88 réponses à ce sujet

[Helios969]

The thing is Bioware are going to have to deal with the endings sooner or later. Running away from them isn't going to solve anything since the issues of the endings since they'll still be there. It's also going to make bioware look bad since it shows that they'd rather run away from the problems they created instead of dealing with them.

I don't disagree that they will need to deal with them at some point, but leaving the galaxy buys them time.  ME3 is still too fresh in peoples' minds and turned an unknown number of fans away from the series.  They cannot afford to alienate another "huge" segment until they've had time to cultivate the next-generation of gamers coming of age.  Personally, I'd just canonize destroy and cut my loses in the short term, (actually if left up to me I'd reboot Shepard's story with the promise of providing a non-catalyst [un]conventional victory.)  But they cannot or will not do that.

 

Plus, you've never really offered any viable option(s) for progressing the story forward using the 3 major choices.  Synthesis and Control makes for a pretty ridiculous looking galaxy; and even sillier story-wise.  People have had to resort to some pretty elaborate head-canons to make any of the endings work...or none of them.

 

Personally, I don't really get why locale matters to some people when the real issue moving forward is a non-Shepard protagonist.  That's the real challenge Bioware is faced with...selling us on this new role.

[Steppenwolf]

Leaving the galaxy does the exact same thing since it defeats the purpose of saving it in the first place.

That's moronic. It's like saying the death of someone who received a heart transplant 10 years ago invalidates the work the doctors did to give that person a new heart.

There's also the fact that leaving the galaxy more akin to running away from the issues of the ending rather than dealing with them, since its going to make Bioware look bad in the long run.

Yes, running away from the endings is the best choice. They're horrendously stupid and have already made BioWare look bad in the long run. "Dealing with them" means honoring lousy writing.

As for dealing with the endings Bioware will either have to reevaluate the endings or make one the endings (destory) canon. Bioware has made certain choices canon before Udina being made councilor in retribution is an example of this.

Why do they have to address them at all? That's not inevitable at all if they don't want it to be. And why is disregarding the choices of the players preferable to honoring their choices?

You keep making the same nonsensical argument over and over but it never becomes more logical.

[Iakus]

 
Yes, running away from the endings is the best choice. They're horrendously stupid and have already made BioWare look bad in the long run. "Dealing with them" means honoring lousy writing.

There's another option:  Let the Shepard trilogy be the Shepard trilogy and let MENExt be MENext.  Ignore the endings, close the circle, and let the next game be its own thing.

 

The worst thing that can be done to an enemy is to ignore it, after all 

[Steppenwolf]

There's another option:  Let the Shepard trilogy be the Shepard trilogy and let MENExt be MENext.  Ignore the endings, close the circle, and let the next game be its own thing.
 
The worst thing that can be done to an enemy is to ignore it, after all 

That would require either making prequels or retconning the franchise. Neither are satisfactory options.

[Iakus]

That would require either making prequels or retconning the franchise. Neither are satisfactory options.

Or going AU.

 

Not that a little retconning of the endings would be a bad thing.  They were, after all, designed with not having sequels in mind.

[Steppenwolf]

Or going AU.

Alternate universe? That would require more contrivances and handwaving than any other scenario. Were the Reapers ever created? If not then how did our "cycle" come about? There were too many advanced races before us to accommodate such a setting. If the Reapers were created when and how were they destroyed? If they were destroyed before our "cycle" then we would either be subservient to Protheans or some other scenario in which things are drastically different and not at all like Mass Effect.
 

Not that a little retconning of the endings would be a bad thing.  They were, after all, designed with not having sequels in mind.

I would rather the endings be ignored. Retconning the endings would be an admission that our choices never mattered, which would undermine the entire franchise.

[Torgette]

AU and prequels are too messy. Pragmatically either Andromeda via wormhole or canon ending is the only way to go.

[Iakus]

Alternate universe? That would require more contrivances and handwaving than any other scenario. Were the Reapers ever created? If not then how did our "cycle" come about? There were too many advanced races before us to accommodate such a setting. If the Reapers were created when and how were they destroyed? If they were destroyed before our "cycle" then we would either be subservient to Protheans or some other scenario in which things are drastically different and not at all like Mass Effect.
 

The Reapers were created.

 

Shepard stopped them.  How?  Doesn't matter.  Tweak the endings to make it possible to continue the series (Like what Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is doing).  Or make up something entirely new that didn't happen in the trilogy. (like certain aspects of DAO did for DA2)

 

 

I would rather the endings be ignored. Retconning the endings would be an admission that our choices never mattered, which would undermine the entire franchise.

 

I'd be happy with that as well.  But since I don't think my chioces mattered anyway, I don't see retconning the endings as undermining the franchise.  You can't undermine what was never there.

[Drone223]

I don't disagree that they will need to deal with them at some point, but leaving the galaxy buys them time.  ME3 is still too fresh in peoples' minds and turned an unknown number of fans away from the series.  They cannot afford to alienate another "huge" segment until they've had time to cultivate the next-generation of gamers coming of age.  Personally, I'd just canonize destroy and cut my loses in the short term, (actually if left up to me I'd reboot Shepard's story with the promise of providing a non-catalyst [un]conventional victory.)  But they cannot or will not do that.

 

Plus, you've never really offered any viable option(s) for progressing the story forward using the 3 major choices.  Synthesis and Control makes for a pretty ridiculous looking galaxy; and even sillier story-wise.  People have had to resort to some pretty elaborate head-canons to make any of the endings work...or none of them.

 

Personally, I don't really get why locale matters to some people when the real issue moving forward is a non-Shepard protagonist.  That's the real challenge Bioware is faced with...selling us on this new role.

Bioware should deal with the endings sooner rather than later and you should one of my post on the previous page which address the issue of deqaling with the endings.

 

That's moronic. It's like saying the death of someone who received a heart transplant 10 years ago invalidates the work the doctors did to give that person a new heart.
 

Missing the point, the lore, setting, history and things that help define the franchsie are thrown away altogther it becomes meanless.

Yes, running away from the endings is the best choice. They're horrendously stupid and have already made BioWare look bad in the long run. "Dealing with them" means honoring lousy writing.

 

No it doesn't, dealing with the endings means that they're cleaning up the messes they've made. Running away means they've learned nothing from the mistakes they made since they are ignoreing them and they'll end up making the same mistakes again.

 

Why do they have to address them at all? That's not inevitable at all if they don't want it to be. And why is disregarding the choices of the players preferable to honoring their choices?

You keep making the same nonsensical argument over and over but it never becomes more logical.

 

They have to address them beacuse people are going to keep asking about whats happening in the milky way, the EC epilogue can only explian so much about the state of the galaxy. Not addressing the endings is also going to amke Bioware look bad in the long run.

[Steppenwolf]

Missing the point, the lore, setting, history and things that help define the franchsie are thrown away altogther it becomes meanless.

Again, that's moronic. All of that lore is still there in the old games.

No it doesn't, dealing with the endings means that they're cleaning up the messes they've made.

The only way to clean up that mess is with a do-over, but that's obviously never going to happen.

Running away means they've learned nothing from the mistakes they made since they are ignoreing them and they'll end up making the same mistakes again.

That makes no sense at all.
 

They have to address them beacuse people are going to keep asking about whats happening in the milky way, the EC epilogue can only explian so much about the state of the galaxy. Not addressing the endings is also going to amke Bioware look bad in the long run.

They don't have to do anything. People can ask about whatever they want, BioWare doesn't have to bend to their will. And again, they already look bad in the long run for making such a stupid ending. They're still the butt of jokes in the gaming community.

[Drone223]

Again, that's moronic. All of that lore is still there in the old games.
 

Hardly, they give the franchise its identity and removing their relevance would be a huge disservice.

 

The only way to clean up that mess is with a do-over, but that's obviously never going to happen.

 

They could make one of the endings canon as they did with Udina being made councilor, or like Iakus said early sum up the endings with Shepard used the crucible to defeat the reapers.

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

Yes it does, because the problem is still there and its not going away and will catch up to them eventually.

 

They don't have to do anything. People can ask about whatever they want, BioWare doesn't have to bend to their will.

No one is expecting Bioware to bend to them, asking what is happening in the galaxy is quite reasonable.

 

And again, they already look bad in the long run for making such a stupid ending. They're still the butt of jokes in the gaming community.

 

Well not dealing with said endings is only going to make it worse.

[Steppenwolf]

Hardly, they give the franchise its identity and removing their relevance would be a huge disservice.

How would their relevance be removed? The trilogy still exists. Why can't you get that through your head? The relevancy of the trilogy isn't contingent on future titles.
 

They could make one of the endings canon as they did with Udina being made councilor, or like Iakus said early sum up the endings with Shepard used the crucible to defeat the reapers.

So solve the problem by ignoring players' choices or with vague mediocrity? How are either of those things better?
 

Yes it does, because the problem is still there and its not going away and will catch up to them eventually.

No it doesn't and no they won't. The ending of ME3 isn't herpes. It's not going to flare up if they ignore it.

No one is expecting Bioware to bend to them, asking what is happening in the galaxy is quite reasonable.

Answering that question in game form, if they don't want to, would be bending to "fans'" will.
 

Well not dealing with said endings is only going to make it worse.

How? No one is saying "I'm on the fence about BioWare. If they ignore the moronic ending of ME3 in future games them I'm done with them."

[Vazgen]

"I'm on the fence about BioWare. If they ignore the moronic ending of ME3 in future games them I'm done with them."

I've seen such comments here. Even after 3+ years there are people with comments like "unless ME:Next fixes the endings I'm not going to get it". 

[Steppenwolf]

 

 

I've seen such comments here. Even after 3+ years there are people with comments like "unless ME:Next fixes the endings I'm not going to get it". 

 

Those are two different sentiments.

[Vazgen]

Those are two different sentiments.

Yes but ignoring the endings doesn't fix them. So both statements end up with the same result in this case.

[Steppenwolf]

Yes but ignoring the endings doesn't fix them. So both statements end up with the same result in this case.

 

Anyone expecting them to go back and "fix" the ending is an ignoramus, but that aside wanting them to re-do the ending and wanting them to make a specific ending canon are, in fact, very different.

[Drone223]

How would their relevance be removed? The trilogy still exists. Why can't you get that through your head? The relevancy of the trilogy isn't contingent on future titles.

They'll just fade into obscurity and all the potential to expand of that lore will be wasted.

 

So solve the problem by ignoring players' choices or with vague mediocrity? How are either of those things better?

 

Leaving the galaxy is already making player choices irrelevant, staying in the galaxy retains consistency.

 

No it doesn't and no they won't. The ending of ME3 isn't herpes. It's not going to flare up if they ignore it.

 

It is, Bioware created those issue's and if they can't deal with them, they'll end up with the same issues again and again.

 

Answering that question in game form, if they don't want to, would be bending to "fans'" will.

 

Its hard to believe that the dev's wouldn't be interested in giving fans some sense of closure of the state of the galaxy.

 

How? No one is saying "I'm on the fence about BioWare. If they ignore the moronic ending of ME3 in future games them I'm done with them."

 

The fact of the matter is that people expect Bioware to deal with the issue's they created not run away from them.

[Steppenwolf]

They'll just fade into obscurity and all the potential to expand of that lore will be wasted.

 

Leaving the galaxy is already making player choices irrelevant, staying in the galaxy retains consistency.

 

It is, Bioware created those issue's and if they can't deal with them, they'll end up with the same issues again and again.

 

Its hard to believe that the dev's wouldn't be interested in giving fans some sense of closure of the state of the galaxy.

 

The fact of the matter is that people expect Bioware to deal with the issue's they created not run away from them.

 

All of this is entirely nonsensical. There's point in arguing with you. You make no sense and you don't even realize it.

[Drone223]

All of this is entirely nonsensical. There's point in arguing with you. You make no sense and you don't even realize it.

Hardly, Just pointing that people aren't going to be okay with Bioware deciding to throwing away something they spent year creating so they don't have to deal with some of the problems they created.

[AlanC9]

 

Plus, you've never really offered any viable option(s) for progressing the story forward using the 3 major choices.  Synthesis and Control makes for a pretty ridiculous looking galaxy; and even sillier story-wise.  

 

You don't think fighting against the forces of the tyrannical Sheplyst would be a workable plot?

[Helios969]

You don't think fighting against the forces of the tyrannical Sheplyst would be a workable plot?

I think it would be a bit over the top, but regardless of my personal preferences the issue is you cannot just have that one workable plot, moving forward post-Shepard requires 3 distinctly different plots.  In theory it's doable, but the practical limitations, namely time and resources, would result in an ever increasing watered down story as subsequent installments were released.

[Iakus]

 
So solve the problem by ignoring players' choices or with vague mediocrity? How are either of those things better?
 

How is moving to another galaxy not ignoring choices or vague mediocrity?

 

You don't think fighting against the forces of the tyrannical Sheplyst would be a workable plot?

It worked for Diablo 2 

[Steppenwolf]

How is moving to another galaxy not ignoring choices or vague mediocrity?

How is it? Moving to another galaxy doesn't impact prior choices at all and establishing a new setting is pretty damn ballsy.

[Iakus]

How is it? Moving to another galaxy doesn't impact prior choices at all and establishing a new setting is pretty damn ballsy.

 

Well if you're moving to another setting, then your choices don't matter, do they?

 

ANd establishing a new setting in a place where lore-wise it's nigh-impossible to reach seems like a pretty mediocre way to go about it anyway.

[Steppenwolf]

Well if you're moving to another setting, then your choices don't matter, do they?

That doesn't make any sense. Your choices in the trilogy don't require more sequels for validation. You made the choices, they matter to your Shepard and your world-state. Changing setting does nothing to change that.
 

ANd establishing a new setting in a place where lore-wise it's nigh-impossible to reach seems like a pretty mediocre way to go about it anyway.

This franchise is built on space magic. This "it doesn't fit the lore" excuse for not going to the Andromeda galaxy lacks merit.