188 réponses à ce sujet

[Chala]

Han Shot First wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Right now what I am expecting is Shepard and crew aren't part of the game and it won't focus on any of the issues of the first three games. It doesn't have to be an alternate universe or prequel for those conditions to happen.

Its just seems to be like any post by a BioWare employee people read ten words into every one said.

Here is the relevant quote by Walters:

"Well, I can’t get into details, but the idea is that we have agreed to tell a story that doesn’t relate necessarily to any of the Shepard events at all, whatsoever. Beyond that, that’s what we’ve been deciding for awhile. But throughout it all, one of the key things is that it has to be Mass Effect. It can’t just feel like a spin-off. It has to feel like a Mass Effect game at its heart, at its core. Just without the Shepard character or the Shepard specific companions."

I don't think fans are reading too far into things in seeing that bolded bit as indicating that the game won't be a sequel. Rather than saying that the next game won't have any connection to Shepard, he says that it won't have any connection to the "Shepard events." It would be impossible to have a sequel setting that doesn't mention in any way the Reaper War and does not deal at all with the consequences of the endings of the Shepard trilogy.

Call me hopeless crazy, but the "necessarily" makes it sounds that for them, there's no obligation to connect the next game with the first trilogy rather than "We won't be making a sequel".
Also, this wouldn't be the first time that someone from Bioware made a very poor choice of words and examples (The last famous one was "Deep, meaningful choices" while showing the typical "Burn this village or not" scene)

Then again, I might be wrong... Very, very wrong

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 15 octobre 2013 - 05:40 .

[Manc4life7]

Han Shot First wrote...

The thing that grabs my attention is the use of the phrase "Shepard events," rather than just Shepard.

To me that seems to indicate not just that the game won't relate to Shepard, but also won't relate to any of the events he participated in. That seems to rule out a sequel, as you can't move forward without referencing or addressing the events of the Reaper War.

The question is if that is what Mac actually meant, or whether he poorly phrased that statement.

I get where you are coming from, but I think we are all over-thinking the use of the phrase "related to".  Simple mention of certain events of the past is not something I would consider "related to", as it is used here.  Now I could be wrong, but I really just think Walters is trying to really get the point accross that the new game is an entirely new story with all new characters in the already rich and vibrant ME universe, and really cut that connection most people have where by ME=Shepard and Shepard=ME.

[Han Shot First]

I will say that I hope you all are right.

I'm much more interested in a sequel than a prequel or AU.

[dorktainian]

does anyone care anymore?

[Manc4life7]

dorktainian wrote...

does anyone care anymore?

Nope.  No one at all.  That is why we are not talking about it.  Thanks for the contribution. <_<

[dreamgazer]

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

[Han Shot First]

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

Right now I kind of feel the same way, though I hesitate to use the word "never." I will say that a Mass Effect game with a prequel or alternate universe setting is going to have look or sound amazing in every other feature or area for me to get past a lack of interest in the setting. I'm more willing to tolerate some features I'm not crazy about if the setting interests me.

[KwangtungTiger]

Han Shot First wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

Right now I kind of feel the same way, though I hesitate to use the word "never." I will say that a Mass Effect game with a prequel or alternate universe setting is going to have look or sound amazing in every other feature or area for me to get past a lack of interest in the setting. I'm more willing to tolerate some features I'm not crazy about if the setting interests me.

I think if they did a prequel from a different time frame (different races and so forth) it could be interesting.

Look at Halo Reach, you knew exactly what was coming at the end if you played the previous series but didn't stop it from being a good game (my opinion). The ending was just Boss............

[Han Shot First]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

Right now I kind of feel the same way, though I hesitate to use the word "never." I will say that a Mass Effect game with a prequel or alternate universe setting is going to have look or sound amazing in every other feature or area for me to get past a lack of interest in the setting. I'm more willing to tolerate some features I'm not crazy about if the setting interests me.

I think if they did a prequel from a different time frame (different races and so forth) it could be interesting.

Look at Halo Reach, you knew exactly what was coming at the end if you played the previous series but didn't stop it from being a good game (my opinion). The ending was just Boss............

Halo is a shooter however, not an RPG.

The problem with prequel settings in an RPG is that if the events of the game are already part of the known canon, the player has very little agency. One of the main features of RPGs is having choices and being able to affect the game world in different ways through those choices. In a prequel setting that is going to be quite limited as there is a already a canon outcome.

Lets say for a example a prequel is set during the Krogan Rebellion. That game is always going to end with the genophage being deployed whether you like it or not, or alternatively, you'll be given a choice not to deploy it in a non-canon ending. In an RPG a prequel setting comes with limits that sequels don't have.

[LandoCalrisian]

Who cares if its a prequel or not? I mean, really, you'll all buy and play it, and if they live up to the quality of ME1-3 we'll all love it.

It could be a sequel and suck or be great, it could be prequel and suck or be great, as long as there's a compelling story and characters, I'm cool with whatever.

Also, "nothing to do with shephard" could mean 1000 years down the line when the reaper war is just a "distant memory". If the games running on frostbite, i'm sure that'll allow for some amazing ultra-advanced biotics and extreme tech.

[LandoCalrisian]

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

You're still checking up on and posting in the ME3 forums over a year and a half after release. You're going to buy it no matter what because you're hooked.

[dreamgazer]

LandoCalrisian wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

You're still checking up on and posting in the ME3 forums over a year and a half after release. You're going to buy it no matter what because you're hooked.

(laughs)

You seem to think that you know more about me than I do, Billy Dee.  That's adorable!

[Arcian]

dreamgazer wrote...

LandoCalrisian wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

You're still checking up on and posting in the ME3 forums over a year and a half after release. You're going to buy it no matter what because you're hooked.

(laughs)

You seem to think that you know more about me than I do, Billy Dee.  That's adorable!

>implying that guy is cool enough to be Billy Dee
Shiggydiggy

[KwangtungTiger]

Han Shot First wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

Right now I kind of feel the same way, though I hesitate to use the word "never." I will say that a Mass Effect game with a prequel or alternate universe setting is going to have look or sound amazing in every other feature or area for me to get past a lack of interest in the setting. I'm more willing to tolerate some features I'm not crazy about if the setting interests me.

I think if they did a prequel from a different time frame (different races and so forth) it could be interesting.

Look at Halo Reach, you knew exactly what was coming at the end if you played the previous series but didn't stop it from being a good game (my opinion). The ending was just Boss............

Halo is a shooter however, not an RPG.

The problem with prequel settings in an RPG is that if the events of the game are already part of the known canon, the player has very little agency. One of the main features of RPGs is having choices and being able to affect the game world in different ways through those choices. In a prequel setting that is going to be quite limited as there is a already a canon outcome.

Lets say for a example a prequel is set during the Krogan Rebellion. That game is always going to end with the genophage being deployed whether you like it or not, or alternatively, you'll be given a choice not to deploy it in a non-canon ending. In an RPG a prequel setting comes with limits that sequels don't have.

While it is indeed a Shooter as opposed to a RPG. If you read all the literature you can be just as much invested into Halo as you can the ME series. I know, I know......that would mean having to read but its still a valid point.

A sequel to ME3 brings a whole new world of headaches that a prequel wouldn't. If done "RIGHT", it could be a great game.

Given all this I would still rather not have a prequel.

The more I think about it the whole alternate universe thing may be better with less potential plot issues to watch out for.

[AlexMBrennan]

logically, suggests it's a prequel

No it doesn't - it could be anything other than a direct sequel starring Shepard.

The problem with prequel settings in an RPG is that if the events of the game are already part of the known canon, the player has very little agency.

I doubt that Bioware would mind making a completely linear RPG prequel.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 15 octobre 2013 - 07:14 .

[Vortex13]

 I honestly don't know which way Bioware is going with ME: Next, I have hopes and theories, but with Mac saying the the next game won't reference Shepard or Shepard actions WHATSOEVER I don't know.


Prequels are (IMO) a horrible idea, especially for an RPG. A Mass Effect game set during the First Contact War? We know how that ends. Krogan Rebellions? We know how that one plays out as well. Prothean cycle? The end of that one is everyone you have ever known and loved dies.


AU would be interesting, but all of these suggestions about the Reapers never existing wouldn't make sense (IMO) without a massive rewrite of the entire foundation of the series, and because I personally liked the Reapers (Harbinger and Soveriegn). If you delete the Reapers from existance in ME:AU you would also, acording to current lore, remove the Mass Relays (Reliable communication and trade routes), the Citadel (Centralized Galactic Government), Mass Effect technology (FTL travel), and quite possibly the creation of biotics (ezo exposure). Sure one could rewrite the lore to reflect the change, but you are looking at a massive overhaul that will fundementally alter what made Mass Effect, Mass Effect.


A sequel set hundreds or thousands of years in the future wouldn't really work either (IMO), if you are going at it in an attepmt to reduce all ending choices to zero. Saying that Synthesis 'wore off' is not only ignoring the greater implimications of the ending, but even if you went far enough into the future to where all of the endings didn't matter, the setting would not longer be reconizable. Unless you consider Mass Effect sepcies, and technology to be stagnant (like Star Wars and WH40K) the sequel would be totally unregocnizable. I mean if you had an RPG set on Earth in 8,000 BC and then the next one took place 10,000 years later, you would not even be dealing with the same setting anymore.

[RiouHotaru]

There's nothing wrong with a prequel. Just because we know how it eventually turns out (Doomed By Canon) doesn't mean there aren't interesting stories to tell. The comics told us how the Illusive Man came to be, which was telling an interesting story about something a time period whose events we already know about.

Something about the FCW or the Krogan Rebellions would be nice, IMO, because all we hear about those events is anecdotes from people who were there. But to play a game and actually be IN that time, to experience it first-hand?

That'd be awesome.

[Seishoujyo]

dreamgazer wrote...

LandoCalrisian wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

You're still checking up on and posting in the ME3 forums over a year and a half after release. You're going to buy it no matter what because you're hooked.

(laughs)

You seem to think that you know more about me than I do, Billy Dee.  That's adorable!

No he's right, if ME3 is so bad and ME4 will suck so why are you still here ? You will probably buy the limited edition of ME4, we know people like you always barking and the first to put the cash on the table.

Modifié par Seishoujyo, 15 octobre 2013 - 08:16 .

[Malanek]

I think too much is being read into his words. I can see where people are coming from because if you assume he is being 100% accurate, then a sequel in any near future doesn't fit with what he said. But it is entirely possible he wasn't completely accurate and rather talking in a more general sense to make clear that Shepard is not in it and it isn't a spin off based on other squad mates etc.

It also confirms it isn't set in the Reaper war from a different perspective. I hope it is a sequel, with no import and a destroy cannon ending, but with as much as possible kept ambiguous.

[Stakrin]

I really hope not. I want to see the advancement of these species not their beginnings and other things I have read about.

I am assuming it will be a prequel or side story, not after Shepard's story, unfortunately, because if it doesn't relate to Shepard at all, there are four species who would have to be taken out if the game/being referenced entirely.

[Erez Kristal]

Reapers Won(Like is shown in all the endings except refuse)
and now people seek refuge in Parallel worlds?

I could see a story about that.

[dreamgazer]

Seishoujyo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

LandoCalrisian wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

There's a short list of things BioWare could do with the next game that'll guarantee that I'll likely never play it, simply due to a lack of interest. A prequel is near the top.

You're still checking up on and posting in the ME3 forums over a year and a half after release. You're going to buy it no matter what because you're hooked.

(laughs)

You seem to think that you know more about me than I do, Billy Dee.  That's adorable!

No he's right, if ME3 is so bad and ME4 will suck so why are you still here ? You will probably buy the limited edition of ME4, we know people like you always barking and the first to put the cash on the table.

All these words---and apparently I'm barking now!---being put in my mouth.  Oh, BSN.  You're such a special little snowflake. 

You do realize that somebody could enjoy ME3 and still not find the idea of a prequel desirable, right? 

You do realize that people can simply not like the direction of a story, yes? And not have an agenda?

But please, do continue with your judgmental delusions and flaccid attempts at trying to analyze others.  Now that is extremely revealing of the type of character somebody is. Puts quite a smile on my face.

[Jaulen]

Manc4life7 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I don't think fans are reading too far into things in seeing that bolded bit as indicating that the game won't be a sequel. Rather than saying that the next game won't have any connection to Shepard, he says that it won't have any connection to the "Shepard events." It would be impossible to have a sequel setting that doesn't mention in any way the Reaper War and does not deal at all with the consequences of the endings of the Shepard trilogy.

What I feel like some people are missing is that a story can be told in the same universe as the Reaper War and Shepard without being directly related to it/him/her.

I can tell a story about the Gulf War that has no direct relation to or involvment with the events of WWII, but that doesn't mean that in my story-world WWII didn't happen.

EDIT:  I'll take this a step further.  I think most people would agree the following statment is, for the most part, correct:

The events of Mass Effect 2 are not directly related to the First Contact War.

See where I am going with this?  Making a Mass Effect game (I won't even call it a sequal) set X hundred years after the events of the Reaper War does not make what Walters said dishonest or incorrect.

Well, to be fair, if the ending to WWII had been different....then the Gulf War might never have happened, or the players/motivations for the Gulf War would be different than what actually happened in our history. So if it was a sequal (meaning A.S.) it would have to have SOME sort of callback to what Shepard did with the Reapers.

I could see the following (but I'm a bad writer/storyteller so....)
1) Alternate universe.....crew (not the Shep crew) goes through a space-time bubble like what EDI brought up about what could happen when exploding the relays
2) Concurrent....takes place in a galaxy/system without an active relay....so could be happening at the same time, but they have no news....totally new races....no human protag?
3) Concurrent.....story of a 'lost in space' crew.....first contact with new advanced species...so happens at same time as Reaper War, but has no effect on them
4) Concurrent....happenning at same time in same at War Universe as the Reaper War, but smaller scope story....what's happening in the wider universe is an impediment to this story line, but doesn't directly effect it, and it wraps up B$ the end of the ME3 timeline and doesn't effect it
5) Prequal.

I'll admit, I'm one of the people that would likely NOT buy a next ME installment, although I keep following the news about it (cause I'm hoping I hear something that makes me go....'Ah F it and what happened with ME3....this looks awesome!' )

But a Prequal would be an instant non-buy for me.....as would playing a side story where the main story line follows one of Shep's companions back/missing stories.

The other options I listed above would be......possibilities based on what news I would hear about the storyline.

A sequal set in an A.S. timeline? I'd be leery of myself.....buuuut....again, I'd have to hear what the storyline was.