393 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

rapscallioness wrote...

I confess I get a bit nervous when reading Mac's interviews because it sounds like they've made very little progress story wise. It's been almost two years, and they don't seem to have a handle on it.

They had story ideas prepared over a year ago, and the development document for the next game was prepared months ago. It's fine.

[ElitePinecone]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Maybe this is a way to get around all the continuity problems that would come from a more direct sequel - i.e. take some characters from the established races and send them off on a story revolving around these new alien races, but then I come back to what I've said before. If you're going to veer way off on a tangent, why bother calling it "Mass Effect" instead of just creating a new science fiction IP? If you get rid of Shepard *and* the Reapers *and* all the established politics and history of the existing races, about all that's left are the mass relays, which are just the latest iteration of "let's do faster-than-light travel without calling it 'warp speed' or 'hyperspace' so people don't think of Star Trek or Star Wars."

This is a great point. 

I think the endings kinda shot the IP in the foot, for lack of a better metaphor, too - if they do a sequel and Control/Synthesis are valid worldstates, either an incredibly powerful fleet of ships are flying around guarding everybody, or literally every being in the galaxy has the accumulated knowledge of millions of years of civilisations. Both neutralise pretty much every conflict and lore point in the universe, if they hadn't already been solved by Shepard in ME3 - the geth/quarian issue, the genophage, the turian/human rivalry, organic/synthetic tension. The galaxy is alternately guarded by super-spaceships or an impossibly utopian dreamworld of peace and harmony through some kind of technological singularity. 

When you remove or solve every issue that was set up in the first three games (or turn everybody into an omniscient hybrid super-race thing), what's left to call Mass Effect? If they introduce new species and try to drum up some new mystery post-Shepard, it just feels a little forced and hollow. 

(In contrast, I think there's still a lot of storytelling potential in the 30 years between first contact and Shepard's trilogy.)

[SwobyJ]

It'll be fine.

[ElitePinecone]

PinkysPain wrote...

Robosexual wrote...
You managed to convince yourself that there's a "wrong" answer, let alone that they've chosen it and we keep on giving them the opposite, simply based on them asking for feedback from their fans.

They did that already on twitter ... and it's not like the answer was a close call ... so if the story was true the fact that they asked the question again shows they have blinders on to a certain extent. They should know the answer by now.

I think you're making a mistake to think that:

a) Twitter replies are an accurate gauge of fan feedback.
The fan feeback they got was representative of a wider group of hardcore fans, let alone all fans.
c) That this feedback matters more than other concerns, not least of which is what the writers themselves want to do. 
and d) That disobeying a "fan consensus" automatically means financial ruin.

Entitlement is a word that's thrown around too often, but fundamentally you do not have the right to expect something just because you want it really badly, or because you assume that a group of likeminded fans want it. The developers are under no obligation to listen to hardcore fans just because they invest so much of their time into a product. 

That's separate from the notion that the game could sell well or sell poorly for reasons that have nothing to do with its time period. Hard-core fans, after all, are probably a much smaller portion of the total user base than people who play Mass Effect for different motivations, and who may not care (gasp!) when the next game happens to be set. The opinions of the most invested people are going to matter at some point, but they cannot, and do not, determine the entire course of the game. 

[JustGiveItUp]

IDK if it has been brought up yet, but Mike Gamble tweeted a while ago saying, ''Thanks to all the Mass Effect fans who coped with me talking for 2 hours.'' or something along the lines, and a guy with the same username as the poster in IT forums replied going, ''Thank you for having us, it was an amazing experience.'' or something like that.

(For those still debating the legitimacy)
Something to think about maybe.

[spinachdiaper]

Sounds like Babylon 5 style Vorlons VS Shadows story arch waiting to happen

[spinachdiaper]

Morocco Mole wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sounds like utter BS to me.

And also sounds terrible that, if true, they're trying to add MORE alien types. How many do we have so far--Humans, Turian, Asari, Salarian, Quarian, Volus, Keeper, Elcor, Hanar, Drell, Batarian, Krogan, Rachni, Yahg...I'm no doubt missing some, and that's already more than twelve. The LAST thing they need is more alien species, that's just stupid.

the most retarded thing is that this means, because of choices in previous games, they will have to either exclude or handwave popular species like krogan, geth, and the quarians since their fates are tied to saves

well sadly Bioware has superimposed their story over numerous player choices before so i would bet they Canon only what they want and the rest goes down the drain

[EatChildren]

A sequel that reasonably and satisfyingly accommodates the multitude of significantly different universe states post-trilogy that the fanbase as a whole would have experienced is basically impossible if you're at all being reasonable and rational about the expensive of time, money, and manpower in making a video game.

If a sequel is at all to exist it either needs to be set so obscenely far in the future post-trilogy that it makes all trilogy decisions obsolete, essentially constituting as a franchise reboot. Or it needs to bit the bullet and pick one of the endings and make it canon, combine bits and pieces of all, or construct its own. Irrespective of trilogy decisions.

I totally understand hardcore fans (because I'm one of them) hold an extremely high priority on save imports and their own player canonisation of events, but this is the harsh reality of a sequel to a series like Mass Effect, where multiple entire species can be wiped out of existence, and the very fabric of DNA can be re-written. If anybody was at all disappointed with how a favourite character of theirs from Mass Effect 2 was handled in Mass Effect 3, specifically how much screen time they got and their minimal integration into the story, this is exactly what I'm talking about, only on a much, much wider and more significant scale. Mass Effect 2's suicide mission's multiple outcomes screwed the pooch for those characters in Mass Effect 3, due to development logistics. It would be tenfold for a series sequel that attempts to accommodate even greater choices.

So yeah, you pretty much have to ask yourself how important your lore is for a sequel. Because if it's a sequel, and you're the kind of player who refuses to accept anything less than your lore and your decisions, then you're in for a world of tears. Because either the game is going to weasel around your decisions to ensure a more finely tuned and defined narrative, rendering them obsolete. Or it's going to try and pander to them and fail catastrophically, just like many felt Mass Effect 3 failed in regards to trilogy decisions, only worse.

And as a side, despite being a huge, huge fan of the series. And despite being so insanely attached to my Shepard and my choices. I want a sequel that, if necessary to ensure a better narrative, picks or constructs a canon post-trilogy universe state. I want this because I want to move forward, not backwards, and I want that forward momentum to be as positive and high quality as possible.

[dorktainian]

spinachdiaper wrote...

Sounds like Babylon 5 style Vorlons VS Shadows story arch waiting to happen

and that.......could only be a good thing.

[ElitePinecone]

EatChildren wrote...

A sequel that reasonably and satisfyingly accommodates the multitude of significantly different universe states post-trilogy that the fanbase as a whole would have experienced is basically impossible if you're at all being reasonable and rational about the expensive of time, money, and manpower in making a video game.

If a sequel is at all to exist it either needs to be set so obscenely far in the future post-trilogy that it makes all trilogy decisions obsolete, essentially constituting as a franchise reboot. Or it needs to bit the bullet and pick one of the endings and make it canon, combine bits and pieces of all, or construct its own. Irrespective of trilogy decisions.

I totally understand hardcore fans (because I'm one of them) hold an extremely high priority on save imports and their own player canonisation of events, but this is the harsh reality of a sequel to a series like Mass Effect, where multiple entire species can be wiped out of existence, and the very fabric of DNA can be re-written. If anybody was at all disappointed with how a favourite character of theirs from Mass Effect 2 was handled in Mass Effect 3, specifically how much screen time they got and their minimal integration into the story, this is exactly what I'm talking about, only on a much, much wider and more significant scale. Mass Effect 2's suicide mission's multiple outcomes screwed the pooch for those characters in Mass Effect 3, due to development logistics. It would be tenfold for a series sequel that attempts to accommodate even greater choices.

So yeah, you pretty much have to ask yourself how important your lore is for a sequel. Because if it's a sequel, and you're the kind of player who refuses to accept anything less than your lore and your decisions, then you're in for a world of tears. Because either the game is going to weasel around your decisions to ensure a more finely tuned and defined narrative, rendering them obsolete. Or it's going to try and pander to them and fail catastrophically, just like many felt Mass Effect 3 failed in regards to trilogy decisions, only worse.

You put this perfectly. 

A game that reflects player choices cannot reasonably be a direct sequel, and vice versa. Or if they tried to do both, would it end up downplaying, handwaving, railroading or compromising the major galaxy-altering choices we made in ME3? Would people be happy with that, given the outcry about the rachni or Cerberus base decisions?

To my mind, though, picking an ending choice as canon (or being vague and ignoring the ending choices together) just because fans are screaming about wanting a sequel would be one of the worst things they could do. If in the process of placating fans and satisfying demands for a sequel they render ME3 meaningless and Shepard's choices irrelevant, isn't that a worse situation overall? How can we ever demand that choices be treated with more care, and that player decisions have an impact, if players are happy for Bioware to respond to this kind of situation by ignoring what the player chose and imposing their own outcomes for the sake of the narrative? There's a contradiction there.

It's an intensely difficult situation (as Mac mentioned recently in an interview) where they're backed into a corner plot-wise, but I guess that would highlight the importance of actually thinking about the plot long-term and planning things properly. As it stands, whatever they do is probably going to upset somebody, and that didn't really need to be the case if they'd thought about it first.

[EatChildren]

ElitePinecone wrote...

To my mind, though, picking an ending choice as canon (or being vague and ignoring the ending choices together) just because fans are screaming about wanting a sequel would be one of the worst things they could do. If in the process of placating fans and satisfying demands for a sequel they render ME3 meaningless and Shepard's choices irrelevant, isn't that a worse situation overall? How can we ever demand that choices be treated with more care, and that player decisions have an impact, if players are happy for Bioware to respond to this kind of situation by ignoring what the player chose and imposing their own outcomes for the sake of the narrative? There's a contradiction there.

For me personally, yes it is worth picking a canon, or constructing a hodge podge of canons, for the series future. I say this because despite loving my story, I recognise that my story is not indicative of everyone else, and that the trilogy arc is inherently fractured and diverse between all participants. It's a hole that's never going to be dug out from regardless of when the next games are set, and something they'll have to dance around forever if they really want to cater to choices.

Just as BioWare have emphasised the next game will be as disconnected from Shepard's trilogy as possible, I extend this beyond just the themes to the actual construct of the narrative. That is to say what happened in the Shepard arc for you and for me is in many ways a self contained narrative that logically cannot continue onwards. Even if a new story picks a canon, or makes one, I don't see it as disruptive of my story because I don't see the next series of games as a literal continuation of my choices. Instead I see it as another adventure set in the same universe that I know, but not necessarily the same one that I personally experienced and influenced in the Shepard trilogy. And because it wont pander to Shepard's story, that will be okay.

 I can understand why people would disagree, but yeah, that's how I feel. The reward of moving forward greatly outweighs the burdon of staying in the past, even if that forward moment comes at the cost of a "new canon" that differs from my own. And I'm okay with that, because even if they're not reflective of my choices, I also note this isn't a sequel to my game. It's a sequel to the series, as an umbrella term. My game was the Shepard trilogy I played first hand. You cannot make a sequel to that, or anyone's. But you can make a sequel to the Mass Effect universe in some form, and that's what I want, hope for, and am quite happy to have.

The Shepard Trilogy being over means more than just "no longer play as Shepard". 

[ElitePinecone]

Fair enough

*If* MENext is a sequel, and *if* they canonise an ending, I guess I'm just annoyed with the idea that player choices are sacrosanct and important right up to the point that delivering on them is inconvenient - and then they don't mean much. If the intention was always to continue the chronological story of Mass Effect after Shepard, why did they offer such enormous choices with weighty consequences that could never conceivably be carried over into future games? It's disingenuous to give choices that can never really be given justice, if they always had the plan to make a sequel game. People rightly got angry about how the rachni were treated, and in my opinion picking an ending for a sequel-MENext is pretty much the same thing.

On the other hand if they originally *didn't* plan on a sequel, or didn't have anything in mind until after ME3 was released, then it sorta feels like the writers have no idea what they're doing, and the time-period decision is being made only to 'reconnect with the fans' and because the high-ups are spooked into being incredibly cautious.

I do agree that "moving forward" is the best idea, but I wish there was a better way to do it than ignoring or railroading what happened in ME3. For me, the absolute best way for Shepard's trilogy to have ended would have been to leave the galaxy in a state that supported future games no matter the player's choices - maybe this would've required fewer grandiose decisions about the fate of entire civilisations, but at least they could've done a direct sequel without the nightmare of trying to account for species being wiped out and everyone having glowy eyes.

I didn't like the ending and I thought it was a horribly disappointing way to finish the series, but now it's done (and in combination with the genophage and geth/quarian choices) it should stand - canonising a decision, or ignoring them, feels like Bioware are turning their back on their own game just because it's easier, and because of the criticism they got about the way ME3 ended.

[crimzontearz]

I think you're making a mistake to think that:

a) Twitter replies are an accurate gauge of fan feedback.
The fan feeback they got was representative of a wider group of hardcore fans, let alone all fans.
c) That this feedback matters more than other concerns, not least of which is what the writers themselves want to do.
and d) That disobeying a "fan consensus" automatically means financial ruin.

Entitlement is a word that's thrown around too often, but fundamentally you do not have the right to expect something just because you want it really badly, or because you assume that a group of likeminded fans want it. The developers are under no obligation to listen to hardcore fans just because they invest so much of their time into a product.

That's separate from the notion that the game could sell well or sell poorly for reasons that have nothing to do with its time period. Hard-core fans, after all, are probably a much smaller portion of the total user base than people who play Mass Effect for different motivations, and who may not care (gasp!) when the next game happens to be set. The opinions of the most invested people are going to matter at some point, but they cannot, and do not, determine the entire course of the game.

Or, you know, they could fight math with math and provide concrete numbers and sources that confirm more people want a prequel.....oh wait, they can't or, like Jessica says, they have roomfulls of spreadsheets that show them the fans asked for x, but we cannot see them.

It also does not help that in the past 2 years a LOT of high profile prequels sold very poorly compared to expectations...soooo where does that leave us?

[EatChildren]

Well, I think it's pretty obvious they had no plan for a post-trilogy game. As you know, that recent interview with Walters has made it clear that under his direction, along with the rest of the team, the narrative wasn't even planned properly for the trilogy it was supposed to be. Mass Effect 2's suicide mission being a noted example of them just writing what sounded good at the time, totally disregarding difficulties it would introduce in the next game, despite those difficulties being obvious. I suspect that during the production of Mass Effect 3 there was almost no consideration to any future games, whether they be sequels, prequels, midquels, alternate universes, or whatever. Absolutely nothing. It's an awful way to do it, but here we are.

I personally don't consider canonising an end choice as turning their back on their own games due to firmly compartmentalising the Shepard trilogy that I played as it's own kinda thing. Though that's probably just my way of dealing with the desire to see a sequel.

In a perfect world, if I had a game that was perfect for me, Mass Effect 4 would be a sequel that opened up with the final assault on Earth at the end of Mass Effect 3, totally re-writing the trilogy's end in every respect, finishing up Shepard's journey proper, and then using this as prologue of sorts to introduce a new galaxy state, new protagonist, and so on. The rest of the game going from there. But that's impossible. So, for me, best case scenario based on the grim reality of what we've got: canonise an ending or make a canon ending that serves as a foundation for the next run of the series, which I view kind of like a new generation of Mass Effect and not a literal direct sequel of my Shepard trilogy. I don't really consider it as conflicting with prior decisions, because I personally don't think they matter any more, and not in the context of what I consider as a "sequel".

But I also know that idea isn't favourable to a lot of people. I think no matter what they do, even a super safe midquel that doesn't infringe on any Shepard trilogy canon, is going to upset people. As someone who was crushed by the ending, I guess I just want the cleanest slate possible, because no matter how ****ty this series can be sometimes the good still outweighs the bad.

And now the thread is derailed .

[Armass81]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sounds like utter BS to me.

And also sounds terrible that, if true, they're trying to add MORE alien types. How many do we have so far--Humans, Turian, Asari, Salarian, Quarian, Volus, Keeper, Elcor, Hanar, Drell, Batarian, Krogan, Rachni, Yahg...I'm no doubt missing some, and that's already more than twelve. The LAST thing they need is more alien species, that's just stupid.

Why not? The universe needs to evolve and expand, not stagnate into old circles. New things get discovered all the time, the time does not stop. Besides some of the old species arcs are done, so their presence can be lessened now to the background. Its time to explore new stories, new conflicts, new planets and yes, even new species. That great feeling of discovery you had in the first game, when everything was fresh.

I really dont want another game or even trilogy to be majorly about Krogan/quarian conflicts and god forbid, Cerberus, again. Theyre done.

Modifié par Armass81, 26 novembre 2013 - 12:57 .

[ElitePinecone]

crimzontearz wrote...

It also does not help that in the past 2 years a LOT of high profile prequels sold very poorly compared to expectations...soooo where does that leave us?

It's a fallacy to say those games sold poorly *because* they were prequels, though. It's a cliche, but correlation doesn't imply causation - there could be third factors (fatigue with the series, poor marketing, or just being terrible games) that explain that relationship, if indeed there's *any* concrete reason why a game is a hit or not. Without going out and gathering statistics on who bought (and didn't buy) those games and why, it's impossible to definitively say which factors directly influenced poor sales. That link - "prequels mean fewer sales" - might be a tempting one to make, but it's premature without more information. 

To actually work out the sales projections and whatever for a hypothetical Mass Effect prequel/sequel, you'd need to do market research - which is exactly what EA does, and never shows us (for good reasons). They have entire teams of analytsts and marketing people who would have good, robust data on consumer demands for things. As a AAA studio, they don't make investments lightly, though we'll never really know the details. 

I know people are often suspicious if not actively hostile towards Jessica's spreadsheets and the whole practice of gathering data, but more often than not it is the best and only way to find out what large amounts of people actually think. The fact that this data is "secret" probably isn't some vast conspiracy to deny the truth, but more likely just comes down to how terrible people are at understanding and interpreting data when it's presented to them. 

Even when Bioware has provided concrete data on things, it spawns more attempts to undermine the results or deny them entirely. Some people don't understand them, others don't believe them in the first place.

[ElitePinecone]

EatChildren wrote...
I think no matter what they do, even a super safe midquel that doesn't infringe on any Shepard trilogy canon, is going to upset people. As someone who was crushed by the ending, I guess I just want the cleanest slate possible, because no matter how ****ty this series can be sometimes the good still outweighs the bad.

And now the thread is derailed .

Yeah, I understand the view that anything set before Shepard is going to be disappointing to some people because there's the inevitability of the Reaper war and endings overhanging the entire game (or series, as it may be) - it's a reason some people have given for why they find it hard to replay ME/ME2, knowing how it ends. And my preference would probably be for something set after Shepard, if it were possible to reconcile all the endings and choices without mangling their consequences.

But I think there's a fair bit of space for storytelling before ME1 or during the trilogy, too. If they're more careful with the choices and timelines, a game series could continue indefinitely in that period, and they have a *lot* more latitude to explore other styles of games and protagonists. It's probably even a more complete break from Shepard's story, because they wouldn't even need to deal with the Reaper conflict or anything to do with the endings. It's a clean restart, set in an interesting period, and if the game is good enough I genuinely think people could disregard the looming ending. 

[crimzontearz]

It's a fallacy to say those games sold poorly *because* they were prequels, though. It's a cliche, but correlation doesn't imply causation - there could be third factors (fatigue with the series, poor marketing, or just being terrible games) that explain that relationship, if indeed there's *any* concrete reason why a game is a hit or not. Without going out and gathering statistics on who bought (and didn't buy) those games and why, it's impossible to definitively say which factors directly influenced poor sales. That link - "prequels mean fewer sales" - might be a tempting one to make, but it's premature without more information.

To actually work out the sales projections and whatever for a hypothetical Mass Effect prequel/sequel, you'd need to do market research - which is exactly what EA does, and never shows us (for good reasons). They have entire teams of analytsts and marketing people who would have good, robust data on consumer demands for things. As a AAA studio, they don't make investments lightly, though we'll never really know the details.

I know people are often suspicious if not actively hostile towards Jessica's spreadsheets and the whole practice of gathering data, but more often than not it is the best and only way to find out what large amounts of people actually think. The fact that this data is "secret" probably isn't some vast conspiracy to deny the truth, but more likely just comes down to how terrible people are at understanding and interpreting data when it's presented to them.

Even when Bioware has provided concrete data on things, it spawns more attempts to undermine the results or deny them entirely. Some people don't understand them, others don't believe them in the first place.

And yet scores of prequels, spin-offs and even reboots sold VERY poorly in spite of the games being good. Tomb Raider, Judgement (it really was not a bad game), Arkham Origins, Metal Gear Rising, Devil May Cry, God if War Ascension...and even going back more, Crysis warhead, Halo Reach, Halo Wars, ALL the resident evil spin off and so on and so forth

Sure, no concrete proof but theory fits evidence.

Also, "we are not showing data and sources because people would not understand" is code for "we do not want you to see the numbers because they do not prove our point", believe me, my company does it too

[Seboist]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sounds like utter BS to me.

And also sounds terrible that, if true, they're trying to add MORE alien types. How many do we have so far--Humans, Turian, Asari, Salarian, Quarian, Volus, Keeper, Elcor, Hanar, Drell, Batarian, Krogan, Rachni, Yahg...I'm no doubt missing some, and that's already more than twelve. The LAST thing they need is more alien species, that's just stupid.

Most of the current species are either two bit enemies(Batarians/Vorcha), semi-joke ones(hanar/elcor/volus) or completely superflous(Drell/Keeper).

No real loss with diminished roles.

[Stakrin]

Seboist wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sounds like utter BS to me.

And also sounds terrible that, if true, they're trying to add MORE alien types. How many do we have so far--Humans, Turian, Asari, Salarian, Quarian, Volus, Keeper, Elcor, Hanar, Drell, Batarian, Krogan, Rachni, Yahg...I'm no doubt missing some, and that's already more than twelve. The LAST thing they need is more alien species, that's just stupid.

Most of the current species are either two bit enemies(Batarians/Vorcha), semi-joke ones(hanar/elcor/volus) or completely superflous(Drell/Keeper).

No real loss with diminished roles.

the Drell have a story to tell now, since their debt to the Hanar is repaid, where Do they go from that? 

And it's a shame about the Vorcha. I would love one on my team. 
Anyway new things are always fun, a couple more species could open for a hundred new stories. Plus for all we know this game could be one really long one, just in one game, we don't know how much playtime they are looking to have. 100+ hours of storyline and it's like a whole trilogy on its own, so why not throw in a couple of new species. 

[Adrian Shepherd]

Still vote for prequel!

I read the books, and want to play them! I'm sure there is more to be told with the current story.