825 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Setting subsequent games before the Reaper war doesn't solve anything.  The threat of the Reapers would still hang over everything.  Any other danger, threat, storyline the writers came up with would be trivialized by the impending doom the player new was nigh.  

 Right....

 

The Last Samurai was totally worthless because we all know Japan got nuked a century later (twice). 

 

 

 

 

This is a problem for the gamer who has attachment issues. Not the people who are trying to craft a good story, nor the people trying to experience one.

[WillieStyle]

Right....

The Last Samurai was totally worthless because we all know Japan got nuked a century later (twice).




This is a problem for the gamer who has attachment issues. Not the people who are trying to craft a good story, nor the people trying to experience one.

The last Samurai was about the end of Feudal Japan. WW2 makes the last Samurai even more relevant. It is, in a sense, the origin tale of the modernized Imperial Japan. Much like Episode 1 is an origin tale of Darth Vader.

A much better analogy would be Monuments Men. If you write a movie about saving Art during the Holocaust, don't expect audiences to give a ****.

[katamuro]

The last Samurai was about the end of Feudal Japan. WW2 makes the last Samurai even more relevant. It is, in a sense, the origin tale of the modernized Imperial Japan. Much like Episode 1 is an origin tale of Darth Vader.

A much better analogy would be Monuments Men. If you write a movie about saving Art during the Holocaust, don't expect audiences to give a ****.

 

Plus the Japan didnt ALL get nuked, only two cities, and while that is still two cities too many most of the Japan was untouched by the physical aspects of the bombs.(we all know that Japanese mentality was impacted quite strongly by the use of nuclear weapons, Godzilla is a good early example of the change in Japanese thinking)

[Lunch Box1912]

What does this have to do with Mass Effect??? lol

[MrMrPendragon]

First of all, if you liked either Control or Synthesis, you have bad taste and should feel bad.

But disregarding taste for a second.  There is no plausible way for Bioware to go on telling other stories with the giant specter of the Reapers hanging over their heads. If they pick anything other than Destroy as canon, then every other story they tell will have to deal with this legion of ultra-powerful space squids (whether they are benevolent or not).  If Bioware wants to keep the ME universe going for several more games, do they really want their universe dominated by squid-like mech-gods they dreamed up 5 to 10 years ago?  

 

Just pick destroy and move on with it.  

 

I agree. Mostly because I'm all for Destroy.

 

If Bioware wants to incorporate player choices, then good, I'd welcome them.

 

But if it's in the scale of "what happens next?" - which is basically what the endings are - then we shouldn't be able to mess with it. Bioware needs to give a story that Bioware makes, not what the player makes.

 

Worst case scenario is they avoid the whole thing altogether. Pretend that ME3 never existed. I don't know why they would do that however. Maybe to shield themselves from the fan outrage, but tbh if they survived ME3, then they can survive any kind of raging.

[Mcfly616]

The last Samurai was about the end of Feudal Japan. WW2 makes the last Samurai even more relevant. It is, in a sense, the origin tale of the modernized Imperial Japan. Much like Episode 1 is an origin tale of Darth Vader.

A much better analogy would be Monuments Men. If you write a movie about saving Art during the Holocaust, don't expect audiences to give a ****.

 You can twist anything to suit your argument, it still isn't helping it. Saving Private Ryan was about sending one guy home in the middle of WW2 where millions upon millions of people dyed. Guess what....

People gave a **** 

 

No. The Last Samurai is in no way the origin tale of Darth Vader in the analogy you use. It is a story of people that had nothing to do with WW2. Maybe the representation of the country in the foremost ages of development that evolve into the power seen in the 1930's/40's is relatable, but there is no narrative connection between the characters in anyway whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

Point is, Bioware can tell the story of any number of billions of beings that had an adventure that took place before or during the course of the Legend of Shepard being written. 

[Lunch Box1912]

and EDI says...

[WillieStyle]

No. The Last Samurai is in no way the origin tale of Darth Vader in the analogy you use. It is a story of people that had nothing to do with WW2. Maybe the representation of the country in the foremost ages of development that evolve into the power seen in the 1930's/40's is relatable, but there is no narrative connection between the characters in anyway whatsoever.

If you don't see any narative connection between the end of Feudal Japan as depicted in the Last Samurai and the rise of the Imperial Japan that partook in WW2, then you and I have such dramatically different views on "narratives" that there's no wonder we disagree about Mass Effect.

[CronoDragoon]

It's going to be a new galaxy. The only question is how far after ME3 will it take place so that civilization can be up to running speed by the time the player enters the game world.

 

They won't touch the endings, nor do they need to.

[Mcfly616]

If you don't see any narative connection between the end of Feudal Japan as depicted in the Last Samurai and the rise of the Imperial Japan that partook in WW2, then you and I have such dramatically different views on "narratives" that there's no wonder we disagree about Mass Effect.

 I agree. We aren't on the same page. Considering you are saying that the Last Samurai  is equivalent to SW Ep. 1 and that anything taking place before the fall of the republic/Reaper War (or in this case:WW2) is worthless narrative because there'd be a big cloud over it's head like the SW: old trilogy was such a big shadow over the head of Ep:1 or WW2 was a shadow over the head of TLS.

[Lunch Box1912]

I'm so glad you guys are talking again... EDI is so pleased!

[WillieStyle]

It's going to be a new galaxy. The only question is how far after ME3 will it take place so that civilization can be up to running speed by the time the player enters the game world.

 

They won't touch the endings, nor do they need to.

 

That's only a viable solution if you believe that Bioware will never want to set another Mass Effect game in the Milky Way.

[Epyon]

Any prequel would have to take place when humanity is still working to find it's place in the galaxy. It's a theme we explored thoroughly in the ME trilogy and I'd rather ME4 took place in a galaxy where humanity is just around as the equal of the other main council races.

[katamuro]

That's only a viable solution if you believe that Bioware will never want to set another Mass Effect game in the Milky Way.

 

and it would be a huge mistake, there is a reason why star wars even after decades is not getting set outside the star wars galaxy. And I think it would be a huge mistake for them to do a prequel or a sidequel. Anything that is not following the events of ME games however how indirectly would be like trying to sell a minibus to somehow who wants a 4x4. Sure it has four wheels, an engine and seats, it might even come in the same colour and the same manufacturer but if you want and need a 4x4 you are not going to settle for a minibus.

[Balsam Beige]

 Worst case scenario is they avoid the whole thing altogether. Pretend that ME3 never existed. I don't know why they would do that however. Maybe to shield themselves from the fan outrage, but tbh if they survived ME3, then they can survive any kind of raging.

Avoiding or ignoring the trilogy, a prequel, another universe, or a sidequel would all be preferable to a direct sequel.

A direct sequel is problematic. Gamble said no canon ending so the best option of using 'Destroy' as a starting point in not happening. A 'hand wave' codex type of explanation for the four drastically different ending choices blending into one world state would be trivializing our choices and Gamble said that player choice is something they take very seriously. LOL So unless they are already lying to us, that's not happening. My question is, how do your write a sequel that is not nonsensical?

[Heimdall]

and it would be a huge mistake, there is a reason why star wars even after decades is not getting set outside the star wars galaxy. 

How are the two situations even remotely comparable?

[Heimdall]

That's only a viable solution if you believe that Bioware will never want to set another Mass Effect game in the Milky Way.

And if they go that route, I doubt they ever will.

 

I have no problem with that.

[WillieStyle]

No way would Bioware ever write themselves into such a corner. Whatever solution they choose will leave them the option to return to Earth, Thessia, Omega etc.

[katamuro]

How are the two situations even remotely comparable?

 

I was implying that they didnt charge off for another galaxy even after decades of writing about it because it worked, because people loved the one it was originally set and they would have absolutely no attachment to some other galaxy. Same goes for ME, and for franchises attachment is one serious part of the appeal. 

[wolfhowwl]

Setting subsequent games before the Reaper war doesn't solve anything.  The threat of the Reapers would still hang over everything.  Any other danger, threat, storyline the writers came up with would be trivialized by the impending doom the player new was nigh.  Imagine if Star Wars Episode 1 - instead of being about the origins of Darth Vader - was about Obi Wan trying to stop an evil corporation from polluting a river on Alderan.  The drama would be completely undermined by what we know happens in Episode 4. 
 
Besides, a "prequel" would be, at best, a temporary solution.  How many stories would Bioware be willing to tell with the already established lore as a straight jacket.  Again, it's best to just bite the bullet and pick Destroy as cannon.  Then they'd really be free to come up with new stories.

 
That would be for the best. You move the franchise past the overarching Reaper plot and the ending and into a position where you can tell many stories linked together by the setting without the Reapers hanging over everything or having a constrained timeline for human involvement like a prequel.
 

Besides the ending is trash and BioWare has very little credibility when it comes to choices mattering. You wouldn't be losing much by going with a sequel and you have a lot of upside. Sure some people might be angry that they didn't get their circuit board people carried over but do we really know that there are that many people that value their ending choice over getting a sequel?

 

As for a reboot, if we're worried about pissing people off that is even worse. Instead of telling some people that their ending choice isn't being carried over, you're telling everyone that the events of three games are being wiped out because you can't deal with your own ending.

 

"Ark theory" abandons the setting BioWare put so much work into building over the years and in service of what? Great we can't revisit Omega, Illium, or Thessia in order to protect ending choices from 2012 that most people have moved on from or view as toxic enough that they don't value it. Why throw out so much good stuff (really the world they built is one of BioWare's strengths) in order to coddle a vocal minority that either takes their ending choice super seriously or is still so mad they don't want the ending acknowledged at all?

 

 

[Heimdall]

I was implying that they didnt charge off for another galaxy even after decades of writing about it because it worked, because people loved the one it was originally set and they would have absolutely no attachment to some other galaxy. Same goes for ME, and for franchises attachment is one serious part of the appeal.

A key difference: Star Wars has a canon.

As for attachment: the setting of Mass Effect was fundamentally altered by the Shepard trilogy, especially the endings. What people are attached to isn't coming back anyway.

[Heimdall]

"Ark theory" abandons the setting BioWare put so much work into building over the years and in service of what? Great we can't revisit Omega, Illium, or Thessia in order to protect ending choices from 2012 that most people have moved on from or view as toxic enough that they don't value it. Why throw out so much good stuff (really the world they built is one of BioWare's strengths) in order to coddle a vocal minority that either takes their ending choice super seriously or is still so mad they don't want the ending acknowledged at all?

i'm happy you have an opinion and all, but that doesn't mean you can speak for the fanbase when you assume most people don't care about their ending choices.

[Maniccc]

Ugh!  What is this infatuation with "choice"?  Giving the player plot-altering choices run contrary to developing coherent stories.  And the infatuation with choice is what got us the abominations that were "Control" and "Synthesis".  Bioware should just bite the bullet and set MENext in a post Destroy universe as that is the only ending consistent with cogent storytelling.

You have almost an excellent point.  This is what I mean:  if you are going to create a world wherein you will create multiple games and stories, then you cannot allow players the power to change anything significant about said world.  Choice and consequence can only be personal, not political or global.  Otherwise, you create impossible situations, like the one Bioware is in now with ME.

On the other hand, if you do a one off world, then you can create radically different world affecting endings, and it won't matter.

Either a one off world with radical global choices, or a multi-game/story world with only personal choices are the only ways to write a story that is going to make any sense.

[Balsam Beige]

You have almost an excellent point.  This is what I mean:  if you are going to create a world wherein you will create multiple games and stories, then you cannot allow players the power to change anything significant about said world.  Choice and consequence can only be personal, not political or global.  Otherwise, you create impossible situations, like the one Bioware is in now with ME.
On the other hand, if you do a one off world, then you can create radically different world affecting endings, and it won't matter.
Either a one off world with radical global choices, or a multi-game/story world with only personal choices are the only ways to write a story that is going to make any sense.

They did a multi-game/story world with radical global choices. So the best solution going forward is to make a complete break from the trilogy. That would mean no sequel. Start a fresh. A new multi-game/story world with only personal choices.

[katamuro]

They did a multi-game/story world with radical global choices. So the best solution going forward is to make a complete break from the trilogy. That would mean no sequel. Start a fresh. A new multi-game/story world with only personal choices.

 

At this stage they require not just a new story but a whole new universe where everything that happened in between ME1-ME3 did not to make a break. Or at least the last 10 min of ME3 did not. 

That is the problem. We are all fine with all new story, that is in fact what we want, new characters new worlds to explore and new bad guys to beat. But because of the way they did the whole ME3 ending they require not just that but basically a time-erase thing.