831 réponses à ce sujet

[tevix]

 

@Tevix:  I agree with you, but I think the better canon ending would be... "The Reapers did their job and cleansed the Milky Way".  BUT - thanks to Shepard's efforts... these people escaped to the Andromeda Galaxy.   

 

This galaxy can even have an "Andromeda Citadel" to monitor that galaxy... only, the refugees know what it is.  

Heck, maybe they even stop the pre-existing Andromedian races before they use this Citadel... and the Reapers never show even though they are "out there".  

That would actually be an interesting story line.  I'd be totally on board with that.  Also, that would, interestingly, canonize the "game over" ending.

 

If the rumbles about this being (or at least starting) concurrently with ME3 are true, then none of that silly stuff has even happened yet.

The game has been stated to start long after the first trilogy.  And even if it started during ME3, the reapers have attacked, and all technology is known to be based off them.  If the people in andromeda left before the war ended, then they don't need to canonize an ending.  I just don't want to see a game that tries to pretend that stuff never happened, in an effort to achieve a "clean slate".

[Dubozz]

If they canonize the ending from ME3 it kind of removes the choices in that particular trilogy from the player's hands.

yeah right, it's not like something stopped them from doing it before like with anderson not being a councillor or collector's base that always ends up in cerberus hands. good old bioware always cares about our choices

[Paridave]

If they canonize the ending from ME3 it kind of removes the choices in that particular trilogy from the player's hands. IE if you choose synthesis and they canonize destroy, what did your choices matter from that series? Let's just say that the journey to Andromeda was initiated before the Reaper War ended, basically a secondary plan to save certain species if the Reapers won the war. ME:A would still be tied to Mass Effect events but removed from the endings. 

 

Why not start with a clean slate? You have a new protagonist, a new crew, probably new enemies, new planets to explore. You have to remember if Bioware canonizes an ending from ME3 then your choices in that series didn't mean a damn thing. 

Agreed.  Some are calling this a soft reboot, I suspect it's going to be much harder then they imagine, hence the release of a teaser trailer a year and a half before the game's release.  Andromeda is not going to take place a couple of hundred years into the future, it's going to be thousands of years into the future; references to the Milky Way will be tenuous at best.  People may not want to admit this, but the biggest problem with the Trilogy was the Reapers, an invincible galactic enemy.  As such, I would not expect there to any reference to them what so ever, if Shephard is remembered as a legendary hero it will be for his actions prior to the Reaper war.  This is going to be a brand new game in a brand new galaxy, there's no reason to clutter it up with unsolvable issues.  Recognizable species from the Milky Way will most likely have launched will most likely have launched as exploratory / colonization missions prior to the war.  Shephard's story is the Reaper War and it's over and Bioware is putting as much time and distance between that mess as possible.

 

This doesn't mean that the trilogy never happened, it just means those in Andromeda are not aware that it happened.

[Matthias King]

I think the thing people are most angry about isn't the fact that Bioware is sidestepping the terrible endings. They're angry because if Bioware hadn't messed up the endings of ME3 so badly and left the lore and universe in such a broken state, they wouldn't be forced to throw it all out and start over.

 

It's not the fact that they've moved on, it's the fact that it was the only option they had because they forced themselves into that position through their incompetent handling of the endings.

 

Had they not screwed up so badly, they could have moved on in a much more organic way, rather than the way they are now which feels like both a hail Mary and a copout.

 

The problem boils down to this: They didn't go to Andromeda because it was an exciting choice. They aren't going there because it makes sense or because it's the next logical step. They aren't going there because there was nothing left to explore in the Milky Way, physically or narratively. No, they went there because they broke the Milky Way as a setting so badly that they were screwed, so if they were going to continue the series, they HAD to move to a new galaxy. It's not organic. It feels forced and desperate, because that's exactly what it is. Grasping at straws and trying to make gold out of it. They didn't go there because it was an exciting choice, they went there because it was the ONLY choice.

 

If that doesn't encapsulate the scale of their blunder, nothing does.

[tehturian]

Can we please stop generalising those who don't want the franchise to move galaxies as 'misguided people that can't let go and just want a game with Shepard and Tali on their honeymoon trolloolololo'.

 

No, we know Shepard's story is over and we know Bioware have said this many times. That doesn't mean we don't expect future Mass Effect games to you know, be in the Mass Effect universe, a universe that is still ripe with possibility if Bioware could bite the bullet and roll with one choice.

 

Bioware have gone with Andromeda to appease a vocal minority, most of which lets face it would have bought the game anyway. 

[The Elder King]

Can we please stop generalising those who don't want the franchise to move galaxies as 'misguided people that can't let go and just want a game with Shepard and Tali on their honeymoon trolloolololo'.
 
No, we know Shepard's story is over and we know Bioware have said this many times. That doesn't mean we don't expect future Mass Effect games to you know, be in the Mass Effect universe, a universe that is still ripe with possibility if Bioware could bite the bullet and roll with one choice.
 
Bioware have gone with Andromeda to appease a vocal minority, most of which lets face it would have bought the game anyway.

Which minority?

[tevix]

Agreed.  Some are calling this a soft reboot, I suspect it's going to be much harder then they imagine, hence the release of a teaser trailer a year and a half before the game's release.  Andromeda is not going to take place a couple of hundred years into the future, it's going to be thousands of years into the future; references to the Milky Way will be tenuous at best.  People may not want to admit this, but the biggest problem with the Trilogy was the Reapers, an invincible galactic enemy.  As such, I would not expect there to any reference to them what so ever, if Shephard is remembered as a legendary hero it will be for his actions prior to the Reaper war.  This is going to be a brand new game in a brand new galaxy, there's no reason to clutter it up with unsolvable issues.  Recognizable species from the Milky Way will most likely have launched will most likely have launched as exploratory / colonization missions prior to the war.  Shephard's story is the Reaper War and it's over and Bioware is putting as much time and distance between that mess as possible.

 

This doesn't mean that the trilogy never happened, it just means those in Andromeda are not aware that it happened.

Even if it takes thousands of years later, there would be some level of history, even if just as a codex.  Especially if some dude is running around using ancient ME3 technology.  We have plenty of history that dates back thousands of years.  Major wars were not lost.

[tehturian]

Which minority?

The "Mass Effect franchise must never have a canon" minority. 

[Saul Iscariot]

Surely they only screwed up if you didn't like the ending of ME3? In which case it is those of us that enjoyed the series that will pay the price for it being set in Andromeda rather than the Milky Way? And we seem to be the ones not complaining about it moving to another galaxy.

[dreamgazer]

yeah right, it's not like something stopped them from doing it before like with anderson not being a councillor or collector's base that always ends up in cerberus hands. good old bioware always cares about our choices

At least Anderson's attitude has some justification, both in the core story and based on Karpyshyn's novels.

"Ah yes, Reapers", on the other hand ...

[AresKeith]

The "Mass Effect franchise must never have a canon" minority. 

 

So Bioware's practice then?

 

 

[tehturian]

 

So Bioware's practice then?

 

 

 

For the Shepard trilogy, sure. 

[Former_Fiend]

I get the difficulty of trying to make a game that can account for the three viable worldstates left by ME3's ending, but I'm not convinced that effort saved in not having to build two versions of Tachunka - one with and one without those grand pyramids they build in the synthesis ending - is a fair trade off when weighed against the pay off of getting to see how Milky Way civilization was shaped by our actions.

 

I don't want Shepard to come back. I'm perfectly fine with the games taking place long after Shepard's death. Just not sure what exactly we gain by moving to a new Galaxy. I suppose there's a new frontier, wagon train to the stars kind of thing where maybe we're cut off from the Milky Way and can't just relay back that they may be going for, but I don't think that's the appeal of the franchise.

 

Also, they're still going to have to tackle the events of ME3 in some regards. Whether or not quarians, geth, and krogan show up, for starters. Whether or not the synthesis took place.  Things like that. 

[Paridave]

Even if it takes thousands of years later, there would be some level of history, even if just as a codex.  Especially if some dude is running around using ancient ME3 technology.  We have plenty of history that dates back thousands of years.  Major wars were not lost.

They're not going to have ME3 technology because that belongs to the trilogy, it has no place in Andromeda, and the history in the lore we get is going to be Andromeda's history, not the Milky Way's.  

[dreamgazer]

I think the thing people are most angry about isn't the fact that Bioware is sidestepping the terrible endings. They're angry because if Bioware hadn't messed up the endings of ME3 so badly and left the lore and universe in such a broken state, they wouldn't be forced to throw it all out and start over.
 
It's not the fact that they've moved on, it's the fact that it was the only option they had because they forced themselves into that position through their incompetent handling of the endings.
 
Had they not screwed up so badly, they could have moved on in a much more organic way, rather than the way they are now which feels like both a hail Mary and a copout.
 
The problem boils down to this: They didn't go to Andromeda because it was an exciting choice. They aren't going there because it makes sense or because it's the next logical step. They aren't going there because there was nothing left to explore in the Milky Way, physically or narratively. No, they went there because they broke the Milky Way as a setting so badly that they were screwed, so if they were going to continue the series, they HAD to move to a new galaxy. It's not organic. It feels forced and desperate, because that's exactly what it is. Grasping at straws and trying to make gold out of it. They didn't go there because it was an exciting choice, they went there because it was the ONLY choice.
 
If that doesn't encapsulate the scale of their blunder, nothing does.

To that, I say:

They'd have to deal with various world-states no matter what, especially if a "better" ending followed the other BioWare games with a hefty decision in the finale (a philosophy shared by both ME's lead writers). I think they wanted to get away from the pile of variables created by the original trilogy, full-stop, and they're doing so by doing something "cool" by exploring Andromeda. Plenty of people seem to like that idea, regardless of the endings.

Divergence is divergence.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Yes they do. An entire species can be wiped out in Destroy with the Geth being caught in the blast. Nothing is more lost-lasting than an extinction. 

 

You're referring to the geth, right?  That's not exactly a big deal since the writers don't even have to use the geth in this game.  So them being wiped out can be no more difficult than a codex entry about them being wiped out, and doesn't tie the writers' hands because they're a minor (relatively speaking) species that doesn't have to be acknowledged except in passing.  A lot easier to shrug off than a bunch of green eyed babies with half-machine DNA running around would be for the writers to deal with.

[dragonflight288]

You're referring to the geth, right?  That's not exactly a big deal since the writers don't even have to use the geth in this game.  So them being wiped out can be no more difficult than a codex entry about them being wiped out, and doesn't tie the writers' hands because they're a minor (relatively speaking) species that doesn't have to be acknowledged except in passing.  A lot easier to shrug off than a bunch of green eyed babies with half-machine DNA running around would be for the writers to deal with.

 

Besides, there's two ways for the Geth to be utterly destroyed. Shepard chooses the Quarians on Rannoch and Shepard chooses destroy. 

 

I think there's a high possibility we'll not be seeing the Geth again.

 

Of course, we likely won't be seeing Quarians either, who can also be wiped out completely by choosing the Geth on Rannoch.

 

A codex entry or a few lines of well-written dialogue could cover this and not break the setting of Andromeda, like you said. 

[eyezonlyii]

I see this as kind of the same boat suckerpnch was in after inFamous 2. At the end of the game, the player makes a choice that can either kill him and save the normal people or endow him with godlike abilities to awaken powers in the minority. 

 

Another red or blue choice if you will. 

 

When they wanted to make Second Son, the next game in the series, they had a choice to make, which ending do we use? They decided the most fair way would be to look at the trophy data and use tally up which optioned was picked the most on the first playthrough. In this case, most people sacrificed themselves, so Cole stays dead and the world moves on. 

[Former_Fiend]

I think there's a certain degree of bias in favor of people who made the kill/destroy choices on these forums, really.

 

General feeling seems to be, X can die in the game. If they include X in any meaningful way, they either have to negate the choice of the people who chose to kill X, or spend time and resources on making Y to replace X in the playthroughs for people who killed X. It's easier to just not have X show up as people who killed X can say X is dead and people who spared X can say X is off screen, doing whatever it is that X does.

 

And while I accept that this is the easier option, that doesn't make it the better one. Because in a lot of ways it really negates the option ever being presented. If you're never going to have the geth show up again, then there was no point in giving us the option to actually keep them around. 

 

Of course, I've got just as much of a problem with the flip side of this coin where they give us the option to kill someone and have that someone *cough*Leliana*cough* - sorry, sore throat, I said Leliana - show up again anyway. If you're going to do that, then you shouldn't have made her killable to start with. 

[Saul Iscariot]

Whilst I agree that it is possible to tell many, many more stories set in the Milky Way. It is largely unexplored so there is potential for completely new scenarios. But there is several inherent problems. Firstly, outside of the Reapers, all other races represent the pinnacle of technological advancement in the galaxy. Would you buy into an idea that tells how the Spectres are defeated by a bunch of savage teddy bears on a forest moon? You cannot have a situation where there is a technologically equal, or more advanced, group that the Reapers were unaware of. So you need to create a situation where there is some threat, or compelling reason for your character to act. Being in another galaxy goes a fair way to addressing that. You also have a situation where you cannot just run back to the council, N7 or whomever survived and ask for help.

[cristi1990an]

Why is everybody saying that Destroy was the best ending?! It was the worst ending period!

[tevix]

They're not going to have ME3 technology because that belongs to the trilogy, it has no place in Andromeda, and the history in the lore we get is going to be Andromeda's history, not the Milky Way's.  

Maybe you missed the dude in the N7 outfit with a carnifex?  Also, if it has humans in it, it's tied to the milky way's history.  Unless they try to tell me that humans have always been there, but that doesn't address issue #1.

[7twozero]

Surely they only screwed up if you didn't like the ending of ME3? In which case it is those of us that enjoyed the series that will pay the price for it being set in Andromeda rather than the Milky Way? And we seem to be the ones not complaining about it moving to another galaxy.

Outta likes but I second this, it's mostly bsn echo chamber people still getting a swarmer up their collective butt years after the endings, endings were fine, bring on Andromeda, it's gonna happen anyway so what're they gonna do about it? Can't wait til the game is out and maybe the forum will be restricted to people that own a copy.

[KaiserShep]

Why is everybody saying that Destroy was the best ending?! It was the worst ending period!

Probably because having the hero die to preserve the lovecraftian death machines is seen as a special kind of BS. I think Destroy is the best one because I get to kill the enemy in its entirety and the galaxy can harvest their miserable hulks for useful material. 

[Sion1138]

Why is everybody saying that Destroy was the best ending?! It was the worst ending period!

 

No it wasn't!

 

It was the best ending period, full stop, the end, full period...!