90 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

So you're saying Mass Effect is a terrible RPG because it constrains options and then you yourself are telling me that Shepard can only ever have one goal and can only really make one choice? How does that make any sense? 

 

I disagree that Destroy is the only reasonable option. The point is not whether you agree with that. I'm trying to tell you that I don't think Destroy is the only definitive choice and since that ME is a RPG, my viewpoint is just as valid as yours when it comes to picking an option. Destroy should not be any more canonical than Control/Synthesis etc. just because (according to you and others) it makes the most 'sense'. 

Mass Effect is a terrible RPG because you can only be a paragon Shepard or a renegade Shepard. The game is extensively limited from a role playing perspective. There really is no choice. You either just follow the path of a paragon or a renegade. Dragon Age, as a franchise, has been much more successful in terms of role playing. I thought it was rather obvious that Shepard's goal was to always destroy the Reapers. Regardless of the illusory choices BioWare provides, the story progresses with the intent of Shepard destroying them.

 

I think where BioWare inevitably made a mistake with the entire trilogy was they only provided renegade/paragon options. Yet, the final choice of the game in ME3 was not a straight renegade/paragon option. This led to a disconnect, and part of the reason I believe the final ending of the game was so controversial, because BioWare set a precedent for the entire trilogy. Inevitably though, BioWare is going to honor all of the choices more than likely in MENext. Just because Destroy is the only practical choice based on their storytelling/writing doesn't mean they won't support the others.

 

It's very much the same with the Ultimate Sacrifice in DAO. It was an option, but it wasn't the practical/logical choice. BioWare made this abundantly clear when they made Awakening which was built for the DAO Warden, whereas the Orlesian Warden was just a cheap placeholder had you kill yours off. It's also worth noting that Shepard can only survive in Destroy, which is not an option in any of the other choices. You are more than welcome to believe what you want though. I'm just merely explaining what the clear choice for Shepard was based on BioWare's actions.

 

 

I would be perfectly happy if i didn't hear the name Shepard or saw a N7 logo at all in the next Mass Effect.

Well we already saw the N7 logo on the armor of the new protagonist, and more than likely we will hear about Shepard as well.

[Kabooooom]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

All of that would be fine, except that they wrote themselves into a corner. In another discussion, you wrote a post about why we wont play as aliens due to difficulty implementing game mechanics. I wholeheartedly agree with you, for once. But surely you must see how they wrote themselves into a corner, and how the state of the galaxy in each of the three endings (but especially synthesis) is so divergent that it would make it impossible to implement into a single game without nerfing the diversity of the endings? Right?

They would either have to canonize an ending or trivialize them all (like by making synthesis inevitable no matter what you choose). There is no other option. With a true, direct sequel in the traditional sense this MUST be addressed. No creative writing can undo the ending debacle. If you think it can, then I challenge you to try to do it. It just can't be done.

So if you want a canonized ending or a meaningless ending to ME3, have fun with a sequel. Bioware, however, seems to be fully aware about how foolish of a choice that would be and has actively stated that they DONT want a direct sequel. It will probably be a midiquel, so dont be surprised when it is one.

[Revan Reborn]

All of that would be fine, except that they wrote themselves into a corner. In another discussion, you wrote a post about why we wont play as aliens due to difficulty implementing game mechanics. I wholeheartedly agree with you, for once. But surely you must see how they wrote themselves into a corner, and how the state of the galaxy in each of the three endings (but especially synthesis) is so divergent that it would make it impossible to implement into a single game without nerfing the diversity of the endings? Right?

They would either have to canonize an ending or trivialize them all (like by making synthesis inevitable no matter what you choose). There is no other option. With a true, direct sequel in the traditional sense this MUST be addressed. No creative writing can undo the ending debacle. If you think it can, then I challenge you to try to do it. It just can't be done.

So if you want a canonized ending or a meaningless ending to ME3, have fun with a sequel. Bioware, however, seems to be fully aware about how foolish of a choice that would be and has actively stated that they DONT want a direct sequel. It will probably be a midiquel, so dont be surprised when it is one.

I don't really believe the "they wrote themselves into a corner" mentality as we have a very limited understanding of the Mass Effect franchise outside of the games and the comics. One thing that's worth noting about BioWare's writing process is they write in excess about everything. When they introduce a new species, develop new worlds, etc., they write about everything. They will have hundreds upon hundreds of pages about how these aliens live, what are their customs, their culture, their daily activities, what they eat, everything.

 

We only get a tip of the ice berg with respect to lore and context in the games. This also applies to the story. BioWare sets up a time table of events far in advance of when they fully develop these games. They already had a general idea of how ME3 was going to end before ME1 was already out, as they always planned to make a trilogy. This also applies to BioWare knowing what would happen post-ME3 and likely knowing how to reconcile the various choices going forward. I'm really not concerned or worried at all as BioWare has been storytelling for over two decades.

 

Who said anything about this being a direct sequel? If anything, MENext will be similar to how DAI is to DA2. They aren't direct sequels in that it's a new protagonist and a different journey, but the events and choices that occurred in DA2 (and DAO) will have an impact on DAI, which takes place in the near future. MENext will be a sequel in that sense. It's going to be post-Reapers because BioWare has always gone forward with every game they've made. There is no chance at all that MENext will be a prequel. That wouldn't even make tangible sense given BioWare's history.

 

How far into the future? That's anyone's guess. BioWare has given some indication that we could see familiar faces (likely Asari or Krogans), so it could be 50+ years if BioWare chose. On the contrary, I believe you will be surprised how much the choices of the original trilogy will have an impact on the world state for MENext.

[Karlone123]

The new game isn't going to touch any of the endings, nor will it touch the legend of Shepard. It will somehow completely circumvent the issue entirely.

I will seriously bet you twenty bucks.

 

So, like a new canon? A bit like with Star Wars where a lot of the material has become classified as "Legend" meaning it may or not have happened, and not the definite canon. I would not mind this if the game takes place after ME3. The legend of Shepard could still be there but lost in memory so the exact details of what happened in the Reaper era is not truly known. I wish that would be the case. Would help pave a new fresh start.

[Revan Reborn]

So, like a new canon? A bit like with Star Wars where a lot of the material has become classified as "Legend" meaning it may or not have happened, and not the definite canon. I would not mind this if the game takes place after ME3. The legend of Shepard could still be there but lost in memory so the exact details of what happened in the Reaper era is not truly known. I wish that would be the case. Would help pave a new fresh start.

More like retconning the old by entirely disregarding it. The only reason retcons happen is because of poor writing and lack of foresight. It would be an absolute mistake to disregard Shepard and the events that took place as they are now part of the Mass Effect franchise and history. A history we have built and it would be incredibly disappointing if we could not see that history reflected going forward. MENext may not be a direct sequel, but it is still very much part of the ME universe and continuity should be preserved in some capacity. This idea of a new slate and "a new fresh start" merely just misses the point of what makes Mass Effect unique and different.

[lastpawn]

I'd say there should be the least possible amount of references to the original trilogy. None at all if it's possible. 

 

This is also what I think. Unfortunately the trilogy was designed in such a way as to leave no real space for "other stories" but let's see what they can do.

[Karlone123]

More like retconning the old by entirely disregarding it. The only reason retcons happen is because of poor writing and lack of foresight. It would be an absolute mistake to disregard Shepard and the events that took place as they are now part of the Mass Effect franchise and history. A history we have built and it would be incredibly disappointing if we could not see that history reflected going forward. MENext may not be a direct sequel, but it is still very much part of the ME universe and continuity should be preserved in some capacity. This idea of a new slate and "a new fresh start" merely just misses the point of what makes Mass Effect unique and different.

 

It probably would be missing the point. With the way ME3 ended with the Mass Relays being destroyed somewhat hints that Mass Effect would not progress beyond ME3 ending and would only produce stories that take before or during the Reapers' arrival. that thought worries me. I only prefer a fresh start just to distance the next game away from ME3 cause the story was awful in a lot of areas. Just the ending alone gave me worries of damaging implications for Mass Effect as whole (meaningless spinoffs and prequels).

 

It is up in the air what the next ME game will be and when it will take place, I just do not want to be bound by ME3 brickwall ending/s.

[Kabooooom]

I don't really believe the "they wrote themselves into a corner" mentality as we have a very limited understanding of the Mass Effect franchise outside of the games and the comics. One thing that's worth noting about BioWare's writing process is they write in excess about everything. When they introduce a new species, develop new worlds, etc., they write about everything. They will have hundreds upon hundreds of pages about how these aliens live, what are their customs, their culture, their daily activities, what they eat, everything.

We only get a tip of the ice berg with respect to lore and context in the games. This also applies to the story. BioWare sets up a time table of events far in advance of when they fully develop these games. They already had a general idea of how ME3 was going to end before ME1 was already out, as they always planned to make a trilogy. This also applies to BioWare knowing what would happen post-ME3 and likely knowing how to reconcile the various choices going forward. I'm really not concerned or worried at all as BioWare has been storytelling for over two decades.

Who said anything about this being a direct sequel? If anything, MENext will be similar to how DAI is to DA2. They aren't direct sequels in that it's a new protagonist and a different journey, but the events and choices that occurred in DA2 (and DAO) will have an impact on DAI, which takes place in the near future. MENext will be a sequel in that sense. It's going to be post-Reapers because BioWare has always gone forward with every game they've made. There is no chance at all that MENext will be a prequel. That wouldn't even make tangible sense given BioWare's history.

How far into the future? That's anyone's guess. BioWare has given some indication that we could see familiar faces (likely Asari or Krogans), so it could be 50+ years if BioWare chose. On the contrary, I believe you will be surprised how much the choices of the original trilogy will have an impact on the world state for MENext.

You and I are using different terminology. By "direct sequel", I meant "sequel that follows in a linear timeline from ME3" (NOT that the protagonist is the same, I thought that was abundantly obvious that it wasnt my argument at all). One could, you know, envision a sequel in which the game takes place in a setting divorced from the trilogy entirely.

This is EXACTLY what they will do because they already implied it is what they want to do about a hundred times already. It will be a "sequel", but not in the sense that you are hoping. Like I said man, you're gonna be disappointed.

[Revan Reborn]

You and I are using different terminology. By "direct sequel", I meant "sequel that follows in a linear timeline from ME3" (NOT that the protagonist is the same, I thought that was abundantly obvious that it wasnt my argument at all). One could, you know, envision a sequel in which the game takes place in a setting divorced from the trilogy entirely.

This is EXACTLY what they will do because they already implied it is what they want to do about a hundred times already. It will be a "sequel", but not in the sense that you are hoping. Like I said man, you're gonna be disappointed.

Every Mass Effect and Dragon Age game BioWare has made after the originals would be a "sequel" under your liberal interpretation of the word. This, again, is why it's unlikely BioWare will break away from long-established tendencies. They like going forward, building a history. Having the player's choices in the past somehow affect the future. That's what BioWare has been doing for the past seven years in every game they've made.

 

You previously stated that this new game would take place during Shepard's time in order to avoid the issues of the ME3 endings. That's not a "sequel" at all based on your interpretation. That would be happening contemporaneously rather than subsequently. All I have suggested is that, yes, MENext will have a new protagonist with a new journey, but the events of the Mass Effect trilogy will have an impact. I don't believe that is unreasonable given how BioWare has been developing their games for a long time. If anything, it's more unreasonable to believe they will just start from scratch and have little to no connections with the original trilogy whatsoever.

[Iakus]

So, like a new canon? A bit like with Star Wars where a lot of the material has become classified as "Legend" meaning it may or not have happened, and not the definite canon. I would not mind this if the game takes place after ME3. The legend of Shepard could still be there but lost in memory so the exact details of what happened in the Reaper era is not truly known. I wish that would be the case. Would help pave a new fresh start.

Hopefully more like midichlorians: an embarrassing concept best left unmentioned and forgotten

[fyz306903]

Every Mass Effect and Dragon Age game BioWare has made after the originals would be a "sequel" under your liberal interpretation of the word. This, again, is why it's unlikely BioWare will break away from long-established tendencies. They like going forward, building a history. Having the player's choices in the past somehow affect the future. That's what BioWare has been doing for the past seven years in every game they've made.

I really think it'll be more of a spin-off. Almost everything Bioware has said about ME4 has implied that it won't be a sequel to ME4, direct or otherwise. Firstly, they keep on re-iterating that it's 'not called ME4'. Also here's a quote from Chris Priestly (found from wikipedia and said late 2012/early 2013, I think):

'To call the next game 'Mass Effect 4' or 'ME4' is doing it a disservice ...I see people saying 'well, they’ll have to pick a canon ending.' No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. ... [calling it ME4]  makes people think of it more as 'what happens after 'Mass Effect 3' rather than 'what game happens next set in the 'Mass Effect' Universe'.

 

This really doesn't put me in the mind of any kind of a sequel at all, and explicitly says that they won't need to pick a canon ending, so the 'ark theory' (or something like it) seems to be what'll happen. Unless, of course this just explains a very early concept and Bioware took a massive U-turn afterwards, but from what cryptic stuff they're saying, I doubt it. Still, on the other hand, this might just be a standalone game, so there's no reason to believe we won't get a direct sequel sometime in the future, but ME3's EC ending seemed pretty final. 

[dreamgazer]

Hopefully more like midichlorians: an embarrassing concept best left unmentioned and forgotten

Interestingly, midi-chlorians have been mentioned in over forty pieces of SW fiction since their introduction.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I have little faith in the SP story side of ME 4. For a wide variety of reasons, I truly don't believe there is any satisfactory way to carry on the franchise (from a story point of view) without further diminishing the series.

 

They may surprise me, and if they do, I'll be quick to praise them for it.

 

I'm pretty sure BioWare is putting a lot into expanding and improving on the Multiplayer component. There is definitely a large contingent of players who are likely to purchase ME 4 specifically for the MP (myself included.) I doubt they outnumber the audience focused on the Single Player campaign, but I strongly suspect that it's a lot closer to 50/50 than people realize.

 

I'm sure that they don't want the SP campaign to feel like a "tacked on" element to an MP engine, but I have a hard time seeing myself being interested in anything they would do with the story after ME 3's ending.

[Tonymac]

Interestingly, midi-chlorians have been mentioned in over forty pieces of SW fiction since their introduction.

 

Yeah - that's where Lucas got the idea - from a real writer.  IIRC it was Timothy Zahn.  (But Its been a long time, and I'm not sure)

[Revan Reborn]

I really think it'll be more of a spin-off. Almost everything Bioware has said about ME4 has implied that it won't be a sequel to ME4, direct or otherwise. Firstly, they keep on re-iterating that it's 'not called ME4'. Also here's a quote from Chris Priestly (found from wikipedia and said late 2012/early 2013, I think):

'To call the next game 'Mass Effect 4' or 'ME4' is doing it a disservice ...I see people saying 'well, they’ll have to pick a canon ending.' No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. ... [calling it ME4]  makes people think of it more as 'what happens after 'Mass Effect 3' rather than 'what game happens next set in the 'Mass Effect' Universe'.

 

This really doesn't put me in the mind of any kind of a sequel at all, and explicitly says that they won't need to pick a canon ending, so the 'ark theory' (or something like it) seems to be what'll happen. Unless, of course this just explains a very early concept and Bioware took a massive U-turn afterwards, but from what cryptic stuff they're saying, I doubt it. Still, on the other hand, this might just be a standalone game, so there's no reason to believe we won't get a direct sequel sometime in the future, but ME3's EC ending seemed pretty final. 

First and foremost, why are you going to use a quote from last year or the year before when there wasn't even a lead writer for the game yet? Not to mention, that's typical PR to keep people guessing what BioWare will do. If anything, I'd go based on what BioWare had to say about MENext at Comic Con this year, which alluded to the fact this would most likely be in the future. We see a human protagonist wearing N7 armor. We see an advanced Mako far superior to its predecessor. There is also a huge emphasis on exploration, and I believe that's really the key to MENext.

 

When BioWare was stating not to use "ME4" to describe the new game, it didn't necessarily have anything to do with the time or setting at all. What BioWare meant was from more of a gameplay perspective. MENext is not going be anything like its predecessors. For one, it's not on Unreal Engine 3, but rather Frostbite 3 now. Secondly, the Mako and exploration are going to be one of the major pillars of the game, which was not the case with the original trilogy. We also know that space is somehow being re-imagined as they want it to have the characteristics of being a place you explore rather than a thing you interact with.

 

Omni tools and resources at the player's disposal also seem to be getting revamped and providing more opportunities to the player.It would be difficult to imagine how this could not be a sequel, especially since we will be experiencing new alien species. People can continue to be blind and disregard what BioWare has implicitly said, but this is no doubt a "sequel" in the sense that it is in the future. No it's not a continuation of Shepard's story and the new journey will be removed from the experiences we had in the original trilogy. That is all BioWare suggested by an "ME4." MENext is much bigger than that. It's more ambitious. It's new and different. It's more than just an upgraded ME3, but rather a next gen interpretation of Mass Effect. That's the point.

[Karlone123]

Hopefully more like midichlorians: an embarrassing concept best left unmentioned and forgotten

 

Qui-Gon remains my favourite character despite him revealing Midichlorians. I compare Star Wars "fresh start" to Mass Effect "fresh start" as it could it could be the final stage to my healing process of Mass Effect. That and we can finally move on from Mass Effect 3. Something to look forward.