77 réponses à ce sujet

[Rosstoration]

Sequel, just to see BioWare squirm and try to figure out their own ending.
It will be obviously be a prequel though regardless, my moneys on an FPS, EA's plan to rival Halo or cash in on the CoD market (now that Medal of Honor is a complete failure).

Modifié par Rosstoration, 29 novembre 2012 - 02:02 .

[Snypy]

Unless the ending of the trilogy is changed, which I don't suppose will happen, I don't see a way for BioWare to come up with a story good enough for a direct sequel to ME3. In other words, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Modifié par Snypy, 29 novembre 2012 - 03:29 .

[TGiNcRySiS]

How about nothing? Why is that not a choice. Bioware ruined the franchise as it is. For me to have any interest in ME4, it will have no be a combination of ME1 and 2 forgetting 3 EVER existed. Also it will have to be free because Bioware does not get my money any longer. Last 3 major releases have been 3 pieces of garbage so why would I have any faith that ME4 or whatever they call it will be worth a crap.

[Dueling Shadows]

Like many here, I am resolutely against a prequel for all the reasons previously mentioned. That said, moving forward with the franchise will be tremendously difficult from a writing standpoint. We've already unified once-antagonistic species. We've already grown from a soldier to a symbol of galactic hope. We've already defeated the greatest threat life has ever known. So what haven't we done?

To maintain a compelling narrative, Bioware needs to somehow commit itself to a plot that neither reduces its scale, nor resorts to introducing some sort of greater evil. Unfortunately, that leaves very little to work with. To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in a character whose decisions do not bear on intragalactic politics--playing through Mass Effect 4 as a bounty hunter or pirate (as many have suggested) would feel trivial and anticlimactic, particularly after taking the role of arguably the galaxy's greatest hero. Clearly, I have an opinion to add to the ever increasing pile of rejected ideas and poorly conceived head fiction...

Does anyone remember Haestrom and the sun that died too quickly (ME2: the mission where Tali joins the squad)? What if the galaxy was 'dying'? As in, for some ambiguous reason, suns are burning out and the universe is generally decaying. That would be a pretty enormous problem--certainly of the Reaper scale--yet it would be a faceless enemy that wouldn't act as some sort of stand-in for the tangible enemies of previous instalments. This would inject the mystery and awe of the original Mass Effect back into the franchise, particularly if intergalactic exploration were involved.

Then again, I fully anticipate "Idea: Rejected" response posts because, let's be honest--we all think BioWare should hire us to staff their writing team.

That said, I would like to hear opinions. Does anyone agree a faceless threat would be more intriguing than a mercenary story or a Leviathan conquest?

[Sidac]

 PREQUEL...would suck some serious ass and create too many conflicts in story. 

A sequel set in the same galaxy after the events of the war showing either the rebuiilding or have a history of the rebuilding / war in some way would be nice if they could pull it off. 

[Delacruz]

Dueling Shadows wrote...

Like many here, I am resolutely against a prequel for all the reasons previously mentioned. That said, moving forward with the franchise will be tremendously difficult from a writing standpoint. We've already unified once-antagonistic species. We've already grown from a soldier to a symbol of galactic hope. We've already defeated the greatest threat life has ever known. So what haven't we done?

To maintain a compelling narrative, Bioware needs to somehow commit itself to a plot that neither reduces its scale, nor resorts to introducing some sort of greater evil. Unfortunately, that leaves very little to work with. To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in a character whose decisions do not bear on intragalactic politics--playing through Mass Effect 4 as a bounty hunter or pirate (as many have suggested) would feel trivial and anticlimactic, particularly after taking the role of arguably the galaxy's greatest hero. Clearly, I have an opinion to add to the ever increasing pile of rejected ideas and poorly conceived head fiction...

Does anyone remember Haestrom and the sun that died too quickly (ME2: the mission where Tali joins the squad)? What if the galaxy was 'dying'? As in, for some ambiguous reason, suns are burning out and the universe is generally decaying. That would be a pretty enormous problem--certainly of the Reaper scale--yet it would be a faceless enemy that wouldn't act as some sort of stand-in for the tangible enemies of previous instalments. This would inject the mystery and awe of the original Mass Effect back into the franchise, particularly if intergalactic exploration were involved.

Then again, I fully anticipate "Idea: Rejected" response posts because, let's be honest--we all think BioWare should hire us to staff their writing team.

That said, I would like to hear opinions. Does anyone agree a faceless threat would be more intriguing than a mercenary story or a Leviathan conquest?

I personally like your idea, because you are right on the faceless enemy thing, a decaying galaxy would be a threat that is equal or greater than the reapers without making our fight against the reapers in the origional trilogy seem pointless. it would also make bioware able to make a protagonist that is very different from shepard (aka not a marine/soldier) the main character could be a scientist/explorer etc. Also since the Tali recruitment mission from ME2 already has something about decaying sun, and i belive there is more mention of the whole darkmatter thing throughout the trilogy, bioware would present a 'conflict' that is already somewhat established in the origional trilogy, which imo is a lot better than presenting us with a whole new concept that haven't been mentioned or hinted at in any of the first 3 games.

[Dav3VsTh3World]

enigmagtx wrote...

Sequal but if you don't know how to pull it off then set it in another galazy. you can easily combine all the ending plots for this one.

Agreed, all 4 endings are easily compatiable with this scenario, plus it returns Mass Effect to an exploration style game as the first one was, I figured have the main ship be from the milky way with a variation of all species (aside from Volus due to their atmosphere requirements) whilst the game is set in a distant galaxy.

Besides Bioware wouldn't have included the endings in the game if they couldn't make a followup work

Snypy wrote...

Unless the ending of the trilogy is
changed, which I don't suppose will happen, I don't see a way for
BioWare to come up with a story good enough for a direct sequel to ME3.
In other words, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Sorry to say this but you either lack imagination, or just want either a conventional victory or IT to happen right?

[Diurdi]

Sequel. They can ruin the ending in ME3, doesn't matter to me.

[thehomeworld]

Sequel otherwise it'll be like Star Wars stuck in the toilet of prequel.

[Mr.Rager909]

Sequel. with the option of playing as alien or human

[fleebag7]

Sequel, they have SOOOO much potential now that they've built up the universe.

[dirtdiver32318]

I do not think a prequel would be the right call.. I would have to say Sequel.

[Nicottia]

Sequel.

They pretty much forced certain endings in Dragon Age franchise as well (want to continue? no ultimate sacrifice for yo!). I don't care what ending they choose as the cannon one, though I suppose it's going to be the destruction.

I want to see the world after the reaper invasion, one of the dlcs proved that there's something far way more dangerous than the reapers themselves and I want to know how the future generations deal with it.

[CzarViktor]

You mean the leviathans? Aren't they running scared from the reapers? Not only that but they seemed like they wanted to be left alone.

[serialkicker]

I love you all who voted for sequel

[Alfa Kilo]

Your poll is missing an "inquel" option. That's what I would vote for.

[Guanxii]

I don't want a sequel or a prequel... but I certainly don't want anything after harbinger's beam so I guess you can put me down in the 'prequel' camp.

Still why people still get so hung up on even the idea of 'prequels' direct or indirect ever since George Lucas completely destroyed humanity's faith in the entire concept I will never get and still it lingers on. Seriously people, you have to move past this... not every prequel is a disaster.

Speaking of which... for most people the ending of ME3 is still hated to extent that Mass Effect 4 should make absolutely no reference to it AT ALL. I don't want to relive it... I don't want to think about it and I certainly don't want to see glowing green eyes or friendly-neigborhood reapers in the next game(s)... why on earth would you?

I'm done with the Reapers and with "the Shepard". Don't care... moving on... you really can not do that in the post-reaper/cycle future without cannonizing one of the endings which would be a distaster on top of a disaster:

Think about it logically post-ME3 ending the galaxy is either in a state of ruin/chaos in the near term or utopia in the not too distant future... it's hardly in any fit state no matter what the time to tell the kind of stories/create games we would actually enjoy/want to play or even the kinds of Mass Effect experiences we are even remotely familar with. I want to explore the Mass Effect universe at it's best: with fully-functioning relays, planets which aren't all buried under 10 feet of rubble, preferably with the Geth, Quarians, Krogans and Batarians all still alive and without any retarded space-magic, thank you very much.

Just side step the entire issue completely. Problems? None!

And why are we even taking about prequels here? Prequels are only prequels in reality if they are in any way related to the original plot and that's clearly not not going to happen... so why get hung up on chronology if it's completely irrelevant? Over 20+ years is a long enough time period between when humans arrived to ME3 to tell an almost infinite number of self-contained stories completely detached from the original story... and that's obviously what we all want without any of the headaches or potential fan disinfranchisement/alienation associated with post ME3 games.

Modifié par Guanxii, 10 décembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[Lizzarder]

A sequel that is set thousands of years after ME3.

[Guanxii]

Lizzarder wrote...

A sequel that is set thousands of years after ME3.

With friendly-neighborhood reapers, glowing green eyes or without the Geth? You can't get past the problems associated with the endings no matter how far you set the game in the future.

[Pedrak]

Guanxii wrote...

Lizzarder wrote...

A sequel that is set thousands of years after ME3.

With friendly-neighborhood reapers, glowing green eyes or without the Geth? You can't get past the problems associated with the endings no matter how far you set the game in the future.

What he said. People keep ignoring the fact that ME3's endings are supposed to be of the universe-shaping kind.

[Pedrak]

Guanxii wrote...

I don't want a sequel or a prequel... but I certainly don't want anything after harbinger's beam so I guess you can put me down in the 'prequel' camp.

Still why people still get so hung up on even the idea of 'prequels' direct or indirect ever since George Lucas completely destroyed humanity's faith in the entire concept I will never get and still it lingers on. Seriously people, you have to move past this... not every prequel is a disaster.
.

Hopefully in a few weeks the Hobbit will change people's minds on this.

[Diurdi]

Pedrak wrote...

Guanxii wrote...

I don't want a sequel or a prequel... but I certainly don't want anything after harbinger's beam so I guess you can put me down in the 'prequel' camp.

Still why people still get so hung up on even the idea of 'prequels' direct or indirect ever since George Lucas completely destroyed humanity's faith in the entire concept I will never get and still it lingers on. Seriously people, you have to move past this... not every prequel is a disaster.
.

Hopefully in a few weeks the Hobbit will change people's minds on this.

You do realize that a movie is a bit different from an RPG? Especially one when you're supposed to have some influence on the course of events.

[Guanxii]

Pedrak wrote...

Guanxii wrote...

I don't want a sequel or a prequel... but I certainly don't want anything after harbinger's beam so I guess you can put me down in the 'prequel' camp.

Still why people still get so hung up on even the idea of 'prequels' direct or indirect ever since George Lucas completely destroyed humanity's faith in the entire concept I will never get and still it lingers on. Seriously people, you have to move past this... not every prequel is a disaster.
.

Hopefully in a few weeks the Hobbit will change people's minds on this.

Early reports of screenings are actually pretty disapppointing but there's always part two. Still, there's no way it would stand up to LOTR trilogy no matter what they did with them. That in essence is why people are so opposed to them because only the greatest IP's ever get prequels naturally and so the odds are always stacked against them. But then again a sequel to LOTR would fail just as miserably so you can't win either way in reality.

Modifié par Guanxii, 10 décembre 2012 - 12:31 .

[Scottus4]

Guanxii wrote...

I don't want a sequel or a prequel... but I certainly don't want anything after harbinger's beam so I guess you can put me down in the 'prequel' camp.

Still why people still get so hung up on even the idea of 'prequels' direct or indirect ever since George Lucas completely destroyed humanity's faith in the entire concept I will never get and still it lingers on. Seriously people, you have to move past this... not every prequel is a disaster.

Speaking of which... for most people the ending of ME3 is still hated to extent that Mass Effect 4 should make absolutely no reference to it AT ALL. I don't want to relive it... I don't want to think about it and I certainly don't want to see glowing green eyes or friendly-neigborhood reapers in the next game(s)... why on earth would you?

I'm done with the Reapers and with "the Shepard". Don't care... moving on... you really can not do that in the post-reaper/cycle future without cannonizing one of the endings which would be a distaster on top of a disaster:

Think about it logically post-ME3 ending the galaxy is either in a state of ruin/chaos in the near term or utopia in the not too distant future... it's hardly in any fit state no matter what the time to tell the kind of stories/create games we would actually enjoy/want to play or even the kinds of Mass Effect experiences we are even remotely familar with. I want to explore the Mass Effect universe at it's best: with fully-functioning relays, planets which aren't all buried under 10 feet of rubble, preferably with the Geth, Quarians, Krogans and Batarians all still alive and without any retarded space-magic, thank you very much.

Just side step the entire issue completely. Problems? None!

And why are we even taking about prequels here? Prequels are only prequels in reality if they are in any way related to the original plot and that's clearly not not going to happen... so why get hung up on chronology if it's completely irrelevant? Over 20+ years is a long enough time period between when humans arrived to ME3 to tell an almost infinite number of self-contained stories completely detached from the original story... and that's obviously what we all want without any of the headaches or potential fan disinfranchisement/alienation associated with post ME3 games.

I've seen this in another thread before, although it could have been you, blaming the disinterest on prequels on George Lucas.

It is really, really hard for a developer to add attachment to characters who you know won't be around, and it is hard to feel suspense for characters you do know will be around. The only prequels that really work well are prequels that are so far in time from the primary time setting that **** could go really wrong or right and all you know is that at most, things in general survived, which you sort of know is going to happen in most stories anyways.

Personally though, all that aside, I don't see the universe expanding going backward in time. We aren't going to learn anything about the Raloi, or the virtual aliens, or other new creatures by going back to some time period in the past.