88 réponses à ce sujet

[Akimitsu]

Just a couple of thoughts and concerns that I have, as a lover of Mass Effect; its history, locations and characters.  Also, first post: hello .

 

The first thing is: enough of this "Bye bye" nonsense when someone says they're not interested or deeply concerned.  Yes, we understand that you don't like it that someone said that, but you're not the only person reading these forums.  Hopefully, Bioware is too, and there's room here for both people that are in favor with the new plan and also those who aren't.  Yes, we know they "decided" to move to Andromeda, and there's likely little chance that they'll change their minds in that regard; but that's no excuse for snark or to try and pressure people into silence.  It would be doing Bioware a disservice to pretend like everyone is just fine with this decision.

 

So my biggest concern with this whole ordeal is the following: Bioware screws up the ending to an otherwise (in my opinion) great story.  In the process, they went back on themselves regarding some very concrete things they'd insisted.  Anyone remember Bioware saying that they "will not" force you into an A, B or C ending?  Anyone remember Bioware insisting that they "would not" have some magical mcguffin that solves the plot for us?  And after those who were disappointed became vocal, Bioware's response was to "clarify" the ending with a free DLC, as if those of us who were upset were simply misunderstanding their vision.

 

After all of that, the final "fix" is just to handwave it away like a bad dream.  Does this actually instill confidence in anyone as to their ability to even continue with this franchise?  I wouldn't have a problem with Andromeda as a setting if it didn't reek of damage control and desperation.

 

I honestly didn't think the ending was that bad.  From a game mechanics perspective, the A-B-C choice is lazy, and the mcguffin thing is just crap storytelling... but it's sci fi!  As a fan of Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, I've had to get used to, numerous times, thinking to myself "well that's dumb but whatever!".  Somewhere in there is a great, or at least acceptable ending that not only wraps up enough loose ends to satisfy the average player, as well as set up the plot points for a future tale involving new characters, enemies, allies, locations, etc.  I actually wrote out an outline that I can post if anyone's curious.  Actually, I'll probably just sum it up; it's a bit long.  I, personally, thought the galaxy that we were left with at the end of ME3 was an interesting and awesome jumping-off point for a fresh new tale steeped in the consequences of the Reaper war.

 

This brings me to another thought: Aside from the whole Andromeda mess, did anyone ever actually believe that ME4 was going to honor all, or even most of the decisions that players could have made over the course of first 3 games?  I know I didn't, even though I expected that certain small things would be mentioned.  It's always been apparent to me that, once they end the trilogy arc and start moving to a new one, they're just going to have to pick for us which options were chosen.  For the most part, it also seemed pretty obvious which choices were going to be made.  For example: the Destroy ending is much more likely than control or synthesis, I don't think I really need to go into detail how bizarre and difficult it would have been to write a story based on the other two endings.

 

So with that in mind, is it even necessary to go to Andromeda?

 

Sorry for the length of the post and any grammatical errors I made have made.  I'm at work; if I'd had more time, I would have written less.

 

 

[Super Drone]

You are not going to get them to re-write the premise of the game because their crazy, cry-baby fan-base writes things on the forum.

 

It is much too late for that.

[Paulomedi]

Just a couple of thoughts and concerns that I have, as a lover of Mass Effect; its history, locations and characters.  Also, first post: hello .
 
The first thing is: enough of this "Bye bye" nonsense when someone says they're not interested or deeply concerned.  Yes, we understand that you don't like it that someone said that, but you're not the only person reading these forums.  Hopefully, Bioware is too, and there's room here for both people that are in favor with the new plan and also those who aren't.  Yes, we know they "decided" to move to Andromeda, and there's likely little chance that they'll change their minds in that regard; but that's no excuse for snark or to try and pressure people into silence.  It would be doing Bioware a disservice to pretend like everyone is just fine with this decision.
 
So my biggest concern with this whole ordeal is the following: Bioware screws up the ending to an otherwise (in my opinion) great story.  In the process, they went back on themselves regarding some very concrete things they'd insisted.  Anyone remember Bioware saying that they "will not" force you into an A, B or C ending?  Anyone remember Bioware insisting that they "would not" have some magical mcguffin that solves the plot for us?  And after those who were disappointed became vocal, Bioware's response was to "clarify" the ending with a free DLC, as if those of us who were upset were simply misunderstanding their vision.
 
After all of that, the final "fix" is just to handwave it away like a bad dream.  Does this actually instill confidence in anyone as to their ability to even continue with this franchise?  I wouldn't have a problem with Andromeda as a setting if it didn't reek of damage control and desperation.
 
I honestly didn't think the ending was that bad.  From a game mechanics perspective, the A-B-C choice is lazy, and the mcguffin thing is just crap storytelling... but it's sci fi!  As a fan of Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, I've had to get used to, numerous times, thinking to myself "well that's dumb but whatever!".  Somewhere in there is a great, or at least acceptable ending that not only wraps up enough loose ends to satisfy the average player, as well as set up the plot points for a future tale involving new characters, enemies, allies, locations, etc.  I actually wrote out an outline that I can post if anyone's curious.  Actually, I'll probably just sum it up; it's a bit long.  I, personally, thought the galaxy that we were left with at the end of ME3 was an interesting and awesome jumping-off point for a fresh new tale steeped in the consequences of the Reaper war.
 
This brings me to another thought: Aside from the whole Andromeda mess, did anyone ever actually believe that ME4 was going to honor all, or even most of the decisions that players could have made over the course of first 3 games?  I know I didn't, even though I expected that certain small things would be mentioned.  It's always been apparent to me that, once they end the trilogy arc and start moving to a new one, they're just going to have to pick for us which options were chosen.  For the most part, it also seemed pretty obvious which choices were going to be made.  For example: the Destroy ending is much more likely than control or synthesis, I don't think I really need to go into detail how bizarre and difficult it would have been to write a story based on the other two endings.
 
So with that in mind, is it even necessary to go to Andromeda?
 
Sorry for the length of the post and any grammatical errors I made have made.  I'm at work; if I'd had more time, I would have written less.

Only buy the game after independent scrutiny. It's the only thing we can do now.

[Maverick888]

You are not going to get them to re-write the premise of the game because their crazy, cry-baby fan-base writes things on the forum.

 

It is much too late for that.

 

Oh. So I'm a cry-baby because I thought the endings of ME3 lacked the closure, and Bioware went above and beyond to create the extended cut and even admitted their mistake of not providing enough closure?

 

It wasn't so much the choices the endings provided, it was more about... where did my decisions from ME1 and ME2 go, and why weren't they implemented as promised?

 

I don't think that makes me a cry-baby, I think that makes me someone who understands its their game, they will do what they want with it, but I feel they shot themselves in the foot with ME3 and this is the end result. The only reason they are going to a new galaxy is because of what they did with ME3.

[Arcian]

You are not going to get them to re-write the premise of the game because their crazy, cry-baby fan-base writes things on the forum.
 
It is much too late for that.

You have maybe the most appropriate name on the entire BSN.

[Super Drone]

The most appropriate name for BSN would be "BIOWARE MAKES GAMES JUST FOR ME AND ME ALONE AND IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE YOU'RE TRYING TO OPPRESS MY CREATIVITY!!!!!", but that doesn't fit in the little box when creating a screen name, so....

[Arcian]

The most appropriate name for BSN would be "BIOWARE MAKES GAMES JUST FOR ME AND ME ALONE AND IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE YOU'RE TRYING TO OPPRESS MY CREATIVITY!!!!!", but that doesn't fit in the little box when creating a screen name, so....

Biower is also allergic to all caps.

[Torgette]

Just a couple of thoughts and concerns that I have, as a lover of Mass Effect; its history, locations and characters.  Also, first post: hello .

 

The first thing is: enough of this "Bye bye" nonsense when someone says they're not interested or deeply concerned.  Yes, we understand that you don't like it that someone said that, but you're not the only person reading these forums.  Hopefully, Bioware is too, and there's room here for both people that are in favor with the new plan and also those who aren't.  Yes, we know they "decided" to move to Andromeda, and there's likely little chance that they'll change their minds in that regard; but that's no excuse for snark or to try and pressure people into silence.  It would be doing Bioware a disservice to pretend like everyone is just fine with this decision.

 

So my biggest concern with this whole ordeal is the following: Bioware screws up the ending to an otherwise (in my opinion) great story.  In the process, they went back on themselves regarding some very concrete things they'd insisted.  Anyone remember Bioware saying that they "will not" force you into an A, B or C ending?  Anyone remember Bioware insisting that they "would not" have some magical mcguffin that solves the plot for us?  And after those who were disappointed became vocal, Bioware's response was to "clarify" the ending with a free DLC, as if those of us who were upset were simply misunderstanding their vision.

 

After all of that, the final "fix" is just to handwave it away like a bad dream.  Does this actually instill confidence in anyone as to their ability to even continue with this franchise?  I wouldn't have a problem with Andromeda as a setting if it didn't reek of damage control and desperation.

 

I honestly didn't think the ending was that bad.  From a game mechanics perspective, the A-B-C choice is lazy, and the mcguffin thing is just crap storytelling... but it's sci fi!  As a fan of Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, I've had to get used to, numerous times, thinking to myself "well that's dumb but whatever!".  Somewhere in there is a great, or at least acceptable ending that not only wraps up enough loose ends to satisfy the average player, as well as set up the plot points for a future tale involving new characters, enemies, allies, locations, etc.  I actually wrote out an outline that I can post if anyone's curious.  Actually, I'll probably just sum it up; it's a bit long.  I, personally, thought the galaxy that we were left with at the end of ME3 was an interesting and awesome jumping-off point for a fresh new tale steeped in the consequences of the Reaper war.

 

This brings me to another thought: Aside from the whole Andromeda mess, did anyone ever actually believe that ME4 was going to honor all, or even most of the decisions that players could have made over the course of first 3 games?  I know I didn't, even though I expected that certain small things would be mentioned.  It's always been apparent to me that, once they end the trilogy arc and start moving to a new one, they're just going to have to pick for us which options were chosen.  For the most part, it also seemed pretty obvious which choices were going to be made.  For example: the Destroy ending is much more likely than control or synthesis, I don't think I really need to go into detail how bizarre and difficult it would have been to write a story based on the other two endings.

 

So with that in mind, is it even necessary to go to Andromeda?

 

Sorry for the length of the post and any grammatical errors I made have made.  I'm at work; if I'd had more time, I would have written less.

 

Nobody is trying to silence anybody, it's just a tired debate at this point. The big problem with ME3's ending for future games wasn't even the lack of closure, it was that you're given 3 very black & white endings that all do very literally what they say they do and nothing more or less. As such making a sequel in the Milky Way requires either 1) the most ambitious programming and game design in the history of games or 2) they canonize an ending and move on. There's a very real possibility they went with option 2 but by moving on to Andromeda still let us have a new story without stepping on anybody's toes. There's not many great ways of dealing with those kinds of repercussions anyways - take a look at CDPR and how they always canonize an ending for the sequel despite giving you a dozen endings to each game - either way they can't satisfy everybody so they're better off just picking the ending that best enables them to make a great sequel. To me this where Bioware chose right with Andromeda, they want to make a new story so they're going with the best option to enable the best game, that matters more than opening old wounds for the sake of closure alone in the long run. I seriously doubt handwaving anything was part of the plan for this game, however.

[Excella Gionne]

Is this another one of those "Fix ME3 ending" threads?

[Aolbain]

You have maybe the most appropriate name on the entire BSN.

 

Ad hominem is always a nice touch.

[Arcian]

Ad hominem is always a nice touch.

Ad hominem? It was a compliment!

[Aolbain]

Ad hominem? It was a compliment!

Ah, I thought it was another go at the old "biodrone" schtick. My bad.

[Akimitsu]

You are not going to get them to re-write the premise of the game because their crazy, cry-baby fan-base writes things on the forum.

 

It is much too late for that.

 

Miscategorizing those who don't agree with you is typically not the best strategy when trying to have a conversation.  It tells the people you're speaking with that you really don't have anything to add to the conversation.  In fact, it strongly hints that your position on the matter is incorrect and your opponent's may actually be logically sound if you need to resort to those techniques.

 

Tell me, are those who were vocally disappointed with the Star Wars prequals also cry-babies?

 

Is this another one of those "Fix ME3 ending" threads?

 

I dunno, did you read it?  If not, why post?

 

This is the sort of stuff I'm talking about.  It's all this "move on, nothing to see here" nonsense, as if those of us who find it disappointing the direction Bioware's taking are just inconveniencing those of you who are fine with it; and that this is somehow the problem that must be addressed.  This is a forum, everyone gets to speak.  You don't like it, don't read it.

 

 

Nobody is trying to silence anybody, it's just a tired debate at this point. The big problem with ME3's ending for future games wasn't even the lack of closure, it was that you're given 3 very black & white endings that all do very literally what they say they do and nothing more or less. As such making a sequel in the Milky Way requires either 1) the most ambitious programming and game design in the history of games or 2) they canonize an ending and move on. There's a very real possibility they went with option 2 but by moving on to Andromeda still let us have a new story without stepping on anybody's toes. There's not many great ways of dealing with those kinds of repercussions anyways - take a look at CDPR and how they always canonize an ending for the sequel despite giving you a dozen endings to each game - either way they can't satisfy everybody so they're better off just picking the ending that best enables them to make a great sequel. To me this where Bioware chose right with Andromeda, they want to make a new story so they're going with the best option to enable the best game, that matters more than opening old wounds for the sake of closure alone in the long run. I seriously doubt handwaving anything was part of the plan for this game, however.

 

First off, thank you for replying without giving me the distinct impression that your goal is just to make me be quiet.  I wish I could say the same about some of the other posts in this very thread.  But you say "tired debate" and I wonder why.  Did I miss something and Andromeda was announced months ago?

 

That said, I do disagree with you.  I don't believe it was/is feasable to canonize all the endings, and I had that understanding pretty much from the get-go.  But moving the setting to the Andromeda Galaxy is not a solution.  They're still going to have to canonize anything that they want to play a part, no matter how small, in the next game.  That is, unless they plan on just nixing the entire thing and pretending it didn't happen.  But at that point, is it really Mass Effect anymore?

 

This whole Andromeda thing is like when a politician or business owner resigns amid some controversy, then the entire organization insists to all the news outlets that it was an amicable split that had nothing to do with the controversy.  Peoples' bull-crap alarms start blaring at this point.  I think the idea of Andromeda could have been more easily turned into something like a globular cluster orbiting our Milky Way, or a formation of stars inside our galaxy that was never linked up to the Mass Relays, thus the Reapers never would have interacted with any lifeforms that could have evolved there; which opens up the possibility of their being an extremely ancient and powerful race whose technology does not mirror the other races and who pose a great and mysterious threat to the world we've all grown to love!

 

Tell me, does anyone not want to visit the Citadel again?  Does anyone not want to find out if the genophage is cured, and how the Krogan behave in the decades to follow the Reaper war?  Is anyone decidedly not curious as to how many surviving Batarians there are, and if they ever get back on their feet?  Does anyone believe that a mere codex entry, a couple paragraphs at best, is all we need to answer all the questions that we're left with?  I'm sure many of you could come up with dozens more questions along these lines, and though Bioware hasn't said that this is what we're going to get, the concern is real that something like this could come to pass.

 

If Andromeda is written in as being a place that is difficult and time consuming to travel to, it means we're probably not going to see much, if any, of the places and events that transpired in the first 3 games.  If Andromeda is written in as being a place that's quick and routine to travel to, then what is the point from a plot-basis?

[Sartoz]

                                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

Yes, we need to go somewhere. The trilogy ran its course end the stupid ending forced Bio's hand.

 

 

The ME universe has room for many stories, many adventures. Andromeda is just another one that if well written and designed properly can be enjoyable for many fans and newcomers alike. If the producers of ME:A in Montreal learned anything from DAI's mistakes and ME3 good for them. Otherwise, I expect same old, same old fan reactions.

 

Me, I will not pre-order a damn thing and will wait until the game is out before I make a buy, no-buy decision. That is what Bio marketing/PR bs taught me.

 

 

[In Exile]

Oh. So I'm a cry-baby because I thought the endings of ME3 lacked the closure, and Bioware went above and beyond to create the extended cut and even admitted their mistake of not providing enough closure?

 

It wasn't so much the choices the endings provided, it was more about... where did my decisions from ME1 and ME2 go, and why weren't they implemented as promised?

 

I don't think that makes me a cry-baby, I think that makes me someone who understands its their game, they will do what they want with it, but I feel they shot themselves in the foot with ME3 and this is the end result. The only reason they are going to a new galaxy is because of what they did with ME3.

 

I don't want to reopen the ending debate, and I absolutely think the ME3 ending was an atrocity so much so that I've never, years later, been able to ever replay an ME game (and ME3 is the only Bioware game I've played that I've never replayed), but ME3 did give lots of weight to ME1/ME2 choices. Every single MQ was just an epilogue mission for a story arc. ME3 was - besides the abominable ending - Mass Effect 1&2: The Extended Epilogue. 

[N7Jamaican]

This game has been in development since the end of ME3: Citadel..  I seriously doubt they will scrap what they have and re-write the game to please a few butt-hurt fans.  Get over it.

 

No one is pressuring the Andromeda haters into silence.  But nearly every thread or every other post has someone slamming this game with basically no information about this game whatsoever.

 

They don't know who the protagonist is, but since it's not Shepard they hate him/her.  They won't get to see their favorite ME1-3 character, so they are already hating on the new characters that we know nothing about.  It takes place in the andromeda galaxy, yet they hate it cause "less than 1 percent" has been explored.  So, because they can't play as Shepard, they are suddenly not interested in Mass Effect any longer.  They now know what's best for BioWare and Mass Effect, and know more about the developers.

 

Almost 3 days since the cinematic trailer launched... And people are already boycotting it and demanding the game to be re-written.  What a joke!

[Sartoz]

This game has been in development since the end of ME3: Citadel..  I seriously doubt they will scrap what they have and re-write the game to please a few butt-hurt fans.  Get over it.

 

No one is pressuring the Andromeda haters into silence.  But nearly every thread or every other post has someone slamming this game with basically no information about this game whatsoever.

 

They don't know who the protagonist is, but since it's not Shepard they hate him/her.  They won't get to see their favorite ME1-3 character, so they are already hating on the new characters that we know nothing about.  It takes place in the andromeda galaxy, yet they hate it cause "less than 1 percent" has been explored.  So, because they can't play as Shepard, they are suddenly not interested in Mass Effect any longer.  They now know what's best for BioWare and Mass Effect, and know more about the developers.

 

Almost 3 days since the cinematic trailer launched... And people are already boycotting it and demanding the game to be re-written.  What a joke!

 

                                                                                                        <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

Goes to show you what urine-poor ending does to fans when the PR bs purposely stoked expectations not designed in the game.

[N7Jamaican]

                                                                                                        <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

Goes to show you what urine-poor ending does to fans when the PR bs purposely stoked expectations not designed in the game.

 

I agree, ending could be better.  Marketing and PR did push this game a bit too hard.  I think EA had their hands in the pot as well -- but that's getting off topic.

[Il Divo]

This brings me to another thought: Aside from the whole Andromeda mess, did anyone ever actually believe that ME4 was going to honor all, or even most of the decisions that players could have made over the course of first 3 games?  I know I didn't, even though I expected that certain small things would be mentioned.  It's always been apparent to me that, once they end the trilogy arc and start moving to a new one, they're just going to have to pick for us which options were chosen.  For the most part, it also seemed pretty obvious which choices were going to be made.  For example: the Destroy ending is much more likely than control or synthesis, I don't think I really need to go into detail how bizarre and difficult it would have been to write a story based on the other two endings.

 

 

 

I'd definitely admit Destroy is the easiest (and most popular) choice for Bioware, but that still doesn't really leave them in a great spot. For a lot of players, Destroy is simply the least bad of a bunch of bad endings. 

 

But speaking for myself, I simply am not a fan of the idea of exploring any sort of post ME3 galaxy where the endings could serve as some sort of back drop. 

 

I'd either want our current solution or for the game to take place so far in the future that any sort of narrative impact they might have had would be annihilated. 

[camphor]

Miscategorizing those who don't agree with you is typically not the best strategy when trying to have a conversation.  It tells the people you're speaking with that you really don't have anything to add to the conversation.  In fact, it strongly hints that your position on the matter is incorrect and your opponent's may actually be logically sound if you need to resort to those techniques.

 

Tell me, are those who were vocally disappointed with the Star Wars prequals also cry-babies?

 

disapointed no wanting change absolutly

 

 

I dunno, did you read it?  If not, why post?

 

This is the sort of stuff I'm talking about.  It's all this "move on, nothing to see here" nonsense, as if those of us who find it disappointing the direction Bioware's taking are just inconveniencing those of you who are fine with it; and that this is somehow the problem that must be addressed.  This is a forum, everyone gets to speak.  You don't like it, don't read it.

 

your free to speak your mind but understand its set in stone there isnt debate because you can debate things like a human needs oxygen to live

 

 

 

First off, thank you for replying without giving me the distinct impression that your goal is just to make me be quiet.  I wish I could say the same about some of the other posts in this very thread.  But you say "tired debate" and I wonder why.  Did I miss something and Andromeda was announced months ago?

 

Yes you did there was a leak months ago that revealed everything bioware did and more it has been debated for the last 6 months or so

 

That said, I do disagree with you.  I don't believe it was/is feasable to canonize all the endings, and I had that understanding pretty much from the get-go.  But moving the setting to the Andromeda Galaxy is not a solution.  They're still going to have to canonize anything that they want to play a part, no matter how small, in the next game.  That is, unless they plan on just nixing the entire thing and pretending it didn't happen.  But at that point, is it really Mass Effect anymore?

 

thats exactly what they are doing, the problem is in what your individual definition of mass effect is

 

This whole Andromeda thing is like when a politician or business owner resigns amid some controversy, then the entire organization insists to all the news outlets that it was an amicable split that had nothing to do with the controversy.  Peoples' bull-crap alarms start blaring at this point.  I think the idea of Andromeda could have been more easily turned into something like a globular cluster orbiting our Milky Way, or a formation of stars inside our galaxy that was never linked up to the Mass Relays, thus the Reapers never would have interacted with any lifeforms that could have evolved there; which opens up the possibility of their being an extremely ancient and powerful race whose technology does not mirror the other races and who pose a great and mysterious threat to the world we've all grown to love!

 

what world are you talking about there were a ton of worlds all of which were effected by crazy beam of red/blue/green light which they dont want to address because even if this magic cluster wasn't all the people were and if they weren't there is no difference between that and andromeda

 

Tell me, does anyone not want to visit the Citadel again? 

 

been there done that

 

Does anyone not want to find out if the genophage is cured,

 

it was i cured it i was there

 

and how the Krogan behave in the decades to follow the Reaper war? 

 

will still know this

 

Is anyone decidedly not curious as to how many surviving Batarians there are,

 

acually even though they might be included in MEA i hated the batarians as i design and in my opinion could have been removed from the orignal triligy for all i care, but this is a totally personal problem

 

and if they ever get back on their feet?  Does anyone believe that a mere codex entry, a couple paragraphs at best, is all we need to answer all the questions that we're left with? 

 

i dont think you will even get a codex entry

 

I'm sure many of you could come up with dozens more questions along these lines, and though Bioware hasn't said that this is what we're going to get, the concern is real that something like this could come to pass.

 

Me3 ended the shepard trilogy if you feel you didn't have closure i am legitimately sorry that sucks man, but you are way way to attached though like unhealthy attached. which is not an insult i have had an unhealthy attachment to fictional media myself before but you have to let it go. but it was andromeda or no new mass effect pick one

 

If Andromeda is written in as being a place that is difficult and time consuming to travel to, it means we're probably not going to see much, if any, of the places and events that transpired in the first 3 games.

 

This game is not connected to the first 3 its no different then basing a book in london then basing book in the same series in new york, of course big ben wont be there but that doesn't mean that the overarching themes technology and spirit don't remain the same  

 

 

If Andromeda is written in as being a place that's quick and routine to travel to, then what is the point from a plot-basis?

no one is saying you cant be disappointed the fact is though the only criticism that matters is constructive, in order for something to be constructive it has to be able to even at a extremely small chance help direct those in charge down a better path, the problem with WAAAAA MILKYWAY is that decision is set in stone it will not change so whining about it does nothing if you want people to take you more seriously post the things you liked about mass effect as a game that you want brought over, not the things that are already long gone, you sound like a child whose parents died screaming at god to bring them back, its sad it really is but god wont bring them back once they are dead they are dead, and just like that scenario when a child asks someone if they are comming back, they give the same answer 

 

Im so sorry for your loss but they wont be comming back ever

[AlanC9]

That said, I do disagree with you. I don't believe it was/is feasable to canonize all the endings, and I had that understanding pretty much from the get-go. But moving the setting to the Andromeda Galaxy is not a solution. They're still going to have to canonize anything that they want to play a part, no matter how small, in the next game.

That's precisely the point of moving to Andromeda. No part of any of the ending choices will play a part in ME:A, because they all happen after the colonists leave for Andromeda. Whether this counts as a "solution" depends on how you're conceptualizing the problem.

If you're saying that they should have just canonized a single ending, well, join the club. But that ship has sailed.

[Super Drone]

Miscategorizing those who don't agree with you is typically not the best strategy when trying to have a conversation.  It tells the people you're speaking with that you really don't have anything to add to the conversation.  In fact, it strongly hints that your position on the matter is incorrect and your opponent's may actually be logically sound if you need to resort to those techniques.

 

Tell me, are those who were vocally disappointed with the Star Wars prequals also cry-babies?

 

 

 

 

Most BSNers admit freely they are crazy, and are more than willing to call the other side in various deabates cry-babys (The SJWs versus the MRAs are quite vicious at times). So I'm not sure how miscategorizing I'm being.

 

 

If people who were vocally disappointed in Episodes 1-3 wrote letters to J.J. Abrams telling him to throw out everything he's done on Episode 7 up till now and make what they PERSONALLY want Episode 7 to be about, and any deviation from their vision of how Episode 7 should be was some kind of cop-out, and they were "owed" the Episode 7 they want no matter how impossibly ridiculous that demand is. Then yes... I'd call them crybabies. Weird cry-babies who don't know how to manage their expectations and don't submit their thoughts to peer review before posting them in public forums. 

[Danny Boy 7]

Miscategorizing those who don't agree with you is typically not the best strategy when trying to have a conversation.  It tells the people you're speaking with that you really don't have anything to add to the conversation.  In fact, it strongly hints that your position on the matter is incorrect and your opponent's may actually be logically sound if you need to resort to those techniques.

 

[respectful snip]

 

First off, thank you for replying without giving me the distinct impression that your goal is just to make me be quiet.  I wish I could say the same about some of the other posts in this very thread.  But you say "tired debate" and I wonder why.  Did I miss something and Andromeda was announced months ago?

 

That said, I do disagree with you.  I don't believe it was/is feasable to canonize all the endings, and I had that understanding pretty much from the get-go.  But moving the setting to the Andromeda Galaxy is not a solution.  They're still going to have to canonize anything that they want to play a part, no matter how small, in the next game.  That is, unless they plan on just nixing the entire thing and pretending it didn't happen.  But at that point, is it really Mass Effect anymore?

 

This whole Andromeda thing is like when a politician or business owner resigns amid some controversy, then the entire organization insists to all the news outlets that it was an amicable split that had nothing to do with the controversy.  Peoples' bull-crap alarms start blaring at this point.  I think the idea of Andromeda could have been more easily turned into something like a globular cluster orbiting our Milky Way, or a formation of stars inside our galaxy that was never linked up to the Mass Relays, thus the Reapers never would have interacted with any lifeforms that could have evolved there; which opens up the possibility of their being an extremely ancient and powerful race whose technology does not mirror the other races and who pose a great and mysterious threat to the world we've all grown to love!

 

Tell me, does anyone not want to visit the Citadel again?  Does anyone not want to find out if the genophage is cured, and how the Krogan behave in the decades to follow the Reaper war?  Is anyone decidedly not curious as to how many surviving Batarians there are, and if they ever get back on their feet?  Does anyone believe that a mere codex entry, a couple paragraphs at best, is all we need to answer all the questions that we're left with?  I'm sure many of you could come up with dozens more questions along these lines, and though Bioware hasn't said that this is what we're going to get, the concern is real that something like this could come to pass.

 

If Andromeda is written in as being a place that is difficult and time consuming to travel to, it means we're probably not going to see much, if any, of the places and events that transpired in the first 3 games.  If Andromeda is written in as being a place that's quick and routine to travel to, then what is the point from a plot-basis?

Considering they say that this game isn't necessarily a sequel I think they can very easily side step canonizing anything game changing in the universe and if we stayed in the Milky Way galaxy we would have had to canonize something regardless of if BioWare had offered us everything we had ever hoped for when it came to the ending because that's the issue with branching stories. The Milky Way isn't Mass Effect though, not really, Mass Effect is the interactions of these races with one another and humanity. It's humanity's constant attempts to evolve and special human beings trying to survive in the depths of space.  You mention that they could have easily gone with a part of space nearby not being affected by the Reapers, but that's exactly what they did and it actually makes sense why the Reapers wouldn't have reached Andromeda. 

 

I think though that fans are keen to expect the worst in anything anyway. For example when Josh Trank, a director (just in case you don't know the story) departed from the Star Wars: Anthology film he was meant to direct he mentioned that it was just because he wanted a break from these big brand name movies he's been involved with because it'd tired him out. (He's directing the new Fantastic Four). People have had their BS alarms going ever since, but he's repeatedly clarified that no he just likes working on independent small budget movies. Nothing suggests that he had a bad break up with Disney, yet people assume it awful anyway. Just because something is controversial, doesn't mean that the break up was also controversial, but humans are storytellers and a good story according to the Narrative Paradigm theory is more convincing than a good argument. BioWare has come out and said they don't want to pick an ending because they believe that our choices matter and want to keep that true. Now I believe that more than the ABC/MacGuffin ending promise because they wouldn't have even attempted to have our choices transfer over unless that was something they tried to do. That said this is a new slate, an actual starting off point for the future of Mass Effect that will expand the lore beyond Shepard and the Reapers and when this ends...it'll start over again possibly.

 

I think everyone, including people who like going to Andromeda would like to revisit some of the old universe, but even with a dozen games some of the questions we'd have would still be there. The genophage is cured, what are the Krogan doing, they're living peacefully among the Council Races, well how is that going? Oh the Salarians are trying something nasty, what happens there? What's the conclusion? What's next, etc. The questions will never end and they shouldn't because there should always be a little bit of mystery, but the cool part about Andromeda is that we get to ask a whole lot of new questions and who knows there's nothing saying we won't ever see what happens in the future.

 

In the end though we're still a year, or years if they push it back like I think they will, away from the game being released and when it is released we're going to be introduced to things that will amaze us just like the Citadel did in ME1. 

[GnusmasTHX]

BioWare doesn't have any obligation to feature anything from the previous three games in the fourth one, you knew that before ME3 was even released. So why are you surprised that ME:A isn't about Shepard and his world, and so accusatory of BW throwing the RGB ending under the rug, now, of all times?

 

The real question is, "Is it necessary to go back?" And the answer is no. BW wants this franchise in Andromeda and they'll put it there.