1395 réponses à ce sujet

[Zatche]

I don't know about that, I think if they canonized an ending they would be seen as addressing the ending and showing us that.

But canonizing an ending is sidestepping. It's addressing one ending and not the others.

Some will complain for sure, but I would imagine it would be much smaller and for other reasons.

The reason would be that a Canon ending would invalidate previous player choices. I don't necessarily agree with that. I hold the opinion that the choices matter in the game I'm making them in, no matter what happens outside of that. But I understand it, and I don't see much indication that this complaint is significantly smaller than the desire to fix the endings. And again, canonizing could only theoretically fix or address one of the endings, anyway.

[Sartoz]

We shouldn't be branding everyone into a them or us camp, as it's not accurate and it does nothing for discussion.

 

I for example don't fit in either camp, as I don't want BW to change anything about the ending, I just want them to continue the game in the same MW galaxy.

And yes, I know that this debate will have zero effect on making any changes, and that's not why I am here having this good conversation with you folk about it. I suspect like many here, they just want to talk about what and why the transition bothers them, maybe even seeking validation with others which could bring the closure they want.

 

Damn, reading what i just wrote and I sound like some video game therapist who just wants everyone to share their feelings and can't we all just get along... now I have to go do something violent to balance out, like go give the guy in the next office a shot. brb

 

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

 

Well, could be that venting here is theraputic, though premature. Unlike DAI, where I vented for Bio's failure to meet and deliver a game base on their advertising and interviews hype.

 

The Mass Effect IP is more than the MW. 'Cause if you don't agree with that premise, debate is pointless.  Mass Effect Andromeda is a game in the ME IP universe that is located in the Andromeda galaxy. It is a new and separate story and not a continuation of the trilogy. If one can accept that last bit, letting go should be easier.

[DarthSliver]

I don't agree with the move to Andromeda because they are running away from the endings themselves with the move there or so it seems that way. I believe that Bioware should finally face the ME3 endings and canonize one by either the one that can best move the story forward with or popular vote like they did when making a unique femshep for ME3. I mean I could be wrong that they don't plan to face those endings, they very well might be as far as I know but the fact is I do not know so I can not assume they will or not. But I see the move to Andromeda as running away from the ME3 Endings when they need to solve them because those Endings ruin the Mass Effect Trilogy playthrough, until I had actually got to the end of ME3 I was strongly considering getting a 360 just for a trilogy run but then they announced ME1 coming to Playstation 3 so that solved that issue. But by then the ME3 ending had already played its negative impact on me and when I got to ME3 ending again I just felt yet again the since of "what is the point of playing this?" Endings from ME3 are held at such negativity because the series is about player choice but that moment in the end, all the choices we made means nothing. Starbrat in my opinion represents Bioware throwing away player choice, because its how we got to that point where all the choices should've mattered. We literally amass a whole fleet for nothing it seemed because of that Starbrat. 

 

But as far as the negativity that is being received, Bioware brought that on themselves because of DAI not being as great as it should be. It was more of a grindfest in my opinion and that grindfest made me lose interest in the story itself altogether.  

[Sartoz]

 Snip

 

Here we're talking about something completely different. Here we have to repurpose ME4 to both tell its own independent story while also being used to account for the outrage which ME3 generated and it's not clear how it can do that to anyone's satisfaction. 

 

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

 

A simple way, I think, is for the game intro to introduce the ARKCON colony ships during the last months of the war and explain it's a last ditch effort to save the species from total annihilation. Take a location as far away as possible. Perhaps the ARKCON ships can be multi-generational colony ships.. meaning their long future descendants will arrive in Andromeda. Or make use of the Prothean stasis pod tech. They did find one after all.

 

Regardless, those arriving in Andromeda have no knowledge of the outcome of the war. Their records would only show events up to their departure date. This breaks no Lore or past choices for those that are concerned. 

 

It may not "fix unresolved issues with the ME3 ending" but frankly, neither did Bio's attempt with the Extended Cut.

[Nethershadow]

But canonizing an ending is sidestepping. It's addressing one ending and not the others.


The reason would be that a Canon ending would invalidate previous player choices. I don't necessarily agree with that. I hold the opinion that the choices matter in the game I'm making them in, no matter what happens outside of that. But I understand it, and I don't see much indication that this complaint is significantly smaller than the desire to fix the endings. And again, canonizing could only theoretically fix or address one of the endings, anyway.

I am thinking we have different understandings of what sidestepping is then, because addressing the choices which they must choose one of is directly addressing it. They wouldn't be ignoring / sidestepping the others as some semblance of logic should tell any fan that they have to make a choice, and it's unfortunate the one they might have wanted wasn't chosen, but they must choose something. Sidestepping would be what they have done, is leaving it in the state it is because they don't want to address it and doing something else so they don't have to. But if you read my next response below you will see there is no clean slate, and that those choices would still affect Andromeda to a degree, whether the game focuses on it or not. So even for Andromeda, one choice would still have to be chosen regardless.

 

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

 

Well, could be that venting here is theraputic, though premature. Unlike DAI, where I vented for Bio's failure to meet and deliver a game base on their advertising and interviews hype.

 

The Mass Effect IP is more than the MW. 'Cause if you don't agree with that premise, debate is pointless.  Mass Effect Andromeda is a game in the ME IP universe that is located in the Andromeda galaxy. It is a new and separate story and not a continuation of the trilogy. If one can accept that last bit, letting go should be easier.

The thing is, I think it was very important that you vented for DAI even though it is after the point of no return, aka game was already released. The reason it's important because that feedback will never be known otherwise and all we the consumer can do is hope that feedback helps shape things in the future. The same thing with this thread, it's after the fact, the foundation and investment of time and money has already been spent, it's not going to change ME:A but it could influence them for the future about what bothers there fan base, and I could almost guarantee you that game developers most definitely listen to their fan base one way or another.

 

I absolutely agree with you that ME IP is more than the MW galaxy, but as Andromeda is a linear part of that universe, so to is what happened in the trilogy. The ending to the trilogy is a part of the new game, it won't be focused on, but the decisions made would carry over to Andromeda solely because the N7 Marines / Earth gov are there, which makes them directly tied to the MW. What happened in the MW they will eventually learn about, and more importantly how does those changes affect the N7 Marines.

 

The game I am pretty sure will not touch upon this element as they are trying to make a clean slate, but there is technically no clean slate to be had that everyone thinks there is, just the appearance and omission that there is.

[Cyonan]

I don't agree with the move to Andromeda because they are running away from the endings themselves with the move there or so it seems that way. I believe that Bioware should finally face the ME3 endings and canonize one by either the one that can best move the story forward with or popular vote like they did when making a unique femshep for ME3. I mean I could be wrong that they don't plan to face those endings, they very well might be as far as I know but the fact is I do not know so I can not assume they will or not. But I see the move to Andromeda as running away from the ME3 Endings when they need to solve them because those Endings ruin the Mass Effect Trilogy playthrough, until I had actually got to the end of ME3 I was strongly considering getting a 360 just for a trilogy run but then they announced ME1 coming to Playstation 3 so that solved that issue. But by then the ME3 ending had already played its negative impact on me and when I got to ME3 ending again I just felt yet again the since of "what is the point of playing this?" Endings from ME3 are held at such negativity because the series is about player choice but that moment in the end, all the choices we made means nothing. Starbrat in my opinion represents Bioware throwing away player choice, because its how we got to that point where all the choices should've mattered. We literally amass a whole fleet for nothing it seemed because of that Starbrat. 

 

But as far as the negativity that is being received, Bioware brought that on themselves because of DAI not being as great as it should be. It was more of a grindfest in my opinion and that grindfest made me lose interest in the story itself altogether.  

 

The thing is that as has been noted making one ending canon isn't going to solve most of the issues with the ending.

 

They can make destroy canon, but the Reaper's logic will still be broken as hell, starchild will still exist, and the Reapers will still have been beaten by what amounts to last minute space magic. Adding more explanation and story on top of it isn't going to negate any of those things having happened in Mass Effect 3.

 

The only way to "fix" the endings to Mass Effect 3 is to remake Mass Effect 3, or completely retcon them into something else. Even then, the previous games set it up so that we would need last minute space magic in order to win so that's not going away unless you remake the entire trilogy.

 

Making one series of choices canon would only fix the problem where you have an insane number of branching paths if you attempt to create a game in the MW after Mass Effect 3.

[DarthSliver]

The thing is that as has been noted making one ending canon isn't going to solve most of the issues with the ending.

 

They can make destroy canon, but the Reaper's logic will still be broken as hell, starchild will still exist, and the Reapers will still have been beaten by what amounts to last minute space magic. Adding more explanation and story on top of it isn't going to negate any of those things having happened in Mass Effect 3.

 

The only way to "fix" the endings to Mass Effect 3 is to remake Mass Effect 3, or completely retcon them into something else. Even then, the previous games set it up so that we would need last minute space magic in order to win so that's not going away unless you remake the entire trilogy.

 

Making one series of choices canon would only fix the problem where you have an insane number of branching paths if you attempt to create a game in the MW after Mass Effect 3.

I was fine with space magic at that point, accepted the big death canon crucible was going to be. 

 

Game should've ending with Shepard reaching up for that button after saying his/her goodbyes to Anderson. Starchild wasn't needed for the magic to work. 

[Zatche]

I am thinking we have different understandings of what sidestepping is then, because addressing the choices which they must choose one of is directly addressing it. They wouldn't be ignoring / sidestepping the others as some semblance of logic should tell any fan that they have to make a choice, and it's unfortunate the one they might have wanted wasn't chosen, but they must choose something. Sidestepping would be what they have done, is leaving it in the state it is because they don't want to address it and doing something else so they don't have to. But if you read my next response below you will see there is no clean slate, and that those choices would still affect Andromeda to a degree, whether the game focuses on it or not. So even for Andromeda, one choice would still have to be chosen regardless.

 

I say they're sidestepping the issue of having to account for the wildly divergent RBG endings. They're doing this whether they choose a canon or choosing a story that wouldn't be affected by RBG. RBG won't affect Andromeda, because the RBG space magic flowed through the Mass Relays which don't reach Andromeda. Maybe some other choices will affect Andromeda, but not to the degree of RBG, and I'd rather they didn't at all.

 

But what is it that you think Bioware should address by staying in the Milky Way? I would understand if you simply thought it would lead to a better game. But, the state that the Milky Way is in. Why does it need to be addressed? If it's really that important, why is it only necessary that only one world state be addressed?

[Cyonan]

I was fine with space magic at that point, accepted the big death canon crucible was going to be. 

 

Game should've ending with Shepard reaching up for that button after saying his/her goodbyes to Anderson. Starchild wasn't needed for the magic to work. 

 

But it didn't end with Shep doing that. It ended with Starchild.

 

and making destroy ending canon isn't going to make it so Starchild never happened.

[Nethershadow]

I say they're sidestepping the issue accounting for the wildly divergent RBG endings. They're doing this whether they choose a canon or choosing a story that wouldn't be affected by RBG. RBG won't affect Andromeda, because the RBG space magic flowed through the Mass Relays which don't reach Andromeda. Maybe some other choices will affect Andromeda, but not to the degree of RBG, and I'd rather they didn't at all.

 

But what is it that you think Bioware should address by staying in the Milky Way? I would understand if you simply thought it would lead to a better game. But, the state that the Milky Way is in. Why does it need to be addressed? If it's really that important, why is it only necessary that only one world state be addressed?

The main reason would be that I think it would lead to a better game. I would love to have some of the history of places and events we went through in the trilogy to enrich that environment. And for players that never played the trilogy wouldn't be missing out on anything as it wouldn't be required knowledge to play the new game but it would offer us that have a sense of attachment to the world without them really having to do anything. It would also let us the fans get to possibly see little additions to npc's futures and stories with subtle cameo's or mentions, again without having to do very much at all.

 

You can't build this kind of in depth background and attachment to a world from one single game. The fact that they could be building on top of it moving forward would add crazy amount of fan base connection. There will be some with Andromeda, but that is limited to some tech like guns and omni-tools and the N7 badge. 

 

Then as i've been kind of harping all around at the moment lol, is Andromeda will not be free of the MW nor the Reapers. We have just escaped from them and we are assuming we have lost to the Reapers hence going into exodus, and it would break all immersion for me and probably many others if they just ignore the obvious, which is we are here because we are running from the big bad machines that are kicking our ass, and it would be absolute folly to assume we are safe, let alone just forget why we came to Andromeda. 

 

The only way to get a clean slate from the Reapers and the MW decisions is to have a completely different game. And if they want to keep it to Mass Effect then they need to give us a completely unrelated faction to play but would not really being using the IP's theme.

[pdusen]

As mentioned, you can't please everyone, but I think the canonized choices would have been the much better choice over just moving elsewhere, and I think the backlash would have been less

 

Sorry, but I've seen lots of backlash in my time on BSN, and by my estimation you have that completely backwards.

[Iakus]

The only way to "fix" the endings to Mass Effect 3 is to remake Mass Effect 3, or completely retcon them into something else. Even then, the previous games set it up so that we would need last minute space magic in order to win so that's not going away unless you remake the entire trilogy.

 

I'd vote for the latter.  Canonize something that simply could not happen in ME3.  It doesn't fix the trilogy, but it would provide a fresh start for whatever game came next.  And without exiling us from an entire galaxy.

[prosthetic soul]

Canonizing an ending would be preferable, but only if they canonized the right one.  Seeing as how this is modern-day Bioware though, they'd probably canonize Synthesis and call it a day.  I'd honestly prefer they canonize High EMS Destroy than just sweep everything under the rug like they're doing now. 

 

One of the Bioware employees defended their idea of not canonizing any of the endings on the basis that they take player choice very seriously.  But how does that respect our choices?  By just taking what we accomplished in Mass Effect 3 and throwing it to the wind?  Bah, this whole thing is a mess.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.   

[DaemionMoadrin]

Canonizing an ending would be preferable, but only if they canonized the right one.  Seeing as how this is modern-day Bioware though, they'd probably canonize Synthesis and call it a day.  I'd honestly prefer they canonize High EMS Destroy than just sweep everything under the rug like they're doing now. 

 

One of the Bioware employees defended their idea of not canonizing any of the endings on the basis that they take player choice very seriously.  But how does that respect our choices?  By just taking what we accomplished in Mass Effect 3 and throwing it to the wind?  Bah, this whole thing is a mess.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.   

 

I almost always choose Control or Refuse. I'd be very unhappy if Destroy or Synthesis became canon and it would ruin the game for me.

[prosthetic soul]

I almost always choose Control or Refuse. I'd be very unhappy if Destroy or Synthesis became canon and it would ruin the game for me.

Booo!  Hss!!!

[In Exile]

Canonizing an ending would be preferable, but only if they canonized the right one. Seeing as how this is modern-day Bioware though, they'd probably canonize Synthesis and call it a day. I'd honestly prefer they canonize High EMS Destroy than just sweep everything under the rug like they're doing now.

One of the Bioware employees defended their idea of not canonizing any of the endings on the basis that they take player choice very seriously. But how does that respect our choices? By just taking what we accomplished in Mass Effect 3 and throwing it to the wind? Bah, this whole thing is a mess. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

People don't want their choice "respected". What they want is a widely dirvegent outcome that also corresponds with what their bias re: the choice dictates. Look at what people in ME1 said about the rachni. Renegade choosers wanted the Ranchi to become indoctrinated as a punch in the nads to the players, if not outright evil mind controlling enemies that launched Rachi Wars, Vol. 2. Paragon choosers wanted the Rachni to prove they were peaceful and peace loving, indoctrinated victims of the reapers, who would assisit the Council races.

Which "choice" gets respected?

[pdusen]

One of the Bioware employees defended their idea of not canonizing any of the endings on the basis that they take player choice very seriously.  But how does that respect our choices?  By just taking what we accomplished in Mass Effect 3 and throwing it to the wind?  Bah, this whole thing is a mess.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.   

 

I will never understand the argument that moving the setting to a place far enough away that our previous choices don't affect anything is somehow "throwing it to the wind". It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

 

A choice does not automatically lose its value just because it never comes up again.

[In Exile]

Let me put it this way: if destroy is canonised and ME4 is all about the onslaught of evil AI, with ME4 PC having to use reaper tech again to genocide AI and basically the whole game is a huge parallel about how the reapers were right all along, people would hate it even more.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Booo!  Hss!!!

 

Destroy is stupid on so many levels, Synthesis is basically raping every lifeform in the galaxy with nonsense, Control at least attempts to keep assets for rebuilding and preventing future issues (while also being stupid) and Refuse is the perfect choice because the our cycle was too stupid to live and deserved to be harvested.

[Il Divo]

I almost always choose Control or Refuse. I'd be very unhappy if Destroy or Synthesis became canon and it would ruin the game for me.

 

It's a damn shame. Refuse has my favorite Shepard speech. But I still can't choose it, ever. 

[Dantriges]

It´s unlikely they would canonise control or synthesis. And well canonising refuse would be plain weird.

In control, every big problem that would endanger a planet, colony or something else bigger would draw the attention of the big overlord.

Synthesis: They probably need half the game to describe what humanity is now and well big problem = big brother Reaper shows up and says hi. Hard to do adventure in utopia. Ok you could do some outsider story where peopple refusing shiny green utopia left. IMO it would be rather unsatisfying.

[themikefest]

People don't want their choice "respected". What they want is a widely dirvegent outcome that also corresponds with what their bias re: the choice dictates. Look at what people in ME1 said about the rachni. Renegade choosers wanted the Ranchi to become indoctrinated as a punch in the nads to the players, if not outright evil mind controlling enemies that launched Rachi Wars, Vol. 2. Paragon choosers wanted the Rachni to prove they were peaceful and peace loving, indoctrinated victims of the reapers, who would assisit the Council races.

Which "choice" gets respected?

Do an ME3 default playthrough and you'll see what choice was respected

[Eryri]

Apologies for butting in.

I will never understand the argument that moving the setting to a place far enough away that our previous choices don't affect anything is somehow "throwing it to the wind". It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

A choice does not automatically lose its value just because it never comes up again.

You bring up a point that's been bugging me since the game came out actually. Why does a choice in a video game have value to begin with?
Personally, I think it's when it has consequences that surprise you long after you've made it. Choosing to rewrite the Heretic Geth is a good example of this for me. The Paragon choice of leaving them alive actually has unexpectedly negative consequences in ME3 because it makes reconciling the Quarians and the Geth more difficult. Even though I had made the 'wrong' choice here, I actually enjoyed being thrown a bit of a curve ball.

The ending choice, by contrast, is far less interesting for me. It's supposedly galaxy altering effects are limited to the last 10 minutes of the game, and a slideshow at that. There's also no surprises there; you pick the choice that kills the Reapers? The Reapers promptly fall down dead. You want to combine organic and synthetic life? Everybody obligingly gets green circuit board tattoos. All the options do exactly what they say on the tin. No surprises, pleasant or unpleasant... I just find it oddly superficial and throw-away, really.

I think this gets to the heart of my (and perhaps others' ) frustration with the move to Andromeda. If the RGB choices have no interesting or surprising consequences that we get to live with in the next game, then what was the point of making them? I just think it's a shame we'll never get to visit the Citadel, Rannoch or Omega again, largely because of one, really rather lacklustre, 'choice'.

Destroy is stupid on so many levels, Synthesis is basically raping every lifeform in the galaxy with nonsense, Control at least attempts to keep assets for rebuilding and preventing future issues (while also being stupid) and Refuse is the perfect choice because the our cycle was too stupid to live and deserved to be harvested.

I know that you're joking a little, but ironically I think Refuse is the most compatible with the plot of Andromeda for me. Because unless the Alliance lost the war, the Milky Way is a wasteland and these are the last human beings in existence, why should I get particularly concerned about the trials and tribulations of a few thousand colonists in the suburbs of andromeda?
I'm exaggerating a little, I'm sure if the new characters are well written people will get deeply invested in their fates, but it's still a bit of a come down from saving a whole galaxy full of civilisations that have endured for thousands of years. At least if these colonists were all the last of their kinds, and in danger of being wiped out by these 'Khet' things, there would be some sense of jeopardy about the enterprise.

It's a damn shame. Refuse has my favorite Shepard speech. But I still can't choose it, ever.

I know right? It's a fantastic speech. Shame about the immediate aftermath...

Edited for spelling and clarity.

[AlanC9]

Sorry, but I've seen lots of backlash in my time on BSN, and by my estimation you have that completely backwards.

Probably. I've been lobbying for canon endings for everything since DA:O, and whenever I'm strongly in favor of something, it usually turns out that most of the fanbase would hate it.

[Iakus]

It's a damn shame. Refuse has my favorite Shepard speech. But I still can't choose it, ever. 

It's Bioware trolling the ending haters.