64 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

Seriously? Probably the part where they always said that ME3 was going to be the end of the Shepard trilogy. Also, Shepard being dead in all the endings, except for the ridiculous breath thing which was probably intended solely to give those people desperate for the Shepard to live an out. Oh, and as everyone in the known galaxy has pointed out on page 1: the endings themsekves.

[kingmizar1]

(EDIT: hope this answers KaiserShep's post as well)

 

True. BTW, I wasn't surprised because of metagame reasons either the first time. I was more surprised because I thought "Wow, these guys have been working on resolving this for 2000 years and here I come along and do it in a week. And that was just a minor inconvenience I removed on my way to the real issue I have to deal with."

 

As for wrapping everything up: That, I think, was exactly one mistake on the part of the writers. Ok, I get it, they wanted to make a definitive end to the trilogy. Unfortunately, they equated this with Shepard solving every problem in the universe (and at least with the control and the synthesis ending, s/he does exactly that). However, this was not Shepard's job in the trilogy, at least not to my mind. S/he was to solve the reaper problem. I do think it does weaken the lore and the sense of scale of a world if you get to resolve every conflict that is in it and make it all evolve around the protagonist. This has nothing to do with keeping stuff for future games either. Look at a universe like The Elder Scrolls or the Witcher or also BioWare's own Dragon Age. When we finish a game there (or a trilogy as it were) we also resolve a sizable issue. We usually play part in important events and to some extent even shape the future of the universe but when we are done, there is still things there that we didn't resolve, that just maybe bigger than the story that we just went through. Just like the real world is bigger than whatever one person, no matter how important, can experience.

I think that the ME team took a lot of scale from te universe when they gave us the opportunity to resolve everything in the galaxy with the messianic figure of Shepard. I hope they learn from this (IMO) mistake and don't make it again in the next galaxy or we'll have to move to Pegasus very soon.

(Phew, managed to bend this post back on topic somehow there at the end, I hope )

 

I think you're overstating the importance of Shepard in resolving the Galaxy's issues. I think overall a lot of people tend to overstate Shepard's importance. In my opinion, I have always felt that many of the issues Shepard ends up helping resolve are more often than not issues that were already well on their way to potentially being solved even without Shepard. 

 

For example, regarding the Genophage, the biggest contributor to solving that issue was Urdnot Wrex. It is he that spends around three years uniting all of Tuchanka's clan under his banner of reformation. And it is he who proposed the Genophage cure as a Krogan bargaining chip for the Reaper war. Neither Humanity nor Shepard were interested in curing the Genophage. It wasn't until Wrex, as the Krogan leader, listed it as his sole term for joining the Reaper War that we decided to help enact a cure or not. In addition, Mordin's and Maelon's contribution to synthesizing a cure cannot be understated. I think overall the only thing Shepard provides these races is a mediated space where they can discuss these issues. And plenty of that is owed more to the decade long cross-species production of the Normandy as a political tool than Shepard alone as an individual. On the flip side, I am not saying Shepard was not important, he/she is, but these decisions all come with collaboration between the species.

 

The Geth and Quarians were already on their way to war before Shepard even showed up on the scene in Mass Effect 2. By the time of Mass Effect 3 they are already fighting each other. If Shepard hadn't intervened, that conflict would've resolved itself one way or the other. And again there were many factors at play deciding who would've won said conflict, not just Shepard. Tali, Xen, Korris and Legion all took part in affecting the outcome. Who knows what variation of victory or failure could have happened. Speaking for myself it could have not ended much differently. I failed to consolidate peace between the races due to losing Legion in ME2, and caused the annihilation of the Quarians. Hardly a happy resolution. And to me that is My canon story.

 

Even the victory at The Battle of The Citadel or the Collector Base, was a combined effort of all major species in the galaxy which were all in the Normandy. Shepard is not a lone hero, which the galaxy revolves around. Part of why I enjoy the Mass Effect franchise so much is because humanity is just a small part of that universe. The other races did not need us any more than they needed any one race. Success always required a united effort between all races. Hell the Crucible itself represents not only the unified effort of every species in the galaxy, but even the unified efforts of hundreds of other species from previous cycles.

[Battlebloodmage]

Artistic integrity

 

[MrFob]

@kingmizar: Doesn't change the fact that it is Shepard who has the deciding vote in all these conflicts, quite literally, you get a dialogue option that let's you decide the outcome there and then. In ME!, I had the impression that the genophage and the quarian's history were just that, history. It was a backstory to make these races interesting. By the time ME3 comes around, it more feels like a plot device so that I can decide the fate of those species.

 

And as for humanity just being a small part of the universe is concerned, again, back in the days before the end of ME1, I could have agreed to that. By the time of ME3 (and also ME2), not so much. We are back in he scifi trope of humanity as the special race, the leaders of the galactic effort to repell the reapers. The other races are there and they play a part, sure but the decicive battle is at earth and humanity is spearheading the Crucible project and the battle itself. It is three humans (Shepard, Anderson and Hackett) who are shown to be the important characters during that final hour and it is TIM, another human who is the main antagonist who stands in your way until the end (as it turns out, the reapers and the catalyst are not antagonists at all). And in the end, Shepard does resolve all conflict in the galaxy. I call that a world that revolves around one person (or maybe a very small group of people, i.e. the Normandy crew).

[Sanunes]

Seriously? Probably the part where they always said that ME3 was going to be the end of the Shepard trilogy. Also, Shepard being dead in all the endings, except for the ridiculous breath thing which was probably intended solely to give those people desperate for the Shepard to live an out. Oh, and as everyone in the known galaxy has pointed out on page 1: the endings themsekves.

 

I think they were saying that Shepard's story was going to end with the third game the same time they released the second game, so to me anything regarding the content of the third game is moot when they decided long before it was released that they weren't going to have a Mass Effect 4.

[Broganisity]

Because it's the Shepard Trilogy, not the Mass Effect Trilogy.

I think naming conventions are part of the problem given that the Shepard Trilogy is just known as 'One to Three'. If Andromeda has a direct sequel, will it be Andromeda Two? Simple, Numbered sequels lead to naming problems and issues with fan expectations, methinks.

[Han Shot First]

The endings aren't as big of a factor as some people think. You can committ one full on genocide (Quarians vs. Geth) and radically alter the path of one race (curing the Genophage). These two choices would make any ME4 following up on the Reaper plot nearly impossible - we'd get a rachni situation with three races, none of which could ever feature in any meaningful way in the plot again. So you'd get ME4 with no real Quarian, Geth or Krogan presence.

 

I think those are fairly easy to deal with actually, in part because of the holes in Bioware's writing.

 

The battle of Rannoch was presented as determining the survival of the Geth and the Quarians, but that never made much sense. If the Geth lose Rannoch they should continue to exist as there are millions, if not billions of them, existing on servers or mobile platforms in space or on other former Quarian worlds. According to the lore the Geth weren't even really occupying Rannoch.

 

Likewise the Quarians failing to retake Rannoch shouldn't result in their extinction either. Some of the Quarian ships should have been able to retreat through the relay. Even victories won by the Reapers, who are many times more powerful than the Geth, usually didn't result in the complete annihilation of their opponents fleets. There are multiple examples in the game of Alliance, Turian, or Asari fleets managing to retreat after a loss against the Reapers, so it never really made much sense why it should be impossible for the Quarians to retreat from Rannoch.

 

The genophage shouldn't result in the extinction of the Krogan either. The genophage had been around for about 1,400 years or so by the start of the first Mass Effect game, so if the Krogan were in decline it was a decline that was playing out slowly over millenia. There were still a couple billion of them around at the end of Mass Effect 3, and Tuchanka was never truly invaded, so even if the genophage wasn't cured they could still be around in a Milky Way sequel.

 

If Bioware ever creates a Milky Way sequel I think the best way to go would be for them to treat the battle at Rannoch as being decisive, but not catastrophic, and to have the outcome of the genophage arc determine whether the Krogan have entered a Renaissance or whether they are still stuck in their Shepard trilogy rut.

 

That Tuchanka could have a fate varying from post-war golden age to post-apocalyptic hellhole, and that control of Rannoch could vary from Quarian to Geth to shared, means that the protagonist wouldn't be able to visit either planet, but I don't see that as a big issue. The galaxy is a big place, so I wouldn't want the series to continually revisit the same planets anyway. 

[AlanC9]

I dunno -- I hated that approach in KotOR 2, and I don't think I'd like it any better in ME7.

[In Exile]

I think those are fairly easy to deal with actually, in part because of the holes in Bioware's writing.

 

The battle of Rannoch was presented as determining the survival of the Geth and the Quarians, but that never made much sense. If the Geth lose Rannoch they should continue to exist as there are millions, if not billions of them, existing on servers or mobile platforms in space or on other former Quarian worlds. According to the lore the Geth weren't even really occupying Rannoch.

 

Likewise the Quarians failing to retake Rannoch shouldn't result in their extinction either. Some of the Quarian ships should have been able to retreat through the relay. Even victories won by the Reapers, who are many times more powerful than the Geth, usually didn't result in the complete annihilation of their opponents fleets. There are multiple examples in the game of Alliance, Turian, or Asari fleets managing to retreat after a loss against the Reapers, so it never really made much sense why it should be impossible for the Quarians to retreat from Rannoch.

 

The genophage shouldn't result in the extinction of the Krogan either. The genophage had been around for about 1,400 years or so by the start of the first Mass Effect game, so if the Krogan were in decline it was a decline that was playing out slowly over millenia. There were still a couple billion of them around at the end of Mass Effect 3, and Tuchanka was never truly invaded, so even if the genophage wasn't cured they could still be around in a Milky Way sequel.

 

If Bioware ever creates a Milky Way sequel I think the best way to go would be for them to treat the battle at Rannoch as being decisive, but not catastrophic, and to have the outcome of the genophage arc determine whether the Krogan have entered a Renaissance or whether they are still stuck in their Shepard trilogy rut.

 

That Tuchanka could have a fate varying from post-war golden age to post-apocalyptic hellhole, and that control of Rannoch could vary from Quarian to Geth to shared, means that the protagonist wouldn't be able to visit either planet, but I don't see that as a big issue. The galaxy is a big place, so I wouldn't want the series to continually revisit the same planets anyway. 

 

Well, sure, they could say your choice was irrelevant and didn't really make a difference, but I'm not seeing how that's really something that developers can ever not do, so to speak. It's a bit like people just arguing they can blender RBG and make them all true. And it's what made people rail against ME2 and ME3 for how the galaxy didn't really change based on e.g. the Council choice.

 

Even if the Geth survive, the fact that the Quarians have Rannoch - versus actually being obliterated, including their civilians - is a radical change. Will Quarians still have encounter suits? Tali thinks that can dissapear in a generation. From a development perspective alone that's a lot of resources. And if you make the suits permanent then, again, you're undercutting the significance of your own choice to make it harder to follow up on. Even if the Quarians survive - and there's a 2nd migrant fleet - there's a huge difference between the Quarians having a homeworld and a second exile.

 

Same with the Krogan. It's not about genocide (note, I never said they'd die out). But you do radically alter what they were. Bioware's biggest mess up, IMO, is departing from the path Wrex adopted in ME2 for the krogan. But anyway, that type of Krogan society, focused on breeding and not being turned into cannon fodder as mercenaries or in wars, is totally different from a revitalized krogan race that can focus on expansion and conquest.

 

Just like with the Council's composion, there's no way to do justice to these choices without a radical resource investment.

[thewatcheruatu]

You know, I count the three Mass Effect games amongst my favorite of all time, and I'm almost unhealthily attached to my custom female Shepard. But even I was ready to move on by the end of Mass Effect 3 (though I'm still happy I got the ending where you see her chest drawing a breath!). I'm kind of glad the series is moving far away from the initial trilogy so as to not trivialize the actions I took by having to write around them. Also, I feel like the Milky Way is Shepard's galaxy--nobody else is allowed to play there!

[Equalitas]

ME4 isnt coming coz it was the plan all along. Even how hard it is to believe. 

[DFMelancholine]

I will copy-paste what I said in another thread, or rather parts of it :

 

 

"What I personally would have wanted ( I repeat this is my opinion and no one needs to like it.)

I would have wanted TWO different endings both and each reflecting to Shep' Paragon or Renegade side and both would have two versions ,one good and one bad.So 4 endings basically.Paragon (Good ending/Bad Ending), Renegade (Good ending/Bad ending) which totally ties to the theme of the trilogy.

They could have kept everything there unchanged including the stupid StarBrat and his ludicrous reasoning but add more dialog options to make the conversation make more sense and help the player participate more and depending on what we did throughout the whole game, the war assets we gathered and how we handled Synthetic VS. Organic conflicts in the whole trilogy we could basically prove its logic is flawed and in a way "glitch" it into reprogramming the collective consiousness of the Reapers thus making them realize that Synthetics and Organics can perfectly coexist after all.

 

Paragon Choice :

-Good Ending :You convince the StarBrat, it tells you the Reapers will cease the Harvest,then retreat to Dark Space and self destruct because their programming is now wrong and they have no reason to exist.Minimal if no casualties at all as far as other characters go.

-Bad Ending: Same as above BUT the casualties are very high,some of Shepard's friends die.Higher overall death toll due to low War Assets.Victory but still bittersweet.

 

The Paragon choice was to "allow" the Reapers to go by not firing the Crucible. (In this version the Crucible has only one function, it destroys the Reapers and damages the Relays -not beyond repair-)

 

Renegade Choice : 

-Good Ending : Reapers as stated above, will retreat and self-destruct but renegade Shep  wants to be a badass and decides to fire the Crucible because he doesn't trust that they won't come back so he wipes them out pre-emptively.Again Lower overall death toll because of high War Asset gathering.Perfect happy ending.(OK, the relays are a bit screwed but they slowly rebuild them.)

-Bad Ending : Just like above.Crucible is fired.Reapers wiped out BUT all the rest is similar to the Paragon Good ending but due to low war assets and lack of preparation there are higher death tolls and are closest companions die.Still positive however, because Reapers are wiped out.

 

If we had a similar ending to this, I believe there would be no major outcry and today we would be having the announcement of Mass Effect 4 rather than Mass Effect Andromeda  :P"

 

 

 

 

 

[Catastrophy]

Why not ask: "After the trilogy concluded - why did they decide to do another game in the mass effect setting?"

 

I say: It was me and the other guys fighting reapers in MP. By now we've defeated them so hard we have unlocked the secret ending. Which is Andromeda.

[JoltDealer]

Mass Effect was always intended as a trilogy.  This was said since the development of the first game, which is why decisions and choices were made to carry over.  That's why there is no "Mass Effect 4" -- it was never planned in the first place.  It's easy to blame this on the ending of ME3, but there are literally years of Bioware interviews stating otherwise.  After the success of the series, we knew that Mass Effect wasn't going to simply end, but this is why we had no idea what was going to come after the third game.  The only decision the prevented Mass Effect 4 is the decision to make a trilogy instead of a quartet.

 

Mass Effect Andromeda is the beginning of the next tale that Bioware wants to tell within that universe.  The Shepard story, no matter how it ended, was planned out and completed accordingly.

[Nomanor]

What do you think are the decisions that made it impossible to continue Mass Effect franchise in the same/similar storyline with the same cast/protagonist?

The story has run it's course.

 

How many times can Sheppard wake up and say "welp, time to save the galaxy again". ?