258 réponses à ce sujet

[Little Princess Peach]

so I take it it's going to be like the final fantasey games, where it' still final fantasey but diffrent worlds diffrent heros and the such.

[johnj1979]

Reboots seem to be the in thing at the moment

But would fans of the Mass Effect want to buy a reboot of something they alreedy got.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

johnj1979 wrote...

Reboots seem to be the in thing at the moment

But would fans of the Mass Effect want to buy a reboot of something they alreedy got.

No. It's way too soon. And ME really doesn't need a reboot.

All the talk that I hear from BW's end makes it sound like BW has no idea what they want (or can do).

They say they listen to the fans, the fans tell them what they want, then they say that those aren't the fans they listen too.

IMO, EA just needs to put BW out of their misery.

[johnj1979]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

Reboots seem to be the in thing at the moment

But would fans of the Mass Effect want to buy a reboot of something they alreedy got.

No. It's way too soon. And ME really doesn't need a reboot.

All the talk that I hear from BW's end makes it sound like BW has no idea what they want (or can do).

They say they listen to the fans, the fans tell them what they want, then they say that those aren't the fans they listen too.

IMO, EA just needs to put BW out of their misery.

Mass Effect 3 endings do seem limit what can be done after shepard

[Jamesnew2]

Yanick Roy wrote...

By the way, thank you all for making me feel welcome here. I don't know how regularly I'll be able to stop by the forums, but given that today is the first time in the 7+ years I've been with BioWare, it should not be too hard to improve my batting average!

I wish you good luck in both the game development and surviving the forums :L

[Dashael_Caldora]

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect by the time we've all stopped whining about ME3, the Mass Effect universe will have been abandoned like Jade Empire. All this talk about many interesting stories to tell in a rich universe of blah blah blah does feel familiar if you think back to the time after the release of Jade Empire.

As I said, I hope I'm wrong, but if the ME universe is to endure as a franchise I hope that Bioware has something to show us other than more ME1-3 based merchandise. Patience is not a virtue most gamers are famous for.

[Tinxa]

ZombifiedJake wrote...

It does have to come before or after the trilogy, unless it's a reboot.

My point of reference that I'm thinking about is the ending, which ruined everything. If the game is set before the trilogy, regardless of how disconnected it is from Shepard's events, that ending will always be looming out there and I won't be able to enjoy anything set before. That's why, logically, a sequel is their best move. Just move on, set it way ahead in time. 

That's like saying you couldn't play KOTOR because you know the emperor will wipe out the jedi eventually.

To me setting it before ME123 is the most elegant way to solve this. After it, everyone is part robot (if you chose synthesis) or they aren't. That's a pretty big difference in the universe.

I'm thinking the setting will be right after the first contact. Everything is new and exciting for humans, all sorts of conflicts with the other races are possible and Shepard isn't even born yet.

[Morty Smith]

Dmthoth wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

FireW4lker wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

No, because the game does not have to come after. Or
before.

If it isn't set before , then it's set after. And if it isn't set after, then it's before .

You are missing the point, which is exactly what he is saying. In plain english: It has nothing to do with Shepard's story at all, therefore it neither comes before, during, or after. So, let's not be taking comments out of context to prove a non-existant point.

so.. parallel universe?

Please, leave that subject-matter to a lead writer of a recent release who knows how to build it up and how to pull it off.

Modifié par Kroitz, 28 mars 2013 - 12:18 .

[Zeldrik1389]

Gotta wait and see how DA:I turn out. Both DA:2 and ME 3 were disaster, and got tons of complains from fans. So they will try to redeem themselves with the next games of the series. If DA:I turn out to be ok, then my hope for next ME might go up. Otherwise.... Well I have faith in BioWare though. They have made epic games before, they are capable of doing things right.

[Vlad_The_Impaler]

Zeldrik1389 wrote...

Gotta wait and see how DA:I turn out. Both DA:2 and ME 3 were disaster, and got tons of complains from fans. So they will try to redeem themselves with the next games of the series. If DA:I turn out to be ok, then my hope for next ME might go up. Otherwise.... Well I have faith in BioWare though. They have made epic games before, they are capable of doing things right.

I agree 100%.  With Ray and Greg gone from the company, not even staying on as creative consultants or anything though, I wonder if I will even recognize future releases.

[Degs29]

How about ME4?  We get it, Shepard's story is done and the plot of the next game can take place anywhere in the timeline, including in an alternate timeline.  But it's the fourth game released, and it's still set in the ME universe, so there's nothing wrong with calling it ME4.  Just my two cents.

[Getorex]

Kroitz wrote...

Dmthoth wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

FireW4lker wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

No, because the game does not have to come after. Or
before.

If it isn't set before , then it's set after. And if it isn't set after, then it's before .

You are missing the point, which is exactly what he is saying. In plain english: It has nothing to do with Shepard's story at all, therefore it neither comes before, during, or after. So, let's not be taking comments out of context to prove a non-existant point.

so.. parallel universe?

Please, leave that subject-matter to a lead writer of a recent release who knows how to build it up and how to pull it off.

OK, here's how it works.  You have a story as BIG as the Reapers (existential danger that must be dealt with, a danger that puts ALL and ANY other issues to shame) then anything else that takes place coincident with it that is not Reapers is nothing at all.  A mere side mission.  Otherwise it must be before or after.  If you setup story at the same time then it MUST be small potatoes and of no real importance. 

WHo gives a flying crap about a trade dispute between Belgium and Switzerland when N*a*z*i Germany is about to invade Poland and start WWII?  Trade dispute schmade dispute.  Anything that takes place at the same time as Shepard's story is nothing at all.  Piffle. A trifle.  See how that works?

THIS is why Bioware screwed up by making the Reaper/Shepard story a trilogy, wham bam and done!  Now there's nothing else of note.  The Reaper issue and Shepard story could have been (SHOULD have been) stretched out over a number of ME games, developing slowly and with more depth, leaving lots of time and space for lots of side story games to flesh out the rest of the overall universe.  Instead we got the money shot right away and now Bioware is left trying to milk a dead cow.

Modifié par Getorex, 28 mars 2013 - 01:18 .

[Getorex]

Tinxa wrote...

ZombifiedJake wrote...

It does have to come before or after the trilogy, unless it's a reboot.

My point of reference that I'm thinking about is the ending, which ruined everything. If the game is set before the trilogy, regardless of how disconnected it is from Shepard's events, that ending will always be looming out there and I won't be able to enjoy anything set before. That's why, logically, a sequel is their best move. Just move on, set it way ahead in time. 

That's like saying you couldn't play KOTOR because you know the emperor will wipe out the jedi eventually.

To me setting it before ME123 is the most elegant way to solve this. After it, everyone is part robot (if you chose synthesis) or they aren't. That's a pretty big difference in the universe.

I'm thinking the setting will be right after the first contact. Everything is new and exciting for humans, all sorts of conflicts with the other races are possible and Shepard isn't even born yet.

And you already know how it ALL will turn out!  A "war" that lasts a few weeks, and then all is peaches and cream until Shepard comes along and finds the REAL issue.  All and any other issues are table scraps.

[Getorex]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

so I take it it's going to be like the final fantasey games, where it' still final fantasey but diffrent worlds diffrent heros and the such.

The final FINAL really REALLY Final Fantasy...OK, maybe the NEXT Final Fantasy will be the FINAL Fantasy...or maybe not.  Maybe it's the second-to-last Final Fantasy.  Or not.

[Imperator_Prime]

BladyMZ wrote...

Mass Effect Next. MEN.

"I hope we get more romance options in MEN"

"MEN should have more loyalty missions"

"Can't wait to get my hands on MEN"

Like a boss.

.


What's that thing that all the kids do nowadays to lend their assent to things?  "+1?"  That.  +1!

[JMTolan]

Getorex wrote...

OK, here's how it works.  You have a story as BIG as the Reapers (existential danger that must be dealt with, a danger that puts ALL and ANY other issues to shame) then anything else that takes place coincident with it that is not Reapers is nothing at all.  A mere side mission.  Otherwise it must be before or after.  If you setup story at the same time then it MUST be small potatoes and of no real importance. 

WHo gives a flying crap about a trade dispute between Belgium and Switzerland when N*a*z*i Germany is about to invade Poland and start WWII?  Trade dispute schmade dispute.  Anything that takes place at the same time as Shepard's story is nothing at all.  Piffle. A trifle.  See how that works?

THIS is why Bioware screwed up by making the Reaper/Shepard story a trilogy, wham bam and done!  Now there's nothing else of note.  The Reaper issue and Shepard story could have been (SHOULD have been) stretched out over a number of ME games, developing slowly and with more depth, leaving lots of time and space for lots of side story games to flesh out the rest of the overall universe.  Instead we got the money shot right away and now Bioware is left trying to milk a dead cow.

This is about the third or fourth time I've seen this argument, and I want to address it because it is, and I'm not going to mince words here, absurd on its face.

Lets start with Halo: Reach.

It was, by everyone's reckoning, not as good as the main Halo series, but not one was saying that because they knew going in that Reach was going to fall. No one, or at least no significant group of people, derided the game for being a prequel we already knew the end of--because the end is just that, the end, and the story of the game was the journey to it, not surprise this is what happened.

Was is small fry compared to the main series? Probably not small fry, but it certainly had an order of magnitude less scope.

As for your argument that nobody cares about small things when they know larger things are happening, this is just blatantly ignorant. A good story will make you care about what it cares about: if it cares about saving the galaxy, like the ME trilogy, it's going to make you care about saving the galaxy, and it's going to appeal not just to your individual friends, but their people, their cultures, their ways of life that are threatened. When I stormed towards the beacon, I wasn't running to save my squad--I trusted they would take care of themselves, because they're capable and have sorted most of their major issues. I was running towards the beacon dodging potshots from Harbinger because every single culture I'd grown to love and respect in this universe was threatened with destruction. Sure, I cared about my squad--a lot--but if they were all I cared about I'd stock up on rations and dissapear into uncharted space. Simpler, more cost effective, and probably much happier in the end.

Likewise, if the next ME game wants me to care less about the galaxy at stake and more about the comparatively-trivial problems of a close friend of mine, it has every potential to do that. The fact that, for example, helping my C-Sec partner rescue his child from a gang holding them for ransom by skirting outside the law is a much smaller conflict than the galaxy being destroyed by giant synthetic cuttlefish doesn't mean that I can't want to save her as much or more than I wanted to save the galaxy. Is it moot if the galaxy is destroyed? Sure, but I'm not going to be thinking about that when I'm watching my partner hug his kid after the rescue unless you cut to the galaxy being invaded by Reapers, and no writer in their right mind would do that in a prequel.

When I played Dishonored (Spoilers, by the way, if you don't want to see them), when I was betrayed by the Admiral and his lackeys, I cared about 3 times more about getting my *Censored* daughter back, you backstabbing *Censored again!* than I ever cared about saving the ME universe, not because I had any issue with ME3's story, but because Dishonored spent so much of its story arc making me care about her. Island going to crap? Meh. Plague wiping out the peasants? Too bad. Reapers trying to kill us all? I will charge through an army of husks to stop them. Kidnap my daughter? I will personally remove your skull and spine from the rest of your body with my bare hands.

Think of it like Traynor's "wanting to kill a Reaper" bit. For most of ME3, I was a lot like that. I wanted the Reapers stopped, defeated, but rarely actually felt the urge to committ physical violence against them. Dishonored made me want to reach through my screen and punch a man I had, until that point, been rather fond of.

So yeah, a smaller story is possible, and it is possible to be just as good or better, because it will make you care about those characters and what happens to them, no matter what's at stake. The idea that prequel or concurrent story will flop because "the stakes won't be higher" is just plain absurd.

-Tolan

[Dieb]

argh sorry. deleted.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 15 avril 2013 - 10:33 .

[Gkonone]

JMTolan wrote...
This is about the third or fourth time I've seen this argument, and I want to address it because it is, and I'm not going to mince words here, absurd on its face.

Lets start with Halo: Reach.

It was, by everyone's reckoning, not as good as the main Halo series, but not one was saying that because they knew going in that Reach was going to fall. No one, or at least no significant group of people, derided the game for being a prequel we already knew the end of--because the end is just that, the end, and the story of the game was the journey to it, not surprise this is what happened.

Was is small fry compared to the main series? Probably not small fry, but it certainly had an order of magnitude less scope.

As for your argument that nobody cares about small things when they know larger things are happening, this is just blatantly ignorant. A good story will make you care about what it cares about: if it cares about saving the galaxy, like the ME trilogy, it's going to make you care about saving the galaxy, and it's going to appeal not just to your individual friends, but their people, their cultures, their ways of life that are threatened. When I stormed towards the beacon, I wasn't running to save my squad--I trusted they would take care of themselves, because they're capable and have sorted most of their major issues. I was running towards the beacon dodging potshots from Harbinger because every single culture I'd grown to love and respect in this universe was threatened with destruction. Sure, I cared about my squad--a lot--but if they were all I cared about I'd stock up on rations and dissapear into uncharted space. Simpler, more cost effective, and probably much happier in the end.

Likewise, if the next ME game wants me to care less about the galaxy at stake and more about the comparatively-trivial problems of a close friend of mine, it has every potential to do that. The fact that, for example, helping my C-Sec partner rescue his child from a gang holding them for ransom by skirting outside the law is a much smaller conflict than the galaxy being destroyed by giant synthetic cuttlefish doesn't mean that I can't want to save her as much or more than I wanted to save the galaxy. Is it moot if the galaxy is destroyed? Sure, but I'm not going to be thinking about that when I'm watching my partner hug his kid after the rescue unless you cut to the galaxy being invaded by Reapers, and no writer in their right mind would do that in a prequel.

When I played Dishonored (Spoilers, by the way, if you don't want to see them), when I was betrayed by the Admiral and his lackeys, I cared about 3 times more about getting my *Censored* daughter back, you backstabbing *Censored again!* than I ever cared about saving the ME universe, not because I had any issue with ME3's story, but because Dishonored spent so much of its story arc making me care about her. Island going to crap? Meh. Plague wiping out the peasants? Too bad. Reapers trying to kill us all? I will charge through an army of husks to stop them. Kidnap my daughter? I will personally remove your skull and spine from the rest of your body with my bare hands.

Think of it like Traynor's "wanting to kill a Reaper" bit. For most of ME3, I was a lot like that. I wanted the Reapers stopped, defeated, but rarely actually felt the urge to committ physical violence against them. Dishonored made me want to reach through my screen and punch a man I had, until that point, been rather fond of.

So yeah, a smaller story is possible, and it is possible to be just as good or better, because it will make you care about those characters and what happens to them, no matter what's at stake. The idea that prequel or concurrent story will flop because "the stakes won't be higher" is just plain absurd.

-Tolan

I don't agree with you. It's like saying 'if ME didn't have the Reapers it would still be a great series' because of all the smaller stakes.
Bigger stakes give meaning to the smaller stakes, it's that simple.
Every heroic saga needs a big danger or antagonist. 

Unfortunately I feel they've really shot themselves in the foot with the horrible ending. I don't see a next ME game doing that well.
Like Miranda said 'he's a bloody icon'. It should never have been a trilogy.

Modifié par Gkonone, 15 avril 2013 - 07:42 .

[JMTolan]

... I'm genuinely not sure if you just don't understand storytelling, or have a really bizarre way of valuing things.

All stories are relational. A narrative starts with the building of a relationship between the reader/viewer and the characters, be that relationship positive or negative, attached or ambivalent. The scale of the climactic challenge has nothing to do with how much they care for the character--if it did, you could compensate for bad characterization by increasing the scale and severity of the stakes. The stakes affect the amount of active concern you have for the characters' safety and well-being, but how much you care for the character is independent of that.

I care about my friend. Him being alive, in mortal danger, or dead affects how much I'm worrying about him, but not how much I care about him.

I cared about Tali. I worried about her more when she was having a mental breakdown over her father or was threatening to kill Legion than when we were watching Fleet and Flotilla, but I cared about her the same amount through each of those episodes.

If the Reapers had, instead, been a totalitarian government ruling the Terminus that was invading Citadel space with intent to wipe the Council off the map and raze their homeworlds (And assuming the army was capable of doing so), the stakes would have been much smaller--no matter what, organic life would have gone on. People would suffer under the new government, but they would survive. But that would not have made me care about the fate of the galaxy--or my crewmembers--any less. They were well-written, and I cared about them for who they were, not what might happen to them.

-Tolan

[Logos77]

Mass Effect: The Towers of Hanoi

[Torrential]

Personal guess - it is another reaper or machine cycle, likely the building of the reapers Millions of years away from the current one. Thus the entire trilogy has no bearing on it. You heard it here first.... 

Just pinning my hopes they don't go the prequel route still, as there will be much less impact at all know what happens at the end, and a mountain to climb to build dramatic tension in that case.

Modifié par Torrential, 16 avril 2013 - 07:27 .

[Dieb]

JMTolan wrote...

... I'm genuinely not sure if you just don't understand storytelling, or have a really bizarre way of valuing things.

All stories are relational. A narrative starts with the building of a relationship between the reader/viewer and the characters, be that relationship positive or negative, attached or ambivalent. The scale of the climactic challenge has nothing to do with how much they care for the character--if it did, you could compensate for bad characterization by increasing the scale and severity of the stakes. The stakes affect the amount of active concern you have for the characters' safety and well-being, but how much you care for the character is independent of that.

I care about my friend. Him being alive, in mortal danger, or dead affects how much I'm worrying about him, but not how much I care about him.

I cared about Tali. I worried about her more when she was having a mental breakdown over her father or was threatening to kill Legion than when we were watching Fleet and Flotilla, but I cared about her the same amount through each of those episodes.

If the Reapers had, instead, been a totalitarian government ruling the Terminus that was invading Citadel space with intent to wipe the Council off the map and raze their homeworlds (And assuming the army was capable of doing so), the stakes would have been much smaller--no matter what, organic life would have gone on. People would suffer under the new government, but they would survive. But that would not have made me care about the fate of the galaxy--or my crewmembers--any less. They were well-written, and I cared about them for who they were, not what might happen to them.

-Tolan

"Loss makes everything subjective. You realize apocalypses are exclusively personal. Nothing is a clichée when it happens to you."

Claiming he does not understand storytelling is a bold accusation, but apart from the argument between you two, I agree with your notion wholeheartedly. It's called dramatic scope  for a reason.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 16 avril 2013 - 12:43 .

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Only-Twin wrote...

How bout we come up with some names for Bioware.

Mass Effect: Vengeance
Mass Effect: Reloaded
Mass Effect: Deception
Mass Effect: The Return of Mass Effect
Mass Effect: Resurrection
Mass Effect: The Curse of Mass Effect
Mass Effect: Redemption

You do know that Mass Effect: Deception was the title to the fan loathed 4th ME novel and Mass Effect: Redemption was the title to the first ME comic book series?

[ghost9191]

but say if it doesn't happen before, during, or after ME 3 than does that mean it is set in a different universe of the ME universe?

but i suppose cutting what happened through ME 1-3 completely out of it would make sense. hell it is a prequel i hope it brings up characters that were there from the beginning . as in first contact

well my opinion. just don't think they should ignore and not reference anything

[FFinfinity1]

Kezzup wrote...

For those of you unaware, Chris Priestly recently wrote THIS on another thread here on this forum:

So, out of a bit of respect for Chris' wishes, I propose we come up with a new temporary acronym for the next installment in the Mass Effect franchise. It's nothing too important, but it's something I felt worth putting into effect.

Personally, I'd go for NME, which could either stand for "New Mass Effect" or "Next Mass Effect". It's the same three characters as ME4, so it wouldn't be too hard.

Now, as they say, discuss.

ME3.9?