1395 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Sure. It is easy, watch:

 

20 Years after Priority Earth a terrorist sneaks on the Citadel and activates the Catalysts Destroy option ('cause Shep forgot to take out the keys), this homogenizes Synth and Control with Destroy and gives a unified starting spot. It isn't technically retconning, it is just the Dev forcing an ending on us regardless of what we actually picked (which kinda reflects real life, since its not like everyone else in the universe is just gonna sit there and accept what ever Shep wants).

 

Now that would be awful, but it is doable. I personally am overjoyed that we get to visit a new galaxy and leave all that crap from ME3 behind.

 

And this terrorist magically manages to get the crucible in place without anyone noticing, is able to hold off every single fleet of the Citadel, get to the controls and then learn about the destroy ending magically as Shepard already made the choice and the catalyst is now a non-issue, especially in control ending, and if synthesis is chosen then every single person in the galaxy dies since they are now part synthetic and the destroy ending destroys ALL synthetics.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. 

[The Night Haunter]

And this terrorist magically manages to get the crucible in place without anyone noticing, is able to hold off every single fleet of the Citadel, get to the controls and then learn about the destroy ending magically as Shepard already made the choice and the catalyst is now a non-issue, especially in control ending, and if synthesis is chosen then every single person in the galaxy dies since they are now part synthetic and the destroy ending destroys ALL synthetics.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. 

See, he gets it!

 

Plot Magic > Space Magic

[pdusen]

Ignoring just means that they don't want to deal with the issue's they've made, Bioware is pretending the issue's they've made never happened.

 

No, they're sidestepping it, not pretending it didn't happen. And you still haven't explained how this means they are going to make the same mistake again.

[pdusen]

Well actually it does speak for itself and you just explained why.

 

If the endings were such a problem (meaning they broke the galaxy), then obviously they could just fix/adjust the MW story moving forward to the new game to continue there instead of ignoring the issue altogether and moving to another galaxy.

 

To me this just shows they have abandoned the Trilogy to start with a clean slate and not have to spend time and money on making sure they connect the dots of history. Well then why give us N7 Humans in the new galaxy if they don't want anything to do with it? Because without the N7 Human there would be nothing to tie the new game into the Mass Effect IP. So they want to run off the success of Mass Effect IP to make sales but they don't want to use very much at all from Mass Effect in the new game.

 

Please try to use context. The person I was replying to was saying that it means Bioware learned nothing from the problems with the ME3 endings, and I'm trying to get him explain exactly how that's connected (because he keeps saying that every time he speaks and has yet to demonstrate what the connection actually is). Your response had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

[Drone223]

I have no idea what you mean by this,

People have invested themselves in the galaxy and what to see what its like after the war, head canon won't do it any justice.

 

If that 'logic' had any real logic then Jade Empire would have no purpose as Bioware may never do a sequel, so somehow that entire game is negated. BG2 is apparently also pointless because Bioware will almost certainly never go back to a DnD setting.

 

Things end, just let it go. Nothing is forever.

Missing the point, people want to see the potential of the setting fully released, ditching it is will only result in wasted potential.

 

It's true that they don't want to deal with the endings. That doesn't mean they didn't learn anything. That last point remains to be seen.
 

Seeing as how the game is set another galaxy, it's unlikely they did.
 

 

 

This is going a bit too far. They don't pretend it never happened, nor are your choices in the trilogy pointless, just because the next game will probably have a scenario where these choices do not have an impact.
In fact, the opposite is the case. If they were to make another game in the MW (and I exclude the possibility that they make 3 games, one for each ending of ME3), than they would have to pretend that the player never had a choice and they would have to make the choices pointless in order to tell a new story. This way, they don't have to contradict anything and we are still free to headcanon what happened after we finished ME3 in the milky way.
Besides, who is to say that - just because Andromeda takes a side step to another galaxy - no future ME product will take us back.

 

Unfortunately its quite obvious that Biwoare intends to ditch the MW because they don't want to deal with the problem's they've created with the endings. The MW will never be visited again the ME franchise.

 

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

How can anyone say that?  There were eight possible choices but only three stand out. Destroy, Control and Synthetics. The player had to choose one. End of story. End of trilogy.

 

Sure, I didn't like those endings. I still don't. However, if you think about it, there was an end to ME3. Those endings, btw, were quite clear and so is the state of the galaxy, civilization wise, based on the decision made.

 

There weren't the EC only tells us that the galaxy has rebuilt itself, it's tells us nothing about the political climate after the war. As for the endings Bioware should do what CDPR did for the witcher 3.

 

 

No, they're sidestepping it, not pretending it didn't happen. And you still haven't explained how this means they are going to make the same mistake again.

By sidestepping the problem they are in fact pretending it never happened, they don't want to face the problems they've created and its going to hurt them in the long run.

[MrFob]

Seeing as how the game is set another galaxy, it's unlikely they did.
 

 

Unfortunately its quite obvious that Biwoare intends to ditch the MW because they don't want to deal with the problem's they've created with the endings. The MW will never be visited again the ME franchise.

 

Hm, there is quite a bit of crystal ball glancing in these answers, I think but let's say you are right. Even then, unless the Ark project leaves the MW before even ME1 takes place, we will take a lot of our decisions, the history and the world with us to Andromeda, correct? Therefore, they are not necessarily abandoning the trilogy or the franchise's roots.

All we can be fairly sure of is that they are abandoning the endings.

 

Now, given that you hated the endings (just as I did), honestly, I don';t quite see where exactly the problem is.

 

You probably have written this elsewhere already but I missed it, so forgive me if I am asking an obsolete question but: What is your suggestion on how BW should continue? What is the alternative?

[Drone223]

Now, given that you hated the endings (just as I did), honestly, I don';t quite see where exactly the problem is.

 

Actually I don't hate them, the concept is actually rather sound its just that the execution of them leaves a lot to be desired.

 

You probably have written this elsewhere already but I missed it, so forgive me if I am asking an obsolete question but: What is your suggestion on how BW should continue? What is the alternative?

 

 One suggestion would to take a page from CDPR's book and make 2-3 variables canon and go forward from there, while not ideal it does make it a lot easier to write the story. The thing is though is that if the issue's of the trilogy are resolved now Bioware will be able to deal with such issue's should they end up making the same ones again. By running away from them they'll have no idea how to deal these issue's in the event they end up making the same ones again since they didn't bother to deal with them in the first place.

[Nohvarr]

By sidestepping the problem they are in fact pretending it never happened, they don't want to face the problems they've created and its going to hurt them in the long run.

If ME:A is a success, then it's unlikely the choice to sidestep the endings will have the impact you are thinking. YOU want to see the fallout of the decisions as done by Bioware, but not everyone does. Some people are very happy to be given a frame from which to build their own ending without it being totally dictated by the developer. I for one have no desire to see Bioware go back and try to "Fix" things because in the end it still won't be what you want and they'll have wasted time and money on something that didn't push the story forward and just caused even more complaining. By moving on they'll at least move forward and success will silence complaints.

 

The thing is though is that if the issue's of the trilogy are resolved now Bioware will be able to deal with such issue's should they end up making the same ones again. By running away from them they'll have no idea how to deal these issue's in the event they end up making the same ones again since they didn't bother to deal with them in the first place.

 

Or they could just not make that same mistake again, thus learning to avoid the issue totally. In fact they are already doing that. One of the problems with the first trilogy was the galaxy map, it made it look like the universe was mostly explored, whereas the codex said it was still mostly frontier. Then in the ending they clearly show the entire galaxy being impacted by the final choice, exacerbating the issue. Now, with Andromeda, they are starting off in a small section of a galaxy giving themselves plenty of room to grown and be creative.

 

So again, they don't need to go back and address the ending to prove anything. They can accomplish the same thing by moving forward.

[Drone223]

If ME:A is a success, then it's unlikely the choice to sidestep the endings will have the impact you are thinking. YOU want to see the fallout of the decisions as done by Bioware, but not everyone does. Some people are very happy to be given a frame from which to build their own ending without it being totally dictated by the developer. I for one have no desire to see Bioware go back and try to "Fix" things because in the end it still won't be what you want and they'll have wasted time and money on something that didn't push the story forward and just caused even more complaining. By moving on they'll at least move forward and success will silence complaints.

 

 

The problem is that people can't move on if there's no closer, the EC only gave a small degree of closure as there are still things that have yet to be resolved. 

 

 

Or they could just not make that same mistake again, thus learning to avoid the issue totally. In fact they are already doing that. One of the problems with the first trilogy was the galaxy map, it made it look like the universe was mostly explored, whereas the codex said it was still mostly frontier. Then in the ending they clearly show the entire galaxy being impacted by the final choice, exacerbating the issue. Now, with Andromeda, they are starting off in a small section of a galaxy giving themselves plenty of room to grown and be creative.

 

So again, they don't need to go back and address the ending to prove anything. They can accomplish the same thing by moving forward.

 

Except there is no guarantee that they won't make the same mistake again, because if they end up making the same ones again Bioware choice of running away from their mistakes is going to end up hurting them really badly.

[DaemionMoadrin]

The problem is that people can't move on if there's no closer, the EC only gave a small degree of closure as there are still things that have yet to be resolved. 

 

 

Except there is no guarantee that they won't make the same mistake again, because if they end up making the same ones again Bioware choice of running away from their mistakes is going to end up hurting them really badly.

 

Closure? There can't be any closure because the entire setup stinks. It was all just so stupid and rushed and lacking. And you want to revisit that and experience it in detail? ... are you a masochist?

 

BioWare has been doing quite well financially. Even the lackluster DA:I sold well, so what exactly are they going to fear? Bad press? Critics? Shhhyeah, not as long as EA throws money around.

 

Pretty much everyone is happy that the trilogy is over and done with. We're all looking forward to a soft reboot, so no one really wants any connection to the old games.

[Nethershadow]

How do you propose they fix it without A. making one set of choices canon and B. making half the game be about addressing all the different paths?

 

The point of Andromeda is that there is simply too many branching paths with too big of an impact after Mass Effect 3 that they don't want to get tied down in spending half the game addressing them. Personally I'd rather get a new story rather than BioWare's attempt to clean up the original trilogy.

 

Also we've had only 1 announcement trailer that was 2 minutes long, half of which is just showing us concept art with Johnny Cash in the background. It's a bit early to be acting like just because you haven't seen an Asari in the trailer that means they're absent from the game.

 

 

If we're not to leave the MW, and we're not retroconning the ending. how would you have proposed we move forward? Pick a Canon ending as Alan proposes?

Or do you think there could really be a coherent story to tell that would take place no matter whether you picked Destroy, Control, or Synthesis?

But Andromeda doesn't negate the choices given in the Trilogy, it just delays them from becoming widely known as you are playing an N7 tied to earth and the MW's choices. There's nothing they are doing in a new galaxy that they couldn't do in the MW, as we really only went to a handful of the planets.

 

So regardless at some point they will have to reveal what those Trilogy choices were, though it probably will have little to zero impact on the game. But there also nothing in the new galaxy that couldn't be done in the MW galaxy as it's still massive with many places we never would have gone. I bet you they could pretty much tell the same story with little tweaks, while giving everyone else the history of the MW without it having to have much bearing on the current story.

 

The simplest solution to the multi choice is just hard code on ending, which would probably be destroy, then move on. 

[pdusen]

By sidestepping the problem they are in fact pretending it never happened, they don't want to face the problems they've created and its going to hurt them in the long run.

 

How exactly will it hurt them? Not dealing with the endings now doesn't mean they can't deal with them later if they choose to do so, and it has absolutely no implications for the ending of this game, so where is the harm?

[Zatche]

The problem is that people can't move on if there's no closer, the EC only gave a small degree of closure as there are still things that have yet to be resolved.

There was enough closure to know that things will move forward on a somewhat positive note. Positive in that the Reapers are no longer a threat, and civilization can rebuild. That's all I need. The details don't really matter. I've moved on.

But let's say I didn't get enough closure. Your solution of having certain things canon would only provide closure to those who made those choices. If the Canon is Destroy and my Shepard chose Synthesis, where's my closure?

Except there is no guarantee that they won't make the same mistake again, because if they end up making the same ones again Bioware choice of running away from their mistakes is going to end up hurting them really badly.

There are no guarantees that the next ME will be good or bad no matter what direction they take.

But what is the mistake you want them avoid? The high divergence in the ending?

[BabyPuncher]

How exactly will it hurt them? Not dealing with the endings now doesn't mean they can't deal with them later if they choose to do so, and it has absolutely no implications for the ending of this game, so where is the harm?

 

It kind of does mean exactly that.

 

The more time passes, the fewer and fewer players have played the original content. Fewer people know or care about it. It becomes less and less practical to build a plot off. More lore gets added that continually has to be complied with.
 

[Cyonan]

But Andromeda doesn't negate the choices given in the Trilogy, it just delays them from becoming widely known as you are playing an N7 tied to earth and the MW's choices. There's nothing they are doing in a new galaxy that they couldn't do in the MW, as we really only went to a handful of the planets.

 

So regardless at some point they will have to reveal what those Trilogy choices were, though it probably will have little to zero impact on the game. But there also nothing in the new galaxy that couldn't be done in the MW galaxy as it's still massive with many places we never would have gone. I bet you they could pretty much tell the same story with little tweaks, while giving everyone else the history of the MW without it having to have much bearing on the current story.

 

The simplest solution to the multi choice is just hard code on ending, which would probably be destroy, then move on. 

 

That's the good thing about Andromeda: It will have little impact on the game.

 

If we stayed in the MW in order to keep the impact on the game minimal, you'd have to avoid going to a lot of locations. No Migrant Fleet or Rannoch in case you destroyed the Quarians, no Geth at all in case you destroyed them, no going to Tuchanka so you don't have to show the effects of the genophage choice. You have to address synthesis ending no matter what in this scenario.

 

You would basically have to go to an unexplored cluster of space and never leave it or else risk having to show the effects of your choices in Mass Effect 1-3, which brings about an insane number of branching paths.

 

Which isn't that pretty much no different than going to Andromeda? We can bring almost everything Mass Effect with us except the locations like the Citadel or Omega and, Reaper theories aside, I'm betting we'll probably not see the Mass Relays either.

 

It's obvious that BioWare doesn't want to make an ending canon. People keep suggesting it and it would work, but it's clearly not an acceptable solution to the problem in their minds.

[Nohvarr]

The problem is that people can't move on if there's no closer, the EC only gave a small degree of closure as there are still things that have yet to be resolved. 

You have no evidence that the majority of fans are still focused on the endings and unable to move on. Even on this forum, where the most diehard of fans roam, a good number of them are ready to leave the endings in the past where they belong.

 

Except there is no guarantee that they won't make the same mistake again, because if they end up making the same ones again Bioware choice of running away from their mistakes is going to end up hurting them really badly.

The truth:

The more time passes, the fewer and fewer players have played the original content. Fewer people know or care about it.

So please explain how this will hurt them badly?

[pdusen]

It kind of does mean exactly that.

 

The more time passes, the fewer and fewer players have played the original content. Fewer people know or care about it. It becomes less and less practical to build a plot off. More lore gets added that continually has to be complied with.
 

 

...I don't get what you think this statement adds to the discussion. That is true of every ongoing series, whether they choose to shift the setting or not.

 

It also doesn't contradict my statement, which makes your reply kind of bizarre.

[Drone223]

Closure? There can't be any closure because the entire setup stinks. It was all just so stupid and rushed and lacking. And you want to revisit that and experience it in detail? ... are you a masochist?

 

BioWare has been doing quite well financially. Even the lackluster DA:I sold well, so what exactly are they going to fear? Bad press? Critics? Shhhyeah, not as long as EA throws money around.

 

Pretty much everyone is happy that the trilogy is over and done with. We're all looking forward to a soft reboot, so no one really wants any connection to the old games.

There needs to be a sense of consistency and continuity, moving to another galaxy is just going to be abrupt.

 

 

How exactly will it hurt them? Not dealing with the endings now doesn't mean they can't deal with them later if they choose to do so, and it has absolutely no implications for the ending of this game, so where is the harm?

Dealing with the issue's now means that Bioware knows how to deal with the same ones in the future should they make them again. Running away from them just means that they'll have no idea how to address them since they never bothered addressing the ones they made with the trilogy.

[MrFob]

 One suggestion would to take a page from CDPR's book and make 2-3 variables canon and go forward from there, while not ideal it does make it a lot easier to write the story. The thing is though is that if the issue's of the trilogy are resolved now Bioware will be able to deal with such issue's should they end up making the same ones again. By running away from them they'll have no idea how to deal these issue's in the event they end up making the same ones again since they didn't bother to deal with them in the first place.

 

Well, ok, fair enough. To be honest, I wouldn't have minded to see the aftermath in MW of  a canonized ending either (as long as it wasn't synthesis ).

However, I don't think that moving to Andromeda inevitably means that they didn't learn anything or that they must inevitable repeat old mistakes. I will reserve judgement on that account until we know more about the new game.

[BabyPuncher]

...I don't get what you think this statement adds to the discussion. That is true of every ongoing series, whether they choose to shift the setting or not.

 

It also doesn't contradict my statement, which makes your reply kind of bizarre.

 

Is that right? You make a silly claim how this 'doesn't hurt BioWare,' and I point out how it in fact does hurt BioWare. That doesn't sound like a contradiction to you? It certainly sounds like a contradiction to me. Obviously, it's true of every series.

[Nohvarr]

There needs to be a sense of consistency and continuity, moving to another galaxy is just going to be abrupt.

Which is accomplished by having some version of N7present, familiar species and technology that shares visual similarities to past equipment.

 

Dealing with the issue's now means that Bioware knows how to deal with the same ones in the future should they make them again. Running away from them just means that they'll have no idea how to address them since they never bothered addressing the ones they made with the trilogy.

That doesn't follow. Bioware may very well have considered options to do what you want, they just choose to go in another direction. Honestly the goal is not to prove they can fix a mistake, but to show they can learn from it an take steps to avoid it in the future, which they are doing.

[Drone223]

You have no evidence that the majority of fans are still focused on the endings and unable to move on. Even on this forum, where the most diehard of fans roam, a good number of them are ready to leave the endings in the past where they belong.

 

Actually the real problem that people have is that have Bioware really learned form the mistakes they've made with the endings (and the trilogy for that matter), people aren't blindly going to take Bioware's word for it.

 

So please explain how this will hurt them badly?

 

If Bioware ends up making the same mistakes again what are they going to do? Move to yet another galaxy or deal with them? Dealing with the problems now means they'll be prepared to deal with such issue's should they the end up making them again.

[Drone223]

Which is accomplished by having some version of N7present, familiar species and technology that shares visual similarities to past equipment.

From what was seen in the trailer, if the N7 logo was removed it could have easily be taken for a completely different IP.

[Il Divo]

Which is accomplished by having some version of N7present, familiar species and technology that shares visual similarities to past equipment.

 

 

 

That doesn't follow. Bioware may very well have considered options to do what you want, they just choose to go in another direction. Honestly the goal is not to prove they can fix a mistake, but to show they can learn from it an take steps to avoid it in the future, which they are doing.

 

I'm still trying to grasp how Bioware has to prove they learned from their mistakes, which still makes no sense in this context. How does forcing a canon in ME4 address issues that players have in regard to the Catalyst, the Reaper logic, Shepard's mandatory death, Shepard's passive interaction with the Catalyst, 11th hour space magic, etc, just to name a few of the criticisms I've seen thrown at the ending.

 

I'd rather Bioware learn by not committing these mistakes in the first place, rather than the suggestion of band aids, which can't feasibly address these issues. 

[Cyonan]

From what was seen in the trailer, if the N7 logo was removed it could have easily be taken for a completely different IP.

 

and the Paladin pistol

 

and the Mako

 

and the Krogan in the background

 

and the omni-tool

 

That's just from 1 minute of proper trailer too, since the first half is just some concept art with Johnny Cash in the background.