483 réponses à ce sujet

[B.Shep]

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

Idenna? The ship that traveled to unknown regions of space in search of a planet to the quarians to settle?

 

We have dismissed that claim.

[chris2365]

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.

 

Yeah, I meant more that they wouldn't touch with people's headcanon after so much time has passed and most have made their peace with what happened. I'm just curious though, how would you set the game in a new region of space (of the Milky Way I assume) without an ark theory and without addressing the endings in some way?

[Dubozz]

It's too scary for bioware to touch the endings. This failure will follow them forever.

[Heimdall]

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.

The Quarians are all but wiped out, stop propagating the misinformation that they aren't. We're specifically told in ME3 that the fleet recalled all Quarians. The only ones that might still be around are isolated exiles. If you don't think a galaxy with a flourishing Rannoch and one with only a handful of scattered misanthropic exiles should be very different places, I'm skeptical as to how much homogenization you don't realize you're suggesting. Yes, NPCs can show up, but the Galaxy they've lived in will be entirely different, and if it isn't you've proven my point.

And the "best method" happens to be yours for... What reason? As far as I can tell, all it achieves is to ignore the endings many people chose and homogenize their other choices. Do you really think that will satisfy people? And why does Bioware NEED to address the endings? You've never given me a straight answer to that question. Bioware isn't making this game to address the endings, they're making it to start afresh with Mass Effect. Spending yet more time obsessing over the ending debacle will only hinder that goal.

[ZipZap2000]

@wiyazzie

 

Quarians look like dark blue humans with 3 digits, weird knees and great hips. Literally.

[Vazgen]

Yeah, I meant more that they wouldn't touch with people's headcanon after so much time has passed and most have made their peace with what happened. I'm just curious though, how would you set the game in a new region of space (of the Milky Way I assume) without an ark theory and without addressing the endings in some way?

I think I posted it in another thread. Basically, have one key relay that is the only connection between a bunch of clusters and places from the trilogy and have it damaged at the time of Reaper War. You won't be able to visit Citadel and Tuchanka but you'll also not have to deal with endings since Crucible wave doesn't reach there. They can even throw some nods to the ending you've chosen, like people of the colonies opposed Shepard's decision of Synthesis and refused to fix the relay, or Destroy ending damaged the relay on the other end to the point of non-repair or that they refused to have any dealings with the Reapers in Control ending and don't fix the relay (or even Refuse ending, where the Reapers currently harvest everyone on the other end and will be forced to travel to those systems via 'conventional' FTL. We may discover something powerful enough to fight Reapers conventionally when they arrive...)

[wiyazzie]

@wiyazzie

 

Quarians look like dark blue humans with 3 digits, weird knees and great hips. Literally.

ya well i was kinda hoping for something a little more creative and ya i found out recently after playing it again this time romancing Tali.

i posted it when i was playing ME1 and by this time romancing with her wasn't a thing at the time but when i got to ME3 and she gave me the picture i was a little disappointed cause i thought they were going to look pretty unique.

but hey at least we know what she looks like and im cool with that

[T-Raks]

The Quarians are all but wiped out, stop propagating the misinformation that they aren't. We're specifically told in ME3 that the fleet recalled all Quarians. The only ones that might still be around are isolated exiles. If you don't think a galaxy with a flourishing Rannoch and one with only a handful of scattered misanthropic exiles should be very different places, I'm skeptical as to how much homogenization you don't realize you're suggesting. Yes, NPCs can show up, but the Galaxy they've lived in will be entirely different, and if it isn't you've proven my point.

And the "best method" happens to be yours for... What reason? As far as I can tell, all it achieves is to ignore the endings many people chose and homogenize their other choices. Do you really think that will satisfy people? And why does Bioware NEED to address the endings? You've never given me a straight answer to that question. Bioware isn't making this game to address the endings, they're making it to start afresh with Mass Effect. Spending yet more time obsessing over the ending debacle will only hinder that goal.

The Quarians lose the war, but they are not being wiped out. The Geth didn't hunt every Quarian down after the morning war, why should they do it "now"? But anyways: if you choose to side with the Geth, shouldn't you live with the consequences? So where is the problem if the Quarians are low in the numbers or - if you desperately want it - being wiped out in your game world then? And if you don't want that you make a different choice. I mean isn't that what choices are about? So what is your problem going forward with different places as possible world states?

 

The big picture: The first three games were about the fight of the galactic community against the Reapers (problem x) with the big side stories genophage and Quarians vs. Geth while the next game(s) will be about the galactic community facing problem y with new side stories. The galactic community depends on what happened in your playthrough of the trilogy. Every choice you made mattered, because it shapes your world state, and now history goes on. Problem y arises independent of the RGB choice. A fresh problem.

[Vazgen]

he Quarians are all but wiped out, stop propagating the misinformation that they aren't. We're specifically told in ME3 that the fleet recalled all Quarians. The only ones that might still be around are isolated exiles. If you don't think a galaxy with a flourishing Rannoch and one with only a handful of scattered misanthropic exiles should be very different places, I'm skeptical as to how much homogenization you don't realize you're suggesting. Yes, NPCs can show up, but the Galaxy they've lived in will be entirely different, and if it isn't you've proven my point.

And the "best method" happens to be yours for... What reason? As far as I can tell, all it achieves is to ignore the endings many people chose and homogenize their other choices. Do you really think that will satisfy people? And why does Bioware NEED to address the endings? You've never given me a straight answer to that question. Bioware isn't making this game to address the endings, they're making it to start afresh with Mass Effect. Spending yet more time obsessing over the ending debacle will only hinder that goal.

 

Quarians being wiped out can be easily addressed in Next Mass Effect. All they have to do is to make quests involving the quarians, geth etc. and then disable/enable those quests according to player's choices in ME3. That's what they should've done for Rachni - kill the Rachni queen, no Grunt cameo for you. 

The only ending that is problematic to address is Synthesis, because of it's visual changes but they can easily say that they worn out with time. 

That said, I don't them to address the endings in any meaningful way, it'll only take away from both the endings and the game. Better to focus on something new without the ghost of the trilogy looming over the new game. 

[Heimdall]

The Quarians lose the war, but they are not being wiped out. The Geth didn't hunt every Quarian down after the morning war, why should they do it "now"? But anyways: if you choose to side with the Geth, shouldn't you live with the consequences? So where is the problem if the Quarians are low in the numbers or - if you desperately want it - being wiped out in your game world then? And if you don't want that you make a different choice. I mean isn't that what choices are about? So what is your problem going forward with different places as possible world states?

The big picture: The first three games were about the fight of the galactic community against the Reapers (problem x) with the big side stories genophage and Quarians vs. Geth while the next game(s) will be about the galactic community facing problem y with new side stories. The galactic community depends on what happened in your playthrough of the trilogy. Every choice you made mattered, because it shapes your world state, and now history goes on. Problem y arises independent of the RGB choice. A fresh problem.

Point, missing it. It's not that I want the Quarians dead, but we were in no uncertain terms told that 99.9 percent of the Quarian population was on the fleet when it was destroyed. I don't want that sort of thing glossed over as it will inevitably be in the sequel suggested here. The point of choice is not to make it meaningless by making all outcomes the same like Bioware did with the Rachni, a choice example of how not to do things.

The problem is that there are many potential galactic communities based on Shepard's choices. It doesn't matter where the threat comes from. What they're threatening is highly variable. If it isn't, and it all comes out to the same result, we're back to Bioware sending the message that your choices don't matter.

[T-Raks]

Point, missing it. It's not that I want the Quarians dead, but we were in no uncertain terms told that 99.9 percent of the Quarian population was on the fleet when it was destroyed. I don't want that sort of thing glossed over as it will inevitably be in the sequel suggested here. The point of choice is not to make it meaningless by making all outcomes the same like Bioware did with the Rachni, a choice example of how not to do things.

The problem is that there are many potential galactic communities based on Shepard's choices. It doesn't matter where the threat comes from. What they're threatening is highly variable. If it isn't, and it all comes out to the same result, we're back to Bioware sending the message that your choices don't matter.

There is no problem with many potential galactic communities. In fact that is the beauty that let's you recognize what you did in the trilogy. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand here: nothing should be glossed over like the Rachni and there is no reason for it. You nearly wiped the Quarians out? Alright. You helped them get their homeworld back? Alright. As a race they are not central for the next plot. As squadmates as possible as any race. Where is the problem?

 

In the trilogy the galactic community was faced by the Reaper problem, now it is a new problem. It's like world war II and maybe international terrorism to make an analogy. Two conflicts and the second is not the result of the ending of the first.

[SimonTheFrog]

There is no problem with many potential galactic communities. In fact that is the beauty that let's you recognize what you did in the trilogy. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand here: nothing should be glossed over like the Rachni and there is no reason for it. You nearly wiped the Quarians out? Alright. You helped them get their homeworld back? Alright. As a race they are not central for the next plot. As squadmates as possible as any race. Where is the problem?

 

In the trilogy the galactic community was faced by the Reaper problem, now it is a new problem. It's like world war II and maybe international terrorism to make an analogy. Two conflicts and the second is not the result of the ending of the first.

 

I guess it would be possible to SOMEHOW write around all the various outcomes for players of the first trilogy.

 

The question is: is it desirable?

 

I think that the quality of the next game can only improve if the writers are free to develop the stories they want to tell without having to think of all the baggage from the predecessors.

And for that to work nicely they should stay away from hot topics as much as possible. Reapers, Shep, Geth and Quarians are all rather hot topics. I don't think they can "win" by trying to write cleverly around those topics.

[Drone223]

The Quarians are all but wiped out, stop propagating the misinformation that they aren't. We're specifically told in ME3 that the fleet recalled all Quarians. The only ones that might still be around are isolated exiles. If you don't think a galaxy with a flourishing Rannoch and one with only a handful of scattered misanthropic exiles should be very different places, I'm skeptical as to how much homogenization you don't realize you're suggesting. Yes, NPCs can show up, but the Galaxy they've lived in will be entirely different, and if it isn't you've proven my point.

And the "best method" happens to be yours for... What reason? As far as I can tell, all it achieves is to ignore the endings many people chose and homogenize their other choices. Do you really think that will satisfy people? And why does Bioware NEED to address the endings? You've never given me a straight answer to that question. Bioware isn't making this game to address the endings, they're making it to start afresh with Mass Effect. Spending yet more time obsessing over the ending debacle will only hinder that goal.

Did you read what I said only the things that would be canon in the trilogy are Udina being counicler and the ending most choices in the trilogy only affect a few individuals not the galaxy. I wouldn't be surprised if something like the DA: keep was made to address rachni, geth and genophage even though they may not be relevant to the next game.

 

Ignoring the ending or trying to write around them isn't a good idea either since its going to harm them in the long run as trying to avoid them isn't going to make them go away.  If you you look on BSN people are willing to have a canon ending if it means they get a better game as a result its not ideal but its a fair compromise and the endings can easily be address briefly it doesn't have into much detail as to what happened.

[T-Raks]

I guess it would be possible to SOMEHOW write around all the various outcomes for players of the first trilogy.

 

The question is: is it desirable?

 

I think that the quality of the next game can only improve if the writers are free to develop the stories they want to tell without having to think of all the baggage from the predecessors.

And for that to work nicely they should stay away from hot topics as much as possible. Reapers, Shep, Geth and Quarians are all rather hot topics. I don't think they can "win" by trying to write cleverly around those topics.

I don't see acknowledging what you did in the trilogy as "writing around" the endings, while going somewhere else in the ark theory before the endings happened clearly is. For me the Geth and Quarian not being central for the next plot as a whole group is not baggage, but the logical consequence of the events in the trilogy where they were in the spotlight. The only question really isn't whether continuing the history of the Mass Effect universe is desirable - of course it is or Bioware can just stop telling stories out of it - but whether to include the synthesis ending as a basis going forward or not.

 

As I said before, I would gladly let the synthesis ending out, but would accept it being included for everyone who believes it is a great choice and still leaves room for future conflict. I mean the way I see it I will never see anything of the synthesis ending mentioned in my next ME experience, because I won't have it in any of my "world states". So if they find a way to let the next big conflict happen also after the synthesis ending, why not?

 

A good story, an interesting new conflict, new races, old races return, your choices all are acknowledged and have shaped the world state - what's not to like (if Bioware can pull another good story off)?

[ZipZap2000]

New theory: Bioware doesn't make the new game about the ending to the old one.......

[Iakus]

New theory: Bioware doesn't make the new game about the ending to the old one.......

Problem is, if the game is set both at a point after ME3, and in the Milky Way galaxy, the ending does have to be addressed.  Because the endings had a dramatic  even fundamental impact on the galaxy and you will be, to quote Star-Lord "one of the idiots living in it!"

 

Unless they go tabula rasa, which I desperately hope.

[ZipZap2000]

The ending don't have to be addressed at all actually they are under no obligation to do so, you might want them to but that's a completely different thing.

[Iakus]

The ending don't have to be addressed at all actually they are under no obligation to do so, you might want them to but that's a completely different thing.

 

It would be really, really strange to have the galaxy reset to what it was before the war.  I wouldn't complain, mind you, as that would be the esence of tabula rasa.

[ZipZap2000]

It doesn't have to reset either it can move forward from the event. Simply mentioning that something happened and then moving on as if it were inconsequential to the current big picture is more than enough, if they even want to go that far at all. Just acknowledging the reaper war happened without saying how it ended would also work.

[Mcfly616]

The ending don't have to be addressed at all actually they are under no obligation to do so, you might want them to but that's a completely different thing.

They don't have to be central to the narrative. But you can't have a direct sequel (after the war), and have everything exactly the same as it was before the war. The galaxy is fundamentally different in each ending. 

 

 

It's funny to see people wanting a sequel whilst wanting the endings of the last game to go unacknowledged. Completely defeats the purpose of a sequel.

[Mcfly616]

Dbl post

[ZipZap2000]

It doesn't have to be sequel to the same story though. It can take place after the trilogy and be a sequel in that sense and with that in mind the galaxy can be changed but by events other than the endings.  A second story set in the same galaxy doesn't have to be influenced by the first story, take the Geth and Quarians, if we're going to a new area of space even within the same galaxy there's no real need to head to Rannoch to validate/invalidate everyone's choices. Revisiting the choices of the previous series is unnecessary because it's already happened.

[Mcfly616]

It doesn't have to be sequel to the same story though. It can take place after the trilogy and be a sequel in that sense and with that in mind the galaxy can be changed but by events other than the endings.  A second story set in the same galaxy doesn't have to be influenced by the first story, take the Geth and Quarians, if we're going to a new area of space even within the same galaxy there's no real need to head to Rannoch to validate/invalidate everyone's choices. Revisiting the choices of the previous series is unnecessary because it's already happened.

I'm not talking about revisiting choices. Maybe you don't understand.....the setting is different. The galaxy is changed. You can't have a story taking place after the Reaper War that doesn't reflect that. You either have Reapers floating about in space as our galactic guardians, every living thing has neon organic circuitry, or there's no more synthetics. If there's a game taking place after the war, then one of these scenarios has to be reflected.

 

 

 

If all you're looking for is the same setting we've always had, you're better off with a game in the current timeline (before the Reapers ever invade). It too, can be a story that is separate of the Shepard/Reaper saga.

[RoboticWater]

It doesn't have to be sequel to the same story though. It can take place after the trilogy and be a sequel in that sense and with that in mind the galaxy can be changed but by events other than the endings.  A second story set in the same galaxy doesn't have to be influenced by the first story, take the Geth and Quarians, if we're going to a new area of space even within the same galaxy there's no real need to head to Rannoch to validate/invalidate everyone's choices. Revisiting the choices of the previous series is unnecessary because it's already happened.

The problem is that, at some point, the writers are going to have to reference it. The apocalypse and two social revolutions can't happen and simply be ignored. 

 

Even if you don't go to Rannoch, you'll still probably have a Quarian squad mate, and I'd imagine he'd probably care about either the near extinction of his own race (again) or the reclamation of his long lost home world. You could just have a Quarian that's totally ambivalent towards the fate of his own people, but that just seems cheap.

 

That said, I would like to see at least a semi-direct sequel. I don't know how Bioware would pull it off without pissing everyone off, but I'd hate to see a large departure from the setting we've come to love.

Modifié par RoboticWater, 22 novembre 2014 - 05:16 .

[ZipZap2000]

If you want those changes to be ending specific you are talking about choices. There is no reason to reflect the endings of ME3 in a completely new story, you might them to, but it doesn't have to even mention ME3 at all and it does it doesn't haven't have to reflect the possible choices made in the original trilogy. This isn't ME4 it's a new story with a new setting.

 

BTW I've said twice the galaxy will be changed but that change doesn't have to be a result of Shepard's decisions.

 

Having a Quarian squadmate is no requirement to go into the details of Shepards decisions during the Reaper war, if the game takes place in the future then there's no need to even reference it as it's no longer relevant to the current situation. It would be history how many times do you sit down and explain how much of an impact the Boer war had on the British empire for example?

 

They can't stay within the same story forever at some point it will move on from the Reapers and the Reapers themselves and their war will become an after thought.