188 réponses à ce sujet

[Vapaa]

StreetMagic wrote...

MEU definitely has more potential than just Shepard, the individual..
but he was a symbol for what humanity's new role would be in the galaxy.
Mass Effect is about the struggle for humanity's identity in space. Not
Turians, not Protheans, etc.. But humans. There are still a lot of
questions/interesting angles about that. Are they going to be symbols of
unity? Or will Cerberus "never really die" like Illusive Man said? I
hope it gets addressed.

The universe is viewed through humans eyes, because the license is made by humans, but that doesn't means Bioware should limit itself to humans matters.

Also, leaders (and symbols) come and go, Shepard wasn't the first and won't be the last.

StreetMagic wrote...

Shepard is also his/her squad. His/her friends. Shepard is who they have "sheperded" across the series. There are so (so, so, so) many good characters and voice actors who made it possible. It's not easy to recreate in a snap. Good ideas, good iconic characters only come around once in awhile.. You can't just manufacture it. No one cranks out great/soulful characters in an instant, like it's no different than cranking out the next flavor of Doritos. Nobody, not Bioware or anyone else, has brilliance on tap. So I'll be curious what they come up with. It's sad that they want to move away from all of it.

I don't find ME characters being THAT good, I mean I like them very much, but they're not, by any means, the nec plus ultra. I'm totally confident that Bioware can make new characters as good as the old ones...and they already did, ME1 had great characters, but it didn't stop ME2 to bring eaqually great characters, and ditto for ME3.

[JMTolan]

A game that doesn't focus on Shepard or their squaddies limits the possible options to:

1) Prequel.
2) Sidequel. (Probably set in the two years between ME and ME2)
3) Alternate Universe.
4) Far future.

... So, functionally, it changes absolutely nothing. "Not about Shepard" doesn't mean it won't reference the trilogy, it means just that--it's not about Shepard. Shepard won't appear, and neither will their squaddies. The universe is a big place, and there's plenty of other stories to tell while Shep's kicking around saving the thing.

I'm frankly tired of all the people making any of these options sound like cardinal sins. They're storytelling tools, and they can be used both well and poorly. Shut up, sit tight, and wait for something material to surface. ME's in a cocoon right now, if you want something legitimate to get hyped about, head over to DA:I. You won't hear much about NME until after it's released anyway.

-Tolan

[shodiswe]

All I can read in the replies given by the Bioware people is that it won't involve Shepard and friends which immediately disqualifies it as a sequel. It can still be a spinof set in the near future, or during the reaper war or before or anythime they wish.

A log of people seems to be missudnerstanding the meaning of the word "Sequel" as something that tells a story set in the time after the old story.
What Sequel means is a story that continues the stoynarative of the previous fiction and the same characters. Sequel would mean Shepard and comany plus the Reapers and pssibly Cerberus.

A spinoff would mean that some of the minor characters might reappear, like maybe the council, Bailey and others.

No Sequel since Shepard is gone, we wont play as Shepard, and the story wont be about the Reapers. the Narative is gone!

[shodiswe]

JMTolan wrote...

A game that doesn't focus on Shepard or their squaddies limits the possible options to:

1) Prequel.
2) Sidequel. (Probably set in the two years between ME and ME2)
3) Alternate Universe.
4) Far future.

... So, functionally, it changes absolutely nothing. "Not about Shepard" doesn't mean it won't reference the trilogy, it means just that--it's not about Shepard. Shepard won't appear, and neither will their squaddies. The universe is a big place, and there's plenty of other stories to tell while Shep's kicking around saving the thing.

I'm frankly tired of all the people making any of these options sound like cardinal sins. They're storytelling tools, and they can be used both well and poorly. Shut up, sit tight, and wait for something material to surface. ME's in a cocoon right now, if you want something legitimate to get hyped about, head over to DA:I. You won't hear much about NME until after it's released anyway.

-Tolan

If it doesn't focus on Shepard then there are no limitations what so ever. It can happen while Shepard is out there doing stuff, it can happen a week after Shepard died fightign the Reapers, or during the fight or before the fight or in the far future.
Shepard isn't a limiting factor since Shepard's presense in the original story isn't limiting another character from being anywhere doing anything they want.

[Neizd]

shodiswe wrote...

JMTolan wrote...

A game that doesn't focus on Shepard or their squaddies limits the possible options to:

1) Prequel.
2) Sidequel. (Probably set in the two years between ME and ME2)
3) Alternate Universe.
4) Far future.

... So, functionally, it changes absolutely nothing. "Not about Shepard" doesn't mean it won't reference the trilogy, it means just that--it's not about Shepard. Shepard won't appear, and neither will their squaddies. The universe is a big place, and there's plenty of other stories to tell while Shep's kicking around saving the thing.

I'm frankly tired of all the people making any of these options sound like cardinal sins. They're storytelling tools, and they can be used both well and poorly. Shut up, sit tight, and wait for something material to surface. ME's in a cocoon right now, if you want something legitimate to get hyped about, head over to DA:I. You won't hear much about NME until after it's released anyway.

-Tolan

If it doesn't focus on Shepard then there are no limitations what so ever. It can happen while Shepard is out there doing stuff, it can happen a week after Shepard died fightign the Reapers, or during the fight or before the fight or in the far future.
Shepard isn't a limiting factor since Shepard's presense in the original story isn't limiting another character from being anywhere doing anything they want.

I agree. Shepard isn't a 'MUST' in ME3 game, the comics and books are proof enough. Still, it will fell odd to play ME game without Normandy, Shepard and other characters... For now, let's just hope that BW knows what it is doing and that the next game won't be a prequel.

[ConanTheLeader]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Well then go back to my original question, why should I invest any care and attention if Bioware are so quick to disregard stories?

I love that specific universe I played the trilogy in, not just the characters, but the key events, the areas, the atmosphere. All of this could have subtle/significant changes should it be an alternate universe. It feels almost like watching a TV show, and half way through just stopping it and going to another episode. I will lose interest, and go watch something that can stick to it's story.

[JonathonPR]

ConanTheLeader wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Well then go back to my original question, why should I invest any care and attention if Bioware are so quick to disregard stories?

I love that specific universe I played the trilogy in, not just the characters, but the key events, the areas, the atmosphere. All of this could have subtle/significant changes should it be an alternate universe. It feels almost like watching a TV show, and half way through just stopping it and going to another episode. I will lose interest, and go watch something that can stick to it's story.

Why bother with fiction if you cannot change it? Why would an alternate universe affect one you have already enjoyed? All works of fiction are alternate universes of each other. Some closer and some farther. There are many alternate universes for DC and Marvel comics but they are all valid. Why be limited to a single universe when you can have a multiverse. It would be like staying at home and never going on a vacation to see another part of the world no matter how close ore far away. Some times you find a place to move to but that does not stop the other place from existing.

I welcome an alternate universe. Others may be satisfied with what they have in the old one but I feel a need to go west.

[Vapaa]

StreetMagic wrote...

Gonna have to disagree on ME3. Cortez and Traynor are cool, but in a normal way. They're not iconic. They're not the type of characters you see action figures of, or on posters.. If that makes sense. They're just cool in a casual kind of way. No different than Dr. Chakwas. Vega... isn't bad. He isn't great either. I probably would have liked him more if he had come in much earlier. He comes off more like a real marine than Jacob/Ash/Kaidan do. At this point in the story though, he takes up valuable space. EDI was better in ME2 imo. She was smug and remote in a way.. more alien. In ME3 she's my kid sister.. who wears the equivalent of lingerie.

Samantha is one of my all time favorite ME characretrs; useful, adorkable, funny and more importantly, sane
Yeah ME2 had great characters but most of them are emotionally broken and it got me bored in the long run (Steve started like that too, but there's a healthy dose of content after he get over his problem)

And Javik is a meme factory

(Vega was boring, I tried to like him but nope, at best, he's less dull than Kaidan or Jacob, but meh)

[ugurbu]

really, if it will be a prequel about the first contact war or something i'm gonna be so damn angry. that's my greatest fear.

i for one would prefer a sequel set some 20 or 30 years after the reaper events but that's unlikely after that interview. if it's a timeframe set parallel to ME1-3 but unrelated to the events whatsoever i can still live with that, but if it's a prequel about something canon- as is the first contact war- i'm gonna be so pissed.

[ConanTheLeader]

JonathonPR wrote...

ConanTheLeader wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Well then go back to my original question, why should I invest any care and attention if Bioware are so quick to disregard stories?

I love that specific universe I played the trilogy in, not just the characters, but the key events, the areas, the atmosphere. All of this could have subtle/significant changes should it be an alternate universe. It feels almost like watching a TV show, and half way through just stopping it and going to another episode. I will lose interest, and go watch something that can stick to it's story.

Why bother with fiction if you cannot change it? Why would an alternate universe affect one you have already enjoyed? All works of fiction are alternate universes of each other. Some closer and some farther. There are many alternate universes for DC and Marvel comics but they are all valid. Why be limited to a single universe when you can have a multiverse. It would be like staying at home and never going on a vacation to see another part of the world no matter how close ore far away. Some times you find a place to move to but that does not stop the other place from existing.

I welcome an alternate universe. Others may be satisfied with what they have in the old one but I feel a need to go west.

Yeah but I'm not really a comic fan because each hero has something like 50 retellings of their origin, that's dull to me. A reboot once in a while is fine but this is hardly the Tomb Raider franchise. After the epic ME trilogy for them to just say "BTW it never really happened" will just turn me off, I'll just be like "Well your new game never happened, therefore I don't care for it"

[h0neanias]

That's one reason the ME3 ending is so idiotic. Not only it devalues a lot in the trilogy, it makes continuation difficult -- one thing an entertainment company should have seen coming.

[Manc4life7]

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?

First off - are you seriously treating "refuse" as a viable option for a save import?  Come on, now.  Who is going to try to import a "refuse" game-save into ME4, if given the choice?

WIth regards to how writers could get around the various fates of species given various outcomes, and without too much hand waving (in my opinon, and without treating refuse as a viable gamesave import option):

General Setting - X00 years after the events of the Reaper War (I'd say 200-300).  Galaxy mostly rebuilt, but many scars still visible.

Reapers:  Alive or dead, they need to be absent from the game world.  They were the ever lurking uber-baddies of the original trilogy, so keeping them around in any capacity beyond codex mentions would take attention away from the new antagonists.  If alive via control or synthesis, have them disappear back into dark space or some uncharted sector of the galaxy after the inital rebuilding effort (synthetics tend to keep to themselves).

Geth:  If alive, then present in the game world, but reclusive and on the fringes as they (non-heretics) tended to be in ME1-3.  Some mid-level, non critical path NPCs could be Geth.  If dead, then truly extinct (if I am remembering my consequences correctly).  Not present in game world.  Only loss would be of potential side-quest related NPCs - swap out these NPCs for another race (could easily be done if said interaction or side quest isn't written to be geth specific).

Quarians:  If alive, then great.  No loss.  If dead via the Rannoch choice going against them, then verging on the edge of extinction - few thousand surviving from a small population that escaped Rannoch and those who were on their pilgramidge could easily be explained.  This leaves the writers with the avenue to keep a few key, storyline critical path NPCs Quarian regardless of previous player choices.

Humans, Salarians, Asari, Turians, Volus, Elcor, Drell, Hanar: Alive, no loss.  No option for dead as refuse is not viable choice for continuing the ME universe as we know it.

Krogan:  Alive and thriving (numbers wise) via genophage cure, great.  No loss.  If genophage cure was sabotaged, then the Krogan will be as we have known them in ME1-3; struggling to survive and angry as hell about it.  But make no mistake, the Krogan will survive regardless of the player's genophage choice - in ME2, Mordin tells us that if left to their own devices the Krogan will naurally evolve to beat the genophage (hence why STG had to modify, then continue to monitor the viability of, the genophage).  Either way key critical path NPCs can be written as Krogan.  Hub world Tuchunka will still be a radioactive wasteland (nuclear war tends to do that), regardless of previous choices.

Now, for the 800-lb gorilla in the room - synthesis.  As I see it, this will be the hardest thing the writers to incorporate into any future ME game world.  The easiest (and therefore, most hand-wavy) way to do it would be to have very subtle changes in the general NPC population - more synthetic NPCs in place of organics.  Explain (in very hand-wavy fashion) that major changes will take centuries of evolutionary change, given the new framework.  Even I am not really sure how the writers could adequately address the fundamental change synthesis could possibly bring upon the galaxy, and how it might not be present in other game worlds (control and destroy).  With regards to the major plot lines, it would be relatively easy accomodate all three endings in one single new story - simply avoid the major organic vs synthetic relationships that were at the heart of ME1-3.

The new story with the new PC and key NPCs will be what they are, regardless of previous choices.  There will be slight variations in population levels for various races given previous choices, but these do not have to impact the new story if written properly.  And I assume the in-game coding effort required to make a random NPC Quarian instead of Geth can't be that significant (especially given the power and scope of next-gen games).  I would assume they could even go so far as to have slight variations in actual visit-able worlds given differing populaiton levels - this would require more effort but could easily be do-able.

Modifié par Manc4life7, 17 octobre 2013 - 02:13 .

[ChaosTheory149]

JMTolan wrote...

A game that doesn't focus on Shepard or their squaddies limits the possible options to:

1) Prequel.
2) Sidequel. (Probably set in the two years between ME and ME2)
3) Alternate Universe.
4) Far future.

... So, functionally, it changes absolutely nothing. "Not about Shepard" doesn't mean it won't reference the trilogy, it means just that--it's not about Shepard.
-Tolan

...except that the writer went out of his way to stress "Shepard events"--  basically everything that character did, changed, modified, saved, failed at, blew up, prevented from blowing up, etc....  will not be referenced "really, at all".  So scratch #2 and #4 from your list, logically.

Unless of course he misspoke.  If that's the case, you'd think someone from BioWare would have popped in and clarified several pages ago.

Modifié par ChaosTheory149, 17 octobre 2013 - 02:29 .

[Manc4life7]

ChaosTheory149 wrote...

JMTolan wrote...

A game that doesn't focus on Shepard or their squaddies limits the possible options to:

1) Prequel.
2) Sidequel. (Probably set in the two years between ME and ME2)
3) Alternate Universe.
4) Far future.

... So, functionally, it changes absolutely nothing. "Not about Shepard" doesn't mean it won't reference the trilogy, it means just that--it's not about Shepard.
-Tolan

...except that the writer went out of his way to stress "Shepard events"--  basically everything that character did, changed, modified, saved, failed at, blew up, prevented from blowing up, etc....  will not be referenced.  So scratch #2 and #4 from your list, logically.

Unless of course he misspoke.  If that's the case, you'd think someone from BioWare would have popped in and clarified several pages ago.

Eh, he waffled slightly in his "Shepard events" line with words like "won't necessarily".  He said, without equivocation, that the new game will not contain the Shepard character or Shepard specific companions.

[Mathias]

Funkcase wrote...

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.

Different cirumstances. Biggest reason people don't want a prequel is because they know what it's all leading up to. People don't want to deal with the ending anymore, or anything related to it. They would rather that the story just move on, a reboot, or an alternate universe.

[SilJeff]

h0neanias wrote...

That's one reason the ME3 ending is so idiotic. Not only it devalues a lot in the trilogy, it makes continuation difficult -- one thing an entertainment company should have seen coming.

no matter how bad the current ending may be, even if it was great, continuation would still be difficult unless all the endings amounted to the same thing.

[RiouHotaru]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Funkcase wrote...

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.

Different cirumstances. Biggest reason people don't want a prequel is because they know what it's all leading up to. People don't want to deal with the ending anymore, or anything related to it. They would rather that the story just move on, a reboot, or an alternate universe.

But it's not different circumstances.  No matter what you do in DX:HR, you can't STOP the events of the first Deus Ex from occuring.  Adam is Doomed By Canon from the moment you starting playing until the credits roll.  Everyone familiar with the series knew this going in and no-one complained about that because it STILL told a good story.

So if they do a prequel, they can still tell a good story even IF the ending is a foregone conclusion.  And not everyone dislikes the ME3 ending so immensely.  I really wish people would stop talking as if it's an agreed consensus, because it's not.

Anyway, a prequel could still tell us some interesting things and give us interesting characters.  I'd prefer a sequel in the far future, but I won't say no to a prequel.

[billywaffles]

ChaosTheory149 wrote...

Perhaps we're reading too much into it, but the recent quote by lead writer Mac Walters that ME4 won't have anything to do with Shepard's story, logically, suggests it's a prequel.  And if true, I can't be more disappointed.

Prequels are... lazy, uninspired and are a Hollywood/television trend that repeatedly fails.  Yet for whatever reason, they are one of the most popular entertainment mechanisms to everyone except the target audience.  It's a fun side trip, maybe as DLC or an expansion pack later-- but not for an entirely new game arch. 

In addition, in every single poll I've seen from the ME fanbase, the prequel vote was soundly trumped by a wish for continuation-- not necessarily of Shepard et al, but the universe and story.  Folks want to see how the galaxy picks up the pieces in an overwhelming way, and only a significant minority of fans care about the Protheans or anything else that happened prior to the events of the games.

BioWare, please...  If you're basing this thing on a prequel, go back to the drawing board and don't let the writers tell you how "hard it is to continue blah blah".  Don't destroy this franchise by going backwards just because it's the popular thing to do right now in media.

Just don't.

The way you describe your idea that "prequels are lazy, etc." and the way you state bioware will destroy the franchise just show that you are very attached to the current storyline, and that is Shepard and co. It has NOTHING to do with prequels being a complete crap in general, it is just your way of describing that you really want to pick up the story where it finished and continue it.

I cannot do anything to make you less concerned, but I can point you out why bioware could decide to create a prequel instead of a sequel despite polls showing better support for sequel:

QUALITY FEEDBACK

Plain simple. You are right, a lot of people in the forums say they want a sequel. But where is the feedback? When Casey Hudson made his statement about what fans would want to see, and over these months, whenever I entered here and browsed the forums, I always found posts and topics with these suggestions about sequels:

1-"I hope it will be a sequel. Prequels are lame. Please bioware, make it a sequel!".
2-"A prequel wouldn't be interesting since I already know what's going to happen. Therefore it must be a sequel".
3-"I want the story to continue in a galaxy post-war where you have to rebuild worlds while we face a new threat".
4-"I want the story to continue and I want to see cameos of characters I invested time with and I want my choices from previous games to be reflected in game".
5-"I think that if they do a sequel it has to be with "canon destroy" where we have to rebuild the galaxy, relays, etc."
6-"MMO".

Let's take a look at them:

1 and 2: That's not useful feedback. These are just "extremist" opinions in which you just state basically "This or GTFO" without putting anything useful on the table.
3 and 5: These ones have always amused me. The power for rebuilding a civilization is not in the hands of an individual military man. It is in the hands of leaders, either top military leaders or political leaders. While for me it would be an interesting story to play as Admiral Hackett in rebuilding the world in a RTS, I don't think this is what people that wrote that terrible idea for a RPG were actually meaning.
4: This idea implies that you want to import your saves for the next ME game. While I admit some people suggested ways for this (or at least tried), this doesn't help bioware as feedback either. It implies going back to the story they already said it's over. Get over it. Insisting more is not giving feedback, is ranting.
6: This cannot happen anytime soon, especially after TOR epic failure and WAR death.

An example of good feedback would have been, for example:
"I would like to play as the last ardat-yakshi after the war in a destroy-canon setting, which is excluded from the society of Thessia (or wherever) and has to find her own way by redeeming herself or becoming a criminal".
->In this way, you are providing useful feedback for a canon-destroy. THIS is helpful. Saying "I want post-destroy sequel" is not.

Just my thoughts.

pd. Don't get mad at me for saying this .

edit: put blizzard instead of bioware lol

Modifié par billywaffles, 17 octobre 2013 - 06:14 .

[Mathias]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Funkcase wrote...

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.

Different cirumstances. Biggest reason people don't want a prequel is because they know what it's all leading up to. People don't want to deal with the ending anymore, or anything related to it. They would rather that the story just move on, a reboot, or an alternate universe.

But it's not different circumstances.  No matter what you do in DX:HR, you can't STOP the events of the first Deus Ex from occuring.  Adam is Doomed By Canon from the moment you starting playing until the credits roll.  Everyone familiar with the series knew this going in and no-one complained about that because it STILL told a good story.

So if they do a prequel, they can still tell a good story even IF the ending is a foregone conclusion.  And not everyone dislikes the ME3 ending so immensely.  I really wish people would stop talking as if it's an agreed consensus, because it's not.

Anyway, a prequel could still tell us some interesting things and give us interesting characters.  I'd prefer a sequel in the far future, but I won't say no to a prequel.

No it IS different circumstances. Different game, different audience. The reaction to the endings of Deus Ex and Mass Effect 3 are completely different. Not to mention they made a sequel to Deus Ex called Invisible War, and people hated it. So therefore making a prequel to Deus Ex and pretending Invisible War never happened, was a viable choice, and it was also a prequel to a game that came out around 10 years ago. 10 years is a long time for people to move on.

That's not the same situation we're in with Mass Effect. Just because a prequel worked for Deus Ex, doesn't mean it will here. I'm not saying they can't write a good story out of a prequel. But if the majority of people don't want a prequel, then don't make a goddamn prequel.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 17 octobre 2013 - 10:07 .

[dead_goon]

ChaosTheory149 wrote...

Perhaps we're reading too much into it, but the recent quote by lead writer Mac Walters that ME4 won't have anything to do with Shepard's story, logically, suggests it's a prequel.  And if true, I can't be more disappointed.

you're reading too much into it, logically it suggests nothing, the next game could be set in a part of the MEU that has yet to be touched by the Reapers, it could be set in an undiscovered part of the MEU that is as yet oblivious to the threat of the Reapers & Shepards titanic struggle against them, it could be set during the events of ME3, or after the resolution of the events of ME3.

In short, if they exercise a bit of imagination, there is nothing to stop them taking a sideways step & coming up with a whole new trilogy, thats totaly free from the Reapers & Shepards story right up until the ending of the 3rd game in the new trilogy, & thats presuming the next game set in the MEU leads to a trilogy, & isn't just a stand alone game to test the waters.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The characters and storyline may change during the sequel but they have to start out the same to show the connection with the previous story...

i.e..... They could start the story with the end of ME3 being Shepard's death dream. Then another group fires the Crucible, and the reapers blow up. Now we start the next story.

[David7204]

I'm wondering to myself why you shill things like MEHEM and Citadel in your signature and yet seem gleefully eager for Shepard to die.

Actually, that's a lie. I know the answer.

Modifié par David7204, 17 octobre 2013 - 10:32 .

[dead_goon]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

they have to start out the same to show the connection with the previous story...

i.e..... They could start the story with the end of ME3 being Shepard's death dream. Then another group fires the Crucible, and the reapers blow up. Now we start the next story.

No they really don't, there is nothing to stop them from going off on a tangent, & starting the next game in a part of the MEU thats lost behind an unactivated mass relay ( or several ), don't constrain the writers with your limitations,  I can think of a number of ways to start a whole new trilogy that doesn't involve Shepard, so for a professional writer, it should be a walk in the park.