This isn't Mass Effect 4 -- remember that

I think those who consider this a reboot of any kind are wrong, it's a side story, a tangent.

A reboot implies BioWare are ignoring or rewriting the lore and world building that came before to a certain extent: they are not.

A tangent implies we are heading in a side direction from the Trilogy story loop, and indeed that is what we are doing.



I can understand that those who are still in pain over the ME3 endings want to 'forget' and wipe the slate clean, but there are many of us that are perfectly fine with how the Trilogy ended (Shepard was indoctrinated by the end, after all..*wink*), and see mention of this being a reboot to the series as gear grinding.  Never has there been mention of any lore addition or timeline event that hasn't been explained within the current lore (even though space magic has to come into play for things like muscle atrophy and such during our trip, etc), so to consider this a fully clean slate, as if to 'wipe away' the previous trilogy, offends me as a volus.  Sure, the AI had to be added into the galactic timeline to accommodate the events of this new game/series, but nothing has been interferred with by doing so, it's enhanced the timeline, not rebooted any part of it.

This is an adventure set in the Mass Effect Universe with references to existing characters such as Shepard and other galactic figureheads (Mac has confirmed this to Game Informer and in other interviews), we are not ignoring the events of the trilogy and starting anew, we are paying homage to them by going on another awesome adventure set in the same, but Andromeda based, part of the same Mass Effect Universe.




You guys, I like you guys

Anyone who's still whining about the endings shouldn't play Mass Effect: Andromeda. BioWare doesn't care what a bunch of people who can't stand not getting exactly what they want think. The campaign of harassment and threats only resulted in BioWare releasing a DLC that repeated information actual fans already acknowledged, because they were perfectly aware that was exactly what the ending-bashers needed.

ME:A is still going to have difficult decisions where there is no perfect outcome. So if you still rage about the fact that a trilogy about difficult decisions ended with a difficult decision, ME:A really isn't the game for you. ME1, ME2, and ME3 never were either.

Thing is, 'getting exactly what we wanted' would have meant getting a well written, coherent, satisfying ending including difficult decisions and sacrifices. But then you already knew that.

Crusade was just hitting it's stride when it was cancelled.  Shame really because the story would eventually have seen earth painted in a really poor light in regards to experimentation on shadow tech.

Maybe he doesn't know that. One of the things that poisoned our discourse about the endings is that the proposed fixes for the ending almost always made it happier, typically by removing the negative consequences of Destroy and/or a big-ass reunion scene with Shepard and the crew. When people are proposing that sort of fix, it's not crazy to conclude that the added happiness is the point.

Note that there is a respectable version of the argument too. If you posit that ME was always about having a way to escape the hard choices rather than being forced to make one, then the final choice is a mismatch with the established choice structure. Virmire's a counterexample, but the argument can still be taken seriously.

We need some medi-gel stat! That burn....amazing. 

But yeah, the gameplay combat trailer eased some of my concerns along that route. Now I just need some idea of how the story is. 

I don't agree with that first paragraph. You'd have to bury your head pretty deep in the sand to think everyone who complained about the ending only wanted something "happy." I'd have been satisfied with Shepard straight up dying with Anderson, no platform, no starchild, red ending happens, game over.

But I agree with your second paragraph. When people talk about ME being a game of sacrifices, I think huh, I guess they weren't paying attention. There was exactly one absolutely required "hard decision" in there, and that was in ME1.

Who knew that making a thread dictating to other people not only what he perceives as their response to Andromeda, but how they should respond and react to the changes in ME:A would result in some defensive replies?  

And as I've said many MANY times before:  that's because of the lack of variety of endings made them all so bleak.  There was no OPTION for anything better.  Not like, say, DAO.

Shepard's death was, quite simply, the most obvious example of what was wrong with the endings.  Not the only problem

At least you can admit that all you wanted was an easy out.

Thanks. This is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of when I posted.

A lack of variety isn't your actual problem. You need the upper bound of the endings to be happier. Anyone who's seen your posts knows this by the way you reacted to Refuse.

Really, do you expect anyone to believe that adding a larger spectrum of endings would have satisfied you, if none of the were any happier than the existing endings? That doesn't pass the laugh test.

web.archive.org/web/20120513021759/http://www.gamesthirst.com/2012/03/25/mass-effect-3-writer-accuse-casey-hudson-of-going-it-alone-bioware-stays-silent/

For me, Anderson’s goodbye is where it ended. The stuff with the Catalyst just… You have to understand. Casey is really smart and really analytical. And the problem is that when he’s not checked, he will assume that other people are like him, and will really appreciate an almost completely unemotional intellectual ending. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t love it.

Did some like that "higher intelligence" endgame? Yes...but the big thing is, a whole ton of us hated those pineapples and wanted something different on the damned pizza.