214 réponses à ce sujet

[EagleScoutDJB]

The truth of the matter is Bioware is/was, I'm not sure which anymore, good at creating characters and stories that we care about, they do not need the Mass Effect name to make a good game. After everything that happened last year why would they want the Mass Effect name attached to a story that sounds like it could just as easily be set in a new IP, they are just asking for people to judge the games based on how they feel about ME3 before they even know anything about the game.

[TheRevanchist]

78stonewobble wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...

Why make an alternate universe with no Reapers when we just spent 3 games killing the Reapers.

BioWare tried and failed to make different types of endings, Mass Effect 4 is a time for them to fix it all by just having it start off with the Reapers dead. And the galaxy involved in a power struggle between all the races. Yes, including those races that you had the option to wipe out.

That way all the fans can just forget that Mass Effect 3 ever existed.

The Reapers are a none factor in eaither scenario, the fact you spent three games killing them is completely irrelevent to the new ME games going forward.

Not quite...

The reapers still exist in control and synthesis scenarios and the destroy scenario have the disadvantage of wiping out the geth.

In the first 2 scenarios the reapers could potentially be used maliciously OR they could certainly be used to "fix" any conflict.

If you, to quote back to the future, erase them from history. You are free from those constrictions.

I did not say they had to be erased from history, only removed from the equation at an earlier time. Like a Phyyric Prothean victory, their victory coming at such a cost that they could not recover and still die out, still leaveing their ruins and such behind for everyone else to find and continue down the same path. As for the Rachni, just make their invasion what we originally thought it was, agressive speices  trying to kill everyone.

[essarr71]

kylecouch wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

KevShep wrote...

chidingewe8036 wrote...

I am not buying ME4 without Shepard hell to the no

This^...why does Shepards story have to end? (destroy canon)

Because Mass Effect's universe does not revolve around Shepard, much like Dragon Age does not revolve around The Warden.

Right.  I mean Halo was able to get rid of Maste-... nevermind. 


 

They killed Cortana...

Besides that Bungie left very blatent sequal bait at the end of Halo 3, it was very clearly not over, theres a difference. For the most part the story of Shepard is pretty damn over, weather you agree with what defines "over" or not is another story, but anyone with some sense can clearly tell the difference.

Cortana has nothing to do with the point.

Anyone with some sense would actually understand that Shepard is Bioware's signature character.  They (and especially EA) know that Shep sells.  So "pretty damn over" is pretty flimsy.  Unless you think they can't bring Shep back from the dead... oh right, they've done that already.  I guess I'm talking nonsense.

The ME universe DOES infact revolve around Shepard.  Going forward without Shep and after ME3s reception is a risk.  I'm not saying it wont work, but you can bet your ass that if Bioware has the balls to try, and they fail, Shep will return again.

[Belisarius25]

Either way is a risk really.

If they base the next games around Shepard, they'll irritate people who accepted the whole "Shepard's story is over"/confirmations of that and also run the risk of really really annoying people if they take the story in a direction that people don't like. Especially if they make choices about certain aspects of the story becoming canon in order to make the narrative easier to write/follow (imagine, for example, the reaction of people who don't like the control ending if they made that canon. Even worse if they do so in order to make AI!Shepard a villain).

Conversely, if they don't have Shepard around there's risks too - people may not think it's "really" a Mass Effect game without Shepard, there's at least some people who don't consider Shepard's story over, building a new narrative around a new protagonist might be really difficult, and so on.

If they go the 'new protagonist/no Shepard' route and fail I am not convinced there'd be another Mass Effect game afterwards, actually. I guess it'd depend on what the failure was.

[k.lalh]

Belisarius25 wrote...

Either way is a risk really.

If they base the next games around Shepard, they'll irritate people who accepted the whole "Shepard's story is over"/confirmations of that and also run the risk of really really annoying people if they take the story in a direction that people don't like. Especially if they make choices about certain aspects of the story becoming canon in order to make the narrative easier to write/follow (imagine, for example, the reaction of people who don't like the control ending if they made that canon. Even worse if they do so in order to make AI!Shepard a villain).

Conversely, if they don't have Shepard around there's risks too - people may not think it's "really" a Mass Effect game without Shepard, there's at least some people who don't consider Shepard's story over, building a new narrative around a new protagonist might be really difficult, and so on.

If they go the 'new protagonist/no Shepard' route and fail I am not convinced there'd be another Mass Effect game afterwards, actually. I guess it'd depend on what the failure was.

I personally think it's a bigger risk to move the story forward without Shepard. While the hardcore fans would be able to understand a ME game without Shepard, the more casual fans who identify with Shepard, would not be able to identify with the series as easily.

I've mentioned this several times before, but Shepard is Mass Effect, just as much as Master Chief is Halo.

[Mcfly616]

Shepard is not coming back. The Mass Effect universe doesn't need him to. Not to mention, being Shepard without any Reapers to fight? Wouldn't be right. In fact, it'd be weird. Shepards story was always sort of tied to the Reapers. They gave him purpose. He saved the galaxy 3 times, let him rest.

Mass Effect can and will succeed without Shepard. You're smoking some good green if you actually think that the universe revolves around him and that it won't survive beyond his story.

I suppose you think the Star Wars universe revolves around Luke or Anakin Skywalker? And Star Trek revolves around Captain Kirk? Riiiight.


On another note, Bungie never said Halo 3 was the end to Chiefs story. They specifically said it was the end of the Human/Covenant War story arc, so....

[k.lalh]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Shepard is not coming back. The Mass Effect universe doesn't need him to. Not to mention, being Shepard without any Reapers to fight? Wouldn't be right. In fact, it'd be weird. Shepards story was always sort of tied to the Reapers. They gave him purpose. He saved the galaxy 3 times, let him rest.

Mass Effect can and will succeed without Shepard. You're smoking some good green if you actually think that the universe revolves around him and that it won't survive beyond his story.

I suppose you think the Star Wars universe revolves around Luke or Anakin Skywalker? And Star Trek revolves around Captain Kirk? Riiiight.


On another note, Bungie never said Halo 3 was the end to Chiefs story. They specifically said it was the end of the Human/Covenant War story arc, so....

Fair enough, but the over arching theme was still there in Star Wars and AFAIK Star Trek. The Mass Effect universe was always about the conflict between Organics vs Synthetics, but in two of the endings where that conflict is resvolved, Shepard dies. In the one where that conflict isn't permanently resolved Shepard lives. Thus attaching him to the primary theme of the series. I don't know a heck of a lot about Star Trek, but I can speak for Star Wars.

In the events following Episode Six, the battle between Good vs. Evil, Jedi vs Sith, continues to have Skywalker attached to it. It was like that with Thrawn, the Vong, and now again The One Sith. The only time it didn't have The Skywalkers: Anakin, Luke, or his decendants/family attatched was in the Old Republic Era, which would be a prequel.

Star Trek isn't the same beast, it was serialized, and the exploits of Kirk & Co. lasted well beyond one Story Arc. so that is a different story altogether.

I still believe that Shepard is an intristic part of the ME universe, and the universe needs him to thrive, whether or not he is a playable character.

Modifié par k.lalh, 27 janvier 2013 - 07:59 .

[Fnork]

kylecouch wrote...

As Mr Priestly has stated, he disagrees with people thinking it can only be a prequal or a sequal. Now sure many of you might think he is full of crap, I myself am guilty of this on occasion, however I think this time hes trying to actually tell us the game plan without getting into trouble. Basiclly I think "ME4" will boil down to this, alternate reality Mass Effect where there never were any Reapers to begin with. This lets them avoid having to pick a canon ending and thus pissing people off, and also avoids a boring Prequal that while -possibly- interesting would ultimately probably not be too successful.

What do you think? Would you be at all interested if the next games are in an alternate reality without Reapers? 

I'd welcome it. In fact, if they'd ever confirm going that route I'd probably a little less apprehensive about the eventual ME4. Never in a million years will I buy a prequel and I'd be very apprehensive about a sequel.

[fainmaca]

78stonewobble wrote...
So I get to pick whether it's a dream or not...

Sorry I still don't see the attraction.

But ... in principle I'm for the most choice to the most people so.

Well the attraction for me was the potential to play through ME3 again, this time with Bioware having learned from their mistakes the first time around and not doing things like neglecting previous squaddies, minimising choice and consequence and above all not pulling an ending out of the air at the end.

I don't believe in the theory that shall not be named for fear of summoning the Evil one, but frankly I think it a better alternative than what was given. The fact that Bioware have created a lore that could and would support them if they did an alternate version, and that I feel a large part of their fanbase would happily go for this if it could be demonstrated to be a good product, means Bioware stand in a truly rare position that other creative enterprises would kill for. Not many creators get a second chance.

I mean, surely any market analyst can see the potential for this. You have a portion of the fanbase craving an alternate way to end their Shepard's story (minority or majority, there's no denying its a significant portion. Large enough for any sane businessman to sit up and take note). In addition, you should get the ones okay with the ending, but eager for any more time in the ME universe, you'll get the more casual gamers who'll pick it up and play it once, those who played the old one and felt indifferent about it, but will go for something to pass the time, and a decent (but please, not overhyped) ad campaign will undoubtedly draw in new players. In fact the only ones who would not go for it are the most hardcore of the disenfranchised (definately don't think there are that many who would ignore Biowware trying again), and the most devoted of the pro-enders (again probably not that many).

I mean, 78, if Bioware said tomorrow that they were working on a new ME game, and it was an alternate version of the end to Shepard's story (with or without the ability to accept an import from the current ME3 as I said, but definately accepting imports from ME2), would you buy it? If they did this, and went the whole hog and made a new game to address lessons learned instead of using a DLC to patch over issues that many of us (if not all) had with the latest offering.

I'd go for it. I'd watch the dev cycle carefully, for sure, but at the moment I'd certainly want to buy it.

[AlanC9]

k.lalh wrote...
I personally think it's a bigger risk to move the story forward without Shepard. While the hardcore fans would be able to understand a ME game without Shepard, the more casual fans who identify with Shepard, would not be able to identify with the series as easily. 

I've mentioned this several times before, but Shepard is Mass Effect, just as much as Master Chief is Halo.

If this is true, then Mass Effect needs to die.

[AlanC9]

fainmaca wrote...
I mean, 78, if Bioware said tomorrow that they were working on a new ME game, and it was an alternate version of the end to Shepard's story (with or without the ability to accept an import from the current ME3 as I said, but definately accepting imports from ME2), would you buy it? If they did this, and went the whole hog and made a new game to address lessons learned instead of using a DLC to patch over issues that many of us (if not all) had with the latest offering.

I'd go for it. I'd watch the dev cycle carefully, for sure, but at the moment I'd certainly want to buy it.

Not only would I not buy it, but this is something that would cause me to re-evaluate buying ME4 unless ME4 decanonized the alternate ending.

[k.lalh]

AlanC9 wrote...

k.lalh wrote...
I personally think it's a bigger risk to move the story forward without Shepard. While the hardcore fans would be able to understand a ME game without Shepard, the more casual fans who identify with Shepard, would not be able to identify with the series as easily. 

I've mentioned this several times before, but Shepard is Mass Effect, just as much as Master Chief is Halo.

If this is true, then Mass Effect needs to die.

Why do you think so? We all know that Mass Effect is not going to die for at least a few more years, I'm interested in your justification.

[fainmaca]

AlanC9 wrote...
Not only would I not buy it, but this is something that would cause me to re-evaluate buying ME4 unless ME4 decanonized the alternate ending.

I don't want to be confrontational, but why? What is so wrong with Bioware doing an alternate version of this story? At no point did I say the story should be remade, or that it should force out what came before. Why must anything that isn't the Starchild be reacted to with hatred?

[Iakus]

k.lalh wrote...

I personally think it's a bigger risk to move the story forward without Shepard. While the hardcore fans would be able to understand a ME game without Shepard, the more casual fans who identify with Shepard, would not be able to identify with the series as easily.

I've mentioned this several times before, but Shepard is Mass Effect, just as much as Master Chief is Halo.

I'm fine with moving forward without Shepard.  Just as I'm fine with moving forward in Dragon Age without teh Warden or Hawke.

What I'm not willing to do is let Shepard's story end the way it does.

[k.lalh]

iakus wrote...

k.lalh wrote...

I personally think it's a bigger risk to move the story forward without Shepard. While the hardcore fans would be able to understand a ME game without Shepard, the more casual fans who identify with Shepard, would not be able to identify with the series as easily.

I've mentioned this several times before, but Shepard is Mass Effect, just as much as Master Chief is Halo.

I'm fine with moving forward without Shepard.  Just as I'm fine with moving forward in Dragon Age without teh Warden or Hawke.

What I'm not willing to do is let Shepard's story end the way it does.

I think that's the case for a lot of people, I get where you're coming from. I do believe that it doesn't make a lot of buisness sense to leave shep how he is right now. Either we continue on with him in MENext, or we get closure as to what happens to him.

[Smeffects]

They already established it wont be a sequel or prequel. It will not be part of the triology. It wont be named mass effect 4. It will be in the mass effect universe, but not related to shepard story. Think legend of zelda where its always the same universe but never really the same. Now for mass effect its gona be the same universe but not totally the same with a new hero.

Why would they do this? Because its a chance to walk away from the series and not look like you are milking it.

-New interesting characters instead of being limited to the old ones.
-Totally new story, enemy and more since you are not limited by the previous title.
-New places to explore, you arent limited to the known of previous titles.
-Possibility to keep only the best of what previous titles had.
-Get away from the ending.

You know how shepard story ended, even if poorly. You know how it began already. Expending on both is not only dangerous due to possible rate of displeasure from fans, it instantly limit the freedom of the new studio working on next mass effects.

Reboot of an alternarte mass effect universe by bioware montreal.

[TheRevanchist]

essarr71 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

KevShep wrote...

chidingewe8036 wrote...

I am not buying ME4 without Shepard hell to the no

This^...why does Shepards story have to end? (destroy canon)

Because Mass Effect's universe does not revolve around Shepard, much like Dragon Age does not revolve around The Warden.

Right.  I mean Halo was able to get rid of Maste-... nevermind. 


 

They killed Cortana...

Besides that Bungie left very blatent sequal bait at the end of Halo 3, it was very clearly not over, theres a difference. For the most part the story of Shepard is pretty damn over, weather you agree with what defines "over" or not is another story, but anyone with some sense can clearly tell the difference.

Cortana has nothing to do with the point.

Anyone with some sense would actually understand that Shepard is Bioware's signature character.  They (and especially EA) know that Shep sells.  So "pretty damn over" is pretty flimsy.  Unless you think they can't bring Shep back from the dead... oh right, they've done that already.  I guess I'm talking nonsense.

The ME universe DOES infact revolve around Shepard.  Going forward without Shep and after ME3s reception is a risk.  I'm not saying it wont work, but you can bet your ass that if Bioware has the balls to try, and they fail, Shep will return again.

Cortana has everything to do with the point. People swear up and down that Halo = Chief AND Cortana, well now Cortana is gone and Halo is still around. Like-wise, Halo Reach was not about Chief at all, and Reach was a fantastic Halo game. Halo Wars was also a good Halo game that had nothing to do with Chief, the only reason that didnt sell was because ppl are anal about RTS games on Consoles. There are also MANY Halo books where Chief is barely even mentioned let alone appear, and they sell and make money. Much like the Mass Effect books pre Deception which pretty much killed the books I assume.

Just like how Star Wars has thousands of stories that does not involve the name Skywalker, or Star Trek has dozens of episodes that does not involve the names Kirk or Spock. The fact of the matter is anyone who thinks the entire ME universe revolves around Shepard is quite frankly delusional. ME can easily survive without Shepard as long as there are enough open minded people willing to realize Shepard does not = the MEU. 

[TheRevanchist]

Smeffects wrote...

They already established it wont be a sequel or prequel. It will not be part of the triology. It wont be named mass effect 4. It will be in the mass effect universe, but not related to shepard story. Think legend of zelda where its always the same universe but never really the same. Now for mass effect its gona be the same universe but not totally the same with a new hero.

Why would they do this? Because its a chance to walk away from the series and not look like you are milking it.

-New interesting characters instead of being limited to the old ones.
-Totally new story, enemy and more since you are not limited by the previous title.
-New places to explore, you arent limited to the known of previous titles.
-Possibility to keep only the best of what previous titles had.
-Get away from the ending.

You know how shepard story ended, even if poorly. You know how it began already. Expending on both is not only dangerous due to possible rate of displeasure from fans, it instantly limit the freedom of the new studio working on next mass effects.

Reboot of an alternarte mass effect universe by bioware montreal.

It's really the safest approach to take for them. However I will make it clear, I avoid Zelda games -because- every single game does this basiclly. it always feels like the same damn game.

[shodiswe]

Without the Reapers there would have been no relays and the galaxy would have been nowhere like what it's now. the old races woudlnt have been killed or the galaxy would be controled by AI's if the Catalyst is right.... or the first species that masters FTL travel on it's own reigns supreme... that is FTL withotu help from anyone else...

The only species in this cycle that tried to create it's own FTL was Humanity. But sicne the galaxy probably had races a billion years back... maybe a few others woudl have gotten there before that time. I doubt they would all have died off like the Drell.

EDIT:
I doubt the reapers or their relays will be wiped of the design decisions.. Even if a few larger and very expensive ships might get drives with similar efficiency of relays... eventualy..

Modifié par shodiswe, 27 janvier 2013 - 09:14 .

[k.lalh]

Smeffects wrote...

They already established it wont be a sequel or prequel. It will not be part of the triology. It wont be named mass effect 4. It will be in the mass effect universe, but not related to shepard story. Think legend of zelda where its always the same universe but never really the same. Now for mass effect its gona be the same universe but not totally the same with a new hero.

Why would they do this? Because its a chance to walk away from the series and not look like you are milking it.

-New interesting characters instead of being limited to the old ones.
-Totally new story, enemy and more since you are not limited by the previous title.
-New places to explore, you arent limited to the known of previous titles.
-Possibility to keep only the best of what previous titles had.
-Get away from the ending.

You know how shepard story ended, even if poorly. You know how it began already. Expending on both is not only dangerous due to possible rate of displeasure from fans, it instantly limit the freedom of the new studio working on next mass effects.

Reboot of an alternarte mass effect universe by bioware montreal.

You could take that approach by analyzing Mr. Priestly's comments, however, I think he was pointing more to the ambiguity of the next title. They obviously haven't decided on a plot, whether or not it will be post ME3 or pre ME1, and AU is not off the table. He has no where denied that it will not be a direct sequel or prequel, and if he did, source please.

[PinkToolTheater]

I think it will involve a different galaxy, where you learn of what is going on in the other galaxies (specifically the Milky Way) and arrive in time to save Shepard from having to do any of the 3 (4) choices.

[johnj1979]

I would saythat with Mass Effect 3 the way it is, Mass Effect 4 can ONLY be a prequel to Shepard, or something the run along with Shepard, or a COMPLETE REWRITE of Mass Effect 3.

Doesn't the endings put a stop to anything after Shepard?

[essarr71]

kylecouch wrote...

Cortana has everything to do with the point. People swear up and down that Halo = Chief AND Cortana, well now Cortana is gone and Halo is still around. Like-wise, Halo Reach was not about Chief at all, and Reach was a fantastic Halo game. Halo Wars was also a good Halo game that had nothing to do with Chief, the only reason that didnt sell was because ppl are anal about RTS games on Consoles. There are also MANY Halo books where Chief is barely even mentioned let alone appear, and they sell and make money. Much like the Mass Effect books pre Deception which pretty much killed the books I assume.

And yet Chief is still around and still the face of the franchise.  Once again, you seem to just ignore the fact that the face of the franchise is still around.  Despite having success without them, despite there being tons of stories to tell without them, Microsoft knows Chief sells. 

And I'm not talking about other media.  We're not talking about books or movies or fanfics.  If you need those to push your point...  Nor did I say that it was "required" to have Shep to have ME.  I said EA knows Shep sells.  That WILL effect how they handle the series.

Just like how Star Wars has thousands of stories that does not involve the name Skywalker, or Star Trek has dozens of episodes that does not involve the names Kirk or Spock. The fact of the matter is anyone who thinks the entire ME universe revolves around Shepard is quite frankly delusional. ME can easily survive without Shepard as long as there are enough open minded people willing to realize Shepard does not = the MEU. 

And yet every Star Wars movie has involved a Skywalker.  And every Star Trek movie has involved the Enterprise.  Sure, you can make a point about DS9 and Voyager being different - but these, while perfectly interesting and well written, were nowhere near as successful.  In fact, DS9 couldn't go a few seasons without prying an Enterprise crewmember to cameo or change the direction of the series.  "See everyone!  It's still Star Trek!"

That's the point I'm making.  Stop trying to defend your point and read.  I'm not saying ME doesn't have the material to move away from Shepard.  I never had.  I'm saying Shepard sells.  Fans love Shep.  Bioware - and especially EA - know this.  That fact effects buisiness decisions.  But you want to argue that Jack Harper was the main protagonist in a comic book and think you've shut me up..  The series revolves around Shepard.  It does.  And, especially if they don't change the endings, any continuation will always refer to Shepard. 

Modifié par essarr71, 27 janvier 2013 - 09:44 .

[k.lalh]

PinkToolTheater wrote...

I think it will involve a different galaxy, where you learn of what is going on in the other galaxies (specifically the Milky Way) and arrive in time to save Shepard from having to do any of the 3 (4) choices.

While I personally don't mind the idea...do you really think the average BSNer would take kindly to DEMing the original DEM?