183 réponses à ce sujet

[lucky5hot]

I see absolutely no problem with Bioware continuing the Mass Effect story even right from where ME3 left off.  Shep did not get a chance to actually activate the crucible... we watched him/her die and ascend on a lit platform (classic Christian image... going through the Pearly Gates and Final Judgment).  He/she never knew what actually happened to the galaxy and neither do we.  In the end, there is only one fate for the galaxy in the Mass Effect tale... and that is the one Bioware did not write into the ending of ME3.  Which ending you selected matters only to you... what form of government do you think works best - dictatorships, democracies, or military anarchies?  They all have flaws.

 

Whether they will now write an ending and describe what actually happened to the MW galaxy and continue on the story at a point in time after those events or whether they will morph us back to a time before those events occurred is their artistic privilege.  They are telling a completely new story in ME:A and they have made that abundantly clear.

 

As for telling us they weren't going to continue the franchise and then deciding to bring out ME:A... well, any company has a right to change its mind.

 

I have wild theories about this, but I personally think they altered the originally intended ending as a way to CURB consumer backlash. We will never know whether it actually reduced or increased backlash, because its something so hard to theorize about. When I say this, I mean that Drew Karpyshyn's ending was the originally planned ending.

 

http://www.eurogamer...-trilogy-ending

 

Essentially, my theory boils down to how dissapointing it would be if after 3 games, the entire trilogy doesnt even 'wrap up'. As in, the entire cliff-hanger just ends on a knife's edge and a new cliff-hanger and a new trilogy. I imagine that wouldn't have gone down well.

 

I think Bioware decided that it needed to end somehow better than this original concept, and this was the best they could come up with. As far as alternatives go, I have the unpopular opinion of not even thinking it was that bad with extended cut. However, I definitely prefer the original concept.

 

-----------

 

[I'm sure you know upup, this is for other people reading].. In case you dont know, what i assume was the original concept is that at the end of ME, you learn that the big bang has a time limit until it reverses in something that scientists IRL call 'the big crunch'. This is where in a short period of time the entire universe will shrink into nothing again. The reapers were harvesting cycles as a way to research Element Zero and trying to find a way to prevent/stop this, and supposedly this cycle might have been able to fix it, or was perhaps one of the last chances to do so before the end of the whole universe.

 

So as Shepard, you could choose to either harvest this cycle, and kill the galaxy, but potentially save the whole universe... Or save the galaxy, and effectively doom the entire universe. Perhaps the universe would be on a timer where its going to die in one more cycle of 50,000 years should this not be solved.

 

So the problem with this ending, is IMO it ends on a massive cliff-hanger. Because you would assume that the canon ending is SAVE, and therefore, the universe is now doomed, with no way to save it, (after a billion year old computer with god like intelligence was unable to save it, what chance to you have).. and you need to play more games to resolve the threat entirely.

 

I think at this stage, they had planned to go to Andromeda after this ending too, because if the answer wasnt in Milky Way, it would potentially be elsewhere. They still have 50,000 years to solve the problem, so thats enough for 3-6 more games to do so. However, the problem is is like i said... the ending was NOT resolved, it was a trilogy ending in a cliff hanger.

 

They THOUGHT resolving the game like this would make people more happy than a cliffhanger

 

Ironically, knowing what we know about ME3's reception, I think this ending probably would have been better received. Anyway, thats my theory/2 cents on the ending controversy and why it continues the way it does.

[Revan Reborn]

"Mass Effect had ended-- The Mass Effect Trilogy had ended, sorry..."

Actual Quote - Mac Walters

That means absolutely nothing to me, especially since you didn't even bother to cite it. For all I know, you just made the "Actual Quote" up. Even if it were true, I already showed you evidence that Casey Hudson made it clear the franchise wasn't ending with the original trilogy. A random quote from the franchise's most controversial writer really means nothing compared to the actual game director who created the franchise.

 

To be honest the best indication that they never intended a sequel to ME3 is ME3 itself - the divergence and complete and utter changes to the galaxy in the original endings make that quite obvious.

There is an inherent assumption here that needs to be noted. BioWare never claimed ME3 was the end of Mass Effect. What they did say is that it was the end of Shepard's story. They never said they would never do another Mass Effect game and I already proved that point with multiple links. Honestly, are people really that foolish to believe BioWare was just going to push their most successful IP to the side after three games? You folks clearly don't understand how business and franchise building works.

[RenegadeXV]

There is an inherent assumption here that needs to be noted. BioWare never claimed ME3 was the end of Mass Effect. What they did say is that it was the end of Shepard's story. They never said they would never do another Mass Effect game and I already proved that point with multiple links. Honestly, are people really that foolish to believe BioWare was just going to push their most successful IP to the side after three games? You folks clearly don't understand how business and franchise building works.

 

Just to back this up, here is a quote from an interview with Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka dated 27/06/2011:

 

Do you see BioWare returning to the Mass Effect universe once you've completed the trilogy?

 

Ray Muzyka: We want to make sure it's awesome. [Mass Effect 3] is our first focus. Beyond that, we do have a desire to continue the Mass Effect franchise, and we're working on the details, figuring out what the fans want, figuring out the right way.

 

 

Source: Obsessed With Imagination: BioWare's Co-Founders On Storytelling And The Future Of Mass Effect

 

There's also Mike Gamble saying this, a few days before ME3's release in 2012:

 

 

"...it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep your ME3 saves...Obviously I can't say anything, but it wouldn't be a bad idea."

 

Source: Mass Effect Producer Suggests Keeping Your Mass Effect 3 Save Games

[LineHolder]

[I'm sure you know upup, this is for other people reading].. In case you dont know, what i assume was the original concept is that at the end of ME, you learn that the big bang has a time limit until it reverses in something that scientists IRL call 'the big crunch'. This is where in a short period of time the entire universe will shrink into nothing again. The reapers were harvesting cycles as a way to research Element Zero and trying to find a way to prevent/stop this, and supposedly this cycle might have been able to fix it, or was perhaps one of the last chances to do so before the end of the whole universe.

 

So as Shepard, you could choose to either harvest this cycle, and kill the galaxy, but potentially save the whole universe... Or save the galaxy, and effectively doom the entire universe. Perhaps the universe would be on a timer where its going to die in one more cycle of 50,000 years should this not be solved.

 

So the problem with this ending, is IMO it ends on a massive cliff-hanger. Because you would assume that the canon ending is SAVE, and therefore, the universe is now doomed, with no way to save it, (after a billion year old computer with god like intelligence was unable to save it, what chance to you have).. and you need to play more games to resolve the threat entirely.

 

I think at this stage, they had planned to go to Andromeda after this ending too, because if the answer wasnt in Milky Way, it would potentially be elsewhere. They still have 50,000 years to solve the problem, so thats enough for 3-6 more games to do so. However, the problem is is like i said... the ending was NOT resolved, it was a trilogy ending in a cliff hanger.

 

They THOUGHT resolving the game like this would make people more happy than a cliffhanger

 

Ironically, knowing what we know about ME3's reception, I think this ending probably would have been better received. Anyway, thats my theory/2 cents on the ending controversy and why it continues the way it does.

 

 

This is dumb. Start out by trying to save humanity, then the galaxy, the the species of the galaxy, then the entire Universe.

 

What is this? Dragonball Z?

[Scarlett]

Currently playing DAI and I'm lost in the middle of all the massives sidequests to do. I decided to stop my sidequests yesterday and to do a story chapter related  and was like "eur... wait.... what happened on the main plot already ... ?"

100 planets, it could be fun because I love to travel in space and find new civilisations BUT I'm just scared it will be like DAI and that the sidequests will dilute the main story at a point you will lose the thread. Because really, they can't do a side story related to the main one for each planet you can explore, right ? It would be awesome, but it's an utopia, I think.

[Iakus]

 

There is an inherent assumption here that needs to be noted. BioWare never claimed ME3 was the end of Mass Effect. What they did say is that it was the end of Shepard's story. They never said they would never do another Mass Effect game and I already proved that point with multiple links. Honestly, are people really that foolish to believe BioWare was just going to push their most successful IP to the side after three games? You folks clearly don't understand how business and franchise building works.

ME3 can end with all synthetic life genocided, the Reapers ruling the galaxy under a Paragon or Renegade Shepalyst) , or everyone shiny, happy, and green.

 

It can end with the relay network totally blown up, or not.  Earth fine, damaged, or completely scoured of life.  The Citadel can be blown up or not.  The quarians, geth, krogan, or any combination of them can be extinct.  In addition, the krogan can be looking for payback, or busy rebuilding.  

 

Unless Bioware was looking to canonize a set of events, it's quite clear they had not intended to continue the series beyond ME3.  Too much divergence.  Too much baggage.

 

This is not to say canonizing was impossible.  But given the highly radioactive nature of the endings, I think that would have been taken off the table quite early if it was ever considered.  

 

I also seem to recall Bioware putting out feelers asking if players wanted a prequel or sequel.  Indicating they had no clue where to go next. 

 

Edit:  And all this doesn't even take into account the "trolol Refuse" ending

[goishen]

Currently playing DAI and I'm lost in the middle of all the massives sidequests to do. I decided to stop my sidequests yesterday and to do a story chapter related  and was like "eur... wait.... what happened on the main plot already ... ?"

100 planets, it could be fun because I love to travel in space and find new civilisations BUT I'm just scared it will be like DAI and that the sidequests will dilute the main story at a point you will lose the thread. Because really, they can't do a side story related to the main one for each planet you can explore, right ? It would be awesome, but it's an utopia, I think.

 

 

This is one danger that I fear.   In DAI it was too easy to get sidetracked and then go back and do a main story mission just being totally lost.  In MEA, at least I'm hoping (or rather kind'a hoping), that it'll be laid back enough to not even worry about it.  The other part of that is not enough story and too much filler.  In other words, too laid back and there wasn't enough happening.

 

It's a line, I'll say.

[Kabooooom]

Currently playing DAI and I'm lost in the middle of all the massives sidequests to do. I decided to stop my sidequests yesterday and to do a story chapter related and was like "eur... wait.... what happened on the main plot already ... ?"
100 planets, it could be fun because I love to travel in space and find new civilisations BUT I'm just scared it will be like DAI and that the sidequests will dilute the main story at a point you will lose the thread. Because really, they can't do a side story related to the main one for each planet you can explore, right ? It would be awesome, but it's an utopia, I think.

If they are smart, they could have anticipated and circumvented this problem by making exploration a necessary way to advance the plot. For example, in ME1 there was a main plot and a ton of optional side planets. Since the ark is presumably going to Andromeda for exploration and colonization, making vital plot advancing moments somehow rely upon prior nonlinear exploration of a handful of worlds would solve this problem.

However, solving the issue that way would make exploration mandatory, which would ****** some people off. But you can't please everyone.

[Scarlett]

If they are smart, they could have anticipated and circumvented this problem by making exploration a necessary way to advance the plot. For example, in ME1 there was a main plot and a ton of optional side planets. Since the ark is presumably going to Andromeda for exploration and colonization, making vital plot advancing moments somehow rely upon prior nonlinear exploration of a handful of worlds would solve this problem.

However, solving the issue that way would make exploration mandatory, which would ****** some people off. But you can't please everyone.

I'm not fond of the idea but yes, it can happen and certainly will because of colonization. DAI have that kind of system, you need points to unclok zones on the map, points that you earn by making sidequests. Well, I won't complain too much about it, it's easy to earn those points but you have to spend some time on it.

I always prefer when you can follow the story without restrictions and then do sidequests when/if you want (ME1 is great for that and I did everything because I was so fond of the game even if the planets were repetitives). So people can have the choice about how they want to play. I think it's also better when you replay the game, not to be forced to re-do everything you've already done, if you don't want to (especially if some quests really suck and are totally uninteresting... ).

I really hope they will manage something with a good balance between the story and the sidequests, that's all I ask.