on how that could play out. At the same time, taking things more literally, it sounds like it would be pretty lame and better for a side-game (like Dragon Age 2 frankly should have been), than a main title one. Open to it, for sure though.

~~~

-Alternate universe depends on what rules you're talking about for it.

-Outright reboot simply isn't going to happen, so I don't put too much thought into it.

-Soft reset of story though (not necessarily 'reboot') is possible, but I'm not sure if I'd enjoy it at all. Mass Effect is a few things to me: Shepard, Normandy, N7, Reapers.
If they call it Mass Effect any more, they'd have to fit in those things somehow, even in altered forms or indirect involvement with the timeline of events.
If they call it Mass Somethingelse, then okay, but I'd still enjoy at least a reference to those 4 things, even if there's no close relation.

~~~

-I cannot see them outright 'canonizing' one ending choice for a sequel. I have my ideas on how they may make all endings form one main canon, while still reflecting our choice in significant ways, and I'm more and more optimistic they'll be trying something like that.
-At the same time, they run the risk of angering those who take the endings for (key word here) *exactly* as shown.

-If they're going for literal, it's still possible, but I'm not sure if it'd be good..
a)Destroy has no Reapers, no Geth, Quarians or no Quarians, Krogan or less Krogan, no EDI (if she matters), and Shepard or no Shepard.
b)Control has Reapers, Geth or no Geth, Quarians or no Quarians, Krogan or less Krogan, EDI, and ReaperShep.
c)Synthesis has GreenReapers, GreenGeth or no Geth, GreenQuarians or no Quarians, GreenKrogan or no Krogan, EDI, and no Shepard.

Again, that's taking a literal view, but looking at this, it seems to be... possible? The biggest issues are:
1)Species states (particularly Geth, Quarian, Krogan, but maybe other minor ones)
2)Reaper states (Green, Present, or Dead-but-maybe-rebuilt?)
3)Shepard state, but end of his story so maybe it doesn't matter? (ReaperShep Paragon, ReaperShep Renegade, Dead, Alive, Dead-but-spread-out, etc)

Technically possible.

Things like the Reapers, these listed Species, Shepard, and the green..eye..skin things... would have to take a significant sideline and/or be diminished in prevalence though.

[DWH1982]

I really hope they avoid time travel.

I guess it's possible to do it right, but it can also become too over used and gimmicky. Like with Star Trek, where, after a certain point, it felt like every other new movie or episode involved time travel in some way.

It's one of the few science fiction tropes that Mass Effect hasn't really touched on, so I do expect them to get around to it at some point. Which is unfortunate, because the lack of time travel in Mass Effect is a plus for me.

[SwobyJ]

I honestly don't want the next game to be about that.

Maybe a few games from now.

But for now, ugh, no. Involve it in some aspects, maybe, in some tangental way, at most.

[Madcat 124]

78stonewobble wrote...

1: We all know how life is gonna end. In death... people still play.

Yes, the background overarching story of the reapers is known. There are plenty of other stories in the lore to pick from or invent other stories.

2: I kinda agree here. If the setting is during the reaper war that (and shepards story) will tend to overshadow everything else. I don't mind not saving the galaxy though singlehandedly (allmost) though. Allways felt silly.

3: That is true for certain stories within the mass effect universe. There are plenty of stories that haven't been told or only briefly mentioned and where we don't know what happened or how it happened or why it happened. That leaves room for pretty much everything.

Like the other guys example with saving private ryan... What about the movie Titanic? Sure the ship sinks, but it isn't the story. It's just the background for the story.

Again I don't mind that we don't get to decide matters on a galactic / nationwide level, which would be like only seeing movies featuring the US president. It seems silly anyway to do that as a nobody. If the story is good, it doesn't matter which level it's on.

4: And before the reapers it wasn't affected by the reapers. Again ... Plenty of room for stories.

5: I'd say that they would prefer to not touch anything ending related with 10 foot pole.

Pick destroy: Upset people who picked synthesis or control (if they exist and aren't just trolling) and people generally unsatisfied with the endings.
Pick control: Upset people who picked destroy or synthesis and people generally unsatisfied with the endings.
Pick synthesis: Upset people who picked destroy or control and people generally unsatisfied with the endings.
Pick an entirely new ending: Upset people who liked destroy, control and synthesis.

Sure I wouldn't mind a post me3 ending game either... As long as I get myself a new fix of mass effect.

But I really don't care about where the setting is or on what level... Whether I'll like it depends on 2 things.

Is the gameplay entertaining? Are the stories and the characters interesting and are they told decently.

1. But we already know our past. We might all die, but what's the point to life if we won't don't move forward? No surprises, no hopes, no dreams.

2. I'll admit, if they do make a sequel and it's on a smaller scale, I wouldn't mind that, as long as we effect something in some way, shape, or form. The thing is, if it's during the same time as Shepard's story, it will seem very meaningless compared to the bigger picture.

3. I think comparing WW2 to a work of science fiction is really silly. WW2 was a real world event, something that happened over 50 years ago. It's history. If it's history for the Mass Effect universe you want, they can easily make a book or movie about it, something that isn't interactive or linked to the main series. 

There is something I wouldn't mind though. Say they make a new trilogy with a new protagonist. If The first game is during Mass Effect 3 and the later ones take place aterward, that can be cool. 

4. Once again, We HAVE seen the universe untouched by the Reapers. You think that's something that would be new, but it's not. Remember, in Mass Effect 1, and some degree in 2, the Reapers were 'just a myth'. To see how the Galaxy rebuilt, new technologies, new political allies and enemies... now that's new.

5. Like I said, the only ending they really can't do is Synthesis, assuming that they make the endings actually matter that is. Control and Destroy can easily be written as one if the game takes place long enough after ME3... Hell, they could even make Synthesis work, say it was a temporary thing while the galaxy rebuilt , though I'll admit, that would be kind of a cop out. But, it doesn't matter, Bioware can do whatever they want. They can introduce a race of sentient bananas in the next game and we'd have to deal with it.

While there is almost no chance of it happening, they could also retcon the ending completely if they want. 

[JamesFaith]

Madcat 124 wrote...

3. I think comparing WW2 to a work of science fiction is really silly. WW2 was a real world event, something that happened over 50 years ago. It's history. If it's history for the Mass Effect universe you want, they can easily make a book or movie about it, something that isn't interactive or linked to the main series. 

Nope, it is accurate comparison.

ME trilogy and WWII have events set in stone which can't be changed, yet there are still plenty good fictive stories set before and during WWII, which are loosely tied to some events, yet these stories are great and not overshadowed by incoming war or its result.

Movies like Where eagles dare or The dirty dozen are working perfectly and would work even in case you transform them in interactive videogame (well, like practically every videogame from WWII not stricktly copying historical events). Reason is that source of thrill isn't known result of historcial events, but fate of characters in this story.

[durasteel]

Nope, it is accurate comparison.

ME trilogy and WWII have events set in stone which can't be changed, yet there are still plenty good fictive stories set before and during WWII, which are loosely tied to some events, yet these stories are great and not overshadowed by incoming war or its result.

Movies like Where eagles dare or The dirty dozen are working perfectly and would work even in case you transform them in interactive videogame (well, like practically every videogame from WWII not stricktly copying historical events). Reason is that source of thrill isn't known result of historcial events, but fate of characters in this story.

A prequel to ME3 isn't just like a story set before World War 2, it's like a story set before WW2 in Stalingrad.

 

The reaper war didn't just knock out a few windows. I have the distinct impression that anyone we didn't specifically see in a slide show has a 50% chance of being dead by the time the glow from the space magic fades.

[katamuro]

the Reaper war is the most devastating war the galaxy had seen in the current cycle. Rachni wars and Krogan rebellions are tiny compared to the Reaper war, the populations of each major species have probably lost at least 30% of the total population, humans at least, batarians have lost way more than that. Whole planets have been harvested, whole continents of them are in ruins. I think somewhere on the galaxy map in ME3 you can find a planet that was glassed by Reapers from orbit because they didn't think it was worth the effort of harvesting. Some other colony blew itself up rather than be harvested. Considering that there were probably a few dozen human colonies I would be surprised that even half of them survived. As for Earth, well we saw, same goes for Palaven. billions dead.