Mass Effect Remastered coming soon and new Mass Effect Game in the Works

[Anteros]

It occurs to me that with a remaster coming out right before the sequel that they could easily tweak things to make a sequel more palatable. Some people wouldn't like it, but some people aren't going to like anything they do at this point, so you may as well burn down the old bad ending and write something better.

[PraetorDragoon]

It occurs to me that with a remaster coming out right before the sequel that they could easily tweak things to make a sequel more palatable. Some people wouldn't like it, but some people aren't going to like anything they do at this point, so you may as well burn down the old bad ending and write something better.

Sounds like more effort than I can see EA doing.

[Kish]

I don't need a consensus on the Destroy ending. Just that not giving us a canon ending, like never mentioning what actually happened and trying to play around it would come off as cowardly and quite frankly insulting. Like if you don't think your fandom can handle whatever ending you've chosen, than you should've never given them a choice in the first place.

That's nice. Now try reading what I said other than the bit about the Destroy ending being the worst.

(If you don't think your players can handle having a choice yanked back, don't give them a choice, and not yanking it back is what's insulting? How on earth does that make sense?)

[LibraryOgre]

A bit of an aside:

How do you make a fun game with the other endings?

We've talked a lot about what you could do with Destroy and, honestly, I think it winds up looking a lot like my idea for an Andromeda sequel (i.e. going out from your current cluster to find new stuff, trying to get Mass Relays built, etc.)

What do you do with a Control ending? What do you do with a Synthesis ending? What do you do with a Refuse ending? (My headcanon is that "Refuse" ending is a possible scenario for all the ME3 multiplayer. Why do you abandon things after 10 rounds, even if you've done phenomenally? Because you are losing this war, one successful engagement at a time)

[Artanis]

A bit of an aside:

How do you make a fun game with the other endings?

We've talked a lot about what you could do with Destroy and, honestly, I think it winds up looking a lot like my idea for an Andromeda sequel (i.e. going out from your current cluster to find new stuff, trying to get Mass Relays built, etc.)

What do you do with a Control ending? What do you do with a Synthesis ending? What do you do with a Refuse ending? (My headcanon is that "Refuse" ending is a possible scenario for all the ME3 multiplayer. Why do you abandon things after 10 rounds, even if you've done phenomenally? Because you are losing this war, one successful engagement at a time)

Honestly, Control could easily look a lot like Destroy. Even with "Nice" Reapers around to help, it's still going to take a while for the galaxy's infrastructure to recover from all the orbital bombardments and cyber-zombie-fications. And anything you could do with Destroy you can also do with Control by just saying "the Reapers are kinda busy rebuilding the Mass Relays, you're on your own with this particular issue".

Edit: Also, either way, at least two of the most important planets in the galaxy are now full of tons and tons of Krogan who are either A) fertile, or B) extremely pissed-off about not being fertile. Either ending could be "Krogan Rebellion 2: Post-Reaper Boogaloo"

[Morty]

It occurs to me that with a remaster coming out right before the sequel that they could easily tweak things to make a sequel more palatable. Some people wouldn't like it, but some people aren't going to like anything they do at this point, so you may as well burn down the old bad ending and write something better.

I'm pretty sure the remaster is just going to be graphical and QoL changes. And they already have tweaked the endings once. I wouldn't expect anything here.

[Rodin]

Honestly, Control could easily look a lot like Destroy. Even with "Nice" Reapers around to help, it's still going to take a while for the galaxy's infrastructure to recover from all the orbital bombardments and cyber-zombie-fications. And anything you could do with Destroy you can also do with Control by just saying "the Reapers are kinda busy rebuilding the Mass Relays, you're on your own with this particular issue".

Edit: Also, either way, at least two of the most important planets in the galaxy are now full of tons and tons of Krogan who are either A) fertile, or B) extremely pissed-off about not being fertile. Either ending could be "Krogan Rebellion 2: Post-Reaper Boogaloo"

Because it limits the player's sense of importance. Take the Krogan problem you suggested. The Reapers (under the control of Shepard) are not going to allow intergalactic war to break out. They would tell a single Reaper to come in and sit on the Krogan until they calmed down, or use Reaper super-tech to undo the genophage, or any one of a hundred different ways an effectively omnipotent super race can fix the problem. Any quest you go on has to be unimportant enough for the Reapers to stop doing whatever they're doing and come and sort it.

However, there are ways around this. Set the game somewhat later and have the Reapers disappear. They (and Shepard) did not explain themselves. They just...left. Why? Let's find out! Maybe it's a new threat from beyond the galactic rim. Maybe the Reapers are stunting the growth of the younger races and Shepard wants them to stand on their own feet. Insert the reason of your choice - the important fact is that the Reapers are no longer around, and suddenly there's a huge power vacuum. Into this hole steps the antagonist, ready to be stopped by our plucky team of protags.

[Forum Explorer]

That's nice. Now try reading what I said other than the bit about the Destroy ending being the worst.

(If you don't think your players can handle having a choice yanked back, don't give them a choice, and not yanking it back is what's insulting? How on earth does that make sense?)

Like I said, I don't need Destroy to be the canon ending. I think it is the best ending, but if they decided on one of the other endings, I would be fine with that.

Because if you are making a sequel to ME3, you've got 3 options. 1. Go LoZ style, and plan on making games in multiple timelines. Nothing wrong with this, but typically we won't actually know about that for who knows how long. 2. Choose an ending, and explore it. 3. Say that none of the choices actually mattered by basically saying that the ending you chose would result in the new game regardless of which option you actually chose. Which is by far the worst option as the choices you picked are completely different.

So picking an ending and going, 'this is what happened if you picked this option' isn't invalidating your choice if you picked something else. It's just, not exploring it. If you can't handle that, than you should stick to games that don't give you a choice in the first place. Because make no mistake, the developers must make a choice if they are making a sequel. Your method is just a bland white wash that pretends nothing happened, and doesn't make any sense. Like how could you have Destroy, Control, and Synthesis all reach the same end point? You might as well make the canon ending Refuse in that case, and play as the aliens in the next cycle.

A bit of an aside:

How do you make a fun game with the other endings?

We've talked a lot about what you could do with Destroy and, honestly, I think it winds up looking a lot like my idea for an Andromeda sequel (i.e. going out from your current cluster to find new stuff, trying to get Mass Relays built, etc.)

What do you do with a Control ending? What do you do with a Synthesis ending? What do you do with a Refuse ending? (My headcanon is that "Refuse" ending is a possible scenario for all the ME3 multiplayer. Why do you abandon things after 10 rounds, even if you've done phenomenally? Because you are losing this war, one successful engagement at a time)

Control: You play as the 'villains'. Shepherd might be a benevolent overlord, but they are still ruling over everything. You are trying to free yourselves and doing everything you can to weaken Shepherd control over the galaxy.

Synthesis: A new war is brewing. The Reapers have regained their personalities and surprise surprise, they don't all agree with each other. The galaxy is being carved into new empires as different factions set out to claim their new destiny and you are working as one of the top agents in a faction seeking to sabotage and bring down a rival faction.

[Kish]

So picking an ending and going, 'this is what happened if you picked this option' isn't invalidating your choice if you picked something else. It's just, not exploring it. If you can't handle that, than you should stick to games that don't give you a choice in the first place. Because make no mistake, the developers must make a choice if they are making a sequel. Your method is just a bland white wash that pretends nothing happened, and doesn't make any sense.

Well, as I said but hopefully without the words that made it not land the first time: As a single player, you are of course free to keep insisting that Blizzard must do what you want, but I hope you're not expecting your repetitions to change the fact that some other players, whose perspectives are as valid as yours, would be utterly repelled if you got your wish.

[Forum Explorer]

Well, as I said but hopefully without the words that made it not land the first time: As a single player, you are of course free to keep insisting that Blizzard must do what you want, but I hope you're not expecting your repetitions to change the fact that some other players, whose perspectives are as valid as yours, would be utterly repelled if you got your wish.

There will always be people repelled by literally any choice made ever. If they want to preemptively ruin their experience than that is their problem, not mine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, as I said but hopefully without the words that made it not land the first time: As a single player, you are of course free to keep insisting that Blizzard must do what you want, but I hope you're not expecting your repetitions to change the fact that some other players, whose perspectives are as valid as yours, would be utterly repelled if you got your wish.

At this point, I'm pretty sure that they're in a bind--any choice they make (of the ones that are reasonable, so not including every possible permutation of endings and choices) will "utterly repel" some players. The only question is how many and which choice both promotes new players and repels the fewest previous ones. At some point you have to cut your losses. Will they make the "right" decision? This being Bioware, I'm not so sure. But they have to make a decision, and no decision will keep everyone happy.

[Anteros]

A bit of an aside:

How do you make a fun game with the other endings?

We've talked a lot about what you could do with Destroy and, honestly, I think it winds up looking a lot like my idea for an Andromeda sequel (i.e. going out from your current cluster to find new stuff, trying to get Mass Relays built, etc.)

What do you do with a Control ending? What do you do with a Synthesis ending? What do you do with a Refuse ending? (My headcanon is that "Refuse" ending is a possible scenario for all the ME3 multiplayer. Why do you abandon things after 10 rounds, even if you've done phenomenally? Because you are losing this war, one successful engagement at a time)

For control I'd just have the Shepard AI be corrupted. Either something went wrong in the upload, or enough time has passed that Shepard is losing their connection to their humanity and becoming more and more monstrous.

Synthesis is harder just because I find the idea so inherently repugnant that it's hard to imagine a palatable storyline set in a universe where I was responsible for violating every living being's genetic code without their consent. Even if you put aside the ethical issues, you've basically homogenized the entire galaxy into the same race. There's no more diversity or cultural differences or anything like that. It's an incredibly boring setting. I don't think I'd play that game.

Also, since Liara wasn't glowing in the trailer, I don't think we have to worry about synthesis being the pick.

[Rodin]

At this point, I'm pretty sure that they're in a bind--any choice they make (of the ones that are reasonable, so not including every possible permutation of endings and choices) will "utterly repel" some players. The only question is how many and which choice both promotes new players and repels the fewest previous ones. At some point you have to cut your losses. Will they make the "right" decision? This being Bioware, I'm not so sure. But they have to make a decision, and no decision will keep everyone happy.

Part of the problem is that they already made the "best" choice. Andromeda had the neatest way out of the Ending Conundrum - you set the game prior to the big choice and remove the characters physically from the location of the effects. Some players were disappointed it wasn't a direct sequel, but most were willing to accept it as a compromise that made sense.

...Until Bioware completely shanked the story and world-building in Andromeda. It was clear they didn't have the first clue what to do with their new galaxy and removing the races from their familiar environment meant they didn't have the rich political background to draw from either. This left the new galaxy feeling empty and lifeless.

I don't know what they're going to pick, other than to say that it won't be Synthesis. It's the most divisive ending to begin with, and you get a hatedom no matter how you implement it. If people are unchanged by Synthesis you piss off the people who like the "ascend to a new lifeform" ideal it proposes. If people are changed you piss off everybody. The anti-Synthesis crowd won't want to play modified people, and the pro-Synthesis gang won't like the depiction of something that is difficult at best to even describe. There's no way Bioware wins if they try it.

If I had to guess, I'd say they either go with Destroy (or some variant on it) or they reboot the series entirely. Set up an alternate timeline where the Reapers don't exist and create a new storyline from there. I don't consider this especially likely, but it's still more likely than a Control sequel. The Reapers are yesterday's bad guys, and they are going to want to mention the Reapers as little as possible to allow new fans to enter the series with ME4. I expect as clean a break with the old trilogy as possible, kind of like what Andromeda tried. I just hope they get some better writers in this time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Part of the problem is that they already made the "best" choice. Andromeda had the neatest way out of the Ending Conundrum - you set the game prior to the big choice and remove the characters physically from the location of the effects. Some players were disappointed it wasn't a direct sequel, but most were willing to accept it as a compromise that made sense.

...Until Bioware completely shanked the story and world-building in Andromeda. It was clear they didn't have the first clue what to do with their new galaxy and removing the races from their familiar environment meant they didn't have the rich political background to draw from either. This left the new galaxy feeling empty and lifeless.

I don't know what they're going to pick, other than to say that it won't be Synthesis. It's the most divisive ending to begin with, and you get a hatedom no matter how you implement it. If people are unchanged by Synthesis you piss off the people who like the "ascend to a new lifeform" ideal it proposes. If people are changed you piss off everybody. The anti-Synthesis crowd won't want to play modified people, and the pro-Synthesis gang won't like the depiction of something that is difficult at best to even describe. There's no way Bioware wins if they try it.

If I had to guess, I'd say they either go with Destroy (or some variant on it) or they reboot the series entirely. Set up an alternate timeline where the Reapers don't exist and create a new storyline from there. I don't consider this especially likely, but it's still more likely than a Control sequel. The Reapers are yesterday's bad guys, and they are going to want to mention the Reapers as little as possible to allow new fans to enter the series with ME4. I expect as clean a break with the old trilogy as possible, kind of like what Andromeda tried. I just hope they get some better writers in this time.

I basically agree. I don't see a way to go forward with any of Control, Resist, or Synthesis. The first means you're either pidgeonholed into "Shepard AI gone rogue but severely weakened in an arbitrary way" or "Shepard AI takes Reapers and leaves" (which kinda defeats the whole point of the ending). The second is just nasty, brutal, and short. You die. The end. And the third is exactly what you said.

So either alternate timeline, alternate timing (ie set during the time between humanity joining and ME1), or Destroy (probably softening it). Maybe "Destroy, but the effect is dominantly local only. Reapers are either toast or so individually broken that they're only a local/occasional threat, but the Geth aren't entirely wiped out and there are some functioning mass relays". Or one where in the devastation we figure out a new way of interstellar-speed travel (without the crutch of the relays).

[Kish]

There will always be people repelled by literally any choice made ever. If they want to preemptively ruin their experience than that is their problem, not mine.

...you really do not see how that's at least as applicable to your "they have to choose an ending!" posts as to a position you disagree with, do you? What you want is somehow everyone's problem, what people who are not you want is only their problem.

[Forum Explorer]

...you really do not see how that's at least as applicable to your "they have to choose an ending!" posts as to a position you disagree with, do you? What you want is somehow everyone's problem, what people who are not you want is only their problem.

No. I'll be insulted by if they go by what you said, because I'll be angry at what I think their motives are, IE; not angering the fanbase by picking a canon ending. I view that as the cowardly way to pick a canon ending and lacking in artistic integrity.


You'll be upset if they don't go with what you said, because you won't get what you want. It appears to be entirely personal, with no basis in anything but your own desire for your favored ending to still be canon.


My viewpoint is independent of the product delivered. They might still create a great game that I'd enjoy even if they don't choose a canon ending. Like Day 1 DLC. I might enjoy the DLC itself, but I find the practice reprehensible.


Going by your words, if you don't get what you want, the game will be ruined for you regardless of its quality. If that's the case, I have zero sympathy for your point of view.

[Kish]

Well, you've found a way to claim moral superiority, anyway. Whether it has anything to do with the previous posts in this thread or not.

Time to disengage, I think; we can agree that someone is arguing for Bioware to show a notable lack of artistic integrity.

[warty goblin]

If they were going to release games exploring all three endings as alternative timelines, I think the way to do it was a couple of mini-campaigns like 7 years ago. As it is, the new game will be lucky if it releases within a decade of ME3 - an entire console generation will have come and gone.

At this point, spending multiple games poking around the fallout of the original trilogy's ending is just a terrible move. If you were a perspective new player and heard that oh yeah, this game is a what-if scenario to humor the die-hard fans of a now archeologically old series, and the next title will be based on a completely different premise, would you be remotely interested? I mean talk about not respecting player choice!

[Rodin]

If they were going to release games exploring all three endings as alternative timelines, I think the way to do it was a couple of mini-campaigns like 7 years ago. As it is, the new game will be lucky if it releases within a decade of ME3 - an entire console generation will have come and gone.

At this point, spending multiple games poking around the fallout of the original trilogy's ending is just a terrible move. If you were a perspective new player and heard that oh yeah, this game is a what-if scenario to humor the die-hard fans of a now archeologically old series, and the next title will be based on a completely different premise, would you be remotely interested? I mean talk about not respecting player choice!

Exactly my thinking. The people at Bioware have to know that the Ending is a dynamite monkey/happy fun ball. They aren't going to taunt it. They are going to address the ending as briefly as possible before moving on to a new conflict. They'll bring some characters back as fanservice. There will be easter eggs and plenty of continuity nods for the old fans. What they aren't going to do is focus heavily on the Reapers, the Catalyst, or anything to do with the previous trilogy.

With that in mind, what ending they choose is largely academic. It's going to be "this happened, now let's move on and never talk about it again" in the same way that the events of Morrowind don't affect Oblivion which in turn don't affect Skyrim. The events of the Reaper invasion will be as relevant as the First Contact War.

[GloatingSwine]

With that in mind, what ending they choose is largely academic. It's going to be "this happened, now let's move on and never talk about it again" in the same way that the events of Morrowind don't affect Oblivion which in turn don't affect Skyrim. The events of the Reaper invasion will be as relevant as the First Contact War.

The events of Oblivion directly created the political situation that created the Stormcloak rebellion.The end of the Septim line led to the weakening of the power of the Empire and the rise of the Thalmor.

(If you want to be really wacky, the nine mutually exclusive endings of Daggerfall all happened simultaneously. Only the Khajiit remember this. And they are on drugs so nobody takes them seriously)

[factotum]

(If you want to be really wacky, the nine mutually exclusive endings of Daggerfall all happened simultaneously. Only the Khajiit remember this. And they are on drugs so nobody takes them seriously)

I thought it was general knowledge that some seriously weird stuff went down around the Iliac Bay? It's called the Warp in the West.

[GloatingSwine]

I thought it was general knowledge that some seriously weird stuff went down around the Iliac Bay? It's called the Warp in the West.

Yeah, but none of them know that the timeline shattered and was stitched back together with several mutually exclusive things having happened and some of them having been retconned into always being true.

Except the Khajiit.

Because they have the sugar to see.

[Rodin]

The events of Oblivion directly created the political situation that created the Stormcloak rebellion.The end of the Septim line led to the weakening of the power of the Empire and the rise of the Thalmor.

(If you want to be really wacky, the nine mutually exclusive endings of Daggerfall all happened simultaneously. Only the Khajiit remember this. And they are on drugs so nobody takes them seriously)

Right, but that's deep background. In the same way you can say "the Reaper War lead to the curing of the Genophage and the rise of the Krogan". There's lore there if you want, but in terms of affecting the game all you get is "Empire is weak, there's a civil war, Thalmor are jackasses". How you played Oblivion matters not. Same for Morrowind - some serious stuff went down with Dagoth Ur, there was a Nerevarine, and that's about all you hear about it. The Nerevarine doesn't feature in the plot of Oblivion because he (or she) is Sir Not Appearing In This Story. Plot-wise, the games are almost entirely separate.

If they make Mass Effect 4 a true sequel they will need to decide what the ending is, and what the consequences are. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that they will deal with it as lightly as possible because that chapter of the Mass Effect universe is closed.

[Anteros]

The problem is that the original endings all changed the galaxy so fundamentally that you can't really dance around them. It's easy for something like KoToR to ignore their previous plots because in the grand scheme of things they're small plotlines in a huge universe. The endings for mass effect effected every living creature in the galaxy. Even if you try to ignore it, it's just impossible.

[GloatingSwine]

Right, but that's deep background. In the same way you can say "the Reaper War lead to the curing of the Genophage and the rise of the Krogan". There's lore there if you want, but in terms of affecting the game all you get is "Empire is weak, there's a civil war, Thalmor are jackasses". How you played Oblivion matters not. Same for Morrowind - some serious stuff went down with Dagoth Ur, there was a Nerevarine, and that's about all you hear about it. The Nerevarine doesn't feature in the plot of Oblivion because he (or she) is Sir Not Appearing In This Story. Plot-wise, the games are almost entirely separate.

On the other hand, the events of Morrowind only take place 4 years before the events of Oblivion and mostly affect the province of Morrowind itself (and most of the outcome is preserving the status quo by stopping Dagoth Ur.)

Even if there were wide scale fallout from it, there hasn't been a lot of time for it to reach Cyrodiil yet.

[Morty]

The problem is that the original endings all changed the galaxy so fundamentally that you can't really dance around them. It's easy for something like KoToR to ignore their previous plots because in the grand scheme of things they're small plotlines in a huge universe. The endings for mass effect effected every living creature in the galaxy. Even if you try to ignore it, it's just impossible.

No one said it's going to be easy. But it's still something they're going to need to do.

[Anteros]

No one said it's going to be easy. But it's still something they're going to need to do.

Well. You say that, but judging from the trailer they've already decided to run with the destroy ending. At the very least we can completely rule out Synthesis.

[Morty]

On a wholly unrelated note, I'm playing through Mass Effect 2 as an adept right now. And I must say it's probably my least favorite class. Its powers feel really redundant. Do I really need Singularity and Pull? Or Shockwave and Throw? Or Shockwave and Singularity, for that matter. Both Pull and Shockwave felt far more fitting for a Vanguard, who doesn't have other crowd-control powers. Adept has five, all of them stopped cold by protection. I focus on Singularity + Warp to blow up unprotected enemies, with a bit of Throw if I need to get something out of my face quickly. Perhaps it'll be better in ME3 with biotic combos. But even there, I feel like I just need Singularity to prime them and Throw to detonate them.

[Anteros]

Yeah, Adept really suffered in 2 because of how common shields are. Especially on higher difficulties. I don't find it fun to play either.

I was thinking that a decent setting for a new Mass Effect game might be a prequel. Explore the human-turian war and Earth's ascension as a galactic power.

[Morty]

I must say, the Suicide Mission really is good. The Collectors' plan made no sense at all and the possibility of anyone potentially dying made writing ME3 a merry hell, but the mission itself is really well-done. There's a sense of the whole team working together, not just Shepard + 2 bulldozing through everything. It is easy to keep everyone alive, but you do need to build your team first and make the right choices. It's yet another entry on the "Mass Effect as a series of strong moments held together by increasingly-flimsy plot".

I never did warm up to the Adept. We'll see how it goes in ME3, but I think that outside of biotic explosions, it took the series until later ME3 multiplayer to come up with more varied biotic powers.