483 réponses à ce sujet

[T-Raks]

Totaly comparable.  they knew what their purpose was.  Now they find a new purpose.

Not comparable, because Reaper forces were always under reaper control, while Geth developed into true AIs. But anyways: who cares? Do you really think we will ever see a Banshee or a Brute again? Sounds to me like an argument just for the sake of an argument, which is rather pointless to me and which I'm not engaging further in. If you want to say that synthesis is total bogus, I agree. Never chose it, never would. Doesn't mean that Bioware's writers will abandon it though if they think they can come up with a continuation that works after all three RGB choices and I would be fine with that.

[Drone223]

The endings, and the Genophage, and the fate of the Quarians and Geth.

Udina was merely an example of a choice that was hand waved and made a lot of people angry.

 

Did you read what I said, the genophage, geth and rachni don't have to be relveant in the next game and left to player interrpitation people, the only things that will be canon are the ending and Udina being counciler. Also people are going to be angry regardless of what happens, so they may as well.

[B.Shep]

The three choices didn't leave the fate of the Galaxy open, they were quite clear about what they meant in the long term in the EC. All the closure is already there.

Is there anyone that actually likes what they did with Revan and the Exile?

That is not what I mean it.

Destroy: Reapers are obliterated, Geth too. Organic civilizations rebuild damaged tech.

Control: Shep AI controls the reapers, guarding the galaxy(paragon) or enforcing peace(renegade).

Synthesis: Reaper's objective concluded, all organic/ synthetic life forms merged.

 

It doesn't matter if we go 100 or 1000 years into the future, the outcome changes a lot between each ending. It's not a question of either you like or not, BW will have to find a way to solve this.... (I can see some kind of mix between Control and Destroy but Synthesis still makes me scratch my head).

[felipejiraya]

I'm just here for the ride, if Bioware do the background story in a coherent way and without many logical leaps I'll be happy.

 

But I'm on the side of those who believe that a "Ark Theory" is possible in the Milky Way since the galaxy is pretty damn big and not every relay was active during the Crucible event creating the possibility of "safe havens" without interference from the beam or even ignorant of all that transpired on the rest of the galaxy (not just the Reaper War but the whole galactic history).

[ZipZap2000]

I think if dogs feel comfortable eating hotdogs despite what we call them, then all is well with our furry friends and if I can enjoy a hotdog too then all is well with the world.

 

Canon an ending but don't base the entire game around it, there you go 2/3 of the complaints dealt with right there. The other 1/3 of complaints will be there anyway some people just enjoy making them too much.

 

Ark Theory sounds fun at first but the more I think about it the more I don't like the idea. Not that I don't think it could work, prefer canon.

[JeffZero]

I think if dogs feel comfortable eating hotdogs despite what we call them, then all is well with our furry friends and if I can enjoy a hotdog too then all is well with the world.

Thank you for your insight! I was beginning to worry the hot dog question was off-topic of me.

[Heimdall]

Did you read what I said, the genophage, geth and rachni don't have to be relveant in the next game and left to player interrpitation people, the only things that will be canon are the ending and Udina being counciler. Also people are going to be angry regardless of what happens, so they may as well.

They are very relevant if you ever want to see a Krogan, Geth, or Quarian ever again. If you'd ever like to visit Rannoch or Tuchanka again. If we can't see the old places, why not start a whole new franchise? Isn't that what you keep spewing whenever I point out the advantages of a fresh start?

As I've said before, "nothing's going to make everyone happy so they may as well cater to me" isn't an argument. I could say the same just as easily, but I won't, because it isn't an argument.

[Heimdall]

That is not what I mean it.
Destroy: Reapers are obliterated, Geth too. Organic civilizations rebuild damaged tech.
Control: Shep AI controls the reapers, guarding the galaxy(paragon) or enforcing peace(renegade).
Synthesis: Reaper's objective concluded, all organic/ synthetic life forms merged.
 
It doesn't matter if we go 100 or 1000 years into the future, the outcome changes a lot between each ending. It's not a question of either you like or not, BW will have to find a way to solve this.... (I can see some kind of mix between Control and Destroy but Synthesis still makes me scratch my head).

But we don't need to do that if we move away from the Galaxy as we know it and avoid the endings. Whether it's another galaxy or an isolated corner of this one, there's no need to address the endings if the story is isolated from them. That's the whole point of Ark theory.

[T-Raks]

But we don't need to do that if we move away from the Galaxy as we know it and avoid the endings. Whether it's another galaxy or an isolated corner of this one, there's no need to address the endings if the story is isolated from them. That's the whole point of Ark theory.

The next conflict will likely have nothing to do with a specific ending, it is as simple as that. You don't need to move away from the galaxy to accomplish that. The endings happened, so you gotta address them, BUT it is enough if the next game acknowledges the different endings having an effect on the state of the universe.

 

The whole point of the ark theory is to trash the endings and in doing that to trash the trilogy.

[Heimdall]

The next conflict will likely have nothing to do with a specific ending, it is as simple as that. You don't need to move away from the galaxy to accomplish that. The endings happened, so you gotta address them, BUT it is enough if the next game acknowledges the different endings having an effect on the state of the universe.
 
The whole point of the ark theory is to trash the endings and in doing that to trash the trilogy.

Except that the galaxies resulting from each ending are vastly different, by taking place in those galaxies, it concerns them. The only way the new story could take place in the same Galaxy is if all the endings, defying all logic, have the same long term result.

There is no need to address them, that's the point of the ark theory, NOT to trash the endings. If you want to trash them, then homogenize them or canonize one as you've been suggesting, that's the surest way to do it and make sure nobody's choice mattered to the fate of the Galaxy, since the same thing was going to happen anyway.

[T-Raks]

Except that the galaxies resulting from each ending are vastly different, by taking place in those galaxies, it concerns them. The only way the new story could take place in the same Galaxy is if all the endings, defying all logic, have the same long term result.

There is no need to address them, that's the point of the ark theory, NOT to trash the endings. If you want to trash them, then homogenize them or canonize one as you've been suggesting, that's the surest way to do it and make sure nobody's choice mattered to the fate of the Galaxy, since the same thing was going to happen anyway.

I see it exactly opposite. The way for the new story taking place after all three RGB endings is if the major differences are in the long-term.

 

You took destroy and the catalyst is right that this will lead to another organic vs. synthetic conflict? Alright, but with every synthetic in the galaxy destroyed, this will take time. 1000 years? 5000? 20000? I don't know, but it'll take time, because there are no synthetics to fight with at the moment.

 

You took control and worry that the Reapers could be back some day, because someone could take the power from catalyst-Shep? Might be the case, but nobody knows that Shep took over control and is behind the Reapers retreating. So someone has to find out about that and then find the new catalyst first and then find a way to take the power. Took "our cycle" 50000 years, so there might be time for the same conflict as after the destroy ending before we come to that.

 

You took synthesis and ... sorry, I don't even know what might happen after synthesis. So if it were me at the helm of ME, I would probably let this ending out going forward. I would ask the synthesis pickers if it would be OK for them if I tell them that "you did good, son (or daughter), you did good". If you take refuse, you lose, if you take control or synthesis new conflicts arise and if you take synthesis, you win. No more conflict.

 

But let's assume for a second, that having won ME3 won't satisfy synthesis pickers. What's holding back the writers to put the same conflict after that ending that the galaxy might see next after the destroy and control endings?

 

Aight, so if we have established that the same conflict can happen after all endings, then the differences really only amount into what I have tried to tell you multiple times: the Geth/Quarian conflict and the genophage only mean that these themes won't have major differences on the main plot in the next game. And why should they? They were part of three games, so that should be enough. The Krogan might make a power play some day in the future or they might not - doesn't matter for the next story.

 

Picking different endings can be reflected in the next game by a lot of cool things: you sided with the Geth and didn't take destroy? Cool, here is your Geth squadmate. You... well, the rest isn't even having any major impact on the next game. Whether you helped the Krogan or not, there will be Krogan; same goes for the Quarian even if you sided with the Geth though their numbers might be very low (people, let go of the thought that the Quarians go extinct - they are spread all over the galaxy, so losing a war with the Geth doesn't mean that). But where is the problem anyways? I mean that are decisions you make in ME3, so maybe if you sided with the Geth you don't even want to see a Quarian in MEnext? If you took destroy you might be cool with not having a Geth squadmate because, you know, you thought destroy was necessary no matter the cost.

 

So I really don't understand why anyone would want to leave the galaxy behind and abandon the ME universe. Why? There is no reason to do it, other than not accepting the endings to ME3 - but they happened. They are part of the history in the ME universe and now the next part gets written.

[SimonTheFrog]

I see it exactly opposite. The way for the new story taking place after all three RGB endings is if the major differences are in the long-term.

 

You took destroy and the catalyst is right that this will lead to another organic vs. synthetic conflict? Alright, but with every synthetic in the galaxy destroyed, this will take time. 1000 years? 5000? 20000? I don't know, but it'll take time, because there are no synthetics to fight with at the moment.

 

You took control and worry that the Reapers could be back some day, because someone could take the power from catalyst-Shep? Might be the case, but nobody knows that Shep took over control and is behind the Reapers retreating. So someone has to find out about that and then find the new catalyst first and then find a way to take the power. Took "our cycle" 50000 years, so there might be time for the same conflict as after the destroy ending before we come to that.

 

You took synthesis and ... sorry, I don't even know what might happen after synthesis. So if it were me at the helm of ME, I would probably let this ending out going forward. I would ask the synthesis pickers if it would be OK for them if I tell them that "you did good, son (or daughter), you did good". If you take refuse, you lose, if you take control or synthesis new conflicts arise and if you take synthesis, you win. No more conflict.

 

But let's assume for a second, that having won ME3 won't satisfy synthesis pickers. What's holding back the writers to put the same conflict after that ending that the galaxy might see next after the destroy and control endings?

 

Aight, so if we have established that the same conflict can happen after all endings, then the differences really only amount into what I have tried to tell you multiple times: the Geth/Quarian conflict and the genophage only mean that these themes won't have major differences on the main plot in the next game. And why should they? They were part of three games, so that should be enough. The Krogan might make a power play some day in the future or they might not - doesn't matter for the next story.

 

Picking different endings can be reflected in the next game by a lot of cool things: you sided with the Geth and didn't take destroy? Cool, here is your Geth squadmate. You... well, the rest isn't even having any major impact on the next game. Whether you helped the Krogan or not, there will be Krogan; same goes for the Quarian even if you sided with the Geth though their numbers might be very low (people, let go of the thought that the Quarians go extinct - they are spread all over the galaxy, so losing a war with the Geth doesn't mean that). But where is the problem anyways? I mean that are decisions you make in ME3, so maybe if you sided with the Geth you don't even want to see a Quarian in MEnext? If you took destroy you might be cool with not having a Geth squadmate because, you know, you thought destroy was necessary no matter the cost.

 

So I really don't understand why anyone would want to leave the galaxy behind and abandon the ME universe. Why? There is no reason to do it, other than not accepting the endings to ME3 - but they happened. They are part of the history in the ME universe and now the next part gets written.

 

So, you basically suggest to make the ending choice just as meaningless as all other "big choices" like blowing up collector HQ, installing a human domincated council, killing off the Rachni or whatever.

[T-Raks]

So, you basically suggest to make the ending choice just as meaningless as all other "big choices" like blowing up collector HQ, installing a human domincated council, killing off the Rachni or whatever.

Nah, they are not meaningless like that, because they will play a major role in the future. Just not for the next conflict...   

[SimonTheFrog]

Nah, they are not meaningless like that, because they will play a major role in the future. Just not for the next conflict... 

 

Hmm... it's BioWare. All big choices appeared to be meaningful and then it turned out they didn't matter at all.

I'd rather they break the cycle of promising big impact of player choice and then not delivering.

 

Ark Theory would empower them to approach a more humble but realistic approach to delivering on the "promises" of player choices.

[Iakus]

Nah, they are not meaningless like that, because they will play a major role in the future. Just not for the next conflict... 

MENext2:

 

The Andromada galaxy faces invasion from the Milky Way as a Synthesis armada tries to force Greeness on everyone

 

For their own good, of course

[Nitrocuban]

If BW learned ANYTHING from this whole ME3 ending disaster they won't touch that topic for the next 50.000 years.

[fyz306903]

So, you basically suggest to make the ending choice just as meaningless as all other "big choices" like blowing up collector HQ, installing a human domincated council, killing off the Rachni or whatever.

 

Hey, remember that the 'ark theory' (although I quite like this idea) would technically render the endings just as meaningless. Completely sidestepping the endings renders them just as meaningless as homogenising the endings. This is my worry. Everything Bioware has said talks about a clean slate and so forth, so I'm certain the endings WILL be sidestepped, but at the end of the day, as long as its a fun game with a few new races and at least a minor part for all the old ones (Apart from the reapers and collectors, obviously), We'll all be fairly happy. 

Hey that's a thought, would any collectors have survived the ME trilogy or will they have all died? 

[chris2365]

I don't think the ark theory renders everyone's ending meaningless. I think just gives the devs an opportunity to say "Look, we know this is a very sensitive subject for you guys and us, so instead of dealing with it, we'll let you guys headcanon your own ending (as we always wanted to with the " Speculations for everyone!") and in the meanwhile, we can give you guys a relatable Mass Effect experience that doesn't affect or change your personnal ending and the state of the races, friends, etc. that you all spent so much time with"

Sounds very reasonable and acceptable to me, anyway.

[Vazgen]

I'd say we headcanoned our endings long enough I don't think they'll address the endings in any meaningful way since it would require "watering them down" so to speak. I'm more on the side of setting the game in a new region of space that does not have anything to do with the places of the original trilogy. I'm just not a fan of the ark idea, I think it is possible to execute it much better and more fitting to ME universe.

[fyz306903]

Yeah, I'm OK with the ark theory, I just hope that Bioware clarify ME3's endings a bit better at some point. Maybe the 'ark colonists' hear some news about what's going on in Citadel Space depending on your choices or something. 

[Mcfly616]

Citadel space isn't the only place effected by the Crucible, so....

[saMoorai]

Personally, if an Ending has to be made canon, I really hope it's the Control ending.

 

I might always pick Destroy, but Control results in the most interesting state for the Galaxy (imo atleast) and it keeps the Geth alive.

 

I need my Robots.

[Drone223]

They are very relevant if you ever want to see a Krogan, Geth, or Quarian ever again. If you'd ever like to visit Rannoch or Tuchanka again. If we can't see the old places, why not start a whole new franchise? Isn't that what you keep spewing whenever I point out the advantages of a fresh start?

As I've said before, "nothing's going to make everyone happy so they may as well cater to me" isn't an argument. I could say the same just as easily, but I won't, because it isn't an argument.

I said krogan, geth, quarians and rachni don't need to have major plot roles in future titles, they can still show up in future titles as NPC's or companions especially the krogan since they have long life spans.

 

I never said anything about catering to a specific audience, I pointed out what would best methods to approach the next game as Bioware are gonna have to do something about the endings because people are going to bring it up a lot. It also means they have some of the established lore to work with and it would makes things a lot easier when making the next game instead of having to make everything from scratch again.

[Vazgen]

I hope we'll get some insight at what happened to Idenna

[wiyazzie]

the planet i really would like to make a return visit to would be the home world of the quarians to see what the hell they look like.