75 respuestas en este tema

[Spartan3222]

So first of all, Shepard doesn't have to die. Second, No "he is a blank character so it is stupid to put him in" bull**it, we have all played the game and that is a type of head canon/opinion to be honest and just because he had very few emotions does not mean much if anything also that was mostly based on how Bioware is not good with scripted faces(as most characters had blank faces a lot of the time but Shepard's was the hardest). Third, the next game is highly likely to be a squel and the Reaper events with Shepard are already evident and no it does not take place in another universe as the poll on twitter is evidence enough. Forth, Shepard is not the star but they never stated he would not be mention in the least nor take a role as a background character like the Illusive Man in ME2 (but not end up evil and junk like that). If you have true reasons then just say them.

 

So now that we cleared that up (since the above are just excuses why you think he shouldn't be in) what do you think about Shepard being in the next ME as like a side character or mentioned if he died. I think I would like to see how things went. Also I think that in most cases of the ending that the Mass Relays were rebuilt within 10 years or so. They had dead Reapers they could use after all.

[OctagonalSquare]

It's not "highly likely" to be a sequel. It can't really be a sequel unless they make one ending canon. Either all synthetic life is dead; the Reapers are being controlled by Shepard and are probably still helping out; every organic is more or less a cyborg and the synthetics understand organics; or there is a perfect new world with completely different species. That's essentially four completely different games.

[themikefest]

He/she won't be in the next game and I wouldn't be surprised if the game makes no reference to the trilogy.

[Spartan3222]

Actually, it seems whenever Casey Hudson Posts anything asking for input for the next ME game, they always respond with Sequels or playable alien characters. When you say that it is more likely to be a prequel I only ever see about 3-4 sequel posts on twitter every 20 posts and most others are wanting sequels. When he asked about what to make the next ME and last time I read it it had a lot of people saying sequel. He literally asked whether to make the next game a sequel or prequel.

"Parsing through your thoughts on the next #ME game. Would you be more interested in a game that takes place before the trilogy, or after?" You also have to read the sites that quote it as when they polled they had a lot of sequel request too.

 

Also if it was a sequel (even if it is hundreds of thousands of years later) Shepard would still be important and need to be mentioned. There is no getting around that and I would seriously doubt that it be in a different universe. They might as well kill the franchise right there because one of the things Bioware is known for is characters and dialouge but wasting a good time to put dialouge that wouldn't do much more then imerse you in the story is something they just don't do (very often at the least) It took me five seconds of looking for a site that asked what you want to see in the next ME and I got a bunch of blog sites that had comments that said sequel. (I don't have time right now to get sources on that but when I get home I will give a source on that)

[Spartan3222]

Also if it was a sequel (just search for it, I found a lot of random sites with comments about sequels within mintues a couple months ago) they would obviously canon one of the endings (in a similar matter as ME2.) and if you destroyed the galaxy then (if it took place in like 5-500 years) you just don't play like ME2 when you killed yourself because the two companions died with you after the Reaper Baby.

[Iakus]

He/she won't be in the next game and I wouldn't be surprised if the game makes no reference to the trilogy.

Keeping my fingers crossed on this

[Karlone123]

While I do want the next game to be a sequel, or one in a AU. It is not highly likely of either of these two being made. Bioware will decide to make a prequel or sequel independently of surveys or polls. But I do hope it is not a prequel.

[SPARTANbornKILA]

I kind of find it hard to believe that they wouldn't reference the trilogy at least once, even if it's in a conversation between two random npcs like on the citadel in the previous games, you would only hear it when you got close enough. But even if there are very few references, it seems like there would most likely be one at the beginning of the game with the opening/intro scene.

[SwobyJ]

I'm sure there will be a good explanation.

[Galbrant]

I already know what happen to my Shepards.... One is dead along with the rest of the galaxy and the other is well dead while everyone else fled the blast. 

[Undead Han]

There is absolutely no reason for Shepard to return. His or her story fully wrapped up in Mass Effect 3, and the only reason some people are asking for the character to return is pure nostalgia. But is nostalgia enough to justify a cameo? Put me in the camp that says no.

 

There also doesn't necessarily have to be an explanation as to why Shepard is not returning. What if the next game is set long after the events of Mass Effect 3, during a period where even High EMS Destroy Shep would have long since died of natural causes? Or what it is set in unexplored regions of the Milky Way, or in a different galaxy? Neither setting would need a lack of Shepard explained.

[Spartan3222]

Hey guys I seriously asked for reasons for Shepard not to return also why not mention the orginal games. Name one good game that takes from the orignal game that doesn't at least mention the events of its past. There are none I can think of and I mean good story. The fact is I looked and found lots of articles on the future of Mass Effect (most saying sequels or have endless comments saying sequels) and there hasn't been one good reason to not include Shepard or mention him. It is like "oh saved the galaxy in a five month period, might as well say he never existed." They have already talked (and almost broke) the new universe theory. Even the Star Child and his Grandfather? talked about Shepard and they were at least 50,000 years in the future because if you don't use the Cruicble they still talk about defeating the Reapers within there cycle. Like unless Shepard either never existed or they ignore fans it has to mention Shepard.

[Iakus]

Hey guys I seriously asked for reasons for Shepard not to return also why not mention the orginal games. Name one good game that takes from the orignal game that doesn't at least mention the events of its past. There are none I can think of and I mean good story. The fact is I looked and found lots of articles on the future of Mass Effect (most saying sequels or have endless comments saying sequels) and there hasn't been one good reason to not include Shepard or mention him. It is like "oh saved the galaxy in a five month period, might as well say he never existed." They have already talked (and almost broke) the new universe theory. Even the Star Child and his Grandfather? talked about Shepard and they were at least 50,000 years in the future because if you don't use the Cruicble they still talk about defeating the Reapers within there cycle. Like unless Shepard either never existed or they ignore fans it has to mention Shepard.

There's actually a very good reason not to bring up Shepard in future games.  The endings and Shepard's fate caused an unprecedented backlash that never really went away.  Mentioning Shepard at all will only reopen old wounds.  It will force people to acknowledge something they'd really rather forget.

 

No it wouldn't make sense form an in-universe standpoint.  But from a PR perspective, it makes total sense.

[Spartan3222]

I can see that may be a good point. Wait does everyone hate Shepard or not like the last game simply because of the let down ending. I know there were lots of issues that could have been solved simply if they though more or if each dev talked to each other better (that is is what it acted like to me, the devs had too many random ideas and never talked about them) and if the ending was more realistically satisfying but the game wasn't bad. Whenever I go on the forums I also seem to only talk to people who either hate/dislike the last game, didn't play the trilogy entirely, or complain about the entire third game mostly because the ending sucked. I know it was bad and confusing and would rather be forgotten (the ending) but why does it seem everyone hates the entire game because of it. It wasn't that bad in its entirety. Like why.

 

Moving on then.

Now bringing up Shepard has a lot of effects of which most would be unavoidable. Many people that played the past games of ME would either say "the ending was so bad I am done with its games" but I haven't seen that very often. The other thing could be "I will try to justify the ending by the next game" but I don't know why people would do that. The last and could be a more common though among most people is that "lets see if it ruins the future/past/franchise/or anything else". I am paraphrasing pretty much but you get the gist. It is common for people to either say this or for no one to agree on this. I would rather see game not say "oh no we screwed up ending so I will try to fix it by saying something that makes no sense or is ridiculously stupid or something like that." I want the game to admit the ending but not pour every second of gameplay/dialog around it nor do I want it to continuously go this happened and then this. Ignoring it won't help either. It would make even less sense to ignore the endings. I just want the game to do what ME3 did with ME2's ending where it occasionally comes up but is not a big deal to the game most of the time.

[Iakus]

I can see that may be a good point. Wait does everyone hate Shepard or not like the last game simply because of the let down ending. I know there were lots of issues that could have been solved simply if they though more or if each dev talked to each other better (that is is what it acted like to me, the devs had too many random ideas and never talked about them) and if the ending was more realistically satisfying but the game wasn't bad. Whenever I go on the forums I also seem to only talk to people who either hate/dislike the last game, didn't play the trilogy entirely, or complain about the entire third game mostly because the ending sucked. I know it was bad and confusing and would rather be forgotten (the ending) but why does it seem everyone hates the entire game because of it. It wasn't that bad in its entirety. Like why.

 

There were other issues besides the ending, sure.  But the ending was by far the biggest sticking point, for many different reasons.  And speaking purely as myself, I am uninterested in the galactic state any of Shepard's choices led to.  I found every single option monstrous

 

 

Moving on then.

Now bringing up Shepard has a lot of effects of which most would be unavoidable. Many people that played the past games of ME would either say "the ending was so bad I am done with its games" but I haven't seen that very often. The other thing could be "I will try to justify the ending by the next game" but I don't know why people would do that. The last and could be a more common though among most people is that "lets see if it ruins the future/past/franchise/or anything else". I am paraphrasing pretty much but you get the gist. It is common for people to either say this or for no one to agree on this. I would rather see game not say "oh no we screwed up ending so I will try to fix it by saying something that makes no sense or is ridiculously stupid or something like that." I want the game to admit the ending but not pour every second of gameplay/dialog around it nor do I want it to continuously go this happened and then this. Ignoring it won't help either. It would make even less sense to ignore the endings. I just want the game to do what ME3 did with ME2's ending where it occasionally comes up but is not a big deal to the game most of the time.

 

 

Even aside from "justifying" the endings, they are simply too divergent.  Far more so than ME2 was to ME1.  Any sequel that acknowledges the endings to ME3 will by necessity trivialize that divergence.  Shepard's choices can lead to the destruction of several different races even before the ending.

[10K]

Personally I think there shouldn't be a sequel nor a prequel. There should be a full remake, or let ME die. Because that series was atrocious by all accounts. I don't think ME is ready to take a step forward. Who's to say they won't do the same as what happened with this series. All that time spent, for nothing. I wish when I walked into blockbuster on Nov. 20 2007 there would have been more copies of Assassin's Creed. Then I wouldn't have witness the failure of this series.   

[Probe Away]

My guess is a sequel with the odd reference to Shepard and the reaper war. There might even be a monument to him/her somewhere. The key for Bioware will be finding a balance between doing justice to Shepard's contribution to the MEU and being vague enough to avoid ramming the ME3 endings down fans' throats. It will be a fine line.

What I don't think they should do is actually show Shepard, alive or in an image. Apart from the fact that Shepard could have virtually any face a player wanted, they will ****** off half their fan base instantly based on the choice of gender alone.

Nope, reference how Shep saved the universe, do his/her legacy justice, but don't go overboard.

Also: sequel all the way. Move on with the series!

[Probe Away]

Personally I think there shouldn't be a sequel nor a prequel. There should be a full remake, or let ME die. Because that series was atrocious by all accounts. I don't think ME is ready to take a step forward. Who's to say they won't do the same as what happened with this series. All that time spent, for nothing. I wish when I walked into blockbuster on Nov. 20 2007 there would have been more copies of Assassin's Creed. Then I wouldn't have witness the failure of this series.

Just... no.

The series was amazing, even with its flaws. And you're perfectly welcome to leave the ME forums if you hated it so much.

[Undead Han]

I can see that may be a good point. Wait does everyone hate Shepard or not like the last game simply because of the let down ending. 

 

I think you're making a false assumption that everyone who doesn't want Shepard to return either hated the character or is against solely because of the way in which Mass Effect 3 concluded.

 

Shepard is one of my favorite video game protagonists of all time, and even if the finale of ME3 had been amazing, I'd still be against him (or her) returning in a sequel. Shepard's story concluded at the end of Mass Effect 3. Once the Reapers are dealt with, there is no reason for Shepard to ever return. Also the series would very quickly get stale if the galaxy it is set in kept needing to drag out the same hero time and time again to save it. In setting that is inhabited by trillions of people, why must there only be one hero?

[KaiserShep]

Yeah, I'm in the camp of not wanting Shepard to return. My Shepard survived, but I'd rather that she be left to the annals of the codex rather than a cheap cameo or as a playable character again. Besides, by the end of the trilogy, everyone knows Shepard. There's not an NPC anywhere that wouldn't recognize this character. Aside from that, it's better to simply let this character move on and disappear once he/she is outside of the player's influence. I just want to get a new protagonist, and get a new origin as some sort of upstart that rises to the occasion to defeat whatever and have new companions.

[Whatnow12012]

I really don't think Bioware needs to explain anything regarding No Shepard in ME 4 or whatever the new game is going to be called to me it will not be called ME 4. So I am just going to call it Mass Effect for now.

 

I think Bioware needs to move away from Shepard, To establish it almost like a Brand new IP being in a new Different Look & Feel yet retaining the Mass Effect Look & Gameplay we all loved.

 

I want something Brand New, New Timeline, No Connections or Explanation about Shepard, I want New Characters, No Reapers, No Geth No Citadel or they could make a Citadel 2 or Something LIKE IT.

 

I don't want to be like another Normandy or being like another Shepard, I want this to my Character, My Story, My Choices, I want it to establish its own Foundation. To be Seperated deal in the Mass Effect Universe.

 

I would mess around with either Alternate Reality to either Space & Time, Something more Menacing than the Reapers, Collectors or Geth.

 

I want a Brand new Look & Feel, I wanna go back to Planet Hoping or Ground Exploration, I want Less Focus on FPS Shooting & more Focus on RPG Elements.

 

& Please, Please Bioware make the new Mass Effect on ALL CONSOLES considering the Article I read all signs point to ALL CONSOLES being like Inquisition. But the Article Said No Chance on WII U.

 

Other than that I just want an awesome Mass Effect game but I don't want it to be changed to radically different where I wouldn't recognize it.

 

Also I bet good money Teaser of Mass Effect will be shown @ E3 In JUNE similar towards Inquisition should be a Quick Tease showing the game & a ETA Release DATE.

 

UNKNOWN IF THEY WILL ANNOUNCE CONSOLES.

 

 

[KaiserShep]

The reapers are so over the top, that anything created to be more menacing than them is going to be super ridiculous. Being a galaxy-consuming force has already been done. An effective antagonist can come on a much smaller scale without losing its impact on the narrative.

[BlueMagitek]

Not knowing what they're doing with ME4, they're certainly capable of making an effective antagonist ranging from a deranged military dictator, to a splintered galaxy/Council, to simply dealing with the last remnants of the Batarians as they attempt to enslave a world and keep their species alive.

[Undead Han]

The reapers are so over the top, that anything created to be more menacing than them is going to be super ridiculous. Being a galaxy-consuming force has already been done. An effective antagonist can come on a much smaller scale without losing its impact on the narrative.

 

I think that is the way to go as well. Considering the last villains were civilization-destroying space Cthulhus, the series would very quickly get ridiculous if every big bad had to pose an even bigger threat to the galaxy. Instead in the next game I think the big bad should be someone more like Saren, except without the character being a puppet/henchman for more powerful enemies. You can have just as interesting a story without the stakes being the end of civilization. 

[SwobyJ]

ME1-3 --> Large invading wave

 

ME:Next --> Several wildfires