Plus the geth were completely ok with staying behind the Veil, not bothering anyone, it was the Reaper that turned them against organics, and no the Morning War does not count, while they did go overboard by quite a large margin considering the reaction of quarians its not that surprising.
Plus EDI.
Sounds like KotOR 2's start all over again. Eww.
Didn't Deus Ex Invisible War do something similar?
Not sure about invisible war but original Deus Ex and Deus Ex:Human Revolution both had endings where you choose one of several variants(I think it was 3 or 4) and then you get a colour coded ending slideshow with a voiceover. there is a video floating around somewhere comparing the Deus Ex:HR with the ME3 endings side by side.
Hm, didn't I read somewhere that the next ME could take place during the period of ME1-3? Was this something official, or something someone made up, or am I hallucinating?
If they really go that way of course they don't need to worry about the endings.
I think that was just pure speculation by someone. They havent revealed any significant details at all.
Having the game take place during the same time period as the trilogy would be a mistake. The interest and excitement for the game would be limited from the fans and it would acknowledge the Bioware admits they screwed up the endings.
It would also mean another ME story that would inevitably end (depicted or not) with Shepard dying before a colored explosion suddenly tears through the galaxy.
Thats the whole deal, if they do anything in between games or even a like some suggested that it takes in an area of the galaxy where reapers are not present it still ends with ME3 ending. the whole game is kinda pointless unless you move beyond the ending, tie it up somehow. Otherwise its all an exercise in futility.
Assuming Bioware ever does a direct sequel to ME3, which doesn't seem to be the case with ME:Next, they've got two options:
The first and probably preferable option in terms of having the least baggage, is to base the sequel on only one of the three ending choices. They can still keep all three endings from Mass Effect 3 canon, but just announce that the sequel only explores the consequences of one of them. Of the three Destroy would probably be the best choice, since it has already done away with the Reapers (a necessity for new villains) and as the fan favorite, it is the least likely to cause the forums or Twitter to go nuclear.
The second is to try and carry over all three endings into a sequel. That would require to some extent ignoring the EC epilogues and having all three ending choices result in a galactic state that doesn't greatly diverge from choice to choice. So the Reapers would likely end up out of the way (or gone entirely) in all three choices. They'd also need to have the galaxy either go partially synthetic at some point after all three endings or the post-Synthesis galaxy to revert to it's pre-Synthesis state at some point. Or alternatively, the results of Synthesis would simply be reduced to few throwaway lines of dialogue, but otherwise be identical. The Geth would also need to exist in the aftermath of all three choices, or to simply play little to no role at all in the sequel.
Neither however is ideal and either route is likely to provoke some criticism. Bioware in effect, painted itself into a corner with the endings of Mass Effect 3. They do not easily lend themselves to a sequel, and while a sequel can be crafted from them it can't be done without generating at least some criticism pre-release. I think the decision on which route to go would require the devs to assess which route was least likely to provoke a backlash. On that note my credits would be on the first option, with Destroy being the ending the sequel explores.
Also it probably goes without saying that Refuse would be entirely off the table and not even up for consideration. It exists only in DLC which means only a small minority of players have ever seen it, and it is nothing more than a slightly more creative Critical Mission Failure. Like the worst outcome of ME2's suicide mission, It has absolutely no chance of ever being the basis of a sequel.
This is why I've said in the past Bioware should retcon those endings. It's nothing to do with my obsessing over a three year old game, it's about the continuation of the franchise along lines that actually make sense and don't descend in to the realms of cheap pulp fiction. As a result of those endings, there are now rumours abound now that ME4 will be set in an entirely new Galaxy which, if true, compounds the canonical mistakes of ME3's ending and would, for all intents and purposes, be a reboot of the franchise that isn't particularly old but is particular well liked and that I don't think, will go down well with a lot of people. Bioware made a mess of Dragon Age 2, the ME3 endings and (on the PC) Dragon Age Inquisition and they're in real danger now of hammering the final nail in to their own coffin if they don't sort out the mess they created in those endings (extended or not).
Didn't Deus Ex Invisible War do something similar?
Sort of. It took all three endings to the original Deus Ex and drawing on elements from them, created a single canon outcome.
That was the theory. The reality was more of a chaotic mess.
I get that people do like different endings and people have different opinions on how well it was handled in ME3 but no one really would suggest stepping out so far as to create an alternate MEU or set it in between the games, or at the same time as the games but in an area of the galaxy "walled off" from the rest of it.
It screams, "we have no idea what we are doing".
As for a blended canonized ending? Well the first thing that comes to mind is that somehow the magic Crucible beam wiped out the lower forms of Reapers, that is all their ground forces and destroyers and only left Sovereign-type reapers alive but also unshackled them from the Little Glowing **** allowing them to repair mass relays and then disappear into oblivion. At the same time EDI and geth were turned partially organic so that they dont try to kill of all the organics since they are kind of organic now. But leaving organics to be organics without all that stupid blending part.
Or just forget about the whole synthesis thing, out of all the wacky ideas who came up with that gem?
I don't expect them to do this at all... but just humor me for a second. How in the living name of....... can you incorporate those three choices?
Imagine if synthesis/control/destroy becomes part of the new background and history for creating a new character or it becomes 3 seperate game modes that change the gameplay like if you're Soldier vs being a Biotic. Crazy.
It won't. Mass Effect 4 is a REBOOT it has no connection with 1 2 or 3 in anyway and they are throwing Shepard, Tali, Garrus and the rest to the recycle bin and start over
I don't expect them to do this at all... but just humor me for a second. How in the living name of....... can you incorporate those three choices?
Imagine if synthesis/control/destroy becomes part of the new background and history for creating a new character or it becomes 3 seperate game modes that change the gameplay like if you're Soldier vs being a Biotic. Crazy.
I have two words for you:
See Thread: Its basically a sort of quasi-reboot that doesn't overwrite the events of previous games.
Here read ny thread .. I noticed the end of Mass Effect 3 like 4 months ago with the entire idea of new characters and stuff. It is a Reboot it may make or break the game but would also be frustrating to a lot of fans who invested countless hourshttp://forum.bioware...ot-in-disguise/
It is
It really IS... or... you THINK it might be?
Ark theory is going to end up in the same place Indoctrination theory ended up.
Does respecting player choice extend to refuse?
I think the word reboot is being misused there. A reboot is something along the lines of what JJ Abrams did with Star Trek. It is a series restart. With Mass Effect it would involve rewinding the timeline to some point before the finale of ME3 and altering events, so that the events of the Reaper War either play out differently than they did in ME1 through ME3 or don't come to pass at all.
Ark Theory *IS NOT* a reboot in that it does not alter in any way the events of the Shepard trilogy. It just sets the action outside the boundaries of the setting of the Shepard trilogy.
katamuro, on 05 Mar 2015 - 1:47 PM, said:
Ark theory is going to end up in the same place Indoctrination theory ended up.
Perhaps, but the Ark Theory speculation actually has some basis...unlike IT. IT was never more than one part denial and one part wishful thinking. The Ark Theory at least is based on dev comments that hint strongly that the never game is not a direct sequel.
The next game is either going to be a prequel, sidequel, AU, or will have the Ark Theory setting. But it certainly won't be a direct sequel. Otherwise the devs wouldn't have been griping about fans using ME4 to refer to the project.
Ark theory is going to end up in the same place Indoctrination theory ended up.
Ark theory isn't nearly as bad as indoctrination theory, it just tries to come up with a way to have a fresh start, moving forward in the ME universe without being bound by the ending controversy of ME3.
Indoctrination theory was just a flat out denial of reality.
It really IS... or... you THINK it might be?
In my view IT IS given all the information from the devs "no connection with Shepard" "good place to start in the series" "No need for old save games" it's obvious. It's like Final Fantasy by SquareEnix every new Final Fantasy is unique not connected with one another their tradition. They broke it by releasing FF-X-II and XIII-II/LIGHTNING RETURNS and now damage control going back to tradition via XV new title. Bioware's tradition was to release games connected with one another now it seems they are doing something bold which may lead them to the same mistake of Square Enix or re-capture their lost fans
I think the word reboot is being misused there. A reboot is something along the lines of what JJ Abrams did with Star Trek. It is a series restart. With Mass Effect it would involve rewinding the timeline to some point before the finale of ME3 and altering events, so that the events of the Reaper War either play out differently than they did in ME1 through ME3 or don't come to pass at all.
Ark Theory *IS NOT* a reboot in that it does not alter in any way the events of the Shepard trilogy. It just sets the action outside the boundaries of the setting of the Shepard trilogy.
You're probably right. I used it in the sense that it would not be a continuation of the trilogy, a clean slate narratively speaking.
Does respecting player choice extend to refuse?
Or "Turn off the game" after Kronos Station/"Best Seats in the House"/Citadel Party/etc?
How about choosing Marauder Shields comic? MEHEM? Other alternate canons?
Or is this respecting player "choice" the same as how Imshael respects "choice"?
Or "Turn off the game" after Kronos Station/"Best Seats in the House"/Citadel Party/etc?
How about choosing Marauder Shields comic? MEHEM? Other alternate canons?
Or is this respecting player "choice" the same as how Imshael respects "choice"?
Of course those choices won't have any impact. Same as with Shepard dying in ME2.
Retour en haut
