Abraham_uk wrote...
[..]
Being a prequel doesn't make something rubbish. It is the story, characters, script and setting that do this.
Still, there are inherited issues with a prequel, regardless of in which media, in that it requires very, very disciplined writers to make it work. The core issue with any prequel is that you already know as an audience, player, reader (and whatever) how the story is going to end up. In a Mass Effect universe, you already know the ending of the entire universe, and as such, any battle set in the past will seem less important than whatever the grand, grand spoiler-ending has shown us.So, a prequel is already riddled with issues and problems before the story even begins.
Of course, the Star Wars prequels were bad. And that was because of George Lucas, but the prequels would probably have been bad none the less,
because they were prequels. Seeing how Darth Vader was created and the rise of the empire seem pointless, when you already know they’re going to lose to the rebellions. Prequels are essentially the same as treading water, as long as they try to tie in with the already known story.
The only way I can see a prequel work, is to let a prequel deal with unknown things. Not the Rachni war and not the First Contact war, but some obscure something with unknown characters, which in the end proves to enlighten and cast the original story in a whole new light, so we feel we have to go back and play those again to see the new perspective and how it interferes with the story. For instance, a company of heroes only dealing with the Racni queen and her offspring could be woven into the known story, explain certain loopholes, so we get the idea that Shepard might have had help, unknown to him or us, working for his cause in the shadows. Maybe we even see the original ending from a new angle? A prequel should, if it wants to work, provide something entirely new, so not to waste everybody’s time by merely “showing” us the first step on the ladder, when we already know where the ladder will lead us. It should provide us with a new entry point to the same destination, and preferably, make us question the original outcome. But all of that is kinda counter-productive, when you think about why people make prequels. They make them because of character and universe-recognition, which makes it easier to sell, but in order for it to be successful, it has to have new, alien elements, maybe even new themes and tones.
If I
had to choose a prequel theme, since we’re all going to have to live with the three foot tall *spoiler* at the *spoiler*, then I’d wish for a prequel to take up
those specific themes, as to cast light over the subject and the antagonist, so the original ending is no longer abrupt, but in the bigger scheme of things a part of a larger whole werein it makes sense.
Essentially, I think prequels are lazy and have more financial value than artistic reasons. If the original first story didn’t need an origin story of how everything came to be, it was probably because it wasn’t necessary. We don’t need to know where the Reapers came from, because they are more threatening to us, when they are incomprehensible and unforeseeable. Just like “the force” became less enchanting, once we were explained it was just science and medichlorians. Darth Vader is less of a villain, when we’ve seen what a brat he was and kinda deserves his faith. Ect. Ect.
Anyway. I'm not insanely opiniated on the subject. I'll take whatever media-based, non-multiplayer game they choose to create a possible Mass Effect story with. The hypothetical story to a speculated future Mass Effect isn't all that important to me and it will certainly not affect whether or not I'll buy it, but genre, gameplay and options
are that important.
Modifié par Hvlukas, 19 juin 2012 - 12:01 .
Retour en haut
create an inconsistency as to why we never heard of this character/event throughout the original Mass Effect trilogy (providing the threat/antagonist is a great one).
