989 réponses à ce sujet

[StarcloudSWG]

As to Arcturus Stream, it is I believe around 37 light years from Earth. Do we know how much faster than light the FTL drives in the Mass Effect universe are? Even if it were thirty times faster than light that would still be over a year away, that's putting aside that they'd need to stop regularly to discharge their drive cores.
 

 

37 light years is a little over three days travel for Mass Effect FTL drives. 'conventional' FTL drives have a speed of 12 ly/day and need to discharge static buildup periodically. Reaper FTL drives reach speeds of 24 ly/day and the Reapers don't need to discharge static buildup.

[Valmar]

Because destroying synthetics is going along with the belief that organics and synthetics inherently cannot coexist.  In removing the Reapers we remove all synthetic life.  It's pretty much doing what the Reapers do, only it's organics wiping out synthetics. Shepard becomes Reaper-lite.

 

And Control is still putting the fate of the galaxy in the Reapers' hands.  Yeah you've replaced Starbrat with the Shepalyst (not Shepard) but the galaxy still isn't free.  There's just gilding on the cage now.

 

How is that going along side the belief that they cannot coexist? Its going along the belief that this will destroy the reapers. We /cant/ live peacefully with the reapers. We must destroy the reapers. Destroy ending is not Shepard going "I agree all machines must die" its Shepard going "the reapers must be destroyed no matter the cost". Did blowing up the rely in Arrival mean that Shepard believed the batarians must die or did it mean the reapers must be stopped? If the crucible destroy ending HAD to kill all humans on earth would it mean that by using it you suddenly agree that the humans should die?

 

If control was putting the fate into reaper's hands then the cycle would continue. Which it doesn't. Shepard's will is carried out through the reapers. I'd much rather Shepard be controlling them than I would the catalyst, that's for sure. Since you're so against everything one would think you'd prefer the control ending and just be upset that Shepard cannot/doesn't order the reapers to fly into the sun.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say it "did nothing". The geth were thrown off-balance for a short time, so short that Han'Gerrel's plan to attack the dreadnought costed them the chance to retreat. An individual geth is basically a combination of VI programs with the ability to interface with the other geth in proximity. To make an individual geth a fully evolved AI would require some extensive additions. Going with your OS analogy, upgrading is much easier than downgrading in most cases. Adding to that, what is considered "death"? Downgrading to the old OS and losing their self-aware status, they effectively die. Their memories and experience, acquired when they were sentient, are lost. That's why the upgrades are necessary for them to "survive". And about Legion's sacrifice, the geth are vulnerable when downgraded and are no match for the quarian fleet. That's why Legion uploads the code, to save his people.

 

 

Yes, upgrading is easier than downgrading. I get that. I'm not saying the geth would just instantly snap back to their old selves. I'm aware that having the upgrades ripped out from under them is not the easiest of transitions to make, as the game illustrated. My point was that it shouldn't kill them. Its something they should be able to recover from.

 

You can argue that taking away their individuality is the same as killing them and in a sense you're right. However the geth as they have always existed in the series prior to the upgrades would STILL live. We get /none/ of it in the destroy ending. The geth are just gone, period. This should not be the case. As you point out the geth were only vulnerable when the downgrade happened, not DEAD. So even if they couldn't protect themselves from the reaper blast (because drama plot reasons) they would still had been reverted back to their VI state.

 

The blast should had been able to precisely target only the reapers as it was always meant to do. If the Geth cannot protect themselves from it, okay. But why is it that it wipes out the geth entirely instead of just the reaper-specific parts that its meant to be targeting in the first place. The destroy ending then would only undermine Legion's sacrifice but at least the geth will still be there. I see no reason why the geth must be completely eradicated. Not when there are so many simple ways they could had allowed them to survive. It feels like they're being sacrificed just for the sake of adding more drama. Something the game already had plenty of.

 

Frankly, imo, the game could stand to have more hope instead of even more drama. It gets pretty overbearing at times.

[Vazgen]

Yes, upgrading is easier than downgrading. I get that. I'm not saying the geth would just instantly snap back to their old selves. I'm aware that having the upgrades ripped out from under them is not the easiest of transitions to make, as the game illustrated. My point was that it shouldn't kill them. Its something they should be able to recover from.

 

You can argue that taking away their individuality is the same as killing them and in a sense you're right. However the geth as they have always existed in the series prior to the upgrades would STILL live. We get /none/ of it in the destroy ending. The geth are just gone, period. This should not be the case. As you point out the geth were only vulnerable when the downgrade happened, not DEAD. So even if they couldn't protect themselves from the reaper blast (because drama plot reasons) they would still had been reverted back to their VI state.

 

The blast should had been able to precisely target only the reapers as it was always meant to do. If the Geth cannot protect themselves from it, okay. But why is it that it wipes out the geth entirely instead of just the reaper-specific parts that its meant to be targeting in the first place. The destroy ending then would only undermine Legion's sacrifice but at least the geth will still be there. I see no reason why the geth must be completely eradicated. Not when there are so many simple ways they could had allowed them to survive. It feels like they're being sacrificed just for the sake of adding more drama. Something the game already had plenty of.

 

Frankly, imo, the game could stand to have more hope instead of even more drama. It gets pretty overbearing at times.

Tbh, the only mention of the geth "dying" comes from the Catalyst and, like you said, the meaning of the line is open to interpretation. We don't see geth in the ending slides, true, but we may also not see the rachni (I have only seen their slide on Youtube). Does it mean they go extinct? Just because they don't show the geth in the ending slides, doesn't mean they are gone/dead/whatever. Even if they did not manage to get to their old selves all by themselves, I'm pretty sure the quarians can easily bring back their old programming. Hell, Xen made Reaper-upgraded geth dance and serve refreshments!

[Lyrandori]

Why does "end Shepard's journey" equal to "Shepard must die"? Shepard's journey is ended, regardless if he survived or not. They will not make any more content featuring Shepard. You'll no longer play as him/her. The end. Whatever happed after high EMS Destroy is left to your interpretation, but it's not something that contradicts their statements.

 

It equals to "Shepard must die" because had they kept Shepard alive you know like me that ME4 would have featured Shepard again, making his/her journey not over. If BioWare wanted to "end Shepard's journey" the only way they had to do that effectively was by killing him/her. Can you imagine the community's heart attack had BioWare kept Shepard alive (officially) in one of ME3's ending, only to announce prior to ME4's release that we'd be playing as another protagonist? The fans would have - at the very least wondered - what in the great heck would have then happened to their beloved Shepard that they had been playing as and been attached to since the past five years or so.

 

Sorry, but yes, ending Shepard's journey had to mean killing him/her, period. It was the only way to "torch" the franchise for good and end the protagonist's role within that universe.

[Vazgen]

It equals to "Shepard must die" because had they kept Shepard alive you know like me that ME4 would have featured Shepard again, making his/her journey not over. If BioWare wanted to "end Shepard's journey" the only way they had to do that effectively was by killing him/her. Can you imagine the community's heart attack had BioWare kept Shepard alive (officially) in one of ME3's ending, only to announce prior to ME4's release that we'd be playing as another protagonist? The fans would have - at the very least wondered - what in the great heck would have then happened to their beloved Shepard that they had been playing as and been attached to since the past five years or so.

 

Sorry, but yes, ending Shepard's journey had to mean killing him/her, period. It was the only way to "torch" the franchise for good and end the protagonist's role within that universe.

Uhm, no, I'm pretty fine with playing as another character, despite my Shepard being alive. Just set the game in a distant future and have Shepard die from old age. 

I haven't noticed any community outrage for not being able to play as Shepard again, in fact, a lot of people want a new protagonist. Those people include those who thought their Shepard to be alive. 

I don't wonder what happens to my Shepard, I headcanon it. He's currently teaching at Grissom Academy along with his love interest - Jack.

I'm pretty sure all Shepard references in ME:Next will be limited to the Reaper War.

[Farangbaa]

Uhm, no, I'm pretty fine with playing as another character, despite my Shepard being alive. Just set the game in a distant future and have Shepard die from old age. 

I haven't noticed any community outrage for not being able to play as Shepard again, in fact, a lot of people want a new protagonist. Those people include those who thought their Shepard to be alive. 

I don't wonder what happens to my Shepard, I headcanon it. He's currently teaching at Grissom Academy along with his love interest - Jack.

I'm pretty sure all Shepard references in ME:Next will be limited to the Reaper War.

 

Seeing how many people are already begging for Shepard in ME4, they did the right thing killing him.

[MrFob]

I'm with Vazgen on this one. You can end Shepard's story without killing him/her.
Shepard's job was to solve the reaper thread. It would have been enough to have Shep do that. If ME Next were to play right after the ending of ME3, s/he would probably have to feature as a minor appearance in some form or at least be mentioned but that couldn't change the fact that Shep's story is over and a new protagonist is taking over.
In fact, given the breath scene in the ME3 high EMS destroy ending, BW would still have to address that with things as they are.
Finishing a story doesn't mean killing the protagonist. It just means, well, finishing the story. It worked for Dragon Age and the Warden, why not Shepard?

[Iakus]

It equals to "Shepard must die" because had they kept Shepard alive you know like me that ME4 would have featured Shepard again, making his/her journey not over. If BioWare wanted to "end Shepard's journey" the only way they had to do that effectively was by killing him/her. Can you imagine the community's heart attack had BioWare kept Shepard alive (officially) in one of ME3's ending, only to announce prior to ME4's release that we'd be playing as another protagonist? The fans would have - at the very least wondered - what in the great heck would have then happened to their beloved Shepard that they had been playing as and been attached to since the past five years or so.

 

Sorry, but yes, ending Shepard's journey had to mean killing him/her, period. It was the only way to "torch" the franchise for good and end the protagonist's role within that universe.

DA2 didn't have the Warden.

 

DAI won't have the Warden either

 

So why did Shepard "have" to die in ME3?

[Farangbaa]

I guess you haven't been to the DAI forums as of late, where people have been asking for the return of the Warden

Yes, they could've done it differently and not kill Shepard. But they didn't, and he's dead (or in no fighting shapem i.e. high EMS destroy)

[themikefest]

Guilty as charge. I too would like to see my Warden back in DAI. I know I like to see her with Leliana who's in the game.

 

As mentioned, Shepard didn't have to die. He/she alrighty did that. I would say once is enough.

 

Either way, my femshep lives and has been seen in Vancouver having drinks with Samantha

[MrFob]

@Psychevore: Well, as you said, people are already asking for Shepard anyway. Doesn't mean BW has to listen to them and as far as I can see it doesn't have anything to do with the need to kill him.

The fact that it he is not coming back is clear and a positive IMO. As I said, Shepard did his job. I just think that it didn't necessitate killing the character off.

Ah well, apparently it was what they wanted to do. (Or wasn't it with the breath scene? I can never tell . )

[Arcian]

This ladies and gentlemen is why you shouldn't try and do mathematics after a 16 hour shift and a few beers.

Ends up being somewhat....off.

For the record, a mass effect drive is about 4380 times faster than the speed of light. There are 31,556,926 seconds in a year. Logically, there are an equal amount of light seconds in a light year. A mass effect drive covers a light year in two hours. Two hours is 7200 seconds. 31,556,926 divided by 7200 is 4382.90. In other words, a mass effect drive travels 4380 light seconds per second, equal to 8.77 AU per second, equal to a velocity of 4380c.

How fast is that? It is so fast you'll zip from the center of the sun to Saturn in just over a second. And it still takes a good 8 and 1/2 hours to reach Alpha Centauri.

[jtav]

I should mention that I actually like Synthesis per se. Lots of techy goodies, fun things you can do with the setting, and dead Shep. It just doesn't fit the story at all.

[Farangbaa]

@Psychevore: Well, as you said, people are already asking for Shepard anyway. Doesn't mean BW has to listen to them and as far as I can see it doesn't have anything to do with the need to kill him.

No it won't, but killing him at least made every person with normal thinking skills not ask for him.

The fact that it he is not coming back is clear and a positive IMO. As I said, Shepard did his job. I just think that it didn't necessitate killing the character off.

Ah well, apparently it was what they wanted to do. (Or wasn't it with the breath scene? I can never tell . )

Because in most end states, Shepard is dead. Had they left him alive, it wouldn't be as clear and positive.

[Valmar]

Tbh, the only mention of the geth "dying" comes from the Catalyst and, like you said, the meaning of the line is open to interpretation. We don't see geth in the ending slides, true, but we may also not see the rachni (I have only seen their slide on Youtube). Does it mean they go extinct? Just because they don't show the geth in the ending slides, doesn't mean they are gone/dead/whatever. Even if they did not manage to get to their old selves all by themselves, I'm pretty sure the quarians can easily bring back their old programming. Hell, Xen made Reaper-upgraded geth dance and serve refreshments!

 

True, it isn't directly showed. However destroy is the only ending, I believe, that doesn't show the Geth (if they're alive). Plus Edi is dead, given her name on the wall. Edi's situation isn't exactly the same as the reapers though it does give reason to assume that the geth are gone aswell. If they weren't shown in any ending then I'd say okay, maybe. The fact that they purposely avoid using them in the destroy ending, to me, is a clear indication that they do not survive. In the same way that them showing the breath scene is a clear indication that Shepard survived. 

 

You know, I've known about that Xen hack for a while but never, until now, really took into context the fact that the geth she hacked were reaper-upgraded. I wonder if that is an oversight or if she is really THAT effective... Since I believe it is her hacking method that jump-started the war... maybe. Somewhat disturbing. If the geth do survive I think the best course of action is to put a bullet in her before she goes to become the quarian version of Cerberus and ends up turning all the geth against us. Lol.

[von uber]

The game needed more Xen.

[Lyrandori]

DA2 didn't have the Warden.

 

DAI won't have the Warden either

 

So why did Shepard "have" to die in ME3?

 

Because like Patrick Weekes said, contrarily to the Dragon Age franchise, we've had Shepard for three games.

 

In the Dragon Age series we have the Warden for one game (and one expansion, if of course your Warden didn't die in Origins). In DA2 we have Hawke, and in Inquisition we'll have yet again another one, the Inquisitor. The DA trilogy offers us three different protagonists. The DA team changed the protagonist with each titles perhaps because they saw what happened (or thought about what would happen) with a prolonged exposition to the same protagonist over a period of five years... guess what happens? We get emotionally-attached, we are humans, not machines. Now of course some people got emotionally-attached as well with their Warden, or their Hawke (or will be for their Inquisitor, too), but the "shock" or the grief of losing them is most likely easier to digest when you've only played a protagonist for one title in a trilogy, than it is when you've played the same one for three games.

 

Not to mention that the Warden's death in Origins is a CHOICE, you can consciously go for and prefer that option if it fits the 'canon' story YOU want to craft for him/her. In ME3's case Shepard's death was planned and chosen by BioWare, NOT the player. Yes, some players might have preferred to actually let their Shepard die at the end of ME3, but that would have been THEIR choice. I'm not sure if people realize what happened but what I'm trying to point at here is that BioWare decided for us... why? Because I'll say it once more, they wanted to "end Shepard's journey". They could not 'afford to' let US choose if we wanted to let our Shepard die or if we'd sacrifice x, y and z to let him/her live. Had we chosen to let Shepard live and BioWare decided to shrug it off by creating another protagonist anyway in ME4 I can guarantee you that - at the very least - the players whom would have chosen to let their Shepard live in ME3 would have wanted to continue playing as him/her in ME4.

 

I 100% believe in my heart and without the need to ask BioWare if true that had they kept Shepard alive (in a canonized ending in ME3) then the community would have either 1) Expected to see Shepard again in ME4 (and would have definitely 'cried about it' if BioWare then came up and said nope, won't happen), or 2) Would have "demanded" that Shepard returns if BioWare wouldn't have confirmed anything even by this point. In DAO your Warden can die already. In ME1 Shepard cannot die. In ME2 if your Shepard dies it's not canon, it was an 'extra' thrown in for... no... good reason, I guess. In Mass Effect 3 Shepard's death is the 'final, true' one, and there's going to be no Lazarus 2.0, because BioWare (well... the ME3's team) officially stated that this time around it's "over", it's done, they ended Shepard's journey. I think that their wording wasn't wisely-chosen. They should have just blatantly said that Shepard's death was planned from the start (at least from the start of ME3's development), instead of just saying something that's pretty much vague like "well, yeah it's the end of Shepard's journey, what that actually means is up to you to decide". If there's one thing I do agree with is that saying "ending Shepard's journey", literally, doesn't mean "death" per say. But BioWare's actions, their decisions at the end of ME3 sort of spill the beans for us. They wanted Shepard dead, period. But they did want to (or EA wanted to) see continuity within the Mass Effect's universe (but, yes, "Shepard's journey" is done, but franchise, its universe, will still go on).

 

Really, we were not given a new protagonist in ME2, and were not given a new one again in ME3. We've had Shepard for three games, the comparison with the Dragon Age franchise's take on protagonists and their evolution within that universe is different that in Mass Effect's. Look, in Inquisition we know that Hawke will "play a part" in it, we'll see him/her, heck maybe we'll even be surprised and we'll get to actually play as him/her for a short period of time, for one or two quests, etc. That's because in DA2 Hawke 'survives' the end of the game (I.E. isn't actually killed per say in Kirkwall) and just departs (or perhaps should say "escapes") the whole mess that just exploded and ventures in 'x' direction and isn't heard of as Varric says (he doesn't know where Hawke is). If in ME3 Shepard would have survived (if ONE of the endings, chosen by the PLAYERS, not by BioWare), then I can guarantee you that at the very least Shepard would have been in ME4 again even if he wouldn't have been the protagonist. He/she would have made a cameo, or would have "played an important part" at some point (similar to Hawke in Inquisition). You don't just erase important parts of your story-telling (protagonists and their actions) just like that in the blink of an eye without considerations or plans, unless the plan per say is to kill 'a protagonist'.

 

So, anyway... I maintain my position simply because I haven't read about a convincing argument yet that explains why they killed Shepard if in fact they didn't plan for it. But the thing is that Weekes confirms that they planned for that, and even foreshadowed it, at least in ME3 itself, to which I agree. It was depressingly obvious that by not even half way through the game that Shepard's final hour was coming our way, that we'd hit the wall real hard, and nothing would stop it from happening.  And if by the London mission it still wasn't obvious then I regret saying that the player thinking otherwise is just denying it, but that's part of the grief stages isn't it. I maintain that, indeed, the only truly effective (not the softest, not the most "tactile" or graceful or hugs-loving way) to do so was to "end Shepard's journey", which again I say was only a politically-correct manner to word that Shepard's death was planned from the start. They wanted Shepard dead at the end of ME3, period.

 

The ONLY thing I despise them (the writers) for is that they bothered actually creating that heart-and-gut-wrenching "But, Look! Shepard MIGHT still survive, look at him/her gasping for air! Look! Aaaaaaaand.... aaaaaaand... *drum rolls* NOPE, cut!" scene. It was a twisting-knife-in-the-wound pointless scene that way too many players (me included) held on to "Because LOOK, Shepard IS STILL ALIVE" ... well, nope, it was just BioWare adding oil to the fire for the heck of it 'cause they like big flames when they're fueled by the real pain of their fans. You want Shepard dead? LEAVE HIM DEAD, that's the only message I had at the time for BioWare. I had my fare share of emotions-driven replies back when ME3 was freshly being completed by the community soon after its release. I did make posts before (dozens and dozens of them) some of which I told BioWare that the darn Destroy ending's "breathing scene" was the ultimate insult (that's excluding the "don't forget to buy DLCs later on" message at the end of the credits before they changed it after they made the Extended Cut into something more polite like "Thanks for playing!").

 

So yeah, Shepard had to die.

 

And I do have the strong feeling that Dragon Age 4 will have a new protagonist again (we all know it won't stop with Inquisition).

[Andres Hendrix]

From what I keep reading in this thread, there is no logical reason for Shepard 'having to die' (for there to be a new game), but there is the fact that there are those, speaking from a protracted state of gamer's cynicism who want it to be so. For some reason, antipathy and such gamers seem to go hand in hand even when we know that the next Mass Effect will not even be Mass Effect, but merely set in the universe. Thus, cynicism, concerning the subtraction of the old protagonist from the main game narrative, is both redundant and pathetic. I suggest that people speculate about the new game, and then do the pragmatic thing once the game (whatever it will be called, perhaps 'Density Event: the Dateing Sim' lol) comes out—either buy it and support it, or do not buy it.

[AlanC9]

"Logical reason" is the wrong criterion anyway.

[Andres Hendrix]

"Logical reason" is the wrong criterion anyway.

Says you.

[KaiserShep]

I don't follow this logic that Shepard's death would be necessary to make going forward any easier in the franchise. If the writers simply want to kill the protagonist, that's one thing, but having to do it so that maybe they don't set themselves up as slaves to the fans on this or some other game forum is kind of silly, because Shepard's fate is small potatoes compared to how the universe-altering choices make a sequel difficult. Anyway, I consider this issue irrelevant since Shepard can survive. It's the fact that Shepard's fate varies at all that would ensure that he/she would not show up in another game just as well as having death be unavoidable anyway.

 

The next game could just as well take place beyond Shepard's lifetime in the future, and that would easily get that problem out of the way. Fans who are keen to cry about it would get over it just fine. Maybe some won't, but who cares about them anyway?

[MrFob]

*snip*

So yeah, Shepard had to die.

So, in that entire very long post, I don't see a single argument for that last sentence.

I think what you wanted to say was: So yeah, the writers wanted Shepard to die.

 

Well, that much seems obvious (since s/he did) but there is no point in your post to say why s/he had to.

The only thing that comes close is that players would have demanded to see Shepard in the next game, which they still do even now and which BW has no obligation to adhere to (so it's not really a very strong argument).

 

From a narrative viewpoint, I didn't see the necessity in this case at all, especially given what a wide variety of narratives ME3 offers with all the choices and consequences from this and the previous games. Personally, I think a choice, similar to Dragon Age (maybe with different mechanics)would have worked much better.

[Lyrandori]

So, in that entire very long post, I don't see a single argument for that last sentence.

I think what you wanted to say was: So yeah, the writers wanted Shepard to die.

 

Well, that much seems obvious (since s/he did) but there is no point in your post to say why s/he had to.

The only thing that comes close is that players would have demanded to see Shepard in the next game, which they still do even now and which BW has no obligation to adhere to (so it's not really a very strong argument).

 

From a narrative viewpoint, I didn't see the necessity in this case at all, especially given what a wide variety of narratives ME3 offers with all the choices and consequences from this and the previous games. Personally, I think a choice, similar to Dragon Age (maybe with different mechanics)would have worked much better.

 

Ah, well let's put it this way then: the Mass Effect's team never planned the existence of Shepard post-trilogy.

 

They had to kill Shepard because the trilogy was over. They planned Shepard's existence to that point, that's about it.

 

We don't actually know if BioWare themselves planned for ME4 at all. Personally I do not think that they had any Mass Effect game whatsoever in mind after ME3. They did mention that they wanted Mass Effect to be a trilogy, however. I do believe (without having the proof, just my gut talking to me) that it is EA who wanted BioWare to work on another Mass Effect (c'mon, we know Mass Effect is lucrative) when in fact BioWare was "done" with it (story-wise). It might explain why ME4's team is now completely different (it's basically the team who worked on ME3's multi-player, which itself was separate from the one doing the campaign, from what I can recall anyway, correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Also, you don't really "end Shepard's journey" (as they put it) if for example you don't kill him/her and bring him back in the next game (either as the protagonist, or a cameo, or even if he or she is just being mentioned as still living 'out there somewhere' without having the chance to actually see the hero of the galaxy). I do agree that "ending Shepard's journey" does not mean "death" specifically (as I did in my previous post), but it doesn't mean "we'll see him/her again in the next game" either. Gah... if only they could have used other words to describe what they wanted to express, to "end Shepard's journey" is too ambiguous. The thing is from what I do remember they said that ME3 would "end Shepard's journey" PRIOR to the game's release... so obviously it had to be vague. Can you imagine the community's reaction prior to the game's release had BioWare been blunt and announced that ME3 would "end Shepard's life" instead? Oh boy... don't even want to think about it (yeah ok you'd have had some odds for some people saying "alright bring Shepard's death on! I'm ready! HOOHA!", but generally-speaking the fanbase would have freaked out).

 

My "argument", then I guess (and to repeat myself) is that they "had" to kill Shepard because they planned for it, Shepard would exist for the span of a trilogy, that's it. They never planned for Shepard in any potential future title (I.E. ME4, and possibly beyond) nor did they even planned for ME4 to start with (but that's my own theory).

[Obadiah]

Its true, the Bioware devs didn't need to kill Shepard to end his journey. I think, er... gut instinct here, they REALLY wanted to avoid a Revan-type situation, where a character they created just went on and on and on dangling for forever, until the original player created character was lost to some sequel down the road.

 

* Shrug * But I do like me some Revan. And, hell, if they really want to bring Shepard back, Control Shepard could download to a synthetic humanoid body, Synthesis Shepard could be regenerate through a "vergence" in the Synthesis (lol), and of course Destroy Shepard could walk out of the bar.

[KaiserShep]

Ah, well let's put it this way then: the Mass Effect's team never planned the existence of Shepard post-trilogy.

 

They had to kill Shepard because the trilogy was over. They planned Shepard's existence to that point, that's about it.

 

We don't actually know if BioWare themselves planned for ME4 at all. Personally I do not think that they had any Mass Effect game whatsoever in mind after ME3. They did mention that they wanted Mass Effect to be a trilogy, however. I do believe (without having the proof, just my gut talking to me) that it is EA who wanted BioWare to work on another Mass Effect (c'mon, we know Mass Effect is lucrative) when in fact BioWare was "done" with it (story-wise). It might explain why ME4's team is now completely different (it's basically the team who worked on ME3's multi-player, which itself was separate from the one doing the campaign, from what I can recall anyway, correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Also, you don't really "end Shepard's journey" (as they put it) if for example you don't kill him/her and bring him back in the next game (either as the protagonist, or a cameo, or even if he or she is just being mentioned as still living 'out there somewhere' without having the chance to actually see the hero of the galaxy). I do agree that "ending Shepard's journey" does not mean "death" specifically (as I did in my previous post), but it doesn't mean "we'll see him/her again in the next game" either. Gah... if only they could have used other words to describe what they wanted to express, to "end Shepard's journey" is too ambiguous. The thing is from what I do remember they said that ME3 would "end Shepard's journey" PRIOR to the game's release... so obviously it had to be vague. Can you imagine the community's reaction prior to the game's release had BioWare been blunt and announced that ME3 would "end Shepard's life" instead? Oh boy... don't even want to think about it (yeah ok you'd have had some odds for some people saying "alright bring Shepard's death on! I'm ready! HOOHA!", but generally-speaking the fanbase would have freaked out).

 

My "argument", then I guess (and to repeat myself) is that they "had" to kill Shepard because they planned for it, Shepard would exist for the span of a trilogy, that's it. They never planned for Shepard in any potential future title (I.E. ME4, and possibly beyond) nor did they even planned for ME4 to start with (but that's my own theory).

Killing off the protagonist is only ever a matter of what the writers want, not what they have to do. What some fans think about it won't change that.