483 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

ME3 unravelled the trilogy as far as it was intended by its original writers. Also consider who we are dealing with - Mac will make what he wants canon. Choose Anderson? Good, you get Udina. Kill the Rachni queen? Good, you get her back anyways. Kill Balak in ME1? Well, he's back to life on the citadel.

I'm not sure how the writers are going to get around what I consider the trainwreck of the trilogy. So far as I can tell, I don't like Ark or canon. I guess we will see in due time.

I don't think Balak is resurrected. Also, Drew's the one who modified the councilor decision, prior to ME3.

[themikefest]

If Balak is killed in ME1, he will not show up in ME3. It will be another Batarian Shepard talks with while helping Jordon Noles

[von uber]

Why is that? The ark theory sends the participants out of the galaxy, the galaxy is the thing affected by the choices in the previous game. Once the ark is out there it is not bound by anything from the previous story.

And it is no longer mass effect.

[Tonymac]

I don't think Balak is resurrected. Also, Drew's the one who modified the councilor decision, prior to ME3.

 

Sure looked like him, but heck, ME1 playthroughs are ......  old in my memories.  

 

My point is - BioWare likes the canon approach.  That's what I think they will do.

 

I think we should make a Lotto to see how BioWare works around the endings.   Whoever gets it right earns what we put into the pot.  I'll up the ante and raise everyone a six pack of some really good beer - http://flyingdogbrew...ouble-pale-ale/

 

The artwork is terrible, but the beer is bomb.

[Revan Reborn]

Not that it really matters, but if you read the codex in ME3, it will explain how Anderson was frustrated and gave up his council position placing Udina in the position (if you made Anderson the councilor). You can argue whether that was a good decision to make or not, but it is addressed. Honestly, making Anderson a councilor was somewhat of a dead end anyways, as his role just never fit that of a politician (yes I was a paragon and made him a councilor).

 

Personally, I want BioWare to make the entire trilogy (ME3 included) have an impact on MENext. I want a Dragon Age Keep for Mass Effect where I can import all of my choices, including the final choice (I chose Destroy), so I can have an altered world state that somewhat pays homage to my Shepard's legacy.

 

With respect to the fan's feelings, that's a double-edged sword. BioWare's greatest strength and weakness is listening to player feedback. From what I have found over the years of watching the BioWare fan base, they are incredibly selfish, fickle, inconsiderate, and unreasonable (no offense). Regardless of what BioWare does, they will not please everyone, especially those who are constantly on BSN, who are the more extreme fringe of the fan base.

 

Everybody has a different opinion on ME3. I personally thought it was an amazing game on par with ME2. Was the ending questionable? Perhaps, but I'm not going to judge an entire experience based on the last five minutes. To me that's ridiculous. I believe BioWare would do the entire community and the franchise a disservice if they just tried to hide ME3 "under the rug" for fear of criticism. That will be unavoidable no matter what they do. Better to maintain the continuity going forward, like they've done with their other games.

 

I'll be honest. I'll be disappointed if there is no Dragon Age Keep and I can't import my choices to have an impact. If this were just a separate standalone game, it would already not feel like Mass Effect, as this franchise was the one that made save importing and transferring choices a standard for all BioWare games.

[dreamgazer]

Not that it really matters, but if you read the codex in ME3, it will explain how Anderson was frustrated and gave up his council position placing Udina in the position (if you made Anderson the councilor). You can argue whether that was a good decision to make or not, but it is addressed. Honestly, making Anderson a councilor was somewhat of a dead end anyways, as his role just never fit that of a politician (yes I was a paragon and made him a councilor).

He even complains about it in ME2, stating that Udina gets things done on the Citadel and attends the diplomatic functions Anderson can't be bothered with.

[Tonymac]

He even complains about it in ME2, stating that Udina gets things done on the Citadel and attends the diplomatic functions Anderson can't be bothered with.

 

Well, I'd rather have Udina be the one getting indoctrinated and later shot by Ashley.  I just preferred to be a SPECTRE in ME2.

 

If Anderson would have gotten indoctrinated Earth would have fallen much more rapidly, and you would not have been ready for Kai Leng - possibly resulting in Miri's death.  

[wiyazzie]

I personally wished that the Bioware team would have gone with the indoctrination theory to help make sense out of the ending of ME3 because all things that the theory point out still bug me when i play it again like Reapers leaving Shepard, Anderson completely oblivious to the kid in the air shafts, strange dreams, and etc.

[Iakus]

If a Mass Relay is deactivated or out of commission, would it still transmit the crucible beam? As we saw from the endings, it must jump from relay to relay in order to affect the galaxy. We know there is plenty of unknown space and unactiveted relays thanks to Citadel laws. Send an ark deep enough in uncharted and isolated space and they won't feel the impact of the endings.

 

The beam actually spreads beyond systems with relays.  Recall the galaxy map during the game.  There were systems (and colonies) without relays where Reaper activity took place.

[Iakus]

Not that it really matters, but if you read the codex in ME3, it will explain how Anderson was frustrated and gave up his council position placing Udina in the position (if you made Anderson the councilor). You can argue whether that was a good decision to make or not, but it is addressed. Honestly, making Anderson a councilor was somewhat of a dead end anyways, as his role just never fit that of a politician (yes I was a paragon and made him a councilor).

 

Burying an important choice like that in a codex entry was not a good move.

 

 

Personally, I want BioWare to make the entire trilogy (ME3 included) have an impact on MENext. I want a Dragon Age Keep for Mass Effect where I can import all of my choices, including the final choice (I chose Destroy), so I can have an altered world state that somewhat pays homage to my Shepard's legacy.

 

I don't want a Mass Effect Keep, because there is no way my canon will be allowed for then.  And I'd rather Commander Shepard never existed than to deal with the world states those choices left.

 

 

With respect to the fan's feelings, that's a double-edged sword. BioWare's greatest strength and weakness is listening to player feedback. From what I have found over the years of watching the BioWare fan base, they are incredibly selfish, fickle, inconsiderate, and unreasonable (no offense). Regardless of what BioWare does, they will not please everyone, especially those who are constantly on BSN, who are the more extreme fringe of the fan base.

 

No, they won't please anyone.  But this particular mess is one of their own making. 

 

 

Everybody has a different opinion on ME3. I personally thought it was an amazing game on par with ME2. Was the ending questionable? Perhaps, but I'm not going to judge an entire experience based on the last five minutes. To me that's ridiculous. I believe BioWare would do the entire community and the franchise a disservice if they just tried to hide ME3 "under the rug" for fear of criticism. That will be unavoidable no matter what they do. Better to maintain the continuity going forward, like they've done with their other games.

I'll be honest. I'll be disappointed if there is no Dragon Age Keep and I can't import my choices to have an impact. If this were just a separate standalone game, it would already not feel like Mass Effect, as this franchise was the one that made save importing and transferring choices a standard for all BioWare games.

 

 

Mass Effect 3 broke the base.  There is no denying is, whichever side of the fence you are on.  Some things are just too broken to fix.  Better to clear away the debris, start fresh, and learn from your mistakes

[Revan Reborn]

I personally wished that the Bioware team would have gone with the indoctrination theory to help make sense out of the ending of ME3 because all things that the theory point out still bug me when i play it again like Reapers leaving Shepard, Anderson completely oblivious to the kid in the air shafts, strange dreams, and etc.

BioWare never stated the entirety of the Indoctrination Theory was wrong. In fact, they never explicitly addressed it at all. The only reason it was refuted, in part, was because the Extended Cut addressed any ambiguities with respect to the future after the final choice. The Reapers clearly only "win" with Refuse, so that aspect of the Indoctrination Theory was entirely off base.

 

That being said, it's evident that Shepard was suffering from Indoctrination, to an extent. Shepard was hallucinating a child, seeing him, suffer, dreaming about his death, etc. No one else ever witnessed this child, and Shepard was clearly showing symptoms of Indoctrination. This can also be used to explain the situation on the Citadel when Anderson "dies" and we see fresh blood on Shepard's arm that wasn't there previously, as if he had been shot by TIM instead of Anderson. There is a lot of symbolism and crazy stuff that happens at the end of the game.

 

Suffice it to say, the Indoctrination Theory was completely wrong with respect to the endings of ME3, but definitely showed valid evidence and support the fact Shepard was in duress during the events of ME3.

[Revan Reborn]

Burying an important choice like that in a codex entry was not a good move.

 

 

I don't want a Mass Effect Keep, because there is no way my canon will be allowed for then.  And I'd rather Commander Shepard never existed than to deal with the world states those choices left.

 

 

No, they won't please anyone.  But this particular mess is one of their own making. 

 

 

Mass Effect 3 broke the base.  There is no denying is, whichever side of the fence you are on.  Some things are just too broken to fix.  Better to clear away the debris, start fresh, and learn from your mistakes

It was far from an important choice. Again, Anderson was alluding to his retirement from the position in ME2 and the codex in ME3 further supports that realization. I'm not asking you to like the execution. I'm just merely pointing out that it was there and BioWare didn't just "retcon" choices without explanation.

 

Fantastic. I vehemently disagree with you as there is no point to a BioWare game if I cannot see my choices have an impact on the next installment. I don't really care what your headcanon is, to be quite honest, as BioWare is writing this story and we merely just make choices within its confined bounds.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

Mass Effect 3 didn't break anything. People just love to whine and complain if they can't control and dictate the entirety of a story to have their preferred outcome. It would be more of an insult to Mass Effect for BioWare to completely ignore the original trilogy than to address it.

 

We likely won't see eye to eye on anything. Personally, I love Mass Effect and it would be a grave mistake for BioWare to ignore the original trilogy, as that is more or less the entirety of Mass Effect. Without those choices having impact on the world state of MENext, the new game may as well not even be Mass Effect.

[dreamgazer]

Mass Effect 3 broke the base.

Uh-huh. Watch how quickly this "broken" base will appear unbroken once the new game comes within their reach.

[Malanek]

Problems with arc theory

1) Most likely introduce new technology to a level you don't want in ME, especially if it does involve intergalactic travel

2) Carrying off all the different species you want for the story wouldn't be logical. The council is hardly likely to squash Krogan, Quarian, Geth or Vorcha onto their experimental ship(s). Even Volus who could contribute financially would place such a huge additional cost due to their requirements it would make more sense to leave them out. 

3) Why wouldn't the ark turn around once the reapers are defeated? They have quantum entanglement so they would know.

4) Could they even get out of the galaxy before the effects of the crucible reach them?

5) The image we have seen resembles Andromeda and that is the most well-known to the public. But why would that happen in reality? Canis Major Dwarf, which the image looks nothing like, is so much closer.

6) Do players really want to play as one of the people who fled the reapers, leaving everyone else to die, rather than fighting them?

 

It is a somewhat creative theory but I feel it would not have very sound logic. It also doesn't resolve answering the ending and the canonization problem, it only delays it.

 

If they really wanted to do something like this I think it would be better to do it via an accidental, uncontrollable wormhole like star trek voyager or Homers Odyssey. The people sucked through would be the galactic fleets who were near the relay when the crucible blew.

 

I would prefer they make a sequel set in the milky way with destroy chosen as the outcome. It is not saying this was best or what happened. It is saying if Shepard did this, then this is what happens next. The Mass Effect setting is more than the races. It includes the places, the individuals, the political and corporate organisations. It includes the planets  and moons, the systems and clusters. It includes years of history, conflict, tension and alliances. I don't think they should abandon that.

[Heimdall]

And it is no longer mass effect.

It is no longer the Shepard-Reaper trilogy, that's true. A massive shift in the setting is inevitable at this point, ark theory or not, this is the new mass effect.

[Iakus]

It was far from an important choice. Again, Anderson was alluding to his retirement from the position in ME2 and the codex in ME3 further supports that realization. I'm not asking you to like the execution. I'm just merely pointing out that it was there and BioWare didn't just "retcon" choices without explanation.

 

Who sits on the COuncil was (or should have been) very important.  And if Anderson had to step down, the why of it should have been clear, and have more mention than a simple codex entry.

 

 

Fantastic. I vehemently disagree with you as there is no point to a BioWare game if I cannot see my choices have an impact on the next installment. I don't really care what your headcanon is, to be quite honest, as BioWare is writing this story and we merely just make choices within its confined bounds.

My choices as the Bhaalspawn didn't matter between Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2.  Nor between the Baldur's Gate games and Neverwinter Nights.  I still think it's worth it to play them.  Frankly I find the whole save import systtem stiffling, as it limits the direction the games can go in.

 

Agree to disagree.

Mass Effect 3 didn't break anything. People just love to whine and complain if they can't control and dictate the entirety of a story to have their preferred outcome. It would be more of an insult to Mass Effect for BioWare to completely ignore the original trilogy than to address it.

We likely won't see eye to eye on anything. Personally, I love Mass Effect and it would be a grave mistake for BioWare to ignore the original trilogy, as that is more or less the entirety of Mass Effect. Without those choices having impact on the world state of MENext, the new game may as well not even be Mass Effect.

 

If it has eezo, biotics, asari, turians, salarians, etc, it will still be Mass Effect.  Mass Effect is the setting, not your save files.

[Heimdall]

Problems with arc theory
It is a somewhat creative theory but I feel it would not have very sound logic. It also doesn't resolve answering the ending and the canonization problem, it only delays it.

How so? Once settled there's no reason to address it at all.

[Farangbaa]

It was far from an important choice. Again, Anderson was alluding to his retirement from the position in ME2 and the codex in ME3 further supports that realization. I'm not asking you to like the execution. I'm just merely pointing out that it was there and BioWare didn't just "retcon" choices without explanation.

 

Fantastic. I vehemently disagree with you as there is no point to a BioWare game if I cannot see my choices have an impact on the next installment. I don't really care what your headcanon is, to be quite honest, as BioWare is writing this story and we merely just make choices within its confined bounds.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

Mass Effect 3 didn't break anything. People just love to whine and complain if they can't control and dictate the entirety of a story to have their preferred outcome. It would be more of an insult to Mass Effect for BioWare to completely ignore the original trilogy than to address it.

 

We likely won't see eye to eye on anything. Personally, I love Mass Effect and it would be a grave mistake for BioWare to ignore the original trilogy, as that is more or less the entirety of Mass Effect. Without those choices having impact on the world state of MENext, the new game may as well not even be Mass Effect.

 

For your own personal sanity: ignore that guy. All he can do is whine about how ME3 destroyed his life.

[Iakus]

 

Problems with arc theory

1) Most likely introduce new technology to a level you don't want in ME, especially if it does involve intergalactic travel

2) Carrying off all the different species you want for the story wouldn't be logical. The council is hardly likely to squash Krogan, Quarian, Geth or Vorcha onto their experimental ship(s). Even Volus who could contribute financially would place such a huge additional cost due to their requirements it would make more sense to leave them out. 

3) Why wouldn't the ark turn around once the reapers are defeated? They have quantum entanglement so they would know.

4) Could they even get out of the galaxy before the effects of the crucible reach them?

5) The image we have seen resembles Andromeda and that is the most well-known to the public. But why would that happen in reality? Canis Major Dwarf, which the image looks nothing like, is so much closer.

6) Do players really want to play as one of the people who fled the reapers, leaving everyone else to die, rather than fighting them?

 

It is a somewhat creative theory but I feel it would not have very sound logic. It also doesn't resolve answering the ending and the canonization problem, it only delays it.

 

If they really wanted to do something like this I think it would be better to do it via an accidental, uncontrollable wormhole like star trek voyager or Homers Odyssey. The people sucked through would be the galactic fleets who were near the relay when the crucible blew.

 

I would prefer they make a sequel set in the milky way with destroy chosen as the outcome. It is not saying this was best or what happened. It is saying if Shepard did this, then this is what happens next. The Mass Effect setting is more than the races. It includes the places, the individuals, the political and corporate organisations. It includes the planets  and moons, the systems and clusters. It includes years of history, conflict, tension and alliances. I don't think they should abandon that.

 

Another problem with Ark Theory (aside from technical limitations) is that it's tacit admission that they screwed up ME3 so bad they can't use the Milky Way galaxy anymore. 

[Heimdall]

Problems with arc theory
1) Most likely introduce new technology to a level you don't want in ME, especially if it does involve intergalactic travel

Depends on how they do it

2) Carrying off all the different species you want for the story wouldn't be logical. The council is hardly likely to squash Krogan, Quarian, Geth or Vorcha onto their experimental ship(s). Even Volus who could contribute financially would place such a huge additional cost due to their requirements it would make more sense to leave them out. 

If they really want to, the writers could find a way. I personally envision this as a project involving the top secret discovery of a Prothean ship or ships that were constructed by Protheans with the same idea in mind, but never got to use it. Places on the ark(s) could be used to barter for resources and there could always be stowaways or whatever, point is the writers could work around this.

3) Why wouldn't the ark turn around once the reapers are defeated? They have quantum entanglement so they would know.

Unless they don't have quantum entanglement, it's not like those things are common and they might be worried about Reapers figuring out a way to track it if they got their hands on the other end.

4) Could they even get out of the galaxy before the effects of the crucible reach them?

If the writers want them to, sure

5) The image we have seen resembles Andromeda and that is the most well-known to the public. But why would that happen in reality? Canis Major Dwarf, which the image looks nothing like, is so much closer.

Doesn't really matter where they go.

6) Do players really want to play as one of the people who fled the reapers, leaving everyone else to die, rather than fighting them?

That's what people said about Hawke before DA2 came out. Plenty of people have a problems with Hawke now, but his being a refugee isn't usually one of them. Besides, I envision the new game taking place centuries after resettlement has begun.

[Heimdall]

Another problem with Ark Theory (aside from technical limitations) is that it's tacit admission that they screwed up ME3 so bad they can't use the Milky Way galaxy anymore.

Not really, the idea behind a lot of decisions in ME3 from the Genophage to Rannoch was that they would be Galaxy shaping since they didn't have to worry about importing into a new game. The only thing they tacitly admit is that they wrote themselves into a corner (Which they did) because ME3 was never intended to be the jumping off point for a new game.

[SporkFu]

What conversation was this?

it's one of those times between missions when you can talk to EDI on the Normandy bridge. She's speculating on whether you could go far enough out into the universe to reach a point where all the known laws of physics and mathematics change, to reach a point where 1+1=3. Or is it just that our universe is enclosed in a finite bubble in an ocean of possible universes. She then asks shep what he's thinking about, and he says, "uhh, I'll get back to you on that." or something. 

[Malanek]

How so? Once settled there's no reason to address it at all.

If you ever return to the milky way it has to be resolved then. If the franchise endures I am assuming it will return eventually. Going to a different galaxy is fine for a novelty, but knowing humans and all the existing races continue to live in the milky way, people would really want to see what has happened to them.

[dreamgazer]

Maybe these Arkers will run into a black hole that will throttle them through time to a point where all end-states have inevitably reached the same destination.

[Malanek]

Depends on how they do it
If they really want to, the writers could find a way. I personally envision this as a project involving the top secret discovery of a Prothean ship or ships that were constructed by Protheans with the same idea in mind, but never got to use it. Places on the ark(s) could be used to barter for resources and there could always be stowaways or whatever, point is the writers could work around this.
Unless they don't have quantum entanglement, it's not like those things are common and they might be worried about Reapers figuring out a way to track it if they got their hands on the other end.
If the writers want them to, sure
Doesn't really matter where they go.
That's what people said about Hawke before DA2 came out. Plenty of people have a problems with Hawke now, but his being a refugee isn't usually one of them. Besides, I envision the new game taking place centuries after resettlement has begun.

The problem is all your solutions are contrivances. You don't want a story constructed on contrivances. The most logical way is to build a ship. Even if they find a super prothean ship, they will now have access to that technology. Saying they don't have quantum entanglement, given the massive cost of the project anyway, doesn't sound at all logical to me. The point about Andromeda was that a large part of this speculation was based on the galaxy map image that resembled Andromeda, we have seen it.