Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Compel wrote:
I just get such a mass sense of:

"We ****ed up the ending of Mass Effect 3, so we're going to ignore it entirely" situation. - Lots of Undrentide flashbacks with this one.

Have you watched the lead dev interview on Youtube yet? He gives a very political answer when ME3's ending becomes the topic, but it's obvious that they were shocked/still concerned about the feedback. I tried to find it, but my search-fu isn't what it used to be.

 Frankenberry wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I just get such a mass sense of:

"We ****ed up the ending of Mass Effect 3, so we're going to ignore it entirely" situation. - Lots of Undrentide flashbacks with this one.

Have you watched the lead dev interview on Youtube yet? He gives a very political answer when ME3's ending becomes the topic, but it's obvious that they were shocked/still concerned about the feedback. I tried to find it, but my search-fu isn't what it used to be.

I logged onto the game forums immediately after finishing the game, and looked through the comments. It seemed pretty clear that the mods on the forum genuinely didn't understand why people didn't love the game ending, and not in a "We're paid by the company that made this game, so we'll act like we like it" sort of way.

The funny thing is, about a month before the game released, an online site spoiled the original ending (basically, that the Normandy crash-lands on an unknown world; there was no mention of Ghost Boy or the decision). And the spoiler got panned because everyone thought Bioware would produce something better than what was described.

And so another thread gets derailed into endless complaints about me3s ending.

Do we really have to rehash that crap? This isn't the same game, anyway nor will the ending of me3 likely be relevant.

 Melissia wrote:
And so another thread gets derailed into endless complaints about me3s ending.

Do we really have to rehash that crap? This isn't the same game, anyway nor will the ending of me3 likely be relevant.

We haven't started rehashing it yet. It's merely been pointed out that the developers don't seem to understand why players didn't like the ending.

Plus one anecdote.

Know the easiest way to stay on topic? It's by NOT posting off-topic! --Janthkin

Anyhow, it looks like between the four ships that are launched, each one is meant for a specific race - I wonder if that means that the campaign is going to be centered around each one as the story progresses.

Yeah, that's typically how Bioware games do it. - A number of 'hub' planets. EG Feros, Noveria, Manaan, Dantooine, Illium, Omega.

 Compel wrote:
Yeah, that's typically how Bioware games do it. - A number of 'hub' planets. EG Feros, Noveria, Manaan, Dantooine, Illium, Omega.

Likely to be colonies as hubs, then other worlds as missions, I'm guessing.

Eumerin wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Well I guess all Civilizations were destroyed in ME3 just through the carnage of The Reaper War regardless of which ending you chose. That does''t mean there's no intelligent life left just Civilization as they all knew it has been destroyed.

?

That's only in the "Shepherd didn't stop the Reapers" ending. Note how the dot on the timeline associated with that particular event is only on the base timeline, and not on any of the ones that match up to the infamous three colors. It evidently takes 200 years for the Reapers to finish their sweep of the Milky Way (and the fact that the "reaping" takes a while has been alluded to as far back as the original game).



Edit - Not that the state of the galaxy at the end of the Reaper invasion is likely to make much difference. The only communication system that *might* work between the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies is the quantum entanglement system. And that requires very specific devices on each end that are essentially linked specifically to each other and only to each other. It wouldn't be that big of a leap to guess that even if Shepherd stops the Reapers, any quantum entanglement devices that could communicate with the Andromeda Initiative were destroyed during the chaos of the Reaper attacks.

Oh yeah, I guess it is 200 years after the Reaper War. Well that's dumb. Why would they make the events of ME3 completely pointless?

How, exactly, does that make ME3 useless? ME3 had such a wide-ranging and massively changing series of endings that it wasn't going to get a direct sequel to begin with. It was presented as, both before and after its release, the end of Shepard's story, and that's perfectly fine-- not every story has to pointlessly continue on and on until it stops selling / getting good ratings, like it's the Simpsons or something.

This is the start of a new story in the same universe, and they chose a separate galaxy so it wouldn't interfere with ME3, or need to make any particular ending choice canon.

If they were to make ME4 after the completion of my game, Shep would be stuck wandering around alone on the ruined surface of Earth, shooting whatever desperate-survivor raiders were there while scavenging for supplies...

... it's a lot more like Mad Max than Mass Effect, really.

 Melissia wrote:
How, exactly, does that make ME3 useless? ME3 had such a wide-ranging and massively changing series of endings that it wasn't going to get a direct sequel to begin with. It was presented as, both before and after its release, the end of Shepard's story, and that's perfectly fine-- not every story has to pointlessly continue on and on until it stops selling / getting good ratings, like it's the Simpsons or something.

This is the start of a new story in the same universe, and they chose a separate galaxy so it wouldn't interfere with ME3, or need to make any particular ending choice canon.

No, I'm glad they moved the new storyline to Andromeda but something happens in the Milky Way that destroys the Galaxy. That mean that 400 hours I put into saving it was pointless. They should have just said nothing and that way every player gets his ending.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
How, exactly, does that make ME3 useless? ME3 had such a wide-ranging and massively changing series of endings that it wasn't going to get a direct sequel to begin with. It was presented as, both before and after its release, the end of Shepard's story, and that's perfectly fine-- not every story has to pointlessly continue on and on until it stops selling / getting good ratings, like it's the Simpsons or something.

This is the start of a new story in the same universe, and they chose a separate galaxy so it wouldn't interfere with ME3, or need to make any particular ending choice canon.

No, I'm glad they moved the new storyline to Andromeda but something happens in the Milky Way that destroys the Galaxy. That mean that 400 hours I put into saving it was pointless. They should have just said nothing and that way every player gets his ending.

I haven't checked out the site yet, but that timeline seems to suggest that there are deviations depending on what Shepard chooses (or doesn't choose, as it were).

Or is it written somewhere that we lost the Reaper War? (This isn't sarcasm, I genuinely had no idea if that's the case)

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
How, exactly, does that make ME3 useless? ME3 had such a wide-ranging and massively changing series of endings that it wasn't going to get a direct sequel to begin with. It was presented as, both before and after its release, the end of Shepard's story, and that's perfectly fine-- not every story has to pointlessly continue on and on until it stops selling / getting good ratings, like it's the Simpsons or something.

This is the start of a new story in the same universe, and they chose a separate galaxy so it wouldn't interfere with ME3, or need to make any particular ending choice canon.

No, I'm glad they moved the new storyline to Andromeda but something happens in the Milky Way that destroys the Galaxy. That mean that 400 hours I put into saving it was pointless. They should have just said nothing and that way every player gets his ending.

Again, you're misreading the timeline.

If Shepherd does nothing, then yes, everyone dies. Just like in the game. But if Shepherd picks one of the three endings, then the Reapers lose. That's what the timeline indicates. That's why there are four divergent lines on the timeline. The galaxy is not cleansed of life 200 years later if Shepherd picks one of the three colors.

From Bioware's point of view, it's Schrodinger's Ending. And the timeline is doing it's best to show that.


Again - the "everyone dies 200 years later" thing is because that is how long it takes the Reapers to "cleanse" the galaxy. The fact that it takes the Reapers a long time to thoroughly exterminate all sentient life in the galaxy is not a secret. It's not new information. It's something that we were told all the way back in the first Mass Effect game. Remember that the Prothean AI on the final planet in the first game talked about how the Reapers took so long that power at the facility started to run out, and the AI had to shut down power on many of the stasis pods so that a few survivors could live.

Eumerin wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
How, exactly, does that make ME3 useless? ME3 had such a wide-ranging and massively changing series of endings that it wasn't going to get a direct sequel to begin with. It was presented as, both before and after its release, the end of Shepard's story, and that's perfectly fine-- not every story has to pointlessly continue on and on until it stops selling / getting good ratings, like it's the Simpsons or something.

This is the start of a new story in the same universe, and they chose a separate galaxy so it wouldn't interfere with ME3, or need to make any particular ending choice canon.

No, I'm glad they moved the new storyline to Andromeda but something happens in the Milky Way that destroys the Galaxy. That mean that 400 hours I put into saving it was pointless. They should have just said nothing and that way every player gets his ending.

Again, you're misreading the timeline.

If Shepherd does nothing, then yes, everyone dies. Just like in the game. But if Shepherd picks one of the three endings, then the Reapers lose. That's what the timeline indicates. That's why there are four divergent lines on the timeline. The galaxy is not cleansed of life 200 years later if Shepherd picks one of the three colors.

From Bioware's point of view, it's Schrodinger's Ending. And the timeline is doing it's best to show that.


Again - the "everyone dies 200 years later" thing is because that is how long it takes the Reapers to "cleanse" the galaxy. The fact that it takes the Reapers a long time to thoroughly exterminate all sentient life in the galaxy is not a secret. It's not new information. It's something that we were told all the way back in the first Mass Effect game. Remember that the Prothean AI on the final planet in the first game talked about how the Reapers took so long that power at the facility started to run out, and the AI had to shut down power on many of the stasis pods so that a few survivors could live.

Ah, I see what you mean. The "everyone dies" line is one of 4 possibilities. Phew, galaxy saved again!

Right. The colors are just representative of each of the endings. When you choose to do nothing as Shepard, the color of that ending is just normal dialogue choices-- to me that paints it as a false ending, or at most a "bad end" type ending, but others view it differntly. To me, given what happens at the end of the red ending (not saying what for those who still haven't played and care, as few as that number might be), I consider that canon.

Has anyone had a chance to read over the newest Game Informer? Saw it showed up today but I had to run to work without it - looks like Andromeda was their big story for the issue.

 Melissia wrote:
Right. The colors are just representative of each of the endings. When you choose to do nothing as Shepard, the color of that ending is just normal dialogue choices-- to me that paints it as a false ending, or at most a "bad end" type ending, but others view it differntly. To me, given what happens at the end of the red ending (not saying what for those who still haven't played and care, as few as that number might be), I consider that canon.

I don't see why that makes it anymore canon than the other endings. To me it makes it less canon.

How exactly does that logic work? Cause I don't see any logic involved in your argument.

 Melissia wrote:
How exactly does that logic work? Cause I don't see any logic involved in your argument.

Because if he's alive they could of just made ME4 another Shepard game. Now explain your logic.

So if she lived, that's the ONLY possibility for you?

Even though the game was marketed, FROM THE fething START, as "the end of her story"?

And you claim this is logic?

The end of a person's story in a video game doesn't have to be their death. It could simply be that ME3 was the last major antagonistic force they faced. Trying to force a serial to continue on until it runs out of sales and enthusiasm is silly.

Actually...



Anyway, it makes a type of sense where Bioware kills Shepard - it makes it so people don't whine and complain about not having a 4th Shepard ME game (even though I'm sure that'll happen anyway) and gives them the room to work on a whole new experience.

Although, given the 600 year time gap between games it doesn't really matter to Andromeda's story unless Bioware is going to include some nod to the older games via their save system. Even then, if it's anything like Inquisition they'll have a website where you can just build whatever 'canon' you want.

We know Krogans are in Andromeda due to leaked footage. Unfortunately, that's Krogans before they get sorted out in ME3, which means we have to deal with even more Krogan storylines that were done with. If I have to hear about the genophage one more time...

I still have all my original saves, but even so, 600 years in the future, and a group of people willing to leave everything behind is probably a group that will want to just not talk about all the crap from before.

They also seem to be planning a different way of handling moving forward in this new set of games based in Andromeda. I suspect they're taking cues from Dragon Age in how each game jumps to a different character in a bigger world, but with throwbacks. If anything, all the talk about an expanded presence for non-party NPCs, indicates influence from that.

 Melissia wrote:
So if she lived, that's the ONLY possibility for you?

Even though the game was marketed, FROM THE fething START, as "the end of her story"?

And you claim this is logic?

The end of a person's story in a video game doesn't have to be their death. It could simply be that ME3 was the last major antagonistic force they faced. Trying to force a serial to continue on until it runs out of sales and enthusiasm is silly.

You didn't explain how how Shepard living is somehow more canon.

Because that's not the part of your post I cared to object to. I find it utterly illogical that you think that her living necessitates a fourth game.

 Melissia wrote:
Because that's not the part of your post I cared to object to. I find it utterly illogical that you think that her living necessitates a fourth game.

You're the one that said one ending in particular in canon for some unexplained reason. If you have no reasoning that's fine but it was you the started the topic in the first place.

So? You're the one that argued that, essentially, the only way for ME4 to not be all about Shepard is if Shepard dies. Which has zero logic to it. All I offered was an opinion that I felt it was the best ending for the series, the one I considered the most canon. I didn't make any weird, wild claims about WHY this was, only that I liked it the most.

In spite of your bizarro-world argument, whether or not Shepard lives or dies is irrelevant to the fact that ME3 is the end of Shepard's story. It was always going to be the end of her story. The game is about what the ending of her story is going to be, not about whether it will be the end.

Hang on a second guys, we're not allowed to talk about ME3's ending here, it could...DERAIL THE THREAD. /deadpan

On topic: Has there been any word on weapons? I liked how ME2 did things: primary, secondary, heavy weapon - made every character pretty solid in terms of damage and still played to each classes specific weaknesses/strengths.

ME3 and 1 I liked less because of how everything got so...I don't know, bloated? I hate to be the guy who complains about too much content, but it seemed like I didn't use 90% of the weapons after I unlocked the two I liked. Not to mention, with the upgrade system you couldn't upgrade every weapon because of the massive cost in credits it would require - so it wasn't like you could even get everything maxed in one play through.

 Frankenberry wrote:
so it wasn't like you could even get everything maxed in one play through.

I think that was the point. You weapon rank upgrades carried over between playthroughs, and IIRC (and it's been a long time, so I could be wrong) they were also shared with your multi-player profile.

I wasn't talking about the ending, but how the two games connected together.

As for weapons, I liked ME3 the best.

I think ME2 did weapons since you started with a sufficient variety (pretty sure every class got pistols and SMGs at standard, so you at least had options for different targets) and could get the extra unlock later in the game to tailor your playstyle.

In 3, it was nice to have all the options from the start, I found especially with playthroughs where I was emphasising powers that I'd typically only take 2 weapons at a time anyway for the more efficient power usage. I did enjoy the weapon customisation in 3 a lot, though.

Ultimately, though, so long as I can have something akin to the M6 Carnifex, preferably with Cryo Ammo, I'll be perfectly content! I think an equally interesting question is how the classes are going to break down, and if they're going to keep the old ones or tweak them all slightly.