273 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabooooom]

Or, alternatively, they could make it a completely isolated story in a new region of space (analogous to ark) but also a sequel and handwave away the differences like:

Destroy: Society rebuilt, sent explorers to new region of space

Control: Same.

Synthesis: Synthesis couldn't be forced after all, some chose it, some didn't. Explorers leave hippy relay network to explore a new region of space.

[Kabooooom]

They could only really ignore it if it is set way far in the future (it's not) or if synthesis is ignored altogether and they just choose a purple ending by making the outcome of control and destroy identical

[katamuro]

Yeah I have the same feeling EntropicAngel, they do really need to get past the whole ME3 ending issue. Whatever they do they do need to canonize one ending and considering that a lot of people seem to be pro-Destroy or pro-Control then one of those is their best shot of getting past the issue. 

 

I feel like a lot of players who had played from the first ME back in 2008 that this kind of story needs to be respected, I feel like the sequel, even if its not a direct one is the one way that Bioware shows that they have accepted their failings and successes, that they know that what they created was flawed but are willing to move on and accept the people who have been vocally against the endings. 

[Kabooooom]

I actually would prefer that they just canonize destroy and make a direct sequel. I dont particularly want an ark theory sort of game at all. But I do think that is the direction that they will most likely go in, unfortunately.

[katamuro]

If they do that, I am probably still going to play the game and since its a bioware rpg its probably going to be good enough to stand on its own but I am going to absolutely hate that they did it. Its going to be far worse than what they did in the endings. Especially since they are taking their sweet time making the game. 

I want a game set a 100 years into the future or so, allowing time for most of the characters to die and the rest to slip into the murkiness of history especially considering the state of the galaxy. That would allow us to have a familiar feel to the game and universe and yet have enough freedom to tell pretty much any kind of story they want. 

[The Arbiter]

It is probably a reboot or a fresh restart since Bioware does not want or has phobia with number 3 now worst than Gabe Newell

[Epyon]

They can keep whether the Reapers were destroyed or just left vague. Or let you supply the answer, a la "I thought Revan was a guy?" But they should commit to yes or no answers on everything else. I don't what a crew of blissful idiots that never discovers whether all organic life in the galaxy was transformed into partly synthetics (and vice versa for EDI and the Geth) or a Krogan that doesn't know the genophage was cured. Embrace cutting down the options to Destroy or Control and the whole galaxy is avialable again.

[shepskisaac]

I didn't want to make new thread so dumping it here, nothing major but still cool, Arkon logo shape in the that big ship concept others already mentioned looking similar to the logo:

 

 

I'm on stage 4 of news drought

 

original concept (1920 pixels) without upped brightness here

[The Arbiter]

you can add this into your research. I call it the "ALTERNATE + REBOOT / RESTART" theory

 

Well I think this is what Bioware is doing. Taken from one of my conversation in Scuttlebut

 

Mcfly616: actually, after "new region of space", the article clearly states "prompting   some to suggest it would be set in a whole new galaxy". Meaning people such as yourself, speculating on the possibilities. Also, giving nods to fans of the past trilogy and past adventures, doesn't necessarily confirm a sequel either. It just means that we'll find something familiar to us in the next game, not that the next game takes place after said adventures. It's clear they are speaking of the players past experiences. Not necessarily the past of the fictional setting. For example, a side-quel can easily give nods to our past experiences in the Shepard trilogy.

Yes, I would also like to further explore the MEU with more freedom than ever before. However, the timeline doesn't affect my interest in journeying through the cosmos.

 

My response:

you mean the galaxy map and things we have been familiar with over the past? the normandy perhaps? codex and shiet UI interface? you mean the elements of the previous games? this is like my Final Fantasy Explanation earlier... so basically we are left in a LIMBO of not knowing whether this is a RESTART / REBOOT or A SEQUEL? WTF IS THIS? well I will attempt to explain the possibilities of approach which maybe taken by Bioware

 

Basically if they do decide a sequel they have to canonize one of the endings of ME3.

 

Since Humans and previous races are still existing we know that the REFUSE ending is not canon.

If and only if individuals in ME4 have green eyes then synthesis is canon but if no green eyes, then synthesis is out the window.

 

The only 2 left to speculate on how ME4 is connected is DESTROY AND CONTROL

If in ME4 there are few to 0 reaper remains then we will obviously know control is canon

 

if there are hundreds of thousand of Reaper remains scattered in the milky way galaxy then destroy is canon.

 

~When a fan asked one of the devs via twitter about "import saves" the devs replied it is not needed because ME4 is the best way to jump into the series. This can imply to two things: the game is a RESTART / REBOOT no explanation needed for new comers [which explains my restart/reboot approach], or the next game is a sequel which explains the past events in a nutshell. (however, someone told me that it would most certainly be like dragon age origins)

 

~The fan then asked if that ME3's destroy ending is canon but the devs refused everything saying that there is no canon ending.

 

- The question now is HOW WILL ME4 BEGIN, It's execution, it's lore, "nods to past adventures" what is it? a codex entry about the past? a comic series about shep and co after the reaper war? will the citadel be back? will it be like Skyrim referencing the Oblivion crisis with books scattered throughout the gameworld? or is it too familiar that everything is there including all the elements of the previous games but it is independent from ME3 which would be similar to Final Fantasy new titles... a Restart / Reboot of the entire franchise or a re-telling of the same story involving the same heroes, the same elements and core mechanics but no connection to previous titles... the tradition of Square-Enix that I know too well which is not the tradition of Bioware nor Mass Effect. Since the devs keeps on insisting that there is no canon ending then we can certainly not move forward without a canon beginning influenced by the canon ending if we are taking the route of a sequel... the only way to move forward without a canon beginning influenced by the canon ending is to restart the franchise.

 

well we know for certain that ME3 does not have a canon ending according to Bioware so how do they execute ME4 without a canon beginning influenced by 3? some suggest that it takes place 800 years later that the effects of 3 can just be "hand waived" but still go back to my first explanations about the canon beginning... no canon ending yes but the possibility of a canon beginning is likely if it is influenced by 3 AT ALL... to neglect the ending of 3 and to move forward for the sake of moving forward would mean a huge plot hole if it is a sequel or it could indicate a total restart of the franchise hence my theory the ALTERNATE + REBOOT / RESTART will come into mind.

 

others then speculated that everything in ME3 was just a dream so yeah lol

 

the NEXT GAME will tell us if it is a sequel or a restart.. either way I wish Bioware luck

 

Mcfly616: a sequel or reboot aren't the only possibilities.

 

My response:

you mean a prequel and an alternate universe? Bioware does not want the next mass effect to be a spin off or sidelined... they want it to be "Mass Effect" to the core with its own unique and similar lore and core elements. My question now is the method of approach they will take. Because the method used will indicate if it is a prequel, a spin off or alternate universe, a sequel or my theory... a Reboot / Restart which is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I AGREE AND I ADMIT moving on will be difficult since we have been accustomed to the past installments especially with our favorite characters but this is not new to me. Square Enix hell even Rockstar games forces me to move forward. I sincerely believe the next game is a RESTART or REBOOT of the franchise even without CONFIRMATION from Bioware I may be right or horribly wrong but this is the most logical approach in my own understanding for Bioware to take for the future of Mass Effect. Will there be angry fans because of the cliff hanger of ME3? Yes there will always be opposition no matter what but I agree with you that it has to END ONCE AND FOR ALL. We can't keep going around in circles...

 

Rockstar with VICE CITY same core elements -> Steal a car -> rob people -> kill people -> criminal life -> gangsta life.

GTA V -> Steal a car -> rob people -> kill people -> criminal life -> gangsta life BUT NO CONNECTION TO VICE CITY.

 

similar to final fantasy... it has worked very well people love them! so why shouldn't I love the next ME4? it would have

similar weapons -> returning species -> exploration and feel of MASS EFFECT 1 -> Core elements -> music -> same elements BUT NO CONNECTION TO 1 2 AND 3.

 

 

Bioware from multiple reports and interviews stated again that the next game must stand on its own they do not want it perceived by the public as a spinoff... it is a game of its own which may spawn a trilogy of its own.

[Undead Han]

The endings not being addressed does not necessarily guarantee a reboot. In fact an Ark Theory setting may not eve not require mentioning the endings, as it shifts the setting of the game to a region outside of the relay network. 

[GamerOfFortune_8]

I definitely would rather play a sequel than a prequel.  First of all if they make a prequel it will just give anal retentive nitpickers like smugboy more ammunition to point out where they got the lore wrong.  These people are insufferable enough without giving them ammo.  More importantly I don't want to play a game that rehashes history.  I am more interested in what will happen in the Mass Effect universe going forward.  I want to see the long time effects and consequences that the reaper war had on the galaxy.  I want to see what the galactic perception was of the reaper war especially if it takes place long enough for the galaxy recover and lick it's wounds.  I want to see what new threats emerge for example the Leviathans with the reapers out of the way may try to reassert their dominance over the rest of the galaxy or the Yahg might develop interstellar capabilities making them an instance threat. 

 

A lot of prequel fans bring up the First Contact War as a possibility for a game to take place.  That would bore the crap right out of me.  We have heard plenty about the first contact war and calling it a war isn't even appropriate.  The Turians labled it as an incident.  There were less than 1000 casualties on both sides.  In terms of war raged on a galactic scale that is nothing.  It was an incident not a war.

I defiantly want a sequel because its been to long for a prequel. I honestly think it is a possibility it will happen tho, after they get the new installment out they are going to want to keep the mass effect franchise alive such as bungie did with halo so we will see remasters and possibly a prequel. The things is I dont think the prequel will have to much exposure as the original trilogy did because the character didn't meet each-other before all that happened in the original story. But that would be a great challenge to take on.

[The Arbiter]

The endings not being addressed does not necessarily guarantee a reboot. In fact an Ark Theory setting may not eve not require mentioning the endings, as it shifts the setting of the game to a region outside of the relay network. 

can you enlighten me with this "Ark theory" how does it work? is it like "forgetting everything from ME 1, 2, and 3, and just moving forward outside the milky way galaxy for the sake of moving forward?" did I get it right?

[KaiserShep]

This whole Ark thing would really bug the hell out of me, because it basically means that the entire setting that the previous games established is now totally defunct as a backdrop to tell more stories.

[The Arbiter]

This whole Ark thing would really bug the hell out of me, because it basically means that the entire setting that the previous games established is now totally defunct as a backdrop to tell more stories.

yes which also I clearly stated that if they(Bioware) do decide with the Ark theory... it would be like an empty black hole like a big "Forget about everything-quel" or something. This is why whether I like it or not the most logical way to move forward is to either

 

1. Straighten out the ending of ME3 and then deciding for a direct Sequel with a new hero and lore. However there is one major flaw into this idea... Bioware already stated via Twitter that there is no canon ending for ME3... how can you move forward without a canon beginning for a sequel which is obviously influenced or dependent on the canon ending of its predecessor?

 

2. My theory... which I also hate... a Restart of the Franchise.

[Undead Han]

can you enlighten me with this "Ark theory" how does it work? is it like "forgetting everything from ME 1, 2, and 3, and just moving forward outside the milky way galaxy for the sake of moving forward?" did I get it right?

 

The variation of it I've seen is that it would it be tied to Tevos' (or her replacement?) statement post-Thessia that she would need to make arrangements for the continuance of galactic civilization. Basically the Ark would be the galaxy's Plan B in case the Reapers win, sort of like how the Protheans attempted to hide people (including Javik) in stasis pods on Eden Prime. The difference here is that the galaxy would be sending their people in cryo-sleep on a one way trip to parts unknown, perhaps out of the galaxy entirely.

 

The game perhaps begins during the Reaper War, but the bulk of the story could potentially be occurring long after depending on how long it takes for the Ark to arrive at it's destination. But despite being set after the Reaper War, the events of the Shepard trilogy do not directly impact it, because the part of the galaxy or universe you are exploring is outside the relay network and unaffected by whatever it was Shepard did with the Crucible. And you are so far from your former home that there is no contact and no way of returning.

 

Granted this is all fan speculation & nothing official. So its just as likely to be wrong as right.

 

But I think at this point there is more reason to suspect something like the Ark Theory might pan out, than getting a direct sequel to Mass Effect 3. All the dev statements hint that the latter won't be happening. I think at this point we can safely rule out a direct sequel and debate on whether the next game is going to be a prequel, sidequel, AU, or something like the Ark Theory. Personally my preferred setting would be a direct sequel to Mass Effect 3, particularly if it was a Destroy galaxy, but I could probably get into an Ark Theory setting if it was well crafted and the main character, companions, villain, and plot were interesting.

[The Arbiter]

The variation of it I've seen is that it would it be tied to Tevos' (or her replacement?) statement post-Thessia that she would need to make arrangements for the continuance of galactic civilization. Basically the Ark would be the galaxy's Plan B in case the Reapers win, sort of like how the Protheans attempted to hide people (including Javik) in stasis pods on Eden Prime. The difference here is that the galaxy would be sending their people in cryo-sleep on a one way trip to parts unknown, perhaps out of the galaxy entirely.

 

The game perhaps begins during the Reaper War, but the bulk of the story could potentially be occurring long after depending on how long it takes for the Ark to arrive at it's destination. But despite being set after the Reaper War, the events of the Shepard trilogy do not directly impact it, because the part of the galaxy or universe you are exploring is outside the relay network and unaffected by whatever it was Shepard did with the Crucible. And you are so far from your former home that there is no contact and no way of returning.

 

Granted this is all fan speculation & nothing official. So its just as likely to be wrong as right.

 

But I think at this point there is more reason to suspect something like the Ark Theory might pan out, than getting a direct sequel to Mass Effect 3. All the dev statements hint that the latter won't be happening. I think at this point we can safely rule out a direct sequel and debate on whether the next game is going to be a prequel, sidequel, AU, or something like the Ark Theory. Personally my preferred setting would be a direct sequel to Mass Effect 3, particularly if it was a Destroy galaxy, but I could probably get into an Ark Theory setting if it was well crafted and the main character, companions, villain, and plot were interesting.

you mean a one way trip outside the Milky Way galaxy to escape the reapers? that... sounds crazy that it could work... and suddenly everyone in that one way trip lost contact of the milky way galaxy I presume? hmmm...

 

but still a huge question still looms over... what the hell happened to the milky way galaxy? I mean the faith of the galaxy was literally put into Shepards hands!

 

ME1 had a canon beginning and canon ending - Story of a commander, then Saren dies no matter what you do in between

 

ME2 had a canon beginning and ending - Saren dies and the collectors attacked! collectors defeated then the reapers attacked! no matter what you do in between

 

ME3 even had a canon beginning but NO CANON ENDING - The reapers attacked! but the outcome is unkown

 

okay Granting arguendo we take the ARK THEORY... this could work but temporarily unless if Bioware decides to scrap the milkyway galaxy from the franchise permanently. What if.. in ME5 OR ME6 the people of the Ark who came from the milky way galaxy 2,000 years later came in contact with radio chatter from the milky way... then they posses the technology to traverse back to their home galaxy... wouldn't that create another problem? because we have no idea what happened after the Reaper war?

[Tython]

I think Bioware wants to forget the Reaper War because people are so divided on how things should've ended. They said in a tweet that "player choice matters" in response to an ending question so they are not canonizing an ending. I'm not a fan of the ark theory either but I understand its attraction to the writers: new area of space to explore, new characters, new aliens, building resources from the ground up, no need to address ME3's ending, etc.

 

I think they are taking their good old time with this game because they realize they need to do it right similar to DAI following the second game. ME is a huge franchise that got hurt badly with 3's ending(s) and they really want the franchise to expand to more games. My hope is we get to play an alien and the story is strong and epic like DAI which I love.

 

Hopefully, one day Bioware goes back and fixes things with ME3's ending(s). I'd take the destroy ending as canon because it's the only one where Shepard potentially lives. But for now, we'll just leave it to modders.

[Mcfly616]

Hopefully, one day Bioware goes back and fixes things with ME3's ending(s). 

 They already did. It's called the Extended Cut. That's how they'll stay. If it's not to your liking, you shouldn't hold your breath.

[Mcfly616]

 because we have no idea what happened after the Reaper war?

 We have plenty of ideas of what happened.

[The Arbiter]

 We have plenty of ideas of what happened.

Colored explosions? relays gets destroyed, normandy crashes?

[Mcfly616]

Colored explosions? relays gets destroyed, normandy crashes?

 guess you missed some stuff. 

[shepskisaac]

This whole Ark thing would really bug the hell out of me, because it basically means that the entire setting that the previous games established is now totally defunct as a backdrop to tell more stories.

But that's the result of ME3, not ME4. If they don't go with the ark solution (or whatever excuse to move to another galaxy) it doesn't suddenly make Milky Way functional to tell more stories

[EarthInhabitant]

I don't think the new Mass Effect will be as constrained by ME3's ending option as some others here do. Even if the game is set within say a few years after the war's end they can dance around the issues that are presented.

 

The status of the reapers can be explained fairly easily; If they were destroyed, or controlled their presence in the galaxy can be gone. Shepard AI could have moved them back to dark space, but it should be left a mystery. There will be Reaper wreckage regardless.

If the geth were destroyed, either by Rannoch choice or Destroy option, a faction of quarians could have recreated a select few of the geth out of guilt for their extinction. Likewise not all Quarians will have been attached to the fleet if they are destroyed by the geth. Rannoch should be avoided altogether in NME, the planet's story was told.

Earth needs to be rebuilt regardless, extent of damage doesn't need to be addressed. (considering entire planet gets chard with low ems destroy) 

Relays are damaged in all ending variations.

For those who chose synthesis, bioware need only to retcon the green eyes thing, it was a bad idea to begin with. References to acquired enhancements can be made by organics.

None of the characters are returning, so deaths do not need to be taken into account.

 

I haven't played ME3 in awhile so am I missing some highly damaging plot hole that will affect the next game's timeline after ME3 ending?