483 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

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.

^This

[ZipZap2000]

As I said you might want that, even if only for nostalgic purposes but no. There is no logical reason to do it other than to give people the validation they didn't get from the original endings and that would be a waste.

[Mcfly616]

There's no logical reason in making a game after the Reaper War that doesn't represent the setting as it is after the Reaper War.

[ZipZap2000]

It doesn't have to impose one of the endings to do that though McFly.

[Heimdall]

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.

First, I honestly have no clue why you keep bringing up the Udina thing. I only ever mentioned it as a choice that as ignored and made a lot of people angry (A great example of why what you suggest is a bad idea). It's not like it would even matter if it was canonized, Udina and Anderson are both dead. Creating something like the keep doesn't address the endings or the Geth and Genophage choices, it just lets you define those choices. My point is that in order to adequately address those choices they would have to create several very different galactic communities, even if the ending is canon. If you plan to have characters interacting with the galactic community at all,mor if the history Shepard helped craft is to be more than a meaningless backdrop, that must come into play.

Trying to avoid them isn't going to make them go away? That's you're argument? Really? Okay, what pray tell will addressing them accomplish? Nothing, except to mire the next game in damage to control for the trilogy instead of ever getting a chance to become its own story. There's no way to satisfy everyone, as you yourself admit, so why this half measure of setting a canon, ignoring people's choices, and homogenizing away Shepard's historic accomplishments to meaninglessness. Do you really imagine this approach will somehow make everyone all happy with the endings and give everyone the satisfying closure you think the Extended Cut lacked? (It didn't, by the way)

Some people are satisfied with setting a canon, I don't see any reason to think they're more numerous than those who are not. In fact I think you'll find just as many like me that are vehemently opposed if not more. And honestly I think most of those that support a canon picked Destroy and are comfortable with it because they know they'll likely see they're story played out. I wonder how many would still support it if Synthesis or Control were picked as canon.

At some point you just need to accept that this is not "Mass Effect: What Happened To the Galaxy After the Trilogy" but "Mass Effect: A New Story". Shepard's story, and everything it concerned, was wrapped up in the EC epilogue, and we don't need any more details than were given. Just because you want the remaining life story of every named character doesn't mean it's needed or even desirable.

[Heimdall]

^This

You know he just described why your idea of not referencing things like Rannoch and the Genophage won't work?

[fyz306903]

There's no logical reason in making a game after the Reaper War that doesn't represent the setting as it is after the Reaper War.

 

This is exactly why I think ME4 will have an 'ark theory' setting set during the reaper war. Then they don't need to address the endings at all.  

[Mcfly616]

It doesn't have to impose one of the endings to do that though McFly.

If you're going to reflect the setting as it is after the Reaper War, you do. The Reaper War can end in different ways, leaving the setting in 1 of 3 different world-states, providing 3 completely different foundations for the future. 

 

 

You suggest we just forget that bit, and say "oh, The Reaper War is over. We won. Moving along." And that doesn't work. You say you want a sequel, but clearly you don't when all you propose is the same exact setting we've always had. 

[Drone223]

First, I honestly have no clue why you keep bringing up the Udina thing. I only ever mentioned it as a choice that as ignored and made a lot of people angry (A great example of why what you suggest is a bad idea). It's not like it would even matter if it was canonized, Udina and Anderson are both dead. Creating something like the keep doesn't address the endings or the Geth and Genophage choices, it just lets you define those choices. My point is that in order to adequately address those choices they would have to create several very different galactic communities, even if the ending is canon. If you plan to have characters interacting with the galactic community at all,mor if the history Shepard helped craft is to be more than a meaningless backdrop, that must come into play.

Trying to avoid them isn't going to make them go away? That's you're argument? Really? Okay, what pray tell will addressing them accomplish? Nothing, except to mire the next game in damage to control for the trilogy instead of ever getting a chance to become its own story. There's no way to satisfy everyone, as you yourself admit, so why this half measure of setting a canon, ignoring people's choices, and homogenizing away Shepard's historic accomplishments to meaninglessness. Do you really imagine this approach will somehow make everyone all happy with the endings and give everyone the satisfying closure you think the Extended Cut lacked? (It didn't, by the way)

Some people are satisfied with setting a canon, I don't see any reason to think they're more numerous than those who are not. In fact I think you'll find just as many like me that are vehemently opposed if not more. And honestly I think most of those that support a canon picked Destroy and are comfortable with it because they know they'll likely see they're story played out. I wonder how many would still support it if Synthesis or Control were picked as canon.

At some point you just need to accept that this is not "Mass Effect: What Happened To the Galaxy After the Trilogy" but "Mass Effect: A New Story". Shepard's story, and everything it concerned, was wrapped up in the EC epilogue, and we don't need any more details than were given. Just because you want the remaining life story of every named character doesn't mean it's needed or even desirable.

Moving to another galaxy and leaving the milky way behind for isn't really much better since a lot of things that people came to love as well as iconic about the series and iconic groups/organisations will be gone forever (no more Alliance, STG, Specter's, Bloodpack, Omega, Illium etc. There needs to be a scene of familiarity in the next game and future titles the dev's have said they want the game to feel "fresh but familiar". Its basically either make one or two choices choices canon which will upset people but retains most of the established lore or scrap the most if not all the established groups, species, organizations etc. and start from scratch in a new galaxy which is also going to upset people and would basically be the same as making refuse canon (why bother saving it if you aren't going to return to it) or making a new IP instead of a mass effect game.

 

At what point did I say anything about the next ME game having anything to do with the trilogy. Its gives something for Bioware to work with for the background lore since it makes developing the next game a bit easier.

 

You know he just described why your idea of not referencing things like Rannoch and the Genophage won't work?

Did you read my earlier comment, this can resolved with something like the DA: keep where it brought it up but still have little significance in the next game i.e. a side quest.

[Nitrocuban]

If you make the Ark big enough you can take a lot of that iconic stuff with you. And most of the other iconic stuff is gone after ME3 anyway.

On your feet N7,  stop whining and grab what you can, it's time to move on.

[Heimdall]

Moving to another galaxy and leaving the milky way behind for isn't really much better since a lot of things that people came to love as well as iconic about the series and iconic groups/organisations will be gone forever (no more Alliance, STG, Specter's, Bloodpack, Omega, Illium etc. There needs to be a scene of familiarity in the next game and future titles the dev's have said they want the game to feel "fresh but familiar". Its basically either make one or two choices choices canon which will upset people but retains most of the established lore or scrap the most if not all the established groups, species, organizations etc. and start from scratch in a new galaxy which is also going to upset people and would basically be the same as making refuse canon (why bother saving it if you aren't going to return to it) or making a new IP instead of a mass effect game.

The Galaxy was restructured by the events of Mass Effect 3, it isn't what it used to be. All this "established lore" you keep going on about will be barely recognizable anyway. (And if everything has gone back to more of the same, I have another problem with the new ME) I'm not interested in name drops without substance, to organizations that may as well have different names.

In no way shape or form is this the same as making Refuse Canon. It DOES allow people that picked Refuse to have their ending. It lets everyone have their ending because it doesn't override their choices. It doesn't disrupt the sense of closure for everyone that didn't pick destroy. Your suggestion is the only one forcing events into canon

At what point did I say anything about the next ME game having anything to do with the trilogy. Its gives something for Bioware to work with for the background lore since it makes developing the next game a bit easier.

Did you read my earlier comment, this can resolved with something like the DA: keep where it brought it up but still have little significance in the next game i.e. a side quest.

No, it handicaps them as their forces to tiptoe around things like the Genophage and the fate of the Quarians, effectively crippling any effort to address the lore you claim acts as a foundation. All it does is tie their hands.

And I'm still confused by your mention of the Keep. You do realize that it's just a glorified checklist with pictures, right? It doesn't address the problem of homogenizing what should be vastly different galaxies.

[Vazgen]

I don't think the ark theory will work simply because where would that ark ship go? It is bound to the places of the trilogy, locations known to the races of the galaxy. They have no technology to travel to a whole new galaxy and even if they did, the probability of there being planets capable of sustaining all those different species (turians and humans can't even eat the same food) is remote. Surely, there are terraforming technologies but they take a long time and if you set the game that far in the future you might as well set it in the same galaxy with the Reapers gone and the implants not visible. The time closest to the endings is the most interesting IMO. There is one thing common for all three endings - there will be groups that will oppose Shepard's choice. Implementing those groups can result in an interesting and consistent game. I'm on the side of having a new part of the galaxy, independent of the places we visited in the trilogy, but getting there via ark ship is not something I like. The only way I can see the ark idea working iso Prothean stasis bunkers.

[Nitrocuban]

It's pretty easy to write something like a special Super-Relay that has great reach but no flexibilty an unpredictable target into existence.

Let ME4 start with Reapers aproaching the Super-Relay, make the Ark an old relic like the Galactica in BSG and make those that made it through the Relay like the people on Stargate Univers' Destiny or Star Trek's Voyager.

Voila, there you have your kickass setting full of problems, conflicts and exploration for the next 3 games.

[T-Raks]

I guess we are going in circles here. There are some who want to simply get away from the endings because they were bad, there are some who want to get away from the endings because they think the settings after the endings are too different, probably that's why there are some who want to go forward with a canon ending and there are some (or is it just me?) who think that the endings - though they were indeed very badly presented - are not too different (at least destroy and control) to have the same next conflict.

 

Just for the sake of this discussion - and because the next game might still be two years away and we have lots of time for speculation everywhere - some more thoughts of mine.

 

The galactic community has no idea that our Shep had three choices, the ending of the reaper war simply happened to them in the moments after Shep "pulled the trigger" of the crucible and only in the destroy ending they might find out about those choices. So in destroy they see the Reapers going down, in control they see them retreat and in synthesis they get hit by something and begin to change.

 

One overall question may be: are all problems being solved with control (the guardian god-like catalyst-Shep?) or synthesis (everlasting peace?). Then why not go forward with only the destroy ending? And if not all problems are solved with the other two options, why not acknowledge the different states the universe is in and go forward with the same next conflict? Synthesis could be acknowledged by different game mechanics (for example more power customization options and of course green eyes  ). Just an example: should a new race care about why the Reapers are gone or would the fact that they are gone be enough to try to take over in the power vacuum after the Reaper war?

 

For me going forward with the destroy ending and saying "every problem is solved after the other two", going forward with the destroy and control ending and saying "every problem is solved after the synthesis ending" or going forward with all three endings and saying "after all three solutions to the Reaper threat a new conflict came up" works. As would BTW different games with different conflicts after different endings. I would have no problem if Bioware makes one game after the destroy ending, one game after the control ending and one... OK, maybe I wouldn't want a game after the synthesis ending.

 

All these options are preferable for me in comparison to the Ark theory, because they acknowledge what happened in the trilogy and go forward in history. They have room for the most interesting question of "what happens in the galaxy after the reaper threat was solved?". Going into hiding without ever trying to find out whether there still is a need to hide, so without ever trying to find out whether the war was won or lost doesn't make much sense to me. So if they go the Ark theory way, there still is the need to go back and find out about what happened in my book. Questions like "can we go back?" or "can we save more?" would loom over such a story arch forever after the initial "is there even a place to go?" and maybe even "why should the races work together on an ark project when they wouldn't even work together against the Reapers without heavy conditions?". So they prepare together for the loss without conditions but only work together with conditions for the win?

[Vazgen]

You're right about "will we be able to come back?" question. But I believe that ME:Next can set the base for the answer. Imagine that remote territory severing ties with the Council and our known galaxy due to disagreements over the Shepard's choice.
Destroy - after the Reaper War Council outlaws development of artificial intelligence, even in controlled environments. The "colonies", with their largest businesses including AI research and their peaceful coexistence with synthetixs disagree with that and search for other trade partners. The relations are very tense, to the point that visiting Council Space is highly prohibited.
Control - the same, only add to that even more tension due to the Reaper existense.
Synthesis - the same, only the disagreement comes also from having to deal with new species created by Synthesis.
ME:Next can include quests and discovery of new races and technology that can help ease the tension and possibly make us able to visit the familiar places in ME:Next 2.

I agree with your thoughts on ark ship project. It can make sense for one race but not all the species that are present in ME universe

[dead_goon]

It doesn't have to be a single ark ship tho does it, every race could've taken their own steps to safe guard their respective species, which would make far more sense than having all your eggs in one huge basket, granted some races would probably fall by the way side, Batarians spring to mind on that score as they just don't play well with others, and they where the first in the Reapers sights when the harvest started, also the Elcor would be some what problematic due to their physical size, and of course the Drell, due to their already depleted numbers.

 

The Krogan on the other hand would be one of the easier species to save, they breed at such a prodigious rate you wouldn't need many to ensure the survival of their species.

[Iakus]

If you're going to reflect the setting as it is after the Reaper War, you do. The Reaper War can end in different ways, leaving the setting in 1 of 3 different world-states, providing 3 completely different foundations for the future. 

 

And those are just the High EMS versions of RGB.  Toss in Tuchanka, Rannoch, and other choices and the divergence gets even more extreme.

[Nitrocuban]

Sure has to be a fleet with the Ark being the biggest ship and some kind of mobile Citadel for ME4.

The fleet consists of as much different species and ship types as the devs want it to.

[Drone223]

The Galaxy was restructured by the events of Mass Effect 3, it isn't what it used to be. All this "established lore" you keep going on about will be barely recognizable anyway. (And if everything has gone back to more of the same, I have another problem with the new ME) I'm not interested in name drops without substance, to organizations that may as well have different names.

In no way shape or form is this the same as making Refuse Canon. It DOES allow people that picked Refuse to have their ending. It lets everyone have their ending because it doesn't override their choices. It doesn't disrupt the sense of closure for everyone that didn't pick destroy. Your suggestion is the only one forcing events into canon

No, it handicaps them as their forces to tiptoe around things like the Genophage and the fate of the Quarians, effectively crippling any effort to address the lore you claim acts as a foundation. All it does is tie their hands.

And I'm still confused by your mention of the Keep. You do realize that it's just a glorified checklist with pictures, right? It doesn't address the problem of homogenizing what should be vastly different galaxies.

There' still going to be a degree of familiarity of the galaxy as well, the STG main strategy of winning war's before they start (its always been their strategy) will still major part of their identity, the N7 programme being Alliance centric, all turians having to under go military training etc. those aren't to change much as they are defining traits of these groups. And I hardly doubt groups such as the Alliance or STG would have name drops without much weight since they are some of the major groups to exist in the ME series.

 

It is, there's really no point in saving a galaxy if Bioware is just going to dump it forever and make all the time people have invested in saving and caring for it meaningless, its just really unrealistic to please everyone with a "no canon" policy and its going to catch up with Bioware at some point.

 

I'll say it again only one or two choices would be made canon the rest won't since the vast majority of them affect only a few individuals and can be left up to player interpretation, things such as rachni genophage and geth can be integrated with side quest regarding them.

[goishen]

This is exactly why I think ME4 will have an 'ark theory' setting set during the reaper war. Then they don't need to address the endings at all.  

 

 

Or, what they could do is take all of us, put us on a ship during the reaper wars...   Send us off far into space, end the reaper war destroying all telecomm beacons (all endings, it never said anything about talking to one another), and then have the mission start.   Have them building up telecomm beacons behind us.

[Sion1138]

Do some science mumbo jumbo ark into worm hole something plus Crucible radiation and end up with time travel. Possibly into the far future but preferably somehow the remote past.

 

That way you can have a prequel-sequel with all the stuff you know plus the stuff you could hitherto only have read about in the codex.

 

Then add some time-traveling antagonist new species and there you go. All in one solution.

[fyz306903]

things such as rachni genophage and geth can be integrated with side quest regarding them.

 

That's actually a really good idea. ME4 could just not mention the specifics of the ending, rachni survival, synthetics/geth survival, quarian survival and genophage cured:yes/no is the main game but have a side quest for each choice that is slightly different depending on what you chose. 

 

e.g. the side mission could be 'help solve geth-quarian dispute' of they both survived, or 'help quarians/geth salvage geth/quarian machinery' if one group died and 'look for salvage' if Rannoch is a barren wasteland (choose geth over quarians then choose destroy). Completing each variation could net you a slightly different reward and maybe change what squadmates you have, (A geth and/or quarian squad,mate would be great). 

[Kabooooom]

It doesn't have to impose one of the endings to do that though McFly.

Yes...yes it does. I challenge you to write a way around it. Im not sure that you understand the significance of the endings fundamentally changing the setting of the galaxy. You can't just handwave that away.

[Vazgen]

Yes...yes it does. I challenge you to write a way around it. Im not sure that you understand the significance of the endings fundamentally changing the setting of the galaxy. You can't just handwave that away.

They can but it would require diluting the endings, like making the implants worn off etc. It is not a good decision IMO and thus I believe that ME:Next will be set in an entirely new area with certain relations with the places from the trilogy and we'll be able to return there in ME:Next 2

[DextroDNA]

Really don't like this "Ark Theory" or blank slate stuff. I just want to carry on with what we've got! I'm all for exploring the Galaxy (and perhaps beyond) but I'm sure Bioware have found a way to integrate the choices you made and the ending(s) into the new game.

 

I don't even care if the endings and such are watered down. If you guys are okay with completely ignoring them and all your other choices, why aren't you okay with a few retcons or "watering downs"?