Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2019 20:20:41 GMT
Where did is ever say Andomreda was a direct sequel to ME3? I said that regardless of being direct or indirect, it is still a sequel. You said it was a sequel, albeit an indirect one. If I worded it incorrectly, I am sorry. Don't be so touchy. You once said you'd be OK with a sequel to Synthesis.. I still am, provided it is done right, but a lot of people wouldn't be, because, as I see it, the push for a Shepard survives Destroy ending is strong. And I can be wrong, as I have no real metric for it, but most, not going to say all, not going to set an absolute, most of my anecdotal experiences seem to want that and I do understand, from the way they set it up, as to why it could work. My ideal scenario, however, is not even a sequel. It's a sidequel, if you can name it that, that doesn't invalidate the endings, but maybe ... perhaps, could supplement them, a little. Just saying. My hot take on the subject, you can slam it, if you want. introducing a new PC (who, more than likely, would be more like Ryder than Shepard since the people who wrote Sehpard originally are no longer with Bioware) Wait a second, didn't you say that you wanted Ryder to grow into a Shepard? Like, I distinctly remember you saying that. Now you don't believe that Bioware can write a Shepard-like character? Can you please elaborate on this? I doublt it would satisfy "everyone" either. The fanbase would be as divided as it ever was. Like I said, you only have to nail it 70% of the time. You need to do a good enough job, so that everyone, or mostly everyone, come out of it satisfied enough, that the relentless attack on Bioware either stops altogether or drops to a degree that is either manageable or ignorable. And I do understand how this affects you and I am sorry to have to ask you for your compliance, but if its desired effect results in a future for Bioware and Andromeda 2, would you not be willing to make a compromise, so that perhaps Andromeda gets a fairer chance at making it all the way through? Would you rather Andromeda 2 suffered the same fate as Andromeda 1, i.e. closure in book and graphic novels, if even that? I see that risk as being very real, especially since we've seen it happen nearly twice already and a very likely looking third time would absolutely lead EA to shutting them down? If the 'destroy-only crowd" is more theatening ot them such that they want their fear of such a backlash to drive their decision - I would argue that it would not be a purely business decision anymore I fear for what would happen. Maybe even Casey and the others at Bioware would fear that backlash, but the decision to do one thing over the other, would be a business one. The execution of said project, though, would be one based off of fear, panic stricken is perhaps the word, I'd be looking for, if the reaction was wholly - well, not wholly, but more like majorly - negative. Think if that reaction makes the dev team second guessing themselves for the largest part of development, like they did with Andromeda's and Anthem's pre-production, instead of actually moving into full development and having the game made in its entirety, like Anthem, like Andromeda, in the final year or so. Bioware would not survive that again. Not to mention, you wouldn't be getting the game you deserve, let alone the one you want. I did not say it was a sequel. In fact, I gave the factual position of it in the timeline. It starts before ME3 begins and ends long after, but without any reference to how ME3 ends. You can argue alternate terms for that all day long... it doesn't change that what I presented above is accurate/factual. The definition of a sequel in this context per Miriam Webster is: the next installment (as of a speech or story) especially : a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one.
You cannot resurrect Shepard in a point after ME3 ends without invalidating any of the endings in which Shepard dies. Similarly, you cannot resurrect fallen squad mates without invalidating the circumstances of their deaths earlier in the game. You could not have a continuation after Virmire with both Ashley and Kaidan alive without invalidating the Virmire choice. Similarly, when they brought Shepard back to life in ME2, they invalidated his/her death at the beginning of ME2. They did it by creating the Lazarus Project and it became, by necessity, that he/she could not have died. The evidence was there... regardless of how long people in the MEU believed that Shepard was dead, Shepard ultimately was not dead... hence, all the lines and quips in ME2 and ME3 about Shepard having been only "mostly dead." Some people liked the concept, others didn't.
If they continue the MET Trilogy by resurrecting Shepard yet again, they are invalidating, by necessity, any ending in which Shepard died in ME3. Those endings simply cannot continue to exist within the ongoing MEU after that is done. It doesn't matter how I or you or anyone else feels about it or how you or I might "rationalize" it, it just is. It changes ME3 from an intended Finale into an invalidated finale. That's just a fact... whether you're among the group of fans that want it that way or not. My preference is to keep ME3 as a finale... it's really that simple.
If they do eventually have the Initiative return to the Milky Way and IF they do it in a manner that refers to or clearly continues the story ended in ME3, then Andromeda could become a sequel of ME3. That's not evident yet, although Mac alluded to that possibility back when Andromeda was being prepared for release. They could avoid it becoming a direct sequel by pushing the timeline to a point where the events of ME3 simply aren't evident in the Milky Way (which is an option some people here have also said they favor over other options). However, as far as I can see, every idea detailing that sort of scenario has been shot down here as well.
The "destroy only, Shepard lives" group feel their preference is Bioware's only option. I disagree... Bioware have many options that appeal to different groups of fans. No group can accurately say that they represent "everyone" or even a majority... because it's also fact that the purchasers of each game are in the millions and no site of vocal fans represents even a statistically significant portion of those purchasers. The majority of fans are silent (which is where I came into this debate and where I will leave it.)
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on May 30, 2019 21:29:54 GMT
I did not say it was a sequel. Andromeda is not a direct sequel to ME3 You said it was not a direct sequel, implying it was an indirect sequel. At least, that's how I understand it. Excuse me, if I made an incorrect assumption. I mean, otherwise you would have stated from the start that it is not a sequel, period. The distinction of "direct" implies an "indirect" being the answer. So, again, if I assumed incorrectly, I apologize. but without any reference to how ME3 ends It isn't unprecedented for an indirect sequel to not mention to the previous entry's endings. I don't recall KotoR 2 making any assumption as to the ending of KotoR 1, for example. But maybe it's just my hazy memory. You cannot resurrect Shepard in a point after ME3 ends without invalidating any of the endings in which Shepard dies Lazarus Project 2? Similarly, you cannot resurrect fallen squad mates without invalidating the circumstances of their deaths earlier in the game. Lazarus projects 3-17? Similarly, when they brought Shepard back to life in ME2, they invalidated his/her death at the beginning of ME2. They did it by creating the Lazarus Project and it became, by necessity, that he/she could not have died I don't follow? hence, all the lines and quips in ME2 and ME3 about Shepard having been only "mostly dead." He, or she if that's your thing, suffered through re-entry with nothing but a suit of armor, without oxygen and then fell, at quite a velocity, on the ground. Snow covered, sure, but ground none the less. I just don't think anyone had the nerve to tell Shepard directly that he died. I mean, if Shepard survived that, Bioware broke a lot of natural laws to do that. Not that bringing back the dead doesn't, just that I can believe future tech being able to give life to formerly dead cells and starting a rejuvenation/regeneration process, than I can believe surviving all of the above. If they continue the MET Trilogy by resurrecting Shepard yet again, they are invalidating, by necessity, any ending in which Shepard died in ME3. Lazarus Project 2 does not invalidate the endings, or the feeling of loss you felt before. It's merely a new beginning. But I've said it before, Shepard is not the solution to ME's problems. If you read my ideal game suggestion you'll notice that Shepard hardly has any presence in the game, aside from a cameo, maybe, if even that. It doesn't matter how I or you or anyone else feels about it or how you or I might "rationalize" it, it just is It just is, is not an argument. Nothing "just is", not even the sun rising every morning "just is". You're going to have to do better than that. It changes ME3 from an intended Finale into an invalidated finale. That's just a fact... Everything happens, in your proposed scenario, exactly as already played out in the ending of ME3. What happens next, should anything even happen, should there even be a "direct" sequel to ME3, is something else. If they do eventually have the Initiative return to the Milky Way and IF they do it in a manner that refers to or clearly continues the story ended in ME3, then Andromeda could become a sequel of ME3 As far as we know, the Andromeda initiative received no communication back from the MW, meaning that the canon ending would be refusal, since nobody is left alive to answer the call. So Andromeda should already be a "fuck you" to your ending of preference, if it wasn't refusal, or a giant "fuck you" to everyone that didn't pick refusal. Or perhaps all the endings eventually lead into a catastrophic event in the Milky Way within the 600 years it takes the Initiative to reach Andromeda, in which case nothing we did in the entire trilogy matters, so "fuck everybody" who played the OT, nothing you ever did mattered, you should have joined the Initiative.
The "destroy only, Shepard lives" group feel their preference is Bioware's only option. I disagree... Bioware have many options that appeal to different groups of fans. None of which seem to be doing Bioware any harm, or at least harm at the extent that particular group seems to be doing. because it's also fact that the purchasers of each game are in the millions and no site of vocal fans represents even a statistically significant portion of those purchasers. The majority of fans are silent (which is where I came into this debate and where I will leave it.) The "majority" of fans are also not enough to meet EA's sales projections, which is dangerous both for the fans of Bioware and Bioware themselves. Which is why I am saying the "vocal" fans are preventing Bioware's growth.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,293
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on May 30, 2019 22:25:45 GMT
The "destroy-only" group want a direct sequel to ME3 and see "destroy' as the only possible way that can occur. So now there's a third group, the destroy only group. Are they the same as the same group or/and the vocal minority you mentioned in another thread? I will ask you if the same can happen to Ryder? What if Bioware were to do a sequel to MEA, but they decide what happens in the game was a dream? I'll give 3 scenarios. 1) During the flight to Andromeda, the main character dreams about everything the player sees in MEA. Once awaken, the player controls Ryder, or someone completely different. Would you be ok with that knowing everything you did in MEA doesn't mean anything? 2) When Ryder is near death, after having her/his face shield smashed in, they have a dream about what the player sees in the game. Once awaken, Ryder learns dad is fine but because of his injury, cannot resume his role as pathfinder. It's passed on to Ryder because of some blah, blah reason Cora wasn't able to do it. This Ryder is different from the one in MEA. This one has a pair. When encountering the asari, Ryder gets a couple of options. Get in the face of the asari for what she did leading to her not wanting to join Ryder because she realizes Ryder won't put up with her crap. The other option is Ryder gets to ask the asari, after dealing with the vault, why Ryder should let her join the squad. The player can say yes or no. Ryder also lays down some ground rules for being on the pathfinder team. Throughout the game, Ryder visits her/his father for advice about what happened on a mission and what to do better if the same situation happens in the future. Would you be ok with that? 3) This one I like. When caught in the immobilization field on Archon's ship, the Archon fires at the Salarian ship destroying it along with the Tempest. Kills both squadmates leaving Ryder to be questioned. After the questioning is finished, Ryder is killed, but before taking her/his last breath, she/he has a vision of what the player sees for the rest of MEA. The sequel starts from there except you now play as the sibling. He/she has to find out what happen to his/her sibling since they haven't been heard from for however long. So the sequel has all new characters except for the sibling that wasn't chosen in MEA. Would you be ok with that? You cannot resurrect Shepard in a point after ME3 ends without invalidating any of the endings in which Shepard dies. Why? If they can invalidate other choices, regardless of how insignificant they are, why can't they invalidate the endings? Another group? Is this group related to the other groups you've brought up? Is this destroy only Shepard lives group different from the destroy only group you mentioned?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2019 23:56:59 GMT
The "destroy-only" group want a direct sequel to ME3 and see "destroy' as the only possible way that can occur. So now there's a third group, the destroy only group. Are they the same as the same group or/and the vocal minority you mentioned in another thread? I will ask you if the same can happen to Ryder? What if Bioware were to do a sequel to MEA, but they decide what happens in the game was a dream? I'll give 3 scenarios. 1) During the flight to Andromeda, the main character dreams about everything the player sees in MEA. Once awaken, the player controls Ryder, or someone completely different. Would you be ok with that knowing everything you did in MEA doesn't mean anything? 2) When Ryder is near death, after having her/his face shield smashed in, they have a dream about what the player sees in the game. Once awaken, Ryder learns dad is fine but because of his injury, cannot resume his role as pathfinder. It's passed on to Ryder because of some blah, blah reason Cora wasn't able to do it. This Ryder is different from the one in MEA. This one has a pair. When encountering the asari, Ryder gets a couple of options. Get in the face of the asari for what she did leading to her not wanting to join Ryder because she realizes Ryder won't put up with her crap. The other option is Ryder gets to ask the asari, after dealing with the vault, why Ryder should let her join the squad. The player can say yes or no. Ryder also lays down some ground rules for being on the pathfinder team. Throughout the game, Ryder visits her/his father for advice about what happened on a mission and what to do better if the same situation happens in the future. Would you be ok with that? 3) This one I like. When caught in the immobilization field on Archon's ship, the Archon fires at the Salarian ship destroying it along with the Tempest. Kills both squadmates leaving Ryder to be questioned. After the questioning is finished, Ryder is killed, but before taking her/his last breath, she/he has a vision of what the player sees for the rest of MEA. The sequel starts from there except you now play as the sibling. He/she has to find out what happen to his/her sibling since they haven't been heard from for however long. So the sequel has all new characters except for the sibling that wasn't chosen in MEA. Would you be ok with that? You cannot resurrect Shepard in a point after ME3 ends without invalidating any of the endings in which Shepard dies. Why? If they can invalidate other choices, regardless of how insignificant they are, why can't they invalidate the endings? Another group? Is this group related to the other groups you've brought up? Is this destroy only Shepard lives group different from the destroy only group you mentioned? Scenario 1, 2 & 3: I have no problem with it... because I've already said I would not backlash even if Bioware opts to do my most undesired preference - which is the Destroy, Shepard Lives canon ending. I believe there are fewer people out there who would object to changes being made to Ryder and/or decisions made in Andromeda not being carried forward or carried forward differently (plot twists) than would object to the same thing happening in a direct sequel to ME3. What you've described, even the part where we might yet find out the Alec is still alive is more like their bringing Shepard back to life in ME2. Even though Bioware invalidated Shepard's death at the beginning of ME2, no player choice was involved there anyways. With ME:A, we're not far enough into the story yet to really determine what choices the player actually made that will have impact. The story can lead off in many different directions at this point, making some choices we never dreamed would matter eventually mattering (e.g. like the Conrad Verner choices in ME1) or in choices we thought would have a great impact not even warranting a mention in subsequent games (like whether or not you could spare Ethan Jeong or whether or not you agreed to spy on Binary Helix for the Asari or whether or not you turned the Cerberus data over to the Shadow Brokerr) It's totally up in the air whether what Bioware might come up with to explain such plot twists that might take place in ME:A2 (if they do one) will be believable or not. Some players find Shepard's ressurection in ME2 believable and others don't... but I don't recall a huge backlash about it... Do you?
.. but, as I've said many time, we'll see what happens if Bioware opts to do the ME3 Destroy Shepard Lives canon sequel. I'm betting there will be a number of people here ultimately unhappy with it because I believe they are going to get something different than they expect... and there is no realistic way for Bioware (as it exists today) to possibly give even everyone in that camp "what they want." I've stated my reasons several times for the "destroy Shepard Lives canon" being my least favorite option. Nothing I've read hear changes that. If they proceed with a canon ending to produce a direct sequel to ME3... I will feel that all but one ending is invalid from that point forward. Put another way... If they go with Synthesis... Destroy and Control are invalid. If they go with Control, Synthesis and Destroy are invalid. If they go with Destroy, Control and Synthesis are invalid. If they go with Destroy, Shepard Lives - then Control, Synthesis and any version of Destroy where Shepard dies are invalid. There's no avoiding it.
Addendum: In scenario 3 - I'd be more upset about it if, for some reason, I chose to leave one of my squad mates on that ship and only one died... and then a sequel declared that the squad mate I left behind was crucial to the sequel story and so lived, and another squad mate chosen by Bioware died in that squad mate's place. As a collateral example, I have to actually work at getting a ME3 playthrough where Liara dies... when I do that, I expect she'll stay dead... since ME3 is an intended finale to the story. If she turns up alive in a sequel (even if it's one returning to the MW from Andromeda), I will consider that choice invalidated by Bioware's selection of a canon sequel. Will I backlash if that happens? No.
Do I believe invalidating choices previously given the player is a good thing? No... even when a group of players thinks that's what they want. We simply feel differently about it. No worries... as I said, we'll see what happens and how and why you feel about it when it does.
Further example - ME3 invalidates any Shepard dies ending to the Suicide Mission. For ME3 to have taken place within the MEU, Shepard could not have died at the end of ME2. Bioware told us as much by making it impossible to import a ME2 save where Shepard dies. They allowed us to validly end ME2 with it (that is, we didn't get a "game over or mission failure screen"), but then they invalidated it by simply making ME3. My preference would have been for them to have allowed the import where we viewed a funeral for Shepard and then was able to choose from a selection of available alternative "commanders" to fight the Reaper War through ME3. Not practical for Bioware to do and I won't backlash over it. The Shepard dies during the SM scenario is, however, invalid nonetheless.
|
|
inherit
1817
0
11,065
Kappa Neko
...lives for biotic explosions. And cheesecake!
4,188
Oct 18, 2016 21:17:18 GMT
October 2016
kappaneko
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Kappa Neko on May 31, 2019 12:08:28 GMT
Andromeda was a spin-off. And I was among the people who immediately thought it was a bad idea. Regardless of the setting, it was bound to be disappointing. Spin-offs almost always are way weaker. I find them totally pointless in most cases. In fact, I'm the kind of person who HATES diluting something great with a million awful spin-offs to squeeze every last penny out of a franchise. I truly despise it. Mass Effect was Shpeard and I was happy to leave it at that.
Nothing was going to top or even come close to the epicness that was the trilogy. I still believe it was supposed to be easy money in EA's eyes, not something anybody had any vision for. And turns out there really was no vision! Andromeda was not made by the original team. Nor did Montreal have a general planfor the story before MEA was greenlit. They mucked around for years with a stupid exploration game idea that went nowhere. Why even call that Mass Effect?!?!
When the lack of vision approached a deadline they had nothing better to offer than quickly rehashing the trilogy's themes. What exactly was the point of that game!?
Spin-offs are awful. I really wanted Andromeda to prove me wrong, but sadly it didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 14:19:34 GMT
Andromeda was a spin-off. And I was among the people who immediately thought it was a bad idea. Regardless of the setting, it was bound to be disappointing. Spin-offs almost always are way weaker. I find them totally pointless in most cases. In fact, I'm the kind of person who HATES diluting something great with a million awful spin-offs to squeeze every last penny out of a franchise. I truly despise it. Mass Effect was Shpeard and I was happy to leave it at that.
Nothing was going to top or even come close to the epicness that was the trilogy. I still believe it was supposed to be easy money in EA's eyes, not something anybody had any vision for. And turns out there really was no vision! Andromeda was not made by the original team. Nor did Montreal have a general planfor the story before MEA was greenlit. They mucked around for years with a stupid exploration game idea that went nowhere. Why even call that Mass Effect?!?!
When the lack of vision approached a deadline they had nothing better to offer than quickly rehashing the trilogy's themes. What exactly was the point of that game!?
Spin-offs are awful. I really wanted Andromeda to prove me wrong, but sadly it didn't.
So, call it a spin-off then. Terminology doesn't matter so much... even the terminology of using the words Mass Effect in the title, IMO. What matters more to me is the spirit of the Trilogy - the fact that ME3 was an intended Finale and that resurrecting Shepard's story as a sequel to that timeline disrupts that intention. A prequel doesn't do that, but a prequel doesn't interest me either since compared to the epic nature of the Trilogy, any story would seem parochial and it's conclusions are set since, if say, they set up a story that deviated from what was revealed as the "past" in the Trilogy. that story would then invalidate that portion of the Trilogy. Say, for example, they decided to write a different version of the Relay incident... say, that it didn't occur just between the humans and Turians, but they wanted to make it bigger and more epic by putting the Salarian, Asari and Krogan also on the scene? They can do it... but it would take something away from the Trilogy. Let's say, they wanted to bring Reapers into a prequel such that everyone in the galaxy should have known about them before Shepard's encounter with the beacon. That would take something from the Trilogy. It wouldn't have mattered to me whether they called it Mass Effect: Prequel or not since the circumstances within it would invalidate something presented already in the Trilogy. That's why people here complain about all the lore inconsistencies in ME2 and ME3; and it could be easily made worse with a prequel.
If people want to believe that removing Mass Effect from Andromeda's name makes a difference, then I'm all for Bioware re-releasing Andromeda under the name just Andromeda. IMO, though, it was well within their right to use the Mass Effect name for whatever purpose they wanted that to serve. They do own the rights to it, not the fans. At least in that way, they might be freed to write it forward however they want, develop the story as far as they want to, and make a better game of it. They can then decide whether they have enough staff left over to also do another Mass Effect.
|
|
inherit
1817
0
11,065
Kappa Neko
...lives for biotic explosions. And cheesecake!
4,188
Oct 18, 2016 21:17:18 GMT
October 2016
kappaneko
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Kappa Neko on May 31, 2019 14:46:33 GMT
So, call it a spin-off then. Terminology doesn't matter so much... even the terminology of using the words Mass Effect in the title, IMO. What matters more to me is the spirit of the Trilogy - the fact that ME3 was an intended Finale and that resurrecting Shepard's story as a sequel to that timeline disrupts that intention. A prequel doesn't do that, but a prequel doesn't interest me either since compared to the epic nature of the Trilogy, anything story would seem parochial and it's conclusions are set since, if say, they set up a story that deviated from what was revealed as the "past" in the Trilogy would then invalidate the portion of the Trilogy. Say, for example, they decided to write a different version of the Relay incident... say, that it didn't occur just between the humans and Turian, but they wanted to make it bigger and more epic by putting the Salarian, Asari and Krogan also on the scene? They can do it... but it would take something away from the Trilogy. It wouldn't have mattered to me whether they called it Mass Effect: Prequel or not since the circumstances within it would invalidate the Trilogy.
If people want to believe that removing Mass Effect from Andromeda's name makes a difference, then I'm all for Bioware re-releasing Andromeda under the name just Andromeda. It was well within their right to use the Mass Effect name for whatever purpose they wanted that to serve. They do own the rights to it, not the fans.
I never disagreed with you on that! I do NOT want Bioware to touch Shepard and ruin the legacy of the trilogy. Nor anything to do with the events of the trilogy. Wasn't keen on that back when I still had faith in them, and certainly not after Anthem.
As for dropping the Mass Effect name: I would at least be willing to give Andromeda a 6/10 as a standalone effort of an inexperienced team. As a Mass Effect game I'd give it a 2/10. I thought it was an insult to the name. I know you liked the game. But for me, associating the franchise name made it much worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 14:54:26 GMT
So, call it a spin-off then. Terminology doesn't matter so much... even the terminology of using the words Mass Effect in the title, IMO. What matters more to me is the spirit of the Trilogy - the fact that ME3 was an intended Finale and that resurrecting Shepard's story as a sequel to that timeline disrupts that intention. A prequel doesn't do that, but a prequel doesn't interest me either since compared to the epic nature of the Trilogy, anything story would seem parochial and it's conclusions are set since, if say, they set up a story that deviated from what was revealed as the "past" in the Trilogy would then invalidate the portion of the Trilogy. Say, for example, they decided to write a different version of the Relay incident... say, that it didn't occur just between the humans and Turian, but they wanted to make it bigger and more epic by putting the Salarian, Asari and Krogan also on the scene? They can do it... but it would take something away from the Trilogy. It wouldn't have mattered to me whether they called it Mass Effect: Prequel or not since the circumstances within it would invalidate the Trilogy.
If people want to believe that removing Mass Effect from Andromeda's name makes a difference, then I'm all for Bioware re-releasing Andromeda under the name just Andromeda. It was well within their right to use the Mass Effect name for whatever purpose they wanted that to serve. They do own the rights to it, not the fans.
I never disagreed with you on that! I do NOT want Bioware to touch Shepard and ruin the legacy of the trilogy. Nor anything to do with the events of the trilogy. Wasn't keen on that back when I still had faith in them, and certainly not after Anthem.
As for dropping the Mass Effect name: I would at least be willing to give Andromeda a 6/10 as a standalone effort of an inexperienced team. As a Mass Effect game I'd give it a 2/10. I thought it was an insult to the name. I know you liked the game. But for me, associating the franchise name made it much worse.
... and all I'm saying is I'd rate the game the same regardless of its name.
So, here's my solution - Bioware sells Andromeda to another studio and they see what they can do with the franchise going forward. I'd be all for that because I think the Andromeda story concept and game concept has a lot more potential that's not being realized because it has been tied at the hip to Mass Effect and has been and continues to be negatively affected by the legacy of Bioware and EA being involved in it (proof is in how you would rate it so differently if it was just disassociated from Mass Effect). If Bioware has to fire sale it because of the reception it got in their hands as a Mass Effect title, that's Bioware's loss and just leaves more potential gain for the studio that buys it.
|
|
inherit
1817
0
11,065
Kappa Neko
...lives for biotic explosions. And cheesecake!
4,188
Oct 18, 2016 21:17:18 GMT
October 2016
kappaneko
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Kappa Neko on May 31, 2019 15:56:35 GMT
... and all I'm saying is I'd rate the game the same regardless of its name.
So, here's my solution - Bioware sells Andromeda to another studio and they see what they can do with the franchise going forward. I'd be all for that because I think the Andromeda story concept and game concept has a lot more potential that's not being realized because it has been tied at the hip to Mass Effect and has been and continues to be negatively affected by the legacy of Bioware and EA being involved in it (proof is in how you would rate it so differently if it was just disassociated from Mass Effect). If Bioware has to fire sale it because of the reception it got in their hands as a Mass Effect title, that's Bioware's loss and just leaves more potential gain for the studio that buys it. Not just because of the franchise name but also because it wasn't up to the usual quality of Bioware to many people, myself included. I have different expectations from Bioware than from a rookie developer. But yeah, I would be totally fine with selling the Andromeda setting to a different developer and seeing what they can do with it. I have no emotional investment in the setting or the characters. But that doesn't mean it can't happen in the future with a more compelling cast and narrative. I believe Andromeda is not salvageable under EA/Bioware due to all the baggage and questionable directives like GaaS. I may even be willing to see the Milky Way sold to a different studio as long as it's NOT going to be a story about Shepard. It sure worked out for Fallout. Obsidian did an amazing job with NV, certainly a better one than Bethesda did with FO4 (in the RPG department anyway). If there's a studio out there who can tell compelling stories in the Mass Effect universe and keep the art style of the races authentic, go ahead! If it turns out to be a great game I'll check it out. If not I'll just pretend the game doesn't exist. That's the upside of spin-offs. You can just ignore them and not miss anything if they're not good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 16:13:13 GMT
... and all I'm saying is I'd rate the game the same regardless of its name.
So, here's my solution - Bioware sells Andromeda to another studio and they see what they can do with the franchise going forward. I'd be all for that because I think the Andromeda story concept and game concept has a lot more potential that's not being realized because it has been tied at the hip to Mass Effect and has been and continues to be negatively affected by the legacy of Bioware and EA being involved in it (proof is in how you would rate it so differently if it was just disassociated from Mass Effect). If Bioware has to fire sale it because of the reception it got in their hands as a Mass Effect title, that's Bioware's loss and just leaves more potential gain for the studio that buys it. Not just because of the franchise name but also because it wasn't up to the usual quality of Bioware to many people, myself included. I have different expectations from Bioware than from a rookie developer. But yeah, I would be totally fine with selling the Andromeda setting to a different developer and seeing what they can do with it. I have no emotional investment in the setting or the characters. But that doesn't mean it can't happen in the future with a more compelling cast and narrative. I believe Andromeda is not salvageable under EA/Bioware due to all the baggage and questionable directives like GaaS. I may even be willing to see the Milky Way sold to a different studio as long as it's NOT going to be a story about Shepard. It sure worked out for Fallout. Obsidian did an amazing job with NV, certainly a better one than Bethesda did with FO4 (in the RPG department anyway). If there's a studio out there who can tell compelling stories in the Mass Effect universe and keep the art style of the races authentic, go ahead! If it turns out to be a great game I'll check it out. If not I'll just pretend the game doesn't exist. That's the upside of spin-offs. You can just ignore them and not miss anything if they're not good. Problem solved, plus it has the added benefit of getting ME:A (or rather Andromeda) off Frostbite... I like it.
You see, I don't change my criteria for whether or not I like a game based on who developed it. That's why my ranking would be consistent regardless of title (or dev for that matter)... But, if other gamers are so driven, then I absolutely think Andromeda could benefit immensely from merely being sold out of Bioware's house. It would be a win/win... Bioware would get a little money out of it (more than if they just abandon the idea at least) and fans of Andromeda would at least have a shot at seeing the story continue.
Mass Effect on the other hand, would be left with the exact same issues of 7 years ago...
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Nov 17, 2024 22:23:52 GMT
31,578
Hanako Ikezawa
22,991
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on May 31, 2019 17:51:06 GMT
There’s no other studio out there that I would trust with the franchise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 18:01:27 GMT
I did not say it was a sequel. Andromeda is not a direct sequel to ME3 You said it was not a direct sequel, implying it was an indirect sequel. At least, that's how I understand it. Excuse me, if I made an incorrect assumption. I mean, otherwise you would have stated from the start that it is not a sequel, period. The distinction of "direct" implies an "indirect" being the answer. So, again, if I assumed incorrectly, I apologize. but without any reference to how ME3 ends It isn't unprecedented for an indirect sequel to not mention to the previous entry's endings. I don't recall KotoR 2 making any assumption as to the ending of KotoR 1, for example. But maybe it's just my hazy memory. You cannot resurrect Shepard in a point after ME3 ends without invalidating any of the endings in which Shepard dies Lazarus Project 2? Similarly, you cannot resurrect fallen squad mates without invalidating the circumstances of their deaths earlier in the game. Lazarus projects 3-17? Similarly, when they brought Shepard back to life in ME2, they invalidated his/her death at the beginning of ME2. They did it by creating the Lazarus Project and it became, by necessity, that he/she could not have died I don't follow? hence, all the lines and quips in ME2 and ME3 about Shepard having been only "mostly dead." He, or she if that's your thing, suffered through re-entry with nothing but a suit of armor, without oxygen and then fell, at quite a velocity, on the ground. Snow covered, sure, but ground none the less. I just don't think anyone had the nerve to tell Shepard directly that he died. I mean, if Shepard survived that, Bioware broke a lot of natural laws to do that. Not that bringing back the dead doesn't, just that I can believe future tech being able to give life to formerly dead cells and starting a rejuvenation/regeneration process, than I can believe surviving all of the above. If they continue the MET Trilogy by resurrecting Shepard yet again, they are invalidating, by necessity, any ending in which Shepard died in ME3. Lazarus Project 2 does not invalidate the endings, or the feeling of loss you felt before. It's merely a new beginning. But I've said it before, Shepard is not the solution to ME's problems. If you read my ideal game suggestion you'll notice that Shepard hardly has any presence in the game, aside from a cameo, maybe, if even that. It doesn't matter how I or you or anyone else feels about it or how you or I might "rationalize" it, it just is It just is, is not an argument. Nothing "just is", not even the sun rising every morning "just is". You're going to have to do better than that. It changes ME3 from an intended Finale into an invalidated finale. That's just a fact... Everything happens, in your proposed scenario, exactly as already played out in the ending of ME3. What happens next, should anything even happen, should there even be a "direct" sequel to ME3, is something else. If they do eventually have the Initiative return to the Milky Way and IF they do it in a manner that refers to or clearly continues the story ended in ME3, then Andromeda could become a sequel of ME3 As far as we know, the Andromeda initiative received no communication back from the MW, meaning that the canon ending would be refusal, since nobody is left alive to answer the call. So Andromeda should already be a "fuck you" to your ending of preference, if it wasn't refusal, or a giant "fuck you" to everyone that didn't pick refusal. Or perhaps all the endings eventually lead into a catastrophic event in the Milky Way within the 600 years it takes the Initiative to reach Andromeda, in which case nothing we did in the entire trilogy matters, so "fuck everybody" who played the OT, nothing you ever did mattered, you should have joined the Initiative.
The "destroy only, Shepard lives" group feel their preference is Bioware's only option. I disagree... Bioware have many options that appeal to different groups of fans. None of which seem to be doing Bioware any harm, or at least harm at the extent that particular group seems to be doing. because it's also fact that the purchasers of each game are in the millions and no site of vocal fans represents even a statistically significant portion of those purchasers. The majority of fans are silent (which is where I came into this debate and where I will leave it.) The "majority" of fans are also not enough to meet EA's sales projections, which is dangerous both for the fans of Bioware and Bioware themselves. Which is why I am saying the "vocal" fans are preventing Bioware's growth. ME:A starts before ME3 begins and makes a singular reference to an event at the beginning of ME3. It is NOT a sequel to ME3. I said it could become a sequel, albeit an indirect one, IF Bioware decides to expand further on that singular reference. It was the method Bioware chose to avoid making a sequel that invalidated the endings of ME3.
A Lazarus 2 Project would, nevertheless, still invalidate any ending where Shepard dies. The Lazarus Project invalidates Shepard dying at the beginning of ME2. Shepard could not have actually died at the start of ME2... he/she was only "mostly dead" (which is a direct reference from ME2 itself). Tying it back further, the stance of ME1 is that "death closes all." ME2 refutes that notion as well. Does it stop Bioware from doing such things - no. Is it good writing when they do - I don't think so. I'm really not sure why people have a problem with my believing that - but meh.
There are a number of circumstances currently preventing Bioware's growth, some of them fall on the fans and others of them fall on Bioware. For example, currently Bioware cannot seem to work out how to meet EA's deadlines and EA is just not inclined to extend them beyond their year ends. This is not a problem stemming from the fans. That one is completely on Bioware's management. The fans being less willing to be objective about a game like Andromeda merely because it has the Bioware or Mass Effect name on it, is a fan-based issue. As I said above, I'm all for Andromeda being sold out of Bioware's house then, especially if that's all it would take to get people to give it a fair look (and avoid the "backlash" you say you fear if Bioware releases a ME:A2.. From that perspective, it could well be a great investment opportunity for another studio - lots of potential and under -priced because it allegedly did so poorly... and losing the ME baggage in the process. Selling Andromeda, though, solves nothing for Mass Effect in the long run. The divide in the ME fan-base would still exist and we'd be back to square 1 of 7 years ago. That is, how does Bioware continue the Mass Effect franchise when it is simply unable to give everyone what they want?
You want the fan divide to disappear, I get that. It just isn't going to happen whether Bioware capitulates to whatever faction of "vocal" fans here... and nothing here even remotely represents the majority of the fan base.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on May 31, 2019 18:20:06 GMT
ME:A starts before ME3 begins and makes a singular reference to an event at the beginning of ME3. It is NOT a sequel to ME3. I said it could become a sequel, albeit an indirect one Well, my bad, then. A Lazarus 2 Project would, nevertheless, still invalidate any ending where Shepard dies. The Lazarus Project invalidates Shepard dying at the beginning of ME2. You keep using that word, I don't think you understand what it means. Killing Leliana and bringing her back in an asspull is invalidation. Justifiably inserting tech as a plot point does not invalidate anything. You still fucking died. If I die on an operating table and the doctors bring me back, I still died. Them bringing me back does not invalidate the fact that I did, in fact, die. Also, didn't Ryder die? I remember Drack specifically telling him that to his face. Did Ryder coming back invalidate his own death? And what happened to your "not complaining" attitude? I'm really not sure why people have a problem with my believing that - but meh. Because it seems to apply to your convenience. And if you're going to argue that discussing this with you has no point, then you can just drop off the conversation. There are a number of circumstances currently preventing Bioware's growth, some of them fall on the fans and others of them fall on Bioware. For example, currently Bioware cannot seem to work out how to meet EA's deadlines and EA is just not inclined to extend them beyond their year ends. This is not a problem stemming from the fans. That one is completely on Bioware's management. And I'm calculating the gaming community's reception of Bioware products, whether released or not, as a factor to the game development process, staff morale and performance, as well as market opinion. The fans being less willing to be objective about a game like Andromeda merely because it has the Bioware or Mass Effect name on it, is a fan-based issue. As I said above, I'm all for Andromeda being sold out of Bioware's house then, especially if that's all it would take to get people to give it a fair look (and avoid the "backlash" you say you fear if Bioware releases a ME:A2.. I fear not the backlash, some backlash is inevitable, I think, regardless, but the measure at which Andromeda 2 will have coming its way, makes me fear the effects of that backlash. Which is the "I don't remember how many time I've said that" time that I repeat myself. I honestly think, at this point, that you are either ignoring my posts, or intentionally acting as if you've not read them, so I'll get bored repeating myself. Selling Andromeda, though, solves nothing for Mass Effect in the long run. The divide in the ME fan-base would still exist and we'd be back to square 1 of 7 years ago. That is, how does Bioware continue the Mass Effect franchise when it is simply unable to give everyone what they want? While there must have been a million suggestions, including my own, it is up to Bioware to move however they consider best. And we've already discussed how they'd factor in their choice, so let's not repeat that conversation for the umpteenth time. You want the fan divide to disappear, I get that. It just isn't going to happen whether Bioware capitulates to whatever faction of "vocal" fans here... and nothing here even remotely represents the majority of the fan base. You have no metric to base that on and is simply another opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 18:56:07 GMT
ME:A starts before ME3 begins and makes a singular reference to an event at the beginning of ME3. It is NOT a sequel to ME3. I said it could become a sequel, albeit an indirect one Well, my bad, then. A Lazarus 2 Project would, nevertheless, still invalidate any ending where Shepard dies. The Lazarus Project invalidates Shepard dying at the beginning of ME2. You keep using that word, I don't think you understand what it means. Killing Leliana and bringing her back in an asspull is invalidation. Justifiably inserting tech as a plot point does not invalidate anything. You still fucking died. If I die on an operating table and the doctors bring me back, I still died. Them bringing me back does not invalidate the fact that I did, in fact, die. Also, didn't Ryder die? I remember Drack specifically telling him that to his face. Did Ryder coming back invalidate his own death? And what happened to your "not complaining" attitude? I'm really not sure why people have a problem with my believing that - but meh. Because it seems to apply to your convenience. And if you're going to argue that discussing this with you has no point, then you can just drop off the conversation. There are a number of circumstances currently preventing Bioware's growth, some of them fall on the fans and others of them fall on Bioware. For example, currently Bioware cannot seem to work out how to meet EA's deadlines and EA is just not inclined to extend them beyond their year ends. This is not a problem stemming from the fans. That one is completely on Bioware's management. And I'm calculating the gaming community's reception of Bioware products, whether released or not, as a factor to the game development process, staff morale and performance, as well as market opinion. The fans being less willing to be objective about a game like Andromeda merely because it has the Bioware or Mass Effect name on it, is a fan-based issue. As I said above, I'm all for Andromeda being sold out of Bioware's house then, especially if that's all it would take to get people to give it a fair look (and avoid the "backlash" you say you fear if Bioware releases a ME:A2.. I fear not the backlash, some backlash is inevitable, I think, regardless, but the measure at which Andromeda 2 will have coming its way, makes me fear the effects of that backlash. Which is the "I don't remember how many time I've said that" time that I repeat myself. I honestly think, at this point, that you are either ignoring my posts, or intentionally acting as if you've not read them, so I'll get bored repeating myself. Selling Andromeda, though, solves nothing for Mass Effect in the long run. The divide in the ME fan-base would still exist and we'd be back to square 1 of 7 years ago. That is, how does Bioware continue the Mass Effect franchise when it is simply unable to give everyone what they want? While there must have been a million suggestions, including my own, it is up to Bioware to move however they consider best. And we've already discussed how they'd factor in their choice, so let's not repeat that conversation for the umpteenth time. You want the fan divide to disappear, I get that. It just isn't going to happen whether Bioware capitulates to whatever faction of "vocal" fans here... and nothing here even remotely represents the majority of the fan base. You have no metric to base that on and is simply another opinion. I don't think I'm misusing the word "invalidate". It's definition is to make (an argument, statement, or theory) unsound or erroneous. I think you, and others here, are attaching an emotional connotation to it that I don't actually share (maybe that's a generational difference, IDK). Shepard or other characters cannot be both dead and not dead regardless of how Bioware writes it or people rationalize it. The moment Bioware brings someone, anyone, back to life their death is immediately invalidated. Yes, Ryder being revived invalidated his/her death - Ryder did not actually die, he/she was "clinically dead for 22 seconds" which is not the same as being dead. IRL, when someone is pronounced dead, they stay dead unless the pronouncement of their death was actually in error. Over the years, we've changed the point in time when we are prepared to pronounce someone dead, but a correct pronouncement of death still results in someone being and remaining dead, period.
Yet, selling Andromeda out of Bioware removes that notion of it being so objectionable a game that a backlash would be "inevitable" and potentially jumps the reception of the exact same game by 4 points (per one player here).
I do have a metric that tells me the fan divide is not going away... it's based on the very fact that you've been saying such things as it gives "everyone what they want" or "everyone else" feels one way and I alone feel another. You're having to continually ignore sections of the fanbase (by failing to acknowledge their very existence) in order to support your notion that the divide would just disappear. The divide would remain as ever. Ignoring any side of this does not, under any circumstances, give everyone what they want. The sides have to compromise in order to meet in the middle and resolve things. It's called a "settlement."
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,275
AnDromedary
4,446
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on May 31, 2019 19:10:08 GMT
I don't think I'm misusing the word "invalidate". It's definition is to make (an argument, statement, or theory) unsound or erroneous. I think you, and others here, are attaching an emotional connotation to it that I don't actually share (maybe that's a generational difference, IDK). Shepard or other characters cannot be both dead and not dead regardless of how Bioware writes it or people rationalize it. The moment Bioware brings someone, anyone, back to life their death is immediately invalidated. Yes, Ryder being revived invalidated his/her death - Ryder did not actually die, he/she was "clinically dead for 22 seconds" which is not the same as being dead. IRL, when someone is pronounced dead, they stay dead unless the pronouncement of their death was actually in error. Over the years, we've changed the point in time when we are prepared to pronounce someone dead, but a correct pronouncement of death still results in someone being and remaining dead, period. Well, whatever word you want to use though, you have to acknowledge that there is a difference between a situation where the invalidation of someone's death is written into the plot (as in Shepard's and Ryder's, who btw died about 3 times during ME:A by my count ) and another situation where the death of a character (or any other event) is just not taken into account later without any explanation whatsoever.
The former one is a plot development (whether that's a good one or a bad one is a different issue and I certainly have some with how the Lazarus project was written). The latter is just a retcon (take the "development of Cerberus from ME1 to ME2 and also later ME3 for example or half of Andromeda's background lore). Retcons invalidate former plot points and developments without explanation and that is a problem for any plot that wants to call itself coherent, IMO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's at the heart of your discussion. Everything else is just semantics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 19:19:38 GMT
If they do eventually have the Initiative return to the Milky Way and IF they do it in a manner that refers to or clearly continues the story ended in ME3, then Andromeda could become a sequel of ME3 As far as we know, the Andromeda initiative received no communication back from the MW, meaning that the canon ending would be refusal, since nobody is left alive to answer the call. So Andromeda should already be a "fuck you" to your ending of preference, if it wasn't refusal, or a giant "fuck you" to everyone that didn't pick refusal. Or perhaps all the endings eventually lead into a catastrophic event in the Milky Way within the 600 years it takes the Initiative to reach Andromeda, in which case nothing we did in the entire trilogy matters, so "fuck everybody" who played the OT, nothing you ever did mattered, you should have joined the Initiative. Curious - How does a call not being answered automatically translate to no one being there to answer it? Have you never ignored your own telephone ringing for any reason?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 19:25:27 GMT
I don't think I'm misusing the word "invalidate". It's definition is to make (an argument, statement, or theory) unsound or erroneous. I think you, and others here, are attaching an emotional connotation to it that I don't actually share (maybe that's a generational difference, IDK). Shepard or other characters cannot be both dead and not dead regardless of how Bioware writes it or people rationalize it. The moment Bioware brings someone, anyone, back to life their death is immediately invalidated. Yes, Ryder being revived invalidated his/her death - Ryder did not actually die, he/she was "clinically dead for 22 seconds" which is not the same as being dead. IRL, when someone is pronounced dead, they stay dead unless the pronouncement of their death was actually in error. Over the years, we've changed the point in time when we are prepared to pronounce someone dead, but a correct pronouncement of death still results in someone being and remaining dead, period. Well, whatever word you want to use though, you have acknowledge that there is a difference between a situation where the invalidation of someone's death is written into the plot (as in Shepard's and Ryder's, who btw died about 3 times during ME:A by my count ) and another situation where the death of a character (or any other event) is just not taken into account later without any explanation whatsoever.
The former one is a plot development (whether that's a good one or a bad one is a different issue and I certainly have some with how the Lazarus project was written). The latter is just a retcon (take the "development of Cerberus from ME1 to ME2 and also later ME3 for example or half of Andromeda's background lore). Retcons invalidate former plot points and developments without explanation and that is a problem for any plot that wants to call itself coherent, IMO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's at the heart of your discussion. Everything else is just semantics.
I did acknowledge that some people found Lazarus believable and others did not... is that not sufficient. At which point people will suspend their disbelief of fiction varies. I do find it more believable for Ryder to be "clinically dead for 22 seconds" than Shepard being dead for what, hours, days, months after having crashed to a planet from orbit wearing a space helmet that allegedly protected enough of his/her brain to be brought back after two years of surgeries... etc. The fact remains, neither character can be both dead and not dead and since, death is a permanent state, becoming not dead means just that - NOT dead.
If people are amenable to the notion and becoming not dead does not invalidate death... than why do they need a canon to continue with an ME3 sequel at all. It should, therefore, be possible for the MEU to be both synthesized and not synthesized at the same time or the reapers to be under Shepard's control or not under Shepard's control at the same time, or the Reapers to be destroyed or not destroyed at the same time... and still move forward with the story on that basis... even within the MW and picking up immediately after the crucible is fired. However, the proponents of "destroy only, Shepard lives" certainly don't think that's a viable option. Indeed, I even proposed it once awhile ago as a compromise - allow players to choose a world state and Bioware write a brief "background" that connect each different world state by explaining how we got to whatever the current world state (that they decide) will be. It was shot down.
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,275
AnDromedary
4,446
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on May 31, 2019 19:30:58 GMT
I did acknowledge that some people found Lazarus believable and others did not... is that not sufficient. At which point people will suspend their disbelief of fiction varies. I do find it more believable for Ryder to be "clinically dead for 22 seconds" than Shepard being dead for what, hours, days, months after having crashed to a planet from orbit wearing a space helmet that allegedly protected enough of his/her brain to be brought back after two years of surgeries... etc. The fact remains, neither character can be both dead and not dead and since, death is a permanent state, becoming not dead means just that - NOT dead. That's not exactly the point I was getting at (and maybe I misinterpreted your conversation, if so, sorry). I am saying that there is a fundamental difference between Shepard dying and coming back through the Lazarus project, all of which is just part of the plot and, as was mentioned before. something like Leliana dying in DA:O (it can happen), an event which is just ignored in DA2 without explanation and therefore retconned.
I'd actually put Shep's death in ME2 and Ryder's death in ME:A on the same level here. Yes, we can argue about which plot point we find more believable (and I'd agree, Ryder's was more believable) but at least both were revived through the plot. Leliana on the other hand is ... just there again. There is a difference.
And as for death being permanent, I'd actually argue that in the ME universe, it is not. Spend enough credits and you can bring dead people back (that is what the Lazarus project is). If Jacob is to be believed, Shepard was dead, no coma, no cryo, no nothing, dead. And s/he came back, so in the MEU, death is reversible, as strange as that may sound, if we stick to "the text" that's a fact.
The only limitation there is (potentially until they write something even more crazy in the future), is that you cannot be dead and not dead at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 19:48:38 GMT
I did acknowledge that some people found Lazarus believable and others did not... is that not sufficient. At which point people will suspend their disbelief of fiction varies. I do find it more believable for Ryder to be "clinically dead for 22 seconds" than Shepard being dead for what, hours, days, months after having crashed to a planet from orbit wearing a space helmet that allegedly protected enough of his/her brain to be brought back after two years of surgeries... etc. The fact remains, neither character can be both dead and not dead and since, death is a permanent state, becoming not dead means just that - NOT dead. That's not exactly the point I was getting at (and maybe I misinterpreted your conversation, if so, sorry). I am saying that there is a fundamental difference between Shepard dying and coming back through the Lazarus project, all of which is just part of the plot and, as was mentioned before. something like Leliana dying in DA:O (it can happen), an event which is just ignored in DA2 without explanation and therefore retconned.
I'd actually put Shep's death in ME2 and Ryder's death in ME:A on the same level here. Yes, we can argue about which plot point we find more believable (and I'd agree, Ryder's was more believable) but at least both were revived through the plot. Leliana on the other hand is ... just there again. There is a difference.
And as for death being permanent, I'd actually argue that in the ME universe, it is not. Spend enough credits and you can bring dead people back (that is what the Lazarus project is). If Jacob is to be believed, Shepard was dead, no coma, no cryo, no nothing, dead. And s/he came back, so in the MEU, death is reversible, as strange as that may sound, if we stick to "the text" that's a fact.
The only limitation there is (potentially until they write something even more crazy in the future), is that you cannot be dead and not dead at the same time. I don't play DA, so I have no POV on Leliana's death at all... and whether you want to call it semantics or not... being revived equals being not dead and being not dead does not equal being dead... even within the MEU - hence all the quips Bioware wrote into the game about Shepard being only "mostly dead."
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,275
AnDromedary
4,446
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on May 31, 2019 19:57:58 GMT
Hm, I am not sure how else to explain the difference I mean. But suffice it to say that technically, I agree with sirpetrakus, that now that the Lazarus Project is an established lore in the universe and that there is a precedent for bringing back really dead people, there is a way for the writers to logically continue even from an ending where Shepard died and still bring him back.
I am not saying that I would like it (I wouldn't) or that it would be very elegant writing but it would also be somewhat weird to deny that if they can bring him back after what transpired at the beginning of ME2, they can't after an ME3 ending where s/he died.
Whether you consider it to invalidate the ending or not (however you want to use the word invalidate and that's what I meant with semantics here), it from a plot development perspective, it could very well be a logical continuation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 21:16:41 GMT
Hm, I am not sure how else to explain the difference I mean. But suffice it to say that technically, I agree with sirpetrakus, that now that the Lazarus Project is an established lore in the universe and that there is a precedent for bringing back really dead people, there is a way for the writers to logically continue even from an ending where Shepard died and still bring him back. I am not saying that I would like it (I wouldn't) or that it would be very elegant writing but it would also be somewhat weird to deny that if they can bring him back after what transpired at the beginning of ME2, they can't after an ME3 ending where s/he died. Whether you consider it to invalidate the ending or not (however you want to use the word invalidate and that's what I meant with semantics here), it from a plot development perspective, it could very well be a logical continuation. I did cite an example earlier where Shepard could "live" post control as well... He/she would be the eternal entity in control of the reapers and the flavor of that ME story would likely shift to Shepard being a villainous player character. I'd be down for that... but there are those who certainly won't. Do you think they would consider Destroy to still be valid going forward in the MEU if Bioware chose that as a starting point for the next installment. Shepard being there would certainly be explainable within the context of the control ending, but it would still invalidate all the destroy endings and the synthesis ones. Just because bringing Shepard back to life using destroy feels more "believable" to some; doesn't make it any other ending more possible at the same time. Destroy, in that case, regardless of Shepard living or dying would be invalid. To go forward controlling the Reapers, the only decision Shepard could have made at the end of ME3 is Control. I honestly don't see an inherent difference between "life vs. death" or "control vs. synthesis vs. destroy" in "validation of" or "invalidation of" player choices.
At the end of ME2, we are given the valid option for Shepard to die. We have to make a whole series of choices to make that happen, but it can happen. However, if the player decides those things, it is impossible for that Shepard to be imported into ME3. That's a definitive way Bioware has told us that dead is dead even in the MEU.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 1, 2019 11:58:26 GMT
Curious - How does a call not being answered automatically translate to no one being there to answer it? Have you never ignored your own telephone ringing for any reason? Alec seems convinced that whatever happened to the Milky Way fucked it beyond measure and that there is no going back. So I'm guessing it was more than a single call, if he was ready to declare the Milky Way publicly and officially dead, if not for the possibility of a panicked reaction by the arc crews. So yeah, fuck you, me and everybody else that played the OT.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 1, 2019 12:16:35 GMT
I don't think I'm misusing the word "invalidate". It's definition is to make (an argument, statement, or theory) unsound or erroneous. I think you, and others here, are attaching an emotional connotation to it that I don't actually share (maybe that's a generational difference, IDK). Shepard or other characters cannot be both dead and not dead regardless of how Bioware writes it or people rationalize it. The moment Bioware brings someone, anyone, back to life their death is immediately invalidated. Yes, Ryder being revived invalidated his/her death - Ryder did not actually die, he/she was "clinically dead for 22 seconds" which is not the same as being dead. IRL, when someone is pronounced dead, they stay dead unless the pronouncement of their death was actually in error. Over the years, we've changed the point in time when we are prepared to pronounce someone dead, but a correct pronouncement of death still results in someone being and remaining dead, period. So God's pact with his chosen people, that upon the death of his child, mankind would be delivered from sin, is actually a pact that cannot be fulfilled, because their resurrection invalidates their death. Oh, Yahweh, you card. Congratulations, you just invalidated the premise of Islam, Judaism and Christianity in one fell swoop. That is impressive.
I do have a metric that tells me the fan divide is not going away... it's based on the very fact that you've been saying such things as it gives "everyone what they want" or "everyone else" feels one way and I alone feel another. Well, to address your opinion, my implication, which is omitted, because I simply thought we were on the same page, but apparently are not, is that the "everyone what they want" part is that you get an Andromeda game, free of negative market reception, which you do want, right? And the fans that want reconciliation/healing/whatever get a ME game that addresses their concerns, which you too are free to like, if it performs to your standard. As to the "everyone else" being the people that either did or did not have a problem with Bioware's handling of ME, according to the excerpt you quote me from. It has nothing to do with you and your opinion specifically and I am not trying to bash you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 15:32:10 GMT
Hm, I am not sure how else to explain the difference I mean. But suffice it to say that technically, I agree with sirpetrakus, that now that the Lazarus Project is an established lore in the universe and that there is a precedent for bringing back really dead people, there is a way for the writers to logically continue even from an ending where Shepard died and still bring him back. I am not saying that I would like it (I wouldn't) or that it would be very elegant writing but it would also be somewhat weird to deny that if they can bring him back after what transpired at the beginning of ME2, they can't after an ME3 ending where s/he died. Whether you consider it to invalidate the ending or not (however you want to use the word invalidate and that's what I meant with semantics here), it from a plot development perspective, it could very well be a logical continuation. I'm not saying it can't be rationalized. I'm saying being not dead invalidates being dead. You can talk about it in the past tense, he/she died and was brought back, but you cannot say he/she IS dead because now they are not dead. The rationalization of it could be believable or not believable, but any Shepard I played who chose to die and stay dead for the cause would be invalidated. If I chose to play to kill Liara in the end run and she doesn't stay dead, my choice as a player is invalidated. My belief in having played a Finale is invalidated by any continuation. Some people wouldn't mind it, and others would. I would PREFER they did not invalidate any part of their Finale as they wrote... because I have no issues with how they wrote their Finale in the first place. They could add ending to it that could say multiple different things... but if one leads to a continuation, ME3 is no longer a Finale. I really don't understand why people have a problem with allowing me to feel as I do about this. I'm not interfering with how they feel about it in any way, shape or form.
Even if they sell Andromeda and let somebody else carry that story forward, Bioware changing their MET finale into a "to be continued" episode would not be "what I want" (i.e. my preference)... but they can choose what THEY WANT to do and I won't backlash. That's my bottom line. I have nothing else to compromise to create a middle ground here to settle this debate. The rest is up to the rest of you... but I don't see the fan base divide (even within this small group left here) going away anytime soon regardless of what Bioware decides to do to try to save itself.
|
|
inherit
57
0
1
Nov 24, 2024 21:03:26 GMT
35,520
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,923
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Jun 3, 2019 20:42:08 GMT
A mild disagreement removed. Let's continue from a fresh post, shall we.
|
|