165 réponses à ce sujet

[Tevinter Soldier]

I think many of us are looking wrong at the endings of ME3 in the sense, that when making the choice we rationalize why it is the best solution in our opinion.

 

For example I take destroy, because I'm not sure if I (my Shep) can control the Reapers forever (so there is a possibility of them becoming the deadly threat they are again) and I would never force a DNA change on the galactic community. So of course I think of future scenarios that are totally different in all three scenarios.

 

Going forward in the ME universe that might not be though what Bioware is doing. They might say: all three endings are valid solutions to the Reaper threat. That means what they have in common is that the Reaper problem is solved.

 

1) In Destroy there are no Reapers anymore.

2) In Control the Reapers have vanished.

3) In Synthesis the Reapers have fulfilled their purpose and will for example be deactivated (maybe they even self-deactivate after their mission was successful, i don't know).

 

Ok, so Reapers are no more. For the survivors destroy and control are the same, the only difference initially might be that there are no Geth (though as machines they could be rebuilt) or that the Quarians are low in the numbers (even if you side with the Geth, not all Quarians are with the Flotilla and not all Quarians would die if they lose the war with the Geth anyways).

 

So what does that mean for the next Mass Effect game? That Geth and Quarians won't play a central part. Nothing more. Doesn't even mean that you can't have squadmates from these races, just that they are not central to the plot as a whole race.

 

Genophage cured or not? Even simpler. Just because your Shepard decides not to cure the Genophage, doesn't mean that the Krogan don't succeed with their main goal later. Yes, I know, Mordin thinks that "someone else might have gotten it wrong", but that doesn't mean that the writers can't come up with another crazy good scientist finding a solution later on.

 

Ok, so the major differences are no problem going forward if we think of destroy and control at first. Remains synthesis as a possibility. Though I think of it as raping the galactic community to say it clear, that again (and the epilogue for that ending suggest otherwise) might not be how Mass Effects writers see it. To come up with a solution for this they could for example say: if you choose synthesis as starting point going forward, the races get powers they hadn't before, because now they are "half man, half amazing" - I mean "half man, half machine". So when customizing your new hero you could probably choose from a wider set of powers than when you choose destroy or control. I still wouldn't choose it, but hey, that would even underscore their intention of synthesis being the best and inevitable solution.

 

Being green you say? Could be a side effect that wears off or not, shouldn't be too hard to implement in the game. A non-factor when you wear your armor and just green eyes for everyone in cut scenes if it doesn't wear off.

 

Alright, Reapers are gone, every choice at the end of ME3 is valid going forward and has nothing to do with the new conflict.

 

So here we go: setting? To me from the concept art and other info (new races will be discovered) it looks like it is after ME3s ending, but not too far ahead because of the return of the Mako. We heard that it will be a hero's journey, so we will start at an earlier point in a career path than we did with Shepard. The conflict might arise with at least one of the two new races, obviously it is likely with the one with that dark, mysterious hub.

 

An early guess: "After the Reaper threat was solved, the galactic community explores not seen before regions in the Galaxy to get new resources for the rebuilding effort. And they thought they where safe..."

 

I love how much time and energy people put into their decisions.

 

Mines simple, job was to end the reaper threat. didn't even consider the options, "sure you could destroy us" "thanks kid" *fires*

[wunjilau]

 The time frame is real time. You see on Tuchanka, and Palavens moon and Thessia. They're all fighting for survival against the Reapers until suddenly the Crucible's wave of energy (godlike in power) arrives and changes everything. These battles were taking place while the Crucible was being activated. The relay network propels it at FTL speeds. The battles didn't last for light years. They lasted basically until Shep activates the Crucible and for a short time after (until the energy reaches them).

 

And yes, humans did "build" the Crucible along with all the other beings of the galaxy. However, this cycle was not its designers. Credit goes to all the past cycles who had a hand in coming up with the concept, the blueprints and refining it. We stood on the shoulders of giants. If not for them, we would've never achieved this galaxy changing event.

 

You say it's "far better" to view the scene as the galaxy map. But it's not the galaxy map. It is the actual view of the galaxy. But if make believing it's the map makes things more convenient for you, go ahead.

 

Okay, so there's some misunderstanding here. I get that the beam propagation through the network is FTL; that's fine, we know that's what relays do. I'm saying that those pretty blooming explosions probably aren't FTL. Those three planets you mention, Tuchanka, Palaven, and Thessia, are all no more than a few light-hours from the nearest relay, so they'd be affected by the wave within a few hours of the Crucible being triggered, which is consistent with what we see in the ending. Other Citadel worlds, being linked by relays and conventional FTL, would similarly be affected just a few years later. The rest of the galaxy, though, wouldn't see the effects of the wave for much longer, and that's assuming the wave maintains intensity over distance, which doesn't seem likely. 

 

Shoulders of giants or not, the current cycle built the thing in the space of a couple of years. Again, I'm trying to express a sense of magnitude here: you're trying to tell me that we built a device that selectively rewrites every single organic cell AND computer system in a 10,000 light year radius INSTANTLY. I'm fine with most of the magic-science aspects of Mass Effect, but that's a little much, especially since there's no reason yet given to say that the wave's effects weren't just limited to current Citadel space. 

 

As for the "actual view", do you even understand what it is you're claiming to see? Light travels at light speed, which, as noted before, means that light takes 100,000 years to get from one end of the galaxy to the other. We, humans, see light in the visible range. We don't see ultraviolet, we don't see infrared, and we sure as heck don't see whatever FTL wave-particles look like. So, if we're seeing an "actual view" of the galaxy, what are we looking at?

1) Is it visible light, such that we can see it? Can't be, because even if those events are taking place a few seconds apart, all over the galaxy, it would take the light from those events tens of thousands of years to reach our observing eyes, situated outside the galactic disk.  

2) Is it some kind of magical "FTL" light? If so, how are we seeing it? Our eyes don't work that way. If the RGB explosion "energy" really does move at tens of thousands of light years a second, fast enough to get to our viewpoint outside the galaxy as the event is happening, our eyes will never pick any of it up, because it will have entered our iris and passed out the other side before any of the necessary electrical reactions have time to take place to register in our brain as having "seen" something (or simply burn its way through, as high-energy particles are wont to do). Now, I suppose one might posit some kind of FTL particle that rewrites DNA in a certain radius around it, that also is designed to impart just enough energy to a human eye's rods (and cones, because, remember, they're in convenient red, green, and blue varieties!) so that a constant stream of them would be registered as visible light, but that's.....that's just....wow. 

3) Or, is it a computer rendering of a cosmic event, translated into visible light and graphics that our human brains can detect and understand?

 

Seriously, which one of those options sounds most like "make believing"?

[Mcfly616]

Snip

You're right. There's a misunderstanding. It's a video game you're thinking way too hard about. 

 

 

 

I know what light speed is and all that jazz. If I were standing on a rock 65 million light years away, looking back at Earth, I would be able to see the death of the dinosaurs. Idc. The game does not zoom out to the inside of some dark-space dwelling spectators skull, in order for you to look through their eyeballs to witness the light coming to you over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years. It's just a game visually demonstrating to you (the player) what you just did. In real time. 

 

 

And no. It doesn't happen instantly. The time it takes to travel the mass relay network at the designated FTL speed is how long it takes. So pretty fast, regardless. It gives the entire galaxy (organic and synthetic) a new genetic starting point. Mitochondrial eve. The MEU's version of common descent. That's what solves the eternal conflict. That's what happens. Space magic. If you don't like it, Idk what to tell you.

 

 

This is not hard science fiction. It is a full fledged space opera.

[wunjilau]

You're right. There's a misunderstanding. It's a video game you're thinking way too hard about. 

 

You're posting just as much justification for your position here, and you have about seven thousand more forum posts than I do, so if I'm thinking too hard about a video game, pot, meet kettle. (Also, thinking too hard about explaining science isn't a problem for me, since I do it for a living.)

 

 

It's just a game visually demonstrating to you (the player) what you just did. In real time. 

 

/headdesk. That's exactly what I've been saying. It's an adapted representation. Not real. Not actual. Just a visual demonstration. Open to interpretation, just like any visual demonstration.

 

 

This is not hard science fiction. It is a full fledged space opera.

 

And yes, it's space opera. That's been my point from the start, that the writers can justify pretty much anything for the sake of a narratively satisfying continuation, rather than a prequel/retread of past events. Precisely because of space magic, there's absolutely no reason why a sequel can't take place following the events of ME3, using logically developed narrative devices and story hooks. (I should note, however, that despite the opera, the writers have taken great pains to provide fairly good scientific backing for nearly all of the story's background; it's really quite impressive how carefully they've managed information to maintain an exceptionally high level of plausibility for an FPS/RPG.)

 

You obviously REALLY hate the idea of a sequel, and seem very fixed to the idea of a midquel/concurrent story. I'm cool with that; in fact, I wrote in support of that exact possibility on the first few pages of this thread. But I happen to also see other possibilities and options for the writers, and I'll note that I didn't start this discussion; you challenged me, repeatedly, specifically attacking me on scientific observations as well as narrative interpretation. I've just been defending myself and one possible viewpoint, just as I advocated earlier for yours. 

[Shermos]

Problem is the eternal conflict can't be resolved without achieving synthesis. It can't be held at bay without Reapers around. So, to converge all ME3 endings moving forward and just say "oh everything is cool", wouldn't work. 

 

Synthesis isn't necessarily the only way to deal with the potential for conflict. The Catalyst thinks it is the best way to solve the problem, but it thinking that doesn't automatically make it true. It failed in its' attempt to act as a mediator, but that doesn't mean mediation is impossible. I think the Catalyst inherited some of the hubris of the Leviathan. 

 

Control offers a way to stop the Cycles with the Reapers still around to act as peace keepers. It also doesn't reject the possibility of synthesis developing naturally. Destroy offers the galaxy the chance to find a way to deal with the conflict without needing Reapers. And again, it doesn't reject the possibility of synthesis developing naturally. 

 

Most people, including myself, reject Synthesis on the basis that it is forced on the galaxy without giving it a choice to opt out or find an alternative. My Shepard doesn't have a problem with forcing a choice or policy on people if it is necessary for their survival or for the good of the galaxy, but this conviction has limits. Forcing a fundamental change to the structure of DNA crosses a red line. My Shepard was also concerned about what long term consequences Synthesis might have. It seems to destroy the process of natural evolution and the diversity this creates, replacing it with an entirely artificial process. I'm not convinced that's a good thing. 

 

It may be that Synthesis is the ultimate outcome and that our choice at the end of ME3 merely resulted in it developing in different ways. I could live with that, as long as it could be said that it developed naturally.   

 

I any case, I believe the organic/synthetic conflict can be proclaimed to be over (or at least inconsequential) in a post ME3 game, and without needing synthesis. 

[Umbar]

We are never going to stop arguing about the damn endings, are we? 

 

As for the topic of the thread, I am personally hoping for a weird mix between side-quel and sequel. The ME3 endings were, all of them, game-changers and would massively impact any sequels. Given that the 3 endings were so different, it would be very hard to tell a common story that fit all of them. This is why I'm opting for a side-quel, which hopefully would not completely invalidate ME3 by canonizing a given ending. 

 

How can it be both side-quel and sequel? Well as far as we know the game is set in another galaxy/new parts of the MW galaxy. Maybe the protagonists are part of an exploration/colonization fleet that set out in the interval between ME1 and ME2. Because of the immense distances involved, they have been out of touch with Citadel space. So we can have the benefits of ME2 technology and not have to refer to ME3 any more than necessary. 

 

This is not the only way to do it, of course. The only thing I'm really hoping for is that the player's decisions are respected. If I chose Destroy, I don't want to be told Synthesis was the canon choice; same for all the other choices. But any story post-ME3 has to take the endings into account. A world where everyone is now half-synthetic/half-organic is going to be very different from a world were benevolent ShepReapers oversee peace or where the Mass Relays were all destroyed and have to be rebuilt. I honestly don't see how you can tell a common story for every one of those settings. But I don't want them to invalidate ME3 either. So, a prequel or side-quel seems like the only respectable option. 

[K2LU533]

Just saw this, thought some might find it interesting:

"The zeioph were an ancient spacefaring race that built millions of elaborate crypts on the surface of the planetArmeni. "
 

"Closer investigation revealed these as millions of elaborate crypts a few meters below the surface, left by a long-extinct space-faring species called the zeioph. Many human universities wish to perform archaeological excavations. Council law holds grave sites as sacrosanct, however, and the matter has been tied up in court for a decade."

"The Zeioph were of sufficient technological capability to develop and even perfect gene therapy and cloning, create sophisticated artificial intelligence, and even develop wormholes a form of interstellar travel using wormholes instead of the mass relays."

 

Worm holes? Ancient crypts/tombs? An ancient alien race? Sounds and looks a lot like what we have been seeing so far. Might be a coincidence, but interesting nonetheless. 

[Shermos]

Very interesting. Nice find.

[Kabooooom]

Very interesting. Nice find.

No it isn't. I'm 99.9% certain that the last paragraph is not located anywhere in the games. Not in the planet descriptions, codex, or in-game dialogue. Nor is it located in any out-game media from the extended universe. The first two paragraphs are real, however - just not the one regarding wormholes.

He either made it up or copied it from someone that made it up.

EDIT: This is where he got it from, apparently. Or where it ultimately originates from:

http://masseffectfan...ioph-Reaper_War

Like I said, its BS. And since someone had to copy and paste that fan-fiction paragraph to the real codex paragraphs, I will go out on a limb and call it deliberate BS too.

[K2LU533]

Ah fair enough, my bad, assumed that ME Wiki was checked for authenticity.

[Mcfly616]

Wiki's are wrong all the time. Best not to reference them.

[Vazgen]

Ah fair enough, my bad, assumed that ME Wiki was checked for authenticity.

It's Mass Effect Fanfiction Wiki, not Mass Effect Wiki

[Mcfly616]

Post-synthesis setting FTW!

[Madcat 124]

 

As for the topic of the thread, I am personally hoping for a weird mix between side-quel and sequel. The ME3 endings were, all of them, game-changers and would massively impact any sequels. Given that the 3 endings were so different, it would be very hard to tell a common story that fit all of them. This is why I'm opting for a side-quel, which hopefully would not completely invalidate ME3 by canonizing a given ending. 

 

They can just say that the ME storyline ends with Synthesis, just like your ME story ended if Shepard died in ME2. 

 

Control and Destroy can both be written to end up being the same in time.

 

Control - Reapers disappear into deep space after galaxy rebuilds.

 

Destroy - The galaxy just rebuilds over time.

 

Honestly, Synthesis is the only way they screw up the possibility of a sequel. Hell, not even, they can even just write it off as saying the effect wore off eventually or in due time future generations became closer and closer to their ancestors (normal organics).

 

After 3 years I think I'm starting to be okay with the ME3 ending, except for Synthesis. I'm still salty about that.

[Mcfly616]

I've been of the same mind as Umbar for the past few years now. It's just more plausible imo

[LRTJeeves]

Here's what I think:

 

It's 2184, you're a fresh N7 straight out of school. They give you the latest gear and send you to the butt end of the galaxy to take a look at some rock where stuff keeps happening. You press a button, pull a lever and tada! A big bob-the-builder-bot wakes up. Turns out it's a Metacon. Turns out there are more. Amidst the explosions you run for your life, choose which one of your squaddies is left behind to distract the enemy and barely get back to the ship. You send a plea for help and ask it to be delivered to the highest possible authority. The council replies: 'Metacons? Naah, we've have dismissed that claim'.

 

You then have to build alliances, gather every ship in the neighbourhood to fight the Metacon threat. While rallying your posse, you stumble upon this weird organic dude who's been taking a nap for 50k years. He tells you that there's a much bigger threat and calls you a stupid primitive. You find out that the enemy is planning to conquer a nearby planet where an indigenous tribe of blue people are residing. You say no. They say: 'Your words are as empty as their future. Our numbers will darken the sky of this world. You cannot escape, their doom'. 

 

After this brief conversation a space battle ensues where bits fall off, tear off, get blown off or just explode as you and your allies kick butt or get torn apart, depending on your choices along the way. Indigenous people death toll is shown. Faunts - M4 Part 1, Credits.