90 réponses à ce sujet

[caradoc2000]

Bioware got themselves in the corner by making the Refuse option. It is possible that all races were harvested, Shepard died and Reapers returned to the dark space. There are not many options that can consider that choice as well.

In that case the game will be set in the next cycle 50k years in the future - we get to play a Yahg neoShepard.

[Paridave]

Thanks to the short-sightedness of the Bioware lead writers and former project head, the ending of Mass Effect 3 has become a brick wall that they can't write their way through.

 

Actually they started writing their way through it with the EC, where the Relays were not destroyed just damaged, which means the final decision, what ever it may have been, might also have been damaged.  In fact it may have splintered so that some systems have been synthesized, some systems may have docile, controlled Reapers, and others be Reaper free.  That would give you at least one new species and all 3 endings would have relevance.   

[Fortlowe]

The ending I see the most problems with, which ironically is also, to me, the "best" ending, is synthesis. If all of a sudden the galaxy is one big happy family, from where will the conflict arise? The same can be said of control, in a sense. Everyone get along or omni shepherd applies the reaper tipped boot. That ending could play on rebellion as its catalyst.

Synthesis wraps things up almost too neatly.

[Who Knows]

Even though it's my least favorite ending besides refuse, they should just canonize destroy.

Considering how many people like Destroy (at least in comparison to the others) and dislike Control/Synthesis, canonizing destroy seems pretty safe.

[Vazgen]

I really hope that N7 armor piece is just some trophy. "There was a hole" 

I don't want another military character. "Yes, sir! No, sir! Can't have any fun with a stick up your ass, sir!"

[caradoc2000]

Considering how many people like Destroy (at least in comparison to the others) and dislike Control/Synthesis, canonizing destroy seems pretty safe.

You do have to kill EDI for that  - and the geth if you got them.

[Who Knows]

You do have to kill EDI for that  - and the geth if you got them.

I think EDI & the Geth could reasonably be rebuilt. Not the exact same as right before they were destroyed, but in a general sense.

[Kabooooom]

I think you are living in a fantasy world if you do not believe Shepard will not be addressed at all. We already have confirmation the new hero will be human and likely a member of N7. BioWare has maintained continuity and choices in their last five games for each successive title. I don't see why they would break that trend for MENext.

Seriously? Dude, they have said literally like a hundred times that they want a standalone story, that they want to distance themselves from the prior trilogy, that they dont want a direct sequel, that we shouldn't call it "mass effect 4", that they want to start over anew and from their prior track record that they probably dont want to canonize an ending (which makes sense given the controversy and how personal of a story it was for the player) .

If you think that this game will be a direct sequel, you are going to be majorly disappointed. But it will be your own fault, since they've been spelling it out for months and will continue to do so as more news is released.

[Revan Reborn]

 

 

I actually think they didn't plan to continue the franchise. It was a decision that came later. 

I would prefer having all races present and no Reapers or anything, which is clearly possible in a new region of space (which is mentioned in E3 trailer). That's why I think Shepard's actions will not be detailed in any way, we'll get some references to the First Human Spectre thing, saving the Citadel, Akuze/Torfan/Elysium and... that's all. And I'm completely OK with that. Space is huge, let us have a completely different experience without the shadow of the trilogy standing over it

 

What? Are you nuts? BioWare made a brand new franchise that received incredible welcome and success from the gaming industry. Nobody just "ends a franchise" after it has become one of the best and brightest RPGs in the industry. That's not even logical.

 

I don't believe you are being realistic. Just look at BioWare's past games and how choices carry over from one to the next. That was a standard that Mass Effect started. I believe you'll be greatly disappointed as I cannot fathom any reason for why BioWare would not continue a longstanding tradition and give our choices meaning. The events of the original trilogy aren't just going to "disappear," regardless of whether you approved of the ending or not. It's very much a part of Mass Effect and I personally want to know that my Shepard existed and had an impact.

 

Really? Damn. I was really hoping that we will be able to choose a different race and backstory. Can I ask for source? 

BioWare showed us images of our "hero" back in July at Comic Con. You can easily find information about it if you search it on youtube. There is even footage of the mako in action on Frostbite 3.

[Revan Reborn]

A end should be canon, for me it should be Destroy, would i want my new pc to constantly be compared to Shepard? no, frack that, that would just annoy the life out of me tbh, i want the new pc to be his/her own person and not held upto some sort of standard, I believe shepard will be referenced but i hope its nothing to do with choices or anything as i hope no choices will be imported to the new game, fresh start n all that

Destroy is by far the only ending that really makes sense, as destroying the reapers was always the plan going back to ME1.

 

I don't believe that's realistic honestly. BioWare always imports choices with their games. Dragon Age Keep is their most recent vision to show how they'll be able to manage all these choices for future Dragon Age games. I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for Mass Effect, which certainly has just as many important decisions, if not more.

 

In that case the game will be set in the next cycle 50k years in the future - we get to play a Yahg neoShepard.

I really don't understand why people believe "Refuse" is actually a valid choice. It's not choosing at all, and you essentially lose the game. It's not a valid outcome.

 

 

Thanks to the short-sightedness of the Bioware lead writers and former project head, the ending of Mass Effect 3 has become a brick wall that they can't write their way through.

 

Actually they started writing their way through it with the EC, where the Relays were not destroyed just damaged, which means the final decision, what ever it may have been, might also have been damaged.  In fact it may have splintered so that some systems have been synthesized, some systems may have docile, controlled Reapers, and others be Reaper free.  That would give you at least one new species and all 3 endings would have relevance.   

 

As I stated before, BioWare certainly knew their vision for the future of Mass Effect before writing the ending for ME3. I do not understand why people think the franchise is "done" and it's impossible to reconcile the legitimate choices BioWare provided us. This is their universe and we have only scratched the surface of it.

 

The ending I see the most problems with, which ironically is also, to me, the "best" ending, is synthesis. If all of a sudden the galaxy is one big happy family, from where will the conflict arise? The same can be said of control, in a sense. Everyone get along or omni shepherd applies the reaper tipped boot. That ending could play on rebellion as its catalyst.

Synthesis wraps things up almost too neatly.

Synthesis and Control are by far the worst endings in terms of reconciling how they are resolved going forward. I have a feeling BioWare would just have to conclude that "synthesis" was not the perfect solution the catalyst predicted, as it had been wrong in the past, and perhaps things can be undone. I'm really not too worried about this as I'm sure Mac Walters had a plan for the future regardless of these endings.

 

Even though it's my least favorite ending besides refuse, they should just canonize destroy.

Considering how many people like Destroy (at least in comparison to the others) and dislike Control/Synthesis, canonizing destroy seems pretty safe.

Destroy is the most practical and is the most option with respect to the story. While I agree I believe it's certainly the strongest compared to the others, which are absolutely ridiculous, BioWare will likely have a workaround for all the options, besides Refuse. That wasn't a choice. Just fan service.

 

You do have to kill EDI for that  - and the geth if you got them.

The Catalyst stated that all synthetics would be destroyed. It never stated they couldn't be rebuilt.

 

Seriously? Dude, they have said literally like a hundred times that they want a standalone story, that they want to distance themselves from the prior trilogy, that they dont want a direct sequel, that we shouldn't call it "mass effect 4", that they want to start over anew and from their prior track record that they probably dont want to canonize an ending (which makes sense given the controversy and how personal of a story it was for the player) .

If you think that this game will be a direct sequel, you are going to be majorly disappointed. But it will be your own fault, since they've been spelling it out for months and will continue to do so as more news is released.

You are confusing having continuity and a true sequel. I never once stated this was Mass Effect 4 or we would play as Shepard. However, this is still the same universe and the choices we made in the past games will affect MENext, whether you like it or not. Look at DAI for a perfect example of a game that is not a direct sequel, but events from the previous games shape the world state when you start. The same is inevitable with MENext and how ME1-3 will shape the world state of the game.

 

We are going to be playing as a hero who rises to fame, is human, and is likely an N7 operative. This is all BioWare has told us. We also know it's very likely that we will see familiar faces, and given BioWare's history with their games, it's almost assured this will take place after the events of ME3. With all that being understood, you would be crazy to believe none of our choices in the previous games will have an impact. This is BioWare we are talking about. Choices and importing is what separates them from every other developer.

 

Before MENext is released, I will not be surprised if BioWare creates a "Mass Effect Keep" allowing us to make all of our choices and then uploading our own personal world states into MENext. This will obviously be a new experience with a new protagonist, new locations, and a new threat. However, do not fool yourself into believing that ME1-3 is irrelevant or even the endings of ME3 "never happened" or are "ignored."

[rapscallioness]

 

Thanks to the short-sightedness of the Bioware lead writers and former project head, the ending of Mass Effect 3 has become a brick wall that they can't write their way through.

 

Actually they started writing their way through it with the EC, where the Relays were not destroyed just damaged, which means the final decision, what ever it may have been, might also have been damaged.  In fact it may have splintered so that some systems have been synthesized, some systems may have docile, controlled Reapers, and others be Reaper free.  That would give you at least one new species and all 3 endings would have relevance.   

 

 

 

This is actually...kinda interesting. I mean, from a gaming perspective, it would be fun to see these divergent areas. Going to synth planets. Seeing how their culture and ppl came along. As well as Destroy which I imagine being a bit more primitive tech wise. And control you still got those reapers hanging about. If not the full ships, the husks. What abt the husks? Where are they gonna go? I always felt that if they were still around they would have to have some kinda leper section/island for them. Their own culture. Cuz srsly, nobody's gonna want them around.Esp after all that has happened.

 

Maybe the Crucible neam/light "refracted or something like that. The Crucible was like playing with fire anyway. One small variable gone the wrong way...and who knows what it coulda done.

 

As afar as Shep OP, Someoen mentioned a cult. I like that idea, too. Having a few diff lines here and there abt what Shep did..and their opinions on it (maybe not everyone thinks shep is such a hero?) would be okay. Interesting even.

 

But not too much. I'm not interested in too much Shep in the next game.

[rapscallioness]

And if we do see a few familiar faces. And it is a sequel in the future, then prolly liare and/or wrex---which means a future under 1,000 years.

[caradoc2000]

I really don't understand why people believe "Refuse" is actually a valid choice. It's not choosing at all, and you essentially lose the game. It's not a valid outcome.

It is very much a choice. Shepard even says so, refusing to play the game on the Catalyst's terms.

The Catalyst stated that all synthetics would be destroyed. It never stated they couldn't be rebuilt.

The Reapers could be rebuilt as well. The Starchild hints at this: "it won't last".

[KaiserShep]

The chances of anything similar to the reapers being rebuilt are pretty remote.

[SolNebula]

To be quite frank OP i'm with you with wanting the game to be post-Reaper wars, however where I do not agree is to use shepard as a way to put pressure on us. I would like that what happened in the Trilogy to be considered done. What would be ideal in my book is a mention of Shepard and the outcome of the Reaper Wars but from there though I expect the game to focus on fresh themes and characters.

 

I don't want the new protagonist to be Shepard V.2.0 but to be someone different...maybe less perfect and less of an hero. Saving the whole galaxy all over again seems a rather abused theme in this game. I would prefer something more manageable this time around. BW should take lesson from ME Trilogy and don't write again themselves in a corner with an OP enemy we cannot defeat without space magic.

 

I think that ME:Next should try to detach from the main characters of the old trilogy while mantaining a continuity of events from the old Trilogy. Shepard, Liara, Garrus etc. they should be considered like figures of the past, of a glorious heroic past that differs from the new ME. Shepard was the right guy for the Reapers, our hero needs to be the right guy for the threat we are going to face in ME:Next. Living on the shadow of Shepard can really hinder the character progression of our protagonist.

[Vazgen]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think we'll get "nods to the trilogy" at most, they won't make the world state highly dependent on Shepard's solution. I'm fine with both versions but would prefer them to distance themselves from the trilogy.

[Dar'Nara]

...

 

The Reapers could be rebuilt as well. The Starchild hints at this: "it won't last".

 

If they made Destroy ending canon then could they not get around that by having the surviving races learn from what happened and make sure such a conflict like this never happens again? Admiral Hackett at the end does say everything can be rebuilt but it'll take time so i see no reason why mostly everything couldnt be rebuilt as it was, better even!

 

In terms of Reapers, i guess they could be rebuilt but...ehh...i dont see it happening now. I would think even the power hungry would steer clear of trying to rebuild one considering how wrong things could go   ...Although one never knows, theres always a crazy whacko out there willing to do anything

 

 

If Shepard is to be a distant memory in the next game i hope we're not pressured by the in-game characters to becoming him. "Shepard saved the galaxy, why cant you be more like him/her?" - "Shepard would have let him live, you monster!"  - "Eh, Shepard danced better." 

[nallepuh86]

Yeah, i hope that they will notify the shepard more than just few texts from codex. Maybe we would see her daughter that Liara made her self pregnant with shepard before final assault.

No matter who we play as in MENext, our new hero should never be able to reach fame witch would rival that of Shepard.

 

As a matter of fact - this is BioWare game, so we can be good or a complete crackhole who is not just renegade, but maybe even evil at points.

 

They way I see it - I would love BioWare choosing canon in witch everyone from Shepards team survived (except Thane who's death is canon in ME3) and everyone from that team having a spot in MENext as idol figures or part of common culture.

Agree, no hero can be more famous than the only true shepard:

[caradoc2000]

If they made Destroy ending canon then could they not get around that by having the surviving races learn from what happened and make sure such a conflict like this never happens again? Admiral Hackett at the end does say everything can be rebuilt but it'll take time so i see no reason why mostly everything couldnt be rebuilt as it was, better even!

One constant thing about history is that nothing is ever learned from it.

[ZipZap2000]

Just one reference would do I don't want to be hearing references to everything everywhere we take this new guy/gal.

 

*elevator news voice*

 

"Memorial services and celebrations will be held today to honour those who gave their lives during the Reaper war. A wreath will be laid at the tomb of The Hero Of The Citadel and a parade will be held to acknowledge the contributions the SPECTRE's have made to council space."

[Heimdall]

Thanks to the short-sightedness of the Bioware lead writers and former project head, the ending of Mass Effect 3 has become a brick wall that they can't write their way through.
 
Actually they started writing their way through it with the EC, where the Relays were not destroyed just damaged, which means the final decision, what ever it may have been, might also have been damaged.  In fact it may have splintered so that some systems have been synthesized, some systems may have docile, controlled Reapers, and others be Reaper free.  That would give you at least one new species and all 3 endings would have relevance.

Lets be fair, they planned it as a trilogy and basically recieved a directive from EA towards the very end of ME3 development to make more Mass Effect. Or atleast that's how I heard the story.

[Revan Reborn]

It is very much a choice. Shepard even says so, refusing to play the game on the Catalyst's terms.

The Reapers could be rebuilt as well. The Starchild hints at this: "it won't last".

Yes. It's as much a "choice" as Shepard having the choice to die in ME2. An illusory choice. Nothing more. Just because you can fail purposely doesn't mean it will be an option supported by BioWare. No, the reapers cannot be rebuilt. Unless the Leviathans come back from the dead or someone builds another catalyst, that's not even remotely possible. Nobody has the technology or the knowledge to build a reaper.

 

The chances of anything similar to the reapers being rebuilt are pretty remote.

Exactly.

 

To be quite frank OP i'm with you with wanting the game to be post-Reaper wars, however where I do not agree is to use shepard as a way to put pressure on us. I would like that what happened in the Trilogy to be considered done. What would be ideal in my book is a mention of Shepard and the outcome of the Reaper Wars but from there though I expect the game to focus on fresh themes and characters.

 

I don't want the new protagonist to be Shepard V.2.0 but to be someone different...maybe less perfect and less of an hero. Saving the whole galaxy all over again seems a rather abused theme in this game. I would prefer something more manageable this time around. BW should take lesson from ME Trilogy and don't write again themselves in a corner with an OP enemy we cannot defeat without space magic.

 

I think that ME:Next should try to detach from the main characters of the old trilogy while mantaining a continuity of events from the old Trilogy. Shepard, Liara, Garrus etc. they should be considered like figures of the past, of a glorious heroic past that differs from the new ME. Shepard was the right guy for the Reapers, our hero needs to be the right guy for the threat we are going to face in ME:Next. Living on the shadow of Shepard can really hinder the character progression of our protagonist.

I'm not sure people are understanding. The game is obviously going to be fresh and brand new. My point is that there should be connections and continuity in the past, and that our choices in ME1-3 somewhat impact the world state of MENext. We aren't going to be Shepard 2.0 and I never suggested that. On the contrary, I've said the opposite. Considering the hero of MENext is a human and likely a member of N7, it would be a little shocking if Shepard isn't used by the special force as a standard for all their operatives. This is my point.

 

I certainly also never said we would save the world again. I already stated the new hero needs to be vastly different from Shepard, and his achievements should be much less known, if at all. Did you really think there was ever going to be a real solution to the reapers? It was pretty clear in ME1 that all of the species were vastly behind their technology, so I wasn't surprised at all of the outcome. Having Shepard's legacy looming over the Alliance would provide for some interesting storytelling. I'm not suggesting every other sentence will be "Shepard this" or "Shepard that," but clearly Shepard had an impact on the galaxy going forward and that will be recognized.

 

If they made Destroy ending canon then could they not get around that by having the surviving races learn from what happened and make sure such a conflict like this never happens again? Admiral Hackett at the end does say everything can be rebuilt but it'll take time so i see no reason why mostly everything couldnt be rebuilt as it was, better even!

 

In terms of Reapers, i guess they could be rebuilt but...ehh...i dont see it happening now. I would think even the power hungry would steer clear of trying to rebuild one considering how wrong things could go   ...Although one never knows, theres always a crazy whacko out there willing to do anything

 

 

If Shepard is to be a distant memory in the next game i hope we're not pressured by the in-game characters to becoming him. "Shepard saved the galaxy, why cant you be more like him/her?" - "Shepard would have let him live, you monster!"  - "Eh, Shepard danced better." 

Besides the Illusive Man, I don't believe anyone wants to develop a reaper, unless BioWare introduces a new antagonist that attempts to do so. Again, this has nothing to do with becoming Shepard. It's merely a storytelling device to recognize his impact but also showing how our hero is different. That's the point.

 

Lets be fair, they planned it as a trilogy and basically recieved a directive from EA towards the very end of ME3 development to make more Mass Effect. Or atleast that's how I heard the story.

This is some of the most ridiculous nonsense I've heard. Do you really believe BioWare was going to stop making Mass Effect games after the trilogy ended? I don't think people understand how franchises work. They continue to be made until they are no longer relevant. Look at CoD. Look at Assassin's Creed. Look at Halo. Mass Effect was going to continue to going forward after ME3. Anyone who thought otherwise either doesn't have sense or is obsessed with conspiracy theories because of a hate for EA or a hate for how ME3 ended.

[fyz306903]

I think EDI & the Geth could reasonably be rebuilt. Not the exact same as right before they were destroyed, but in a general sense.

TBH, that's true. Sci-Fi plots are great in that it's easy to retcon them. I know these are cop-outs, but they could come up with tons of reasons to bring EDI and the Geth back in a Destroy ending, my top 3 favourites are: 'We just rebuilt them', 'The Starchild lied' and 'The Crucible only damaged EDI and killed some Geth because they were protected from the red beam for some reason'. 

[Revan Reborn]

TBH, that's true. Sci-Fi plots are great in that it's easy to retcon them. I know these are cop-outs, but they could come up with tons of reasons to bring EDI and the Geth back in a Destroy ending, my top 3 favourites are: 'We just rebuilt them', 'The Starchild lied' and 'The Crucible only damaged EDI and killed some Geth because they were protected from the red beam for some reason'. 

The catalyst only stated that synthetics would be destroyed. It never said they couldn't be rebuilt or the tools to build them would be destroyed. I really don't see it being that unreasonable to rebuild them at all, especially considering Admiral Hackett was talking about building everything else in the EC.