188 réponses à ce sujet

[Vapaa]

Why would it be a prequel and why would it be a big deal ?

When you think about it, Shepard's adventures are not really know by the public, it's mostly under political secret (ME1) or takes places in the loosely documented criminal world (ME2)
Only ME3 made Shepard a war hero in the eyes of the public opinion, before that s/he was only known to be the first human spectre that stood in front of a Geth invasion, and the ME universe has a bmuch bigger scope than that.

[JoltDealer]

I've gone into this topic too many times with usually the same one or two people on this board. Rebooting the franchise because you disliked the ending of Mass Effect 3, is ridiculous. It seems any speculation regarding the next Mass Effect game is an opportunity for some to once again say, "I don't give a rat's ass about the topic of discussion, but I'm not doing a damn thing unless I get the Mass Effect I wanted." It seems like once people finally began realizing that Bioware really meant they weren't going to change the ending, they shifted gears to this reboot idea.

For all we know, the next Mass Effect could be set a thousand years in the future, when the events of the Shepard Trilogy don't even matter. It would be essentially a fresh start for the series and even a reboot in its own right, but because it is set in a universe where the first (AND ONLY) three major games of the series are canon, you wouldn't be willing to accept it. Hell, under the right circumstances, you could still pretend that the original trilogy didn't happen. If that doesn't work, you could always deal with it and move on. After a certain point, you don't care about the series, its creators, or its content...you just care about you getting exactly what you want.

However, I digress from the purpose of this thread. Will Mass Effect 4 be a prequel? Unlikely. As a multimedia design student, I write, direct, produce, film, edit, design, and code all sorts of things. I can firmly say that making the next Mass Effect game a prequel, which is entirely possible, would be severely limiting from a writing and world building standpoint. Bioware already gets enough flack from their fans for what is or is not "canon." A prequel would raise fourteen different kinds of hell.

My money is one it being a somewhat indirect sequel set in the distant future, at least a couple hundred years after Mass Effect 3. Just easier to move on that way. Plus the story can be whatever they want without having to worry about how it fits into pre-existing canon.

[MrStoob]

What if it's a prequel, but it's the rise of the Leviathan and that fight?

Modifié par MrStoob, 16 octobre 2013 - 10:04 .

[KaiserShep]

That would be awful. The Leviathan's worth is pretty much spent in its DLC. Anything more would be overexposure.Do not want.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 16 octobre 2013 - 10:35 .

[ConanTheLeader]

 I really hate prequels. We know the past, it has been summed up to us.

What saddens me about prequels is the story does not move forward, we are looking at history and not what happens after the latest events. I'm the kind of guy that likes to look forward to the future and not dwell on history.

[Zaalbar]

Maybe Bioware are planning to do the JJ Abrams Star Trek alternate timeline thing, I'm sure that will go down really well with the fans.

[Funkcase]

Even if it's a prequel, I'm not worried. Deus Ex: Human revolution was a good example of a brilliant prequel, so a prequel really doesn't bother me as it doesn't mean it will automatically fail.

Modifié par Funkcase, 16 octobre 2013 - 11:58 .

[74 Wrex]

Bioware has a made history of creating good RPGs but also has made a bad history of screwing up like DA 2 and ME 3
A Prequel would be a bore they should just make a sequel set in a different Galaxy and perhaps years later after the Reaper Threat is ended

[ConanTheLeader]

zaalbar76 wrote...

Maybe Bioware are planning to do the JJ Abrams Star Trek alternate timeline thing, I'm sure that will go down really well with the fans.

Although Mass Effect is fiction, I don't like the idea of a new game telling me to disregard the trilogy as if it never existed, mainly because of the attachment to that trilogy. I don't want to pretend it never "existed". Because then why should I care about a new story if they are so easy to disregard?

[dan155]

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.

I can think of ways of doing a sequel without mentioning the consequences of the endings (bar synthesis, there's no way to avoid synthesis).  The Mass Relays were damaged at the end of ME3, it could take several decades to repair them.  ME4 could be set in an isolated part of the Galaxy cut off from Council Space due to damage to crucial Relays e.g The Terminus Systems.  Are a bunch of Terminus pirates and colonnists really going to be aware of the fate of the Krogan or the Geth if they are cut off from Council Space and the far rim?  I get the feeling that information didn't travel quickly during the Reaper war.  Did the Reapers explode or just fly away?  If it's set three decades after the war different characters could give different accounts of what they saw and nobody could be truly certain about what happened.  

[Manc4life7]

ConanTheLeader wrote...

zaalbar76 wrote...

Maybe Bioware are planning to do the JJ Abrams Star Trek alternate timeline thing, I'm sure that will go down really well with the fans.

Although Mass Effect is fiction, I don't like the idea of a new game telling me to disregard the trilogy as if it never existed, mainly because of the attachment to that trilogy. I don't want to pretend it never "existed". Because then why should I care about a new story if they are so easy to disregard?

Amen.

I am honestly suprised at the number of people asking for alternate universe (unless they are all asking for an AU with Shepard, but no Reapers).  Any sort of "reboot" or "AU", following this closely on the heels of ME1-3, is a middle finger in the face of all those fans out there still playing the heck out of the original trilogy (and loving every second of it).

[Xilizhra]

Manc4life7 wrote...

ConanTheLeader wrote...

zaalbar76 wrote...

Maybe Bioware are planning to do the JJ Abrams Star Trek alternate timeline thing, I'm sure that will go down really well with the fans.

Although Mass Effect is fiction, I don't like the idea of a new game telling me to disregard the trilogy as if it never existed, mainly because of the attachment to that trilogy. I don't want to pretend it never "existed". Because then why should I care about a new story if they are so easy to disregard?

Amen.

I am honestly suprised at the number of people asking for alternate universe (unless they are all asking for an AU with Shepard, but no Reapers).  Any sort of "reboot" or "AU", following this closely on the heels of ME1-3, is a middle finger in the face of all those fans out there still playing the heck out of the original trilogy (and loving every second of it).

Er, why? The second universe wouldn't be any realer than the current one; you can still play the original trilogy.

[Zaalbar]

Manc4life7 wrote...

ConanTheLeader wrote...

zaalbar76 wrote...

Maybe Bioware are planning to do the JJ Abrams Star Trek alternate timeline thing, I'm sure that will go down really well with the fans.

Although Mass Effect is fiction, I don't like the idea of a new game telling me to disregard the trilogy as if it never existed, mainly because of the attachment to that trilogy. I don't want to pretend it never "existed". Because then why should I care about a new story if they are so easy to disregard?

Amen.

I am honestly suprised at the number of people asking for alternate universe (unless they are all asking for an AU with Shepard, but no Reapers).  Any sort of "reboot" or "AU", following this closely on the heels of ME1-3, is a middle finger in the face of all those fans out there still playing the heck out of the original trilogy (and loving every second of it).

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of this idea myself, it just would not surprise me one bit if Bioware was to go down this route.

[Manc4life7]

Xilizhra wrote...

Er, why? The second universe wouldn't be any realer than the current one; you can still play the original trilogy.

Obviously it's a fictional world, but all we are talking about are emotional responses - mine would be that a reboot or AU where the original trilogy didn't happen lessens or cheapens said trilogy.  One of the big strengths of the ME trilogy, to me at least, is it's immersiveness - completely scrapping and revamping the entire fictional universe kills some of that "believeability".

This may not be a problem for folks who don't get sucked into fictional worlds like some people, be it games, or literature, or film. 

Modifié par Manc4life7, 16 octobre 2013 - 02:15 .

[spockjedi]

iakus wrote...
+1
The fire gutted the building.  Time to clear away the rubble and rebuild.

Xilizhra wrote...
It's not gutted, as such... but the universe diverges far too sharply in different possible directions at the end of ME3 for any direct sequel to make sense. And I'd never tolerate them just canonizing Destroy, for instance.

Good reasons, both of you. I believe that making a sequel is impracticable without canonizing an ending, and I also agree that the story is damaged beyond salvage.

[TMZuk]

ME3 gutted the universe way beyond repair.

They should forget about it and move on. A new SF franchise, preferably one where the player is not forced into an embarrassing messiah role. I can't see what could possible renew my interest in ME.

In fact, it would be great if Bioware would make a game where I do NOT have the play the center the entire universe revolts about. Something with a story that is not about the fate of the entire galaxy. It is getting old.

[Manc4life7]

spockjedi wrote...

iakus wrote...
+1
The fire gutted the building.  Time to clear away the rubble and rebuild.

Xilizhra wrote...
It's not gutted, as such... but the universe diverges far too sharply in different possible directions at the end of ME3 for any direct sequel to make sense. And I'd never tolerate them just canonizing Destroy, for instance.

Good reasons, both of you. I believe that making a sequel is impracticable without canonizing an ending, and I also agree that the story is damaged beyond salvage.

I just don't get that.  Obviously we are not getting a "direct" sequel - they have said as much multiple times - but a continuation of the ME universe is entirely possible, unless I am just completely misremembering some major points regarding the endings.

If ME3 gutted your emotional attachment to the series, ok fine - I get that.  But what logical reasons are there that would prevent ME4 from taking place sometime after the Reaper war?

[Reever]

I'd actually find it interesting, but IIRC, they said it will be neither a prequel nor a sequel.

[Malanek]

BlueDemonX wrote...

I'd actually find it interesting, but IIRC, they said it will be neither a prequel nor a sequel.

I suspect you don't recall correctly. They are being careful to not reveal that information yet.

But if you have a source, go ahead and link to it.

Modifié par Malanek999, 16 octobre 2013 - 09:35 .

[JamesFaith]

BlueDemonX wrote...

I'd actually find it interesting, but IIRC, they said it will be neither a prequel nor a sequel.

This should be intepreted as prequel or sequel just to Shepard story (direct prequel/sequel).

[spockjedi]

Manc4life7 wrote...
I just don't get that.  Obviously we are not getting a "direct" sequel - they have said as much multiple times - but a continuation of the ME universe is entirely possible, unless I am just completely misremembering some major points regarding the endings.

If ME3 gutted your emotional attachment to the series, ok fine - I get that.  But what logical reasons are there that would prevent ME4 from taking place sometime after the Reaper war?

It's simple, almost all species could end up alive or extinct after ME3 + EC.
Reapers: Alive (C, R), Dead (D)
Geth: Alive (C), Dead (D, R, Rannoch)
Quarians: Alive (C, D), Dead (R, Rannoch)
Humans, Salarians, Asari, Turians, Volus, Elcor, Drell, Hanar: Alive (C, D), Dead (R)
Krogan and Rachni: Alive (C, D), Dead (R, story choices)
And I'm not mentioning Synthesis.

How can a post-war story acknowledge all of the above variables? I know how: kill everyone. If all species go extinct, we surely would have them at the same state for a viable sequel. But it would be no longer the Mass Effect Universe, don't you agree?

[Ogrinash]

Lots of stuff happening in the ME universe.

Could easily be concurrent with any of the games.

[dan155]

spockjedi wrote...

Manc4life7 wrote...
I just don't get that.  Obviously we are not getting a "direct" sequel - they have said as much multiple times - but a continuation of the ME universe is entirely possible, unless I am just completely misremembering some major points regarding the endings.

If ME3 gutted your emotional attachment to the series, ok fine - I get that.  But what logical reasons are there that would prevent ME4 from taking place sometime after the Reaper war?

It's simple, almost all species could end up alive or extinct after ME3 + EC.
Reapers: Alive (C, R), Dead (D)
Geth: Alive ©, Dead (D, R, Rannoch)
Quarians: Alive (C, D), Dead (R, Rannoch)
Humans, Salarians, Asari, Turians, Volus, Elcor, Drell, Hanar: Alive ([color=rgb(0, 0, 255)">C, ]D[/color]), Dead ®
Krogan and Rachni: Alive (C, D), Dead (R, story choices)
And I'm not mentioning Synthesis.

How can a post-war story acknowledge all of the above variables? I know how: kill everyone. If all species go extinct, we surely would have them at the same state for a viable sequel. But it would be no longer the Mass Effect Universe, don't you agree?

They can only create a sequel with either the control or destroy endings, but I'd wager that only a small minority of people chose refuse or synthesis anyway.  They are going to have to canonize some aspects of the story, no way around it, fortunately the most significant choices don't need to be canonized (i labelled the aforementioned Synthesis and Refuse options as not hugely significant, because I don't believe they came into play for a majority of players).  As I have mentioned previously, if ME4 is set in a remote part of the Galaxy cut off from council space/the far rim for several decades due to damage to the Mass Relay network (Terminus Systems?) then none of the characters will be entirely sure what became of the Qurian's, Geth, Krogan or Rachni.  Neither could they be certain about what had happened to the Reapers given that they hadn't even invaded every world in Council Space, let alone in the Terminus where a lack of organised government likely rendered the region a low priority for the Reapers. Amid the chaos and lack of communication between systems several contradictory narratives could emerge, some mercenary groups report seeing a Reaper exploding, but then again they were firing on the Reaper at the time right, another mercanary band reported seeing several Reapers retreating through a Mass Relay, who to believe?  

[Vapaa]

spockjedi wrote...

It's simple, almost all species could end up alive or extinct after ME3 + EC.
Reapers: Alive (C, R), Dead (D)
Geth: Alive ©, Dead (D, R, Rannoch)
Quarians: Alive (C, D), Dead (R, Rannoch)
Humans, Salarians, Asari, Turians, Volus, Elcor, Drell, Hanar: Alive ([color=rgb(0, 0, 255)">C, ]D[/color]), Dead ®
Krogan and Rachni: Alive (C, D), Dead (R, story choices)
And I'm not mentioning Synthesis.

How can a post-war story acknowledge all of the above variables? I know how: kill everyone. If all species go extinct, we surely would have them at the same state for a viable sequel. But it would be no longer the Mass Effect Universe, don't you agree?

THIS

A chronological sequel would be a scenaristic nightmare, it's far more easier to set the game before 2186, since the post war situation, on a meta level, is a scattered mess