212 réponses à ce sujet

[ZackG312]

Kroitz wrote...

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.

yeah Metal Gear 2 wasnt that good.

[RiouHotaru]

I loved Halo Reach (Which is rare considering I mostly dislike Halo as a whole). FF7 Crisis Core was a fantastic set-up to FF7, Lufia 2, etc, etc. I don't know where people are getting this "hit or miss" thing with prequels. As for the Star Wars prequels, I personally enjoyed them because it showed how Darth Vader got to be the way he is. That it showed Anakin as something other than a badass from start-to-finish was the best way to do it. Even the villains have to start from somewhere.

[obZen DF]

Games:
Halo: Reach. Good prequel.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Epic prequel.

Movies:
Prometheus. Epic prequel.

[Henioo]

A prequel in a Mass Effect universe don't make no sense.

It's like starting with ME3, then playing ME1, and not transfering the save file.

Sure, might be nice, but we already now how it all ends.

[Sheridan31]

Prequel suxx because
a) The writer contridict whats to come (star wars / Enterprise)
We already know some important outcomes. Which makes it a film/movie where you know at least certan outcoms.

Its like rewatching a film because it´s over. It´s creating something in a universe that has already come to a close or a dead spot (Star Trek)

[3DandBeyond]

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 absolutely agree with this.

[clarkusdarkus]

Ahhh prequels.....when theres no creative thoughts on whats next we'll go back instead

Wasnt resident evil 0 a prequel and that was pretty terrible

isnt gears doing a prequel aswell?

Deus ex HR was done well though

[BonFire5]

ZackG312 wrote...

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

Sorry. You're right. But it is a damn good prequel right? Or should I add Portable Ops and/or Peace Walker to the good list instead?

[Deadpool9]

Wowky wrote...

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.

Yes, it's a positive in that it's an indication of future investment in the universe.  But I'm skeptical if they plan on rushing out there right away instead of taking some time to think deeply and carefully on where the story goes next.  I don't like it when fighters get knocked out and then try to fight another fight immediately, either.  It can be disastrous.

[liggy002]

I never said that Prequels suck. It's just that a prequel for the Mass Effect Universe would suck balls because of this horrible ending. We all know how it's going to end. So I'd rather not dive back into this Universe.

[Kileyan]

I'm sorry prequels do suck, almost always, especially in Mass Effect which ended in such a bad way.

Why would I want to play a new hero during the first encounter war with the Turians? I know what happens, nothing I can do will change it.

Why would I want to play a forgotten dead race 70 thousand years in the past? Nothing I do matters, it is already written, that race is destroyed.

Nothing I do matters, it all ends with the 3 colors.

[PrimeOfValor]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

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.

That is the same problem with MGS Rising (origanlly as interquel to MGS2 to MGS4) because the devs wanted to show how Raidan became a cyborg in MGS4. In their case, they have to limit their creativity and technolgy setting on how the game set in before MGS4 unless they make it to a sequel which they did. 

[orangedog]

Personally, I would love a prequel. There's an infinite number of possibilities if they don't use this cycle.