1056 réponses à ce sujet

[Archonsg]

@ Mr Priestly

It might have been already said but whether but like it or not, the Next ME game has to reflect, to mirror off the previous 3 games at least in references. You guys admitted that you didn't realize just how attached the players got, to the characters and story that was the Shepard Trilogy, don't make that same mistake for ME-Next.

Its something that I think some of your own writers know very well.
A qoute from Mordin Solus if you will; " ... hard to imagine galaxy, too many people, faceless, statistics ... easy to de-personalize, ... can't think of galaxy but can think of favorite nephew."

And therein lies the heart of the problem.
Speaking for myself, (though I suspect many others might feel the same) the end of Shepard's Trilogy made that mistake of turning everyone whom the players became intimate with through the course of 5 or so years of gameplay / replays, into characterless side-notes. The EC tried to fix some of that but working with what it had to, it was limited to still screenshots that lacked the emotional notes needed.

Bottom line is, people *still* care about what happened to Shepard and crew.
While the next game can simply dismiss everything that has happened before, and go off in a different direction, such as for example, using the parallel universe theory (whether intentional or by accidental discovery in the game itself) or by going by any other direction that sidesteps Shepard's trilogy, and it would work definitely to de-associate itself with the previous trilogy, it would be a mistake.

For "new" fans of the series, for those who have never played the original series, it wouldn't matter.
But for those who did play Mass Effect for the past 5 to 7 years now, its like saying "Thanks for buying ME games, now forget you ever played them."

Do you really want to do that?

Modifié par Archonsg, 09 janvier 2014 - 01:22 .

[rapscallioness]

Yeah, Priestly said that stuff awhile ago. I remember that thread.

But then Yanick Roy--who is...the project lead, I think? something like that for ME Next--came in, and said of course the game has to be at some point. We're just not telling you yet.

He also used the analogy of WWI and WWII. They're two very different wars, but there are still a few strings linking the two. So, a story abt WWII would be abt WWII, but WWII did have influences that carried over from the outcome of WWI.

But the story would be abt WWII.

Idk if that helps, but that's what I got from it. Could have misinterpreted it, tho. But it was a hell of alot better than that whole "it doesn't have to be before, during, or after".

[Invisible Man]

rapscallioness wrote...

Yeah, Priestly said that stuff awhile ago. I remember that thread.

But then Yanick Roy--who is...the project lead, I think? something like that for ME Next--came in, and said of course the game has to be at some point. We're just not telling you yet.

He also used the analogy of WWI and WWII. They're two very different wars, but there are still a few strings linking the two. So, a story abt WWII would be abt WWII, but WWII did have influences that carried over from the outcome of WWI.

But the story would be abt WWII.

Idk if that helps, but that's what I got from it. Could have misinterpreted it, tho. But it was a hell of alot better than that whole "it doesn't have to be before, during, or after".

does that mean the lingering effects from the reaper war are going to create the sparks that ignite a second war?

[SwobyJ]

Invisible Man wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

Yeah, Priestly said that stuff awhile ago. I remember that thread.

But then Yanick Roy--who is...the project lead, I think? something like that for ME Next--came in, and said of course the game has to be at some point. We're just not telling you yet.

He also used the analogy of WWI and WWII. They're two very different wars, but there are still a few strings linking the two. So, a story abt WWII would be abt WWII, but WWII did have influences that carried over from the outcome of WWI.

But the story would be abt WWII.

Idk if that helps, but that's what I got from it. Could have misinterpreted it, tho. But it was a hell of alot better than that whole "it doesn't have to be before, during, or after".

does that mean the lingering effects from the reaper war are going to create the sparks that ignite a second war?

Friggin BINGO.

In a way

[rapscallioness]

Invisible Man wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

Yeah, Priestly said that stuff awhile ago. I remember that thread.

But then Yanick Roy--who is...the project lead, I think? something like that for ME Next--came in, and said of course the game has to be at some point. We're just not telling you yet.

He also used the analogy of WWI and WWII. They're two very different wars, but there are still a few strings linking the two. So, a story abt WWII would be abt WWII, but WWII did have influences that carried over from the outcome of WWI.

But the story would be abt WWII.

Idk if that helps, but that's what I got from it. Could have misinterpreted it, tho. But it was a hell of alot better than that whole "it doesn't have to be before, during, or after".

does that mean the lingering effects from the reaper war are going to create the sparks that ignite a second war?

Not sure. This was awhile ago. Things may have changed. I may have misinterpreted.

But...idk..they're two different "stories". Independent of themselves, yet there are still..connnections. Ineveitable connections, though they may be in the extreme periphery.

Meh! Idk, and I don't wanna put out some kinda false/misleading info. That was the analogy Yanick used. If he meant it to be interpreted that way, I can't and don't want to say.

Personally, I like that idea, but I can't say for sure that's what was meant.

[rapscallioness]

I wish I could find it, but digging thru the BSN is like going into Keeper tunnels.

[rapscallioness]

gasp, i found it. it was 11 months ago. this is from yanick. take the post for what you will.

"Hi guys,

It’s my first time posting on the forums, so I hope I’m going to do it right!

What Chris is saying is that thinking of the next Mass Effect game as Mass Effect 4 would imply a certain linearity, a straight evolution of the gameplay and story of the first three games. But because we are switching to a new engine and need to rebuild a bunch of game systems, we have an opportunity to rethink how we want these systems to be going forward instead of just inheriting them from the previous games. Story-wise, the arc of the first trilogy has also been concluded, and what we will do is tell a new story set in the Mass Effect universe. That doesn’t mean that events of the first three games and the choices you made won’t get recognized, but they likely won’t be what this new story will focus on.

In other words, because the game takes place before of after the first trilogy does not mean it necessarily is a straight prequel or sequel.

I’m not a big fan of analogies because the images you use always mean something different to different people, so they are inherently flawed. But let me use one anyway. smilie

If you had three games centered around a group of key soldiers in the US army during World War I and then decided to make a game about another group of people during the second World War, the games could have many points in common and feel true to one another, and you likely would have to recognize how the events of the first war influenced the ones of the second, but you would not necessarily think of it as a sequel. Again, the analogy is
not great, but what I’m trying to say is that the ME universe is so rich that we are not limited to a single track when coming up with a new story.

I apologize for being cryptic right now, but it’s early enough in development that we don’t have much to share – things still fluctuate quite a bit. As I have posted on Twitter though, the overall feeling of what you are discussing and asking for is very much aligned with what the team intends on delivering, and that makes me feel very good about where we’re heading!

I hope this helps clarify why we’re not thinking of the next ME game as ME4 internally!"

Modifié par rapscallioness, 09 janvier 2014 - 07:44 .

[SwobyJ]

It SEEMS to be just what I've said before.

There will be REFERENCES and CONNECTIONS (sorry about caps).

But the game itself will not RELATE to the Shepard trilogy.

People think of 'relate' as = 'reference', but that is not necessarily the case (it can mean the same thing, but it doesn't have to). You can relate to something without even using (at least many) references. You can make references without the story necessarily relating.
(An easy example is Dragon Age 2.. yeah yeah. DA2 makes references to DA:O and even customizes some of the player and story experience based on DA:O. Heck, we even start around Lothering, right? However, I don't think it's fair to say that DA2's story *relates* to DA:O outside of them being in the same world and *some* related *events*. Especially considering that DA2 seems to make moderate use of 'unreliable narration'.)

If Bioware considered ME3 to be the 'best place to start', imo it's because it'll have all we need to know ('need' as in 'near absolutely need') in order to understand what is to come with some better context. ME2 was never considered the 'best place to start', on the other hand, but just a 'fresh start' for Shepard.

So the gist I'm getting is that the next game will involve, in even the most minor or unique ways, the Shepard Trilogy.

What it won't have, is Shepard as protagonist, his specific companions (maybe none of them), and the whole 'overwhelming fight against the Reapers' deal (ME1 = revelation of them, ME2 = prep for them, ME3 = war against them).

That's about it. Anything else us up in the air for us until probably later this year.

Even whether it will take place before or after or during ME1-3, or even all three. Let's see how they explain it

~~~

"If you had three games centered around a group of key soldiers in the US army during World War I and then decided to make a game about another group of people during the second World War, the games could have many points in common and feel true to one another, and you likely would have to recognize how the events of the first war influenced the ones of the second, but you would not necessarily think of it as a sequel. Again, the analogy is not great, but what I’m trying to say is that the ME universe is so rich that we are not limited to a single track when coming up with a new story."

~~~

I know the ME3 ending, and the lack of humans before the First Contact War, trips a lot of people up on how another game could happen that doesn't take place during ME1-ME3's specific 'timeframe'.

I say just let them tell us, because ME1-ME3, or especially ME2-3 could very well be considered its own deal in a universe MUCH larger than just what we experienced.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:04 .

[biowaregeek]

rapscallioness wrote...

gasp, i found it. it was 11 months ago. this is from yanick. take the post for what you will.

"Hi guys,

It’s my first time posting on the forums, so I hope I’m going to do it right!

What Chris is saying is that thinking of the next Mass Effect game as Mass Effect 4 would imply a certain linearity, a straight evolution of the gameplay and story of the first three games. But because we are switching to a new engine and need to rebuild a bunch of game systems, we have an opportunity to rethink how we want these systems to be going forward instead of just inheriting them from the previous games. Story-wise, the arc of the first trilogy has also been concluded, and what we will do is tell a new story set in the Mass Effect universe. That doesn’t mean that events of the first three games and the choices you made won’t get recognized, but they likely won’t be what this new story will focus on.

In other words, because the game takes place before of after the first trilogy does not mean it necessarily is a straight prequel or sequel.

I’m not a big fan of analogies because the images you use always mean something different to different people, so they are inherently flawed. But let me use one anyway. smilie

If you had three games centered around a group of key soldiers in the US army during World War I and then decided to make a game about another group of people during the second World War, the games could have many points in common and feel true to one another, and you likely would have to recognize how the events of the first war influenced the ones of the second, but you would not necessarily think of it as a sequel. Again, the analogy is
not great, but what I’m trying to say is that the ME universe is so rich that we are not limited to a single track when coming up with a new story.

I apologize for being cryptic right now, but it’s early enough in development that we don’t have much to share – things still fluctuate quite a bit. As I have posted on Twitter though, the overall feeling of what you are discussing and asking for is very much aligned with what the team intends on delivering, and that makes me feel very good about where we’re heading!

I hope this helps clarify why we’re not thinking of the next ME game as ME4 internally!"

mass effect Days of Future Past? like what the next x men movie will be about what you guys think 1cd about the Future and the other about the Past .

[Grizzly46]

rapscallioness wrote...

What Chris is saying is that thinking of the next Mass Effect game as Mass Effect 4 would imply a certain linearity, a straight evolution of the gameplay and story of the first three games. But because we are switching to a new engine and need to rebuild a bunch of game systems, we have an opportunity to rethink how we want these systems to be going forward instead of just inheriting them from the previous games. Story-wise, the arc of the first trilogy has also been concluded, and what we will do is tell a new story set in the Mass Effect universe. That doesn’t mean that events of the first three games and the choices you made won’t get recognized, but they likely won’t be what this new story will focus on.

In other words, because the game takes place before of after the first trilogy does not mean it necessarily is a straight prequel or sequel.

I’m not a big fan of analogies because the images you use always mean something different to different people, so they are inherently flawed. But let me use one anyway. smilie

If you had three games centered around a group of key soldiers in the US army during World War I and then decided to make a game about another group of people during the second World War, the games could have many points in common and feel true to one another, and you likely would have to recognize how the events of the first war influenced the ones of the second, but you would not necessarily think of it as a sequel. Again, the analogy is
not great, but what I’m trying to say is that the ME universe is so rich that we are not limited to a single track when coming up with a new story.

I apologize for being cryptic right now, but it’s early enough in development that we don’t have much to share – things still fluctuate quite a bit. As I have posted on Twitter though, the overall feeling of what you are discussing and asking for is very much aligned with what the team intends on delivering, and that makes me feel very good about where we’re heading!

I hope this helps clarify why we’re not thinking of the next ME game as ME4 internally!"

There is a problem with this analogy regarding WW2 and WW1: if you want to talk about soldiers during WW2, the events of WW1 will be of absolutely no importance to them. But if you want to talk about the history of WW2, then the events of WW1 will play a key part - and to pull the time string a little longer, so far back as to the Napoleon wars for example. What I'm saying is that this is a question of scale, and for the argument of a RPG which centers around individual people history shouldn't play much part if any at all. There was this instance where you could find an M-7 rifle in the Citadel DLC which was a nice feature, but that would be analogue of some WW2 soldiers finding a trench from WW1: it doesn't matter for them.

That said, any ME-Next story must be before, during or after the reaper war. Priestly already said that they won't resort to the cheesy "it was all a dream" and retcon everything; but to retcon it and make ME-Next in an alternative universe would be even cheesier.

To continue on the WW2 theme: the film The Longest Day and Finding Private Ryan and the TV show Band of Brothers all centered on the invasion of Normandie June 6, 1944. None of the main characters ever met, but they all experienced the same date and different events. The scale was also very different, from individual soldiers fighting to commanding officers dealing with strategical and tactical issues.

That means that if Bioware keeps clear of the two aforementioned cheesy tropes they must place the ME-Next game somewhere on the same timeline as the reaper war, and no matter where on the timescale the game is placed, the reaper war will influence the current ME-Next events:

After the reaper war: This will probably not be possible since every ending leads to so very different outcomes that it wouldn't be possible to account for everything, even if ME-Next is placed hundreds or even thousands of years into the future.

During the reaper war: this would be a tragic game. Every player would know that no matter what s/he does, the main event takes place with commander Shpard somewere else, and the player would essentially be a D-Day dodger. Italy may be sunny, but it's still just a sideshow. Vega experienced his own sideshow during ME2 apparently, and what he experienced amounted to... jack sh*t. It didn't matter in the end. No player would like that.

Before the reaper war: A prequel could work, but again, every player will know that some time in the future, the reapers will come and everything done here and now will amount to jack sh*t then.

In other words, a ME-Next game that doesn't lend itself to some lame tropes of alternative universes or a long dream sequence will have a very hard time to be believable.

Which means there is only one solution if Bioware wants to keep up the work with the ME universe: Remake the entire triology. People will probably agree that Mass Effect is SHepard's story, and to not work with that by expanding the triology and bring everything up to today's technical standard would be a damn shame - and Bioware could also take the opportunity to fix everything they have otten complaints about, from the inventory system in ME1 to the ending in ME3.

[Almostfaceman]

Grizzly46 wrote...

Which means there is only one solution if Bioware wants to keep up the work with the ME universe: Remake the entire triology. People will probably agree that Mass Effect is SHepard's story, and to not work with that by expanding the triology and bring everything up to today's technical standard would be a damn shame - and Bioware could also take the opportunity to fix everything they have otten complaints about, from the inventory system in ME1 to the ending in ME3.

Yeah, this isn't going to happen, no offense and in my humble opinion.

[AlanC9]

Grizzly46 wrote...


After the reaper war: This will probably not be possible since every ending leads to so very different outcomes that it wouldn't be possible to account for everything, even if ME-Next is placed hundreds or even thousands of years into the future.

So then they don't account for everything.

[Grizzly46]

AlanC9 wrote...

Grizzly46 wrote...


After the reaper war: This will probably not be possible since every ending leads to so very different outcomes that it wouldn't be possible to account for everything, even if ME-Next is placed hundreds or even thousands of years into the future.

So then they don't account for everything.

...And either retcon the **** out of the franchise, picks an ending and make that canon (pissing off everyone not choosing that) or goes full cheese.

I'm afraid of that.

[SwobyJ]

.....

Just bloody wait for what they have.

It's 2014. They're already deep into what we're gonna get. The time for your suggestions was 2012.

And no, it doesn't have to be an alternate universe while still being a very different story. Just wait.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 10 janvier 2014 - 12:22 .

[AlanC9]

Grizzly46 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Grizzly46 wrote...
After the reaper war: This will probably not be possible since every ending leads to so very different outcomes that it wouldn't be possible to account for everything, even if ME-Next is placed hundreds or even thousands of years into the future.

So then they don't account for everything.

...And either retcon the **** out of the franchise, picks an ending and make that canon (pissing off everyone not choosing that) or goes full cheese.

I'm afraid of that.

Well, I'm afraid of your plan. So we're even.

[RevenantWolf]

Invisible Man wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

Yeah, Priestly said that stuff awhile ago. I remember that thread.

But then Yanick Roy--who is...the project lead, I think? something like that for ME Next--came in, and said of course the game has to be at some point. We're just not telling you yet.

He also used the analogy of WWI and WWII. They're two very different wars, but there are still a few strings linking the two. So, a story abt WWII would be abt WWII, but WWII did have influences that carried over from the outcome of WWI.

But the story would be abt WWII.

Idk if that helps, but that's what I got from it. Could have misinterpreted it, tho. But it was a hell of alot better than that whole "it doesn't have to be before, during, or after".

does that mean the lingering effects from the reaper war are going to create the sparks that ignite a second war?

The WW1 to WW2 analogy is bad. What if Germany was wiped out in WW1? What would WW2 be? Would it even have occurred?

That is what we are dealing with if we get a sequel. One ending has Germany gone, the other has it existing. We should face the fact that we are getting a prequel, and that is disappointing.

[elitecom]

How should Bioware keep everyone happy with ME4?

By doing what Bioware should have done since ME1, namely not to try and keep everyone happy. If you try to please everyone you'll end up pleasing no one.

[Harorrd]

Chris Priestly wrote...

"... and then Shepard woke up in bed and it had all been a dream....."

Ok, there is NO way we would do that becuase it is among the cheesiest McGuffin around, but it is an example of what can be done. I can't say the more "real" possibilities because I may accidentally mention what may really happen. I'm just saying that people who think it MUST be X or XY are really limiting their vision.

Thats not cheep, it bloody brilliant. You save the failure of ME3 and get to rebot the franchise from a fresh clean sheet of paper. 

[liggy002]

Harorrd wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

"... and then Shepard woke up in bed and it had all been a dream....."

Ok, there is NO way we would do that becuase it is among the cheesiest McGuffin around, but it is an example of what can be done. I can't say the more "real" possibilities because I may accidentally mention what may really happen. I'm just saying that people who think it MUST be X or XY are really limiting their vision.

Thats not cheep, it bloody brilliant. You save the failure of ME3 and get to rebot the franchise from a fresh clean sheet of paper. 

haha, that would be strange but if it meant a better ME trilogy, I'd be game for it.

[SwobyJ]

Chris said it CAN be done.

Also said it wouldn't.

Put two and two together people

He's just saying it'll be more complicated than waking up in a bed and it all being a dream. And well, duh. ("I'm just saying that people who think it MUST be X or XY are really limiting their vision.")

Modifié par SwobyJ, 27 janvier 2014 - 01:59 .

[SwobyJ]

RevenantWolf wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

Yeah, Priestly said that stuff awhile ago. I remember that thread.

But then Yanick Roy--who is...the project lead, I think? something like that for ME Next--came in, and said of course the game has to be at some point. We're just not telling you yet.

He also used the analogy of WWI and WWII. They're two very different wars, but there are still a few strings linking the two. So, a story abt WWII would be abt WWII, but WWII did have influences that carried over from the outcome of WWI.

But the story would be abt WWII.

Idk if that helps, but that's what I got from it. Could have misinterpreted it, tho. But it was a hell of alot better than that whole "it doesn't have to be before, during, or after".

does that mean the lingering effects from the reaper war are going to create the sparks that ignite a second war?

The WW1 to WW2 analogy is bad. What if Germany was wiped out in WW1? What would WW2 be? Would it even have occurred?

That is what we are dealing with if we get a sequel. One ending has Germany gone, the other has it existing. We should face the fact that we are getting a prequel, and that is disappointing.

Nah, it'll be fine.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think they are going to shoe-horn in a sequel, no matter how jarring or awkward it will be. I don't have any proof other than the notion that a sequel is being made because it will have a title that can make money and the idea that a sequel will face the least amount of public scrutiny. If I'm wrong, I hope it will be pleasantly proven that I am wrong.

[TheN7Penguin]

Has anyone thought it might NOT be a sequel? And instead be a prequel or at the same time as another Mass Effect game? It might be set in a different galaxy altogether, though that isn't very likely.
I want to see more of the Quarian/Geth war. Or the First Contact War.

[AlanC9]

People have thought that. It's just not very popular.

[TheN7Penguin]

liggy002 wrote...

Harorrd wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

"... and then Shepard woke up in bed and it had all been a dream....."

Ok, there is NO way we would do that becuase it is among the cheesiest McGuffin around, but it is an example of what can be done. I can't say the more "real" possibilities because I may accidentally mention what may really happen. I'm just saying that people who think it MUST be X or XY are really limiting their vision.

Thats not cheep, it bloody brilliant. You save the failure of ME3 and get to rebot the franchise from a fresh clean sheet of paper. 

haha, that would be strange but if it meant a better ME trilogy, I'd be game for it.

What happened from ME1 onwards could be what Shepard saw in the Prothean beacon which showed him what COULD be done in the war against the Reapers.