212 réponses à ce sujet

[Applepie_Svk]

LoL I would laugh too much if they start to releasing nihilistic content, like FIGHT YOUR WAY AS A KROGAN STRAIGHT TO GENOPHA - I MEAN REWARD !

Did you ever heard about playing RPGs to be rewarded, enjoy the playthrough and story, but not to be punished, crucified and depressed ?

[Helios969]

JimJamBimBam wrote...

hostaman wrote...

JimJamBimBam wrote...

Seriously?! The Hobbit was written before Lord of the Rings dude... that's not a prequel...

Beat me to it.


Ok name one Prequel Movie that didn't suck?  Or Prequel game - if there is one?

Deus Ex: Human Revolution :happy:

I can't speak in terms of it being a prequel, but that game was lame.  Didn't make it halfway through before succumbing to bordom...run around different mazes, hack alot of sh*t, shoot some bad guys, repeat...oh, yeah, the voice acting and dialogue sucked too.

Modifié par Helios969, 24 septembre 2012 - 08:40 .

[JamesFaith]

Junroku wrote...

We already know whats happened. It's called the codex. Plus, one of the biggest parts of Mass Effect has been player choice. How are you going to make choices for something that has already happened?

Well, Codex has about 40 entries for 27 years on Wiki and more then half of them are about triva things like Kasumi Gotto was born or history of using biotic implants . Obviously not everything here.

[fchopin]

Prequel = No buy

Modifié par fchopin, 24 septembre 2012 - 09:46 .

[Someone With Mass]

Considering that they spat the big details in the trilogy (like the Reapers being able to control the mass relay network through the Citadel) in the face simply to bring in "cool" action sequences, I'd rather not see a prequel.

They'd George Lucas the hell out of those.

[Doveberry]

Prequels have a history of being truly awful. And somehow, after the ending we were left with, I'm sure that a lot of fans would not take kindly to the idea.

Modifié par Doveberry, 24 septembre 2012 - 10:31 .

[Jadebaby]

The biggest problem about a prequel in the Mass Effect universe is you know it's not going to involve humans.

Every game has to have at least 1 human race.

[Seival]

Prequel is the worst way to expand a story.

[Xilizhra]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The biggest problem about a prequel in the Mass Effect universe is you know it's not going to involve humans.

Every game has to have at least 1 human race.

I would consider this an enormous plus, really. A chance to actually do something different? Differing perspectives from the PC? Amazing.

[Jadebaby]

Xilizhra wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The biggest problem about a prequel in the Mass Effect universe is you know it's not going to involve humans.

Every game has to have at least 1 human race.

I would consider this an enormous plus, really. A chance to actually do something different? Differing perspectives from the PC? Amazing.

Unfortunately I think you will fall into the minority opinion...

Remember, BioWare want CoD's fanbase. They wont get that by discluding humans in their games.

[Vigil_N7]

The problem with a prequel is that it feels incredibly anti-climatic. I.e, no matter what feats the protagonist does in the prequel, it will always be shadowed by Shepard's actions in Mass Effect 1-3.

[Jadebaby]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The problem with a prequel is that it feels incredibly anti-climatic. I.e, no matter what feats the protagonist does in the prequel, it will always be shadowed by Shepard's actions in Mass Effect 1-3.

Then Shepard's actions in ME1-3 being shadowed by the resolution of said actions.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 24 septembre 2012 - 11:25 .

[Deadpool9]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The problem with a prequel is that it feels incredibly anti-climatic. I.e, no matter what feats the protagonist does in the prequel, it will always be shadowed by Shepard's actions in Mass Effect 1-3.

Would you say the American Revolution, Civil War or WWI was anticlimactic compared to WWII?  Each war is quite fascinating, even though WWII dwarfs them in terms of infamy.

As long as a prequel focuses on a different problem with distinct dynamics, it could work.  Metal Gear Solid and God of War have both been successful with prequels, midquels, or interquels.

What concerns me is that I recall how many think ME3 was rushed by EA.  They're already thinking about or even working on ME4?  That should be alarming to everyone.  It's good that they want to do another ME game, but they need to slow down and take their time to focus on high quality.  Many fans would agree that if ME3 needed more time we would've been happy to wait longer for it.  An Assassin's Creed game can be pumped out once-a-year, but that would be devastating for the ME series with its greater complexity in storytelling and bigger ideas.

[JamesFaith]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The biggest problem about a prequel in the Mass Effect universe is you know it's not going to involve humans.

Every game has to have at least 1 human race.

Why?

Lot of time before Eden Prime events and after First Contact war, humanity still can be easily involved. 

[Jadebaby]

JamesFaith wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The biggest problem about a prequel in the Mass Effect universe is you know it's not going to involve humans.

Every game has to have at least 1 human race.

Why?

Lot of time before Eden Prime events and after First Contact war, humanity still can be easily involved. 

And in a game like Mass Effect, how could they possibly implement a choice-driven game without totally breaking their own lore? I mean, they broke their lore with ME3 and that was a sequel. I can't see them pulling off a prequel successfully unless it's like a billion years so they have a bit of room to work with

[JamesFaith]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The biggest problem about a prequel in the Mass Effect universe is you know it's not going to involve humans.

Every game has to have at least 1 human race.

Why?

Lot of time before Eden Prime events and after First Contact war, humanity still can be easily involved. 

And in a game like Mass Effect, how could they possibly implement a choice-driven game without totally breaking their own lore? I mean, they broke their lore with ME3 and that was a sequel. I can't see them pulling off a prequel successfully unless it's like a billion years so they have a bit of room to work with

Simply.

Your choices wouldn't affect whole galaxy and would have impact on situation and events we didn't know now or we have only limited knowledge about them.

[Wowky]

Deadpool9 wrote...
What concerns me is that I recall how many think ME3 was rushed by EA.  They're already thinking about or even working on ME4?  That should be alarming to everyone..

I kind of see it is a positive - it means they really want to keep the universe going and I'm sure they are extremely eager to make a game that utterly blows away people's expectations after the luke warm response to ME3 from consumers.

[Sanunes]

The problem with a prequel in Mass Effect is generally game developers want to have a main character that is human or looks exactly like a human to appeal to the widest possible audience, so that leaves a very small window where the game could take place. The other problem is we all know all major history after humanity found the mass relay, so there really isn't much room for development or interest.

Using the Deus Ex: Human Revolution example, we really didn't know the story of what was going to happen at that time, we knew that humanity became augmented, but we didn't know the story before hand, even the same thing could be said for the Hobbit if it was written after, we knew the characters, but we didn't know the story behind Bilbo finding the One Ring, and HALO: Reach can also be used for a bad prequel for look at the very beginning of the game, we all knew all the characters would die and I know people that were really annoyed with that, I think they were hoping that it would be used to introduce a new character to replace the Master Chief.

[agentN7]

You have to take into consideration the marketing aspect of making a prequel. Any ME title created tries to bring new gamers to the ME series. The hardest part to sell is bringing new gamers into a story where the fate of the galaxy has already been decided. I think the N7 suit at the end of destroy was there to leave the door open just incase the game designers struggle to make a prequel that may not appeal to everyone. I bought Leviathan, and even then i was sort of thinking that we already knows what happens anyway. I will also buy the next DLC installment, but not everyone who bought ME3 will subscribe to the idea of a prequel. It's an interesting challenge for people at Bioware all the same.

Modifié par agentN7, 24 septembre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Big I]

Here's a reason prequels would work less well than a sequel; combat mechanics. Namely biotics and thermal clips.


Human biotics only started appearing after eezo accidents in the 2150s (which I believe was confirmed in one of the novels to be a Cerberus plot). People like Kaidan who are biotics because of this are essentially the first generation of biotics. Why is this a problem? If you want to be able to play as an adept or a vaguard and have your character be older than a teenager then the story would have to be set in the 2170s or later, and even then the character would be pretty young (in comparison, Shepard is 29 in ME1).


Thermal clips (in)famously only came about in 2185, the mission to find Jacob's father not withstanding. Why is that a problem? All gameplay around weapons is built around the availability of thermal clips. If they went to the past for the next ME they'd have to either rebuild the weapon system (again) or retcon thermal clips (again).


Lastly, any past games are confined to the relatively brief period between the First Contact War and ME1 because most people want to play as a human. DA:O telemetry backed this up; in a game where players could choose between 6 origins, only 2 of them human, only 20% of people even started a non-human playthrough (15% elf, 5% dwarf).


As a player I find the prospect of playing a ME game with these sorts of constraints to be far less appealing than seeing what happens in the ME universe after the Reapers are taken care of.

[Morty Smith]

Enhanced wrote...

I agree. For example, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater was a great prequel.

There is a difference.

Snake Eater is set before any other MG and MGS title, yes, but the main story arc was not finished before Guns of the partiots. No one knew the outcome of all the plot-threads and the mystery was still build up. That wouldn´t be the case with ME.

Also, MG > ME, just for the fanboys and girls, but also sadly true.

[brian t]

I am not saying that prequels suck I just don't like them. I didn't even like MGS 3 Snake Eater and I am a big fan of Metal Gear Solid series.

[ZackG312]

Do not bring MGS3 into this, Bioware is no where near Hideo Kojima

[Ghost]

ZackG312 wrote...

Do not bring MGS3 into this, Bioware is no where near Hideo Kojima

ME3>MG2

[Morty Smith]

Ghost1017 wrote...

ZackG312 wrote...

Do not bring MGS3 into this, Bioware is no where near Hideo Kojima

ME3>MG2

You mean the NTSC Version on NES?

Yeah, I could give you that. But it still had a better ending.