71 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Sequel > AU >> prequel

[Baka-no-Neko]

Sequel, hands/talons down. After things have been rebuilt, a century or two down the line. Though I'm not sure how they are going to work ME endings if that was the case =( I just want to explore the other races.

[Errationatus]

If they can just manage to not make it a six-hour tutorial for MP load of crap, that would be an enormous step up.

Don't need a prequel or sequel.  A sidequel would do just fine.  If you're clever, you can undo a lot of damage in the storyline.  Shepard isn't the only competent soldier in the Galaxy and his team not necessarily the absolute best.

I'm not advocating such a story, but for sh!ts & giggles, imagine a scenario where some spec ops trooper (not necessarily human) uncovers a component of the Crucible that adds a fifth option, something that does allow the Reapers to be affected in some way that makes beating the conventionally a viable alternative.  Your job is to find it, get it to the Crucible while it's under construction.  Hell, maybe you're a disgraced officer who has to recruit "disreputable' types to get it done as the Alliance has a price on your head.  Your reward is you get to retcon the end of ME3 into what it should have been, glorious ground (Makos, anyone?) and space battles, et al.  If you must have MP in it - and that's inevitable now - you just set them in different cities on different planets during the Reaper ground war.  Boom, done.  Vehicle combat included.  If Battlefield can do it, ME certainly can. 

You get another game, you fix the ending of the story, everybody's happy.

I do not, however, anticipate anything remotely like the above happening.  I expect a shooter primarily geared to the MP market and a six-hour SP 'story' mode that is actually essentially a tutorial for the MP.

This is EA, after all.

[Redbelle]

The-Biotic-God wrote...

So I've being thinking that a prequel could be a good idea for the new Mass Effect. It would be interesting to see the origins of some wars like the genophage virus being spread, or the humans/turians dislike. What do you think could be a good idea for the new Mass Effect?

The problem with a prequel is that it will eliminate head canon. And the great thing about this BW universe is the power of it's aural storytelling.

Prequel event's belong in the past. Stories that are handed down via the power of the VA's and storyboarders to bring characters to life by talking about the past and what it meant to that character.

Wrex would just be another warrior/Klingon hybrid character without him talking about how his people were infected after all they did for the galaxy, allowing people to see how broken up he was about it.

So a prequel would only serve to potentially damage established characters while raising questions about ME's histroy if the writer's muck up and the hoard of eagle eye'd fans who know the lore inside and out descend on the errors.

A sequel is a much better option. Provided BW have the imagination to write themselves out of the corner tey wrote themselves into.

If people still want to fight the battles of the past, ask for the option in Armex Arena.

[Probe Away]

Like everyone else said: sequel.

The only alternative that really appeals to me at this stage is something set in the 2 years Shep is out of action. Late enough that humans are integrated into the MEU, but early enough that it doesn't have to have a reaper connection.

Please no more reapers.

[ElitePinecone]

The-Biotic-God wrote...

So I've being thinking that a prequel could be a good idea for the new Mass Effect. It would be interesting to see the origins of some wars like the genophage virus being spread, or the humans/turians dislike. What do you think could be a good idea for the new Mass Effect?

I'd prefer a prequel or something alongside Shepard's trilogy. 

I think the game needs to get away from the themes it tackled in ME/ME2/ME3 - leave the Spectres out of it, forget the Reapers entirely and make the protagonist a merchant or smuggler. The turian/human conflict has a lot of storytelling potential, especially since after ME1 it was basically never mentioned again in the trilogy. 

I'd really like to return to the era where humanity was a newcomer to the galaxy who had no idea what they were doing, fialing around trying to adapt to their sudden place in the universe while also earning the interest and suspiscion of the other races. There's a lot of space there for intrigue, really great characters and interesting stories that are well-told, if not as grandiose or ridiculous as the Reapers in Shepard's trilogy. 

That "humanity as unwelcome interlopers" angle was always one of the most interesting parts of Mass Effect's sci-fi setting, and it really unfortunately was diminished in ME2 and ME3 - particularly with the last game's focus on war with the Reapers and solving every single problem in the galaxy. 

[ElitePinecone]

Redbelle wrote...

Prequel event's belong in the past. Stories that are handed down via the power of the VA's and storyboarders to bring characters to life by talking about the past and what it meant to that character.

Wrex would just be another warrior/Klingon hybrid character without him talking about how his people were infected after all they did for the galaxy, allowing people to see how broken up he was about it.

So a prequel would only serve to potentially damage established characters while raising questions about ME's histroy if the writer's muck up and the hoard of eagle eye'd fans who know the lore inside and out descend on the errors.

Just on this, I find it really interesting how many people think a prequel would automatically involve the characters from Shepard's trilogy, and would thus screw them up.

Why wouldn't Bioware Montreal just create an entirely new cast of companions, like Edmonton did for Mass Effect? I don't understand why you think they'd use characters like Wrex when this is the perfect opportunity for a new studio's writers to develop their own unique angle on the setting, and dream up new interesting party members. 

If MENext is going to be as "new" and "fresh" as the devs are hinting, why limit themselves to old characters that we've known for seven years, and who have basically finished their story arcs by ME3?

[EatChildren]

Sequel. If necessary, pick or construct a canonisation of universe state to form a foundation for a new narrative. Whatever makes for the strongest story. And I don't feel doing so would undermine my experience in the Shepard trilogy. Just a new story in a new world, just as my Shepard's story was mine, and everybody had their own.

[LisuPL]

No prequels, sidequels, midquels.

Sequel is the only way to go.

[Redbelle]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Prequel event's belong in the past. Stories that are handed down via the power of the VA's and storyboarders to bring characters to life by talking about the past and what it meant to that character.

Wrex would just be another warrior/Klingon hybrid character without him talking about how his people were infected after all they did for the galaxy, allowing people to see how broken up he was about it.

So a prequel would only serve to potentially damage established characters while raising questions about ME's histroy if the writer's muck up and the hoard of eagle eye'd fans who know the lore inside and out descend on the errors.

Just on this, I find it really interesting how many people think a prequel would automatically involve the characters from Shepard's trilogy, and would thus screw them up.

Why wouldn't Bioware Montreal just create an entirely new cast of companions, like Edmonton did for Mass Effect? I don't understand why you think they'd use characters like Wrex when this is the perfect opportunity for a new studio's writers to develop their own unique angle on the setting, and dream up new interesting party members. 

If MENext is going to be as "new" and "fresh" as the devs are hinting, why limit themselves to old characters that we've known for seven years, and who have basically finished their story arcs by ME3?

Ah but here's the thing. It's not neccessarily using the same character's who would mess up canon. It's the way event's play out. There is a host of details embedded in the history of the franchise and missing them would result in the same nitpicking that the ending of ME3 endured.

Sequel avoids this possibility by choosing to respect the history as is without adding more details that might play counter to established lore.

[JamesFaith]

Redbelle wrote...

Ah but here's the thing. It's not neccessarily using the same character's who would mess up canon. It's the way event's play out. There is a host of details embedded in the history of the franchise and missing them would result in the same nitpicking that the ending of ME3 endured.

But prequel can avoid these few major events in Codex too and concentrate on era or area without any known historical info, like Terminus systems.

In fact in Codex about 3/4 entries from era between FCW and Eden Prime are just trivial things like born dates, curiosities and such. Except Cerberus manifesto, batarian embassy, Torfan and Mindoir there are no major events of galactic importants, co these details about history are in fact quite few, pre-human history is much more detailed.

[wirelesstkd]

SwobyJ wrote...

wirelesstkd wrote...

The problem with a prequel is that mankind has only been using relays for 35 years. There's just not a lot of room to maneuver before the Shepard Events started.

Of course, the problem with a direct sequel is that you'd have to canonize an ending. But I'd prefer that approach (sequel), personally.

They don't have to canonize an ending.

I might be missing something, but I don't see how they could do another game without doing so. If they allow you to import, they have to account for too many variables. That's a large part of what caused problems for Bioware in the first place, and they said specifically that they were letting variables get out of control in ME3 because they won't have to account for them in any future games. But I might be missing something. 

[ElitePinecone]

JamesFaith wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Ah but here's the thing. It's not neccessarily using the same character's who would mess up canon. It's the way event's play out. There is a host of details embedded in the history of the franchise and missing them would result in the same nitpicking that the ending of ME3 endured.

But prequel can avoid these few major events in Codex too and concentrate on era or area without any known historical info, like Terminus systems.

In fact in Codex about 3/4 entries from era between FCW and Eden Prime are just trivial things like born dates, curiosities and such. Except Cerberus manifesto, batarian embassy, Torfan and Mindoir there are no major events of galactic importants, co these details about history are in fact quite few, pre-human history is much more detailed.

Yeah. It wouldn't be difficult at all to create an entire game plot that never once mentioned any history from the Codex. What made sense to be included in Shepard's trilogy is hardly an exhaustive account of thirty years of galactic history. 

As I wondered in another thread: why does a prequel need to involve the First Contact War or anything we've ever heard of before? 

Why not a game about a smuggler and their zany multiracial crew on a beat-up ship who get drawn into an elaborate conspiracy while taking an enigmatic wounded asari maiden across the galaxy in 2165?

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

They might not be as flashy as Shepard's Reaper storyline, but I think there's still a massive amount of storytelling potential they Bioware could use if they felt like it.

[ElitePinecone]

wirelesstkd wrote...
they said specifically that they were letting variables get out of control in ME3 because they won't have to account for them in any future games. But I might be missing something. 

This is what I'd read in interviews with Mac and (I think) Mike Gamble before ME3's release, too, which made me skeptical of the idea of a sequel for a long time. Why give Mass Effect 3's narrative the freedom to go crazy and massively change the end-state of the galaxy if they'd intended to set a game after it?

The Extended Cut only solidifies that impression, IMO. A cinematic team dev (might've been Parrish Ley?) at one of the convention panels pointed out that the ending slides deliberately show events ranging from a few months to centuries after the ending, to show the long-term consequences and results of Shepard's choice. Since people were dissatisfied with the original ending (to put it lightly) and had unanswered questions about what happened to all the species, the team went out of their way to show the near and far-future of the galaxy. In the leaked November 2011 script, the Buzz Aldrin-grandpa/kid scene was supposedly happening 10,000 years after ME3.

I don't know, but my gut feeling was that ME3 is intended to be the chronological end of the series. That could still change, obviously, as a lot of the die-hard fans do seem to be (vocally) in favour of a sequel whenever it comes up. 

[EatChildren]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I don't know, but my gut feeling was that ME3 is intended to be the chronological end of the series.

It pretty obviously was supposed to be this way, and such open ended long term endings are quite common in science fiction in order to muddy the waters for potential sequels. Sci-fi traditionally ends with some drastic event(s) that give closure to the core narrative but leave lots of room for imagination in the reader/viewer for what could come next, but never really making it perfectly clear.

The issue here is whether or not those intentions were worth the investment and the execution itself was satisfying, which is probably why the clammouring for a sequel is so large. Intentions for the series future and deliberate narrative tropes used to muddy the waters are made somewhat irrelevant in the face of total dissatisfaction with what we got. That is to say I think a large reason why many want a sequel is not just because "moar Mass Effect", but also because of the sour, unsatisfying taste the trilogy ending left in their mouth, and the desire to move forward with as much of a clean slate as possible. Just because the writers intend one thing doesn't mean they did a good job of it, or their intentions were worthwhile in the end.

But we'll see. I mean, it's one thing for BioWare to, during production, say and think "Mass Effect 3 will end deliberately vague and open ended to cull any post-trilogy games". But what is said then isn't indicative of what is done after. We don't know how deeply the trilogy ending disappointment has influenced the staff. We don't know how they've responded to strong requests for a sequel from fans. We don't know what their internal PR/marketing agencies have concluded from their own studies. We don't know what BioWare Montreal's writers prefer doing to best express their craft. And we don't know, if it is a sequel, how they'll handle the canon issue, or how far they're willing to go to craft a set canon that will be innevitably conflictive with some trilogy arcs.

This is the same publisher/developer that wrote a suicide mission with innevitably severe character repreccusions for the next game with total disregard for said reprecussions. And have already weasled around canonical choices for whatever they feel best fits their narrative. With so many unknowns it's really very difficult to predict where the next game will go.

EDIT: The Buzz Aldrin scene is actually a good example of this open ended, whimiscal, philosophical ending that a lot of sci-fi has. Treating that scene explicitely as hard canon is not wise. It acts as more of a symbolic homage/message to the themes and spirit of the series itself.

Modifié par EatChildren, 28 novembre 2013 - 03:16 .

[ElitePinecone]

EatChildren wrote...

But we'll see. I mean, it's one thing for BioWare to, during production, say and think "Mass Effect 3 will end deliberately vague and open ended to cull any post-trilogy games". But what is said then isn't indicative of what is done after. We don't know how deeply the trilogy ending disappointment has influenced the staff. We don't know how they've responded to strong requests for a sequel from fans. We don't know what their internal PR/marketing agencies have concluded from their own studies. We don't know what BioWare Montreal's writers prefer doing to best express their craft. And we don't know, if it is a sequel, how they'll handle the canon issue, or how far they're willing to go to craft a set canon that will be innevitably conflictive with some trilogy arcs.

Quoted for excellent summary of this entire topic 

I suppose I'm just unconvinced about the idea of an internal decision to do a sequel precisely because Extended Cut made the post-ending galaxy states even more discrete (Synthesis changed from vague, ridiculous technobabble to "wow we have gears inside cells somehow and omg universal understanding and the knowledge of thousands of civilisations") and seemed even more so to mark that this was a definitive conclusion for the series and this time period. Emphasising all of those divergent post-ME3 plot states with the EC slides seems counter-productive if they were planning at the same time to pick a canon ending down the line as a launching pad for MENext. 

Obviously we don't know about the internal discussion since then, but I think if the ending reaction had inspired them to reconsider ME3 as a chronological endpoint then that debate would've surely taken place before the EC was designed and built. If it wasn't, and MENext is a sequel, then they now need to awkwardly deal with the galaxy canon that they let us go crazy with in ME3.

[JamesFaith]

ElitePinecone wrote...

As I wondered in another thread: why does a prequel need to involve the First Contact War or anything we've ever heard of before? 

Problem here is that most people operate with prequel = prelude to known events and characters. They are completely missing that in fictional universe for prequel you need just same universe and previous date, nothing more. 

I'm often using example of GTA3 and its prequels GTA: Vice city and GTA: San Andreas. Both situated in same world, with same atmosphere, similar game mechanics and only connections is few cameos and tiny hints to future events.  

[Epic777]

ElitePinecone wrote...
I don't know, but my gut feeling was that ME3 is intended to be the chronological end of the series.

This is the kind of thing that frustrates me. If that was the case why did Bioware hold back? ME3 could have made diverse endings, and could have those war assets directly change said endings. Why worry if it the last game in the series?

[EatChildren]

While I do think there's some misconceptions and over-assumptions of when a prequel would be set, GTA3/VC/SA miss the point a little bit. Prequels yes, but still greatly disconnected from each other by the very nature of their narrative themes and general construct. The implications for your actions and course of each narrative are on such a small scale that it doesn't really matter if another story is told somewhere else, or at another time, with new characters, because it can still comfortably match the scale and investment of other games.

I think the concern with a Mass Effect prequel is that the mainline series up until now has been very, very focused on grandeur story telling and scale. This has been an undercurrent since the very first moments of Mass Effect 1, prevalent throughout that game and the things you learn/do, and through the two sequels to the finish. Rarely are the situations, issues, and themes you're enveloped in insignificant or small scale, but instead of considerable scale and galactic importance to the point of silliness. It's part of the cheese, but also part of the series identity, and people probably expect (if incorrectly) the next game, or series of games, to follow in similar footsteps even if it's telling a different story.

Whether it has to do this, or whether it can tell a story like this while still being a prequel, is open to debate. But I can see why people gravitate towards the assumption it will and why this would be more difficult, and potentially less interesting, when you're working with a prequel instead of a new template with no limits.

[AlanC9]

Epic777 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...
I don't know, but my gut feeling was that ME3 is intended to be the chronological end of the series.

This is the kind of thing that frustrates me. If that was the case why did Bioware hold back? ME3 could have made diverse endings, and could have those war assets directly change said endings. Why worry if it the last game in the series?

There's a difference between making the endings diverse and throwing a lot of zots into portraying those endings.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:16 .

[AlanC9]

ElitePinecone wrote...
 Emphasising all of those divergent post-ME3 plot states with the EC slides seems counter-productive if they were planning at the same time to pick a canon ending down the line as a launching pad for MENext.

I don't see how this follows. If they're planning to use a canon ending, then why does it matter how divergent the endings are? They don't have to accomodate more than one in a sequel. 

[Epic777]

AlanC9 wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...
I don't know, but my gut feeling was that ME3 is intended to be the chronological end of the series.

This is the kind of thing that frustrates me. If that was the case why did Bioware hold back? ME3 could have made diverse endings, and could have those war assets directly change said endings. Why worry if it the last game in the series?

There's a difference between making the endings diverse and throwing a lot of zots into portraying those endings.

The vanilia endings did neigher

Modifié par Epic777, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:33 .

[ElitePinecone]

EatChildren wrote...

I think the concern with a Mass Effect prequel is that the mainline series up until now has been very, very focused on grandeur story telling and scale. This has been an undercurrent since the very first moments of Mass Effect 1, prevalent throughout that game and the things you learn/do, and through the two sequels to the finish. Rarely are the situations, issues, and themes you're enveloped in insignificant or small scale, but instead of considerable scale and galactic importance to the point of silliness. It's part of the cheese, but also part of the series identity, and people probably expect (if incorrectly) the next game, or series of games, to follow in similar footsteps even if it's telling a different story.

Whether it has to do this, or whether it can tell a story like this while still being a prequel, is open to debate. But I can see why people gravitate towards the assumption it will and why this would be more difficult, and potentially less interesting, when you're working with a prequel instead of a new template with no limits.

That's true, yeah - though I personally wouldn't mind a smaller story; I thought the characterisation and individual quest plots of the last two games were far better and more interesting than the overarching narrative. Make it more Firefly than Star Wars, so to speak. 

Something I've seen others point out is that it seems really hard to top the Reapers as a threat - and if they do, wouldn't it seem like a cheesy comic book universe where the Big Bad is the worst thing ever until a worse one somehow appears? I'm not very enthusiastic about a new game if it's going to introduce a new aggressive alien species as The Next Bad Guys and spend the whole time working out how to defeat them. 

The risk of continuing with a grandiose storyline, I suppose, is that it requires even more grandioseness than Shepard's trilogy to keep upping the stakes - and I'm not sure that's a Mass Effect game I'd like playing. 

[EatChildren]

The issue of the Big Bad is indeed problematic, but not unsolvable. The trilogy's fumbled ending does introduce some unfortunate difficulties. Ultimately if they do intend to walk the path of a sequel and a grandiose storyline they'll need to find narrative hooks and themes that don't directly replicate the Reaper threat. A galaxy wide post-war depression would be perfect, but given the endings as they are I don't think they'll go with that.

[JamesFaith]

EatChildren wrote...

While I do think there's some misconceptions and over-assumptions of when a prequel would be set, GTA3/VC/SA miss the point a little bit. Prequels yes, but still greatly disconnected from each other by the very nature of their narrative themes and general construct. The implications for your actions and course of each narrative are on such a small scale that it doesn't really matter if another story is told somewhere else, or at another time, with new characters, because it can still comfortably match the scale and investment of other games.

Which is exactly what I want.

We already got story of war hero who saved galaxy and with his decisions changed whole planets and nations. Now I want something smaller and different.

Like ElitePinecone wrote, it should be good to change this main seting and avoid any form of Shepard model 2, who would be constantly compared with original trilogy. BW should rather give as smuggler, mercenary, Corsair or prospector and show us ME universe from completely different perspective then Alliance marine and Spectre.