393 réponses à ce sujet

[N7Gold]

Design by Adrian wrote...

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.

I'm trying to collect all the Mass Effect Foundation comic books as they are released every month, and I assume ME Foundations ties up untold stories in the ME trilogy before "ME4" is officially revealed.

[AlanC9]

Morocco Mole wrote...

I find the idea that people were "crushed" by the endings really, really funny

You haven't read enough iakus posts. 

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

You haven't read enough iakus posts. 

At least we're done with the "endings raped me" people.

[Clayless]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You haven't read enough iakus posts. 

At least we're done with the "endings raped me" people.

To be fair to this place too, the "Bioware insulted me" people are also gone now.

[Linkenski]

The kids are out :-P
No wait... that's a lie.

[DextroDNA]

Zazzerka wrote...

So it's just a story from some dude on a forum who's claimed to have spoken with a BioWare employee at a "secret" convention.

Goddamn, how disappointing.

Wasn't a secret convention. Mike Gamble tweeted about it ages ago, saying anyone who was going to Pax Prime to email them to talk about Mass Effect. This guy obviously went.

As for it being a sequel, Destroy and Control both work for a sequel. Synthesis is not as simple as a "simple texture change" (which isn't exactly 'simple' either). Every species would be different, interaction with technology would be different, it would change EVERYTHING. What we need is a retcon to get rid of Synthesis.

[Daemul]

Robosexual wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You haven't read enough iakus posts. 

At least we're done with the "endings raped me" people.

To be fair to this place too, the "Bioware insulted me" people are also gone now.

I do sort of miss those people though, they made threads fun to read. I just had to trun off my brain and enjoy. 

[ElitePinecone]

crimzontearz wrote...

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.

If I were EA, I totally wouldn't rely on that kind of logic when commissioning new games. Just saying. 

"A whole lot of things having two things in common" still doesn't mean causation, no matter how tempting it might be to conclude it at face value. There are other shared features that might be more influential, and ultimately it's really problematic to analyse something as complex as purchasing decisions without going out and asking people. 

My point is: EA and most companies like it literally employ teams of people to do this kind of work, and they have a far more nuanced understanding of the overall market for games, and the reasons people buy them, than you or me. If they were assessing the profitability of something like a hypothetical Mass Effect prequel, they'd be doing a lot more investigation than "well a lot of other prequels flopped so we'd better be careful". 

[crimzontearz]

Sure, like what?

A LOT of these games were critically well received and good games in their own right from incredibly famous franchises which had been rising in sales up until the prequel/spinoff/reboot

Unless you have an argument about something else concrete about these games having another common factor leading to very low sales your point is very weak pinecone

[crimzontearz]

I do sort of miss those people though, they made threads fun to read. I just had to trun off my brain and enjoy.

I do still think their attitude (not the whole of Bioware, but some) is borderline insulting, with the veiled "you guys just did not understand it" and "it's up to you to do our job and finish the story in your head TROLOLOL" moments

But do I think they insulted md personally? No

[KaiserShep]

Design by Adrian wrote...

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.

Thing is, would the game allow for the player to still make choices in both actions and dialogue, or would the PC and everything else be completely linear, essentially making this nothing more than a simple TPS? If it's the latter, then it's automatically awful.

Anyway, rehashing old stories/comics or living the codex just doesn't seem compelling. It's like some people's suggestions to have something set during the first contact war, which I find to be a terrible idea.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[crimzontearz]

They secretly want to play Kai Leng in Deception.....LOL

[KaiserShep]

crimzontearz wrote...

They secretly want to play Kai Leng in Deception.....LOL

BAH! A pox on those people! 

[ElitePinecone]

crimzontearz wrote...

Sure, like what?

A LOT of these games were critically well received and good games in their own right from incredibly famous franchises which had been rising in sales up until the prequel/spinoff/reboot

Unless you have an argument about something else concrete about these games having another common factor leading to very low sales your point is very weak pinecone

Things like series fatigue. The time of year they were released. The developer who made them. How much marketing they received. The quality of the game compared to their predecessor. The state of the global economy when they launched compared to other games. Consumer sentiment. Competing games launched at the same time. The weather. The reasons people buy or don't buy games are myriad. 

I'm not saying that their being a prequel couldn't be a significant factor in poor sales. It may very well be. I'm saying we don't know if it was, and we can't know from the simplistic observation that a lot of prequels happened to perform badly. Their status as a prequel game has no causal link with poor sales until you go out and make that connection through surveying a bunch of people and finding out why they acted the way they did, and even then judging causation is very problematic. Looking at two points of data and assuming a connection between them is not sufficient to prove that one thing caused another. 

I'm not trying to advance other reasons for some prequels being commercial failures, I'm trying to make you understand that this is not a debate that we can have with the information that's available. Concluding that because some prequels did bady, it was their "prequelness" that caused them to perform badly might be right - but we won't know until someone does research, and in the meantime it's irresponsible and premature to make that into a theory about all prequel games. More fundamentally, it's misinterpreting the logic of how things are related.

(This is a nice article explaining the difference between correlation and causation: http://www.theguardi...ation-causation)

[ElitePinecone]

KaiserShep wrote...

Anyway, rehashing old stories/comics or living the codex just doesn't seem compelling. It's like some people's suggestions to have something set during the first contact war, which I find to be a terrible idea.

What about something entirely new, though? I don't understand why a prequel game automatically means the First Contact War or even anything that's ever been mentioned in the Codex.

A game about a smuggler and their zany multiracial crew on a beat-up ship who get drawn into an elaborate conspiracy while taking a wounded asari maiden across the galaxy could take place just as easily in 2165 as it could in 2190. 

Or, I don't know, a merchant freighter who gets drawn into an elaborate conspiracy while being contracted to haul a secret turian superweapon to a new colony world. 

A former Alliance pilot working as a mercenary who gets drawn into an elaborate conspiracy after they're shot down and forced to kill a band of batarian thugs in the Terminus Systems. 

A private investigator who gets drawn into an elaborate conspiracy on the Citadel after their investigation uncovers a top turian official's corruption and power-games. 

etc

[AlexMBrennan]

I don't understand why a prequel game automatically means the First Contact War or even anything that's ever been mentioned in the Codex.

Because it's going to be another cover based shooter, and a war conveniently provides the massive number of walking targets you need for that (cf Shepard's body count).

The problem with you "elaborate conspiracy" ideas is that any organisation of that scope (able to field thousands of operatives, ships and heavy armour for the protagonist to blow up) would not have remained secret and would have been mentioned in the history books. Thus you left with wars we know about (i.e. First Conflict war) or a sequel. 

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 26 novembre 2013 - 06:15 .

[justafan]

crimzontearz wrote...

They secretly want to play Kai Leng in Deception.....LOL

You forget, a game starring Kai Leng would be a game who's main character is voiced by Troy Baker.  Thusly, it would somehow find a way to be awesome and make us care about the cereal killer.

[FlyingSquirrel]

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.

But the fates of those races *aren't* changed that much by Shepard's choices in ME3. Even the hanar situation can be handwaved fairly easily if the indoctrinated ambassador succeeds in sabotaging their defenses - just say a lot of them evacuated their planet first or something.

The krogan, geth, rachni, and quarians, however, can be in better shape than ever or completely screwed, and the geth/quarian outcome would probably shape attitudes about synthetics in general. The four Council races are all in sort of a "battered but still standing" situation, I suppose, but handwaving the krogan, geth, rachni, and quarians out of the story would be a letdown.

[FlyingSquirrel]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I don't understand why a prequel game automatically means the First Contact War or even anything that's ever been mentioned in the Codex.

Because it's going to be another cover based shooter, and a war conveniently provides the massive number of walking targets you need for that (cf Shepard's body count).

The problem with you "elaborate conspiracy" ideas is that any organisation of that scope (able to field thousands of operatives, ships and heavy armour for the protagonist to blow up) would not have remained secret and would have been mentioned in the history books. Thus you left with wars we know about (i.e. First Conflict war) or a sequel. 

But didn't the FCW actually not last all that long? I seem to recall hearing or reading an official casualty count that, relatively speaking, seemed pretty low.

If they go the prequel route, the conflicts between human colonists and batarians in the Traverse might be a better flashpoint, and something that would open up more of the galaxy's complicated politics as well. There could be some low-profile "dissident" factions involved - humans who *are* just imperialist bastards intent on grabbing everything they can, or batarian defectors from the Hegemony who have a more cooperative attitude.

[essarr71]

Alex (on phone so not dealing with quoting you):

While I agree with your stance, the funny thing is I feel like a prequel would work if it actually brought shepard back. Playing shep to bridge the time between the origin choice and becoming the XO on the normandy. We know theres a relationship already established between Anderson and Shep, so you can explore that.

We spent most of ME2 fighting endless merc groups - can do the same with some batarian terrorists or rogue military branch. Youd have to have a new hub that wasn't the citadel, of course, and you wouldnt be on the Normandy. But I think theres enough there for a game if they went prequel.

[ElitePinecone]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I don't understand why a prequel game automatically means the First Contact War or even anything that's ever been mentioned in the Codex.

Because it's going to be another cover based shooter, and a war conveniently provides the massive number of walking targets you need for that (cf Shepard's body count).

The problem with you "elaborate conspiracy" ideas is that any organisation of that scope (able to field thousands of operatives, ships and heavy armour for the protagonist to blow up) would not have remained secret and would have been mentioned in the history books. Thus you left with wars we know about (i.e. First Conflict war) or a sequel. 

There are multiple private armies and mercenary groups who we didn't even hear about until ME3 (like Cat6!). I don't think it's implausible that Shepard doesn't personally know everything that happened in galactic history for the past 30 years. The universe is an enormous place, after all, particularly if any prequel mostly took place on new planets that Shepard didn't visit or even necessarily knew about. 

(Someone's used this as an example, but why would a person in the Vietnam War know or care about huge battles fought in, say, Arab-Israeli wars of the 1950s? Pretty much all they share is taking place on the same planet. Would an average person's knowledge of Mass Effect's history extend that far, especially when there's a galaxy of news all going on at the same time?)