[PC/PS3/360/WiiU] Mass Effect 3

[Snuffle]

Unless I'm getting my timeline mixed up (pretty sure I am), then going as far back as to the First Contact War should also involve the Rachni Wars. Now that's a race I want to learn more about, they still feel like a mystery to me.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Keroko

The Quarrian/Geth war has been expanded on enough in my opinion. I'd rather see more on the First Contact War.

First Contact War seems really boring. Only 1200-1500 lives were lost (on both sides) during the entire 3 month war, and while the conflict shaped humanities attitude toward the galaxy, there really isn't enough for a full game unto itself. Now a 6-8 hour DLC...

Originally Posted by Snuffle

Unless I'm getting my timeline mixed up (pretty sure I am), then going as far back as to the First Contact War should also involve the Rachni Wars. Now that's a race I want to learn more about, they still feel like a mystery to me.

First Contact War was only 30-40 years previous to the ME storyline. The Rachni Wars were 2000 years previous to ME1 (the Krogan Rebellion was 1300 years previous to ME1).

That being said, I wouldn't mind a full game just set during the Rachni Wars (this would be a good way of expanding the Leviathan storyline as well). You could even do a Dragon Age: Origins style game were you play a storyline based on each race (Salarian, Asari, Turian and Krogan) and their actions will influence the end result for the Mass Effect universe. (If they really wanted to make a fun experience, the Krogan story could be told as a FPS, the Turian story as a standard ME-style gameplay, and the Salarian and or Asari as a full RPG; that would be a fun and interesting way of expanding the universe plus pleasing all Biowares fans...)

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Keroko

The Quarrian/Geth war has been expanded on enough in my opinion. I'd rather see more on the First Contact War.

Worse than that. The writers have decided that the Geth are evil and need to die. There is no point continue with the conflict when Bioware has picked a side to support.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

They had so much potential for a post-reaper war and they threw it out the door.

Look at Halo, yes the covenant and the flood were defeated but it was a bitter victory and despite getting all of this new tech they aren't exactly in a golden age.

How could they have screwed that up so bad?

They could've made a Mass Effect 4 that takes place decades after the war (when the relays were rebuilt) and have a new character go around as an explorer and dealing with the repurcussions that Shepard made in ME3. IE. Geth and Quarians working together but at the same time dealing with extremists factions within that wants to exterminate each other...Krogan empire rebuilding or gearing up for a new war...Rachnii.....sooooo much potential there.

Dunno, Blizzard is a good example of it going right. They have a decent record of dragging out development times and still ending up with good games.

That's because Blizzard has a cash cow that can provide them with enough funds to do whatever they want for however long they want.

Valve too...with their damn hats.

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Worse than that. The writers have decided that the Geth are evil and need to die. There is no point continue with the conflict when Bioware has picked a side to support.

Good grief. I know I have a strong dislike for the mass effect endings, but yours takes the cake. Yet, is it really necessary to spout such outright lies?Yes, there is one ending in which the Geth die. One. But that's because they're synthetic and the boom kills synthetics, not because "Bioware has decided the geth and evil." The entirety of Rannoch shows you are wrong.

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

They had so much potential for a post-reaper war and they threw it out the door.

Look at Halo, yes the covenant and the flood were defeated but it was a bitter victory and despite getting all of this new tech they aren't exactly in a golden age.

How could they have screwed that up so bad?

They could've made a Mass Effect 4 that takes place decades after the war (when the relays were rebuilt) and have a new character go around as an explorer and dealing with the repurcussions that Shepard made in ME3. IE. Geth and Quarians working together but at the same time dealing with extremists factions within that wants to exterminate each other...Krogan empire rebuilding or gearing up for a new war...Rachnii.....sooooo much potential there.

I'm... not quite sure what you're talking about here. So far we know next to nothing about the new mass effect game.

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

That's because Blizzard has a cash cow that can provide them with enough funds to do whatever they want for however long they want.

They've been doing that long before WoW.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Keroko

I'm... not quite sure what you're talking about here. So far we know next to nothing about the new mass effect game.

I'm saying is at the moment it seems they may do a prequel. If not then they don't.

They've been doing that long before WoW.

In all fairness they've been releasing at least one game(whatever it is) a year in the 90's which ensures that they'd always have funds coming in continuously. At this point they can take their time.

However taking your time can lead to fiascos like Duke Nukem forever.

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

I'm saying is at the moment it seems they may do a prequel. If not then they don't.

I think a prequel is the best thing they can do at this point.

I know we have whined a lot about how little impact the endings of ME3 had, but when it comes to a sequel that's rather hard to quantify. Think about it for a minute, you have either an ending in which the reapers and all synthetics are dead, an ending where the entire galaxy is being watched over by Shepard controlled reapers, or an ending in which the entire galaxy is some sort of organic/syntetic hybrid. There is absolutely no way you can make a sequel and still say all endings are canon. If you make a sequel, you have to choose one ending and say "this is the canon one, all others are non-canon." The endings have just too much of a major impact to ignore.

Quite ironic, really.

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

In all fairness they've been releasing at least one game(whatever it is) a year in the 90's which ensures that they'd always have funds coming in continuously. At this point they can take their time.

However taking your time can lead to fiascos like Duke Nukem forever.

Aye, Duke Nukem is an example of taking your time going wrong. That's why I brought Blizzard up as an example of a company doing it right.

[creb]

Originally Posted by Keroko

Aye, Duke Nukem is an example of taking your time going wrong. That's why I brought Blizzard up as an example of a company doing it right.

If you thought Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 were great games, then I'd agree. There was a time when I held Blizzard up to that standard (I think I spent a year and a half as a beta tester for WoW...lol), but I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment today.

I will agree, however, that Blizzard is given a much longer leash than virtually any other game developer in today's world of pumping out games and their sequels in a yearly cycle. I just don't think they've spent all that time all that well, like they used to. Opinions, you know?

A Mass Effect 4 game could be set at any time. Presumably, it won't involve Shepard, and if they're thinking long term appeal at all, they'll likely try to make a new protagonist that people will hopefully follow, ala Dragon Age 2. Due to the insanity of the very vocal Mass Effect fanbase, I can't for one second believe there's any hope of pulling that off successfully, again, ala Dragon Age 2.

Edit: Oh, wait. Here's an Escapist article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...d-or-Shepard-2

In fact, I'd say the safe money is on a story that is completely phoned in, with the brunt of the development team's focus on multiplayer, especially with so much of what was pre-EA Bioware when this franchise was started seems to be gone now. But, I've been told I can be overly cynical.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Keroko

The endings have just too much of a major impact to ignore.

In the Elder Scrolls universe, it is know as the "Miracle of Peace" or the "Warp in the West". Since there are 6 distinct endings to Elder Scrolls II, the writers for the sequel had to come up with a way to make all the endings canon, so they explained the paradox away with gods and time magic. Bioware could do the same thing here (the amount of power from the Crucible created temporal disturbances that resulted in parallel realities, or at least actions taking place that directly contradicted each other - Consequently, part of the Reapers were destroyed, others were synthesized, and still others were controlled), especially since certain endings have similar effects.

Then again, they could just pick a "canon" ending (probably Synthesis since they do not want to piss off the Geth/EDI lovers ).

[Kyral]

Originally Posted by james0246

the writers for the sequel had to come up with a way to make all the endings canon,

Deus Ex 2 also did it... I thought it was alright but for others it was just plain fail.

And seeing how many compared the endings of ME3 with the Deus Ex ones... and don't want to think about the fan reactions right now... *shudder*

[Snuffle]

Originally Posted by creb

Edit: Oh, wait. Here's an Escapist article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...d-or-Shepard-2

I find this part of the article particularly interesting:

The decision to make the new protagonist not even "a soldier in the universe" is an interesting one, given the military focus of the Mass Effect trilogy.

This can actually mean anything. We had Mordin, Grunt (in ME2), Lisara, and several others that are not military soldiers, just people with their own occupation or situation. Exploring Mass Effect 4 as a scientist or an archaeologist could be interesting, but I'm afraid of how much exploration (as an archaeologist) versus action there would be.

[Rising Dragon]

Originally Posted by james0246

In the Elder Scrolls universe, it is know as the "Miracle of Peace" or the "Warp in the West". Since there are 6 distinct endings to Elder Scrolls II, the writers for the sequel had to come up with a way to make all the endings canon, so they explained the paradox away with gods and time magic. Bioware could do the same thing here (the amount of power from the Crucible created temporal disturbances that resulted in parallel realities, or at least actions taking place that directly contradicted each other - Consequently, part of the Reapers were destroyed, others were synthesized, and still others were controlled), especially since certain endings have similar effects.

Then again, they could just pick a "canon" ending (probably Synthesis since they do not want to piss off the Geth/EDI lovers ).

However, the Dragon Break incidents in The Elder Scrolls can work because, like you said, it was magic. As much as Mass Effect tries to explain away its "magic" through pseudoscience and technobabble, it can't really get away with trying to perform the same thing.

And I don't think anyone really wants an ending where all synthetics were destroyed, the Reapers are under Shepard's control, and everyone else is techno-organic anyway.

Originally Posted by Snuffle

I find this part of the article particularly interesting:

The decision to make the new protagonist not even "a soldier in the universe" is an interesting one, given the military focus of the Mass Effect trilogy.

This can actually mean anything. We had Mordin, Grunt (in ME2), Lisara, and several others that are not military soldiers, just people with their own occupation or situation. Exploring Mass Effect 4 as a scientist or an archaeologist could be interesting, but I'm afraid of how much exploration (as an archaeologist) versus action there would be.

Clearly, the next protagonist in the Mass Effect trilogy will be Gordon Freeman.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Rising Dragon

However, the Dragon Break incidents in The Elder Scrolls can work because, like you said, it was magic. As much as Mass Effect tries to explain away its "magic" through pseudoscience and technobabble, it can't really get away with trying to perform the same thing.

Oh well I'm sure they can use their "artistic" capabilities to work something out.

I think a prequel is the best thing they can do at this point.

I know we have whined a lot about how little impact the endings of ME3 had, but when it comes to a sequel that's rather hard to quantify. Think about it for a minute, you have either an ending in which the reapers and all synthetics are dead, an ending where the entire galaxy is being watched over by Shepard controlled reapers, or an ending in which the entire galaxy is some sort of organic/syntetic hybrid. There is absolutely no way you can make a sequel and still say all endings are canon. If you make a sequel, you have to choose one ending and say "this is the canon one, all others are non-canon." The endings have just too much of a major impact to ignore.

Quite ironic, really.

Not really.

It can take many years aftewards and with control/synthetic you simply have the Reapers out of the way. Just like monks going into seclusion in dark parts of the galaxy as they aren't needed after the relays are repaired.

With destroy then you don't have the Reapers, probably have more chaos running around and synthetics aren't a big issue since they can always be rebuilt.

But that's all wishful thinking/

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by creb

If you thought Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 were great games, then I'd agree. There was a time when I held Blizzard up to that standard (I think I spent a year and a half as a beta tester for WoW...lol), but I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment today.

I will agree, however, that Blizzard is given a much longer leash than virtually any other game developer in today's world of pumping out games and their sequels in a yearly cycle. I just don't think they've spent all that time all that well, like they used to. Opinions, you know?

Oh, they've definitely changed in recent days, for which I mostly blame activision. The downsides of having a major publisher looming over your head is that they tend to impose deadlines. Which kind of goes against Blizz's "it's done when it's done" line of thinking.

Then again, given how long they've been letting Blizz draw out the development of Heart of the Swarm, it seems that Activision has eased on that department.

Originally Posted by creb

A Mass Effect 4 game could be set at any time. Presumably, it won't involve Shepard, and if they're thinking long term appeal at all, they'll likely try to make a new protagonist that people will hopefully follow, ala Dragon Age 2.

Shepard is not the problem here, the changes to the rest of the galaxy are. I mean, even ignoring the crucible, a post-mass effect games universe has several big differences depending on the players choice. Who's the running government? Is the genophage cured or not (since if not, then by the time of the game the krogan should be trying to play the put-human-head-on-stick game) not to mention your choices on Rannoch determining whether there will be any geth or quarians in the game at all.

Originally Posted by james0246

In the Elder Scrolls universe, it is know as the "Miracle of Peace" or the "Warp in the West". Since there are 6 distinct endings to Elder Scrolls II, the writers for the sequel had to come up with a way to make all the endings canon, so they explained the paradox away with gods and time magic. Bioware could do the same thing here (the amount of power from the Crucible created temporal disturbances that resulted in parallel realities, or at least actions taking place that directly contradicted each other - Consequently, part of the Reapers were destroyed, others were synthesized, and still others were controlled), especially since certain endings have similar effects.

Ah, the old multiverse handwave, then?

Originally Posted by james0246

Then again, they could just pick a "canon" ending (probably Synthesis since they do not want to piss off the Geth/EDI lovers ).

I actually think they'll go for the destroy ending. Sure, they'll kill the geth, but they've been milked as villains enough already so were unlikely to play a major part anyway, and the destroy ending is the closest to the return to the status quo.

Sucks for those who went the extra mile for peace (and me who told the quarians to piss off with their bullshit nobleright attitude) but it'd make the most sense from a writers standpoint.

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Not really.

It can take many years aftewards and with control/synthetic you simply have the Reapers out of the way. Just like monks going into seclusion in dark parts of the galaxy as they aren't needed after the relays are repaired.

With destroy then you don't have the Reapers, probably have more chaos running around and synthetics aren't a big issue since they can always be rebuilt.

But that's all wishful thinking/

Control ending very specifically says that the Shepard AI is playing watchdog over the galaxy. Big Brother if you were renegade (yay! another difference depending on play style!) and synthesis means everyone is now sharing some sort of pseudo happy-happy-joy-joy link. Not to mention being, y'know, part synthetic with green squigly lines. Kind of a detail you don't just skip.

That's a couple of very big differences, which means Bioware has to choose. And that's just the obvious ending ones, and not the above mentioned details.

[Tokkan]

Originally Posted by Keroko

Oh, they've definitely changed in recent days, for which I mostly blame activision. The downsides of having a major publisher looming over your head is that they tend to impose deadlines. Which kind of goes against Blizz's "it's done when it's done" line of thinking.

Then again, given how long they've been letting Blizz draw out the development of Heart of the Swarm, it seems that Activision has eased on that department.

You know, it still amazes me that people don't get that "Activision", "Blizzard" and "Activision Blizzard" are 3 separate entities and the only influence that Activision has on Blizzard is that they now answer to the same shareholders.

Blizzard's main reason for going downhill is because most of the good developers at the company have left. And before anyone says "that's because of Activision", they all left long before Vivendi purchased Activision.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Keroko

Good grief. I know I have a strong dislike for the mass effect endings, but yours takes the cake. Yet, is it really necessary to spout such outright lies?Yes, there is one ending in which the Geth die. One. But that's because they're synthetic and the boom kills synthetics, not because "Bioware has decided the geth and evil." The entirety of Rannoch shows you are wrong.

"Synthetics will always kill Organics"
"There is no time to Explain".

Word of God. There is no point bringing up the plot in the middle of the story, when it is the ending that matters. Synthetics can't be allowed to exist according to Bioware.

The Synthesis is even worse. "Look, we CURED your horrible condition called 'being Synthetic!' Aren't you glad you are not Synthetic any-more? Now we don't have to kill you because we mutated you against your will!"

[Key Board]

To be fair, I think you should differentiate what a certain Bioware believes and what happens in game

I think the Catalyst simply choose to believe that because he wants and NEEDs to believe that. He does not want to be reasoned with

He's a rogue AI that was given an enormous task and broke, so he has to justify his past action or else his world view will crumble. Have you ever played KOTOR2? The Catalyst is exactly like GO-TO

If you had the option of saying say.. "Uhmm. The Geth and Quarian just resolved their conflict peacefully.." (which btw.. is a conflict that you helped started)

he would probably go on an infinite "la la la I'm not listening!" routine.

[Key Board]

Originally Posted by james0246

In the Elder Scrolls universe, it is know as the "Miracle of Peace" or the "Warp in the West". Since there are 6 distinct endings to Elder Scrolls II, the writers for the sequel had to come up with a way to make all the endings canon, so they explained the paradox away with gods and time magic. Bioware could do the same thing here (the amount of power from the Crucible created temporal disturbances that resulted in parallel realities, or at least actions taking place that directly contradicted each other - Consequently, part of the Reapers were destroyed, others were synthesized, and still others were controlled), especially since certain endings have similar effects.

Then again, they could just pick a "canon" ending (probably Synthesis since they do not want to piss off the Geth/EDI lovers ).

Or they could make it take a few hundred years after ME3

by that time, technology would have advanced enough that everyone would have some kind of nano-machine implants in their bloodstream

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

"Synthetics will always kill Organics"
"There is no time to Explain".

Word of God. There is no point bringing up the plot in the middle of the story, when it is the ending that matters. Synthetics can't be allowed to exist according to Bioware.

The Synthesis is even worse. "Look, we CURED your horrible condition called 'being Synthetic!' Aren't you glad you are not Synthetic any-more? Now we don't have to kill you because we mutated you against your will!"

Oh yay, so some starchild, which is just another character in the series and thus can be wrong making him the worst of Bioware's mouthpieces, says that and it's word of god? Even though, again, rannoch already proves him wrong? And they even give us the control ending to tell the reapers to piss off?

There's rational dislike, and then there's mindless rage, and I think you crossed that line long ago.

Originally Posted by Key Board

Or they could make it take a few hundred years after ME3

by that time, technology would have advanced enough that everyone would have some kind of nano-machine implants in their bloodstream

That still leaves us stuck with the details. Are the reapers playing watchdog/big brother? What's the political climate? Are the geth dead? Are the quarrian dead? Are the last of the krogan out for human blood or sitting on a rebuild empire?

I'm not saying Bioware can't make a sequel, I'm saying that if Bioware chooses to do so, they're going to have to start making choices about which parts of the Mass Effect games are canon. A prequel or a game that takes place in the ME1 and 2 timeframe (which is several years, mind you) is a lot less troublesome, since the events there are a lot easier to deal with or outright ignore.

[Key Board]

Well.. if I was the lead writer, then my solutions is to say that enough time has passed that all remaining synthetics eventually become one new synthetic race which is called something else. This way, even if you chose destroy, the Quarians or someone else would make a new synthetic race which eventually will become this new race

it's not a solution that will make everyone happy

Honestly though, even a few hundred years is not enough of a gap.
The butterfly effect of the ending choices are just too powerful to handwave

The logical thing to do from a story telling perspective is to make another sci fi franchise. But I understand they want to re-use their assets.

All of this would not happen if they just stuck to their supposed original goal and end the story with the destruction of the Reapers.
Introducing synthesis and control just complicates further sequels.

..