163 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

I agree with everyone else in here who says no to reboot. On a side note in relation to people saying new IP instead, Bioware at E3 said they are working on both the next Mass Effect which thankfully is not going to be a reboot but they also said they are working on a new IP at same time so I don't see why people are saying things like want to see new IP when they have said they are making one of those too anyways.

 

I believe the next ME game will be great, I have faith in Bioware to create something amazing even if their last project was not good or not perfect. Let's take for example in the case of DA2 which was at most in my opinion an average or borderline mediocre game in many regards but you only have to look at how amazing DA:I is turning out to be...so to write off a developer or series or even a member of the Bioware staff which some have done here in the case of Casey or Mac then DA:I is proof in itself that just because the previous game was not up to high standards it does not mean the next one will not be even if is being created by the same people who let you down last time.

[Iakus]

I agree with everyone else in here who says no to reboot. On a side note in relation to people saying new IP instead, Bioware at E3 said they are working on both the next Mass Effect which thankfully is not going to be a reboot but they also said they are working on a new IP at same time so I don't see why people are saying things like want to see new IP when they have said they are making one of those too anyways.

 

I believe the next ME game will be great, I have faith in Bioware to create something amazing even if their last project was not good or not perfect. Let's take for example in the case of DA2 which was at most in my opinion an average or borderline mediocre game in many regards but you only have to look at how amazing DA:I is turning out to be...so to write off a developer or series or even a member of the Bioware staff which some have done here in the case of Casey or Mac then DA:I is proof in itself that just because the previous game was not up to high standards it does not mean the next one will not be even if is being created by the same people who let you down last time.

 

DAI will be "proof" when and if it lives up to its claims.

 

Lots of stuff was said about ME3 before release too.  Frankly all the hype about DAI is giving me flashes of deja vu

[Neptin]

I think this will be more like a spin-off situation. But, I loved the games, no need to reboot it. Maybe I misunderstood. 

[Iakus]

I think this will be more like a spin-off situation. But, I loved the games, no need to reboot it. Maybe I misunderstood. 

By reboot, I think most people are saying to create a game set in the Mass Effect universe but with absolutely no references to Shepard, the Reapers, RGB, etc.  A complete standalone game that does not in any way continue from the original trilogy.

[Dragoonlordz]

DAI will be "proof" when and if it lives up to its claims.

 

Lots of stuff was said about ME3 before release too.  Frankly all the hype about DAI is giving me flashes of deja vu

 

There is a vast array of information out there already, players and press have played it and we have seen a lot even if we have not played it. While there is a limitation on how much story people have played or seen I do not consider it the same sort of hype we had with DA2. It's fine if you want to come into it with low expectations and often that is a good thing to do but I think your going to be pleasantly surprised even if go into it with reasonably high expectations from what I have seen so far and heard.

[Dragoonlordz]

By reboot, I think most people are saying to create a game set in the Mass Effect universe but with absolutely no references to Shepard, the Reapers, RGB, etc.  A complete standalone game that does not in any way continue from the original trilogy.

 

Reboot to me means to go back, invalidate or overwrite what came before and not to simply avoid such. I approve of the avoid approach and to some degree I believe that is what they are going to do based on the E3 showing. I do not approve of the invalidate, overwrite or retcon the previous games that I think a reboot would encompass though.

[spirosz]

DAI will be "proof" when and if it lives up to its claims.

 

Lots of stuff was said about ME3 before release too.  Frankly all the hype about DAI is giving me flashes of deja vu

 

Every game by every developer gets "hype".  It's your job as a consumer to have a realistic expectation .  

[Iakus]

There is a vast array of information out there already, players and press have played it and we have seen a lot even if we have not played it. While there is a limitation on how much story people have played or seen I do not consider it the same sort of hype we had with DA2. It's fine if you want to come into it with low expectations and often that is a good thing to do but I think your going to be pleasantly surprised even if go into it with reasonably high expectations from what I have seen so far and heard.

But I am not comparing the hype to DA2.  I'm comparing the hype to ME3.

 

We saw very similar hype for ME3 that we are now seeing for DAI.  

[Iakus]

Reboot to me means to go back, invalidate or overwrite what came before and not to simply avoid such. I approve of the avoid approach and to some degree I believe that is what they are going to do based on the E3 showing. I do not approve of the invalidate, overwrite or retcon the previous games that I think a reboot would encompass though.

 

The "avoid" approach doesn't really have a term that I am aware of.  Which is probably why it's being lumped in with "reboot"

[Sanunes]

By reboot, I think most people are saying to create a game set in the Mass Effect universe but with absolutely no references to Shepard, the Reapers, RGB, etc.  A complete standalone game that does not in any way continue from the original trilogy.

 

When I hear reboot, I will always think of "ignore what happened before" its like when a movie reboots, they start with a new origin story with the same characters and if anyone died in the past they are back in the action because it never happened.

[PalatineOne]

It never needed a "reboot". All stories follow a past. If he dreams then the end will be comming soon. Somone must be the future of the Hero. An offspring that grows during the dreaming process to fight the real enemy may be good. Of Corse, if your choices did not include Adoption in certian decisions, that path may be a problem.

[PalatineOne]

The AI at the end could have long ago seen the Ethical and Moral issues when it 1st carried out its plan creating the Reapers. There is an Ethical and Moral premise to the AIs solution (dry and unconcerned with life as it, the AI has never experienced life as we know it). The AI also (at the end of Mass 3) obviously defines itself as a child (hmm, is the AI still considering itself an infant in the ever expanding Universe or is the AI taking shape of the child of Sheppard’s past, which past?). The AI has chosen a human form, curious as it has seen millions of life forms over the Reaper Harvesting and still defines itself as human at the end, why? It is an AI and any life form that could have made it the AI surely could speak its language. Still humans evolve with the rest and is the form it takes (lucky for us or a form of thinking the AI prefers to understand better?).

 

My point is... If the AI determined the only solution to removing the Chaos was to let existing life, Control the Reapers, Destroy the Reapers (and the AI itself, another hmmm?) or unite the two by blending the best of the Human Qualities within an AI/Synthetic form for the progression of all life; then give this supreme choice to Sheppard as the AI knew “he” would make it (eventually). Then, why not take the form of Sheppard’s offspring, and then "Take Your Father" and place him in a dream state where the scenario can be played out further and tested? Remember, the AI was a machine at one time, then took the form of a boy, then offered the 3 best choices it could muster to solve what the AI considered a problem.

 

What if simply the AI was from elsewhere and wanted to find a way to "evolve" as life did in the Galaxy? What if (and yes there are many if's) finding the human race was the source the AI determined logical to build the experiment, the Citadel, the Reapers and the Ai knew it would need to enhance technology and create interaction amongst Billions of life forms to get to the point of creating the "AI's" Gateway to becoming a new life form. A billion year old AI created to serve the Universe and discover new Universes by a long ago Alien Race who was driven to extinction because of the fundamental issue of conflict (in their time) of Synthetic Life and Pure Organic life? What if the real enemy is pure machine and the Reapers were a schematic of that purity which the AIs creators found a way to control (permanently in their time) but not soon enough for them to stop them from destroying the Original AI creators?

So, does the ending offer possibilities to Shepard dreaming, then (depending on "your" choice at the end) offer an awakening? An awakening as a the leader of the Reapers, the leader of human life, the leader of the Synthetic/Organic Mix?

Then, in the expanded storyline above, the fight will continue with the Race that had exterminated the Technological race which created the AI. The AI breaching this Universe to escape with the knowledge above, sent to this Universe to carry on that races existence some day and complete the “real destruction” of the reapers (which the whole truth was not told to Shepard by the Leviathans which survived as they were the way the AI escaped as they to fled being the only life form ever to evade the Leviathans original creation).

The AI in the Citadel had its own creators, escaped unknowingly to the Leviathans who also made it to this universe. The AI’s creators were the only race the Leviathan race did not know really existed as they (at that time in that Universe) had detected the danger and hidden themselves with technology from the Leviathans) The Leviathans used some of this technological knowledge discovered when fleeing to this universe, in this Universe to hide themselves (i.e. the AI knowing they were here as it secretly traveled with them through the portal, to save itself, with the Leviathans to escape the same destruction by the machines the Leviathan’s had created).

 

This is how the AI knew they were here but, did not have the technological ability to build the tools it needed to find them in time as the Leviathans used “their” mind controlling abilities right away with a one of the 1^st alien races it found capable of building the globes and a method to transport them to different worlds till they found a place to hide and control. The AI began its process, building the Citadel, trying to detect the Leviathans (but failing for the most part) as well as pursuing the AI’s own creators goals to develop a Synthetic and Human unity to fight the pending threat mentioned below.

Maybe in that other Universe or Parallel Universe the original creators were human? Maybe the AI is a representation of that Universes Sheppard or this Universes Sheppard’s son (who would now be growing when Sheppard is in the dream state)?

Now, the Original Enemy of the Human race and all others (including the Leviathans who created them) discover the ability to do what the Leviathan’s have done; a way to breach the barrier between Universes as it has destroyed all in the one it contains and determines all Parallel Universes must too be destroyed to keep order.

Except here, the AI completed its mission, Sheppard is awaken as the new breed if life here and begins the next battle. The Ai has also evolved but; it has taken a form we must find to learn more of the New Real Enemy and find the Leviathans before they flee again as they have moved during this time Sheppard was in the dream state.  Time has also passed and Sheppard’s son is now in his early 30’s (and represents the quality of character you choose in the 1^st 3 games). New machines of Synthetic and Organic are present; travel is once again through newly designed Mass relays. The ending and character you choose determine you Unity or Conflict with the other races and Universe

Sure, Sheppard could have been dreaming as the AI began to grow more Ethical and Moral seeing the conflict in the Reaper development as not being the solution to the eventual invasion of the parallel universe into the one we were playing in, therefore; the AI provided an illusion (after so many cycles to build this empire) to process data, develop the three options and give the last cycle time to develop before awakening Sheppard, to fight for the survival of his this Universe.

If the grammar is off I apologies.

[DarthLaxian]

I think Bioware should start fresh with the IP and reboot it.

 

Agreed - Take the basic elements (races, characters, timeline till the first game, hell even take the rogue SPECTRE-Storyline from the first game, but drop everything after that)...now you have a strong IP, a good storyline for the first game (you can flesh it out differently this time - oh and: get the writing team from the first game back...send those that decided on changing the story to some cold place...didn't the US military send people to remote radar-stations in Alaska as punishment?)

 

A sequel would be ok of course...but not with the current team (even thinking of them leaves a bad taste in my mouth)

 

greetings LAX

[rapscallioness]

No, thank you.

[AlanC9]

oh and: get the writing team from the first game back...send those that decided on changing the story to some cold place...didn't the US military send people to remote radar-stations in Alaska as punishment?)

So, bring back the guys who wanted the Reapers to have been right all along? Who had no idea what the Reapers were trying to do and didn't much care? I agree that they were better at speeding past silly things like Tali beating Shepard back to the Citadel with that voice recording, but outside of that...

[N7 Whiskey]

Can't reboot the Reaper story line, because of one simple thing: it would be a worthless waste unless a whole new ending was created as part of a cohesive narrative across the new story, and before you can create a new ending you've got to be able to admit that the old ending, catalyst and all, was bad.

 

Artistic integrity makes that a non-starter. Everyone knows that the ending was lame, but the closest an official statement can come to that admission is to call it "polarising" or "divisive." That means ME4 will go in a direction that doesn't require the characters in-game or the developers in the real world to talk about ME3 or the way Shepard's trilogy ended, 'cause no one wants to defend it and no one is allowed to admit that it sucks.

 

 

I've been back here on BSN for less than 48 hours and you are by far the most negative person I have ever seen on a message board. You are so incredibily dedicated to trolling BioWare because of your butthurtedness over the ending. Give it a rest.

[xAmilli0n]

I've long stopped clinging to that romanticized view I had of the ME trilogy.  Though there is no doubt I greatly enjoyed it, I don't have the desire nor the time to waste on replaying it.

[durasteel]

I've been back here on BSN for less than 48 hours and you are by far the most negative person I have ever seen on a message board. You are so incredibily dedicated to trolling BioWare because of your butthurtedness over the ending. Give it a rest.

 

You're hilarious.

 

You clearly haven't read very many of my posts, but even making your little assumptions based on the one post you quoted, only the most dedicated sycophant could characterise my comment as trolling. My point was perfectly valid, and pretty much inarguable from a business perspective. The fan reaction (and in fact the reaction of many reviewers once they finished the game) to Mass Effect 3 was a public relations nightmare, and the broad base of dissatisfaction was evidenced by the co-founder of BioWare issuing a pseudo-apology and a fairly significant re-treatment of the ending of the game. 

 

That said, BioWare's official public stance remains supportive of the game's end as an artistic choice, and that leaves them in an awkward position for the sequel. There is clearly enough demand for a sequel that the suits at EA will make it happen, while Mac Walters apparently never wanted a Mass Effect game set after the reaper war. What that means is that the plot of the game and the promotion of it by BioWare has to be carefully structured to avoid "doubling down" with overt support for the ending, which would antagonise many of their most ardent fans, while at the same time not contradicting their official position by significantly changing or invalidating the final sequence of ME3.

 

You can bleat and moan about my negativity all you want to, but if I'm the most negative person you've ever seen on the internet, you've clearly not spent a lot of time on the internet. I'm not trying to advance my own perspective on the ending here, I'm just pointing out the challenge that BioWare will have navigating the advancement of the Mass Effect franchise.

 

Now, if you want to talk about trolling, let's look at your post which doesn't contribute to the topic in any way, but rather simply attacks me based your personal perspective, and of course accuses me of trolling. Seems archetypical, doesn't it?

[NM_Che56]

No.

[dreamgazer]

I've been back here on BSN for less than 48 hours and you are by far the most negative person I have ever seen on a message board. You are so incredibily dedicated to trolling BioWare because of your butthurtedness over the ending. Give it a rest.

 

durasteel? Hah. He's adamant on his position on the ending, sure, and I don't agree with the extent of his viewpoint, but he's far from the most negative person on this board. 

[Iakus]

durasteel? Hah. He's adamant on his position on the ending, sure, and I don't agree with the extent of his viewpoint, but he's far from the most negative person on this board. 

Heck I'm probably not the most negative person on the board, and I was nodding along with his post.

[dreamgazer]

Heck I'm probably not the most negative person on the board, and I was nodding along with his post.

 

There are those who are more insistently and theatrically negative about their anti-BioWare and anti-ME3 opinions, I'll leave it at that. 

[durasteel]

But I am not comparing the hype to DA2.  I'm comparing the hype to ME3.

 

We saw very similar hype for ME3 that we are now seeing for DAI.  

 

One big difference, though, is that while ME3 was being hyped no one was saying "we've listened to feedback from DA2, and we are not going to be doing that again." DAI promotion does include statements like that with regard to ME3.

 

As I see it, the big lesson to be learned from DA2 and ME3 is that you can't rush quality. Both games needed a longer development cycle, and I think it is worth noting that there was no major release from BioWare in 2013. If Inquisition had been released this time last year, I think it would have been a disaster. If ME4 were being released around now, it would be a disaster. The fact that each of these games seem to be getting at least a year and a half of extra development is noteworthy and very encouraging.

[Heimdall]

One big difference, though, is that while ME3 was being hyped no one was saying "we've listened to feedback from DA2, and we are not going to be doing that again." DAI promotion does include statements like that with regard to ME3.

 

As I see it, the big lesson to be learned from DA2 and ME3 is that you can't rush quality. Both games needed a longer development cycle, and I think it is worth noting that there was no major release from BioWare in 2013. If Inquisition had been released this time last year, I think it would have been a disaster. If ME4 were being released around now, it would be a disaster. The fact that each of these games seem to be getting at least a year and a half of extra development is noteworthy and very encouraging.

Very!  I have to wonder if those two games weren't somehow a necessary step for Bioware and EA, showing that they can't rush out this kind of game to good results.

 

DAI, at least, has given every indication so far of righting the most vocally criticized shortcomings of its predecessor.

[durasteel]

Very!  I have to wonder if those two games weren't somehow a necessary step for Bioware and EA, showing that they can't rush out this kind of game to good results.

 

DAI, at least, has given every indication so far of righting the most vocally criticized shortcomings of its predecessor.

 

Considering that #1 on many lists was that you spent the entire game running around in circles on the same map, I'd say so. I get a little tingly when I think about all that game world to explore.