265 réponses à ce sujet

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Shepard's story is done and they've repeated that over and over again. Also, even though they do listen to fans, they do not always give them what they want.

And Bioware told us all sorts of amazing things that we could do in Mass Effect 3 and the various effects of choices we had made in previous games and then double backed on that (i.e. the rachni reapers appearing no matter what). Why should I believe that the main character of their biggest franchise is finished with such an ambiguous ending? I'm not calling them liars, but this is a matter of practicality. They sit on a goldmine with Shepard. They know it, and more importantly, EA knows it. And if EA wants to make more money (which they always do), they'll quite happily point these things out.

 

Besides, this isn't exactly a rarity with games these days. MGS4 was supposed to be the end of all the Snakes, but Hideo Kojima (1) has made more Snake-related games, and (2) Hated his work on MGS4 and is tempted to retcon it entirely.

[Vazgen]

I would not describe it as a gold mine. More like a land mine

[Dunmer of Redoran]

I would not describe it as a gold mine. More like a land mine

Can we compromise? A goldmine filled with toxic gas? A lot of canaries are going to die in the making of such an endeavor, but does the foreman care? Of course not. There's gold in them there hills!

[Vazgen]

Can we compromise? A goldmine filled with toxic gas? A lot of canaries are going to die in the making of such an endeavor, but does the foreman care? Of course not. There's gold in them there hills!

Instead it's not canaries that will die but the actual miners. The foreman might not care, but in the end he will not have enough miners left to extract the gold. 

[Iakus]

Well, radioactive gold 

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Instead it's not canaries that will die but the actual miners. The foreman might not care, but in the end he will not have enough miners left to extract the gold. 

What, people are going to leave Bioware in the event EA orders another Shepard game/DLC? I don't see that happening.

 

Saying "Shepard's story is done" doesn't mean anything. This isn't like Oblivion (spoilers will be withheld for anyone who doesn't know how that game ends) where it's pretty explicit what happens to the protagonist at the end of the story. It's not some grand artistic choice that they'd be backsliding on. It's more that they'd be providing an actual ending or follow-up of some kind for a character who, depending on your actions, survived the end of the third game. They can always say " Poochie Shepard died on the way back to his home planet" but that's bogus. An ending for a character that big with no explanation is a copout of epic proportions, and they know it, which is why they won't do it. The door is open for them to continue Shepard's story, and that's why I think they'll be willing to do it.

 

That and EA will crack the whip, because they do that a lot.

[Vazgen]

What, people are going to leave Bioware in the event EA orders another Shepard game/DLC? I don't see that happening.

 

Saying "Shepard's story is done" doesn't mean anything. This isn't like Oblivion (spoilers will be withheld for anyone who doesn't know how that game ends) where it's pretty explicit what happens to the protagonist at the end of the story. It's not some grand artistic choice that they'd be backsliding on. It's more that they'd be providing an actual ending or follow-up of some kind for a character who, depending on your actions, survived the end of the third game. They can always say " Poochie Shepard died on the way back to his home planet" but that's bogus. An ending for a character that big with no explanation is a copout of epic proportions, and they know it, which is why they won't do it. The door is open for them to continue Shepard's story, and that's why I think they'll be willing to do it.

 

That and EA will crack the whip, because they do that a lot.

Using Shepard in a story will require to 1) deal with the immediate consequences of the endings or 2) dismiss them as indoctrination and rewrite the ending of the trilogy.

First is pretty much impossible due to the sheer amount of different outcomes at that point. Second will require them to go against their original vision.

Shepard only lives in one ending - high EMS Destroy. Creating a new story about Shepard will invalidate the other available choices. In high EMS destroy, the player may cure or sabotage the genophage, destroy or save the geth/quarians, lose all the squadmates, lose hanar homeworld...

Unless the game is made a prequel and we are made to explore War Hero, Ruthless of Sole Survivor backgrounds which don't have enough content for a full game. 

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Using Shepard in a story will require to 1) deal with the immediate consequences of the endings or 2) dismiss them as indoctrination and rewrite the ending of the trilogy.

First is pretty much impossible due to the sheer amount of different outcomes at that point. Second will require them to go against their original vision.

Shepard only lives in one ending - high EMS Destroy. Creating a new story about Shepard will invalidate the other available choices. In high EMS destroy, the player may cure or sabotage the genophage, destroy or save the geth/quarians, lose all the squadmates, lose hanar homeworld...

Unless the game is made a prequel and we are made to explore War Hero, Ruthless of Sole Survivor backgrounds which don't have enough content for a full game. 

 

 

This is all contingent on if Bioware decides to go forward, not backward or lateral, in how the story moves along. If the Battle of Earth is the last significant event in the series, there's no need to do anything else with Shepard. Otherwise? They'll have figured out where all these choices ultimately lead, and if ME3 was any indication, prior choices ultimately have little weight. Only the big ones matter, and even then, those can be tweaked as they so please. And of course, they could just make it like picking what happened in the older Dragon Age games for going into DA:I. It's not that complicated. It may not please everyone, but again, there's money to be made. It's an enormous opportunity.

[RVallant]

Instead it's not canaries that will die but the actual miners. The foreman might not care, but in the end he will not have enough miners left to extract the gold. 

 

Yeah this, I think Bioware got lucky with the division of the teams. Dragon Age managed to get the more delusional/poorer writers and combined with EA driving it into the ground can afford to screw up that series. (Never mind what you think about quality, fact is DA was pushed off a cliff.)

 

I think they'll be more conservative with the ME series. Of course, it is EA and we shouldn't underestimate their capacity for pressing the self-destruct button.

[Iakus]

At this point I'm far more likely to get another Dragon Age game than another Mass Effect

[Vazgen]

 

This is all contingent on if Bioware decides to go forward, not backward or lateral, in how the story moves along. If the Battle of Earth is the last significant event in the series, there's no need to do anything else with Shepard. Otherwise? They'll have figured out where all these choices ultimately lead, and if ME3 was any indication, prior choices ultimately have little weight. Only the big ones matter, and even then, those can be tweaked as they so please. And of course, they could just make it like picking what happened in the older Dragon Age games for going into DA:I. It's not that complicated. It may not please everyone, but again, there's money to be made. It's an enormous opportunity.

Backward is not an option due to the reasons I brought. Lateral is a DLC. Forward is the only way to use Shepard in a story.

The thing is that it will alienate 2/3 of the players - those who picked Control and Synthesis (I don't count Refuse).

Then we get different world states for all these decisions. The game with sabotaged genophage and destroyed quarians should be drastically different from a game with cured genophage (with Wreav in charge) and saved quarians. 

They can, of course, go the rachni way and make the outcomes almost similar but that is guaranteed to alienate even more fans. 

And for what? To play Shepard again? Not worth it

[Dunmer of Redoran]

 

 

Backward is not an option due to the reasons I brought. Lateral is a DLC. Forward is the only way to use Shepard in a story.

The thing is that it will alienate 2/3 of the players - those who picked Control and Synthesis (I don't count Refuse).

Then we get different world states for all these decisions. The game with sabotaged genophage and destroyed quarians should be drastically different from a game with cured genophage (with Wreav in charge) and saved quarians. 

They can, of course, go the rachni way and make the outcomes almost similar but that is guaranteed to alienate even more fans. 

And for what? To play Shepard again? Not worth it

 

That's why I said if Earth is the last thing, then Shepard's story can actually be over. But if they are moving forward, if Earth isn't the end, then they have to commit, because Shepard is either a high-tech equivalent of a demigod or a renowned celebrity who is essentially king or queen of the Milky Way. And I'm not even saying if it's a genuinely good idea. But Bioware wrote themselves into a corner with how the third game ended. Shepard is a big elephant in the room.

 

Control and synthesis Shepard in a playable game is easy. AI Shepard has an android (or hybrid, in the case of Synth) avatar built into which their consciousness is uploaded, like a more advanced EDI. Alternately? Shepard is alive, and you play as organic Shepard. Only people who had Destroy and had Shepard die would actually not get a returning Shepard. Which to me is the equivalent of Shepard dying at the end of ME2--decidedly not canon.

[themikefest]

Depending on how much gold is dug up, EA could make a killing. At the moment gold is selling for about 1230.80USD per ounce

[Vazgen]

That's why I said if Earth is the last thing, then Shepard's story can actually be over. But if they are moving forward, if Earth isn't the end, then they have to commit, because Shepard is either a high-tech equivalent of a demigod or a renowned celebrity who is essentially king or queen of the Milky Way. And I'm not even saying if it's a genuinely good idea. But Bioware wrote themselves into a corner with how the third game ended. Shepard is a big elephant in the room.

 

Control and synthesis Shepard in a playable game is easy. AI Shepard has an android (or hybrid, in the case of Synth) avatar built into which their consciousness is uploaded, like a more advanced EDI. Alternately? Shepard is alive, and you play as organic Shepard. Only people who had Destroy and had Shepard die would actually not get a returning Shepard. Which to me is the equivalent of Shepard dying at the end of ME2--decidedly not canon.

Uhm, except AI Shepard is not the Shepard we played. The one we played is dead. "Through his death I was born"

Synthesis disintegration is also undoubtedly fatal, and the Catalyst confirms it. 

 

I can see people referencing Shepard as some kind of renowned celebrity in the next game, but playing as Shepard won't work IMO.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Uhm, except AI Shepard is not the Shepard we played. The one we played is dead. "Through his death I was born"

Synthesis disintegration is also undoubtedly fatal, and the Catalyst confirms it. 

 

I can see people referencing Shepard as some kind of renowned celebrity in the next game, but playing as Shepard won't work IMO.

 That quote, without context, doesn't really mean anything. The mess that is space magic is a blanket of ambiguity. If the AI assumes the mantle of Shepard, knowing all that Shepard knew, using a body that is an accurate mockup of Shepard, from a gameplay perspective, is it that big of a leap?

 

My point in all of this is that while this may all be convoluted, this isn't outside the realm of possibility for Bioware. If they can do it (they can) and EA wants the money (I can guarantee you that they do) then it's a strong possibility, for better or for worse.

[StealthGamer92]

As much as I loved ME1-3 the new game needs to have Shepard out of the picture. Either by being dead by old age or Citadel explosion or by being the sacrifice of the other endings.

[Vazgen]

Writing an AI character without it coming out as human is a hard task already (just look at what happened to the geth and EDI). Writing an AI protagonist without it coming out as human is near impossible. And if AI Shepard comes out as a human then I call it a failure. 

Shepard has an ending to his story. His story is over and might only be slightly referenced in the coming Mass Effect games. 

Just look at how Dragon Age dealt with the Warden. A dialogue line here and there, message. That's all, and Warden is actually easier to bring back than Shepard.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Writing an AI character without it coming out as human is a hard task already (just look at what happened to the geth and EDI). Writing an AI protagonist without it coming out as human is near impossible. And if AI Shepard comes out as a human then I call it a failure. 

Shepard has an ending to his story. His story is over and might only be slightly referenced in the coming Mass Effect games. 

Just look at how Dragon Age dealt with the Warden. A dialogue line here and there, message. That's all, and Warden is actually easier to bring back than Shepard.

 

I'm even more certain that the Warden is coming back with a standalone DLC or such, for those reasons. If they can bring Shepard back, they'll have an even easier time bringing the Warden back, too.

[Vazgen]

I'm even more certain that the Warden is coming back with a standalone DLC or such, for those reasons. If they can bring Shepard back, they'll have an even easier time bringing the Warden back, too.

Well, hope dies last Personally, I'm fairly sure that he won't come back and neither will Shepard.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Shepard's story is a big part of the appeal of Mass Effect, but the game's universe itself is just as important, IMO. While I didn't like some of the characterizations in the Drew Karpyshyn novels, they still effectively demonstrated that the setting and background of Mass Effect can produce interesting stories with lower stakes than "stop the billion-year-old superbeings from killing everybody."

[Mathias]

People want ME4 because there are no other companies out there willing to do an epic Space Opera Rpg in that unique style Bioware does with their games. If there were alternatives out there from companies like CDprojekt Red, Atlus, or even Bethesda who did these style of Rpgs, I would've migrated from Bioware after ME3.

 

Then you've got the group of people who want ME4 because they loved how ME3 ended and can't wait to see what they do next.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Well, hope dies last Personally, I'm fairly sure that he won't come back and neither will Shepard.

 

If Bioware will make a special DLC for a less popular character like Leliana, Shepard and the Warden are unusually conspicuous.

[Drone223]

What, people are going to leave Bioware in the event EA orders another Shepard game/DLC? I don't see that happening.

 

Saying "Shepard's story is done" doesn't mean anything. This isn't like Oblivion (spoilers will be withheld for anyone who doesn't know how that game ends) where it's pretty explicit what happens to the protagonist at the end of the story. It's not some grand artistic choice that they'd be backsliding on. It's more that they'd be providing an actual ending or follow-up of some kind for a character who, depending on your actions, survived the end of the third game. They can always say " Poochie Shepard died on the way back to his home planet" but that's bogus. An ending for a character that big with no explanation is a copout of epic proportions, and they know it, which is why they won't do it. The door is open for them to continue Shepard's story, and that's why I think they'll be willing to do it.

Here's the thing Shepard shouldn't return just for the sake of having Shepard because it'll just be bad writing. If Bioware can't come up with a good reason for Shepard to come back then I'd rather not have Shepard back at all. Instead they should have a new character that fits the purpose of the story better than Shepard.

[Heimdall]

If Bioware will make a special DLC for a less popular character like Leliana, Shepard and the Warden are unusually conspicuous.

The difference is that Leliana's Song is a prequel with no variables to account for, or even any variation in the story or character.  To equivocate that with a post ME3 Shepard story or even a new Warden story is ridiculous, it has none of the difficulties.

[Malanek]

I personally think the world of Mass Effect is much, much bigger than Shepard. Definitely want to move on, there is massive scope for new original writing and do not want to be bogged down with all the baggage.