751 réponses à ce sujet

[Mathias]

 

No, they had plenty of other choices. They just decided not to use them and took the easy way out, throwing away the lore and practically everything else as they did so in most cases. Plus a lot of the team that worked on ME1-3, including the main people, are still on it. They just moved to a new studio. 

 

 

Dis. All of dis here.

 

They had choice. Setting it in another galaxy was the right one. Canonizing an ending or retconing them was the wrong one. It bothers me that so many fans fault Bioware for doing the smart thing. Not the easy or lazy thing as they claim it is. By canonizing an ending to make a direct sequel, you're discrediting the other players who didn't choose that ending, and  also once again, giving us a middle finger in regards to choices. Wanting Bioware to canonize an ending, shows a complete lack of respect for one of the most important elements of Mass Effect games. An element people complained endlessly about when we found out most of our choices didn't matter in ME3.

 

And now people WANT them to continue to throw choice into the wind? By flat out retconing or canonizing the ending to the friggin trilogy? 

 

Also this notion that Mass Effect HAS to take place in the Milky Way to be considered a Mass Effect game, is the most foolish and close minded nonsense I've heard from the BSN in a while. There's no writ rule in storytelling that sequels need to take place in the same setting. It's about retaining those familiar elements and keeping the same identity. One of the most popular franchises, Final Fantasy, has been doing it for decades, and those games take place in entirely different universes. There are plenty of franchises out there that have been successful with this type of direction. 

 

It's things like this that's making me call these people out on the boards.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

They had choice. Setting it in another galaxy was the right one. Canonizing an ending or retconing them was the wrong one. It bothers me that so many fans fault Bioware for doing the smart thing. Not the easy or lazy thing as they claim it is. By canonizing an ending to make a direct sequel, you're discrediting the other players who didn't choose that ending, and  also once again, giving us a middle finger in regards to choices. Wanting Bioware to canonize an ending, shows a complete lack of respect for one of the most important elements of Mass Effect games. An element people complained endlessly about when we found out most of our choices didn't matter in ME3.

Who are you to make that call about it being the right choice? Your opinion holds no more stature than those who disagree with you. However I do agree that canonizing an ending isn't the best choice in my opinion either. Personally I think a homogenization is the best way about it, or even doing like what Square Enix and Edios are with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided by having it be a mix of homogenization and hearsay. Bioware even put the foundation for that route in ME3 with the Stargazer scene "Well, many of the details have been lost in time." And unlike canonizing or retconning or running away, it still offers a way to respect player choice by having the choice add a different texture to the new worldstate through means that are easier to accomplish. 

 

And now people WANT them to continue to throw choice into the wind? By flat out retconing or canonizing the ending to the friggin trilogy? 

There have been people who wanted this since March 6, 2012 when the game came out. It's not really a new development. 

 

Also this notion that Mass Effect HAS to take place in the Milky Way to be considered a Mass Effect game, is the most foolish and close minded nonsense I've heard from the BSN in a while. There's no writ rule in storytelling that sequels need to take place in the same setting. It's about retaining those familiar elements and keeping the same identity. One of the most popular franchises, Final Fantasy, has been doing it for decades, and those games take place in entirely different universes. There are plenty of franchises out there that have been successful with this type of direction. 

First, we both know there has been more "foolish and close minded nonsense" heard on the BSN in a while than the setting argument. While true there is no official rule, unofficially it certainly exist. A Star Wars movie/show/book/game/etc set somewhere other than "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" would certainly be missing part of what made it Star Wars. Same thing with Mass Effect, to a lot of people anyway. 

The Final Fantasy franchise has also never made any connection to the past games, unlike Bioware who in the announcement of MEA made a connection to the Shepard Trilogy. Final Fantasy has been established by its developers as stand alone worlds connected only by the name on the box. Your example is a false equivalence. 

 

It's things like this that's making me call these people out on the boards.

Nothing's making you call these people out. The only thing that made you was your choice to do so. Disagree with people all you want, but don't be condescending and feel yourself worthy of and needing to bring enlightenment to the masses. There are other choices when it comes to trying to explain your position. 

[AlanC9]

Wanting Bioware to canonize an ending, shows a complete lack of respect for one of the most important elements of Mass Effect games. An element people complained endlessly about when we found out most of our choices didn't matter in ME3.
 
And now people WANT them to continue to throw choice into the wind? By flat out retconing or canonizing the ending to the friggin trilogy? 

Yes, some of us do.

In the long run, it's impossible for Bio to come up with enough zots for choices to "matter." Either they're minor enough so we can't really tell the difference, or somehow something causes all the choices to converge, or we relocate the next game in space or time so the choices from previous games aren't relevant.

[Drone223]

Unreal. You literally ignore reality.

Wrong, I'm just observant of what is seen so far and so far ME:A hardly resembles a ME game.

[Drone223]

I watched the trailer again right before I posted that, and I stopped the frame at the precise point where it starts yelling "I'm a Mass Effect game." It is clearly and decidedly before the N7 appears.

 

I only went JV in nitpicking though, so I'm out of my league. I respectfully bow out of this one.

You and others may think its a ME game (nothing wrong with that), but that doesn't others are wrong in disagreeing with you.

[Mathias]

Alright I'm picking my battles here, because I literally typed up a response to each of your points, and when I looked at them....it's gonna get ugly. So I'm just gonna focus on one thing:

 

However I do agree that canonizing an ending isn't the best choice in my opinion either. Personally I think a homogenization is the best way about it, or even doing like what Square Enix and Edios are with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided by having it be a mix of homogenization and hearsay. Bioware even put the foundation for that route in ME3 with the Stargazer scene "Well, many of the details have been lost in time." And unlike canonizing or retconning or running away, it still offers a way to respect player choice by having the choice add a different texture to the new worldstate through means that are easier to accomplish. 

 

No, it won't work. Each ending is vastly different from the other, creating vastly different, widespread cultural and biological impacting changes to the galaxy. That's not something you can handwave away by going "Oh well gee we really don't know what happened. Some of the details were lost in time."

 

How does a united highly technological society spread out across a galaxy forget something like that? Billions of people died, and life changed for everyone in the entire galaxy in a single day when that crucible fired. But all of a sudden "Oh we were either synthesized into organic/synthetic hybrids, or we weren't and a bunch of synthetics were destroyed. It's all heresay." That is horrible and lazy writing.

 

Like Lady Artifice said it would be a logistical nightmare. 

 

[Malanek]

 

They had choice. Setting it in another galaxy was the right one. Canonizing an ending or retconing them was the wrong one. It bothers me that so many fans fault Bioware for doing the smart thing. Not the easy or lazy thing as they claim it is. By canonizing an ending to make a direct sequel, you're discrediting the other players who didn't choose that ending, and  also once again, giving us a middle finger in regards to choices. Wanting Bioware to canonize an ending, shows a complete lack of respect for one of the most important elements of Mass Effect games. An element people complained endlessly about when we found out most of our choices didn't matter in ME3.

I presume you are claiming this important element is making it so that peoples choices matter?

 

How does canonizing an ending conflict with that, while throwing everything away, not? If you "canonize" and ending you see what happens in one outcome. People who didn't pick it see what they avoided. If you throw away everything, no body sees anything.

 

I've heard this argument you used trotted out a few times, but never once explained.

[Ahglock]

What one person says? No, that doesn't matter much on its own. But if a large number of people are saying the same thing, or something roughly analogous from post to post? That matters a lot. Developers notice that, because they like to win over fans. Winning over fans means that they make more money and earn loyal customers. Many features from Bioware games (and you'll see this with games from other studios too) are drawn from fan feedback. That information does not need to be an angry, self-important rant. But even those offer something in the way of information to a dev team. And yes, that is still valuable to the dev team at this stage because the final game isn't complete. That doesn't mean Andromeda is suddenly going to be about Shepard and the Normandy team, but there might be a few references or missions relevant to characters or events from the main story. Less immediately, it could legitimately influence the intent of the developers to focus on making a game more closely related to the main series, or of the main series.

 

Simply choosing to stop purchasing products does not provide that sort of information to a developer. They know that they're making less money, but they don't know why they're making less money. They can make some assumptions, but unless they have feedback from fans, they have no evidence to use which they can base their decisions upon. "Speaking with your wallet" is fine as a suggested consequence of not being satisfied, but doing so without specifying why you'd be doing that does nothing to steer a company in the direction that you'd like to see it go in. A customer who may or may not buy future games and merchandise but is thoroughly interested in sticking with the developers and playing more games is far more valuable, no matter what they say, because there is a realistic chance they can be convinced to continue buying the games. Magnify this to a major concern echoed by many prospective customers, and working to win them over is far more enticing than working to win over people who don't buy the games and don't say anything.

 

There is a difference between what people say, and what people really care about.  there is a difference between what is said on the forums and what the purchasing public cares or would say.

 

Basically forums have a lot of really obsessed people ranting about subjects, but one chances are they will buy the product anyway and two the stuff they are super mad about most the buying public doesn't give a crap about.  Its a very small % of the buying public that cares at all how bioware handles the endings and out of the people who do care, very few of them care enough to actually stop buying the games if bioware does the opposite of what they wanted. 

 

Are there things they can learn form player feedback, sure that is why they have polls.  But people making a noise on various forums, isn't really a good source for that. for things like do they canonize or not, do they mention the end of ME3?  Its a tiny % that gives a crap.  Even on these boards its usually just a handful of the same people arguing one way or the other. Now if there were hundreds or thousands of different forum goers making the same argument they might want to pay attention.  I haven't seen anything close to that though even when the boards are busy.

[FKA_Servo]

You and others may think its a ME game (nothing wrong with that), but that doesn't others are wrong in disagreeing with you.

If it has lightsabers, star destroyers, and wookies, it's a Star Wars game. If it has asari, omni-tools, and biotics, it's a Mass Effect game. There's actually nothing to disagree about.

As ever, though, I encourage you to seek out your own personal truth.

[The Hierophant]

As ever, though, I encourage you to seek out your own personal truth.

Lies. You stink of La Li Lu Le Lo.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

No, it won't work. Each ending is vastly different from the other, creating vastly different, widespread cultural and biological impacting changes to the galaxy. That's not something you can handwave away by going "Oh well gee we really don't know what happened. Some of the details were lost in time."

 

How does a united highly technological society spread out across a galaxy forget something like that? Billions of people died, and life changed for everyone in the entire galaxy in a single day when that crucible fired. But all of a sudden "Oh we were either synthesized into organic/synthetic hybrids, or we weren't and a bunch of synthetics were destroyed. It's all heresay." That is horrible and lazy writing.

 

Like Lady Artifice said it would be a logistical nightmare. 

Who ever said anything about forgetting? I certainly didn't. I said the choice you made would add a different tone to an homogenized whole, like through conversations. The main differences in the ending are the fate of the Reapers, who can be dead or friendly, the fate of synthetics, who can be dead or alive, and the fate of organics, who can be fully organic or have cybernetics in them. 

 

The homogenized ending for each could be thus:

Reapers) If not destroyed, leave after galactic reconstruction is completed(due to possible reasons like indoctrination still affecting them, just more slowly or they see themselves as detrimental to advancement if there). If destroyed, their wreckage was used in the galactic reconstruction effort.

Synthetics) If Destroy was chosen, the Geth had a contingency plan which had many of them outside the galaxy in a place the Reapers wouldn't look(like how they had one between stars because organics wouldn't look there), sparing them from the Crucible. After the war, they came back. If Destroy wasn't chosen, they are still around.

Organics) If Synthesis not chosen, over time it occurred more 'naturally' as societies continued to advance, with individuals continuing to upgrade themselves with technology(they already have been in the franchise). If Synthesis chosen, then they all got it that way. 

 

End Result: Reapers are gone, Geth are still alive, and organics are now upgraded with tech. The main issues dealt with in a paragraph's worth of words. You're telling me Bioware couldn't write a sufficient explanation for that in a dialogue or even a Codex entry? And if they can't, you expect them to write a sufficient explanation for intergalactic travel? 

[Mathias]

I presume you are claiming this important element is making it so that peoples choices matter?

 

How does canonizing an ending conflict with that, while throwing everything away, not? If you "canonize" and ending you see what happens in one outcome. People who didn't pick it see what they avoided. If you throw away everything, no body sees anything.

 

I've heard this argument you used trotted out a few times, but never once explained.

 

Alright well let's say for example that I played ME3 and I choose the Control ending. I watch the outcome and in the end I'm very satisfied with my choice. It feels like the right ending to me, and what my Shepard would do. Then a few years later the new game comes out and says "Nope. That's not what happened. What happened is that Shepard picked Destroy, and now the galaxy is this way."

It's easy to see why some people would be upset by that. Bioware already stated that there is no canon ending, so they'd be going back on their word if they canonized one. If they can't keep their word on that, what kind of precedent does that set for future installments?

 

Now if you set the game another galaxy, there's no retcon or change there. I can play Andromeda, knowing that my Shepard is still in the Milky Way, watching over and protecting the Galaxy as the new Catalyst, or whatever he became in the end.

[Malanek]

Alright well let's say for example that I played ME3 and I choose the Control ending. I watch the outcome and in the end I'm very satisfied with my choice. It feels like the right ending to me, and what my Shepard would do. Then a few years later the new game comes out and says "Nope. That's not what happened. What happened is that Shepard picked Destroy, and now the galaxy is this way."

It's easy to see why some people would be upset by that. Bioware already stated that there is no canon ending, so they'd be going back on their word if they canonized one. If they can't keep their word on that, what kind of precedent does that set for future installments?

 

Now if you set the game another galaxy, there's no retcon or change there. I can play Andromeda, knowing that my Shepard is still in the Milky Way, watching over and protecting the Galaxy as the new Catalyst, or whatever he became in the end.

It's not saying that at all. It's saying if Shepard destroyed the Reapers, then this is what happened.

 

And did you really only do a single playthrough?

[Drone223]

If it has lightsabers, star destroyers, and wookies, it's a Star Wars game. If it has asari, omni-tools, and biotics, it's a Mass Effect game. There's actually nothing to disagree about.

As ever, though, I encourage you to seek out your own personal truth.

There is nothing wrong about making observations based of what is seen so far and from what we've been given so far there's ME:A doesn't look like a ME game.

[Killroy]

I presume you are claiming this important element is making it so that peoples choices matter?
 
How does canonizing an ending conflict with that, while throwing everything away, not? If you "canonize" and ending you see what happens in one outcome. People who didn't pick it see what they avoided. If you throw away everything, no body sees anything.
 
I've heard this argument you used trotted out a few times, but never once explained.

I've seen this argument trotted out many times and it's nonsense. They didn't "throw away" anything by changing the setting. Everything from before Andromeda is still exactly the same as you left it, and Andromeda won't have any impact on that whatsoever.

[Malanek]

There is nothing wrong about making observations based of what is seen so far and from what we've been given so far there's ME:A doesn't look like a ME game.

Do you really think we have seen enough to judge that? I don't (we have only seen one very short trailer) but for what it's worth I am still pretty confident this will feel like a Mass Effect game.

[FKA_Servo]

Lies. You stink of La Li Lu Le Lo.

I think the most impressive thing about Kojima's dialogue might be that his actors are able to deliver it with a straight face.

Do you really think we have seen enough to judge that? I don't (we have only seen one very short trailer) but for what it's worth I am still pretty confident this will feel like a Mass Effect game.

The fact that the trailer is actually full of Mass Effect stuff should bolster that confidence.

[Killroy]

There is nothing wrong about making observations based of what is seen so far and from what we've been given so far there's ME:A doesn't look like a ME game.

 

Sure, when you ignore everything that challenges your preconceived notions, Andromeda doesn't look like a Mass Effect game. But in reality, where facts are not up for debate, it looks exactly like a Mass Effect game.

[Malanek]

I've seen this argument trotted out many times and it's nonsense. They didn't "throw away" anything by changing the setting. Everything from before Andromeda is still exactly the same as you left it, and Andromeda won't have any impact on that whatsoever.

So you're squabbling over the use of the words "threw away"? I presume you'll freely admit they will never again use any of the setting elements or storylines that they have umm abandoned, left behind, got rid of, moved away from? What word is acceptable?

[Drone223]

Do you really think we have seen enough to judge that? I don't (we have only seen one very short trailer) but for what it's worth I am still pretty confident this will feel like a Mass Effect game.

First impression do go a long way though.

[Malanek]

First impression do go a long way though.

I don't think so, not in the case of a purely cinematic video game trailer. What would peoples impression of "this is the new $hit" DA trailer have been? Certainly nothing like what we got.

[Killroy]

So you're squabbling over the use of the words "threw away"? I presume you'll freely admit they will never again use any of the setting elements that they have umm abandoned, left behind, got rid of, moved away from? What word is acceptable?

 

Setting elements? What are setting elements? And why does a change of setting mean they're leaving something behind? All the stuff from the trilogy is still there. We experienced it for three games. Why must we remain shackled to it? Why can't change be a positive thing? When I move house I don't opine for everything about the old house, when I clearly had cause to move. 

[Drone223]

I don't think so, not in the case of a purely cinematic video game trailer. What would peoples impression of "this is the new $hit" DA trailer have been? Certainly nothing like what we got.

That trailer was telling us what to expect so first impressions are valid for that trailer.

[Mathias]

The homogenized ending for each could be thus:

Reapers) If not destroyed, leave after galactic reconstruction is completed(due to possible reasons like indoctrination still affecting them, just more slowly or they see themselves as detrimental to advancement if there). If destroyed, their wreckage was used in the galactic reconstruction effort.

Synthetics) If Destroy was chosen, the Geth had a contingency plan which had many of them outside the galaxy in a place the Reapers wouldn't look(like how they had one between stars because organics wouldn't look there), sparing them from the Crucible. After the war, they came back. If Destroy wasn't chosen, they are still around.

Organics) If Synthesis not chosen, over time it occurred more 'naturally' as societies continued to advance, with individuals continuing to upgrade themselves with technology(they already have been in the franchise). If Synthesis chosen, then they all got it that way. 

 

• Why would the Reapers just up and leave? Especially if we're talking about the Control ending, because that contradicts Shepard becoming the guardian of the Milky Way. Then you've got the issue of Control Enders complaining "My Shepard wouldn't leave!"
• If the Geth come back, that contradicts what the Catalyst said about the Destroy ending, and now you're giving people even more reason to pick Destroy since people would then know for a fact that the Geth would live on. ALL Synthetic life being destroyed was the biggest consequence of Destroy. I know so many people who didn't choose Destroy, simply because they didn't want the Geth to die.
• In the Synthesis ending, EVERY organic lifeform becomes an Organic/Synthetic hybrid. Even plants and animals. How would they naturally become synthetic over time? Who would want to augment every plant and animal in the galaxy, and for what purpose? It makes no sense.

 

It won't work. No matter how you present it, it's bound to eventually collapse in on itself. It's way too much of a headache to try to sort out. It WILL take a degree of handwaving.