184 réponses à ce sujet

[rashie]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Relay issue could be solved with Control.

And I don't really see why we need another threat as huge as the Reapers. Can't we have a more down to earth enemy?

A more down to earth enemy i.e Cerberus becomes too easy to deal with for forces that are able to put up a resistance against an enemy of the scale of the reapers.

It could go off with a galactic war between the Turians and the Krogan though assuming the genophage was cured in ME3, which is a decision that would have to be made canon, as its up to the players to decide in the current trilogy. 

[zakdillon]

rashie wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Relay issue could be solved with Control.

And I don't really see why we need another threat as huge as the Reapers. Can't we have a more down to earth enemy?

A more down to earth enemy i.e Cerberus becomes too easy to deal with for forces that are able to put up a resistance against an enemy of the scale of the reapers.

It could go off with a galactic war between the Turians and the Krogan though assuming the genophage was cured in ME3, which is a decision that would have to be made canon, as its up to the players to decide in the current trilogy. 

What about a galactic civil war? I know, i know - close to star wars. But it could be implemented a bit differently. Protagonist attempts to keep the council worlds together. that sort of thing. This would give everyone an oppertunity to fill their multiple-species-as-the-main-character desires. You play as a spectre. You decide the race. The race you decide chooses the "angle" that you come from when negotiating. Who your friends are. that sort of thing. Just make shepard be KIA or MIA (or ideally an option for the main character - you can continue his story if you want, assuming you picked high EMS destroy.) This allows the player to start from a clean slate if they want, or if not, start a new story.

Idk. Seems like a pretty awesome way to wrap things up while continuing the story, or starting a new one if you want. 

[AlanC9]

Morocco Mole wrote...

ideally an option for the main character - you can continue his story if you want, assuming you picked high EMS destroy

This is literally never going to happen.

Right. The only thing Bio ever announced about the next game is no more Shepard. Literally anything else is still on the table.

[AlanC9]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Isn't that a problem with ME1, for giving you the impression that Shepard was making the choice? I agree that ME2 should have retconned the ME1 endings a bit, though.

Did it? The way it all turned out, was the council asking for Shepard's input, saying "your recommendation will carry a lot of weight". That's a far cry from saying his choice is the ultimate decision. In ME2, they could have easily said "screw you, we elected Udina instead."

I only meant what I literally said - that it gave players the impression that they were making a choice, not that the game absolutely promised the choice would matter. Undoing that would be a retcon of the impression rather than of the facts, so to speak.

And that would have bothered some people anyway. We know that would have happened because some people were bothered by the same thing in ME3.

[DukeOfNukes]

I think that's part of the problem. People tend to view "choice" as meaning you can affect the game world. Meanwhile, here in reality, our choices rarely make that big of an impact. How often do we even get as momentous a thing as "If I buy this, someone will keep their job"? The world isn't static, it doesn't sit around waiting for people to make choices.

ME1 was an interesting template. You made plenty of choices, but in the end, it all ended up the same. Maybe you had Kaidan, maybe you had Ashley. Maybe Grunt was dead. Maybe Saren killed himself. It doesn't matter, your goal was to stop Sovereign, and it's plan didn't change based on your choices.

[AlanC9]

There's also the KotOR example, where the choices are locally significant but don't change anything off the planet (with the possible exception of going DS on Manaan). Arguably true for DA:O, where the only global consequence for what you choose on the main quests is what kind of army you get in the endgame.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

ME1 was an interesting template. You made plenty of choices, but in the end, it all ended up the same. Maybe you had Kaidan, maybe you had Ashley. Maybe Grunt was dead. Maybe Saren killed himself. It doesn't matter, your goal was to stop Sovereign, and it's plan didn't change based on your choices.

I wouldn't say that's the ME1 template so much as the Bioware template.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Morocco Mole wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

I wouldn't say that's the ME1 template so much as the Bioware template.

More like the "choice" based game template. Which very few games have actually done well. And the ones that did confined it to one game only

Even my label was too narrow. Good point.

[dreamgazer]

AlanC9 wrote...

Arguably true for DA:O, where the only global consequence for what you choose on the main quests is what kind of army you get in the endgame.

I'm not certain about many things in regards to changing ME3's ending and final mission, but showing various war assets in action during the final battle---or, better yet, being able to direct them at certain times---would've helped with a lot of the "choices mattering" complaints. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

dreamgazer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Arguably true for DA:O, where the only global consequence for what you choose on the main quests is what kind of army you get in the endgame.

I'm not certain about many things in regards to changing ME3's ending and final mission, but showing various war assets in action during the final battle---or, better yet, being able to direct them at certain times---would've helped with a lot of the "choices mattering" complaints. 

At the least, it would have been nice to see the Rachni decision be worth more than what was it? 150 war assets I think?

[zakdillon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

ideally an option for the main character - you can continue his story if you want, assuming you picked high EMS destroy

This is literally never going to happen.

Right. The only thing Bio ever announced about the next game is no more Shepard. Literally anything else is still on the table.

Yeah I know they said that, but I'm just not sure I believe them. Shepard is a big name, and a huge money maker. Games are driven by money (gotta pay the bills). Maybe they'll revisit this "timeline" or whatever after a few years. It's not necessary for a good game, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. My idea arguably works better without shepard. Just throwing in my personal wishes.

Although, honestly, I'll buy any mass effect game they make. Im a sucker for space magic.

[windsea]

all i can say is look at how much effect your choices have had in the past, saving or letting the council dead in the first one only change some dialog and give us about 10 war assets more in the third one and the save or destroy the collector base had even last of a impact.

my guess is that the Reapers, Quarians, Geth, and Krogan will not play a big role in future games and Synthesis effects will be down played.

[.50CalBrainSurgeon]

Pick a cannon ending (hopefully destroy as it will give the devs a lot of narrative flexibility). It will displease players, but it will bring some continuity for a new story arc. Also focus on a smaller but much more personal scale conflict would be good. A tightly written narrative involving a few characters could fly quite well. An example would be the story of Sleeping Dogs. Yes, fairly simple focused and possibly a bit cliched , but I loved it because of the personal conflicts between the characters. Smaller scale, but nonetheless endearing characters and narrative.

[jacob taylor416]

.50CalBrainSurgeon wrote...

Pick a cannon ending (hopefully destroy as it will give the devs a lot of narrative flexibility). It will displease players, but it will bring some continuity for a new story arc. Also focus on a smaller but much more personal scale conflict would be good. A tightly written narrative involving a few characters could fly quite well. An example would be the story of Sleeping Dogs. Yes, fairly simple focused and possibly a bit cliched , but I loved it because of the personal conflicts between the characters. Smaller scale, but nonetheless endearing characters and narrative.

I'd say have a large over arching plot, like a galactic civil war, which seams relatively pointless and the main characters want nothing to do with it, and yet are pulled into it by personal issues and troubles (like some crap about honor, or family), which they have no control over.  Also, many more characters should die, and in meaningful and meaningless ways; the writes need to take a month off and just read Camus's The Stranger, and play Dark Souls. 


 

Modifié par jacob taylor416, 11 juillet 2013 - 09:18 .

[Display Name Owner]

Honestly they're going to have to canonise some things. A lot of things actually. People will just have to live with what they pick. Actually, Synthesis is so unfit for a game that they could strike it off the list, imo. But even disregarding the endings (Destroy would be the best choice for continuation if you ask me), as has been pointed out, there are entire species that can exist or not. So yeah, they're just going to have to pick a canon set and go with it. Maybe, MAYBE they could put some variation in, the fate of the Rachni is less important than that of the Krogan for example, so that could be something to put on a pre-beginning menu or something.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

They're not making a sequel. They've already confirmed this. I've been predicting an alternate timeline for awhile now.


Like the original Star Trek (Spock and Kirk) and The Next Generation (Picard and Data). It'll be the same Mass Effect we all know and love. There just won't be any Reapers or Shepard or his/her crew. It'll be a new adventure with the same pillars and staples of the series all dressed up in pretty graphics for a new generation (Citadel, Relays, Asari, Turian, Krogan, Human, Salarian)

...that's still a sequel. An alternate timeline would be setting it in some parrell world where a drastic detail of the current series is altered. Like what if there were no reapers? Or what if garrus was the main character?

Setting it in the future of the timeline makes it a sequel. Even without any of the other characters. For example, Dragon Age 2 doesn't have the same main character or crew as dragon age 1 and is set in the future of the first game. It is still a sequel.

sequel: A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.

No, just because a story is told further along in a fictional universes timeline, doesn't make it a sequel. It needs to be a continuation of the events and/or characters from the previous installment.

And an Alternate Timeline/Universe is definitely not a sequel.

No, it really doesn't. In order for it to be an alternate timeline, events within that timeline would need to be altered, thus creating the justification for that title. An alternate universe is thus also taking the current universe, leaving it, and going to another universe's plain of exsistence.

Nothing in your definition says it needs to be a direct sequel, or it's not a sequel.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Here's an alternative timeline mass effect story.

The protheans were never wiped out, and the reapers defeated 50, 000 years ago by them. This is humanities story in trying to overcome their prothean masters and gain independance, led by the human simply known as shepard.

Here's a sequel story,

100 years after the reaper wars, the galaxy has slowly managed to rebuild. Though the massive amount of bloodshed is long since over, new tensions have begun to form. The galaxy stands on the precipice of war, between the newly formed galactic council, and the union of terminus systems, who both seek more power on the slate the reapers left clean. You must find a way to navigate this new and changing galaxy, and assemble a team to help keep the peace, or help speed it towards it's destruction.

[jacob taylor416]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

They're not making a sequel. They've already confirmed this. I've been predicting an alternate timeline for awhile now.


Like the original Star Trek (Spock and Kirk) and The Next Generation (Picard and Data). It'll be the same Mass Effect we all know and love. There just won't be any Reapers or Shepard or his/her crew. It'll be a new adventure with the same pillars and staples of the series all dressed up in pretty graphics for a new generation (Citadel, Relays, Asari, Turian, Krogan, Human, Salarian)

...that's still a sequel. An alternate timeline would be setting it in some parrell world where a drastic detail of the current series is altered. Like what if there were no reapers? Or what if garrus was the main character?

Setting it in the future of the timeline makes it a sequel. Even without any of the other characters. For example, Dragon Age 2 doesn't have the same main character or crew as dragon age 1 and is set in the future of the first game. It is still a sequel.

sequel: A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.

No, just because a story is told further along in a fictional universes timeline, doesn't make it a sequel. It needs to be a continuation of the events and/or characters from the previous installment.

And an Alternate Timeline/Universe is definitely not a sequel.

No, it really doesn't. In order for it to be an alternate timeline, events within that timeline would need to be altered, thus creating the justification for that title. An alternate universe is thus also taking the current universe, leaving it, and going to another universe's plain of exsistence.

Nothing in your definition says it needs to be a direct sequel, or it's not a sequel.

It's not an alternate timeline because none of the occurrences would be altered, and it would have to occur the same time as another Mass Effect story to be an "alternate" timeline.  It could be considered a sequel in the sense of it's expanding the universe of Mass Effect, put it's a little bit of a jump because it doesn't continue the Sheppard or Reaper story, and therefore is known as a "stand alone sequel".

Definition of stand alone sequel from wikipedia:
"When sequels are set in either the same universe or one very similar to that of their predecessors yet have very little if any connection to said predecessors, then the work is referred to as astand-alone sequel"[/b]

Modifié par jacob taylor416, 12 juillet 2013 - 12:56 .

[NeonFlux117]

They can't. ME4 or whatever it will be called, will be an alternate timeline game. Heavily focused on running and gunning and shooting and action elements. With a substantial MP element- both competitive and coop. All the RPG stuff will be streamline or not featured, with the exceptions of- skill tree, character creation and modding of weapons and gear. There will be very little to 0 side quests and probably only 1 or maybe 2 hub worlds, 0 loot and streamlined dialogue. Think more ME3/gears of war style, less ME1 and ME2 style.

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 12 juillet 2013 - 12:40 .

[Mcfly616]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Here's an alternative timeline mass effect story.

The protheans were never wiped out, and the reapers defeated 50, 000 years ago by them. This is humanities story in trying to overcome their prothean masters and gain independance, led by the human simply known as shepard.

Here's a sequel story,

100 years after the reaper wars, the galaxy has slowly managed to rebuild. Though the massive amount of bloodshed is long since over, new tensions have begun to form. The galaxy stands on the precipice of war, between the newly formed galactic council, and the union of terminus systems, who both seek more power on the slate the reapers left clean. You must find a way to navigate this new and changing galaxy, and assemble a team to help keep the peace, or help speed it towards it's destruction.

I know what an alternate timeline is. I'm simply stating that an AU (alternate universe) isn't a sequel.

And your "sequel story" doesnt qualify as a sequel at all imo. That's simply a new story told further along in the timeline.

[Mcfly616]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

They can't. ME4 or whatever it will be called, will be an alternate timeline game.

which is what I've been saying.

Think more ME3/ME2 style, less ME1 style.

fixed that for you. If anything ME2 is where the huge disconnect and difference in gameplay style began. ME3 simply refined and evolved the type of game that ME2 brought to the table. (A corridor shooter).

ME1 stands on its own. It's an RPG. A completely different type of game than the sequels

Modifié par Mcfly616, 12 juillet 2013 - 12:56 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

So if nothing in the universe was altered, or changed, from the previous game outside of the narrative focus, than how exactly is this an alnternate universe?

To illustrate, here is a snipit from wikipedia, as there is no merran webster dictionary or official definiton for the term "alternate universe" it seems, and only one for parallel universe.

"An alternative universe (also known as alternate universe or alternate reality), commonly abbreviated as AU,is a type or form of in whichcanonical facts of setting or characterization in the universe being explored or written about are deliberately changed.

Stories that fall into this definition are usually what-ifs, where possibilities arising from different circumstances or character decisions are explored. Unlike regular fan fiction, which generally remains within the boundaries of the canon set out by the author, alternative universe fiction writers like to explore the possibilities of pivotal changes made to characters' history, motivations or environment. The author gets an established audience for their story: the fans of the original, and then subsequently altered, universe, which they would not get if they wrote it as an original story instead of fan fiction. Some of the best fan fiction writers, who aspire to be published authors, can take advantage of this inversely by developing a loyal audience, the readers of their fan fiction, for books with original
storylines that they might publish at a later date."

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 12 juillet 2013 - 01:01 .

[Mcfly616]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So if nothing in the universe was altered, or changed, from the previous game outside of the narrative focus, than how exactly is this an alnternate universe?

I think you're misunderstanding me. Obviously if it's an alternate universe, certain things are going to be slightly different. I never said they wouldnt. I just said that AU isn't a sequel.


On the topic of sequels: if a story is told further down the current timeline ("after" ME3), but the narrative focus has changed, then it isn't a sequel.


Simply put: in order to be considered a "sequel", it needs to be in the same timeline/universe as the Shepard Trilogy....and it must continue the narrative of those games. Otherwise, its not a sequel.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 12 juillet 2013 - 01:04 .