Support NeoGAF

[Vashetti]

^ the Refusal ending is the ultimate selfish option.

 

[vocab]

It had a good run, but lets be honest. Bioware is kind of a dead company. Any sequel at this point is going to be fan service, and I would rather see a new IP.

 

[Melchiah]

^ the Refusal ending is the ultimate selfish option.

Did you watch the video? The dialogue could basically be from Mass Effect with few changes here and there. They only changed refusal to synthesis, and by doing so diminished the ending.

 

[Vashetti]

It had a good run, but lets be honest. Bioware is kind of a dead company. Any sequel at this point is going to be fan service, and I would rather see a new IP.

 

[i-Lo]

This is my general view of things. I also think the next game should directly address the fallout of ME3 within a short time span of 50-100 years. BioWare needs to choose an ending, 90% chance it will be Destroy but with some caveats like the Geth survived, and then set the game in that universe where things have noticeably changed due to a near galactic wide extermination and all out war with a superior entity.

I don't want the game to dwell on the events of ME3, I don't need them to work overly hard to explain what happened and why, just choose the universe you want it to be in and show the results of that choice as we explore it and play the game.

There are a lot of things they need to address. Like how will the different races recover, or falter, after their near extinction. What kind of alliances and decisions will they make because of that. Play around with how easy or rather difficult it may be to repair and restore the Mass Relay System and how long periods of isolation maybe have changed some areas and portions of races. Would there be a push for new means of galactic travel outside the Mass Relays? How would it work, and more importantly what would there be to find in the vastness of space not connected by the MRS and who would be daring enough to explore those uncharted areas? Hint maybe the player?

How would having tons of dead Reapers affect the advancement of technology and science. Would that initiate another Mass Effect similar to what humans experienced after the discovery of the Prothean base on Mars? How would various races and factions within them feel about using the same technology that nearly wiped them out. Would government ban Reaper tech or heavily regulate it producing a vast blackmarket and industry for secretly acquiring, researching and developing Reaper based tech.

Put us in this galaxy and let us explore, literally and figuratively, the changes that have occurred after the events of ME3. My biggest fear is that they'll just explain away the events of ME1-3 and return things to business as usual, here's ME4 and a universe not much different from before.

This is basically the next logical progression if the timeline and its events in the canon are preserved. It is like logic meeting Game of Thrones meeting Star Trek.

The issue is that it will be far easier to create a Mass Effect prequel that accounts for the first contact war with the Turians and insert a non-canonical foe/force that could be expounded upon for utilization and exploitation in the remaining two sequels in the new trilogy that could take place years after the incidents of ME3.

 

[Dany]

I would rather they make the entire new trilogy about the Star Child.

RPG comes saddled with all kinds of dead weight. Wish they would just ditch genre labels entirely. An economy based loot system would be so much more interesting. In a game about exploration wouldn't it be more interesting to trade in the information you've discovered?

Traditional RPG: Visit the Raloi homeworld. Fight some stuff, do some things, and find random crap in the environment.
"Hey look at this. The Raloi somehow managed to have all these upgrades appropriate to my level and it all fits even though their legs are double jointed."

What could be: Visit the Raloi homeworld. Fight some stuff and do some things. Offer the information you've gained to appropriate channels for cash and rewards.
"Hey listen to this. The Raloi love pizza. Send them pizza and your negotiations will go better. You owe me credits and a lead on the armor I asked for."

Nothing was a better reminder of this than Tungsten/Shredder ammo in the first Mass Effect. I had to grind and at times save/reload in order to make sure some random mooks and boxes had what I needed at a certain level. Somehow the Alliance requistion officer on a brand new prototype vessel couldn't get it done and sell me the upgrades. Somehow the Citadel SPECTRE organization couldn't get it done.

Hrm.
Pacing of Mass Effect 1.

Yo man, you were on the citadel for like an hour of two before you got your ship to leave. It was kinda wonky.

 

[EatChildren]

Hmm. In terms of the "flashback" like sequences, I wonder if it'd be the game basically asking the player what they did during the original trilogy in a thinly veiled manner.. That'd be odd for new players.

I should note that the flashbacks, and canonical place in the series, weren't outright confirmed. They came about from me prying as to an old rumour that Montreal's game would be based around the First Contact War, despite fans clamouring for a sequel. Persons wouldn't commit to prequel/sequel/whatever, but implied that it was set canonically after the trilogy, and suggested that maybe "flashback" sequences would occur.

There may not be any "flashback" sequences at all, and if there are they may be thematically limited to the multiplayer (eg: multiplater maps are stylised like a "history" of canon events). They also wouldn't outright confirm it is a post-trilogy story, so it could still end up as a side story or something.

 

[Winterfang]

Leviathan really should have been included in the main game. That changes the entire perspective of the universe in those games.

Never played Leviathan, how does it change the end?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

There's no issue with them picking a canonical ending, in fact they should pick one. There aren't a lot of things that annoy me in games more than when they do a sequel and it turns out that all of the highly different choices lead to the exact same thing. Or when they make it so the choices were meshed together. Or when they make none of the choices happen and something else instead.

It's like, if they pick one as canon, they risk annoying people who made the other choices. If they do the other things, they annoy everybody. They should just pick one that makes for the best sequel universe.

 

[Oblivionmancer]

Yeah just choose destroy and be done with it, and handwave some Geth back to life with another dark space outpost too far from a relay to get hit by the the catalyst effect. I've mentioned it before, but Destroy is the most sensible cannon ending because it is the one that will make immediate sense to anyone who has played anywhere from 0 Mass Effect to all of it save the last 10 minutes of 3.

 

[kurahador]

Never played Leviathan, how does it change the end?

It doesn't change much except adding lines of dialogue in the end, but the mission itself provides an explanation on it and hints toward the ending rather than blowing-it-up-in-your-face-pre-extended-cut ending.

 

[Dawg]

What are the chances of an E3 reveal this year?

 

[Vashetti]

What are the chances of an E3 reveal this year?

 

[EatChildren]

What are the chances of an E3 reveal this year?

I think it's highly likely, but I've also been unable to nail down a concrete release window, so I dunno. It's certainly not coming out this year, and I seriously doubt it will make Q1/Q2 2015. My heart says Q3/Q4 2015, then in time honoured Mass Effect tradition delayed into Q1 2016.

I think we'll see something this year for sure, if not at E3 then N7 Day or PAX later in the year. And that something could amount to a Mass Effect 2 style teaser trailer, for all I know, with a big, proper reveal coming in early 2015.

 

[Freeman]

Refusal was the only choice Shepard would have made and its the only one that doesn't break character.

 

[prag16]

I think it's highly likely, but I've also been unable to nail down a concrete release window, so I dunno. It's certainly not coming out this year, and I seriously doubt it will make Q1/Q2 2015. My heart says Q3/Q4 2015, then in time honoured Mass Effect tradition delayed into Q1 2016.

I think we'll see something this year for sure, if not at E3 then N7 Day or PAX later in the year. And that something could amount to a Mass Effect 2 style teaser trailer, for all I know, with a big, proper reveal coming in early 2015.

Aw man. I don't know if I can wait two whole years from now. I was holding out hope for Q1 2015. Then again I don't want them to rush it out. Not that delaying ME3 further would have mitigated the clusterfuck ending, but..

 

[EatChildren]

Aw man. I don't know if I can wait two whole years from now. I was holding out hope for Q1 2015. Then again I don't want them to rush it out. Not that delaying ME3 further would have mitigated the clusterfuck ending, but..

Honestly I have no concrete idea at all, just the impression I get is that Q1/Q2 2015 (which I'd fucking love) is way too early and the game is still has a lot of development to go, especially since EA/BW has other stuff in the works to fill slots. If it's really teetering on 2016 I wouldn't be surprised to see it miss E3.

 

[GSR]

I would be very surprised to see anything before late 2015, and Q1 2016 seems plenty possible.

A three-and-a-half to four-year turnaround is pretty long, but given the prestige of the franchise, the fact this is the first next-gen title for the team, and the fact they're not just building off the Shepard story, I could see it happening. They were fine with taking their time with DA3, after all.

I'm not sure how that translates to a timescale for announcements, though. Again, if we look at DA3, it made two E3 appearances, as would ME:Whatever if it shows up at E3.

 

[thunder_snail]

Let's be honest. They got eaten up by EA, their founders left and their recent games have been disappointing. If they mess up DA3, they are one step closer to death.

 

[Dany]

I generally have no clue what the doctors did at bioware for mass effect.

Is Casey Hudson still lead on this?

 

[EatChildren]

Is Casey Hudson still lead on this?

No. Casey Hudson is considered "Executive Producer" of the series, so probably serves some role, but is primarily focused on his new IP at Edmonton which a lot senior staff from the Mass Effect/Dragon Age series moved on to (I'm pretty sure it's still super, super early in development though, hence why DA/ME are in development). Similar to Mac Walters. Probably involved to some capacity, but not sure what.

I'm not sure who, exactly, is the director of Mass Effect 4. Yanick Roy is the studio director at BW Montreal. Manveer Heir and Ian Frazier both have lead roles as well, I think.

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

Let's be honest. They got eaten up by EA, their founders left and their recent games have been disappointing. If they mess up DA3, they are one step closer to death.

You have to wonder how both the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series would have turned out if EA didn't buy BioWare. Their new IP will be the first one made entirely under EA, so I'm eager to see how it'll turn out.

 

[RedSwirl]

Y'know what? If we want BioWare to give us a shitload of unique planets to visit, procedurally generate the bitch. I don't give a fuck.

I mean, deliberately design some major locations and all that, but I actually wouldn't mind if they procedurally generated a shitload of explorable planets in-between, and then went back to polish each one for side quests and emergent events. When I saw random planets, space ships, caves, and stations in ME1 I basically saw them as the random dungeons you get in most WRPGs. Procedurally-generated planets could be the same thing.

Maybe we should see what No Man's Sky turns out to be. I have a feeling that game could hugely affect our expectations of Mass Effect 4.

 

[SpoonyBard]

Thank goodness others agree that Destroy is the logical 'official' ending choice.

All along Shepard kept saying that we have to destroy the Reapers, so it made sense for me in that moment to destroy them. I didn't even think about it, Shepard wouldn't have had such a drastic change of character right there to choose something else.

Destroy is obviously the worst choice. The whole trilogy Shepard goes around telling people to compromise, work together, take leaps of faith and give peace a change etc. But when the starchild gives Shepard an option to compromise, she should just ignore it and choose to destroy all intelligent mechanical life? Bullshit.

 

[exmachina64]

I generally have no clue what the doctors did at bioware for mass effect.

Bought time for the team to make Mass Effect 3 as good as it was against an EA that wanted to rush it out the door?

Fell on their swords and resigned after their relations with management soured?

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Destroy is obviously the worst choice. The whole trilogy Shepard goes around telling people to compromise, work together, take leaps of faith and give peace a change etc. But when the starchild gives Shepard an option to compromise, she should just ignore it and choose to destroy all intelligent mechanical life? Bullshit.

Destroy ending is the only one where my Shepard and love interest survives, I need to see them together again for closure

 

[Fata1moose]

I just hope the new Mass Effect brings back uncharted worlds like in the first game, I know a lot of people didn't care for them. I would of course like them to be a little more diverse though, not all driving up steep peaks. To me, nothing captured the vastness and loneliness of space like these planets did. Only finding a select group of people or abandoned outpost on planets made it feel empty (but in a good way), when you did find people the encounters felt special. Coupled with the music, it gave off the perfect atmosphere.

 

[Heshinsi]

^ #BringbacktheMako

 

[Linkenski]

I liked the initial concept of Cerebus. The problem was when it suddenly morphed into a paramilitary group.

And it's become Mac Walters' only source of creativity. Seriously he's almost connected them to EVERY plotline from ME1 and ME2 by now and they were also everywhere in ME3. it's ruining my immersion.

 

[doemaaan]

Destroy is obviously the worst choice. The whole trilogy Shepard goes around telling people to compromise, work together, take leaps of faith and give peace a change etc. But when the starchild gives Shepard an option to compromise, she should just ignore it and choose to destroy all intelligent mechanical life? Bullshit.

ANY choice is acceptable because ME3 ends before the war is even over. The game stops when Shepard is hit by Harbinger's beam. The rest of it takes place within his mind ALA The Indoctrination Theory. There's no denying the official "ending" is Destroy, but it honestly doesn't matter what Bioware chooses to follow up on.

The Indoctrination Theory - Seriously, watch these docs if you haven't already. There are too many solid pieces of evidence that can't be argued against.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CKHLDgz2zE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDGAnsVOb-M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJkR683Sas

If they choose Destroy, Shepard wakes up and either finds a way to start the REAL Crucible himself or helps the people working on it to get it started for him. If they choose Control or Synthesis, Shepard becomes indoctrinated and thus is a lost cause. "Someone else" will start the Crucible to end the war.

 

[EatChildren]

The Indoctrination Theory - Seriously, watch these docs if you haven't already. There are too many solid pieces of evidence that can't be argued against.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CKHLDgz2zE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDGAnsVOb-M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJkR683Sas

The ramblings of batshit fans finding patterns in the clouds and calling it "evidence" to support an absurd theory that comfortably avoids admitting the cold, hard, depressing truth that BioWare fucked up the ending. All the "evidence" in support of the Indoctrination Theory is text book confirmation bias.

 

[doemaaan]

The ramblings of batshit fans finding patterns in the clouds and calling it "evidence" to support an absurd theory that comfortably avoids admitting the cold, hard, depressing truth that BioWare fucked up the ending. All the "evidence" in support of the Indoctrination Theory is text book confirmation bias.

What "I" personally believe is that, for some reason or another, Bioware could not finish the game with the ending the originally wanted. Thus, the shitty ending we all know and love came to be.

Have you seen that those docs though? Really, if you've got the time, watch them. I just don't see how some of those "batshit" findings can be argued against. Shepard is undergoing indoctrination. Plain and simple!

 

[hateradio]

I'm getting flash backs to the first ME3 Spoiler -- AKA I'm done with the game and can't (live) anymore -- OT.

Indoctrination theory is for the birds.

 

[Vashetti]

I fucking love the indoctrination theory. I watched the original video explaining it and I was convinced.

As far as I'm concerned, (my) Shepard was indoctrinated, but he managed to snap out of it on the crucible, destroyed the Reapers, woke up in the rubble, managed to (eventually) contact the Normandy, reunited with the crew and had a big fucking party.

 

[SpoonyBard]

Oh man... I'm not going to waste 3 hours of my life watching those, but I can kind of see where this theory is coming from. Anderson and Illusive Man being ahead of Shepard inside the Catalyst didn't really make sense, unless they were just representations of destroy and control endings generated by the Catalyst itself from Shepard's subconscious mind. Same way as the starchild was generated from the memory of the kid who died at the beginning of the game.

But more than that... nah. The ending is what it is, live with it.

 

[EatChildren]

What "I" personally believe is that, for some reason or another, Bioware could not finish the game with the ending the originally wanted. Thus, the shitty ending we all know and love came to be.

Have you seen that those docs though? Really, if you've got the time, watch them. I just don't see how some of those "batshit" findings can be argued against. Shepard is undergoing indoctrination. Plain and simple!

I agree with the first point, and firmly believe if BioWare was given more time, or had better managed the time they had, we'd have got a better ending. Maybe.

I've seen bits and pieces of all three. I've heard the arguments ad nauseum, and was around when they first came to be. They're made up, make believe, wishful thinking of desperate fans who cannot come to terms with BioWare's failure. An absurd volume of their arguments rely on the extreme bias that the issues exist not because of development failure, but instead careful, deliberate tricks, continuity areas, hints, and so on, right up to a gross misunderstanding of how video games are made, trying to argue that reused textures are indicative of a grand narrative structure instead of just reused textures.

People can believe what they want to believe, but that won't change the fact the ending was ballsed up by incompetent leadership, poor time management, or bad writers, or a combination of all. Shepard conversed with space brat, convoluted contradictory nonsense ensured, then space magic happened, and it was if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I fucking love the indoctrination theory. I watched the original video explaining it and I was convinced.

As far as I'm concerned, (my) Shepard was indoctrinated, but he managed to snap out of it on the crucible, destroyed the Reapers, woke up in the rubble, managed to (eventually) contact the Normandy, reunited with the crew and had a big fucking party.

YEA!!! Space Strippers and Vodka baby

 

[doemaaan]

Oh man... I'm not going to waste 3 hours of my life watching those, but I can kind of see where this theory is coming from. Anderson and Illusive Man being ahead of Shepard inside the Catalyst didn't really make sense, unless they were just representations of destroy and control endings generated by the Catalyst itself from Shepard's subconscious mind. Same way as the starchild was generated from the memory of the kid who died at the beginning of the game.

But more than that... nah. The ending is what it is, live with it.

There is no kid at the beginning of the game. There was never a kid.

I've seen bits and pieces of all three. I've heard the arguments ad nauseum, and was around when they first came to be. They're made up, make believe, wishful thinking of desperate fans who cannot come to terms with BioWare's failure. An absurd volume of their arguments rely on the extreme bias that the issues exist not because of development failure, but instead careful, deliberate tricks, continuity areas, hints, and so on, right up to a gross misunderstanding of how video games are made, trying to argue that reused textures are indicative of a grand narrative structure instead of just reused textures.

And while I totally agree with that, how are things like the oily shadows in Shepard's dreams not a definite piece of evidence that he has been under the attempts of indoctrination? What about all the dead bodies that resemble either Ashley or Kaiden from ME1 that pile up after Shepard wakes up after Harbinger's beam? Anderson somehow reaching that control room before Shepard, even though Shepard entered the beam first? Why is there a secret ending where Shepard wakes up in rubble ONLY if Destroy is chosen? I could go on and on.

The MINUTE Shepard goes under, the game ends. Everything after that is complete bs and the "true" ending is yet to be seen. The pieces of evidence that I listed are only a few that point towards the inevitable. The fuckin war ain't over man. Either Shepard wakes up a zombie or not.

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

The indoctornation theory gives way to much credit to Walters' writing.

 

[SpoonyBard]

There is no kid at the beginning of the game. There was never a kid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't other people interact with the kid when he boarded the rescue craft?

 

[Vashetti]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't other people interact with the kid when he boarded the rescue craft?

'He' climbed up into the ship on his own, nobody acknowledges or interacts with 'him'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RHg-BCk0g#t=125

 

[doemaaan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't other people interact with the kid when he boarded the rescue craft?

No, nobody even looked at the chump. He hopped on and some guy closed the door. Re-watch the movies mang.

 

[Kabouter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't other people interact with the kid when he boarded the rescue craft?

No, and I'm betting Bioware regrets that now given how fans have interpreted that to mean that he isn't real. Of course they do wait for him to board before closing the shuttle, there was no other reason for them to wait as long to depart, but fans ignore that part.

 

[doemaaan]

No, and I'm betting Bioware regrets that now given how fans have interpreted that to mean that he isn't real. Of course they do wait for him to board before closing the shuttle, there was no other reason for them to wait as long to depart, but fans ignore that part.

So, explain this to me. How does that kid end up from the top of one skyscraper at the beginning of the game (where Shepard is looking at him through a window), ALL THE WAY to another rooftop in 5 minutes?

The roof top where the Reaper nukes the damn place??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDGAnsVOb-M
6:55

 

[SpoonyBard]

No, and I'm betting Bioware regrets that now given how fans have interpreted that to mean that he isn't real. Of course they do wait for him to board before closing the shuttle, there was no other reason for them to wait as long to depart, but fans ignore that part.

Yeah, they wait for him to board, I guess it doesn't count as interaction per se. Lazy cut scene directing more likely.

 

[AstuteClass]

I just hope the new Mass Effect brings back uncharted worlds like in the first game, I know a lot of people didn't care for them. I would of course like them to be a little more diverse though, not all driving up steep peaks. To me, nothing captured the vastness and loneliness of space like these planets did. Only finding a select group of people or abandoned outpost on planets made it feel empty (but in a good way), when you did find people the encounters felt special. Coupled with the music, it gave off the perfect atmosphere.

Probably the main reason I preferred the first game to all the others.

 

[EatChildren]

And while I totally agree with that, how are things like the oily shadows in Shepard's dreams not a definite piece of evidence that he has been under the attempts of indoctrination?

Shepard is suffering PTSD. The shadows are not exclusive to indoctrination.

What about all the dead bodies that resemble either Ashley or Kaiden from ME1 that pile up after Shepard wakes up after Harbinger's beam?

Ashley/Kaiden armour visual style is used to represent common generic human troops. They're repeated because the corpses are a simple repeated asset.

Anderson somehow reaching that control room before Shepard, even though Shepard entered the beam first?

So, explain this to me. How does that kid end up from the top of one skyscraper at the beginning of the game (where Shepard is looking at him through a window), ALL THE WAY to another rooftop in 5 minutes?

Both continuity error. Not the first in the saga.

Why is there a secret ending where Shepard wakes up in rubble ONLY if Destroy is chosen?

Because BioWare. Because they wanted to give a hint that Shepard lives, and to get people talking. Lots of speculation from everyone.

The MINUTE Shepard goes under, the game ends. Everything after that is complete bs and the "true" ending is yet to be seen. The pieces of evidence that I listed are only a few that point towards the inevitable.

It's nice to want things. Again, almost all of these arguments have the prerequisite that BioWare's narrative structure is perfect and they made no errors during the telling of this narrative and development of the game. This is a confirmation bias.

 

[Kabouter]

So, explain this to me. How does that kid end up from the top of one skyscraper at the beginning of the game (where Shepard is looking at him through a window), ALL THE WAY to another rooftop in 5 minutes?

Because Bioware is incompetent. Why would you make up this elaborate theory when the obvious and only logical explanation is that Bioware just didn't think of that but wanted to have Shepard interact with the kid once then see him get killed as he's leaving earth, with the kid being intended to symbolize the suffering on earth and so on. Do you really think every part of the Mass Effect trilogy is so deliberate that they took everything into account? If you start thinking like that, you could poke a million holes into the whole thing.

Yeah, they wait for him to board, I guess it doesn't count as interaction per se. Lazy cut scene directing more likely.

Bingo.

 

[Vashetti]

EatChildren mannnn, I thought you loved this series...

You are crushing my hopes and dreams with an iron fist

 

[Taker34]

And while I totally agree with that, how are things like the oily shadows in Shepard's dreams not a definite piece of evidence that he has been under the attempts of indoctrination? What about all the dead bodies that resemble either Ashley or Kaiden from ME1 that pile up after Shepard wakes up after Harbinger's beam? Anderson somehow reaching that control room before Shepard, even though Shepard entered the beam first? Why is there a secret ending where Shepard wakes up in rubble ONLY if Destroy is chosen? I could go on and on.

The MINUTE Shepard goes under, the game ends. Everything after that is complete bs and the "true" ending is yet to be seen. The pieces of evidence that I listed are only a few that point towards the inevitable. The fuckin war ain't over man. Either Shepard wakes up a zombie or not.

Do you know what kind of ending BioWare planned before ME3? Dark Energy/Element Zero, the sun "Dholen", the human Reaper/human DNA... everything was scrapped before they started developing ME3, so there was never the intention to create an ending like the one described in those IT videos.
Yes, Shepard was supposed to be indoctrinated, but that was another mechanic. Much simpler than you might think -> "you're regaining control"; "you're losing control" which would lead to a boss fight with TIM (which didn't happen because BioWare couldn't implement the right gameplay mechanics). So where are design docs for the indoctrination theory? It's simply a messed up and often reworked ending.