38 réponses à ce sujet

[cap and gown]

For the next ME, would you prefer a story arc, like the Reaper arc in ME1-3, or would you prefer that each title be a self-contained story, but with continuing characters, villians, etc.? (In other words, decisions in previous games would carry over, as would many of the characters, but we would not be constrained by worrying about defeating some galaxy-wide menace within the next game or two.)

I would prefer not doing another story-arc type series. This would leave things more open-ended. Sure, there could be some evil organization that we fight against in each game, but in each different game it would be a different threat that we would have to foil, without ever finally defeating KAOS, Specter, whatever.

[Iakus]

Self contaned stories.

I have been pretty much soured on teh whole import system. All it does is restrict future content.

[Derpy]

I liked the character import. Made you think more about how that decision will effect you in the long run. 

[Mathias]

Self contained/reboot. And no I don't want something like the Reaper story arc because it's clear their writers can't handle a story like that. They need to keep it more simple than what they started in ME1.

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Self contained/reboot. And no I don't want something like the Reaper story arc because it's clear their writers can't handle a story like that. They need to keep it more simple than what they started in ME1.

Eh, I don't know. They have experience under their belt now, lessons learned on how to plan this sort of thing. I'm not saying they'd get the next import trilogy totally right, but I will say there's a good bet you won't see an importing nightmare like the Suicide Mission pop up in the second game again. So I think there's a good chance the next trilogy would be an improvement in the import regard.

That being said, I think the grand, epic story of the ME universe has been told. Perhaps they can build another one, but that's going to take time to feel right, so I'd do a few self-contained games to let whatever new issues they see as being the ME meta-problem ferment for a bit. Think the expansion of the genophage and geth storylines in ME2 that paved the way for the arcs in ME3. If they can do a few games of ME2-style exploration of lore, they can be in a good position to go epic again down the road.

[Grizzly46]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Self contained/reboot. And no I don't want something like the Reaper story arc because it's clear their writers can't handle a story like that. They need to keep it more simple than what they started in ME1.

That.

Or failing that the creation of a separate world that has as much to do with the Mass Effect universe as the Dragon Age universe, ie nothing at all. Mass Effect is Shepard's story, and I would feel insulted if Bioware (or rather EA) tried to milk it more.

The thing is, when Dragon Age Origins ended, it did so with the world pretty much intact, which provided room for sequels and expansions. When Mass Effect (3) ended, it did so with a forever changed galaxy, which leaves no room for sequels, so in this sense the ME triology is a perfect self-contained story.

[Excella Gionne]

Character importing has always been defined Mass Effect as a standing out RPG!

[SwobyJ]

*Ideally?*

Three 'sequel' (in a sense... we'll see) games, same protagonist, but make it written so and abundantly clear to players that it is not really a trilogy (as in, trilogy expectations). Three separate-but-related journeys, with a few connecting ties, but they will each be more about more separate main threats and major tasks, instead of the "fight the overwhelming Reaper army" deal.

I want Bioware to have the import (pretty much a staple for them until they really push back against it for whatever reason), and to continue it throughout the next games, but not feel the pressure to reflect everything.

An interesting path to me would be playing an outright cyborg (treated carefully as to not scare off certain players, and maybe have the degree of cyborgism to be optional), and then have the 3 games take place over 10s or maybe 100s of years, instead of 1s of years for Shepard.

That would change the timeframe enough that they would each be chapters of a larger narrative, but not really have that sequel/trilogy conception that people have certain expectations for.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 30 janvier 2014 - 04:43 .

[SwobyJ]

I don't think the galaxy has drastically changed in the way most think.

[Mathias]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Self contained/reboot. And no I don't want something like the Reaper story arc because it's clear their writers can't handle a story like that. They need to keep it more simple than what they started in ME1.

Eh, I don't know. They have experience under their belt now, lessons learned on how to plan this sort of thing. I'm not saying they'd get the next import trilogy totally right, but I will say there's a good bet you won't see an importing nightmare like the Suicide Mission pop up in the second game again. So I think there's a good chance the next trilogy would be an improvement in the import regard.

That being said, I think the grand, epic story of the ME universe has been told. Perhaps they can build another one, but that's going to take time to feel right, so I'd do a few self-contained games to let whatever new issues they see as being the ME meta-problem ferment for a bit. Think the expansion of the genophage and geth storylines in ME2 that paved the way for the arcs in ME3. If they can do a few games of ME2-style exploration of lore, they can be in a good position to go epic again down the road.

Who's to say that over the course of 5 years they won't drastically change up the writers and developers like they did over the course of ME1-3? I'd rather them keep it simple, less likely to screw it up that way. Because I felt like they blew it spectacularly in ME3.

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Who's to say that over the course of 5 years they won't drastically change up the writers and developers like they did over the course of ME1-3? I'd rather them keep it simple, less likely to screw it up that way. Because I felt like they blew it spectacularly in ME3.

I don't, but I probably didn't have inflated expectations due to marketing hype (I did a media black-out for everything ME3-related).

Also, changing writers and devs isn't as important as having the ME3 trilogy there for all eyes to see. It's a blueprint, a flawed one, but even new people coming in can see potential areas where things went right or wrong, paths to avoid, scopes to plan out well ahead of time.

[SwobyJ]

ME1-3 is very much a blueprint for the franchise, not the be all.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Stand alone series. I don't think the developers have the right mentality for a spanning story arc. The series should, at the very least, have large parts of the story including its ending planned out a head of time and the same people should be involved in the creation of each game. Basically, I think to make a good game spanning story the developers have to go in thinking of the story as a large one that has to be broken into pieces due its size, rather than creating the games and leave important developments up to the next title.

This is pure speculation but I can't shake the notion that the primary reason why they're making a Mass Effect 4 is because the highers ups at BioWare/EA know that it will have a title that will make money. Because of that I think they aren't planning it as a series. If they do decide to make it into a series it will probably show the same mistakes the first Mass Effect series made.

[cap and gown]

A few people have implied that importing and self-contained stories are mutually exclusive. There is no reason that should be. You can have decisions from previous games carry over, even if each story is self-contained. You would meet up with characters you met before and depending on how you dealt with them in a previous title it would change how they are dealt with in the current title. Like, maybe you had to choose one squad member to lose. Then you wouldn't see them in the next game. Of course, this major branching in stories would have to be kept manageable. The suicide mission provided too many possible branches, with 12 squad members who could all die. But if the squad was kept smaller, and fewer of them could die, then the complexity (and resources required) would be reduced. So many characters got short-shrift in ME3 because there was not enough resources to deal with that many characters, many of whom might be dead. But that is a lesson that BW seems to have learned.

[RZIBARA]

another trilogy, you dont get as invested in characters through just a single game

[Karlone123]

An ongoing series with different stories like Dragon Age, I like my decisions to have an effect on the next game, that is a selling point for me.

[Mcfly616]

Self-contained standalone stories for each game.

[Malanek]

I think either way could work. I actually think self contained stories, without the same protagonist, are easier to keep interesting and at a high level of quality. But on the other hand I suspect more players would prefer an ongoing story arc.

[eyezonlyii]

I would go with more of a changing squad, but same enemy type of deal. The closest game series I can think of like this though is Resident Evil or Silent Hill. Where the setting is the enemy, but the story is changed as here is a new protagonist. This way, certain things can be imported, there can be crossovers, but there needn't be worries about existence changing events occurring.

[cap and gown]

eyezonlyii wrote...

I would go with more of a changing squad, but same enemy type of deal. The closest game series I can think of like this though is Resident Evil or Silent Hill. Where the setting is the enemy, but the story is changed as here is a new protagonist. This way, certain things can be imported, there can be crossovers, but there needn't be worries about existence changing events occurring.

I don't think this is BW's style. They (and I) like players to become attached to characters, and that generally takes more than one game. Look at the growth in Garrus, for example.

[Mcfly616]

cap and gown wrote...

eyezonlyii wrote...

I would go with more of a changing squad, but same enemy type of deal. The closest game series I can think of like this though is Resident Evil or Silent Hill. Where the setting is the enemy, but the story is changed as here is a new protagonist. This way, certain things can be imported, there can be crossovers, but there needn't be worries about existence changing events occurring.

I don't think this is BW's style. They (and I) like players to become attached to characters, and that generally takes more than one game. Look at the growth in Garrus, for example.

can't think of too many BW games besides Mass Effect and Dragon's Age that have overarching narratives over the course of multiple games. Most of them don't carry the entire cast over the course of multiple installments atleast. 


And the quality of Garrus' "growth" is debatable. 

[cap and gown]

StreetMagic wrote...

I'd rather they not bother with "continuing" stories or imports. It just set up false expectations in my case. I'm not rewarded for doing missions well or saving everyone. You're better off killing most of your group and not investing in the game. Because the next game is going to make the characters and possibly the whole plot irrelevant anyways.

Bitter, are we? I think BW learned some lessons from the ME2-ME3 transition. While I expect major retcons in ME: Next, I think the series will quickly achieve some degree of stability. (Hopefully that won't mean it will get stale.) Of course, you may not get another character like Jack.

[Ultim Asari]

Trilogy, you care more about the outcomes.