736 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

This is a more interesting question than the fanboy stuff we're doing in the rest of the thread. How would a reboot go over with people who aren't us?

The BSG reboot worked because a lot of people liked the original without respecting it at all. And maybe there's a constituency for a ME reboot along those lines. Hell, you could sell that to some of the fans too - if Iakus has been making his case for a reboot by attacking the OT as a failure which needs to be redone right rather than by trying to make up stuff about ME:A, he'd be getting someplace.

 

 

Sometimes the simple existence of a "reboot" kills interest for newbies. They figure that if it was good it wouldn't need to be rebooted.

[UpUpAway]

No it didn't, through the trilogy it clearly showed that human's are the only ones who take action against galactic scale threats while the other species do nothing. It was also human's that were the ones who united the galaxy against the reaper's and ultimately lead the war effort against them.

 

That's not how I interpreted it.  In ME2, regardless of whether there's a human council or the mixed council with 1 human member, the Reaper threat is brushed off and the blame for the ME1 attack is placed solely on the geth.  Only Cerberus (which is a terrorist human splinter group) is represented as doing anything; and as we all find out in ME3, their motives were rather sinister and certainly not about actually defeating the Reapers or protecting the colonies.

 

In ME3, the scenario is presented that each species wishes to protect/defend it's own planet first.  Humanity is asking them to basically abandon their own worlds in order to aid earth; and the other species simply refuse to do that.  This basically forces the humans to do something to help the other species defend their worlds first. 

 

This is not the same as the other species not doing anything towards the war effort.  The turians, for example, are portrayed as fighting such an intense war that they are losing entire divisions of soliders with every passing hour of fighting.  So, clearly the other species are doing something... just not the something that the humans needed to get done to save earth.  The human motive is not really to save the entire galaxy, but rather to convince the entire galaxy that to save earth is to also save their worlds - In Udina's words "help the human's, help yourselves." 

 

Ultimately, it is Udina's attempts to raise capital for the human cause that causes him to behave in a corrupt way... and brings about his downfall and necessitates Shepard or the VS shooting him.  Therefore, it's not humanity's great leadership that brings everyone together... it really just boils down to necessity... and Shepard just really avoiding having key representatives of those other races killed. 

 

Furthermore, Shepard spends most of ME3 fighting Cerberus, which, as stated previously, is a human terrorist group.  Therefore, it really should be the humans who take the brunt of the responsibility for eliminating the Cerberus threat.  The story is humancentric (told from a human point of view), so we don't necessarily see that the other races might also be fighting their own versions of Cerberus.  The Protheans certainly are described as having had an issue during the previous cycle with their own indoctrinated splinter groups working against their efforts.

[Iakus]

This is a more interesting question than the fanboy stuff we're doing in the rest of the thread. How would a reboot go over with people who aren't us?

The BSG reboot worked because a lot of people liked the original without respecting it at all. And maybe there's a constituency for a ME reboot along those lines. Hell, you could sell that to some of the fans too - if Iakus has been making his case for a reboot by attacking the entire OT as a failure which needs to be redone right rather than by trying to make up stuff about ME:A, he'd be getting someplace.

There is.  But any time someone pokes their head up to say something in favor of that, they get b*tched at that "the franchise isn't even a decade old" (like that means anything) and what a waste that would be.

[Sanunes]

There is.  But any time someone pokes their head up to say something in favor of that, they get b*tched at that "the franchise isn't even a decade old" (like that means anything) and what a waste that would be.

 

I think a lot of people are becoming tired of having old stories rehashed and that is what they think of when they hear reboot or even think of one.  Look at the reaction to Spider-Man: Homecoming, even though Disney has said they don't plan on telling the origin on Spider-Man people are still assuming that they are starting over and retelling the same story again.  Even people were talking about the wasted time about retelling the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman v Superman.  So in some regard even though they might be leaving the first three games behind we know we aren't replaying the story of Shepard versus the Reapers again with a reboot.  At least that is how I see it.

[Sanunes]

Depends. A lot of interest in the ME series was killed with ME3. A hard reboot could do wonders for the franchise or could hurt it drastically by effectively killing whatever chance people had of having some interest in it.

 

While I don't doubt people have lost interest because of what happened in Mass Effect 3, I am not sure how the "average gamer" really feels about it (or if there is even such a person).  If statistics are correct only a portion of the people that play video games finish a game they start and BIoWare has a higher then average completion rate.

[LPPrince]

While I don't doubt people have lost interest because of what happened in Mass Effect 3, I am not sure how the "average gamer" really feels about it (or if there is even such a person).  If statistics are correct only a portion of the people that play video games finish a game they start and BIoWare has a higher then average completion rate.

 

 

Aye, but the ME3 ending made news. It was a big deal, actually the biggest deal at the time. Bioware was torn a new bottom. Even gamers who never played the series heard of the ending fiasco and developed an opinion on it.

[Alanosborn1991]

Nah rebooting such an emotional Rpg where the stakes are survival and extinction wouldnt be for the best. But when your scope includes galaxys, planets and different universes Id say it gives you room.

[Drone223]

That's not how I interpreted it.  In ME2, regardless of whether there's a human council or the mixed council with 1 human member, the Reaper threat is brushed off and the blame for the ME1 attack is placed solely on the geth.  Only Cerberus (which is a terrorist human splinter group) is represented as doing anything; and as we all find out in ME3, their motives were rather sinister and certainly not about actually defeating the Reapers or protecting the colonies.

 

Thanks to the citadel DLC it turn's out that they knew sovereign was really a reaper and that they decided to bury their heads in the sand with regards to their existence. Even if Cerberus's action against the reaper's weren't for the sake of protecting colonies at least they acknowledge their existence.

 

 

In ME3, the scenario is presented that each species wishes to protect/defend it's own planet first.  Humanity is asking them to basically abandon their own worlds in order to aid earth; and the other species simply refuse to do that.  This basically forces the humans to do something to help the other species defend their worlds first. 

"They'll regret that soon the time for unity is now." Not to mention it was humanity who actively trying to build the only thing in the whole galaxy that is capable of stopping the reaper's from the get go.

 

This is not the same as the other species not doing anything towards the war effort.  The turians, for example, are portrayed as fighting such an intense war that they are losing entire divisions of soliders with every passing hour of fighting.  So, clearly the other species are doing something... just not the something that the humans needed to get done to save earth.  The human motive is not really to save the entire galaxy, but rather to convince the entire galaxy that to save earth is to also save their worlds - In Udina's words "help the human's, help yourselves." 

What the turian's were doing wasn't going to be enough to stop the reaper's, the crucible that the Alliance was building is the only thing that can stop the reaper's and the game goes to great lengths to explain this to the player and the alliance alone can't build it.

 

Ultimately, it is Udina's attempts to raise capital for the human cause that causes him to behave in a corrupt way... and brings about his downfall and necessitates Shepard or the VS shooting him.  Therefore, it's not humanity's great leadership that brings everyone together... it really just boils down to necessity... and Shepard just really avoiding having key representatives of those other races killed. 

Had other species had join in on the crucible earlier Udina might not have attempted the coup. The coup was a wake up call that the war is coming to them one way or the other and that the time for inaction had long pasts since the reaper's arrived. Also the crucible was ultimately an Alliance project since it was overseen by Admiral Hackett so its not far fetched to say human's were indeed spare heading the war against the reaper's.
 

Furthermore, Shepard spends most of ME3 fighting Cerberus, which, as stated previously, is a human terrorist group.  Therefore, it really should be the humans who take the brunt of the responsibility for eliminating the Cerberus threat.  The story is humancentric (told from a human point of view), so we don't necessarily see that the other races might also be fighting their own versions of Cerberus.  The Protheans certainly are described as having had an issue during the previous cycle with their own indoctrinated splinter groups working against their efforts.

 

 

Fighting Cerberus didn't stop the alliance from building the crucible from the get-go. I'm sure the other species could've spared one or two small team's to lend a hand with the crucible from the get-go as well.

[UpUpAway]

Thanks to the citadel DLC it turn's out that they knew sovereign was really a reaper and that they decided to bury their heads in the sand with regards to their existence. Even if Cerberus's action against the reaper's weren't for the sake of protecting colonies at least they acknowledge their existence.

 

 

"They'll regret that soon the time for unity is now." Not to mention it was humanity who actively trying to build the only thing in the whole galaxy that is capable of stopping the reaper's from the get go.

 

What the turian's were doing wasn't going to be enough to stop the reaper's, the crucible that the Alliance was building is the only thing that can stop the reaper's and the game goes to great lengths to explain this to the player and the alliance alone can't build it.

 

Had other species had join in on the crucible earlier Udina might not have attempted the coup. The coup was a wake up call that the war is coming to them one way or the other and that the time for inaction had long pasts since the reaper's arrived. Also the crucible was ultimately an Alliance project since it was overseen by Admiral Hackett so its not far fetched to say human's were indeed spare heading the war against the reaper's.
 

Fighting Cerberus didn't stop the alliance from building the crucible from the get-go. I'm sure the other species could've spared one or two small team's to lend a hand with the crucible from the get-go as well.

 

Yes, they knew Sovereign was a Reaper but STILL blamed the war on the geth REGARDLESS of whether or not you have an ALL HUMAN Council in ME2.  That is, the ALL HUMAN council is no better than the mixed one at responding to the Reaper threat.  Humans are, therefore, not represented as being more noble than the other species at that point in the game.

 

The "they'll regret" line is nothing more than a common, threatening platitude uttered by people who want to bend another party to their will.  It does not recognize the needs of the other party being threatened and does not indicate "nobility" (i.e. concern for the overall galaxy in this case).  The primary motivation for the humans doing anything is still represented as being "saving earth" rather than "saving the galaxy."  Saving the galaxy is represented as being viewed by the humans in the story as a "collateral benefit" of saving earth.  If the humans could have saved earth while sweeping the rest of the species under the bus... they would have clearly done it.

 

The fact presented is that the "Alliance alone" cannot finish building the crucible nor can they even discern what the catalyst might be on their own (that ultimately takes cooperation from the Asari).  You actually contradict your own statement in your last paragraph as well by criticizing the other races for not sending in small teams sooner.  Also, you can start to gain some alien assets towards building the crucible very early in the game... so, the appearance of aliens sending in a "few small teams" can actually happen early in the game... depending on what priorities the player puts on various missions.  For example, in first visit to the Citadel Embassies even before meeting with the council, one can overhear a volus actually say "Nevertheless, we are committed to helping both the Turian Empire and the Human Alliance."

 

Finally, lets talk about Udina - The suspicious placed on him by the Salarians are based, according to Bailey, on Udina accumulating large sums of capital... which is something Udina says he intended to do to help fund the crucible in one of the very first conversations in ME3 that Shepard can have with him RIGHT AFTER the very first meeting with the Council... so, Udina is, at the very least, rather quick to stop trying to convince the council to help and resort to Cerberus to raise funds for the Crucible, isn't he?... so, it's doubtful that his motivation is such noble desperation as you describe.

 

My point is that the "humanity as the great savior of the galaxy" is not as strongly presented nor is it as one-sided as was stated.  The opposing view is also present and that is what the basis for a dichomotous RPG is - the ability to interpret what's being presented from both sides of the coin.  Was it done to perfectness in the ME Trilogy... no, I would agree that there is still some imbalance.  Was it done "horribly" - no, it was done rather well, IMO.

[In Exile]

No it didn't, through the trilogy it clearly showed that human's are the only ones who take action against galactic scale threats while the other species do nothing. It was also human's that were the ones who united the galaxy against the reaper's and ultimately lead the war effort against them.

No, they weren't. In ME2, "humans" were ineffective. An insane racist billionaire took actions against the reapers, but his efforts were also a series of comical failures unless Commander Shepard was involved. It's not about who took action - it's about the long-winded speeches about the natural position of humanity as the dominant and ruling force of the galaxy. In ME1, this is a fact of the setting as illustrated by the ending. In ME2, this is the personal belief of a billionaire facist.

In ME3, humanity is curbstomped by the reapers, depending on your previous choices the Council may well tell you to go **** yourself, and humanity is generally the villain. The Council races hold out far better against the reapers - including the turians.

You're confusing that the game focuses on humanity with the fact that ME1 treated humanity as the all powerful ubermensch - the most innovative, capable species in the galaxy. This goes away in ME2 and ME3.

[In Exile]

No it didn't, through the trilogy it clearly showed that human's are the only ones who take action against galactic scale threats while the other species do nothing. It was also human's that were the ones who united the galaxy against the reaper's and ultimately lead the war effort against them.

Again, it doesn't matter who takes action. Humanity achieves jack all without Shepard. And in ME2 humanity does nothing, as the Alliance does nothing. A racist facist does something, and that something is to ask Shepard nicely to save everyone. In ME3 the whole galaxy is fragmented and the whole point of the game is for Shepard to go around nicely and ask people to help humanity in return for doing them favours.

In ME1, humanity has made the most political and economic and military gains in the history of the galaxy, they've revolutionized galatic technology a few times over (including with the Normandy, their military tactics such as space aircraft carriers, medi-gel), they've achieved feats in decades that the other races haven't achieved in centuries...

You're confusing the fact that Shepard is a human and the focal point of the story with the slobbering over humanity as a whole.

[UpUpAway]

There is.  But any time someone pokes their head up to say something in favor of that, they get b*tched at that "the franchise isn't even a decade old" (like that means anything) and what a waste that would be.

 

The story could (and perhaps should eventually) be retold from, say, a Turian POV... or a Krogan, etc.... but it would still eventually come up against the same ending issues unless the story completely broke with the original story at that point (which, I'm sure, is what you're actually hoping would happen; but even that would not probably satisfy you).  However, other people would consider it a slap in the face for Bioware to "canonize" an ending they themselves did not or could not select; even if that "canonization took place through a reboot story from a different POV.  It's for that very reason (that they would come up against the ending issue again) that a reboot probably won't happen for some time (precisely to allow the "hurt" some people experienced to dissipate).  At this point, there is literally nothing Bioware can do to undo the past - ME3 is what it was.

 

That ME:A is not a reboot, but more of a spin off, doesn't mean that it should be "pre-judged" as being a bad game that would not be able to preserve any connection with the ME Trilogy.  As many of us have continually pointed out - there are many ways such a franchise connection could be made and we know so little about ME:A at this point that we're simply not in a position to condemn the game for failing to make a connection.  The "failure" you keep asserting simply hasn't happened yet.

[themikefest]

The fact presented is that the "Alliance alone" cannot finish building the crucible nor can they even discern what the catalyst might be on their own (that ultimately takes cooperation from the Asari). 

Cooperation from the asari? Hahahahahaha. No. The reapers forced their hand by knocking on their backdoor leaving the asari with no choice except to reveal they have something that could help. They sure as heck weren't willing to cooperate willingly.

[Iakus]

I think a lot of people are becoming tired of having old stories rehashed and that is what they think of when they hear reboot or even think of one.  Look at the reaction to Spider-Man: Homecoming, even though Disney has said they don't plan on telling the origin on Spider-Man people are still assuming that they are starting over and retelling the same story again.  Even people were talking about the wasted time about retelling the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman v Superman.  So in some regard even though they might be leaving the first three games behind we know we aren't replaying the story of Shepard versus the Reapers again with a reboot.  At least that is how I see it.

Who says the story has to be rehashed in a reboot?  Just tell a different story.

[Killroy]

Who says the story has to be rehashed in a reboot?  Just tell a different story.

This. Why doesn't anyone know the difference between a reboot and a remake? 

[RoboticWater]

Who says the story has to be rehashed in a reboot?  Just tell a different story.

Then how's that better than going to Andromeda?

 

If BioWare aren't going to rehash the Reaper/Genophage/Geth plots, then the only thing the reboot has over Andromeda is that it completely invalidates the OT. That's not a positive in my eyes, nor, I'd wager, the eyes of most of the fanbase.

[UpUpAway]

Cooperation from the asari? Hahahahahaha. No. The reapers forced their hand by knocking on their backdoor leaving the asari with no choice except to reveal they have something that could help. They sure as heck weren't willing to cooperate willingly.

 

I did not specify that they cooperated willingly, did I?  Nobody is ME3 is doing anything very willingly... including the humans.  The Reapers are forcing everyone's hands.

[UpUpAway]

Who says the story has to be rehashed in a reboot?  Just tell a different story.

 

This. Why doesn't anyone know the difference between a reboot and a remake? 

 

Even if a different story were told in the same time frame... it still eventually butts up against the original endings; but the endings are not the only issue.  On the other end, if it is to have any references to Shepard, they have to be so generic so as not to conflict with the variety of Shepard's beginning (male or female, earthborn, spacer, colony kid, etc.).  Then, he/she could not be even referred to a "nice" or a "total dick" because he/she could have been either.  Can't even really say whether or not Shepard was a Spectre or whether or not there was a mixed or human council........ "too many variables, too many variables."  I'm off the view that it's actually more conducive to maintaining more cursory connections to the ME Trilogy by moving it away from the Milky Way than by keeping it in the Milky Way.  The references overall can be more "flexible" and, therefore, be "head canoned" by individual players into representing more of what the individual player selected during their ME Trilogy playthrough(s).

[themikefest]

I did not specify that they cooperated willingly, did I?  Nobody is ME3 is doing anything very willingly... including the humans.  The Reapers are forcing everyone's hands.

The humans are doing stuff willingly. They're building something that will do something and know they will need the other species to help. So they help the turians get the Krogan on Palaven while getting the Krogan cured or not. The salarians helped when I sabotaged the cure. Shepard did that willingly. 

[Killroy]

Even if a different story were told in the same time frame... it still eventually butts up against the original endings; but the endings are not the only issue.  On the other end, if it is to have any references to Shepard, they have to be so generic so as not to conflict with the variety of Shepard's beginning (male or female, earthborn, spacer, colony kid, etc.).  Then, he/she could not be even referred to a "nice" or a "total dick" because he/she could have been either.  Can't even really say whether or not Shepard was a Spectre or whether or not there was a mixed or human council........ "too many variables, too many variables."  I'm off the view that it's actually more conducive to maintaining more cursory connections to the ME Trilogy by moving it away from the Milky Way than by keeping it in the Milky Way.  The references overall can be more "flexible" and, therefore, be "head canoned" by individual players into representing more of what the individual player selected during their ME Trilogy playthrough(s).

 

So you just have no idea what a reboot is?

[UpUpAway]

The humans are doing stuff willingly. They're building something that will do something and know they will need the other species to help. So they help the turians get the Krogan on Palaven while getting the Krogan cured or not. The salarians helped when I sabotaged the cure. Shepard did that willingly. 

 

That's not willingly to "save the entire galaxy"... that's out of necessity to "save earth."

[Scarlett]

I love ME the way it is, I don't need a reboot.

I prefer to see BioWare putting their efforts on MEA to become a trilogy and to work on their new IP.

[UpUpAway]

So you just have no idea what a reboot is?

 

You have a few options - pick one and you tell me:

 

1) Retell Shepard's story in his time frame from basically the same POV (which is what I would consider to be a remake... although if the game play were changed significantly, it could be a reboot).

 

2) Retell Shepard's story in his time frame from someone else's POV (this is what I would call a reboot... along with #3 below)

 

3) Tell a collateral story (i.e. same time frame) within the same setting that Shepard's story takes place (potentially a reboot... but also potentially a spin off, depending on how minor the original story becomes to the collateral story being told)

 

4) Tell a collateral story in a different location (which is potentially what ME:A already will be and what I might be inclined to call a soft reboot)

 

5) Tell a story in a different time frame in the same location (which would make it more a prequel or sequel, wouldn't it?)

 

6) Tell a different story in a different time frame in a different location using cursory references to the Original story (which is most likely what ME:A will turn out to be)

 

Any story told within Shepard's time frame involving the Citadel still runs up against the issue of their being the possibility of the player's of ME Trilogy having selected to either save or kill the council... which really changes (for the time frame of ME2) the government of the "space"... so you'd have to leave out references to government in order to "respect" the choices made by ME Trilogy players.  It's an issue... doesn't mean it couldn't be done... just means it would likely still ****** off a number of people.

 

A "reboot" is really just telling a story afresh and according to urban dictionary is this:  "To start anew with fresh ideas in a way that is consistent with the principals of the original, but not unnecessarily constrained by what has taken place before."  The reality is though that people draw the line of "consistency with the principals of the original" in different places.

[Killroy]

I love ME the way it is, I don't need a reboot.

I prefer to see BioWare putting their efforts on MEA to become a trilogy and to work on their new IP.

 

Why does it need to be a trilogy? BioWare has clearly shown that they can't plan out a trilogy properly. They had no idea what ME2 was going to be before they started developing it, and they didn't even have an ending for ME3 until the last minute.

[themikefest]

That's not willingly to "save the entire galaxy"... that's out of necessity to "save earth."

So its only willingly to save the galaxy?  Shepard is still willingly to help the other species.