Mass Effect 3's Ending Won't Affect Andromeda
- Thread starter ffronw
- Start date
No, I think they don't give a crap about fanbase - or they'd never make such an ending in the first place (and by ending I mean the whole shitefest which is ME3), but making this stuff not even have consequences (srsly, in one of outcomes all organic life became partially synthetic - whatever it means - and noone even noticed?!), AND potentially completely denominate the Reaper threat by potentially adding safe location to live during their invasion? GENIUS! So, Reapers were not into the life in Milky Way, but Andromedans? Pfff, they're fine. Or what, the Cycle in Andromeda had certain shift?[/quote]Rastrelly said:
Okay, the impression that I get is that not meeting your particular expectations="fuck you" from the developer.
There was no such time. Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes Vs Women Kickstarter dropped like, two months after ME3, and "WARGARBL FEMINISM was already a thing by then.Hero in a half shell said:
I think it's a good thing that they are skipping the RGB ending of ME3, it's like it's an acknowledgment on their behalf that it was so poorly done that even they are unable to pull back from it (without publicly admitting it).
Some of the rumours I have heard about this game, is that it will include a mechanic very similar to MGS5's online FOB system. Doesn't fill me with happy thoughts if true. I don't like the idea of my single player experience suffering because multiplayer holds little interest for me.
Some of the rumours I have heard about this game, is that it will include a mechanic very similar to MGS5's online FOB system. Doesn't fill me with happy thoughts if true. I don't like the idea of my single player experience suffering because multiplayer holds little interest for me.
In an alternate universe, BioWare has announced that Andromeda canonizes one of the endings of Mass Effect 3. Fan whining proves to be just as strong there. The space time continuum throws up its hands and says "okay kids, play on my lawn."
i guess they will give us different coloured explosions for andromeda. maybe pink, yellow and brown.
Whilst their reputation was probably stronger back then, it would've been with far fewer people relative to now; Neverwinter was a PC game and Jade Empire wasn't exactly a smash hit.fix-the-spade said:
And how important, really, is perceived reputation from 'core' gamers? Will the bulk of ME:A's [probably very good] sales come from those who still have pre-ME1 BioWare in mind? I highly doubt it.
Personally, I felt DA2 was one of their very best (it would probably tie with ME2 for my favourite BioWare game), ME3 may well be their most accomplished overall, and whilst DA:I was fundamentally flawed I still sank a few hundred hours into given I still love the DA world, and especially its characters (I have a few more playthroughs I'd like to do as well).
Can you name any other triple-A sci-fantasy SP A/RPG's?
I'd say what ME:A's offering is very likely to be less distinct than what ME1 offered, relative to the industry then and now, sure. However, I can't think of any other triple-A IP that's quite like ME, so I'd say there's a huge/guaranteed market waiting to lap up every possible unit.
Eh, I wouldn't quite call it a reboot, given it's still set figuratively and literally in the same universe. Just because the plot can side-step continuity doesn't mean they're going to outright wipe out or retcon anything.
It's far too early to comment on whether they have any more worthwhile stories to tell in the universe, but I am skeptical how well received it'll be by fans, given how synonymous Shepard was with the trilogy's appeal[footnote]I thought s/he was actually a fairly terrible example of PC design in an RPG that never really allowed you to RP, or followed a defined protagonist's story, but that's beside the point... I can't pretend Shepard hasn't become [genuinely-not-Ubisoft] iconic.[/footnote]. Follow DA:I's design and the new trilogy will be saddled with a colossal, inert, special snowflake bore. Craft a more defined character with a linear story (which is what I'd prefer), and the core fans will find new toys to throw out of numerous prams.
I would love to see a follow up to ME3, but given its endings I concede that's not possible. Still, as my avatar rather gives away, I'm fond of stories that involve finding new homes in another galaxy, so I like the concept of ME:A already.
Star Ocean?Darth Rosenberg said:
Final Fantasy XIII?
Deus Ex?
You do say "sci-fantasy" though, which is a different thing from "science fiction," which Mass Effect fits. I think games like Final Fantasy XIII would fit the definition of "sci-fa," while most FF games are just plain fantasy. Not sure about Star Ocean though - haven't played enough to determine whether I'd classify it as sci-fa or sci-fi. And just a glance at Deus Ex puts it firmly in the sci-fi end of the spectrum.
I think they should sneak in an easter egg ending somehow. Maybe during the binning, characters are looking at the night sky at the good 'ol milky way, and it has a subtle blue, red, or green glow?
Either way, I don't really give a sh**. I was P/O'd at ME3, I half assed bought DAI on a holiday sale and never finished it, and I don't plan to reinstall Origin on my brand new system. So meh.
Either way, I don't really give a sh**. I was P/O'd at ME3, I half assed bought DAI on a holiday sale and never finished it, and I don't plan to reinstall Origin on my brand new system. So meh.
So...why are they telling us to "hold on to your save games" if they're not acknowledging the endings?
Are we just getting bits and pieces of lore and alterations based on what happened up until these Arcs or whatever launched? Is that what they're doing? Does that make much sense when they couldn't be bothered to acknowledge/alter the game in an appreciable manner for even major decisions in ME3?
Wait, oh god, Ryder (that is...that is definitely a name, Bioware, good job) is probably an N7 operative who trained with or served under Shepard and the save is literally just going to be used for face data/flashbacks with Shep in a mentor role or whatever, isn't it? D:
But really, I don't know how to feel about this-
Inquisition has been sitting on my HDD, relatively unmolested, for like a year now (I lost interest really quickly when I realized it was basically a single-player mmo with shitty PC controls made all the more vomit-inducing by a happy youtube video from Bioware declaring themselves to be super duper focused on PC gamers) and this is...well, it's their last damned shot with me.
They've really been dropping the ball. This is definitely not a pre-order. It's a wait and see- which is something I honestly never thought would be my approach to a Bioware game, four years ago at least.
Well, Hudson's gone I guess, so there's hope?
Are we just getting bits and pieces of lore and alterations based on what happened up until these Arcs or whatever launched? Is that what they're doing? Does that make much sense when they couldn't be bothered to acknowledge/alter the game in an appreciable manner for even major decisions in ME3?
Wait, oh god, Ryder (that is...that is definitely a name, Bioware, good job) is probably an N7 operative who trained with or served under Shepard and the save is literally just going to be used for face data/flashbacks with Shep in a mentor role or whatever, isn't it? D:
But really, I don't know how to feel about this-
Inquisition has been sitting on my HDD, relatively unmolested, for like a year now (I lost interest really quickly when I realized it was basically a single-player mmo with shitty PC controls made all the more vomit-inducing by a happy youtube video from Bioware declaring themselves to be super duper focused on PC gamers) and this is...well, it's their last damned shot with me.
They've really been dropping the ball. This is definitely not a pre-order. It's a wait and see- which is something I honestly never thought would be my approach to a Bioware game, four years ago at least.
Well, Hudson's gone I guess, so there's hope?
Big surprise there. Aknowledge one ending, people will be upset. Aknowledge no ending, people will be upset. It's a no-win battle.
How long did the Reaper War even last? Weeks? Months? That would assume that the Andromeda ship was being made well before the Reapers showed up. Also, was it established anywhere that the current Milky Way Aliens had cryotechonology? I know that the Protheans had it.SlumlordThanatos said:
We don't know for certain, but Javik said that it took the Reapers centuries to subjugate the Protheans. And considering how big the Crucible was, and the amount of experimental technology poured into it, the Reaper War had to have lasted at least a few years. My guess would be somewhere in the neighborhood of five years or so.Jute88 said:
As for cryotechnology, I'm not 100% sure if a Citadel race possessed the tech or not, but considering how advanced the Salarians and the Asari are, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume one, the other, or both had developed the required technology. Also, the stasis chambers wouldn't need to operate for as long as, say, the chamber you find Javik in, who was frozen for 50,000 years.
Doubt that. I can understand it taking centuries for the Protheans to fall, but would Earth really hold out for that no. of years so that by the end of the game, Anderson and a fair no. of people are still alive?SlumlordThanatos said:
Lots of wars in fiction last a similarly short amount of time. Either you've got to cover a years-long conflict or jump around a lot. Now apply that problem, and couple it with the fact that you're in an RPG where the pace at which you progress through the main storyline is up to you. In the space of Mass Effect specifically, I feel it works, because it highlights how much damage the Reapers can do in such a short amount of time.MC1980 said:
Similarly, rate of construction is a non-issue, considering that it's the future, and therefore without parallel to real-world considerations.
This is an obvious decision, since aside from being controversial, the endings are too massive in scope to properly differentiate for future games anyway. Plus, you know, new console generation means they probably can't do the save transfer thing even if they wanted to.
I once came up with an idea for how you could easily integrate the 3 endings into future games without much effort and that would be using them as the in-game difficulty levels. This way you could represent the final choice while providing a narrative justification for a normally non-digetic gameplay aspect. The way I see it, Easy mode would be called "Synthesis" and would be set in a universe where the synthesis event has made everyone stronger, fitter and smarter, explaining why your characters have more health and do more damage. Normal would be Control, where nothing actually changed except for the Reapers turning face, which would be irrelevant in a game set in Andromeda. And Hard mode would be Destruction, where the destruction of synthetic life has had a trickle down effect on the galaxy's technology, making everything weaker and less efficient, thereby making life harder for people.
The obvious issue there is that people might be forced to choose between their preferred difficulty setting and an ending they didn't want. But that shouldn't be a problem because nobody wanted any of those endings anyway. And besides, I reckon the 3 choices line up roughly with the certain playstyles. Anecdotally, the people who picked Synthesis were the ones who took everything at face value and made idealistic choices. They probably play fairly casually and as such wouldn't mind doing the game on Easy. By contrast, Destroyers tended to be the hardline "fuck you Bioware, you ruined everything rah rah rah" types. After years of talking the talk, it would give them a chance to walk the walk. And Control is for people who kept an open mind, didn't let emotions cloud their judgement and wanted to get a balanced outcome that didn't upset the status quo too much. I'll see you in the new utopia, friend.
I once came up with an idea for how you could easily integrate the 3 endings into future games without much effort and that would be using them as the in-game difficulty levels. This way you could represent the final choice while providing a narrative justification for a normally non-digetic gameplay aspect. The way I see it, Easy mode would be called "Synthesis" and would be set in a universe where the synthesis event has made everyone stronger, fitter and smarter, explaining why your characters have more health and do more damage. Normal would be Control, where nothing actually changed except for the Reapers turning face, which would be irrelevant in a game set in Andromeda. And Hard mode would be Destruction, where the destruction of synthetic life has had a trickle down effect on the galaxy's technology, making everything weaker and less efficient, thereby making life harder for people.
The obvious issue there is that people might be forced to choose between their preferred difficulty setting and an ending they didn't want. But that shouldn't be a problem because nobody wanted any of those endings anyway. And besides, I reckon the 3 choices line up roughly with the certain playstyles. Anecdotally, the people who picked Synthesis were the ones who took everything at face value and made idealistic choices. They probably play fairly casually and as such wouldn't mind doing the game on Easy. By contrast, Destroyers tended to be the hardline "fuck you Bioware, you ruined everything rah rah rah" types. After years of talking the talk, it would give them a chance to walk the walk. And Control is for people who kept an open mind, didn't let emotions cloud their judgement and wanted to get a balanced outcome that didn't upset the status quo too much. I'll see you in the new utopia, friend.