126 réponses à ce sujet

[chris2365]

I think it was, yes. And yeah a big part of it is how unsatisfied a lot of people were with it. Not to mention an MENext that contradicts any framework a player might set up to make such endings bearable, destroying their illusions as such would be...problematic.

But another is also how it leaves the galaxy in a variety of very different states. Synthesis, Destroy, Control. Even the high and low EMS versions of Destroy are very different.

They could of course simply set a canon and proceed from there. But with it would go eventhe fig leaf of "your choices matter" I think it would actually be worse than ignoring the trilogy, not only because they have sworn up and down for years that "there is no canon"as setting up such a canon would clearly be pickign favorites. And everyone would know it.

Umm, the endings bothered people a lot more than those things (and fyi, autodialogue in ME3 bugged people a whole lot. So did being forced to work with Cerberus in ME2) So badly that even teh mainstream press started picking up on it. To a heck of a lot more than 1%, these endings weren't mediocre and confusing, they were BAD. And they haven't been forgotten just because things have died down.

And just because they were part of the "original intended vision" doesn't make them good. SOme ideas are just bad.

Of course, my own theory is there was no original intended vision to continue the series past ME3. I suspect a lot of people in Edmonton were surprised when word came down to continue the series

Yes, Mass Effect can go in a lot of different directions. Unfortunately, most of those directions are guaranteed to p*ss a lot of people off. Canonize this ending or that choice. Retcon or reboot. Is Shepard dead, alive, or never existed? Or try and do everything and stretch yourself so thin the story becomes meaningless and choices trivial.

Shepard's story is important, but it's important in that it's a cautionary tale. Plan your stories out. Don't spend a third of the game rambling on like Abe Simpson talking about an onion tied to his belt. Especially if you're gong to claim that player choices mean anything. And don't jerk your players around with self-indulgent railroading of their own characters.

The worst thing that can be said about a narrative-driven rpg is "at least the multiplayer was fun"

Fair enough, but we wanted to have choice all along, right? And consequences for those choices. Wasn't it obvious that any future development in the franchise was going to involve some sacrifice on the part of us, the players, to be able to move forward with the franchise?

I agree with your theory about ME3 supposed to be the original "end timeline" for the franchise, because of all the possible interpretations. Then when they got word from the fans that they wanted a sequel, and realizing the small timeline they had to work with, they must have changed their minds.

If Bioware had just tried to make the endings as similar as possible in order to favor a sequel, would that have been any better? We got such a wide variety of possibilities for ending interpretations, and this means differing opinions and desires for a future game. And this was going to happen regardless of what ending we got, because this is what the team was going for.

They will never satisfy everybody with whatever they do. If they reboot, they deceive and anger those who liked the original trilogy. If they make a sequel they disappoint people who wished the trilogy was better respected in the timeline.

I just think that a world where some elements are canonized is better than a reboot of the franchise. The ingredients that are in place are still as great as ever. The execution of turning those materials into an awesome game might have fallen short in some respects, but we can improve the formula to make it better. By tampering with the ingredients, which is necessary for a reboot, we might well risk spoiling it and turning into something else, something that we as fans might turn around and say "You know what, this isn't the Mass Effect I grew up with. This is, not right" as James Vega would put it.

That's why a reboot is not something I'd want unless it was executed perfectly. Even then, the franchise is still so young that there would be very little to adress in a reboot. Besides the ending, not much would need improvement (in scale like the ending I mean). I want to see what adventures we can have and what experiences we can exhaust with from the original trilogy before messing with the ingredients we fell in love with. It should be a last resort.

[Farangbaa]

Our choices didn't matter --> they gave us so much choices a sequel is impossible

 

Oh, alright.

[chris2365]

Our choices didn't matter --> they gave us so much choices a sequel is impossible

Oh, alright.

Maybe in the short term it seemed that way because there was nothing we could do to avoid thr catalyt and his choices, relays blowing up, Normandy crashing, etc. But look at it long term for the franchise, and we can see why the devs probably intended ME3 to be the end point for that timeline. So many possibilities, and as Iakus and many others said, no easy way to proceed with the franchise.

[Iakus]

Fair enough, but we wanted to have choice all along, right? And consequences for those choices. Wasn't it obvious that any future development in the franchise was going to involve some sacrifice on the part of us, the players, to be able to move forward with the franchise?
 

And the end result of these choices was virtually the same:  Shepard as a charcoal briquette.  No matter how well you played, no matter which War Assets you accumulated or how many, Shepard burned.  How is that "choices" or "consequences"?  Why should I invest myself in another character when writers fell I should have no say in its fate?

 

This is a big part in why I say ME3 should be a cautionary tale.

 

This is aside from the serious problems  attached to the RGB endings specifically.

 I agree with your theory about ME3 supposed to be the original "end timeline" for the franchise, because of all the possible interpretations. Then when they got word from the fans that they wanted a sequel, and realizing the small timeline they had to work with, they must have changed their minds.

 

If Bioware had just tried to make the endings as similar as possible in order to favor a sequel, would that have been any better? We got such a wide variety of possibilities for ending interpretations, and this means differing opinions and desires for a future game. And this was going to happen regardless of what ending we got, because this is what the team was going for.

 

We'll never know .  But Dragon Age has no set protagonist; each game focuses on a different one.  And moves from location to location.  That allows a certain flexibility in choice while giving everyone pretty much the same starting point each game.  ME3's ending affected the entire galaxy; there's no place else to go.

They will never satisfy everybody with whatever they do. If they reboot, they deceive and anger those who liked the original trilogy. If they make a sequel they disappoint people who wished the trilogy was better respected in the timeline.

 

I just think that a world where some elements are canonized is better than a reboot of the franchise. The ingredients that are in place are still as great as ever. The execution of turning those materials into an awesome game might have fallen short in some respects, but we can improve the formula to make it better. By tampering with the ingredients, which is necessary for a reboot, we might well risk spoiling it and turning into something else, something that we as fans might turn around and say "You know what, this isn't the Mass Effect I grew up with. This is, not right" as James Vega would put it.

 

People were p*ssed when Udina ended up Councilor no matter what you did.  People were p*ssed when there was a "breeder queen" no matter how you handled the rachni.  Canonizing elements of any kind will cause a lot of anger.  

 

This is why I favor Okeer's method:  ignore it.  Didn't happen.

 

 

T hat's why a reboot is not something I'd want unless it was executed perfectly. Even then, the franchise is still so young that there would be very little to adress in a reboot. Besides the ending, not much would need improvement (in scale like the ending I mean). I want to see what adventures we can have and what experiences we can exhaust with from the original trilogy before messing with the ingredients we fell in love with. It should be a last resort.

 

 

There's still plenty that can be done with the galaxy without Repaers, Protheans, and RGB.  The galaxy doesn't need "The Shepard"

[Farangbaa]

Maybe in the short term it seemed that way because there was nothing we could do to avoid thr catalyt and his choices, relays blowing up, Normandy crashing, etc. But look at it long term for the franchise, and we can see why the devs probably intended ME3 to be the end point for that timeline. So many possibilities, and as Iakus and many others said, no easy way to proceed with the franchise.

 

You're kidding, right? No easy way to continue the franchise?

 

1: pick an ending and canon it, proceed from there

2: don't mention the first trilogy at all, do whatever in the same universe.

3: Alternate Universe

4: Just say the Reapers were defeated, don't mention how, who, when or what

 

Yes, it's impossible to take all endings into consideration and go from there. So you don't, but that doesn't make continuing hard.

 

Will there be people crying? Sure. They always do. It would be quite odd if there was no crying at all. It's what gamers do. They get all kinds of ideas in their head bordering on the impossible, and when it's not in the game, they feel disappointed. (a good example of this would be Destiny, where somehow people got it into their head that it was going to an RPG, something like Mass Effect. Anyone who has seen any gameplay footage of Destiny would know that not to be the case. Same goes for people expecting Shadow of Mordor to be a 'true' RPG. 10 minutes of gameplay video should've told them otherwise. Yes, you level, but that's about it)

 

Mass Effect is just Mass Relays, the Mass Effect and the species you've gotten to know. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Vazgen]

People were p*ssed when Udina ended up Councilor no matter what you did.  People were p*ssed when there was a "breeder queen" no matter how you handled the rachni.  Canonizing elements of any kind will cause a lot of anger. 

 

This is why I favor Okeer's method:  ignore it.  Didn't happen.

How do you suggest to do that? Remove all mentions of Reapers, Anderson, Shepard from the codex and timeline? That'll put us at the end (or during) the First Contact War. Make a game at that time and it becomes a mere prequel.

Also, it's the same as your examples of Rachni queen and Udina - making the trilogy a waste of time.

 

Yes, it's impossible to take all endings into consideration and go from there. So you don't, but that doesn't make continuing hard.

It's possible.

[Farangbaa]

Also, it's the same as your examples of Rachni queen and Udina - making the trilogy a waste of time.

 

That's just someone trying to trick himself into not buying ME4.

 

 

It's possible.

 

Sure. You destroyed the Reapers and controlled them while synthesizing the galaxy.

[Vazgen]

Sure. You destroyed the Reapers and controlled them while synthesizing the galaxy.

Nah, I posted it in more detail in another thread. Basically lock the known systems away by damaging a key relay that leads to a lot of other systems. We won't get to visit Citadel, Illium, Tuchanka etc. but the wave won't reach there and you'll have the old races in new locations.

[chris2365]

You're kidding, right? No easy way to continue the franchise?

 

1: pick an ending and canon it, proceed from there

2: don't mention the first trilogy at all, do whatever in the same universe.

3: Alternate Universe

4: Just say the Reapers were defeated, don't mention how, who, when or what

 

Yes, it's impossible to take all endings into consideration and go from there. So you don't, but that doesn't make continuing hard.

 

Will there be people crying? Sure. They always do. It would be quite odd if there was no crying at all. It's what gamers do. They get all kinds of ideas in their head bordering on the impossible, and when it's not in the game, they feel disappointed. (a good example of this would be Destiny, where somehow people got it into their head that it was going to an RPG, something like Mass Effect. Anyone who has seen any gameplay footage of Destiny would know that not to be the case. Same goes for people expecting Shadow of Mordor to be a 'true' RPG. 10 minutes of gameplay video should've told them otherwise. Yes, you level, but that's about it)

 

Mass Effect is just Mass Relays, the Mass Effect and the species you've gotten to know. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean it in the sense of it not being possible to move on with the franchise at all. All I meant was that there was no easy way to proceed without disappointing some portion of the fan base. I personally don't mind which route they take as long as we get a solid Mass Effect game.

 

Ending canonized or not, passing references to the trilogy by setting it far in the future, retconning parts of the trilogy, all work for me, only if whichever way they decide to go keeps that Mass Effect core we fell in love with. That's my number 1 priority and always will be. 

[Iakus]

How do you suggest to do that? Remove all mentions of Reapers, Anderson, Shepard from the codex and timeline? 

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing.

 

 

That'll put us at the end (or during) the First Contact War. Make a game at that time and it becomes a mere prequel.

 

No it wouldn't. If anything, it would make it AU by some definitions.

 

 

Also, it's the same as your examples of Rachni queen and Udina - making the trilogy a waste of time.

 

Only if you didn'lt like the games.

 

What it would do is make the trilogy self contained.  Does Neverwinter Nights make Baldur's Gate  a waste of time?

[Vazgen]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing.

 

No it wouldn't. If anything, it would make it AU by some definitions.

 

Only if you didn'lt like the games.

What it would do is make the trilogy self contained.  Does Neverwinter Nights make Baldur's Gate  a waste of time?

Didn't play Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate, so I can't comment on that.

You propose to completely rewrite codex, which means essentially creating new universe. Why even call it Mass Effect then?

 

I can give you a recent example of one such try - Thief. It's set in The City from the previous games but that city is changed a lot. Lore is changed, characters too. It is a good game on its own, but if you've played the original trilogy you will find it weird. Might as well not call it a Thief game.

[Iakus]

Didn't play Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate, so I can't comment on that.

 

Much earlier Bioware games.  Set in the same setting (the Forgotten realms) on the same continent (Faerun) even the same region (The Sword Coast)  But the stories are completely separate.  No overlap, aside from certain locations being named.  The Bhaalspawn and the Iron Crisis is never mentioned in NWN.  The Hero of Neverwinter and the Wailing Death is never mentioned in BG.

 

 

 

You propose to completely rewrite codex, which means essentially creating new universe. Why even call it Mass Effect then?

Because it has mass relays, asari, krogan, biotics, eezo, mass effect fields, etc?

 

I'm not talking about rewriting the codex, simply leaving stuff out.  Stuff which has no bearing on the new story.

 

 I can give you a recent example of one such try - Thief. It's set in The City from the previous games but that city is changed a lot. Lore is changed, characters too. It is a good game on its own, but if you've played the original trilogy you will find it weird. Might as well not call it a Thief game.

 

Never played any of the Thief games.  I have, however played the Deus Ex games, and I've seen what can happen when you try to incorporate hugely divergent endings into a sequel.

[Vazgen]

Because it has mass relays, asari, krogan, biotics, eezo, mass effect fields, etc?

I'm not talking about rewriting the codex, simply leaving stuff out.  Stuff which has no bearing on the new story.

Mass Relays. Who built them? Needs rewriting. Where is that race now? Needs rewriting. 

Now tell me, how to write a race that managed to build a galaxy-wide transportation network but somehow died out. 

 

A story separate from Shepard's is entirely possible, like a merc in the Terminus systems during the events of Mass Effect 1 when Shepard hunts Saren in the Attican Traverse. They can easily be no mention of Shepard in that setup. I can even see how it will be possible not to mention Reapers at all - just go with our basic understanding of mass relay technology. Like it was built by the Protheans who then mysteriously disappeared. No word Reaper will ever be said. However, anyone who had played the original trilogy will know what is going on.

[Iakus]

Mass Relays. Who built them? Needs rewriting. Where is that race now? Needs rewriting. 

Now tell me, how to write a race that managed to build a galaxy-wide transportation network but somehow died out. 

 

A story separate from Shepard's is entirely possible, like a merc in the Terminus systems during the events of Mass Effect 1 when Shepard hunts Saren in the Attican Traverse. They can easily be no mention of Shepard in that setup. I can even see how it will be possible not to mention Reapers at all - just go with our basic understanding of mass relay technology. Like it was built by the Protheans who then mysteriously disappeared. No word Reaper will ever be said. However, anyone who had played the original trilogy will know what is going on.

Unless the new story has something to do with the relays, who cares?  Does everyone in the Mass Effect universe sit around all day pondering "I wonder who built the relays?"  No, the relays simply are.

[Drone223]

Unless the new story has something to do with the relays, who cares?  Does everyone in the Mass Effect universe sit around all day pondering "I wonder who built the relays?"  No, the relays simply are.

The relays are one of the most iconic things of the series (along with the mass effect technology itself), so an explanation about relays and its creators is warranted.

[Iakus]

The relays are one of the most iconic things of the series (along with the mass effect technology itself), so an explanation about relays and its creators is warranted.

So where did darkspawn come from?

[dreamgazer]

So where did darkspawn come from?

 

False equivalence.  The Reapers being the creators of the relays and using them for their cycle of extinction is a substantial plot revelation in ME. 

[Iakus]

False equivalence. The Reapers being the creators of the relays and using them for their cycle of extinction is a substantial plot revelation in ME.

Not at all

The darkspawn are one of the most iconic things about Dragon Age. Five times they nearly destroyed Thedas. There are two organizations devoted specifically to destroying them. The legends of thief creation has been the primary fuel for oppressing mages for a thousand years and why the Maker does not answer prayers.

But what is really known about them, and where they came from?

[KaiserShep]

So where did darkspawn come from?

 

Thing is, the darkspawn's origin isn't really integral to the plot of any game in the series thus far. The series could very well end with this question never getting a clear answer, which it probably shouldn't, since the lore is tied to the mythology of the Maker. While this is totally up to the writers, they could just as well come up with any number of ways to resolve the darkspawn threat for good, while leaving the Chantry's teachings intact.

 

The way I see it, leaving the relays a mystery but removing the plot reveal that follows doesn't really serve any good purpose. You'd might as well just replace the reveal with a mundane fact to simply establish their origins from the star, like, the salarians and asari built them. The end, I guess.  If you remove the reaper origin, you'd might as well just remove the protheans. Their unexplained extinction while leaving behind all this vast and still functioning technology is no longer meaningful without a reason why.

[Iakus]

Or just leave it at the Protheans if people are that hot and bothered about an answer

It worked for two millennia already

[KaiserShep]

Or just leave it at the Protheans if people are that hot and bothered about an answer

It worked for two millennia already

 

But that's an incomplete answer. The point is, having this mysterious paleotech is not meaningful unless the story leads us to discover where it all came from. The same is true of the Protheans' disappearance. Their total disappearance, despite having a totally intact infrastructure to benefit from, is not something that can just be presented in the story then cast aside. What's the point? It might as well be something the asari or salarians or some other still-existing race built. Why ask this question if it leads nowhere? I say, remove the question as well if you're going to take it that far.

[dreamgazer]

Thing is, the darkspawn's origin isn't really integral to the plot of any game in the series thus far.

 

Indeed.  It's an incredibly simple distinction between the two.

[Iakus]

But that's an incomplete answer. The point is, having this mysterious paleotech is not meaningful unless the story leads us to discover where it all came from. The same is true of the Protheans' disappearance. Their total disappearance, despite having a totally intact infrastructure to benefit from, is not something that can just be presented in the story then cast aside. What's the point? It might as well be something the asari or salarians or some other still-existing race built. Why ask this question if it leads nowhere? I say, remove the question as well if you're going to take it that far.

And I say the question doesn't matter if the story doesn't focus on it.  There's plenty of mysteries in the Mass Effect universe that never get addressed because they are irrelevant to the story.  The Beings of Light, the Jupiter Brain, and so on.

 

How important was the origin of the Mass Relays to Project Overlord?  To any of ME2's personal missions?  Bring Down the Sky?  the origin of the relays was only important to the Mass Effect trilogy because the Reapers were the villains.  If the next game is some kind of spy story, or the adventures of a mercenary band, paleoarchaeology is unlikely to be at the forefront of anyone's minds.

[dreamgazer]

How important was the origin of the Mass Relays to Project Overlord?  To any of ME2's personal missions?  Bring Down the Sky?

 

You're referencing optional, inconsequential subplots (all of which have been criticized for it) that exist underneath a main story that already heavily emphasized the origin and reason for the relays, the mode of transportation for the galaxy and devices that played a part in a cycle of extermination for millions of years.  Are you really trying to dispute the significance of that to ME's lore? 

 

The false assumption that the Protheans built the relays is significant because it's false.

[Iakus]

You're referencing optional, inconsequential subplots (all of which have been criticized for it) that exist underneath a main story that already heavily emphasized the origin and reason for the relays, the mode of transportation for the galaxy and devices that played a part in a cycle of extermination for millions of years.  Are you really trying to dispute the significance of that to ME's lore? 

 

The false assumption that the Protheans built the relays is significant because it's false.

 

I am reference storylines which no not center on the relays or the Reapers.  That's my point.  If you have a main story that focuses on a mad scientist experimenting on geth, the origin of the relays doesn't matter. If the Reapers don't appear, if the cycles play no role in MENext, then who cares where the relays came from?

 

I mean, hey, the darkspawn nearly exterminated all life on Thedas five times in the last millenium or so, and have been instrumental in shaping the political, cultural, and religious face of the continent, and their origins don't matter.