37 réponses à ce sujet

[Barquiel]

I really grew attached to my Shepard and the crew, but I guess their story is done. I'm fine with a new protagonist (ideally I'd love to have selectable races) and a new story without the reapers and Cerberus. I think the Mass Effect universe is big enough for new heroes, and Shepard definitely deserves a rest (...and a lot of little blue children). But who knows, maybe they'll bring Shep back if ME4 flops.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Destroy may not be an affirmation of neo-luddism, but it's an unfortunate theme attached to it, in more ways than one.

 

It's like Control and galactic "supervision:" it may not be true to the extreme many think, but it's a theme with that ending you can't really get away from.

 

At least, not unless you retcon the way it's been presented to us by ME3.

[Iakus]

Shepard can try to stop it?

Shepard can try to warn the colony.  "Stop it" may be too strong a term.  But he can try to save the colony's inhabitants.

[Massa FX]

Whatever Bioware does with MEU in the future is out of our control. No amount of predictions or suggestions from the community matters. They are the creators, not us.

 

Personally... I could play Shepard adventures until I'm old, white haired and toothless. But that's just me. Why? Because it's how I roll when I'm entertained. ME entertains me.

 

Other things I love and was entertained by:

 

Breaking Bad - Most shocking and entertaining TV fun I've had. It ended fittingly well. I was ready for it to end.

BSG 1978 -  I was just a kid and cried uncontrollably about the cancellation. Still butt hurt about it.

The Walking Dead - May it never get dull

Game of Thrones - Can April 2014 arrive sooner?

J.D. Robb books - I love Roarke.. and ok, Eve too. Keep writing Nora Roberts.

The Sims franchise - I hate it. Loathe it. But buy nearly every product released. Why? I don't really understand why.

Dragon Age - I buy everything. Except Morrigan stuff. I hate her.

SWTOR - I'm a legacy sub. ... I love the Star Wars Universe even if the game gets to be a grind, I still load it up and play.

 

Loads of other things entertain me. My favorite entertainment? Roleplaying FemShep. Something I hope to do again someday in the future, ME5 or 6, 7, 8? <shrug>

[MrMrPendragon]

1. No. I don't want Shepard in the next game, but I do however, want maybe a reference to what he did in the trilogy.

I want the next Mass Effect game to exist in the same universe, not a parallel universe or a billion years into the distant future that being in the smae universe doesn't even matter. The biggest time skip I would be comfortable with is 100-150 years, where everything is fine, but a few loose ends still exist.

Characters from the original trilogy don't have to show up, but ME4 needs to establish that these guys existed or still exist, as well as establish their fates after the ending of ME3 "what happened to ____" .


2. I want a new story. Hell, I want a new trilogy -- 4, 5, 6 -- But when I say "new" I don't mean something that's completely unrelated to ME1,2,3. I want it to be a direct sequel to ME3, but with a new protagonist and a new set of supporting characters we can learn to love, or hate.

Like you said, none of us want a game that's "Mass Effect" only in label. We want the Mass Effect universe we saw in the trilogy, and all the goodies and even the crap, that comes along with that universe.



Side note:
Bioware really screwed itself when it decided to go on the route it took for the ending. It just made it even harder to stick to the same universe and at the same time build a new story (ME4) because that story is going to be made with the ME3 ending as its base. Plus the whole breath scene was totally fan service as it really didn't make any sense for Shepard to be alive, even though I wanted him to be alive and well and eventually head off towards the sunset with his LI.

[LeandroBraz]

 

Control means that the galaxy has gained a super-police, reapers under control of shepard would just steamroll anyone trying to do anything bad. No one would be able to do anything that shepard would not want. 

 

 

You`re assuming that the reapers would stay in the galaxy, coexisting with us. Shepard can decide that it`s better not to interfere anymore after helping the galaxy to rebuild, then get the Reapers back to dark space, like a god that create a world then vanish to let his creation thrive by themselves. I like this possibility, mostly if the Reapers just vanish without explanation, they would be left as a mystery, with religions, theories and legends emerging around them. This way synthetics are preserved, the galaxy rebuild quicker (with controlled reapers help) and they might even use the reapers again in a future sequence (Mass effect 7 =D we will get there). I mean, there`s no reason to assume that the reapers would stay around just because they still alive, there`s no reason to discard control because of that. 

 

You`re assuming too that the next game will be about a threat to the galaxy. If the plot is something more personal, then the reapers wouldn`t get involved, even if they still in the galaxy. I hope Bioware will do something more personal, a character in a personal quest, without the fate of the galaxy in our hands. Something in that scale wouldn`t even get the reapers attention. Off course, I still prefer them to vanish, I think it create a lot of possibilities with people speculating about them. 

[JasonShepard]

I'd prefer someone new. I picked Control and decided for myself what happened next. My Shepard's story is over, and I'm happy with how it closed.

 

To take the OP's parallel of Halo and the Chief - I personally found Halo 4 to be one of the weakest in the series. ODST and Reach are among my favourites. I liked the difference of perspective that they offered. And, similarly, I'd like to see the Mass Effect Universe through a new set of eyes.

 

And from what I've heard, DA2's problem wasn't that it had a new protagonist. Hawke was fairly well recieved - repeating dungeons, a plot that felt somewhat rushed, and a combat system that (by default) required you to mash A were the problems. (That's all second hand knowledge though - I've yet to play DA2 for myself.)

[LeandroBraz]

About Shepard, Mass Effect universe is bigger than Shepard. I think it`s important that Bioware set it now, make it clear that ME isn`t about one character or a group of character, it`s about a whole galaxy. Unlike what you are saying, this create more possibilities. If we stick with Shepard, we need to stick with this military background, with this human perspective. If we can have any protagonist, then we can expand to anything and there`s a lot to expand at. We might control a mercenary, a SB operative, another species. The game might happen 30 years or 200 years after ME3, we don`t need to hold it to a single character lifespan. 

 

 One of the things that ME3 lacked compared to ME1 and ME2 is that we already know most of the squad, so the dialogues is more about what is happening (the Reaper war) than that sensation of discovery of previous games. With a whole new group of characters this discovery factor is back to the dialogues. They aren`t old friends, they are new people we are meeting. This bring new possibilities as well.

 

 About examples of another franchises, Assassin`s Creed doesn`t have one specific protagonist and it work wonderfully. Just take AC4 as an example, it`s a wildly different character and setting than which we saw in previous games, which bring a new life to the franchise. Plus, they can set the game in any century they wan`t, they don`t have to stick to anything, which bring a incredible amount of possibilities to the franchise (that`s what keep me playing AC).

 

 Changing the protagonist is the best thing Bioware can do to assure that the franchise will live on. It was cool to meet all this wonderful characters, but as we learn with TV shows, doesn`t matter how good a group of characters are, there`s a saturation point where things start to be too repetitive. We already know everything about the characters, we already saw they in every kind of situations, nothing is new anymore, rarely something really thrilling happen. So let the fan sentimentalism aside and let explore new things, meet new people. Shepard`s story was awesome but it`s done. 

[Shadow Shep]

While I personally like the high EMS destroy ending, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to see Shepard in the next game. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that they've flat out said they are done with Shepard. One thing though, as far as making certain endings canon, I could see Bioware doing that. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea, but one example of them doing it already is if your Shep died at the end of ME2.

[Tuscar]

If they could retcon the clusterf^%$ that is the end of ME3, and find some way to give an actually satisfying ending to the game and a fulfilling ending to Shepard's story, I have no problem with them moving on from Shepard.

 

If you are going to set ME 4 in the immediate aftermath, then ignoring Shepard and the other crew members is a mistake. If you are going far into the future, then why bother calling it Mass Effect?

 

Not to compare ME to Star Wars, butthe reason most people hate the prequels is because George Lucas didn't treat people's love for the characters with the proper respect. However, even after the prequels, we are getting Star Wars episode 7 due to the beloved memories of the original trilogy, and the fondness for the characters of Han, Luke, Leia, Chewie, Lando, etc. JJ Abrams realized that without a proper send-off to the original characters many fans will not accept the new movies, which is why episode 7 is reportedly focusing on Han, Luke, and Leia before passing the torch forward, i.e. treating the fans with respect to their investment in the story. 

 

ME 4 seems to be trying to do the worst thing possible for their universe, they are not providing a validating sense of closure to the story that created their massive fanbase. That fanbase is invested in Shepard and the crew. By ignoring Shepard and not giving the character a proper send-off they are essentially throwing away the 10 years of good will that fans built up with the franchise.

[wright1978]

Destroy is my preferred thematic ending whilst still finding the whole endings an utter trainwreck and the high ems Shep lives easter egg a bad joke.

I'm not a fan of Shep returning though as i'd like him/her's futures left with players as i really don't feel they'd be able to do just to myriad of Sheps and the characters they hold dear. They didn't even manage to make it work for the final part of the trilogy so how could they do so in a further installment.

 

A new character set long after Sheps time and with a 'next generation' cast of characters seems the best scenario imo. Not that i'm very optimistic or that the wounds of me3 have healed personally though.

[LeandroBraz]

If they could retcon the clusterf^%$ that is the end of ME3, and find some way to give an actually satisfying ending to the game and a fulfilling ending to Shepard's story, I have no problem with them moving on from Shepard.

 

If you are going to set ME 4 in the immediate aftermath, then ignoring Shepard and the other crew members is a mistake. If you are going far into the future, then why bother calling it Mass Effect?

 

Not to compare ME to Star Wars, butthe reason most people hate the prequels is because George Lucas didn't treat people's love for the characters with the proper respect. However, even after the prequels, we are getting Star Wars episode 7 due to the beloved memories of the original trilogy, and the fondness for the characters of Han, Luke, Leia, Chewie, Lando, etc. JJ Abrams realized that without a proper send-off to the original characters many fans will not accept the new movies, which is why episode 7 is reportedly focusing on Han, Luke, and Leia before passing the torch forward, i.e. treating the fans with respect to their investment in the story. 

 

ME 4 seems to be trying to do the worst thing possible for their universe, they are not providing a validating sense of closure to the story that created their massive fanbase. That fanbase is invested in Shepard and the crew. By ignoring Shepard and not giving the character a proper send-off they are essentially throwing away the 10 years of good will that fans built up with the franchise.

 

Why it wouldn't be Mass Effect if they set it in the future? It's the same galaxy, with the same species, same lore, same technology, same gameplay mechanics, same visual style. IT'S Mass Effect! ME universe is bigger than Shepard and his crew.

 

 The problem with Star Wars prequels is that the characters doesn't have the same charisma, George Lucas focused more in visual effects than in characters. It isn't because it don't have that specific characters from the first trilogy. ME4 doesn't need to have the same characters of the trilogy to be good, it need to have good characters, which Bioware is really good at.

 

 I honestly love Mass Effect for the universe. I love Tali, for example, but I love the Quarian even more. It doesn't make all this difference for me if Tali will be there, all I need is more story about the Quarian and good characters to drive it, Tali would be merely a plus, not a must.

 

 About closure, I'm done with Shepard. ME3 ending wasn't perfect but I got that sense of closure, it's over. Bioware can't leave the franchise stuck around Shepard because they failed to deliver the conclusion that they sold to us, they need to move on with the franchise.

[Farangbaa]

Cyborg Shepard for ME4 Final Boss