-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
About picking a canon ending: It works for Bethesda...
Anyway, I have an annoying bug: Ashley gets stuck turning her omnitool on and off. I see no mentioning of this online, so it cannot be common, but as soon as she takes cover, I hear the sound of her omnitool activating over and over, and if you look at her it is indeed blinking on and off. And unfortunately she 8 times of 10 refuses to move after that.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Avilan the Grey
About picking a canon ending: It works for Bethesda...
I wouldn't know about Bethesda, since I don't play their games. Bioware however has never done such a thing, and as it runs counter to their MO I don't expect them to start now.
Zevox
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
So, I've gotten back into playing my ME3 New game + and I'm at a quandary. Is there a way to divvy up 139 skill points between 7 skills such that there are no skill points remaining? I ask because I'm tired of seeing that stupid arrow next to my name every time I go into a mission.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I should clarify: This is using Chakwas' machine to reset my skills, not from the beginning of a game.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
Of course the franchise will live on - that much has always been obvious. No developer gives up on making a franchise that's this popular. Hints that the next game will take place after the end of ME3 I don't believe, because, as I mentioned before, that would only be possible if they picked a canon ending, which Bioware in general seems loath to do with their games. No amount of time-skipping can fix that, because of the radical differences in effect on the galaxy as a whole that the results have.
And, thinking about it, picking a canon ending would probably tick off even more fans, since various people prefer different outcomes - I know plenty of people would be very displeased if Synthesis were made canon, for example. And I'd be unhappy myself if they made Destroy canon.
Zevox
Unless they decide to make three different games...
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YakYak
Unless they decide to make three different games...
I suppose that'd be a solution. Would be one hell of an ambitious undertaking, however. I don't know if any developer would commit to something like that - especially if they have the foresight to wonder where they go from there, once the three are out and they effectively have three timelines for the same franchise, each with its own fans wanting it to be continued.
Zevox
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
I never said it was feasible.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
I've always seen the galaxies in the galaxy map, and thought "there are an infinite number of other galaxies in the universe that haven't been affected by the Reapers. Why not tell their story? Hell, it could feature a universe where the Reapers appeared, but were such an insignificant threat that the relays and citadel they left behind were used to bring that galactic civilization to victory.
Hell, as a little fun tutorial, the Reapers are attacking at the start, and become an instant pushover; what was once a threat to one galaxy is merely a bug that needs squishing for another.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Triscuitable
I've always seen the galaxies in the galaxy map, and thought "there are an infinite number of other galaxies in the universe that haven't been affected by the Reapers. Why not tell their story?
Because that would be an entirely different setting. There would be no point to considering it to be in the same universe as Mass Effect, because with no connection whatsoever to the galaxy of the games so far, it would be no different than if it weren't.
Zevox
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
And, thinking about it, picking a canon ending would probably tick off even more fans, since various people prefer different outcomes - I know plenty of people would be very displeased if Synthesis were made canon, for example. And I'd be unhappy myself if they made Destroy canon.
Control would make the most sense to me, as the Mass Effect universe is still mostly the same except the Reapers are now oversized galactic versions of the Keepers. Destroy trashes too much, and Synthesis would feel like a completely different galaxy.
Bioware could possibly handwave both Control and Destroy into the same universe if they set it centuries past the end of ME3. I don't see how Synthesis could fit in any way though.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trazoi
Control would make the most sense to me, as the Mass Effect universe is still mostly the same except the Reapers are now oversized galactic versions of the Keepers. Destroy trashes too much, and Synthesis would feel like a completely different galaxy.
Bioware could possibly handwave both Control and Destroy into the same universe if they set it centuries past the end of ME3. I don't see how Synthesis could fit in any way though.
The problem with Control is that it leaves Shepard as an active force in the Galaxy. And quite a powerful one. So they would have to pin down some canon things about Shepard. Now gender is irrelevant if the new Player Character never directly encounters the Shepard AI, but Shepard's personality would have a huge impact on the Galaxy as it would wildly change how she would use the Reapers. The fact that its the one ending with multiple epilogue-speeches really speaks for itself.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trazoi
Control would make the most sense to me, as the Mass Effect universe is still mostly the same except the Reapers are now oversized galactic versions of the Keepers. Destroy trashes too much, and Synthesis would feel like a completely different galaxy.
Bioware could possibly handwave both Control and Destroy into the same universe if they set it centuries past the end of ME3. I don't see how Synthesis could fit in any way though.
Except that with the Reapers around to keep the peace, or aid in technological advances, or whatever else the Shepard-AI may use them for, galactic civilization would likely take a dramatic turn in a Control ending. Initially it would be as you say, but I doubt it'd even take a decade to see some dramatic shifts.
Destroy would change the least. It's just the current status quo minus the Geth (and EDI), plus whatever technological advances might be made by salvaging parts from Reaper corpses (which will surely be less than if they had live Reapers helping with those advances, as in the other two). Initial repairs of the relay network would take longer without the Reapers actively helping with them like in Control and Synthesis, but that wouldn't mean much in the long run.
Zevox
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
That's true, with a bit of acceptable fudging they could get the universe up and running in a decade or so. I admit I'm a little biased in that I think Control is the universe that would be the most interesting to explore. Destroy has this post-apocalyptic feel to it that I don't like.
Whichever way Bioware goes, they're going to have to make some decisions canon. There's too much variance in the universe-changing choices for the Geth, Quarians, Krogan and the ending state of Earth.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
Because that would be an entirely different setting. There would be no point to considering it to be in the same universe as Mass Effect, because with no connection whatsoever to the galaxy of the games so far, it would be no different than if it weren't.
Zevox
But with my logic, it is quite literally the same universe.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Triscuitable
But with my logic, it is quite literally the same universe.
But it is so far removed from the established cannon that it makes no difference if the developers say it is in the same universe. It would be like making a Star Trek story in the andromeda galaxy, and using the one life form from there encountered in the other five series as the only tie-in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sanguine
The problem with Control is that it leaves Shepard as an active force in the Galaxy. And quite a powerful one. So they would have to pin down some canon things about Shepard. Now gender is irrelevant if the new Player Character never directly encounters the Shepard AI, but Shepard's personality would have a huge impact on the Galaxy as it would wildly change how she would use the Reapers. The fact that its the one ending with multiple epilogue-speeches really speaks for itself.
Incorrect. Destroy has two ending speeches as well, influenced by your military strength. If it is low enough, Hackett has a much more pessimistic view of the future.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trazoi
That's true, with a bit of acceptable fudging they could get the universe up and running in a decade or so. I admit I'm a little biased in that I think Control is the universe that would be the most interesting to explore. Destroy has this post-apocalyptic feel to it that I don't like.
Whichever way Bioware goes, they're going to have to make some decisions canon. There's too much variance in the universe-changing choices for the Geth, Quarians, Krogan and the ending state of Earth.
Personally, if they were going to do anything like that, I'd most want to see Synthesis. Precisely because it changes the most, and because I think it's an interesting concept in its own right. I'd want to see where they'd go with that.
I don't believe they will though, as I was saying earlier. Making actions of their protagonists canon runs counter to their MO. So I'd be willing to bet that further Mass Effect games will be set prior to ME3's end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Triscuitable
But with my logic, it is quite literally the same universe.
I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter if it's the same universe. Another galaxy with no connections to the one we're familiar with would bear no resemblance to the Mass Effect setting we know. It would, for all intents and purposes, be a new series entirely, with no connection to Mass Effect, regardless of whether it were considered another part of the same universe or not.
It would be like taking Star Wars and Star Trek and saying they're part of the same universe, just in two completely separate galaxies. Completely pointless.
Zevox
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
Personally, if they were going to do anything like that, I'd most want to see Synthesis. Precisely because it changes the most, and because I think it's an interesting concept in its own right. I'd want to see where they'd go with that.
The problem with Synthesis is coming up with an interesting story when everyone and everything is interconnected and the future is all lovey-dovey cyborg unicorns puking techno-rainbows.
Plus the post-Synthesis universe falls apart as soon as anyone puts any scrutiny into it. If it was written by a pro-Synthesis writer the world building would be an endless chain of papering over the massive cracks of logic. And an anti-Synthesis writer would turn it into a horrible dystopian anti-ME3 hate-fic. Neither sounds that fun.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Landis963
So the kerfluffle with the missing Spectre packs has been resolved (to my surprise when I got everything from that string of purchases in one big bolus), and I now have both a Demolisher and a Shadow. Surprisingly, this has given me a full complement of Engineers and Infiltrators, as well as some weapon upgrades that I don't really care about (I mean really, they gave me a Hornet 7 in one of those :smallyuk:). After a few more matches, I have a fully-specced Destroyer, with Typhoon and Claymore in hand, and a fully specced Salarian Engineer (which, of course, I will use for Geth farming). I guess my question is: Where should I go next? What's the best way to get easy levels on an Infiltrator (i.e. what should be the training wheels?)
Geth infiltrator: tac cloak 1, hunter mode 6 (accuracy boosts, damage boosts, and piranha) or (damage boosts, decent rapid fire gun). Proxy mine up to 5 for debuff. You can prioritize hunter mode for glass omnicannon mode, or proxy mine for team play. A geth infiltrator maxes out at 12, and gets better from there. Salarian infiltrator can be done the same, with a focus on proxy mine and enough energy drain to survive, or a quarian (male) infiltrator using tac scan as a personal proxy mine, and more weapons work. All Of these improve dramatically from 1-14, and can segue into gold or platinum with ease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
Spoiler
Show
Even if that is the case, it's still patching up the ending's plot-holes - it just means that they released that the ending had serious problems before the release. Which is nice to know I guess, but doesn't really change my reaction to the whole matter.
Oh no, you misunderstand. There are not ending plot holes that are resolved. That was intentional use of cliffhangers in the ending. The entire story was written. And before production they moved some of the meat into DLC, leaving just enough to (they thought) make a good endin, and have the DlC make it better, make the world richer.
Whether an oversight, or whether they fully intended to charge you an extra ten dollars for closure, depends on how cynical you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trazoi
The problem with Synthesis is coming up with an interesting story when everyone and everything is interconnected and the future is all lovey-dovey cyborg unicorns puking techno-rainbows.
Man I want this as an avatar now.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zevox
I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter if it's the same universe. Another galaxy with no connections to the one we're familiar with would bear no resemblance to the Mass Effect setting we know. It would, for all intents and purposes, be a new series entirely, with no connection to Mass Effect, regardless of whether it were considered another part of the same universe or not.
It would be like taking Star Wars and Star Trek and saying they're part of the same universe, just in two completely separate galaxies. Completely pointless.
Zevox
BioWare has made Baulder's Gate, and then Dragon Age. KoTOR and then Mass Effect. Even if they acknowledged it was in another galaxy, I think a sequel that takes place in a future where humanity has progressed to the point where they could travel from galaxy to galaxy even more interesting.
However, with that said, a direct sequel to the current games is impossible, seeing as how much effort that it'd take would be astronomical. That, and two of the endings are pretty final, and letting players who took one of the other two would be like shooting the former players in their collective feet.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Avilan the Grey
Kart racing.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
Oh no, you misunderstand. There are not ending plot holes that are resolved. That was intentional use of cliffhangers in the ending. The entire story was written. And before production they moved some of the meat into DLC, leaving just enough to (they thought) make a good endin, and have the DlC make it better, make the world richer.
Whether an oversight, or whether they fully intended to charge you an extra ten dollars for closure, depends on how cynical you are.
If I were being cynical, I'd have assumed that your description above was the case earlier. I've been giving them credit for actually knowing that the ending has serious problems as a story in general and as an ending to this story in particular - your explanation there does not. Whatever the motivations one assumed, my conclusion if your explanation were true would be that Leviathan were more evidence of how major the writing failure around the ending is - particularly since nothing that Leviathan expounded upon could accurately be called a "cliffhanger." The parts of the (original) ending that would fit that description would be the questions of what happens to galactic civilization at large, and your team in particular, after the events shown, which Leviathan doesn't (and couldn't, given what it covers) touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Triscuitable
BioWare has made Baulder's Gate, and then Dragon Age. KoTOR and then Mass Effect.
:smallconfused: Which has what to do with any of this? Those are separate game series.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Triscuitable
However, with that said, a direct sequel to the current games is impossible, seeing as how much effort that it'd take would be astronomical. That, and two of the endings are pretty final, and letting players who took one of the other two would be like shooting the former players in their collective feet.
A direct sequel has never been intended - Shepard's story is over, remember? Any further games will be entirely new stories, simply using the same setting.
Zevox
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Mass Effect newbie armed mainly with spoilers and the first game here, but I'm picturing a lot of sidestories and interquels like they've been doing, even if that's a copout.
Also I am pretty sure Bioware designated canon endings for both KOTOR games when they wrote The Old Republic...not that it really matters since Revan switches sides more often than Revolver Ocelot. Bit odd given that when Obsidian wrote KOTOR II they left it up to player choice whether the Light Side or Dark Side ending of KOTOR I was canon, though, along with the PC's gender.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Not to start an ending quality discussion, but damn I (and my Renegon Shep) can't decide between Blue and Red!
Choosing Red has those two obvious drawbacks.
Choosing Blue has the drawback that I feel like I am betraying everything we fought for by not choosing Red.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Exactly my thoughts when I first made it there.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YakYak
Exactly my thoughts when I first made it there.
Funny thing is that nobody i know even considered the Green ending. Me neither.
Also, is it true that after the Extended Cut installation you only need 3100 effective points to get the "Maybe" ending if you choose red?
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
*facepalm* this is edited because I'm an idiot. Yeah, I think so.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YakYak
*facepalm* this is edited because I'm an idiot. Yeah, I think so.
I think they changed it because somebody did a miscalculation before releasing the game; according to official sources you were supposed to be able to get all possible endings in Single Player without ever starting multiplayer if you just was thorough enough, but it was actually just below possible (I think the maximum points you can get with a 50% readiness-rating is just below 4000 points).
Anyway, this is an even bigger reason to never choose Green :smallbiggrin:
Edit: Anyone but me surprised at how easy it was to make peace Spoiler
Show
between Quarians and Geth?
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
It seems that it only works if you take a character all the way from ME1. I have yet to make it work with an ME2 starter.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YakYak
It seems that it only works if you take a character all the way from ME1. I have yet to make it work with an ME2 starter.
Yes; I don't remember what the one choice you have to make in ME1 to pass the check is. Anyone?
Edit: I think the ending choice is moot; I realize I will do an New Game Plus with all my Shepards anyway, since I will replay them all after all DLCs have come out.
Also, I realize I need to do it anyway if I want to go Blue, since being Renegon Spoiler
Show
might still do the "Space Dictator" stuff.
-
Re: Mass Effect 3.7: "That was for Thane"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiuiS
That's what I said! I even got some guff for hopin it was a vanguard, so I feel totes vindicated right now.
There will be scootaloo's all over the place, come the dlc.
Remember, the names don't necessarily mean all those will be new classes, so don't crow your triumph just yet...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Landis963
I guess my question is: Where should I go next? What's the best way to get easy levels on an Infiltrator (i.e. what should be the training wheels?)
Shadows are great against Cerberus and Geth. All you have to do is focus on everything that isn't an Atlas or Prime; go after all humanoids (including heavy hitters like Phantoms and Pyros.) Run around the map gleefully slitting throats for your team and racking up points, buff your melee damage as much as possible, and be sure to get the duration and free power evolutions for your cloak. Get to 200% cooldowns and as much melee as possible, which generally means a powerful heavy pistol like a Carnifex or Acolyte.
With the small and annoying threats handled, your team can tear apart the slow-moving Atlases and Primes easily. You can even help out (once you're done cleaning up the trash) by hiding behind a nearby wall and spamming Electric Slash safely through it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morty
I seem to be lucky lately. I unlocked another new character - this time the Ex-Cerberus Adept. Hopefully he'll work better than the Ex-Cerberus Vanguard. I can't seem to get that one right. I guess I'll spread my points evenly, but I'm not sure which skills to max. I guess I'll get Lash and Smash to 6, even though Singularity is better now.
Before the singularity buff the Cerberus Vanguard was better; now, the Adept definitely has more muscle, but I need to try them out to be sure. (My favorite Adept is still the Fury, so that's all I play.
---
Regarding the ending - assuming they do canonize one, Control would be by far the best bet. While I love Synthesis as a concept, from a story standpoint it is wholly and totally an ending; no matter how good it turns out for all concerned, there just isn't any way we can really relate to a galaxy of star-children that have conquered disease, scarcity, racism, communication barriers, death (soon anyway) and no longer even have the mysteries of the past to challenge them thanks to their walking killbots-turned-libraries. Destroy meanwhile has the opposite problem - the galaxy has learned nothing from its experience, there are no AIs left to point to as cautionary tales, and eventually everyone will forget the nightmare and begin making them again, only this time without the Reapers around to keep them from outstripping us to T2 and above civilizations. Refusal is right out; it would mean scrapping every race (including our own), with the possible exception of the Asari, and now we're off in a brand new galaxy with a lot of wasted assets and abandoned storylines.
Which leaves us with Control. The galaxy is still around - a little worse for wear but more or less unchanged, ready to explore new storylines or even continue old ones (e.g. a Krogan population explosion, the fate of the Rachni, even the dark energy plot etc.) The Geth are still around, but they are now individuals, which will slow their advance towards any kind of singularity as they can now plausibly disagree on any given approach, e.g. their dyson sphere. So even with their superior technology, we have a slim chance of keeping pace with them on our own, and the cycle of reaping is no longer needed. The Reapers are still around, which could lead to all kinds of plot hooks - rogue factions that escape God-Shepard's rule, some even greater threat from another galaxy to show up and worf them so we really know the **** has hit the fan, some threat to Shepard directly that could let them loose again etc. And best of all, Shepard is still around (somewhat) letting whoever the new player character or characters turn out to be have the chance to learn at the master's feet, regardless of which other squadmates are still around.
I would imagine a Control canon to be similar to the whole Northrend storyline in WoW - namely, that you need someone on the Frozen Throne to keep the undead in check, because they'd be even more dangerous left alone and the cost of destroying them all is too high.