Mass Effect 4 Will Not Feature Shepard or "Shepard 2"

[carpathic]

After ME3...ME4 may not feature a Carpathic either.

Unless of course they return to the awesomeness of the first Mass Effect with its gritty 80's feel.

That would really be awesome!

And I get to see and interact more with Noveria. I loved that city, with its architectural concrete and fountains. I would live there.

 

[Geth Reich]

I hope ME4 will have you play as the descendent of one of the Citadel shop owners Shepard endorsed, caught in an epic legal battle with the other stores over whose endorsement is right.

 

[Geth Reich]

Some times I feel like one of the only logical people here...ugh.

I'll make It short and sweet: Mass Effect, like Star Wars, has a vast and rich amount of history and lore behind the universe that it can sustain itself without having one main chactarter throughout the whole series (I.E. Halo 4, Master Chief). Star Wars does not equal Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, just like Mass Effect does not equal Commander Shepard or the Reapers. Star Wars proved this theory with many of it's critically acclaimed games and comics (KOTOR as a famous example and the extended universe).

Mass Effect can be the same thing. In fact, they shouldn't name their next game "Mass Effect 4" since it's not the 4th installment of Shepard's story. They could call it "Mass Effect: the Legend of Garrus" or "Mass Effect: Attack of the Seashells" or something.

Either way, despite Bioware's rep being rocky for the last couple of years (understatement of the year), this is the best decision they have made so far.

This.

There's literally tons of material in the background of the universe for a new game with a radically new (i.e. not special forces soldier) gameplay style-alien private investigator on Omega perhaps?

 

[Something Amyss]

I like local multiplayer just fine, Worms, PAIN, Bomberman and alike......just never got into doing the same online, perhaps its a case of wanting to see the faces of my vanquished enemies

Opinions on the story differ with every person you talk to, i for the most part liked it, and its allways been one of my favorite gamer series. But that doesn't stop me seeing what others could find fault with and in some case agree with (of course though not as strongly).

Fair enough. I mostly MP with friends anyway. It's easier for me to get my friends arranged for game night if they can play at home. All the trash talk and fun, albeit no stupid expressions.

I don't like online communities in general when it comes to gaming. If I wanted to hear homophobic and racist slurs, I'd go to a family gathering.

I loved ME1, for the record.

Anyway, good to disagree with someone who's agreeable.

 

[zinho73]

It's weird how I feel unexcited about this. I hardly even consider it newsworthy. First, because it is as vague as vague can be: no Sheppard and nothing else. And second, my ME balloon really was popped with the whole ending thinghy.

 

[Camaranth]

I'm okay with this Shepherd's story ended in ME 3. I hope they go for some what Firefly angle with Mass Effect 4. A rag tag group of smugglers on the edge of terminus system that would be pretty cool .

Strange this is exactly what I was thinking. Firefly in the ME universe. Parallel, before or after events of ME3. Doesn't matter, just a group exploring and trying to survive.

Hell run it parallel with ME1 and then have a newscaster or squadmate (it's Bioware. No squadmates would be like a kettle without fish) at some point go
"Hey there is a human spectre now."
"Really who?"
"I dunno, Alliance, Sheep or something."

And there is your nod to the source material, carry on.

 

[crazyrabbits]

Some times I feel like one of the only logical people here...ugh.

I'll make It short and sweet: Mass Effect, like Star Wars, has a vast and rich amount of history and lore behind the universe that it can sustain itself without having one main chactarter throughout the whole series (I.E. Halo 4, Master Chief). Star Wars does not equal Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, just like Mass Effect does not equal Commander Shepard or the Reapers. Star Wars proved this theory with many of it's critically acclaimed games and comics (KOTOR as a famous example and the extended universe).

What you've just said validates the case for another Shepard-oriented installment even more.

Shepard, by him/herself, was the catalyst (no pun intended) for the entirety of the events in the trilogy. You are the one who has to actively stop the Reapers, shut down the Citadel Sovereign broadcast, get things for people, grant Spectre authorization, stop the Collectors, etc. I could go on all day.

If anything, the narrative shows that the galaxy is incapable of doing practically anything unless Shepard does it for them. The Council refused to believe the threat until zero-hour, and suffered for it. Garrus probably would have been toast without your help. According to the default choices in the series, the game assumes the worst possible outcome if you weren't around to aid your squadmates/the galaxy. Trying to throw in another human character who has the same function will only make BW's stupid decision to kill off Shepard even more obvious.

That said, BW has also tried multiple times to push spinoff characters in tie-in games (Jacob in ME: Galaxies, the secret agent in ME3: Infiltrator), and those were forgettable installments that had no impact on anything.

Point is, the only way they're going to succeed is if they retcon Shepard's death. They haven't proven their ability in recent years to craft a compelling character who isn't a human. If the money is needed, they'll retcon him in a heartbeat.

They could call it "Mass Effect: the Legend of Garrus"

This is the same problem that happened in the third game. All of the ME2 squadmates were homogenized to the point of irrelevance because there was the possibility that they died in 2's Suicide Mission. All of your squadmates (barring a single one) could be killed in that mission, and BW/EA wouldn't bother to craft more extra content/DLC/a spinoff game for potentially-dead people without serious retcons.

They wrote themselves into a corner, and they're not going to get out of it without retconning the entire ending wholesale. The Extended Cut wasn't enough, even though it tried.

 

[O maestre]

Spoiler: snip

why do we need ME4 its just going to get ruined, the universe is huge find another story in the universe or make an entirely new IP!(fat chance) to make a game about. why must we be pelted with sequels for a franchise that is already weakening and needs no more dilution.

i am sorry if i am over reacting but i genuinely like the series, and the thought of mass effect becoming like COD a sort of yearly title thing scares the fanboy in me to the very core.


seriously somebody needs to hammer in the fact that trilogy means 3 and that sequels can actually hurt a series retroactively, i am a fan to the extent that i might even say dumb irrational things in this series defense and probably have in the past. I do not want another ME, because i believe all good entertainment must have an indisputable end.

although the article is vague and attempting to dismiss the idea of a direct sequel i have a nagging feeling that they are empty promises, and that we will see the same thing with varying circumstances

Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel and DC comics and movies say hi.

i dont think you understood my post, i dont believe they genuinely intend to do something new with the franchise, as in telling a new story within the universe, and if they do it will only be circumstantially different, i dont think they have the balls to walk away from something that has proven to be financially rewarding.

i am only extrapolating from your other post, which i in retrospect should have quoted as i don't really understand what your references have to do with my posts

 

[Diana Davidsson]

I wouldn't touch it with a mile long pole after the EPIC failure of ME3. And, as we learned (again) with ME3, don't listen to magazines when they review it, go for user reaction. If the user reaction is like with ME3 then it's probably not worth it and it's better to wait and get a used copy later on.

 

[Fudj]

I like local multiplayer just fine, Worms, PAIN, Bomberman and alike......just never got into doing the same online, perhaps its a case of wanting to see the faces of my vanquished enemies

Opinions on the story differ with every person you talk to, i for the most part liked it, and its allways been one of my favorite gamer series. But that doesn't stop me seeing what others could find fault with and in some case agree with (of course though not as strongly).

Fair enough. I mostly MP with friends anyway. It's easier for me to get my friends arranged for game night if they can play at home. All the trash talk and fun, albeit no stupid expressions.

I don't like online communities in general when it comes to gaming. If I wanted to hear homophobic and racist slurs, I'd go to a family gathering.

I loved ME1, for the record.

Anyway, good to disagree with someone who's agreeable.

Well just because you disagree does not automatically make someone a dick...a lesson a few people here could learn for me i have to see the expressions of dismay...thats what gets my mutiplayer rocks off

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Fair enough, though I wonder where they'll go from where ME3 left off...

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

snip

Yahtzee called, he wants his lines back. In any case, just because you didn't enjoy the rest of the game doesn't mean that others had to hate it too. It's not like there's differing opinions in the world. And while I was talking about the rest of the game I meant both story and gameplay were above average. The story had a way of feeling intense and epic while at the same time being understandable, and the gameplay didn't detract from it in any way and I felt Shepard growing stronger the longer I played. All in all, the game was outstanding, if a little disappointing with the end for some people.

 

[Mourne]

snip

Yahtzee called, he wants his lines back. In any case, just because you didn't enjoy the rest of the game doesn't mean that others had to hate it too. It's not like there's differing opinions in the world. And while I was talking about the rest of the game I meant both story and gameplay were above average. The story had a way of feeling intense and epic while at the same time being understandable, and the gameplay didn't detract from it in any way and I felt Shepard growing stronger the longer I played. All in all, the game was outstanding, if a little disappointing with the end for some people.

Agreed. I felt that the story and combat mixed together quite nicely (one of the memorable ones for me is the introduction of the banshee on the ardat-yakshi monastery).

As for the game in entirety, I loved it. I don't understand how fifteen minutes ruins 20+ hours of gameplay. I've always looked to the adventure of getting through the story. And after spending a large amount of time on the game, I was pleased that I kept my view of the game as it was, for I was disappointed in the ending (I had avoided the pre-spoilers). I was amazed with the Extended Cut, though, because it filled in the holes and any assumptions I had made. And not only after that, I found out how the universe ended up, and the consequences thereof. It was informative, and I was pleased with the ending. And especially the very end, with the Normandy, was great. It gave a closing, but also gave you substance for thought. Before the EC, you knew nothing. And now, you had the ability to make reasonable assumptions.

Overall, I'm pleased with the game, and I agree with your statements.

 

[Doom972]

But who would buy it at this point, after so much fail on 3?

So much fail? Up to retaking Earth, most people seemed to be having fun, and they fixed the endings, though many people still weren't pleased for not getting their perfect ending.

*groan* I'm really getting tired of Bioware apologists acting as if A) it was the fans being unreasonable B) the lack of a perfect ending where you marry your waifu is the source of the complaint and C) the false-meme that the DLC actually fixed the ending. The major problem that exists because of the ass-pull that is the God-Child and the forced A,B,C ending that disregards every decision you've made to that point still exists. Internal consistency and genre focus might be a minor quibble to you but stop acting as if it means nothing to everyone else too.

In Deus Ex: Invisible War, they combined the endings without revealing the order in which they happened (the first being the one chosen by the player). It's not a very good way of making a sequel, but it's an option. As I said, I prefer that it won't take place after ME3.

With the allotment that in Invisible War these three things all could possible exist alongside one another. For this to happen in Mass Effect the Reapers would have to be simultaneously controlled by God-Shepard and destroyed. Shepard would have to exist within the Catalyst controlling the reapers, dead, and alive.

Oh look, another person still complaining about Mass Effect 3's ending. Did you not enjoy the other 20 hours of the game? Did you not think the other 99% of it was above normal?

I can't speak for everyone, but I did not. ME2 + 3 were generic chest-high-wall shooters. ME2 at least had the redeemable quality that was strong characters and dialogue, ME3 did not. Let's be honest, ME was never a series that had especially strong mechanics. It kept people going because of how well written it was. I'm not the only person who has stated that they couldn't wait for the action to get over so they could get back to story when it came to ME1.

I liked the ending, it was a means for each player to interpret it their own way rather than to have a story told to us.

PLEASE inform me of how you interpreted those endings differently. I would love to hear how you managed an interpretation of the ending events at all.

In retrospect, it was probably the best way they could end the series.

Probably, though that's not as a result of clever writing as much as it was Bioware writing itself into a corner. I suspected that sometime after ME2 Bioware would find itself not sure of where to proceed. That's the problem with "planned" trilogies and stubborn refusal to think ahead.

Some times I feel like one of the only logical people here...ugh.

I don't think you should call yourself "one of the only logical people here" and then post a summary of what everyone else has already said. You're missing the point anyway, just because a series can go on doesn't mean it should and if it should that doesn't mean it should continue in the same format. Mass Effect has been written into a corner; you can't do a prequel because humanity is a new comer on the scene and all the major actions therein have been covered, leaving little room for players to create their own stories. Looking into the future? You get to canonize 1 of 3 endings that most ME3 fanboys have difficulty offering more than faint praise for. ME3 detractors have reason to be skeptical, highly so.

Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel and DC comics and movies say hi.

I'm not sure what that has to do with, well, ANYTHING but all the terrible things those IPs put out regularly say hi right back.

I didn't apologize for anyone, and I don't appreciate being labeled as such. I personally enjoyed the game up until Earth, which was mostly grey, boring and repetitive, and the original endings made me not want to play ME3 through with my other Shepards. I found the Extended Cut endings satisfactory and I know that many others did as well. It makes sense to me that they won't make an ending according to each and every player's fantasy, and I don't see how that would even be possible. Also, no matter how many people cry over it, there's no way to defeat the Reapers conventionally.

As for my Deus Ex example, I gave that example to show how some developers might choose to handle a sequel to a game with several different endings. I didn't say that it was particularly good or that it would work with Mass Effect.

 

[Blind Sight]

Regardless of your opinion on the ending, it was pretty final in regards to universe lore. Expanding beyond that into the future would probably be a bad idea, it'll just create an even more deterministic setting then ME3 did.

Then again, I'll admit I'm openly jaded towards new Bioware games. After Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins I was really looking forward to what they would put out next. Mass Effect 2 was ok, the plot problems started to emerge there, but overall it was a good experience (with probably only a quarter or so of the game having major issues). Then Dragon Age 2 came out and you could see the design philosophy shifting to somewhere really...weird. It ended up being massively bogged down with plot issues and terrible pacing, but I gave it a bit of a free pass due to its rushed nature. Then Mass Effect 3 came out, with its blatant emotional manipulation, weak plot, flaccid villains, and confusing lore choices. People focus on the ending and I don't really understand why the rest of the game gets so much of a free pass, perhaps because it's just such a perfect summary of how messy the whole trilogy turned out in the end.

Anyway, I'm sensing a trend here, and unless Bioware decides to change its company culture very soon I doubt we'll see a return to their former quality.

 

[Doom972]

-snip-

I found the Extended Cut endings satisfactory and I know that many others did as well.

I'm sorry but the only way someone can be satisfied with the extended cut endings is if you don't think them through. Sure, they removed the glaringly obvious teleport but there are still several unexplained plotholes.

It makes sense to me that they won't make an ending according to each and every player's fantasy, and I don't see how that would even be possible.

It wouldn't, fortunately absolutely no one was asking for that. There's a difference between an ending which is reflected by your choices and using magic to create the ideal ending everyone wanted. You know, the thing Bioware said they were going to do then reneged on?

Also, no matter how many people cry over it, there's no way to defeat the Reapers conventionally.

Which is probably why the Reaper invasion should've never happened to begin with. If you create an enemy so powerful, where each one of their number is basically a minor physical god, but you also need your universe to survive into the sequel, don't force the protagonist(s) to engage them directly. The Reaper invasion, starting from the end of ME2, was just a poor writing decision.

As for my Deus Ex example, I gave that example to show how some developers might choose to handle a sequel to a game with several different endings. I didn't say that it was particularly good or that it would work with Mass Effect.

Granted, however that wasn't my point. My point was that there isn't anything Bioware could do that maintains all three endings that isn't a clusterfuck; they've canonically run out of space magic when the mass relays went super nova.

Sorry, but if you think that there are serious plotholes, I don't think you understood the endings very well.

Nobody was asking for a very specific ending? The Bioware ME3 forum I was reading was full of threads about why couldn't they get this or that very specific event in the end.

You would be right about the Reaper invasion, except for the fact that ME3 was planned as the last in that story arc. For that purpose the Reaper invasion made sense. They never said they want to make a sequel to ME3, but just another game in the ME universe.

I know Bioware can't combine the endings, and again that wasn't my point. My point was that there are ways (some of them not as good as others) to make a sequel to a game with multiple endings.