Honestly it feels like Gamble is trolling us, the whole statement especially considering what they have done before fees like another one of their "near lies". technically it probably is the truth but the way they go around makes it a false one.
Yeah, I'm sure it's true "from a certain point of view" 
But after ME3, EC, the Starchild, etc, I'm going to take "Player choice is something we take very seriously" with an entire shaker of salt. Actions speak a heckuva lot louder than words.
Those galaxies obviously aren't very different in the future, since they all have a common meeting point. The EC itself even displays characters and events in very similar ways no matter the ending choice. What happens beyond our participation and what's shown to us is up to the universe's grand design, and the Stargazer scene proves that things do, indeed, respond and course-correct to a similar state.
Taking such a small scene and trying to twist the idea into proof of the same in galaxy-wide developments is beyond absurd.
Taking such a small scene and trying to twist the idea into proof of the same in galaxy-wide developments is beyond absurd.
Why's that? Why include the scene in all endings, then?
No matter the parameters of the ending choice, whether it's wiping out the Reapers and freeing the galaxy or changing existence at its most basic level, each world-state produces the exact same scene at a specific point in the future. Things have a way of course-correcting to get to a desired state, whether it's by choice or by design. If these are such wildly different galaxies after that time passes, then that scene would be entirely different in them, or nonexistent.
As I said earlier, you don't have to have a canon ending for ME3 to reach a unified beginning to ME4.
But after ME3, EC, the Starchild, etc, I'm going to take "Player choice is something we take very seriously" with an entire shaker of salt. Actions speak a heckuva lot louder than words.
Very true, and they've been operating under the illusion of choice since ME1. No matter what, Commander Shepard of the Alliance throwing either Ashley or Kaidan out of the way of the beacon's energy, something entirely out of the control of the player, is what started Mass Effect in the first place. You'll have choice, but it'll be from BioWare's options and within BioWare's canon, as always.
Yeah, I'm sure it's true "from a certain point of view"
But after ME3, EC, the Starchild, etc, I'm going to take "Player choice is something we take very seriously" with an entire shaker of salt. Actions speak a heckuva lot louder than words.
I actually agree, it doesn't mean much about how they'll really treat choice.
But I'm willing to believe the rather definitive statement about there being no canon, that one doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room. (Though it could mean either all endings are homogenized and come out to the same thing (ick) or they go the DE: Invisible War route and an amalgamation of all endings happened). Basically I feel pretty secure now that they probably aren't going to make a single ending canon.
Why's that? Why include the scene in all endings, then?
No matter the parameters of the ending choice, whether it's wiping out the Reapers and freeing the galaxy or changing existence at its most basic level, each world-state produces the exact same scene at a specific point in the future. Things have a way of course-correcting to get to a desired state, whether it's by choice or by design. If these are such wildly different galaxies after that time passes, then that scene would be entirely different in them, or nonexistent.
As I said earlier, you don't have to have a canon ending for ME3 to reach a unified beginning to ME4.
Because they wanted to get across the notion that Shepard becomes a legend and didn't think the concept required more permutations? It's literally two figures standing in a field talking about Shepard, that can happen in any galaxy.
Trying to take that and use it as proof that the galaxies aren't wildly different, despite every other indication to the contrary, is absurd.
Yes, they could contrive all the worldstates to the same result if they really wanted to, but I would call that bad writing. It reeks of what they did to the Rachni in ME3 for starters and the whole point of Shepard making that choice was shaping the future of the galaxy: making everything turn out the same just compounds the problems with the ME3 ending. It's quite possibly the worst thing they could do.
Because they wanted to get across the notion that Shepard becomes a legend and didn't think the concept required more permutations? It's literally two figures standing in a field talking about Shepard, that can happen in any galaxy.
Trying to take that and use it as proof that the galaxies aren't wildly different, despite every other indication to the contrary, is absurd.
It can, indeed, but it would be different permutations for each galaxy if they were drastically different.
They're not.
Rudely continuing to call it absurd does not change that above fact.
And continuing to assert the same flawed conclusion does not make it less flawed. The scene exists to assert that Shepard is a legendary figure at some distant point, and that is the only fact which we can take as being constant on a galactic scale in these alternate futures. That they didn't create ever so slightly different permutations to get across the exact same ideas for each ending speaks more to the developers resource management than anything else.
Yes, they could contrive all the worldstates to the same result if they really wanted to, but I would call that bad writing.
It reeks of what they did to the Rachni in ME3 for starters and the whole point of Shepard making that choice was shaping the future of the galaxy: making everything turn out the same just compounds the problems with the ME3 ending.
It's quite possibly the worst thing they could do.
And continuing to assert the same flawed conclusion does not make it less flawed.
The scene exists to assert that Shepard is a legendary figure at some distant point, and that is the only fact which we can take as being constant on a galactic scale in these alternate futures.
That they didn't create ever so slightly different permutations to get across the exact same ideas for each ending speaks more to the developers resource management than anything else.
And I think there's no way to do it without it seeming like a transparent cop-out that undermines previous games. Some people prefer their choices not being rendered meaningless in the next installment.You wouldn't know until you see it in action. I think it'd be pretty interesting to see the variations and hear the stories of how things ebbed and flowed to a similar world-state with time.
Insubstantial differences don't count for much, as in the Rachni situation. Each time they've done it it's been almost unanimously panned by the fanbase. I give the devs enough credit that I think they won't want to start the new chapter of the franchise with a grand scale implementation of one of their most despised practices.I'm not saying exactly the same. I'm saying similar.
And the way they handled the council in ME2 predates the rachni in ME3. They've done this quite a bit, in fact.
I find that option to be far superior to one that tramples player choice into the dirt. They're better off leaving it all alone and starting with a clean slate.No worse than putting their tails between their legs and running away from everything in an ark. They'd be better off cherry-picking constants and moving forward.
No, it isn't. All it definitively proves is conservation of resourcesThe fact that it's a constant is significant in and of itself.
Even if we accept the idea that you can look for wide implications in this scene, there is no way you can extrapolate a single constant like that into an entire galaxy of constants that would render the resultant galaxies of the three endings almost exactly the same.Why are these people conversing the same way in all universes? Those two figures ended up in the same spot whether the organic-synthetic mediators were destroyed or maintained their presence, and whether organic life was altered with techno-DNA. Same individuals, same spot, same point, same tone, same purpose, same conclusion.
It's not the same universe, but it reached enough similarities to produce a constant.
They did do it for a reason, they did it because in all those endings Shepard becomes a legendary figure. That is the only commonality confirmed by that scene. In Refuse, that obviously didn't happen so it got a different one.Or, they did it for a reason. They didn't change it for the EC, either, but Refuse got a new one.
Until you can prove otherwise, the sole projection we have of the future following the drastically different world-states is a commonality among all of them.
The fact that it's a constant is significant in and of itself. Why are these people conversing the same way in all universes? Those two figures ended up in the same spot whether the organic-synthetic mediators were destroyed or maintained their presence, and whether organic life was altered with techno-DNA. Same individuals, same spot, same point, same tone, same purpose, same conclusion.
It's not the same universe, but it reached enough similarities to produce a constant.
You're reading way too much into this scene. All we know from it is that some grandpa is telling his grandkid a story about the legendary Shepherd. What, do you really think, be honest now, that Bioware is going to create three different conversations for this tiny scene based on the three endings? Of course not.
And if I recall correctly, that scene at least implies that space travel is still not available, at least not beyond their solar system.
One thing I think is reasonable, and even likely, though: Bioware will completely ignore all three endings in a sequel except, perhaps, to hand wave them into oblivion. This, of course, would prove the lie, that player choices are actually important to them. The only hope, really, is that this time they write a decent story that is coherent and provides us with a rational ending that follows from that story.
And I think there's no way to do it without it seeming like a transparent cop-out that undermines previous games.
Cop-out? It'd take initiative and gusto to attempt that. Fleeing the galaxy is the transparent cop-out.
Some people prefer their choices not being rendered meaningless in the next installment.
And some people prefer that they actually move the story forward, instead of existing in a stagnant narrative limbo that also renders your prior choices meaningless.
Insubstantial differences don't count for much, as in the Rachni situation. Each time they've done it it's been almost unanimously panned by the fanbase. I give the devs enough credit that I think they won't want to start the new chapter of the franchise with a grand scale implementation of one of their most despised practices.
Eh, I'd rather they not abandon what's established (another practice of theirs that's despised) and concede to some inevitability in the universe, and this would be an excellent opportunity to do it right.
I find that option to be far superior to one that tramples player choice into the dirt.
Pretending as if you're outside the reach of said decisions is its own form of trampling on player choice. I'd rather they be upfront about it and move this galaxy forward.
They're better off leaving it all alone and starting with a clean slate.
Distant-future is a pretty clear slate. A lot can happen in, say, a hundred years. Fifty, even.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
All it definitively proves is conservation of resources
Ah, the conversation killer. Anything and everything can be waved away with "resources".
True conservation of resources would be not including it at all.
Even if we accept the idea that you can look for wide implications in this scene, there is no way you can extrapolate a single constant like that into an entire galaxy of constants that would render the resultant galaxies of the three endings almost exactly the same.
Why not? How else can you explain Destroy, Control, and Synthesis universes producing the exact same event?
Hell, you can't even get through the extended cut slides without seeing common elements among all three endings, and BioWare had every opportunity to make them all look incredibly different.
They did do it for a reason, they did it because in all those endings Shepard becomes a legendary figure. That is the only commonality confirmed by that scene.
Why else would s/he be regarded as "The Shepard" in all universes if there wasn't a reputable degree of commonality? Every ounce of history chronicled about the character, whether it ended with blowing up the Reapers or cracking open the possibilities of physiology and communication, gives him/her the same esteem and the same label way out in the future. That implies a cultural meeting point.
But if you're going to dismiss that as conservation of resources instead of narrative intent, then there's no reason to continue that discussion.
Yeah, the sole projection, except for the epilogues given us by the EC outlining dramatically different futures.
And plenty of similarities, all of which funnel into the Stargazer scene as the last look at the future.
You're reading way too much into this scene. All we know from it is that some grandpa is telling his grandkid a story about the legendary Shepherd. What, do you really think, be honest now, that Bioware is going to create three different conversations for this tiny scene based on the three endings? Of course not.
Variations in the recording? Sure. Wouldn't take much at all. There are tons of minute dialogue variations across ME3, many of which people have never seen.
BioWare threw it in there as a way of acknowledging that Shepard becomes a legend, yes, and that's the main reason. But, it's also there to bring some commonality to the end-states, assuring the viewer that everything turns out similarly fine in all of them and that things aren't altered enough to prevent moments like this from happening. That, however, has its own implications for the state of the galaxy in the distant future.
Doesn't require much reading-into at all.
I would be a little cautious about taking what Mike Gamble said as gospel. It certainly sounds like there will be no single set of player choices used for the next game, but you never know. The definition of canon from a literary sense doesn't actually fit perfectly for stories with branching choices so if he uses a slightly different interpretation of the word it could be misleading.
I would also just like to point out that, to me at least, if player choice is so important, neither ignoring it altogether (set story in different galaxy, Ark theory etc) nor squashing them all up together (like Rachni extinction, Human reaper, Council etc) is very satisfying. I don't understand why people believe import choices from previous games are so important when it has proved time after time to be almost entirely cosmetic, frequently leads to continuity errors, creates story limitations, and consumes large amounts of resources. It is a feature that sounds really cool, but has turned out really disappointing after a number of attempts.
I will be OK with a game set in a different galaxy, or even one where they basically handwave everything back to a single state and give the illusion that your choice did matter, so long as the story and game is good. But I think it has proved a poor choice and is something I find myself growing more and more frustrated with after every recent Bioware game.
Variations in the recording? Sure. Wouldn't take much at all. There are tons of minute dialogue variations across ME3, many of which people have never seen.
Well, all I can say to this is that you have much more faith in Bioware than I do.
Sorry for dbl post but...
But, it's also there to bring some commonality to the end-states,
That's an assumption. It may or may not be true, or it may not have been true, but they got lucky and can use it for such after the fact. Whatever the case, you are reading into the scene.
Why else would s/he be regarded as "The Shepard" in all universes if there wasn't a reputable degree of commonality? Every ounce of history chronicled about the character, whether it ended with blowing up the Reapers or cracking open the possibilities of physiology and communication, gives him/her the same esteem and the same label way out in the future. That implies a cultural meeting point.
But if you're going to dismiss that as conservation of resources instead of narrative intent, then there's no reason to continue that discussion.
Yes. That Shepherd is the name of the hero that stopped the Reapers and that he'll be remembered for it is a common ground across all ending. That doesn't mean that by the time of that ending, all organic-synthetic has reverted to purely organic or synthetic form once again, that the Mass Relays have been restored to the same level of functionality in each ending. That Krogans, Rachni, Quarians and Geth all still exist in each ending, that the Reapers have completely departed the galaxy again in the Control ending. The Stargazer scene does not give us a complete and total view of the state of the galaxy. It tells us that humanoids remember Shepherd. Whoopdiedoo.
That is the big issue, the endings while looked very similar and felt quite similar especially before the EC produce a huge variation in the way MEU works. With Destroy its the simplest and apart from killing all the geth and EDI is also the one that seemed to be consistent through the games, Control lets reapers live but makes them into kinda Shepard-minded galactic force and they are too powerful, no one would be able to resist whatever the new shepard-reapers decided.
As for synthesis, well blending the organic and synthetic might seem like a good thing, but changing the galaxy into basically what reapers are themselves is not my idea of a win. Especially since we see husks and other reaper ground forces stop, not die, but stop which means that they have regained at least some kind of intelligence or will. Would you want to trap millions in those kind of bodies with the memories of what has been done to them and what they have done to others?
Well, all I can say to this is that you have much more faith in Bioware than I do.
That's not "faith". That's based on watching the game play out and seeing minor crap from ME1 slightly alter dialogue in ME3.
Yes. That Shepherd is the name of the hero that stopped the Reapers and that he'll be remembered for it is a common ground across all ending. That doesn't mean that by the time of that ending, all organic-synthetic has reverted to purely organic or synthetic form once again, that the Mass Relays have been restored to the same level of functionality in each ending. That Krogans, Rachni, Quarians and Geth all still exist in each ending, that the Reapers have completely departed the galaxy again in the Control ending. The Stargazer scene does not give us a complete and total view of the state of the galaxy. It tells us that humanoids remember Shepherd. Whoopdiedoo.
It also tells us that chaos theory deemed the events of the ending not persuasive enough to prevent the existence of a core future-state that produces said scene. "You can cut all the flowers, but you cannot keep spring from coming."
Ending of ME3 =/= Beginning of MENext.
That's not "faith". That's based on watching the game play out and seeing minor crap from ME1 slightly alter dialogue in ME3.
It also tells us that chaos theory deemed the events of the ending not persuasive enough to prevent the existence of a core future-state that produces said scene. "You can cut all the flowers, but you cannot keep spring from coming."
Ending of ME3 =/= Beginning of MENext.
Yeah, just like killing the council can't prevent their presence in ME3, or making Anderson councillor doesn't stop Udina from actually making councillor, destroying the Collector has no adverse effect on Cerberus' ability to salvage it and all of Wrex, Mordin, Legion and Tali's accomplishments happen just fine their absence.
That none of these choices mattered, was dumb enough, the development team should learn from these things. Saying that Shepherd either dying (along with potentially as many 4 other species) or becoming a physical god with a army of reapers at his command also has no effect on anything is dumber still. Let alone the entire galaxy becoming biosynethic being the kind of thing that wouldn't even come up in conversation. Why do that? When you CAN, just as easily, PICK an ending and go with that. grow some balls, Bioware.
Yeah, just like killing the council can't prevent their presence in ME3, or making Anderson councillor doesn't stop Udina from actually making councillor, destroying the Collector has no adverse effect on Cerberus' ability to salvage it and all of Wrex, Mordin, Legion and Tali's accomplishments happen just fine their absence.
That none of these choices mattered, was dumb enough, the development team should learn from these things.
Saying that Shepherd either dying (along with potentially as many 4 other species) or becoming a physical god with a army of reapers at his command also has no effect on anything is dumber still. Let alone the entire galaxy becoming biosynethic being the kind of thing that wouldn't even come up in conversation.
Why do that?
When you CAN, just as easily, PICK an ending and go with that.
grow some balls, Bioware.
Why would ME3 be any different? Shepard is a tourist through the MEU, not its forger.
I think you mean 'the player.'
Because, yes, the player is a tourist and unable to make real changes to this story or any other given the limitations of writing.
I think you mean 'the player.'
Because, yes, the player is a tourist and unable to make real changes to this story or any other given the limitations of writing.
None of the choices in ME1 or ME2 impacted their plots whatsoever, sticking to canon events. Why would ME3 be any different? Shepard is a tourist through the MEU, not its forger.
Anyway, ME2's railroading and marginalization rivals, if not surpasses, ME3. Look at how well it was received.
Why didn't they matter?
Detours still get you to the same destination, and some events simply aren't avoidable. ME1 and ME2 prove this.
BioWare isn't obligated to cater to all forms of headcanoned ending-states.
Why not? Sounds entertaining, at the very least.
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.
There's a third method: take the three different endings from ME3 as 3 different startpoints for a sequel, and have the game revolve around fixing the difference to end up with a common ending. Something like the Sliders tv-series.
Retour en haut