212 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Argolas wrote...


Personally, I would even like a prequel of which we already know the outcome, like the final Prothean struggle against the Reapers.

Certainly I would pay just to see how another main antagonist will die in pain with knowlendge that despite all efforts which he does - it all was pointless.

*sarcasm off*

Do you know what is even RPG ? 

things like - choices matter, your jorney, great story .... these things are not the same as the vision of another ending for nihilists...

I do not think you understood my point.

If you are right I can´t understand why so many people give Mass Effect so many playthroughs although they already know all possible endings.
You can still make choices that matter, you can still make a journey, you can still make a great story even if the final moments are always the same. The important stuff is more often before that. If you are honest, there is no reason to replay Mass Effect for different endings. In ME1, all decisions that are important for the ending (saving the council or not is basically the only important one) are made in the ending itself, so you can simply reload a previous save to get the other one. In ME2, there were only the loyalties, the rest of the decisions affecting the ending are once again made right there- and these are hardly different from each other. In ME3, you can reload the autosave to get the other two endings in the same playthrough.

I dare to say that most people kept replaying the game not for different endings but fore the little or big sidestories, like the genophage and how certain scenes are different when a certain character is dead, or even only just to pick another romance option. These little or big sidestories can be in a prequel, they can contain decisions that matter and you do not know the outcome of those until you saw it.

Disagree if you wish, but there is no need for sarcasm here.

[LucasShark]

JamesFaith wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

First contact war - 2157
Eden Prime beacon - 2183

I see 26 years. This is a lot of time.

A lot of time, in which humans had little to no part in shaping galactic events or were still forging out and establishing colonies.  The "first contact war" consisted of litterally one encounter, Eden Prime wouldn't be a prequel, it would run concurrently.

For example batarian "cold war" between 2165 - 2178 including Skyllian Blitz and Torfan and who know how many other small conflict and secret military operations between?

Some people here are claiming that this is an "empty time era". Well, for me is hard to imagine more hectic era (except Reaper invasion) then this.

We were newcomers to galaxy. Batarian hate us as concurents in colonisation. Turian hated us because of First contact war. Older galactic civilisations were testing us, if we should be enemy, ally or if thay could use us - and we still didn't know who we can trust.  Whole humanity was trying to find its place between stars. A lot of hidden potentional for good story without including something same or more epic like Reapers.

It reminds me citate of one of my countryman, well know shoemaker magnate Tomas Baťa, about seeing opportunities.

Two my agents returned from Africa. What did they tell me?
First: All people there are walking barefoot. We'll never sell them anything. It is useless.
Second: All people there are walking barefoot. Lets introduce them our boots. It is the biggest dormant market I ever saw.

It is just matter of point of view.

So you WOULD litterally like to play Startrek: Enterprise?  No thankyou.

[Peranor]

Almostfaceman wrote...

In general, a prequel just tells me that you're too afraid to carry the story forward.

True

[JamesFaith]

BigEvil wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...
They HAVE to go smaller in scale for the next game. If they try to top the Reapers, it will be ridiculous, and I won't be able to take it seriously.

I agree, unfortunately a lot of people seem to hate the idea of games being on a smaller scale to previous installments. Personally I think a smaller scale game where the consequences revolve around an interesting cast of characters and what happens to them rather than the galaxy could be great.

Agreed.

It isn't necessary that our character decision would influence whole galaxy. Forming histroy of one solar system or cluster should be interesting too.

[grey_wind]

Jamie9 wrote...

Prequels are often better than sequels, I find. Prequels usually have a purpose for existing, whereas sequels sometimes are creating because, you know, let's go forward, make more stuff.

Prequels can have the character drama of any sequel, but with the added emotional impact of the player knowing what will happen. A smart prequel will make you want to change what you know will happen, you want these people to survive even though you know they will die.

I don't know if I can attribute people hating prequels as personal preference. It seems more like a closed mind to me, after all, you can have the exact same amount of drama and excitement.

Also, as above, MGS3. Oh, and Halo: Reach has the best story/campaign. And DE:HR was awesome.

+1

[Seifer006]

Chouan wrote...

hostaman wrote...
Or Prequel game - if there is one?

Kotor? Deus Ex:HR?

[Seifer006]

arial wrote...
I would personally love a prequel!

I agree with you OP

[Fiery Phoenix]

Prequels do work. For instance:



That said, I wouldn't mind either, but it seems more likely the next game will NOT be a prequel.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:11 .

[Taboo]

^ OMG YES.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution is amazing.

[ld1449]

Thing about prequels is...you already know how it ends. Making a game with anderson looses all tension because you know who's gonna be with you at the end of it and who wont. Sanders lives, that random Shepard kid he found lives, hacket lives, Udina lives, ect ect ect. You already KNOW, there is no tension. Kotor is not a prequel because it happens SO far in the past it has no bearing on anything in the future. Furthermore they can completely revise/change things because its so far in the past history is now legend and legends are open to metaphors.

[FOX216BC]

 They do work but you more or less know how the ending is going to be. 
With a rpg like ME this could be a small problem. 
But prequels can be good...

[Jamie9]

Taboo-XX wrote...

^ OMG YES.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution is amazing.

So much love.

Although I'll never forgive the game for not giving me the Pacifist trophy. On the last level, one of the guys walked into one of the already-set mines.

Apparently, that counted as me killing someone.

[Jamie9]

ld1449 wrote...

Thing about prequels is...you already know how it ends. Making a game with anderson looses all tension because you know who's gonna be with you at the end of it and who wont. Sanders lives, that random Shepard kid he found lives, hacket lives, Udina lives, ect ect ect. You already KNOW, there is no tension. Kotor is not a prequel because it happens SO far in the past it has no bearing on anything in the future. Furthermore they can completely revise/change things because its so far in the past history is now legend and legends are open to metaphors.

KotoR is 4,000 years before the films.

The Prothean era is 50,000 years before the trilogy.

[NM_Che56]

In the context of video games that offer you choices and varied outcomes, I don't think it's a good idea. Look at Deus Ex: HR. The future (i.e., Deus Ex) was already set. Nothing we in that game mattered so the ending was more or less pre-determined.

Unless you can import ME prequel outcomes into ME1 and this information effects the events in the previous 3 games, then having a prequel is pointless.

If they set the future ME games before Shepard's story, then that story would have to be independent of Shepard and the Reaper war. It would have to exist in its own "universe".

[3DandBeyond]

Let's see.

Prequels to ME and maybe 6, 7, years or more of waiting for that new series to come to an end. What happens at the end? Oh the suspense, the anticipation, oh frick, the reapers. End of cycle. Maybe the next cycle will be better and we will destroy those frickin' reapers-and since we've played it, oh what fun, we did destroy the reapers and got a terrifically happy ending where we won the war. Oh frick.

Let me play this prequel again and see if I can get a different ending to it-frickin' frackin', all I get is the reapers and end of cycle. Gee, this should go well.

Talk about gutting replayability out of a series.

[Jere85]

You say it in the OP, you personally would like a prequel, this is fine, but why saying in the title that they by default do not suck? Its your opinion. Like my opinion of there being no God. But i respect the others having a religion, do the same and stop the discussion, some people hate it, some people don't.

Personally i wouldnt like it, why would we run towards a path we allready know? with some prequels in movies, the endings of the franchise end happily. So its not that big of a deal to run towards that end. The ending of me3 is highly controversial and not liked by everyone, why would those people play towards a ****ty ending?

[Jamie9]

To all the people that don't like the idea of a prequel:

Do you replay games? Rewatch movies? Reread books?

[3DandBeyond]

Jamie9 wrote...

Prequels are often better than sequels, I find. Prequels usually have a purpose for existing, whereas sequels sometimes are creating because, you know, let's go forward, make more stuff.

Prequels can have the character drama of any sequel, but with the added emotional impact of the player knowing what will happen. A smart prequel will make you want to change what you know will happen, you want these people to survive even though you know they will die.

snipped 

Knowing how they will die and still trying to save them is the ultimate in futility.  It may be fun for you, but not widely appreciated by a lot of people.

What emotional impact?  You're all gonna die, so fight anyway.  Yeah, that's fun. 

Part of the reason prequels are not done so much is because stories generally start with some exaggerated conflict and prequels must lead to that conflict.  Emotion is gutted because a lot of what you feel is dread.

[Jere85]

Jamie9 wrote...

To all the people that don't like the idea of a prequel:

Do you replay games? Rewatch movies? Reread books?

Only books/movies/games which i was proud of reading/seeing/playing, not leaving me with some sour after taste.
Granted i liked playing mass effect 3, the ending, for me personally made me put this game on the shelf. Why play a prequel of that game? Said in my oh so humble opinion.

Modifié par Jere85, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[NM_Che56]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Prequels do work. For instance:



That said, I wouldn't mind either, but it seems more likely the next game will NOT be a prequel.

I liked the game itself, but the ending sucked and the choices seemed pointless considering it didn't change the first game from over 10 years prior. 

[The Night Mammoth]

'Prequels' don't suck, but 'a prequel' would.

[3DandBeyond]

Jamie9 wrote...

To all the people that don't like the idea of a prequel:

Do you replay games? Rewatch movies? Reread books?

Yes, but only those with uplifting messages.  There can be sacrifices for good reasons or redeeming values contained within that have meaningful endings, but not just those that end in death and that lead ultimately to more death for no reason.

Some of the most uplifting books I've ever read end in sadness, but are about overcoming things in life and making life worthwhile.

A prequel would eventually lead to the ME3 endings and the choices there are not meaningful because they do not lead to something that is ultimately and unequivocally good.  They are not uplifting and do not affirm that there was value to all previous sacrifices made.

I read a book, "Tuesdays With Morrie" about a man who died at the end-I cried about all that.  But, I read it again and saw the movie.  Why?  Because Morrie had imparted some wisdom to the man telling the story of about what life is about and how to try and fully live it.  It had a good message.  ME3 does not.  If it did, a prequel might be fun. 

But, prequels are still very hard to get right and a new ME was stated might contain new technology.  Could mean it will be geared to new consoles.  Look at the Phantom Menace.  Lucas had a lot of new technology to use and he forgot what Star Wars was all about.  He over-used CGI and tried too hard to adapt a CGI character in it and then went with a kind of whiny kid.  And Star Wars eventually ended well.  Then Lucas went back and decided to embrace the CGI.  That went well.

[k-mysta]

I don't hate prequels but I don't like them if I already know the fate of proceedings. I'm sure it Could be great, but I generally dislike the idea of prequels unless they fleshing out characters. Choice doesn't really work as well. Deus Ex was awesome but the choices weren't world altering (except the end). Mass Effect would have to deal with world altering choices or it wouldn't feel as epic. I don't know

[AresKeith]

Jamie9 wrote...

To all the people that don't like the idea of a prequel:

Do you replay games? Rewatch movies? Reread books?

not all prequels are bad, but a ME prequel which is mostly gonna end up being about the Reaper War is gonna cause problems

[Jere85]

Imagine Frodo dieing in mount doom, everyone loses, Sauron wins.
Would you read the hobbit then? . If you would like to, that is your priviledge, but i would avoid that book