A)No, he didn't, Anderson stepped down. We've been over this. Even if they did, that does not make it good or necessary.Udina becomes the human councilor even if you pick Anderson in ME1, also in one Bioware's other games the light side ending is canon in KOTOR.
That doesn't change the fact that no matter what choice people made Udina becomes councilor thus making the choice redundant. The reason why it was done was for story reasons and as for KOTOR I'll give you that but I'm sure Bioware has done it before and they'll do it again in the future.A)No, he didn't, Anderson stepped down. We've been over this. Even if they did, that does not make it good or necessary.
B)Lucasarts canonized Revan as a lightside male, Bioware had no part in that.
I don't consider it "chickening out". To the contrary, it seems far more daring to me to completely abandon tried and true fan approved methods.
Rebooting the entire franchise from top to bottom basically relieves BioWare of all of the burdens laid on the franchise as a result of the third game, so their task would be easier. How is this route anything but chickening out? It seems to me it would be far more daring to stick to their controversial ending for dear life and find a way to work with it.
That doesn't change the fact that no matter what choice people made Udina becomes councilor thus making the choice redundant. The reason why it was done was for story reasons and as for KOTOR I'll give you that but I'm sure Bioware has done it before and they'll do it again in the future.
...And that still doesn't mean that its a good idea with results anyone was happy with (Besides the endings or priority earth, Udina's Citadel attack is one of the most criticized portions of the game story wise) or that Bioware should do it again.
Rebooting the entire franchise from top to bottom basically relieves BioWare of all of the burdens laid on the franchise as a result of the third game, so their task would be easier. How is this route anything but chickening out? It seems to me it would be far more daring to stick to their controversial ending for dear life and find a way to work with it.
You say daring, I say foolhardy.
No one said its an ideal solution just the best solution to go with....And that still doesn't mean that its a good idea with results anyone was happy with (Besides the endings or priority earth, Udina's Citadel attack is one of the most criticized portions of the game story wise) or that Bioware should do it again.
Why not just run with Destroy, full stop?
Mostly for the sake of diplomacy. If BioWare were to decree that the great differences between the endings of the last game made it impractical to move forward in the setting in a way that accommodates them all, and that therefore a world state would be set so that the franchise could move forward, it would give them an excuse to set things up how they want them without admitting a poorly written ending or seeming to say "red was right, blue and green are wrong."
I would be fine with Destroy, I just think "purple" would be an easier sell.
Well, I've covered this ad nauseum with durasteel and others, but I'm just generally opposed to setting any canon whatsoever on principle.
I think that refusing to ever revisit the entire galaxy of the Mass Effect trilogy sets a much more rigid canon than anything else on the table. You're basically saying that, as an in-universe truism, the whole Milky Way should be dead and gone, inaccessible to PCs, NPCs or their descendants from ME4 onward, forever.
If you want to mandate that players will never again be able to see or visit any place or character from the previous games, then your position makes "canon Refuse" seem moderate by comparison. Many fans expressed dismay over the extensive devastation of the galaxy in ME3, but you want to take it to an ultimate extreme and throw away whatever's left. Might as well give up and let the Reapers have it.
The Reapers were trying to destroy the galaxy. Not physically--there would still be chunks of dirt, ice, gas and fire swirling around a supermassive black hole like there were before, but the cultures, civilizations, and character of the place would be wiped away. Shepard was trying to save the galaxy in the same context. If, after the conclusion of his trilogy, the galaxy is so completely bollocksed that no more stories can be told in it, then Shepard is a complete failure as a character. That would be the worst indictment of the ending of ME3--that no matter what your character does, you inevitably lose the whole galaxy forever.
Mostly for the sake of diplomacy. If BioWare were to decree that the great differences between the endings of the last game made it impractical to move forward in the setting in a way that accommodates them all, and that therefore a world state would be set so that the franchise could move forward, it would give them an excuse to set things up how they want them without admitting a poorly written ending or seeming to say "red was right, blue and green are wrong."
I would be fine with Destroy, I just think "purple" would be an easier sell.
If they were going to go full-stop with the ending diplomacy, the Ark Theory makes the most sense in accommodating those choices.
But then again, the theory only leaves room for a few thousand survivors to make their way in an unknown galaxy. They're going to be tiny in significance compared to the two new alien species, and it doesn't really seem like Mass Effect if everything that we have come to know over the course of three games is vastly overshadowed by something we haven't seen before. I prefer to think that this 'new region of space' comes from newly-opened mass relays into uncharted territory - which would go a long way to bring back the frontier-esque feel of the first game. Just because we've been from one end of the Milky Way to the end doesn't mean we've seen all there is to see.
I think that refusing to ever revisit the entire galaxy of the Mass Effect trilogy sets a much more rigid canon than anything else on the table. You're basically saying that, as an in-universe truism, the whole Milky Way should be dead and gone, inaccessible to PCs, NPCs or their descendants from ME4 onward, forever.
If you want to mandate that players will never again be able to see or visit any place or character from the previous games, then your position makes "canon Refuse" seem moderate by comparison. Many fans expressed dismay over the extensive devastation of the galaxy in ME3, but you want to take it to an ultimate extreme and throw away whatever's left. Might as well give up and let the Reapers have it.
The Reapers were trying to destroy the galaxy. Not physically--there would still be chunks of dirt, ice, gas and fire swirling around a supermassive black hole like there were before, but the cultures, civilizations, and character of the place would be wiped away. Shepard was trying to save the galaxy in the same context. If, after the conclusion of his trilogy, the galaxy is so completely bollocksed that no more stories can be told in it, then Shepard is a complete failure as a character. That would be the worst indictment of the ending of ME3--that no matter what your character does, you inevitably lose the whole galaxy forever.
See, we disagree on this idea that not revisiting a place in game somehow makes it dead.
See, we disagree on this idea that not revisiting a place in game somehow makes it dead.
Calling a galaxy "a place" makes locality pretty much irrelevant.
It's going too far. It's ridiculous.
Ark Theory sounds like a idea that would turn out like Star Trek Voyager and Stargate Atlantis did, which were essentially B sides of the original shows. ME 4 is going to be about time travel and multidimensionality so they can get away with any multitude of plot holes and inconsistencies.
Voyager a B SIDE?!
You are my enemy.
Voyager a B SIDE?!
You are my enemy.
You know I see this sentiment, a lot. I don't understand it. Voyager is such an obvious plastic cut out of TNG that I cannot fathom people liking it as much as they do....but I digress...
I've always been a fan of the "some Reapers are in Dark Space/Other Galaxies" idea. Its an easy out to whip them out, giggity, of some bolthole and throw them back at the galaxy. Sure the Cruicible is still there I suppose, however story consistency doesn't seem to be a trademark of BW these days...in my opinion anyways.
different strokes for different folks. but never said it's better or equal to TNG. TNG had story arcs that were vastly superior. people also forget TNG had some pretty ridiculous episodes too.
You know I see this sentiment, a lot. I don't understand it. Voyager is such an obvious plastic cut out of TNG that I cannot fathom people liking it as much as they do....but I digress...
I've always been a fan of the "some Reapers are in Dark Space/Other Galaxies" idea. Its an easy out to whip them out, giggity, of some bolthole and throw them back at the galaxy. Sure the Cruicible is still there I suppose, however story consistency doesn't seem to be a trademark of BW these days...in my opinion anyways.
They said the Reaper plot is done though... And frankly the last thing I think the next Mass Effect needs is more Reaper shenanigans.
oh I agree with you there. that story, for better or worse is over.
I woul rather Bioware just retcon all of ME3 and most of ME2, but if it means I can ignore the stupidity of ME3 and its endings I will accept it. My greater concern is gameplay. A durable land vehicle than handles moderately well, no ship fuel tracking, auto scanning of planets, Inventory and skill system closer to the original, noncombat skills, and guns with better simulation of lore. if they still use an ammo system just call it ammo. Remember in the first game it was explained that ammo mods existed because although the guns had good penetration they did little damage. Just say that in order to overcome shields faster and deal more damage guns used fragments similar in size to modern guns so ammo blocks had similar effective magazine sizes. Disposable heat sinks were integrated into magazines. Use lasers and pulse particle projectors(continuous beams of lasers or particles are less effective because the outer layer of the target will partially vaporize and create a cloud of interfering particles that reduce the damage dealt) that require recharge of capacitors from miniature antimatter reactors. Back to the Ark I do find the concept interesting. I enjoyed Statgate Universe and Battlestar Galactica for the first 2 seasons. Of course I would like to see the Ark have suspended animation and com back to the Milky way hundreds of thousands of years after ME3 and just have have the whole galaxy dead. I like empty frontiers and I like to think that all 3 functions of the Crucible lead to dead ends.
I woul rather Bioware just retcon all of ME3 and most of ME2, but if it means I can ignore the stupidity of ME3 and its endings I will accept it. My greater concern is gameplay. A durable land vehicle than handles moderately well, no ship fuel tracking, auto scanning of planets, Inventory and skill system closer to the original, noncombat skills, and guns with better simulation of lore. if they still use an ammo system just call it ammo. Remember in the first game it was explained that ammo mods existed because although the guns had good penetration they did little damage. Just say that in order to overcome shields faster and deal more damage guns used fragments similar in size to modern guns so ammo blocks had similar effective magazine sizes. Disposable heat sinks were integrated into magazines. Use lasers and pulse particle projectors(continuous beams of lasers or particles are less effective because the outer layer of the target will partially vaporize and create a cloud of interfering particles that reduce the damage dealt) that require recharge of capacitors from miniature antimatter reactors. Back to the Ark I do find the concept interesting. I enjoyed Statgate Universe and Battlestar Galactica for the first 2 seasons. Of course I would like to see the Ark have suspended animation and com back to the Milky way hundreds of thousands of years after ME3 and just have have the whole galaxy dead. I like empty frontiers and I like to think that all 3 functions of the Crucible lead to dead ends.
Bioware won't retcon anything from ME2/3 any time soon they are what they are, and as for the bolded there is no way that's happening.
Of course I would like to see the Ark have suspended animation and com back to the Milky way hundreds of thousands of years after ME3 and just have have the whole galaxy dead. I like empty frontiers and I like to think that all 3 functions of the Crucible lead to dead ends.
I had the same sort of "idea".
They send you out to deliver pizza to the other end of the galaxy, and there are no relays so you traverse the distance at close to light speed.
You get there a few years hence but everyone's long dead because relativity.
Your character says: "Oh, crud."
THE END.
Ark Theory sounds like a idea that would turn out like Star Trek Voyager and Stargate Atlantis did, which were essentially B sides of the original shows. ME 4 is going to be about time travel and multidimensionality so they can get away with any multitude of plot holes and inconsistencies.
Is that speculation or was it confirmed somewhere?
Is that speculation or was it confirmed somewhere?
Necromancer level 100. Damn....
And that question is loaded with sarcasm.....I hope.
Ark Theory sounds like a idea that would turn out like Star Trek Voyager and Stargate Atlantis did, which were essentially B sides of the original shows. ME 4 is going to be about time travel and multidimensionality so they can get away with any multitude of plot holes and inconsistencies.
Crisis on the Infininite Relays
*picture of a Sheploo holding the body of FemShep*
I still say that...
If you think about it, you actually have to work to find references to the other games in DA. In ME, they were all laid out there, before you. Because you only had yourself (or rather Shepard) to deal with. And in this game... There is no Shepard. So, change a couple'a lines and voila.
Retour en haut