Transition from ME trilogy to ME4.

[hurepoix]

At start it was not planned ME would continue in the Milky way, simply because it was impossible without breaking the promise : your choices are important and will have consequences in following opus.

Moving to andromeda, or any other galay was the obvious solution, except ME andromeda didnt had the expected success.
Roughly to save the franchise and hope to make money studio will probably have no other choice than eat his hat, broke some promises and may be accept some incoherences.

Me 1 and 2 are easy to handle ; you just have to start Me4 around years 2300. About everybody would have die of old age.You just have to not say a word about grunt and morinth/Samara. Not a word either on the rachni queen.

For those who want to believe Liara is on the trailer, it causes no problem ; She cant have die in the suicidary mission, because she was not here (like wrex). Two characters you can even meet at Me4 if it starts centuries after me3.

ME3 ia far more problematic and not just because of the possible ends.

you hardly can manage to valide players choices about the genophage or geth and Quarians fate, for exemple, and make a viable Me4.

Me3 ends cause also major issue, mostly because it was, imo a bit too brutal and radical.

Destruction is the solution I feel game tend to push you. However it lead to EDI death, Geths total genocide, and send back all civilizations to stone age. Personaly if I had to sacrifice Shepard I prefer control. Even Reapers could stay a latent threat, it lets the galaxy all opportunity to quickly rebuild and growth stronger. Roughly it lets more time than any others ever had to challenge the reaper in case of come back. (Asaris could even wake up and training an army of soldiers instead an army of dancers)

Synthesis ; I dont know for others, but I would not like to play again in a mass effect universe after a synthesis.

Easy / ludicrous solution. Shepard wake up ; I made a bad dream ; I will call it ME trilogy.

ME4 take place in a // dimension or an alternative world.

It is clearly an easy way to negate all players choices and call them moron.

[Flippy]

Could remove everything after when the player character gets knocked out at the end and replace it with a "stay tuned for part 4" and it would be better.

[hurepoix]

It would have change a part of the problem, but not all. Where Me trilogy built its own traps, is to say ; players decisions will shape the world, whatever decision you took. So even before the end and the crucible decision, the world like it was had no future.

Imagine ; I have 2 campaigns ; in the first one I save the rachni queen twice, I betrayed the Krogan and genophage is still active, quarian had been destroyed, and geth are a civilization alive ect ...
In my second campaign I do eaxactly the inverse, and now, based on origin devs promise, I want to play both save at ME4. It s claerly impossible, at least like me3 was structured in the scenario.
The three different end are just an other step that doom any future For the franchise (accordying Devs promise)

It is why, andromeda take place Between Me2 and ME3 and in a new galaxy ; to not be affect by promises devs did. But Andromeda ended in a commercial failure.

May be I can appear cynical, but I think, if EA want to save the franchise to make money, it will have to eat its hat, and clearly said to players they were idiots to believe to the impossible.

PS ; About ME3 end, just synthesis choice was clearly a will to close the trilogy in milky way ; I doubt lot of players would like to play in such world, not to say 3 differents end are incompatible with a true Me4.

[Flippy]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

It would have change a part of the problem, but not all. Where Me trilogy built its own traps, is to say ; players decisions will shape the world, whatever decision you took. So even before the end and the crucible decision, the world like it was had no future.

Imagine ; I have 2 campaigns ; in the first one I save the rachni queen twice, I betrayed the Krogan and genophage is still active, quarian had been destroyed, and geth are a civilization alive ect ...
In my second campaign I do eaxactly the inverse, and now, based on origin devs promise, I want to play both save at ME4. It s claerly impossible, at least like me3 was structured in the scenario.
The three different end are just an other step that doom any future For the franchise (accordying Devs promise)

It is why, andromeda take place Between Me2 and ME3 and in a new galaxy ; to not be affect by promises devs did. But Andromeda ended in a commercial failure.

May be I can appear cynical, but I think, if EA want to save the franchise to make money, it will have to eat its hat, and clearly said to players they were idiots to believe to the impossible.

PS ; About ME3 end, just synthesis choice was clearly a will to close the trilogy in milky way ; I doubt lot of players would like to play in such world, not to say 3 differents end are incompatible with a true Me4.

The so called promises i remember is that progress would carry over and that quality and challenge would remain high, not specifics as to how it would end and using excuses as to why it would be a badly done ending.

I actually didnt follow this closely but if its another its garbage because players asked for it to be garbage then that has been to typical.

The pretense that the reapers couldnt be defeated without wiping out existence in such a story is just ridiculous.

There is a great space battle scene and the ending is really only ruined suddenly and brutally at the extreme end, its far from all bad. Massive topic though and lots of improvements could be made in alot of places like more space action and crew customization and lots.

[hurepoix]

I will try to be as clear as possible. If you play ME1 you can play ME2 whatever decisions you took, then you can play ME3 whatever decisions combinaisons you took at Me1 + ME2. Even before the three differents ends of ME3, it is clear no coherent ME4 can exist.

With some adjustement I think a coherent ME4 would have exist, something like 100 or 120 years after ME3, that means without Shepard. But it was not what had been chose at Me3.

[TheRandomGuy]

The only way to go forward is to make ONE of ME3's endings Canon to the storyline, which of course, disrupts the matter of your choices mattering.

HOWEVER I can at least see a way they can do that while still being true to the story of the games. They could incorporate the whole "Shepard Indoctrination" fan theory into canon and say "The Control and Synthesis Endings" were done by an indoctrinated Shepard under a hallucination or delusion that he could solve everything without taking heavy losses, similar to how The Illusive Man wanted to Control Reapers too, only to end up indoctrinated and ultimately die because of it.

Not only does that solve ME3's ending conundrum, it also allows the possibility of Shepard surviving, so a sequel COULD (but I wouldn't count on it) involve him in some way. Personally I'd rather see a different group of characters now, but the option would exist should they take that path.

The other major ME3 choices might also have to be canonized, like the fate of the Geth and Quarians, although, if we canonize Destruction Ending as the One True Ending, then the Geth are already dead anyways, making sense to leave the Quarians alive and on their homeworld of Rannoch. As for the Krogans and the Genophage, Andromeda already established they had a mutation to combat it that was slowly growing, so the genophage IS going to get cured, either by your choice in ME3, or by the Andromeda retcon, so really, since the choice is made moot by Andromeda, it makes sense just to make the cure canon.

There'd also be smaller choices Bioware would have to write around, but I think the biggest is probably the ending, once they get over that hump they can definitely continue Mass Effect in the Milky Way.

[hurepoix]

In modern myth, it is not strengh, intelligence or skill who define a heroes, it is first willpower. It is unlikely shepard could be indoctrined no ?

For sure dev tend to push players to the destruction choice.

I said it before, I would not play in a world after a synthesis. Add to this, synthesis can remind you Saren fate, and be assimiled to a failure/bad thing.

I will give my opinion about control later.

- genophage there is a big difference between genophage cured, and genophage weakened up to imunity that will take a while. It could be ok if you let pass centuries, that also means Shepard had turn in dust even you could imagine he/she survived at the end.

- Quarians/Geth. Who survived and who died (if any) is before the possible destruction decision, so fact Geths would died in a destruction decision, dont means Quarians are alive.

You speak about canon end, other can speak about best end, or best achievement. I presume in this way most players will see quarians/geths reconciliation as a major achievement to reach.

How, after that, can you commit a genocide ? (and a murder ; edi). Does this canon end means shepard can only be a renegade ... if not a bas tard.

what means control ; control have a negative connotation because it was the ellusive man goal, and the elusive man is the ennemy so a bad guy who can only be wrong.

Now look on control consequence. You dont commit murder, nor genocide, you dont send world back to stone age destroying technology, and you even repair war damage. But IIRC there is a price to pay. Shepard have to sacrifice himself. truly because we dont know if is mind will resist to his new fate. IIRC it is just suggested the process would take a long time. Probably enough to lead the reapers far in the void and let much more time than any civilisations before had to fight the repear.
I admit It is from my point of view the true meaning of a heroes sacrifice.

More seriously your opinion and interpretation is interresting. Your are probably part of a majority of players, with possibly different theories, and a bit the same goal.

You seems agree compromision and acceptation of incoherence is acceptable, as long as bioware give you back shepard in milky way for ME4.

Dont take this as an attack, I m not in the jugdment here

[Arti_Sel]

Originally posted by TheRandomGuy:

The only way to go forward is to make ONE of ME3's endings Canon to the storyline, which of course, disrupts the matter of your choices mattering.

HOWEVER I can at least see a way they can do that while still being true to the story of the games. They could incorporate the whole "Shepard Indoctrination" fan theory into canon and say "The Control and Synthesis Endings" were done by an indoctrinated Shepard under a hallucination or delusion that he could solve everything without taking heavy losses, similar to how The Illusive Man wanted to Control Reapers too, only to end up indoctrinated and ultimately die because of it.

If they still wanted our choices to matter but were too lazy to fix me3, they could have gone with indoctrination theory and made me4 be a battle for earth without Shepard.

But me4 seems to take place after a starchild ending so it can't be indoctrination.

[AbedsBrother]

Originally posted by Arti_Sel:

Originally posted by TheRandomGuy:

The only way to go forward is to make ONE of ME3's endings Canon to the storyline, which of course, disrupts the matter of your choices mattering.

HOWEVER I can at least see a way they can do that while still being true to the story of the games. They could incorporate the whole "Shepard Indoctrination" fan theory into canon and say "The Control and Synthesis Endings" were done by an indoctrinated Shepard under a hallucination or delusion that he could solve everything without taking heavy losses, similar to how The Illusive Man wanted to Control Reapers too, only to end up indoctrinated and ultimately die because of it.

If they still wanted our choices to matter but were too lazy to fix me3, they could have gone with indoctrination theory and made me4 be a battle for earth without Shepard.

But me4 seems to take place after a starchild ending so it can't be indoctrination.

Mass Effect 3 writer Chris Hepler has already clarified that the Indoctrination Theory is entirely a fan-made construct and not a part of official canon.
https://www.thegamer.com/mass-effect-ending-indoctrination-theory-shepard-canon/

[Comrade Larry]

Originally posted by kc:

Hell, since Liara is Shepards canon love inrerest, even a son/daughter of Shepard could make sense.

1. Where did you get that info.
2. Asaris can only reproduce Asari, so Shepard can't have son (unless he has one with someone else), if he goes with Liara.
3. If Liara is the canon choice, then what's the point of romance options (and choice of not romancing anyone).

[Legato Bluesummers]

Andromeda failed because they let amateur devs make the game. There was actually some really good ideas and overall I think it's the best ME game for gameplay and role playing a space adventure. They couldn't recover from that embarrassing roll out though. I only just played the game recently so I have no idea how bad it was on day one. Given how much ♥♥♥♥ it got, I can imagine it was very rough. That's their fault. Trying to rerun the clock back to the Milky Way is short sighted IMO. They should have just introduced new Protags and kept pushing the Andromeda story line. Ofc, we actually don't know if they've given up on Andromeda, could be a story told in two different galaxies. There was an ark missing in Andromeda so who knows.

[TheRandomGuy]

Originally posted by AbedsBrother:

Originally posted by Arti_Sel:

If they still wanted our choices to matter but were too lazy to fix me3, they could have gone with indoctrination theory and made me4 be a battle for earth without Shepard.

But me4 seems to take place after a starchild ending so it can't be indoctrination.

Mass Effect 3 writer Chris Hepler has already clarified that the Indoctrination Theory is entirely a fan-made construct and not a part of official canon.
https://www.thegamer.com/mass-effect-ending-indoctrination-theory-shepard-canon/

That's kinda what I was leaning into with my original post. They should canonize indoctrination theory to have a path forward for the series.

Basically retcon that the control and synthesis endings were "Indoctrination" endings where Shep is hallucinating or under the influence of the Reapers and merely believes he's doing the right thing, while in actuality he's just getting killed by the Crucible beam.

That way they have a good explanation for why the Destruction ending can be made canon, and it would make sense.

That also leaves a good potential for subplots and storylines in ME4 where the galaxy is dealing with fallout from the ending, such as the Mass Effect Relays being destroyed, the Geth no longer existing, synthetics destroyed, the Krogan Genophage cure, the Quarians re-taking their homeworld, and so forth.

As for a main antagonist ME4 could have scavengers using abandoned reaper tech or falling under indoctrination by a dead Reaper or something.

[AbedsBrother]

Originally posted by TheRandomGuy:

Originally posted by AbedsBrother:

Mass Effect 3 writer Chris Hepler has already clarified that the Indoctrination Theory is entirely a fan-made construct and not a part of official canon.
https://www.thegamer.com/mass-effect-ending-indoctrination-theory-shepard-canon/

That's kinda what I was leaning into with my original post. They should canonize indoctrination theory to have a path forward for the series.

Basically retcon that the control and synthesis endings were "Indoctrination" endings where Shep is hallucinating or under the influence of the Reapers and merely believes he's doing the right thing, while in actuality he's just getting killed by the Crucible beam.

That way they have a good explanation for why the Destruction ending can be made canon, and it would make sense.

"Since Destroy is canon, they have to create reasons why the other endings aren't canon." Since Synthesis and Control both involve Shepard physically dissolving = Shepard doesn't survive = there is no ME4. No need to bring indoctrination into it at all. It was confirmed by BioWare years ago that if you get the breath scene, Shepard survives. That's the only ending where there's a chance he survives. Makes sense that becomes the canon ending.

And non-canon endings already exist in the franchise. Why did BioWare not account for Shepard dying in ME2 and craft an entirely different ME3 campaign around the Virmire survivor? At some point practicality has to intervene.

Originally posted by TheRandomGuy:

That also leaves a good potential for subplots and storylines in ME4 where the galaxy is dealing with fallout from the ending, such as the Mass Effect Relays being destroyed, the Geth no longer existing, synthetics destroyed, the Krogan Genophage cure, the Quarians re-taking their homeworld, and so forth.

All of that could happen anyway, since Destroy has been chosen as canon. Based on the announcement trailer, I theorize that using the Crucible has case the Milky Way into nuclear winter, making it uninhabitable long-term - forcing the survivors to attempt a run to Andromeda.

Originally posted by TheRandomGuy:

As for a main antagonist ME4 could have scavengers using abandoned reaper tech or falling under indoctrination by a dead Reaper or something.

In my post-ME3 fan-fiction, Shepard is the key to re-animating a Reaper b/c of something that was stored within him when he was being rebuilt by Cerberus.

[Arti_Sel]

Originally posted by AbedsBrother:

Originally posted by TheRandomGuy:

That also leaves a good potential for subplots and storylines in ME4 where the galaxy is dealing with fallout from the ending, such as the Mass Effect Relays being destroyed, the Geth no longer existing, synthetics destroyed, the Krogan Genophage cure, the Quarians re-taking their homeworld, and so forth.

All of that could happen anyway, since Destroy has been chosen as canon. Based on the announcement trailer, I theorize that using the Crucible has case the Milky Way into nuclear winter, making it uninhabitable long-term - forcing the survivors to attempt a run to Andromeda.

Yeah they can pretty much do whatever they want at this point, but let's remember that they sold us this series on the promise that player choice would matter and carry over. Then they gave us the 3 color endings instead and now the choice of color doesn't even matter.

With how ME3 turned out the right move would be to canonize indoctrination theory and then just make a split from the end of me1 or me2. Preferably me1 because me2 has some really ♥♥♥♥ moments storywise with the dead Shepard start and the human reaper end. Give the player a new character and have them hunt down/play politics against their old indoctrinated Shepard. Then again nu-Bioware is responsible for Andromeda so it's probably better if they don't mess with proper ME canon at all. But if a good company had the IP that's what they should do.

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by Arti_Sel:

Yeah they can pretty much do whatever they want at this point

A summary in a single sentence.

[AbedsBrother]

Originally posted by Arti_Sel:

Originally posted by AbedsBrother:

All of that could happen anyway, since Destroy has been chosen as canon. Based on the announcement trailer, I theorize that using the Crucible has case the Milky Way into nuclear winter, making it uninhabitable long-term - forcing the survivors to attempt a run to Andromeda.

Yeah they can pretty much do whatever they want at this point, but let's remember that they sold us this series on the promise that player choice would matter and carry over. Then they gave us the 3 color endings instead and now the choice of color doesn't even matter.

With how ME3 turned out the right move would be to canonize indoctrination theory and then just make a split from the end of me1 or me2. Preferably me1 because me2 has some really ♥♥♥♥ moments storywise with the dead Shepard start and the human reaper end. Give the player a new character and have them hunt down/play politics against their old indoctrinated Shepard. Then again nu-Bioware is responsible for Andromeda so it's probably better if they don't mess with proper ME canon at all. But if a good company had the IP that's what they should do.

Sounds like you're saying BioWare should make the Indoctrination Theory canon to atone for lying about how much choices would matter. While that might make some members of the of Mass Effect community feel good, that is a terrible reason to make ANY narrative-focused design decision. This isn't a community demand like, "Hey, people want to romance Tali, so let's add a romance arc in ME2." Making the Indoctrination Theory canon could re-define the entire Mass Effect franchise, even before ME3, further undermining player agency (or the perception of it). "You didn't blow up the Collector base & gave it to TIM? Indoctrinated!" "You gave David Archer back to Cerberus? Indoctrinated!" Paragon and Renegade could even become avatars for not-indoctrinated or indoctrinated. Making the Indoctrination Theory canon is a terrible idea because by making it the focal point of ME3, it becomes the narrative goal of the entire journey of the trilogy.

BioWare making Destroy canon accomplishes many of the same things anyway. The Blue and Green endings become pointless; most people are now going to pick red for continuity. And the entire confrontation with the Starbrat also becomes pointless; just give me some tubes to shoot already!