5257 réponses à ce sujet

[mhmbaSR1]

I have to admit I would much rather see resources on the next ME go to things besides space combat...like less auto dialogue and more dialogue options, lore/story development, a more complex and role-playing ability/combat system (though I have to say the system in ME3 was preferable to others), more world exploration, less corridors and a more dynamic environment, etc

[maurice tali zorah]

Tali and being able to play a Quarian in campaing

[Aethgeir]

mhmbaSR1 wrote...

I have to admit I would much rather see resources on the next ME go to things besides space combat...like less auto dialogue and more dialogue options, lore/story development, a more complex and role-playing ability/combat system (though I have to say the system in ME3 was preferable to others), more world exploration, less corridors and a more dynamic environment, etc

Agreed, I would like to see space-combat, or at least space battles where we have some kind of role, but only if they can do it justice, and without sacrificing something else.  I would rather not have it at all, than see it done poorly resulting in everybody hating it.

I don't buy "resources apologetics" though, it seems like game developers nowadays keep charging more and offering less: Less overall content (just compare the number of missions/locations in ME1 and 2 to ME3), less player control, simplistic level design, weaker storytelling, and the constant reduction or outright removal of all sorts of extras.  And in return we get mild improvements in graphics and gameplay, and poor excuses for more DLC and micro transactions.

Modifié par Aethgeir, 17 janvier 2014 - 12:03 .

[Invisible Man]

Aethgeir wrote...

mhmbaSR1 wrote...

I have to admit I would much rather see resources on the next ME go to things besides space combat...like less auto dialogue and more dialogue options, lore/story development, a more complex and role-playing ability/combat system (though I have to say the system in ME3 was preferable to others), more world exploration, less corridors and a more dynamic environment, etc

Agreed, I would like to see space-combat, or at least space battles where we have some kind of role, but only if they can do it justice, and without sacrificing something else.  I would rather not have it at all, than see it done poorly resulting in everybody hating it.

I don't buy "resources apologetics" though, it seems like game developers nowadays keep charging more and offering less: Less overall content (just compare the number of missions/locations in ME1 and 2 to ME3), less player control, simplistic level design, weaker storytelling, and the constant reduction or outright removal of all sorts of extras.  And in return we get mild improvements in graphics and gameplay, and poor excuses for more DLC and micro transactions.

I can't argue with that, even if I wanted to.

[RuffTuff7]

Just some thoughts on how I imagine some of the aspects of ME4:

I think ME4 story should be centered around the 3 most interesting faction(imo) of the series:
1/ Specters
2/Shadow Broker
3/Cerberus

The setup:
The galaxy:
I can imagine the galaxy returning back to normal, after a decade and everything about the reapers has turned into common knowledge and the galaxy moves forward as it usually happens in those types of scenarios(IMO). A small % of the people are still looking into the topic, but the majority moved on with their lives, which are shaped with much smaller matters. There are still money and power hungry people and organizations, there is still friction between the races on various topics. A key point might be the search for knowledge and technology discovered by races of previous cycles and the reapers themselves. The goal of course is to find power and means to dominate. All three fractions are engaged into this tech/knowledge race. Leviathans are key characters here, because they have witnessed everything that passed since the first cycle.

The protagonist:
I would really like to see a specter double agent who is strongly inspired by Shepard(who by the way is MIA) and is being converted by Liara(the shadow broker) to assist her, because the council is doing something secret and not-so-noble(AI Army, which they think they can control, like the crucible maybe?) with their power and the newly found secrets.

Shepard:
Shepard is alive but he is badly injured, so he prefers to remain a symbol of ultimate sacrifice instead of being an ugly superstar. He is working with Liara, but nobody knows that, until it is reviled in some part of the game where he interacts with the Hero to warn him that there the crucible planned a second wave as a fail switch mechanism and if they don't stop the council the 2nd wave plan will be activated.

P.S.: I know my english isn't perfect, so there is no need to point that out.

[Saikyo_McRyu]

Having recently finished ME3 and registered, here are a few of my observations for a new ME game. I am attempting not to use spoilers....

-The universe is so well-developed that it would be a shame not to set another game in it. The endings of ME3 obviously make it more difficult to develop a story for a sequel, but I think that's the right direction to go. A prequel would feel somewhat pointless to me because of the events of ME 1-3.

-I think the "blue" ending would work out the best for a sequel, but the consequences of that ending will have to be addressed up front. However, this ending potentially has the least impact on the ME universe.

-Add more RPG elements (skills other than combat as in ME1), but keep the general combat system from ME3, with a slightly lower emphasis on being in cover all the time. As others have said, holster button please. Not a priority, but you miss it when it's gone.

-ME3's music ranged from suitably epic to straight-up annoying. Invite Jack Wall back. Or see if Cliff Eidelman (Star Trek VI) is available on the cheap.

-It's not possible to "out-epic" the ME 1-3 storyline, so don't try. The disc jockey Don Geronimo, a big ST:TNG fan, used to describe TNG as "LA Law in Space." This doesn't mean a future ME game has to be like a TV drama, but if it's written well enough, nobody will care than much if you're saving the universe or just your neighborhood. Just create a heavily character-driven story set on a couple of planets, possibly even one planet (or self-contained on the Citadel; though many are sick of the Citadel, it does represent a huge environment if you explore all of the wards). You don't have to cruise around in the Ebon Hawk Normandy; you can just travel terrestrially as in Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. Actual space travel could serve as a bridge between missions.

-Many of the previous characters will be in very important positions within their own government/society and by necessity unavailable as team members, even if the game is set directly after ME3. However, the Shadow Broker could play a role, and potentially be supportive/be an antagonist depending on how the player proceeds.

-Potentially introduce notable NPCs from ME1-3 as team members (or just NPCs again) for continuity purposes. Aethyta is one I'd really really like to see again, as well as Bailey, depending on their status after the events of ME3's endgame.

-As many others have said, let us play as non-human races. Turian would be the most fun, though Krogan, Asari, Quarian, Geth, Volus, etc. would all be cool. Well, I'm not sure how many people would enjoy playing as a Volus; I would, but then I play as Dan in Street Fighter.

-I think one faction of antagonists would need to be the yahg. ME 2-3 seemed to be setting them up for this. Or possibly the salarians, given their position at the end of ME3.

-Rework the character portraits from the menu screen so they look less like cartoon characters and more like they do during gameplay. ME 1-2 were fine in this regard; no reason to reinvent the wheel.

-Allow us to return to characters/teammates to review their last dialogue in case we missed it for whatever reason (glitch, dueling conversations, accidental button press, etc.) or would like to review it. Not a big fan of "Hello Shepard."

-Side missions are great, but minimize the FedEx quests unless they drive story elements or provide access to serious upgades. Otherwise, they're time consuming and don't add that much to the game. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind the occasional exploration mission as long as the Hammerhead is NOT repeat NOT involved.

-Try to add more content that is actually tied in with the main plot - this is something that ME3 did right. ME1-2 seemed to me like you did three main story missions and oh crap it's time for the final mission. This really took me aback in ME1, where you do Feros, Noveria, and Therum and all of a sudden you're on the way to the final battle (abeit accross three different venues). All three games easily resulted in 70 hours of gameplay for me, but all felt short because the main story missions are so few in number. Even KOTOR 1-2 did a much better job with this. ME3's side missions linked to the main plot in most cases, so they served to make the story feel more well-developed.

[EliotNesss]

@ Monty Hall:

I like some of your thoughts about the sequel. But I prefer a complete break with the old Shepard team in the new trilogy (starting with ME4). My thoughts, suggestions and ideas about the trajectory of the sequel is well documented on pages 149-151. Basically I would like them to create a bigger mysterious foe from elsewhere, (beyond the void) who is aided covertly by Leviathan. Like the indoctrinated were used in ME1-3. The new threat could come from Andromeda Galaxy or another dimension. I would connect the first 2 trilogies in a final definitive trilogy later. And afterwards just do fill in full game stories about interesting characters from all 3 trilogies to keep the franchise going.

I do not like the idea of basing the next episode (ME4) or trilogy from the Citadel. Because the Citadel "is" Shepard after ME3. There should only be casual reference or DLC "Bridge" episodes launched from it going forward.

@RuffTuff7:

I also like some of your ideas. What you are essentially suggesting is that Shepard becomes a mysterious character like the Illusive Man. I wouldn't do this with Shepard. But I would do it with Clone Shepard from Citadel DLC. He/She fits better with that narrative. Since his demise was vague and inconclusive. And it occurred in "The Citadel" (Shepard).

Modifié par EliotNesss, 21 janvier 2014 - 04:38 .

[New Elessar]

1. Keep the ME gameplay dynamics intact, i mean Rpg/action, Renegade/paragon, dialogue wheel, LI systems intact, or improve them.
2. find a way to import your previous save games from mass effect 3, to have a coherent background of whats going on, this also would make the "move on" easier for most players, if you finally see some references of shepard living with liara and his blue babies or with tali in rannoch, etc, most of us would accept a new plot even easier if this was the case...(synthesis and control might be a bit hard, but they can manage i guess)
3:Please stay back from prequels, i mean, any prequel would be overshadowed by the reapers war badassery; focus on Leviathan trying to be the apex of galactic civilization again, maybe, or a more personal, quiet struggle....

Modifié par New Elessar, 22 janvier 2014 - 05:26 .

[Der Ivan91]

 *sighYou want to know how to make the sequel a GOOD mass effect game?I apologize in advance for the looong wall of text, but I've got a lot to say and don't want to start a new thread if there is one already



Mass effect is an RPG, so please make it feel like one.I didn't hate the ME3 ending. What I disliked about ME3 was that it didn't feel like a mass effect game, or rather, like a RPG any more, it felt more like a pure 3rd person shooter with some RPG elements.

Suggestion: 
1) ME3 had 6 default active powers per class, 2 passive ones and one to choose from
That is a bit too much, decrease the amount by one or two and maybe give subclasses

2) E.X.P.L.O.R.A.T.I.O.N.
That's what a mass effect game should have. ME2 had a nice compromize of SMALL sidequests and collecting minerals. ME3 simplified it too much and as the mass effect wiki has a complete list of the exact locations for "search and rescue" the "exploration" part degenerated into a boring, monotone flying to specific locations and collecting stuff from planets and refueling every once in a while

3) HUB WORLDS
When I heard that the citadel in ME3 should be VERY big (the parts you visit) I was very excited. And the Citadel was indeed very well made. But it is NOT OKAY if it remains the only hub world in the game. I understand that Ilium got smoked by the reapers, but you could have at least given us Omega when we retook it in the "Omega" DLC and Tuchanka too. 

4) More costumization:
Most notably, detailed costumization of your ship's interior AND exterior (the citadel DLC had quite a nice room costumization, it would be nice if the ship had that too)
Also maybe: Choose your race yourselves. It doesn't have to be every race there is, but having something other than humans to chose from as well would be nice:alien::alien:

5) Return of combat banter:
That's it, give back the combat banter given by your squadmates and enemies
I loved the lines dropped by Garrus, Grunt and others in ME2 and really missed it. 

6) Krogan squadmate:
We had one in the first two games, but not in ME3. Krogans are badass characters and very fun to play with.

7) Endgame:
Exactly, we want to continue after beating the final enemy and not just reload to just before the final mission (or the point of no return)

8) Power wheel and dialoge wheel:
It is pretty much perfect already, not much improvement to do there. 


Gameplay recommendations:
1) The level designs in ME3 were well- made, but they made no practical sense or whatsoever. If you for example make a settlement like Eden prime, make it look like one people would actually construct (ME2 had done a better job at this aspect)
Also, if you make a hospital ingame which isn't an improvised one like the one used by Mordin in ME3, make it look like one.
Yes, Huerta memorial does not look like a hospital at all (and I have an idea how a hospital is supposed to look like- I worked in one once). Waaay too small, and if you actually made that construction as an hospital you'd have trouble with bacteria all the time because it is hard to disinfect. (I am not asking to make it perfect or anything, but at least TRY to make it look like one)

2) Squadmates should matter. 
Even on ME3 insanity, all you need is having your squadmates shoot and use powers every time you tell them to attack something. They should be a tactical necessity and not just 2 idiots (squadmate AI can be quite dumb at times) tagging along and shooting stuff

3) Gamepad support
I never understood why Mass effect games had no gamepad support. ME2 and ME3 were also released on consoles , so WHY NOT? Also, the "planned use of squadmate powers" is easier to do with a gamepad

4) Also, slow down the fighting pace a bit.
ME2 has a good pace and was very fun to play. 


Multiplayer suggestions:
Co-op mode of course. Player versus player would be very difficult both for the devs AND the player. Why? Balance. Such a mode would be extremely difficult to balance and similarly difficult to play.

1) Leveling system. 
Make 2 leveling systems: one for individual class level up (like we are used to) and then a "global level", you unlock new weapons each time you unlock, playing with specific weapons/classes more unlocks more and more costumization for it (much like what we are used to in first-person shooters like COD and battlefield). Of course, you can purchase "packs" for ingame currency that award random stuff

2) Heavy weapons.
Don't put them into loadouts, but instead, scatter them on the maps. That should help avoiding "victory with missile launcher use".

3) Hazard maps:
All maps should have some kind of hazard to "make things more interesting". I loved the ME3 hazard maps

4) No sync kills.
Seriously, instant melee kills by specific units are stupid




Well, that's pretty much it. I am sorry for making this so long.

Modifié par Der Ivan91, 22 janvier 2014 - 11:06 .

[EliotNesss]

@ Der Ivan91:

A well thought out proposition. But I have just a few issues with it. If I summarize, what you are really suggesting is Bioware simply redo the current ME Trilogy. But just do it better. Make it play more like ME2 with RPG elements consistent with ME1. And utilize game physics much like ME3. That would work well for a remake in the future. Much like Microsoft licensed Saber Interactive to do with Halo CE Anniversary. But it falls far short IMO for an all engrossing sequel. In the next trilogy Bioware needs to make a complete break from the Shepard story. If for no other reason than to create an antithesis to it in a galactic ecosystem we are all familiar with. They can plant seeds in DLC or the main storyline itself to hint of a "possible" cause effect. But make the hints wide open for interpretation. Or don't plant them at all. Instead pull the first two trilogies together in a final and conclusive ME trilogy in the future.

On the squadmate AI issue. I didn't quite see it that way. Perhaps I just used them differently. I used them as extensions of my own weapons system. So as to distract momentarily and give me tactical advantages. I never expected them to win battles unless I had mortally wounded an enemy. That strategy always worked very well for me in all three episodes. My squadmates were deadly and vital to my success based on where I deployed them and reanimated them.

I loved most of your ideas about more immersive environments.

Modifié par EliotNesss, 22 janvier 2014 - 07:07 .

[Shepard Drake Marston]

EliotNesss wrote...

On the squadmate AI issue. I didn't quite see it that way. Perhaps I just used them differently. I used them as extensions of my own weapons system. So as to distract momentarily and give me tactical advantages. I never expected them to win battles unless I had mortally wounded an enemy. That strategy always worked very well for me in all three episodes. My squadmates were deadly and vital to my success based on where I deployed them and reanimated them.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I played, too.

[AlanC9]

Aethgeir wrote...

I don't buy "resources apologetics" though, it seems like game developers nowadays keep charging more and offering less: Less overall content (just compare the number of missions/locations in ME1 and 2 to ME3), less player control, simplistic level design, weaker storytelling, and the constant reduction or outright removal of all sorts of extras.  And in return we get mild improvements in graphics and gameplay, and poor excuses for more DLC and micro transactions.

You sure ME3 had less content than ME2? Gameplay hours are comparable. (ME3's slightly ahead on my playthroughs, but mileages vary. ) Number of missions is a lousy metric, and I'll take the greater terrain variety of ME3 over the higher number of areas in ME2 any day. As for dialogue, ME3 has more, full stop.

ME1 is weaker than either unless those procedurally-generated UNC worlds work for you.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 janvier 2014 - 11:03 .

[Aethgeir]

Well, my ME1 and ME2 playthroughs generally take much longer than my ME3 playthroughs, mind you I'm one of those nook-and-cranny players who has to do everything!

AlanC9 wrote...

You sure ME3 had less content than ME2? Gameplay hours are comparable. (ME3's slightly ahead on my playthroughs, but mileages vary. ) Number of missions is a lousy metric, and I'll take the greater terrain variety of ME3 over the higher number of areas in ME2 any day.

Uh... What "greater terrain variety" are you referring to?

You can't possibly be talking about overall level design? Mass Effect's level design has always been linear, but ME3 is by far the worst in that regard. At least ME1 occasionally offered alternatives: for example, two different ways into the base on Virmire.

Maybe you're referring to those glorious tableaus and vast action-packed backgrounds in ME3... that you can see, but you can't touch from your narrow little corridor.  Yeah, I'll bet those did take up a lot of resources... and ultimately give more to someone watching the game than actually playing it!

AlanC9 wrote...

ME1 is weaker than either unless those procedurally-generated UNC worlds work for you.

ME1 offered vehicle play and free-roaming environments, ME2 barely offered either, and ME3 offered none at all.  And for ME1s more barren worlds at least, it worked great.  Granted, the four highly repetitive side-mission "levels" were pretty poor, but ME1 was developed when BioWare was still independent - They actually HAD the excuse of "limited resources". EA-BioWare does not, so that's a lousy comparison.

AlanC9 wrote...

As for dialogue, ME3 has more, full stop.

Perhaps you refer to the oft repeated statistic of "40,000 lines of dialogue in ME3 vs. in 25,000 in ME2 and 20,000 in ME1", yes? I would love to see a comparison of what percentage of those lines are actually chosen by the player. Clicking on a character and having it playback a line is not dialogue, its laziness.  Having the protagonist say some that player didn't select is not dialogue, its a cut-scene.

Sorry but I like to actually PLAY my games, not watch them. Full stop.

[giveamanafish...]

So. Voice actors and voice coaches. If you don't know how to pronounce a word check. Interweb is everywhere.

What happened was I was just playing Skyrim DLC, Dragonborn and at the end of the Apochyra quest where you talk to Hermaneus Mora, it tells you to talk to the Skall Shaman. Only (I'm pretty sure) the voice actor pronounces "Shaman" as "sea Man". Obviously we are not going to follow up on this quest. This actually tops the moment in the Shadowbroker DLC to Mass Effect 2 where Liara refers to the Shadowbroker cache' calling it a "cachet". She later pronounces the word as cache' -- one syllable with an accent on the e -- which is how it is usually pronounced (the original french word which "cache" is derived from may be a two syllable word I'm not sure.)

[Der Ivan91]

Somehow, I wonder if we would be getting an MMO for Mass Effect (doesn't have to be the next game) like Star wars the old republic or Star trek online.


The Mass Effect universe in terms of pure SP campaign is pretty much done, a MMO would be very interesting.

"Mass Effect Online"

Give it good graphics with frostbite, both ground and space combat and I am pretty sure people would love it.
Doing it that way allows for a constantly expanding mass effect universe with more and more awesome content. Because if you continue making ME a SP game, it will eventually end up "using up all the good ideas" and then the next installment screws up big time.

But the 3 Mass Effect games have laid an excellent groundwork for a MMO.
Backstory? Codex, a whole lot of background info can be found there
Ship designs? A whole lot of these
Different weapons plus costumization? Sure
Different ship classes from fighters to cruisers and maybe dreads too
Ship personalization, both interior and exterior: Why not?
Atmosphere: If it is set after the reaper incursion then the atmosphere would end up similar to ME2

[dielveio]

Der Ivan91 wrote...

Somehow, I wonder if we would be getting an MMO for Mass Effect (doesn't have to be the next game) like Star wars the old republic or Star trek online.


The Mass Effect universe in terms of pure SP campaign is pretty much done, a MMO would be very interesting.

"Mass Effect Online"

Give it good graphics with frostbite, both ground and space combat and I am pretty sure people would love it.
Doing it that way allows for a constantly expanding mass effect universe with more and more awesome content. Because if you continue making ME a SP game, it will eventually end up "using up all the good ideas" and then the next installment screws up big time.

But the 3 Mass Effect games have laid an excellent groundwork for a MMO.
Backstory? Codex, a whole lot of background info can be found there
Ship designs? A whole lot of these
Different weapons plus costumization? Sure
Different ship classes from fighters to cruisers and maybe dreads too
Ship personalization, both interior and exterior: Why not?
Atmosphere: If it is set after the reaper incursion then the atmosphere would end up similar to ME2

Mass Effect Online is NOT needed. It adds unecessary infrasctructure, unecessary costs and alot of resources that can be used to improve the singleplayer experience.
We have all these discussions, suggestions, even had all that comotion to alter the ending of ME3 BECAUSE it was a singleplayer experience.
If it was a Mass Effect MMO NOTHING of that would have happened. For the better or worse.
Bioware didn't had any real notion of how BIG mass effect really was/is until, in the eyes of the fans, they screwed with the ending.
A MMO is a really big risk, even more than a new trilogy or even a new ip.
Also the multiplayer of ME3 worked so well because it was a cooperative one, not a competitive and I can only imagine the nightmare that would have been if Bioware had chosen go with competitive multiplayer.

[Grizzly46]

dielveio wrote...

Der Ivan91 wrote...

Somehow, I wonder if we would be getting an MMO for Mass Effect (doesn't have to be the next game) like Star wars the old republic or Star trek online.


The Mass Effect universe in terms of pure SP campaign is pretty much done, a MMO would be very interesting.

"Mass Effect Online"

Give it good graphics with frostbite, both ground and space combat and I am pretty sure people would love it.
Doing it that way allows for a constantly expanding mass effect universe with more and more awesome content. Because if you continue making ME a SP game, it will eventually end up "using up all the good ideas" and then the next installment screws up big time.

But the 3 Mass Effect games have laid an excellent groundwork for a MMO.
Backstory? Codex, a whole lot of background info can be found there
Ship designs? A whole lot of these
Different weapons plus costumization? Sure
Different ship classes from fighters to cruisers and maybe dreads too
Ship personalization, both interior and exterior: Why not?
Atmosphere: If it is set after the reaper incursion then the atmosphere would end up similar to ME2

Mass Effect Online is NOT needed. It adds unecessary infrasctructure, unecessary costs and alot of resources that can be used to improve the singleplayer experience.
We have all these discussions, suggestions, even had all that comotion to alter the ending of ME3 BECAUSE it was a singleplayer experience.
If it was a Mass Effect MMO NOTHING of that would have happened. For the better or worse.
Bioware didn't had any real notion of how BIG mass effect really was/is until, in the eyes of the fans, they screwed with the ending.
A MMO is a really big risk, even more than a new trilogy or even a new ip.
Also the multiplayer of ME3 worked so well because it was a cooperative one, not a competitive and I can only imagine the nightmare that would have been if Bioware had chosen go with competitive multiplayer.

Agreed. Besides, basically every single MMO out there are shooters were 14 year olds are running around with handles like L33t_FLAImingzword134 calling others derogatory terms for black and homosexual. And to drag a great game like Massw effect through that dirt would be a goddamn crime against humanity.

[Der Ivan91]

dielveio wrote...

Der Ivan91 wrote...

Somehow, I wonder if we would be getting an MMO for Mass Effect (doesn't have to be the next game) like Star wars the old republic or Star trek online.


The Mass Effect universe in terms of pure SP campaign is pretty much done, a MMO would be very interesting.

"Mass Effect Online"

Give it good graphics with frostbite, both ground and space combat and I am pretty sure people would love it.
Doing it that way allows for a constantly expanding mass effect universe with more and more awesome content. Because if you continue making ME a SP game, it will eventually end up "using up all the good ideas" and then the next installment screws up big time.

But the 3 Mass Effect games have laid an excellent groundwork for a MMO.
Backstory? Codex, a whole lot of background info can be found there
Ship designs? A whole lot of these
Different weapons plus costumization? Sure
Different ship classes from fighters to cruisers and maybe dreads too
Ship personalization, both interior and exterior: Why not?
Atmosphere: If it is set after the reaper incursion then the atmosphere would end up similar to ME2

Mass Effect Online is NOT needed. It adds unecessary infrasctructure, unecessary costs and alot of resources that can be used to improve the singleplayer experience.
We have all these discussions, suggestions, even had all that comotion to alter the ending of ME3 BECAUSE it was a singleplayer experience.
If it was a Mass Effect MMO NOTHING of that would have happened. For the better or worse.
Bioware didn't had any real notion of how BIG mass effect really was/is until, in the eyes of the fans, they screwed with the ending.
A MMO is a really big risk, even more than a new trilogy or even a new ip.
Also the multiplayer of ME3 worked so well because it was a cooperative one, not a competitive and I can only imagine the nightmare that would have been if Bioware had chosen go with competitive multiplayer.

Calm down man, it was just an idea (that's what we are supposed to post here)
It's not like it will ACTUALLY happen because Bioware already has SWTOR as MMO

We all know ME4 (whatever they are going to call it) is going to be a single player game, probably some co-op MP again and frostbite (not sure if FB2 or FB3 engine) engine.

[Mangalores]

EliotNesss wrote...

@ Monty Hall:

I like some of your thoughts about the sequel. But I prefer a complete break with the old Shepard team in the new trilogy (starting with ME4). My thoughts, suggestions and ideas about the trajectory of the sequel is well documented on pages 149-151. Basically I would like them to create a bigger mysterious foe from elsewhere, (beyond the void) who is aided covertly by Leviathan. Like the indoctrinated were used in ME1-3. The new threat could come from Andromeda Galaxy or another dimension. I would connect the first 2 trilogies in a final definitive trilogy later. And afterwards just do fill in full game stories about interesting characters from all 3 trilogies to keep the franchise going.

I do not like the idea of basing the next episode (ME4) or trilogy from the Citadel. Because the Citadel "is" Shepard after ME3. There should only be casual reference or DLC "Bridge" episodes launched from it going forward.
...

Going "Bigger" is the last thing they should be doing. It always means even worse writing. It is already a problem with the existing trilogy. ME1 was half way plausible with an acceptable level of suspension of disbelief,  ME2 got ridiculous with the Messiah allusions that only Shepard can get stuff done and ME3 went full retard when trying to explain how you defeat the space squids two games drummed up as unstoppable.

Now trying to up the stakes of "The galaxy is under threat" is an excercise in futiltiy. Seen that, done that. That path is cluttered with corpses of dead franchises.

They should really stay away from that and try to develop the universe they have instead of breaking it with even more implausible foes.

[EliotNesss]

@Mangalores:

What can I say other than I completely disagree with your premise. I challenge Bioware to do both things. Meaning develop the Universe and leap forward. Just sticking around building the same stuff over and over is an exercise in boredom and futility to me. They don't even need a new game to do that. They could just release and endless stream of Shepard era DLC stories. And I would simply bid the entire thing adieu. But to each his/her own. I respect your POV in terms of what you would like to see. I would like to see something more along the lines of what I wrote about. In the end, Bioware will simply develop whatever they want too. And indications from them are it will have nothing to do with Shepard or his story. I say good. And get on with it. Been there/Done that.

[Reiisha]

I wonder whether anyone at Bioware still reads this, but here goes...

Remove the paragon/renegade points system. Do not implement any morality system at all. It hinders what you are actually trying to do with the games - There is no choice if your progression depends on a certain number of points gained.

Wrex is a main example of this in the first game. When you've been playing a straight forward, balanced Shepard you're being punished for it. You *have* to be a baby killer or a saint in order to save him. The family armor and party member options are circumstantial at best and count as yet more 'point' options in order to talk him down.

Wrex is a logically thinking Krogan. He wants what's best for his species. There is absolutely no reason for him to die there and it doesn't make any sense that you need to build an arbitrary number of morality points in order to make that happen, it sucks all immersion out of the game and makes the event a non-choice, despite it being presented as one.

Not having a morality gauge means you can implement consequences to actions, not points.

It doesn't make sense that people who've never heard of you require you to have a certain number of morality points for you to convince them of something. Also, when you''ve killed a Reaper, are a spectre and have dealt with entire armies single handedly - What possible reason is there to not be able to choose 'intimidate' in any conversation?



As a second tip: Do not belittle your audience and try to explain *everything*. You may try to hide behind 'artistic integrity' but everyone can see through those curtains. When you don't have an explanation that truly makes sense, don't provide one. The idea behind a concept can spark a discussion in your community that lasts for years whereas a bad explanation just earns you the ire of your most dedicated fans. Take for example Dark Souls - Almost nothing is explained, it's a game about combat, yet people are *still* discussing it's lore and story. THAT is community building, treating your fans (or consumers, depending on who's reading this) as grownups who can handle a little mystery and are willing to engage it.



Lastly: Have at least two editors for the entirety of the game. No writing or script should be implemented without receiving a pass from the editors. Consistency is one of the most important aspects of storytelling and it's the one thing Mass Effect hasn't been very good at...If games are ever to stand alongside books and movies as being respected mediums of art, or respected at all by being recognized as more than child/adolescent toy fantasies, consistency is one of the first things you need to have on your checklist.



Accept that you are fallible. Do not believe you can do no wrong because your games made a lot of money. Criticize everything and don't be afraid to say no when you have to to your own decisions. Overconfidence has been the downfall of many a game developer, do not think you are immune to it.




I would have to make some points about the utterly horrible level design in all the ME games (please note, level design, not environment art, the latter is actually very good). I know people liked Gears of War a lot but seriously, the chest-high-wall syndrome and total linearity in ME2 and 3 was utterly bonkers. As with the lore and story consistency, ultra-linear and predictable level design just tells me, the player, that you think i'm stupid and need to be guided every step of the way. It's rather insulting.

[Ultim Asari]

Not sure if anyone has said this, but I'd avoid a standalone game. We need another trilogy or series... ME needs to feel epic, and one game alone has a harder time doing that.

[Reiisha]

Seems i can't edit my posts...

Ah well.

One other thing i wanted to add: If you want to make choices matter, but still have to stay within a certain time/money budget, don't include as many as you did in ME1/2/3. Leave less choices, but make them matter more. We didn't need an entire decision tree based on Samara/Morinth. We didn't need Conrad. We didn't need Traynor when Kelly was there (though admittedly Traynor was more fun). We didn't need squadmates which didn't really add anything to the mix, like Zaeed, Kasumi, Samara, Jacob, Thane... I know i will step on toes with this last one, but you have to admit, it complicated the game to it's detriment when having to account for all those possibilities.

Don't include a choice when you know up front you can't follow through on it.

[Grizzly46]

Reiisha wrote...

Seems i can't edit my posts...

Ah well.

One other thing i wanted to add: If you want to make choices matter, but still have to stay within a certain time/money budget, don't include as many as you did in ME1/2/3. Leave less choices, but make them matter more. We didn't need an entire decision tree based on Samara/Morinth. We didn't need Conrad. We didn't need Traynor when Kelly was there (though admittedly Traynor was more fun). We didn't need squadmates which didn't really add anything to the mix, like Zaeed, Kasumi, Samara, Jacob, Thane... I know i will step on toes with this last one, but you have to admit, it complicated the game to it's detriment when having to account for all those possibilities.

Don't include a choice when you know up front you can't follow through on it.

I agree with both your posts - well-written and thought out, but as you, I'm wondering if Biware is still taking feedback.

When it comes to this post, I fully agree on the Traynor replacing Kelly. Kelly wasn't boring per se, but she was badly defined just as everybody else. Just as an example, a femShep could not get as much interaction with Jack as a maleShep, simply because Jack was a potential romance. However, if a maleShep did not pursue a romance with Jack, there was just as little as for a femShep. That was a damn shame. Some characters were there and always had something of interest to say like Samara and Thane, but the others? Very, very little.

I don't think that was down to the squad being to big - having as many people on your side as possible for a (potential) assault on the big bad was a logical and good decision made by TIM. But the big squad was suqndered by Bioware which didn't include enough intereactions for Shepard, and didn't include any interactions between squadmates on the ship besides two (2) conflicts to be resolved. This was a lot better in ME3, like when Vega and Garrus were out comparing dick sizes. That was pretty awesome rally to experience.

To then replace people when its not necessary (like Kelly being replaced by Traynor) is just a waste, but having some members of the old squad not joining didn't make sense. Jacob selecting his job like he is some kid of combat prodigy? BS. he is a soldier first and foremost, and should either have been deployed to a frontline or to Shepard's squad. Kasumi refusing to join Shepard on an invisible ship where she could potentially hook up with Jacob or going full thief with the research team? Nope. Too contrived.

[Mangalores]

EliotNesss wrote...

@Mangalores:

What can I say other than I completely disagree with your premise. I challenge Bioware to do both things. Meaning develop the Universe and leap forward. Just sticking around building the same stuff over and over is an exercise in boredom and futility to me. They don't even need a new game to do that. They could just release and endless stream of Shepard era DLC stories. And I would simply bid the entire thing adieu. But to each his/her own. I respect your POV in terms of what you would like to see. I would like to see something more along the lines of what I wrote about. In the end, Bioware will simply develop whatever they want too. And indications from them are it will have nothing to do with Shepard or his story. I say good. And get on with it. Been there/Done that.

My point was not about any of that. Get away from Shepard and as fast away from ME3 as possible! Good! We agree on that.

But your suggestion is to bring another super galactic threat doing funky stuff. That will lead to them having to surpass the Reaper threat and that threat was a major factor in internally breaking the story because you should not be able to beat such odds with a single soldier. So you get plot contrivances, deus ex machina solutions and retcons because BW also had no clue how the heck a single soldiers could plausibly beat such odds.

So creating a new enemy in the league of Reapers will make things even worse storywise because you would need constantly hypercharge how even more evil those guys are compared to galactic genocide, how even more powerful they are than the Reapers and then after that again come up with even worse plot contrivances, deus ex machina ploys and retcons to somehow knit together some handwave how the actions of the player can solve a conflict that was postulated as unsolvable.

It's a constant threats of sequels to try to outpace their original in magnitude of the conflict to resolve instead of realizing that they have to turn around and go at it in another way.

Galactic threat done. Try to think up something else. It is not like the threat of a galactic war wouldn't be big enough stakes. It's not like the Cerberus <> Alliance conflict aka radicals vs moderates could have been a story in itself.
Maybe the Citadel moving to Earth really empowers mankind but also really pisses the Council races off. Maybe the Asari turn "dark" because they took the brunt of the Reaper force and now with largely diminished resources face to be sidelined by the faster growing races.

They shouldn't invent new stuff out of thin air to try to outmatch the Shepard trilogy is what I'm saying. If they invent stuff it should be measured, balanced and fit into the universe to avoid breaking it again .

And if they can't think up a story then that would be a clear indicator the franchise is completed and there is no story worthwhile to tell. Leave what is there and make a fresh start. I don't say you can't break a universe for sake of a story but there is a real chance it's not worthwhile to write a sequel afterwards. E.g. Tolkien scrapped his attempts at writing a LOTR sequel because he said everything coming after LOTR would not match up.

Heck, if they go prequel maybe doing a non human game about Salarian/Asari/Turian Spectres during earlier events of the Council like KOTOR would be fine though financially risky given said absence of humans.