188 réponses à ce sujet

[KR96]

ElitePinecone wrote...

RussianZombeh wrote...

I hate the idea of an alternative universe. There's only been 3 games and you guys want to switch continuities already?

Agree with this - a new continuity would be absolutely the worst thing they could do. An alternate universe does a disservice to the storytelling they've already invested time and effort in, it makes a mockery of the idea that this is a persistent narrative where our choices matter, and more fundamentally I think it drags the story down to the level of cheesy comics where creators can hit a giant reset button every few years when things get too hard. 

If ME is meant to be thoughtful, consistent and frankly grown up about its storytelling, it can't take the ridiculous way out and use alternate timelines as an excuse to do stupid things and never take account of the consequences. 

I agree with this as well, it would hugely discredit the story we played (and loved, for the most part) if it were just put aside and BW would pretend it never actually happened at all. One of the things that always made me come back to the ME games was the fact that story, although based on a huge amount of fantasy, was somehow believable and felt like a "real" story. If the new game was just a reboot of the entire galaxy, they better have some damn good other features or pretty damn neat new "real" story for me to buy the thing.

I really love the ME universe, I'm just praying they won't press the reset button and call it a day. 

[Han Shot First]

Beerfish wrote...

I should have read this whole thread....but I didn't (lazy bahstad that I am ). I don't like prequels either and hope they do not go there however it is a bit of leap of logic to automatically think that it will be a prequel because they said it won't have anything to do with Shepard.

There are quite a few scenarios that could be new stories outside of Shepards story and that part of things.

Here is one: Project Ark. Because of the uncertainty of winning the reaper war a large ship with reps from all of the major species is sent on it's way at top speed on it's way out of the galaxy. This potentially avoids the reaper story and all the endings and gives a totally clear slate to work with.

They could also go the Star Trek: Voyager route and have the protagonist open up an uncharted relay at some point before Eden Prime, and end up getting stranded either in some unexplored section of the Milky Way or in another galaxy all together, like Andromeda. Getting stranded before Eden Prime would mean the protagonist either hasn't heard of the Reapers, or believes they're a myth.

The only points against going that route is that would require entirely new hubs (no Citadel, Omega, or Illium) and entirely new alien species to populate the region being explored. It would be a bit like starting over from scratch, and I imagine would involve more work.

[eyezonlyii]

Han Shot First wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

I should have read this whole thread....but I didn't (lazy bahstad that I am ). I don't like prequels either and hope they do not go there however it is a bit of leap of logic to automatically think that it will be a prequel because they said it won't have anything to do with Shepard.

There are quite a few scenarios that could be new stories outside of Shepards story and that part of things.

Here is one: Project Ark. Because of the uncertainty of winning the reaper war a large ship with reps from all of the major species is sent on it's way at top speed on it's way out of the galaxy. This potentially avoids the reaper story and all the endings and gives a totally clear slate to work with.

They could also go the Star Trek: Voyager route and have the protagonist open up an uncharted relay at some point before Eden Prime, and end up getting stranded either in some unexplored section of the Milky Way or in another galaxy all together, like Andromeda. Getting stranded before Eden Prime would mean the protagonist either hasn't heard of the Reapers, or believes they're a myth.

The only points against going that route is that would require entirely new hubs (no Citadel, Omega, or Illium) and entirely new alien species to populate the region being explored. It would be a bit like starting over from scratch, and I imagine would involve more work.

Maybe it is a charted relay, just for whatever reason (such as a malfunction), it's onesided, so the protagonist has to go through in order to be able to fix it from the other side. this way it could be like the omega 4 relay, and you could have some members of known species who got stuck as well as new species.

[Malanek]

Beerfish wrote...
Here is one: Project Ark. Because of the uncertainty of winning the reaper war a large ship with reps from all of the major species is sent on it's way at top speed on it's way out of the galaxy. This potentially avoids the reaper story and all the endings and gives a totally clear slate to work with.

Thats not bad. I wouldn't even consider that an AU but it ultimately does the same thing.

I still don't see the need however, I think a post destroy setting is genuinely interesting.

[Beerfish]

Malanek999 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
Here is one: Project Ark. Because of the uncertainty of winning the reaper war a large ship with reps from all of the major species is sent on it's way at top speed on it's way out of the galaxy. This potentially avoids the reaper story and all the endings and gives a totally clear slate to work with.

Thats not bad. I wouldn't even consider that an AU but it ultimately does the same thing.

I still don't see the need however, I think a post destroy setting is genuinely interesting.

I agree about the post destroy being very doable but then 2/3 of the people will howl that their ending was not the canon ending, no?

[Malanek]

Beerfish wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
Here is one: Project Ark. Because of the uncertainty of winning the reaper war a large ship with reps from all of the major species is sent on it's way at top speed on it's way out of the galaxy. This potentially avoids the reaper story and all the endings and gives a totally clear slate to work with.

Thats not bad. I wouldn't even consider that an AU but it ultimately does the same thing.

I still don't see the need however, I think a post destroy setting is genuinely interesting.

I agree about the post destroy being very doable but then 2/3 of the people will howl that their ending was not the canon ending, no?

I suspect its considerably less than 2/3s, some people had multiple endings, and I suspect only a small percentage of them would howl, especially if the game was good. Its just exploring one possibility of what could happen and they could keep imagining that if they were in charge they would have left the galaxy in a better state.

[Zatche]

There are good prequels and bad prequels. I don't understand why so many people are attacking the idea as if it's the worst thing ever. Maybe it will cover something we haven't heard about yet. I don't see how it's something to get mad about either.

I'm personally hoping for something smaller in scope, as you can't really one up the Reaper Invasion. Instead it should be more character focused and emotionally engaging.

[JonathonPR]

For some, myself included, the current timeline was poisoned by the ending primarily and other parts of the sequels to lesser extents. What with the "Why is?" of the galaxy given an unsatisfactory origin and the pick a color endings giving distasteful setting changes. Many players also don't trust Bioware to maintain the setting's canon from a technological and game simulation mechanic standpoint.

A prequel would still be bound to the context of the previous games. I know that they keep trying to make each game a possible entry point for new players but that retards progress and potential of future enjoyment of the game. Marvel and DC comics do it so much that they have major reset points just to keep status quo. Look up Spiderman One More Day.

[ElitePinecone]

The idea that people *wouldn't* freak out about the developers canonising an ending to ME3 is a bit naive - particularly when the last three games have been built on the idea that choices actually mean something. Even if the execution hasn't always been the best, to reverse that decision entirely and start dictating the outcome of events (or worse, saying "well this is only one interpretation of what could have happened, here's a whole sequel about it") would result in a massive backlash, I think.

Frankly, every hint they've been giving points to something new, completely separate from what happened in the last three games. To me, that would probably rule out even an indirect ("1000 years later") sequel, since it still involves dealing with three fundamentally incompatible universe states. The Extended Cut endings changed the nature of organic life (or the Reapers, or the state of the galaxy) irrevocably - they're deliberately huge events, probably *because* Bioware knew they'd never be setting anything afterwards.

Also, the idea that a prequel will inevitably be boring or low-stakes doesn't really think it through very well. There's 30 years of human interaction with Council species before the events of ME1, and they could write practically *any* story they wanted to fill any part of that time, as long as it broadly steers clear of the characters and events of Shepard's trilogy. Forgetting about the Reapers and their stupid origins might even be a good thing.

[Malanek]

ElitePinecone wrote...

The idea that people *wouldn't* freak out about the developers canonising an ending to ME3 is a bit naive - particularly when the last three games have been built on the idea that choices actually mean something. Even if the execution hasn't always been the best, to reverse that decision entirely and start dictating the outcome of events (or worse, saying "well this is only one interpretation of what could have happened, here's a whole sequel about it") would result in a massive backlash, I think.

Some people would. It wouldn't be anywhere near as many people as required to make it a "massive backlash"... except maybe if they chose synthesis.

I'm a bit sick of people using the argument that the series is built on "choice matters". A prequel by definition can not effect anything. Nothing to import from and the existing games are not going to be changed by choices you make in a prequel. So that has exactly the same problem.

[Steelcan]

StreetMagic wrote...

After all is said and done, I wouldn't care about canonizing. I used to value the choices more, but it turned out to not amount to much. There was always that element of anticipation earlier in the series, wondering what would come next, but now that I've seen it, I value consistent/dependable story elements more.

[KR96]

I just hope the new game is worth playing after all.I recently watched the ME team at PAX 2013 on youtube, and for one reason or another I just lost all my faith in the next ME game. Don't really know how that came to be, just felt disappointed for some reason. I really, really hope they get it right. I loved the Mass Effect universe and I would be gutted if the next game was to be a huge disappointment.

[ElitePinecone]

Malanek999 wrote...
I'm a bit sick of people using the argument that the series is built on "choice matters". A prequel by definition can not effect anything. Nothing to import from and the existing games are not going to be changed by choices you make in a prequel. So that has exactly the same problem.

A prequel trilogy (or a longer game series) could do save imports within itself, though.

If they're careful with the timeline and choices, and didn't do something ridiculous that ended the potential for future games, a prequel series could even continue indefinitely. There's a lot of story potential in 30 years, and as long as it never crosses over with Shepard's narrative space they can pretty much do anything they want. It won't have the grandioseness of the Reapers, but that's not a bad thing.

A prequel can't affect anything in Shepard's time, but why would it want to? Introduce a new cast of characters, organisations and planets and Bioware can do what they want with them. The galaxy is vast enough that Shepard wouldn't have heard of even major events from 20 years earlier. The story can be anything they want it to be.

[SwobyJ]

killerrabbit1996 wrote...

I just hope the new game is worth playing after all.I recently watched the ME team at PAX 2013 on youtube, and for one reason or another I just lost all my faith in the next ME game. Don't really know how that came to be, just felt disappointed for some reason. I really, really hope they get it right. I loved the Mass Effect universe and I would be gutted if the next game was to be a huge disappointment.

ME3 seemed like 'ME1 + ME2 + Gears of War (full on)'.

What I want, is a 'ME1 + ME2' and they can skip the Button Awesome fat. Entirely. I don't even want to play as a soldier, persay. They could make any character still fit the 6 (or more?) classes, while not being a soldier and have to fit that sort of story.

EDIT: and personally, I want tech to 'advance'. Either have it in another previous cycle but explain to players that we'll be exploring many mysteries, some of Reapers but many not even related to them... or have it as a sequel in SOME form that works for Bioware.

I don't want things to move outright backward. I don't want to be stuck in the First Contact War or Krogan Rebellions. If I visit those, I'd prefer to be in a holo simulation or something - not actually there and having a whole main game during it.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 24 octobre 2013 - 09:46 .

[Malanek]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
I'm a bit sick of people using the argument that the series is built on "choice matters". A prequel by definition can not effect anything. Nothing to import from and the existing games are not going to be changed by choices you make in a prequel. So that has exactly the same problem.

A prequel trilogy (or a longer game series) could do save imports within itself, though.

If they're careful with the timeline and choices, and didn't do something ridiculous that ended the potential for future games, a prequel series could even continue indefinitely. There's a lot of story potential in 30 years, and as long as it never crosses over with Shepard's narrative space they can pretty much do anything they want. It won't have the grandioseness of the Reapers, but that's not a bad thing.

A prequel can't affect anything in Shepard's time, but why would it want to? Introduce a new cast of characters, organisations and planets and Bioware can do what they want with them. The galaxy is vast enough that Shepard wouldn't have heard of even major events from 20 years earlier. The story can be anything they want it to be.

Having a prequel trilogy interact with itself but not with the other content is no different to having a sequel trilogy interact with itself but not with other content as far as "choice matters".

[ElitePinecone]

But a prequel trilogy wouldn't disregard major player choices, whereas a sequel that imposed an ending choice would.

The endings were clearly set up in the original game and in the EC to significantly change the galaxy forever. The changes were distinct, huge and pretty much irreversible. Ignoring them or picking one as canon seems contrary to what Bioware were trying to do in the first place - change the future of the universe with one choice.

[Malanek]

ElitePinecone wrote...

But a prequel trilogy wouldn't disregard major player choices, whereas a sequel that imposed an ending choice would.

But every single choice you make in a prequel is disregarded by the original series.

[AlanC9]

Malanek999 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

But a prequel trilogy wouldn't disregard major player choices, whereas a sequel that imposed an ending choice would.

But every single choice you make in a prequel is disregarded by the original series.

I'd say that's only true for an AU/reboot. In a prequel the choices are still there -- it's just that they're in the future

[ElitePinecone]

Malanek999 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

But a prequel trilogy wouldn't disregard major player choices, whereas a sequel that imposed an ending choice would.

But every single choice you make in a prequel is disregarded by the original series.

I get your point here, but what I'm trying to say is: why would the original series even need to account for choices we made in a prequel? It's possible to tell an entirely separate story set in 2165 that has little if anything to do with Shepard, the Reapers or any of the events of 2183 - except for the fact that it takes place in the same universe. 

To modify an example I heard someone else use, why would a British soldier fighting in World War II know or care about the tale of a South American smuggling ring in the 1920s? They're decades and thousands of miles away, involving different people, organisations, locations, scales, motivations, events and outcomes. Those are the sorts of distances that Bioware can plausibly create in the narratives, given how big the ME universe is. They can still tell an effective story without once mentioning any of the characters or events of Shepard's trilogy - the game is still "Mass Effect" if it retains the aliens, the technology, the racial politics and the art style.

Let's make a hypothetical, and say a choice in a Mass Effect prequel involves blowing up a city. Big news at the time? Sure. Big news fifteen years later? Not so much. Does it matter that this city's destruction wasn't referenced in the original trilogy? Nope - nobody from Shepard's trilogy came from this planet, or really remembers it over a decade afterwards. It's a significant event in a prequel, but by the time of ME1 galactic news has moved on.

If your objection is more that nothing in a prequel series would ever mean anything because it's not mentioned chronologically afterwards, that's more of a fundamental opposition to the whole idea of fiction moving between time periods - but I strongly disagree with the notion that events in a prequel wouldn't be important and significant just because nobody mentioned them in ME1/2/3. 

[Manc4life7]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

But a prequel trilogy wouldn't disregard major player choices, whereas a sequel that imposed an ending choice would.

But every single choice you make in a prequel is disregarded by the original series.

I get your point here, but what I'm trying to say is: why would the original series even need to account for choices we made in a prequel? It's possible to tell an entirely separate story set in 2165 that has little if anything to do with Shepard, the Reapers or any of the events of 2183 - except for the fact that it takes place in the same universe. 

To modify an example I heard someone else use, why would a British soldier fighting in World War II know or care about the tale of a South American smuggling ring in the 1920s? They're decades and thousands of miles away, involving different people, organisations, locations, scales, motivations, events and outcomes. Those are the sorts of distances that Bioware can plausibly create in the narratives, given how big the ME universe is. They can still tell an effective story without once mentioning any of the characters or events of Shepard's trilogy - the game is still "Mass Effect" if it retains the aliens, the technology, the racial politics and the art style.

Let's make a hypothetical, and say a choice in a Mass Effect prequel involves blowing up a city. Big news at the time? Sure. Big news fifteen years later? Not so much. Does it matter that this city's destruction wasn't referenced in the original trilogy? Nope - nobody from Shepard's trilogy came from this planet, or really remembers it over a decade afterwards. It's a significant event in a prequel, but by the time of ME1 galactic news has moved on.

If your objection is more that nothing in a prequel series would ever mean anything because it's not mentioned chronologically afterwards, that's more of a fundamental opposition to the whole idea of fiction moving between time periods - but I strongly disagree with the notion that events in a prequel wouldn't be important and significant just because nobody mentioned them in ME1/2/3. 

I have argued that this exact logic also applies to a "sequal" (in name only) that is set XXX years after the events of the Reaper War.  Make XXX = 200 or more, and with slight variations in the way the world is populated with NPCs and presented to the player, and you can even account for all 3 endings (refuse is not a viable ending) with little hand-waving required.

The further the writers distance themselves from Shepard and the Shepard Companions, and the more new races/locations they introduce, the easier it becomes to set up a new game (or trilogy) that can still reflect the choices from the previous trilogy (if we chose to import an old save) without having to alter the new narrative.

Now, I don't actually think BW will do this.  Even if the game is a "sequal", in so much as it is set in the same universe as the Reaper War, some time after the events of the previous trilogy, I believe BW will be intentionally vauge about what actually happens at the end of the Reaper War (other than "we won") to avoid canonizing an ending.  The endings are already set up in a way that the only person in the galaxy who knows what choice Shepard made (heck, that Shepard even had a choice to make), was Shepard, and he/she is dead.

[Wowky]

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.  

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the next ME is a preque. And actually, if it's not going to relate to the Shepard 'universe' in any way, then it can't really be a prequel either.

I'm just going to wait until there is official information rather than try to speculate, though. 

[kobayashi-maru]

I've said before humanity in ME doesn't have enough history in space to make truly epic prequel, Babylon 5, Star Trek and Star Wars did.

If they go prequel route I'm hoping more along lines of sidequel like Halo:ODST, set before ME3 end but contained within the ME trilogy. I know it's unlikely, but they could do whole game around what really caused the Haestrom's sun to destabilise, you never see Shepard and co but fill in that part of the back story. Heck even have your new party on Batarian home world during it's fall to Reapers - a member of crew is Batarian.

You could even have Citadel missions while Shepard was onboard because the new character could be a lowely ship captain who doesn't go to the clean, pretty parts of Citadel but more the lower wards areas from ME1. There is no reason why they would meet Shepard.

There's also that huge time gap when Shepard was dead, so room to fill back story there as well. Could go more into Collector colony attacks in 2 focusing on exploring the worlds we didn't go to - Hanar home world specifically or even visit Palaven.

There are places to go but not really much timeline to fill so they have to be careful. Although saying all this I still vote sequel where much of implications of ME3 endings get massaged for better starting point. Could do like this:

- No matter which ending Reapers either dead or returned to their own part of universe.
- AI and robotics rebuilt but treated more equally if they left with Reapers
- Krogan got saved by Shep or by thankful Turians later
- Quarians dead or remaining on home world to rebuild, ajust DNA to suitless life
- Synthesis only caused the visual changes for short period while nanobots adjusted and essentially made little difference to biological life for most part.
- set it 100+ years later so even if Shep survived he's now dead as is most of crew

It's really not that difficult, they could even pick one ending and go with it because it's not going to change your ME3 ending, just start a new story that honestly doesn't need to include many of the 'choices' from trilogy. There separate so does it matter if they go with Synthesis or Destroy, Shepard isn't in it.

[Wowky]

This also came to mind just now: saying it "doesn't relate to Shepard at all" doesn't necessarily mean that Shepard never existed/is never going to exist. It could just mean that you aren't going to play as him, or any of the people he has met over the trilogy. Let's say it's a sequel - Shepard is like the Krogan wars...history. That he lived is an established fact, but the game doesn't have anything to do with him.

Also, this point kind of contradicts my previous post, I know. But that also kinda proves my point of "it's not worth speculating" - in the span of five minutes one person has come up with two contradictory options for what the game could be like.

Hopefully there will be some concrete info soon. Either way, I'm excited, because Mass Effect kicks ass.

[kobayashi-maru]

Sorry for being contradictory

Was just saying how they could go a number of ways and many people seem to limit it to just a couple. There's vastly different options - even the alternate universe one - but hey I love speculation it's half the fun of Mass Effect.

But I will wait for official word, though it better be soon as I am almost at point of writing fan fiction and that's not good...

Modifié par kobayashi-maru, 25 octobre 2013 - 02:51 .