5257 réponses à ce sujet

[Malstrife]

For ME4:

I want a villain that is just absolutely bat **** crazy. Someone that does things for s n g's, doesn't even have to be 'the' villain, just something that the player feels passionately about stopping/killing because the things this guy does is insane.

STORY: Probably revisit the whole dark matter thing that popped up in ME2.

Another idea: Someone feels the galaxy is in danger so they try to clone Shepard so to bring back the 'hero that could save us all' but ends up going horribly wrong.

As for the plot itself...the 3 color ending kinda throws a wrench into any idea I may have.

[SpeshMeh]

You have some interesting thoughts there AlcatorSK

AlcatorSK wrote...

I don't have many ideas for what should be the next game in ME universe, but I have opinion on what WOULDN'T work:

-1.
Making a prequel would be extremely difficult canon-wise -- either the player cannot change anything they already know will happen, in which case "Why bother", or they can change things (such as saving Protheans or whatever), in which case there will be a serious backlash against retconning.

I agree. Humanities involvement in the galaxy is little and spans only a few decades. If you were to set it before the events of ME1 you risk shrinking the universe down to the historical events of the canon or worse leving out certain species (most likely humans) which is a no no in my book. Im not a fan of retcons either. I would accept an alternative story that plays out alongside the events of the previous trilogy but never seeks to alter it or interact too deeply to it. There have been good ideas coming through to that. To be honest though i am still in the sequel camp.

AlcatorSK wrote...

-2.
Making a sequel in Milky Way is also problematic, because there are 2 main groups of endings of ME3 (the Red/Blue/Green ones are one group, and the "No-Crucible" being the second group), which are significantly separate in terms of When do the consequences show up; The Destroy/Control/Synthesis ones seem to preserve evolved civilization(s) pretty much immediately, while the "No-Crucible" one results in an evolution of a completely new civilization(s) millenia later. So, canon-wise, this is a problem (do we date the next game as "ME3 + 50 years", or as "ME3 + 40.000 years") -- player will protest against technological advancement or the lack thereof.

I'm with ^^Karushna5^^ on this one. The defiance ending would probably not be carried over in the seque,l as it pretty much is a "Bad Ending", in the same way Shepard dying at the end of the suicide mission in ME2 was not carried over.
Everyones been saying it needs to start decades, centuries, even
millenia after the events. Just set it about ten years after. Theres a
lot of potential storylines in that short period after the reapers.

AlcatorSK wrote...

-3.
Making a sequel in a different galaxy is no less problematic, because either the two galaxies (Milky Way and the new one, lets call it Andromeda) are connected, in which case people will ask why Reapers/Starchild focused only on Milky Way, or on the other hand there can be no movement between them, in which case players will ask "Why are there no references to past events in Milky way?".

I want Bioware to stick to their guns and do something with these
endings. I'm not saying spend the entire new game justifying it but show
us those ending had there own impact, on the shaping of the galaxy
after the reapers, each one different but equally profound, using that
as the backdrop to launch the new storyline. Dont be afraid to confront
the endings, make them work, show us what you saw in these endings
bioware. (Also for Synthesis get rid of the green Tron things to represent biosynthetic mergeing and think more "Ghost in The Shell")

AlcatorSK wrote...

-4.
Making a parallel storyline is just a variation of Prequel -- because every parallel storyline is pretty much a prequel to the ending of ME3. If I know how the end of the game plays out, why should I emotionally invest in characters which I either know won't make it, or alternatively will make it?

The keyword in that point is parralel. The two stories run alongside each other but never meet or clash with each other. If you resist the tempation to put in cameos you've got a strong story that covers the events from a different perspective. If you just throw cameo's and character references in it would just feel like a side story. Understand that this isnt an easy path to choose but it could be done effectively.

AlcatorSK wrote...

Before the next section, I feel the need to scream at BioWare for grabbing the "Michael Bay's sandals of stupidity" and wearing them for too long despite knowing they are cursed! People, for god's sake, the lesson is there and you should have known about it!
What are "MB's SoS" ?
Michael Bay's Sandals of Stupidity are a cursed item which drives Michael Bay to rely solely on "Size and Scale" as means of upping the ante. When you go through M.Bay's past movies, you can see that he has written himself into a corner by making the threats bigger and bigger until there is nothing bigger that could be the next threat, so that his next blockbuster could be bigger than the previous one. He's already threatened to ruin the planet once in Armageddon, and then he actually ruined the planet in 2012, so what's next?
Similarly, BioWare has started Mass Effect with 1 reaper, but by ME3, we have tens of thousands of them assaulting the entire Milky Way. The only thing BIGGER is the known Universe. You cannot wage personalized war on this scale!
This may be suitable for games like StarCraft, where you are controlling hundreds of soldiers and are throwing entire fleets against planets like Char or Tarsonis, but not for a squad-based tactical combat and deeply personal story.

Therefore, whatever you try to do next, put your feet on the ground and try something on smaller scale, and use other tools to upping the ante.

I totally agree and is another reason for not chucking more/new galaxies on the table. Focus on unexplored regions of the galaxy we have or go into further detail of the ones we have seen but not dealt with fully.
You dont have to reduce the scale of the threat just the direction. ME1-ME3 was all about the ancient races that threaten the universe and must use the clues from another ancient race to help find a way to defeat them. Change the enemy, make them closer to home. You could cover revolution, civil war, political instability, corporate corruption, loads of different things.

AlcatorSK wrote...

What could theoretically work as a sequel while avoiding the pitfalls mentioned above:

1.
New World scenario
- A dimensional rift (which I'd personally prefer to be accidental, rather than intentional) allows/forces a military vessel to pass through and brings them into the above-mentioned "Andromeda" galaxy (i.e., outside known Reaper zone).
- Cut off from the rest of their fleet, they need to survive in a completely alien environment.
- Possible main plots:
- a) Trying to return back to Milky Way (looking for answers to "how the rift was opened and how could we replicate it")
- Surviving against the locals who are hostile (nicely contained within 1 star system)

Yeah Karushna5's got it on this one. Its been used quite a lot in Sci-Fi (i.e. Voyager, Farscape, even Planet of The Apes) and would risk being cliche without some really good plot. But maybe contact from another galaxy would introduce new species, just wouldnt want it to be a source of a new villain or major plotline.

AlcatorSK wrote...

2.
Postapocalyptic scenario:
- Whatever happened in the Reaper War, a relatively small population has been hidden in underground complex as sort of "life capsule", similar to Fallout plot, and must now survive without help from outside (Terminus system or some such, with disabled Mass Relays). Again the advantage of contained space.
- Possible main plots:
- a) Indigenous threat (thresher maws becoming too aggresive?)
- Fight for survival with diminishing resources

This is more like it. Not so much the bunker thing but the whole galaxy having just survived extinction at the hands of the reapers. All species now on an equal standing more through destruction than alliance or political reform. This could be about the power grab afterwords (Think Game of Thrones).

Nice thoughts here. Would really like to read more about your vision for this new game in more detail. Have you a specific plotline in mind? Would be worth looking at. Again a really good post, keep them coming.

[SpeshMeh]

Malstrife wrote...

For ME4:

I want a villain that is just absolutely bat **** crazy. Someone that does things for s n g's, doesn't even have to be 'the' villain, just something that the player feels passionately about stopping/killing because the things this guy does is insane.

STORY: Probably revisit the whole dark matter thing that popped up in ME2.

Another idea: Someone feels the galaxy is in danger so they try to clone Shepard so to bring back the 'hero that could save us all' but ends up going horribly wrong.

As for the plot itself...the 3 color ending kinda throws a wrench into any idea I may have.

A villain really need to stand out and have an active roll in stopping your progress. Kai leng was bloody tedious but he served his perpose and i saw him as the biggest enemy in the game in terms of confrontation.
I would like a female villian. One that starts off as and ally but through tradegy or just plain choice changes sides and screws you over. Could be crazy but needs to show apathy and a ultilitarian attitude. Saren meets the Illusive Man with a dash or Benezia.
Definately would like to revisit the dark matter thing as heastrom didnt really explain much or revert back to that expanding sun.
Avoid Shepard though, have him as a legend that character speculate or theorise about.

[Hexley UK]

Don't make one....you obviously do not know how anymore.

Make a FPS or something and be done with it.

[The Real Bowser]

I'm not sure I'd buy a new Mass Effect game without hearing reviews confirming it first...

What I'd like personally, won't happen.  Because I'd like to be able to pick a race and story similar to how Dragon Age: Origins did things.  If I could do that, that would be amazing.

I don't think I'd want another Alliance marine as the protagonist.  Something... different this time.

Have one of each basic species for a crew, and at least one 'special' member.  Meaning a surprise squad member you wouldn't expect, similar to Legion or Javik.  As for the species I'd like to see in my squad, a Krogan, a Turian, a Quarian, and an Asari *at least*.  Ideally, Salarians, Drell, and other races would mix in well, too.

I'd want a complete ending at the end of the game.  Every choice mattered, and an epic battle just before the end.  And, an antagonist is an absolute must.  One that is a major player that hounds you to the end.  ME2 had this in a sense with Harbinger.  ME1 absolutely had it with Saren.  ME3 was... lacking. 

How you play it out otherwise is up to you.  I want the game to feel epic and build to an enjoyable climax.  ME3 really let me down in that regard, and if the sequel played out like that again, I wouldn't buy it, period.

I'm not a story writer and I'm not going to make crazy suggestions on how to write your story.  I'm only giving my opinion as a critic of your games, what I'd like to see and what I'd hate to see.  Basically, don't let me down and I'll work with whatever you do.  Within reason.

Oh, and how about some DLC that tells stories and has action?  Lair of the Shadow Broker and Project Overlord were amazing, while Leviathan and Omega were incredibly lacking.  If you're going to focus on DLC, please put more into it.

Modifié par The Real Bowser, 23 janvier 2013 - 01:05 .

[Axeface]

I personally think asking fans for advice isn't a good idea. You should trust yourselves Bioware.

That said, I'de like to see me1 and me2 ported into the me3 engine with all dlc's included, a mega super massive mass effect ultimate cut. Including some new content which is direly needed (Tali's face > ).
Insanity I know, but it would be rather awesome.


I do think ME3 deserves a lot more work though, are more dlc's planned? Need some expansions. I havent played omega or leviathan yet, but lotsb and overlord were fantastic additions to ME2. In fact they stand out.

Modifié par Axeface, 23 janvier 2013 - 01:19 .

[The Real Bowser]

Axeface wrote...

I personally think asking fans for advice isn't a good idea. You should trust yourselves Bioware.

That said, I'de like to see me1 and me2 ported into the me3 engine with all dlc's included, a mega super massive mass effect ultimate cut. Including some new content which is direly needed (Tali's face > ).
Insanity I know, but it would be rather awesome.


I do think ME3 deserves a lot more work though, are more dlc's planned? Need some expansions. I havent played omega or leviathan yet, but lotsb and overlord were fantastic additions to ME2. In fact they stand out.

I'm glad they are asking for our opinion.  It means that they want to design a game we will enjoy rather than ignoring our opinions and just making whatever the hell they feel like.

Also, Omega is awful DLC, and Leviathan is pretty boring.  Shadow Broker and Overlord are amazing, ME3's DLC pales in comparison.  You've missed nothing.  Watch it on youtube, and you'll likely save yourself $25.

[billywaffles]

@10110001110100 Your idea of a parallel story is quite interesting. I am not sure about the co-op part though...


I'll try to clarify my pov for an episodic ME saga.

The best example for a story structure I was thinking of would be Warcraft 3 and TFT (its expansion), which as a whole include several campaigns with different factions. Since each faction is different to each other, each campaign feels unique in its way. Each hero is different too, and has his/her own personality, mores, combat style, etc. The story is a succession of events protagonized by these heroes and their armies, so everything is connected, and at the end of the story, the world changes forever. Why is this important? Because having different heroes gives you the realistic idea that nobody is the "center of the universe", gives you perspective about what is happening in the world, what is changing, etc. These different characters have both successes and failures and some are inevitably destined to confront themselves. You get to know them in their campaigns and see how they evolve throughout the story, whether you control them or not. I don't want to spoil Warcraft 3 and TFT here, but storywise (and gameplay wise), for me, it is a masterpiece.

How does ME1-3 handle the story? In a terribly unrealistic way, since Shepard is in fact the "center of the universe". Everything important happens because of him. His word of "God" moves mountains, planets and everything. He has the best ship in the galaxy that can get him wherever he needs in less than 1 minute. Sorry, it is unrealistic, he does everything and that is the main reason I didn't really feel like I was rpging, because you cannot rp a "god", you just watch him own everything, influencing everybody he wants to, etc.

I am just not interested in another "god" for another trilogy. For that reason, having different characters radically different between them in separate campaigns would be a good idea, as long as it is handled correctly. The keys would be the following:

1-Each character has its own campaign/game.

2-The time-span of each campaign story would be between 1 to 3 years in the ME timeline. There should be at least 3 campaigns, but I would recommend 5 or 6 to be able to play as many races as possible and enhance the story and the experience.

3-Each campaign is connected to the others, so decisions made during a campaign affect the others (via import).

4-Each campaign feels different to the others, the main reason being the hero is from a specific race and works for a specific organization (or is freelance w/e). The hero may choose class and appearance, but the race is fixed. The music theme of each campaign is different to fit the theme/lore of the hero's race. Each campaign should score a different music style too for that reason (this is really important).

5-Despite the fact every campaign has its main protagonist/hero, there should be moments in which you could be able to control NPCs/squadmates without the implication of the hero. This is because it is impossible to control everything by the protagonist (little spoiler: what if Tyrande could have stopped Illidan from getting the Skull of Guldam?). Yes, I am revoking again to W3, in which you get the opportunity to take control of minor heroes which are not protagonists of the campaign, but are really important nonetheless in the story. The hero can still be influential to his squad via dialogue, interrupts, w/e the player wants their squadmates to be "more" paragon or renegade, but as I said, there should be things that not even the hero could be able to control. (thanks to SpeshMeh because he gave me this idea)

6-There should be confrontation between the heroes during some campaigns, which could end with the death of a previous hero if not handled properly. Confrontation is what makes things more dramatic and interesting! When confronting a hero from a previous campaign, he/she will react good/bad/neutral to your "current hero" depending on how you handled things in his/her campaign. ie: If he/she was a psycho-killer renegade that obliterated everything he/she saw, he will probably be hostile and want to kill you no matter what, resulting in a boss fight ending with his/her death. On the other hand, if he/she was a "guardian of justice" 100% paragon and you are doing something he doesn't like, he will probably want to arrest you. If he was neutral then you will have the opportunity to negotiate. This way, being more neutral would actually be an advantage over being 100% renegade or 100% paragon.

7-Some NPCs you encounter in a campaign could be recruited as squadmates in other campaigns depending on how you handle things. The fun thing is that you would have to replay the saga a few times at least to be able to get all NPCs possible.

8-The last game of the saga has the possibility of uniting all the heros with their squadmates in one unified squad... or they could be all dead... Too many variables!

Ok, that is more or less my idea. I didn't mention anything about the story since that is up to bioware to decide. I wouldn't be opposed to an "Origins" style game, but I think being episodic would enhance the quality of the games because bioware would only have to focus on a specific character and campaign at a time.

Sorry for the wall of text... There isn't tl;dr either ;P

[Ashevajak]

Story-wise, I've wondered where Mass Effect 4 could go.

As mentioned probably hundreds of times in this thread, a prequel probably won't work out too well. Humanity's involvement in the galaxy is too limited, and we know how the major conflict of humanity's discovery of the Mass Effect Relays (the Contact War) turns out. Also, people may have a negative reaction to a sci-fi trilogy that makes a fourth installment a prequel....just saying.

Equally, after the end of Mass Effect 3 presents some significant hurdles, most obviously the choices made at the end of the game. It would have a significant impact, for example, on whether the Geth would be present, for just one example. Now, Bioware could choose a "canon" version of events, which I guess would be Synthesis (gives the most options for a future game), but people can get upset when their choices are taken away, and if ME4 doesn't match their canon, there will be some comment on that.

Could a game be made co-current to the events of Mass Effect 1/2/3? The Reapers are obviously a massive and highly significant event, but it's a big galaxy. Got to be lots going on. I'm not sure how I feel about that option, but I mention it as a possibility.

I would like to see certain hanging threads from the series perhaps have an impact on a future game. I'm thinking, for example, the Quarian observations of what is happening to Haestrom's sun. The whole "dark energy" thing was very intriguing, and could be a good hook into a new game. There are other ones as well, I'm sure, but it's pretty late here, so I'm going to skip over those.

Also, as someone who really enjoyed the multiplayer, I would like to see about the possibility of choosing the species of the main character. Having a drell or Krogan protagonist would definitely be interesting...though I understand that introduces a lot of variables when it comes to game balance, not to mention the issue of how it fits into the storyline.

I'd also like to see a return of the ME1 style inventory and items. What can I say, I like my loot. I get all sad and stuff if I'm playing an RPG and I'm not having inventory management issues. More seriously, I'd like to see the element of exploration that was present in ME1 return...just rolling up onto random plants and finding abandoned mines, beacons and such. I really enjoyed that aspect of the game.

[ME859]

Axeface wrote...

I personally think asking fans for advice isn't a good idea. You should trust yourselves Bioware.

I kind of agree.  In truth though fans should be more focused on vague big picture ideas and leave it up to Bioware to fill in the blanks and focus on the specific details.  I like being surprised but back in mid March when I originally finished the game the surprise wasn't very pleasant.  

[EvilTreeEntertainment]

Axeface wrote...

I personally think asking fans for advice isn't a good idea. You should trust yourselves Bioware.

That said, I'de like to see me1 and me2 ported into the me3 engine with all dlc's included, a mega super massive mass effect ultimate cut. Including some new content which is direly needed (Tali's face > ).
Insanity I know, but it would be rather awesome.


I do think ME3 deserves a lot more work though, are more dlc's planned? Need some expansions. I havent played omega or leviathan yet, but lotsb and overlord were fantastic additions to ME2. In fact they stand out.

Nice idea, but the cost and time to make it would be ludicrous, as well as that so many people hate the endings of ME3, they'd be less inclined to buy it :/


Also, as other's have just said - I think BioWare shouldn't have asked for ideas.. methinks that's what started this whole problem - they tried to appease everyone, but instead it backfired. Nice idea, but didn't work :/

[Nightdragon8]

EvilTreeEntertainment wrote...

Axeface wrote...

I personally think asking fans for advice isn't a good idea. You should trust yourselves Bioware.

That said, I'de like to see me1 and me2 ported into the me3 engine with all dlc's included, a mega super massive mass effect ultimate cut. Including some new content which is direly needed (Tali's face > ).
Insanity I know, but it would be rather awesome.


I do think ME3 deserves a lot more work though, are more dlc's planned? Need some expansions. I havent played omega or leviathan yet, but lotsb and overlord were fantastic additions to ME2. In fact they stand out.

Nice idea, but the cost and time to make it would be ludicrous, as well as that so many people hate the endings of ME3, they'd be less inclined to buy it :/


Also, as other's have just said - I think BioWare shouldn't have asked for ideas.. methinks that's what started this whole problem - they tried to appease everyone, but instead it backfired. Nice idea, but didn't work :/

no... what really backfired was them making statements to the public and them not keeping there promises OR telling the public that they wont be able to do the things they said they where going to do.

"No A-B-C endings" and we get A-B-C endings is really bad. So they either need to keep there traps shut and try not to hype up the game to the point where there promises fall far short thus a backlash. Or only talk about things that will be in the game. 100% for sure.

Asking for ideas I think may be nothing more than trying to calm down the BSN population. A steam release.

Tho if anything they may get an idea as to wither they can do a prequal or if it will sell well.

You know... I think the major issue is that during the "Suicide" mission in ME2 gave everyone a false sense of security... we where able to "save everyone" (not all the colonists but still) so we all thought we could do the same thing in ME3... so if anything blame the story in ME2 as well

[PSUHammer]

Look into lip syncing or facial mo cap used in LA Noire. Mass Effect is a game yearning to capture the cinematic experience and the awkward animation and lip syncing kill it at times. LA Noire was incredible in this respect. It would be interesting to utilize a similar technology in Bioware games, moving forward.

[SpeshMeh]

billywaffles wrote...

I'll try to clarify my pov for an episodic ME saga.

The best example for a story structure I was thinking of would be Warcraft 3 and TFT (its expansion), which as a whole include several campaigns with different factions. Since each faction is different to each other, each campaign feels unique in its way. Each hero is different too, and has his/her own personality, mores, combat style, etc. The story is a succession of events protagonized by these heroes and their armies, so everything is connected, and at the end of the story, the world changes forever. Why is this important? Because having different heroes gives you the realistic idea that nobody is the "center of the universe", gives you perspective about what is happening in the world, what is changing, etc. These different characters have both successes and failures and some are inevitably destined to confront themselves. You get to know them in their campaigns and see how they evolve throughout the story, whether you control them or not. I don't want to spoil Warcraft 3 and TFT here, but storywise (and gameplay wise), for me, it is a masterpiece.

Pre WOW Warcraft games were amazing. Warcraft 3 i bought a new pc (well my parents did, i was young) just to play it. They built a universe full of lore and great characters at your command. Glad to see you respect and love it as well.<3:lol:<3
Its a very interesting idea, having episodic campaigns. It sounds like you would remove the lead character from the game, a bold choice. You would need a strong plot that runs through these episodes to tie the seperate stories together. If not you have a fractured story that lacks direction and purpose.
I would like to see this used in a "First Act" of the story, think ME1. A collection of stories you could play in any order (with consequences for doing so) that introduce the potential squadmate/s. I would use the mutiple perspective idea i mentioned before (Link), starting from the new squadmates perspective, then as your lead starts making his way through his side of the mission you see the effects ripple through to the squadmates side. Actions on one side have an impact over the other and vice versa. Once these recruitment stories, each with hub worlds and long playing times, were done you could advance the story at your choosing to the main plot in the second act with a decent prologue to tie both ends. It would give you the strong multi-perspective stories but would have them supported by a main plot.

billywaffles wrote...
How does ME1-3 handle the story? In a terribly unrealistic way, since Shepard is in fact the "center of the universe". Everything important happens because of him. His word of "God" moves mountains, planets and everything. He has the best ship in the galaxy that can get him wherever he needs in less than 1 minute. Sorry, it is unrealistic, he does everything and that is the main reason I didn't really feel like I was rpging, because you cannot rp a "god", you just watch him own everything, influencing everybody he wants to, etc.

I am just not interested in another "god" for another trilogy. For that reason, having different characters radically different between them in separate campaigns would be a good idea, as long as it is handled correctly.

You are right the universe did revolve around Shepard and he was a bland character, but i think he was designed to be that way and for a reason. We were Shepard. We had the choice to make shepard be whatever we wanted him to be. He was a god because they wanted the player to have the power to influence the galaxy, to hold the fates of those characters in our hands.
I too would like to see the influence spread out a bit, maybe give more influence to your squadmates sorta in the way Wrex took control of the Krogan, only you could guide how he leads them somewhat. I would want more of a story for the new lead. I wont say not a soldier because i didnt see shepard as one. Shepard was a vessel for or own stories, but didnt really have one as well. He/She never talked about themselves in the same way as Garrus or Tali or any of the others. Even the DLC's had more story than Shepard did. We warmed up to them more because of that.
I would be prepared to sarcrifice some of the immersion for a lead i could follow, who engages with his world and shares his own story rather than just selecting simple reactions and responses.

billywaffles wrote...

The keys would be the following:

1-Each character has its own campaign/game.

Amen, character introductions need to be bigger, more drawn out and more engaging (LotSB, Omega, Overlord for examples) and must include multiple perspectives.

billywaffles wrote...

2-The time-span of each campaign story would be between 1 to 3 years in the ME timeline. There should be at least 3 campaigns, but I would recommend 5 or 6 to be able to play as many races as possible and enhance the story and the experience.

The timespan you suggest you age you characters before they all meet leaving a big gap of character story to fill. I would go more towards a few months having the entire story be about 1 to 2 years tops. I like the idea a lot though, sort of like the clock is ticking kind of thing.

billywaffles wrote...

3-Each campaign is connected to the others, so decisions made during a campaign affect the others (via import).

Has to be tied to main plot and reference it at certian points to maintain relevance. Order of the stories ventured would work well with how they affect the others.

billywaffles wrote...

4-Each campaign feels different to the others, the main reason being the hero is from a specific race and works for a specific organization (or is freelance w/e). The hero may choose class and appearance, but the race is fixed. The music theme of each campaign is different to fit the theme/lore of the hero's race. Each campaign should score a different music style too for that reason (this is really important).

Now i get it, customise each squadmate rather than just the lead. I like it but as you say, limitations need to be set to make them convincing to their story. Definate yes to variances in soundtrack but keep the electronic vibes to keep the space theme. Look at this guy's playlists, especially at the bass and electronic playlists for rmusic i would like to hear.
Make the different cultures stand out a bit more, map environments and better thought out costume and character model designs would support this to

billywaffles wrote...

5-Despite the fact every campaign has its main protagonist/hero, there should be moments in which you could be able to control NPCs/squadmates without the implication of the hero. This is because it is impossible to control everything by the protagonist (little spoiler: what if Tyrande could have stopped Illidan from getting the Skull of Guldam?). Yes, I am revoking again to W3, in which you get the opportunity to take control of minor heroes which are not protagonists of the campaign, but are really important nonetheless in the story. The hero can still be influential to his squad via dialogue, interrupts, w/e the player wants their squadmates to be "more" paragon or renegade, but as I said, there should be things that not even the hero could be able to control. (thanks to SpeshMeh because he gave me this idea)

Sorry i didn't get to this part till now. I tend to read whilst i type my thoughts. Thanks for the mention, the post you mentioned i linked above. The lead influencing character development. I discussed something similar with Karushna5 on this thread here (See the parts about the Ardat-Yakshi). Was this along the lines of what you wre going for? If so i would support that all the way.
Once again Warcraft 3 and TFT were awesome!

billywaffles wrote...

6-There should be confrontation between the heroes during some campaigns, which could end with the death of a previous hero if not handled properly. Confrontation is what makes things more dramatic and interesting! When confronting a hero from a previous campaign, he/she will react good/bad/neutral to your "current hero" depending on how you handled things in his/her campaign. ie: If he/she was a psycho-killer renegade that obliterated everything he/she saw, he will probably be hostile and want to kill you no matter what, resulting in a boss fight ending with his/her death. On the other hand, if he/she was a "guardian of justice" 100% paragon and you are doing something he doesn't like, he will probably want to arrest you. If he was neutral then you will have the opportunity to negotiate. This way, being more neutral would actually be an advantage over being 100% renegade or 100% paragon.

Nice shout on this one. Love that only certain personalities are influenced or respect certain moral alignments. Could work well in tandem with squadmate influencing. i would like to develop the moral confrontation thing with a loyalty mechanic. Loyalty and loyalty missions along with special loyalty influenced
discussions was great in ME2 and should have been expanded upon.  More
than just survivability this should be a serious LOYALTY system where at
a certain point in story one of your own team betrays you from within
and sets you up for the fall. Then follow this up with a chance to win
the turncoat back or getting vengeance. ME1 made us deal with the hard
choices of sacrifice, now let us deal with betrayal. (Yeah copied and pasted one of my old posts, got lazy here)

billywaffles wrote...

7-Some NPCs you encounter in a campaign could be recruited as squadmates in other campaigns depending on how you handle things. The fun thing is that you would have to replay the saga a few times at least to be able to get all NPCs possible.

Yes recruitable, variable npc crews. Thank you. I really want this. They could contribute to the ship in some way (stats, ship boosts, character boosts) whilst adding variance to the background converstaions between crewmen, squadmates and your lead.

billywaffles wrote...

8-The last game of the saga has the possibility of uniting all the heros with their squadmates in one unified squad... or they could be all dead... Too many variables!

Once again wish i had read it through all the way first before typing. Lol. Nice thought though that your game could end without reaching the finale. A sort of bad ending if you will.

Everytime i see your posts i see really great ideas coming through as well as a feeling of wonderful gaming/musical nostalgia. Thank you and cant wait to see more of your ideas.

[force_echo]

I got it. A super villain who's using a badass superweapon like the Star Forge, an entire planet made completely out of eezo to decay all of the stars of every solar system with habitable planets, thus trying to destroy everyone!

[TheWill]

one word to describe how i want mass effect 4 to be like - farscape

[PainCakesx]

Really the only things I need to be interested in a ME4 are:

1) Take place after the events of ME3. Doesn't have to be directly related, but I'd much rather have a new antagonist in a story that has moved forward rather than backwards in time. Much easier to do that whole "build your own adventure" theme. A prequel would bore me and wouldn't suit a game like ME. Historical conflicts are already well detailed and allowing for player decisions to make any significant difference would be tantamount to retconning - either that or the decisions not being major at all. In addition, the fatalistic aspect of prequels tend to turn me off as well.

2) Keep the game "Mass Effect." This means a couple of things:
(1) Do NOT turn this into generic action shooter #12402. The RPG and shooter elements have been balanced quite well, build on that but don't radically change it in a way that makes it unrecognizable.
(2) One important aspect of the ME universe are the different races and species we have grown to love. Some people have asked to wipe the slate clean with a game taking place 50,000 years after or prior the events of the trilogy. I, and I'm sure most here have developed some sort of attachment to the universe as is. To essentially wipe out the universe as we know it would be jarring and would kill most, if not all interest that I'd have in another Mass Effect game. It would no longer be Mass Effect at that point, but an entirely different franchise.
(3) Maintain RPG elements such as customization of character, dialogue options, decisions that impact the game, a compelling narrative, exploration, etc.
(4) Compelling and interesting characters. I grew to love all the characters in the original trilogy (mostly :-p), so much so that I wish there could be a direct sequel to ME3 so I could revisit them again. Seeing as that won't happen, the new characters will hopefuly be intersting, likeable and engaging
(5) Multiplayer is fine. I personally enjoy ME3's multiplayer for what it is. That said, the primary focus should be on the single player - the multiplayer market is ridiculously oversaturated. ME is special not because of its combat, but becuse of the whole package of gameplay, story, characters, lore etc. Focus should be on that.. 

Mass Effect is a winning formula. Expanding, innovating and improving what exists should be the goal. Radical changes are a surefire way to alienate a huge portion of the fan base. Given the reception of ME3's ending, this probably is not an action that BioWare wants to take.

Modifié par PainCakesx, 24 janvier 2013 - 10:00 .

[Rhiens VI]

1. No prequels please. Prequels are boring.

Distant prequels work (see KOTOR). This won't work here, though, because it effectively excludes humanity. And having no human protagonist is a really terrible idea. Nobody will play that, except for a few fanatics.

2. Pick one of ME3 endings as canon. Yes, there will be crying and raging, but I doubt it will matter for the success of the game. The majority will be OK with that.

I think Control is the optimal canon ending. It preserves balance of powers, lays foundation for new possible conflict (Reaper-Shepard going corrupt, or loosing control, etc). Destroy is OK too. Synthesis is the worst, too creepy, too drastic change, too many complications for the game setting.

3. Based on the chosen canon, move the timeline roughly 50 years ahead, this gives the story a clear start, while keeping the events of ME3 close enough to be well remembered and mentioned here and there.

4. Don't copy Shepard's formula (a hand-picked problem-solver for humanity), do something new, let the protagonist rise from relatively humble beginnings.

5. A possibility to travel to another galaxy would be nice, but keep it mostly in the Milky Way, and don't forget Earth.

6. Don't leak the plot.

[onewaypub]

No Console-only game. The game has to be for Console AND PC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ME859]

I would love to see a DS9 inspired plot with a space station being the main hub where the alliance oversees reconstruction and attempts to maintain the peace. Just please no space gods

@RheinsVI while I kind of agree about control I think I'd rather just do away with the reapers. A lot of ME3's plot problems stemed from having an overpowered main antagonist. A problem which led to the writers using a deus-ex solution to end the threat. It's sad really, the reapers were a great enemy with a lot of great buildup but in the end it became to difficult to tie to together.

I think I'd rather have to deal with concepts like civil wars, power vacuums, betrayal, you know the simple things in life

Modifié par ME859, 24 janvier 2013 - 01:36 .

[Rhiens VI]

ME859 wrote...
@RheinsVI while I kind of agree about control I think I'd rather just do away with the reapers. A lot of ME3's plot problems stemed from having an overpowered main antagonist.

I see your point, and partially agree. IF Bioware could come up with a brand new antagonist, then Destroy is the way to go. Perhaps, hostile AI could be that antagonist, however, in Destroy you get rid of all advanced AI, therefore requiring a much longer leap in time for this danger to resurface again.

Power struggle "we are our worst enemies" kind of plot is an option too, yes. Not sure if it will be well recieved by the players, though.

Modifié par Rhiens VI, 24 janvier 2013 - 01:44 .

[FIN-Olmi]

 Retractable helmets, no forced avenger or predator in cutscenes. let there be our current gun in them such as in some leviathan and omega cutscenes, and finally less lens flare.

[Ambivalent]

I'd like a sequel, based on in some other system, perhaps playing as a different race? Or maybe races even?

Also using same star system would be totally okay but you'd repeat yourselves and it'd feel repetetive to walk around at Citadel, getting declined by council then being accepted as a human(or whatever race) being to be a Spectre 135435th time.

Also i'd love to see how Shephard's choices and ending of ME3 effected other systems and/or the system that ME trilogy set in.

[N7Infernox]

Emphasize exploration above all. Make the game feel like a home away from home. And bring vehicles back.

Keep/ Invest in writers who specialize in characters & dialogue.

Include new, unique multiplayer elements (Dark Souls innovations comes to mind)

If you bring back Reapers or Lev*a*h*ns(spoilers!), don't make them an "unbeatable force". Or any foe for that matter. Mass Effect does not need another galactic war with a hopeless feel to it.

Sam Hulick & Jack Wall (or bust).

Give the Illusive Chris Priestly a cameo.

[Midnite Ryu]

I would like to see a continuation of the Mass Effect Trilogy with a game setting after the events of ME3. Just like at the end of the game Shepard's actions are now considered folk lore, they should just move the next game up the timeline by alot ( or a little could work). For antagonists they could use the Leviathans, adjutants, or some other threat from another galaxy that the reaper's were holding back.
That's my opinion though. For storywise anyway, for gameplay wise keep the game as is maybe increase customization options for weapons/armor but do not make it a FPS/urn based Tactics/etc just exapnd on and improve the existing formula. Also Being able to pick a race beside Human would be cool too.

Modifié par Midnite Ryu, 26 janvier 2013 - 05:50 .