huser

Woah is there another post along this vein? Either way, still support this even if I think this is sadly wishful thinking.

@CL60 said:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/why-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3-was-satifying-and-worthy-of-the-series-mass

Interestingly the comments thread of the article holds a lot of well thought out rebuttals to your link

@PolygonSlayer said:

I think if the game ended with everyone still together and high-fiving, mass relays still operational, everything back to "normal" etc it for me would be just another Hollywood blockbuster. Horrible in other words.

It ended with a great meaning in my opinion. I mean, it was either this or everyone getting wiped out! At least now the majority of people are still alive, sure, some are probably stuck in certain systems, but I like that they leave this part up to my own imagination rather than try and explain to me what each and every character did after the reapers died (they had already resolved the characters in the story so why add more bullshit), because if they did I'm pretty sure I would have been disappointed with what they showed. The galaxy now got a new chance, a galaxy without the reapers in the future, maybe now giving the species more time to evolve they will eventually come together peacefully in the far far future? I can picture what some of the characters would be doing after this etc.. See, for me this is so much better, they are teasing my imagination instead of feeding me everything and the ME universe becomes so much richer because of it.

Why do so many people want to know absolutely everything? Leaving some mystery left is a good thing. For example, who made the reapers? who are the "masters"? What did such-and-such do afterwards? I hope they never explain it. It's a mystery and it makes me wonder and think about the universe long after the story is finished.

It's a bit like the real universe I suppose, the mystery out there is a good thing and as we discover new things new mysteries open up. I hope we never get the answers to "everything", how boring would that be?

(My biggest complain though, those side-fetch quests... they are a bit better than those in DA2.... but man, they gotta stop doing those, they are so bad and "soulless").

I'm not entirely clear the majority made it out alive, especially given post Rachni War, the Council got pretty conservative on exploration. If relays blew up, and relays blowing up result in supernova type explosions, then a whole lotta homeworlds just got vaporized. Even among the Asari, I'm betting the atomization of their home system would kill the majority of them.

And the ending you described is not inclusive of all the possible endings. The Reapers may still exist.

The difference from the real world is getting the answers to everything may never be possible, but is certainly no where NEAR a reality. IE we are in no danger that if EVERY human devoted every possible waking moment on solving the mysteries of the universe we'd be astonishingly closer in a million years.

That being said, let's not strawman everyone's issues with the ending by equating them with wanting all the answers spoonfed to them.

Just as an example, I don't see exactly how a "happy" ending is particularly a negative or particularly unrealistic thing just because Hollywood does it. For the victors, most wars end on a "happy" note. Sure there are costs, unforeseen consequences, or even a prelude to the next war, but I don't see why a victory needs to cost some fundamental thing to be more valid than any other. I'd think the price in blood would be sufficient.

@Brodehouse said:

All mass effect technology, which is to say, technology that uses element zero is not destroyed. Otherwise all asari and biotic people would also be destroyed. People still retain the knowledge of how to build a gun.

The relays on the other hand, are destroyed. And no one has done any overt research into building new ones. Matriarch Aethyta suggested the asari learn how to build their own relays and they 'laughed the blue off her ass'.

That said, they retain all the star maps, and they have at least intermediate understandings of mass effect technology. They could rebuild, have a new one up in a couple generations. Citadel is destroyed, the galactic community will have to be restarted, but it is possible.

With all that said, I think BioWare has some plan to explain what the fuck was going on in that ending with DLC. Which even as a loyal fan of their work I don't think is the right thing to do. Even if it was free, I'd preferred to have learned what the fuck was going on immediately rather than wait 3 months.

Yeah, I wasn't clear on that, I thought it was just the relays not everything related to the mass effect. They'd still have FTL even, just not casually travel the galaxy speed.

@rebgav said:

@huser said:

They still have FTL right? Just not casual travel around the entire galaxy level FTL.

Probably not, if they got that tech from the Mars archives. If everyone's FTL drives are based on Reaper tech it doesn't work anymore.

Oh, I thought it was just the relays, it's every FTL drive? Even then, couldn't they make new ones? Or is the mass effect itself killed in some way?

@Cloneslayer said:

The thing is the mass relays are destroyed so no one can leave their system, right? Thus ending the ME universe, no space travel = no space traveling adventure. They are going to have to figure out long range space travel somehow and really I'm not interested in whatever conceits they make up to undo that ending.

They still have FTL right? Just not casual travel around the entire galaxy level FTL. I mean when you are pushing the Normandy around different systems, that's still a distance of lightyears within a relatively short time.

Assuming their ships hold together, I think the Asari and the Krogan at least have a reasonable chance of seeing their homes again.

EDIT - To answer the question, I'm not against it, but I'm not sure where they go. They could certainly fastforward a bit and just make a canonical ending that is relatively ambiguous about the details. They could certainly go back in time, but I'm not sure how much the audience wants to play as aliens. The other option would be more near-term, playing as Anderson in his youth or just set against a backdrop of the major events (Blitz, 1st Contact War, etc), or even from the viewpoint of the various nameless folks during Shep's adventures. I suppose it would be completely justified to have a bit of a stagnation in the universe if a couple of the possible endings occur.

@Humanity said:

@MindOST said:

@Brockly46 said:

@Rotnac said:

@envane said:

@huser said:

@Turambar said:

@huser said:

@Humanity said:

@huser

@Turambar said:

@Humanity said:

@MindOST

Like most people, I just hope they don't go the easy route and make the British the "Bad Guys" and the revolutionaries the "Good Guys."

I don't see why they wouldn't do that. Do people really think the British were really nice guys during that time or something? British colonies weren't some happy fun camps where the indigenous population thrived. The English were by all account "bad guys" throughout early history, unless exploitation for self benefit is ok all of a sudden.

If by indigenous population, you mean the Native Americans, almost all fought on the side of the British, not the Colonists. If you are talking about the white population of the colonies, it's worth pointing out that Canada was more than willing to stay with the crow for another century while in the 13 Colonies, estimates of the size of the Loyalist population is around a third of the total population.

Seriously, it's not like the Revolutionary War suddenly altered people on a genetic level and deleted their upbringing. They were, just a few years earlier, largely loyal subjects of the crown. So if the English were right bastards, then...well it's not exactly six degrees of separation here.

I'm referring to the fact that this will be a video game where there will be a good and a bad side. AC Revelations had very clearly defined good and bad guys despite neither party being completely guilt free in historical context. So people saying "I hope the British aren't portrayed as bad guys here that's bullshit!" are strange to me because that's exactly how I'd imagine it would pan out. From the American standpoint the colonists were the "good guys" that splintered off from the crown. Of course the term "Americans" is largely symbolical at that point in time since as you mention they were loyal British born and bred subjects. Since we are slowly moving towards the present and Desmond is American that just leads me to naturally assume the game would have you play as a third party, as the series always had, lending a helping hand to the colonists.

I'd assume the badguys are the Templars and their knowing or unknowing minions and accomplices. Given they pretty much own the US by the time of Desmond, I'd be just as likely be inclined to believe that the TEMPLARS are running the secessionist train to establish a completely independent political body.

Given what all the released artwork of the game are like thus far, I'd say the protagonist being on the side of the colonists is pretty much guaranteed.

I'm just going by this one here

http://www.joystiq.com/screenshots/assassins-creed-3/4863676/#/3

Blue and Gold being an established color scheme for the Continental Army. Whereas the Brits, well you know...

Now maybe that guy is a traitor, spy, or about to be saved, but he looks not long for this world.

EDIT - Maybe a Hessian, though. The exact cut is beyond my knowledge of the times.

WHAT IS THIS MESSY NEST OF QUOTES FUUUCK

WE NEED TO GO DEEPER!!

Going Deeper

I can't see my original post anymore!

It's like were diving into our ancestors' posting memories.

Have we now achieved "deep"? So deep? So deep it coincided with putting a farm animal to sleep?

@Turambar said:

@huser said:

@Humanity said:

@huser

@Turambar said:

@Humanity said:

@MindOST

Like most people, I just hope they don't go the easy route and make the British the "Bad Guys" and the revolutionaries the "Good Guys."

I don't see why they wouldn't do that. Do people really think the British were really nice guys during that time or something? British colonies weren't some happy fun camps where the indigenous population thrived. The English were by all account "bad guys" throughout early history, unless exploitation for self benefit is ok all of a sudden.

If by indigenous population, you mean the Native Americans, almost all fought on the side of the British, not the Colonists. If you are talking about the white population of the colonies, it's worth pointing out that Canada was more than willing to stay with the crow for another century while in the 13 Colonies, estimates of the size of the Loyalist population is around a third of the total population.

Seriously, it's not like the Revolutionary War suddenly altered people on a genetic level and deleted their upbringing. They were, just a few years earlier, largely loyal subjects of the crown. So if the English were right bastards, then...well it's not exactly six degrees of separation here.

I'm referring to the fact that this will be a video game where there will be a good and a bad side. AC Revelations had very clearly defined good and bad guys despite neither party being completely guilt free in historical context. So people saying "I hope the British aren't portrayed as bad guys here that's bullshit!" are strange to me because that's exactly how I'd imagine it would pan out. From the American standpoint the colonists were the "good guys" that splintered off from the crown. Of course the term "Americans" is largely symbolical at that point in time since as you mention they were loyal British born and bred subjects. Since we are slowly moving towards the present and Desmond is American that just leads me to naturally assume the game would have you play as a third party, as the series always had, lending a helping hand to the colonists.

I'd assume the badguys are the Templars and their knowing or unknowing minions and accomplices. Given they pretty much own the US by the time of Desmond, I'd be just as likely be inclined to believe that the TEMPLARS are running the secessionist train to establish a completely independent political body.

Given what all the released artwork of the game are like thus far, I'd say the protagonist being on the side of the colonists is pretty much guaranteed.

I'm just going by this one here

http://www.joystiq.com/screenshots/assassins-creed-3/4863676/#/3

Blue and Gold being an established color scheme for the Continental Army. Whereas the Brits, well you know...

Now maybe that guy is a traitor, spy, or about to be saved, but he looks not long for this world.

EDIT - Maybe a Hessian, though. The exact cut is beyond my knowledge of the times.

@Humanity said:

@huser

@Turambar said:

@Humanity said:

@MindOST

Like most people, I just hope they don't go the easy route and make the British the "Bad Guys" and the revolutionaries the "Good Guys."

I don't see why they wouldn't do that. Do people really think the British were really nice guys during that time or something? British colonies weren't some happy fun camps where the indigenous population thrived. The English were by all account "bad guys" throughout early history, unless exploitation for self benefit is ok all of a sudden.

If by indigenous population, you mean the Native Americans, almost all fought on the side of the British, not the Colonists. If you are talking about the white population of the colonies, it's worth pointing out that Canada was more than willing to stay with the crow for another century while in the 13 Colonies, estimates of the size of the Loyalist population is around a third of the total population.

Seriously, it's not like the Revolutionary War suddenly altered people on a genetic level and deleted their upbringing. They were, just a few years earlier, largely loyal subjects of the crown. So if the English were right bastards, then...well it's not exactly six degrees of separation here.

I'm referring to the fact that this will be a video game where there will be a good and a bad side. AC Revelations had very clearly defined good and bad guys despite neither party being completely guilt free in historical context. So people saying "I hope the British aren't portrayed as bad guys here that's bullshit!" are strange to me because that's exactly how I'd imagine it would pan out. From the American standpoint the colonists were the "good guys" that splintered off from the crown. Of course the term "Americans" is largely symbolical at that point in time since as you mention they were loyal British born and bred subjects. Since we are slowly moving towards the present and Desmond is American that just leads me to naturally assume the game would have you play as a third party, as the series always had, lending a helping hand to the colonists.

I'd assume the badguys are the Templars and their knowing or unknowing minions and accomplices. Given they pretty much own the US by the time of Desmond, I'd be just as likely be inclined to believe that the TEMPLARS are running the secessionist train to establish a completely independent political body.

@Turambar said:

@Humanity said:

@MindOST

Like most people, I just hope they don't go the easy route and make the British the "Bad Guys" and the revolutionaries the "Good Guys."

I don't see why they wouldn't do that. Do people really think the British were really nice guys during that time or something? British colonies weren't some happy fun camps where the indigenous population thrived. The English were by all account "bad guys" throughout early history, unless exploitation for self benefit is ok all of a sudden.

If by indigenous population, you mean the Native Americans, almost all fought on the side of the British, not the Colonists. If you are talking about the white population of the colonies, it's worth pointing out that Canada was more than willing to stay with the crow for another century while in the 13 Colonies, estimates of the size of the Loyalist population is around a third of the total population.

Seriously, it's not like the Revolutionary War suddenly altered people on a genetic level and deleted their upbringing. They were, just a few years earlier, largely loyal subjects of the crown. So if the English were right bastards, then...well it's not exactly six degrees of separation here.