38 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Standalone self-contained story....Choices have much greater and much more real impact. The narrative can branch more radically.

[Iakus]

cap and gown wrote...

Bitter, are we? I think BW learned some lessons from the ME2-ME3 transition.

How about between ME1 and ME2?

KABOOM!!!

Shepard:  What happened?
Jacob:  You've been dead for two years
Shepard: Cool
TIM:  Wanna team up with Cerberus? 
Shepard:  Do I get a uniform?
TIM:  Of course!
Shepard:  Where do I sign?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ultim Asari wrote...

Trilogy, you care more about the outcomes.

Not true, not on an objective scale. 

KotOR was only one game, and damn if it didn't make you care about the outcomes.

The biggest problem is accounting for all decisions and their impact on the entire trilogy. BW at least proved that the lumbering beast collapsed under its own weight. It literally makes the series too big for any one game. 

By ME1 to ME3, BW would (if they actually did make the choices count and matter) would've had to make 5 discs with several completely different games to make the game truly branching.

[Iakus]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Ultim Asari wrote...

Trilogy, you care more about the outcomes.

Not true, not on an objective scale. 

KotOR was only one game, and damn if it didn't make you care about the outcomes.

The biggest problem is accounting for all decisions and their impact on the entire trilogy. BW at least proved that the lumbering beast collapsed under its own weight. It literally makes the series too big for any one game. 

By ME1 to ME3, BW would (if they actually did make the choices count and matter) would've had to make 5 discs with several completely different games to make the game truly branching.

Yup.  And since all characters have to start at the same place each game, regardless of imports, "big choices" are almost entirely just  "cosmetic choices"

In a single game, it's possible to make chocies made in this game at least matter in this game

[Deverz]

I'm kinda done with Reapers, you know?. And I'm betting I'm not the only one who would be happy to say goodbye to that (somewhat messy) storyline.

I'm currently reading the Culture series by Iain M. Banks (which is amazing, by the way). All books take place in the same setting, and are loosely connected at times, but chiefly stand-alone, even jumping hundreds of years apart. I'm thinking future Mass Effect games could be like that.

And imports... not sure if I want them as much any more. It was iconic for the Mass Effect trilogy. But ME1-2-3 choices spread itself very thinly, and the effort proved to be barely worth it. A 30-40-50 hour long standalone ME game is fine by me. Also, I want the series to move forward in the timeline, but the endings seem to put a dent in that by being too varied. I guess we'll see.

[Saikyo_McRyu]

cap and gown wrote...

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.

Self-contained stories for the win here.

Considering the Reaper storyline was pretty much the Ultimate Universe-Smashing Tale of Serious You Guys, attempting to match or outdo it would not only be pointless, it could result in wrecking the universe even more thoroughly than the most negative of ME3's endings.

The Dragonlance series, first under TSR and then WOTC, is a prime example of this: After two epic trologies, TSR decided they couldn't do too much else with the series, so they hired the original writers to write a book that massacred the main characters (including much of the "next generation") and completely trashed the dynamics of the world. Only the result (a "groundbreaking" new box set to hawk to the shell-shocked fans) ending up sucking, so when WOTC bought TSR, they hired the original writers again to retcon the biggest changes from the world-breaking book and write a whole new trilogy. While not bad, the new trilogy seemed kinda silly in retrospect when you consider that much of what they were doing was (1) fixing the original changes they themselves had put in place and (2) fixing the crappy world that had been imposed by TSR after the world-breaking in the first place. In the end, the new characters were generally not as interesting or memorable as those whacked in the first place, and I really wished many of them (the longer-lived ones, anyway) hadn't been booted from the story.

This has also been a major characteristic of Dragonlance's fellow fantasy world (and Baldur's Gate setting), Forgotten Realms, where every couple of years the developers decide to trash the gameworld, randomly make gods explode, pull new armies of antagonists out of hammerspace, etc., though it is all managed better than it was in Dragonlance.

So what I'm saying here is that attempting to make another trilogy could result in disaster, especially if it attempts to out-do the Reaper story.

Oh, and by the way. To the Abyss with trilogies. Why do you have to confine yourself to three installments? The Reaper story, as many others have noted, should not have been shoehorned into three games when four would have been more appropriate (and EA would have been all for this for the extra $$$). Top-tier television series routinely tell outstanding stories over single or multiple seasons.The Aubrey-Maturin (Master and Commander) novel series by Patrick O'Brian is over 20 books long. And,

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

KotOR was only one game, and damn if it didn't make you care about the outcomes.

sometimes all you need is one game. KOTOR 2 was very good, it's barely a sequel in many ways, and is very much a self-contained story - possibly a good model for a future ME game.

What we do have in the Mass Effect universe is a tremendously well-developed and well-realized SF setting with a large variety of interesting races, factions, and technology. It would be a shame for it to come to a halt with ME3. Working around the issue of the multiple endings, which has been addressed by many others, I am confident the best way forward for the series is to produce a number of smaller scale, self-contained games with a few strong connections to the original ME story. As long as the characters well-written and the gameplay effective, I'm sure this concept would be a success.

And by the way, Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, as mentioned above, did create many self-contained stories. The Dragonlance attempts were often laughable failures, as TSR hired some pretty bad writers and rarely created memorable characters that could match the main cast. Moreover, the two core Dragonlance trilogies, while fantastic, didn't actualy do all that much to define the world outside of the main characters and the central conflict. Forgotten Realms, which rather interestingly doesn't have a "core" set of books to base the story on, was more successful. Robert Salvatore's Drizzt series had a lot to do with this, but generally the FR stories proved more interesting - in fact, the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale game series themselves were great examples.

I'm also a big proponent of tying the original series into the new games by using some of the same NPCs, and possibly introducing some of the more well-realized NPCs as squadmates. For example, Aethyta is one of the better-realized characters from ME2 and ME3 despite her limited screentime, and I'd love to see her return. I really don't think we need any of the main cast to return outside of a cameo or two or some name-dropping in dialogue (and everyone should stop automatically knowing the Shadow Broker is Liara). Maybe James could return. I didn't like him that much, but, like many others, he got shortchanged for story in ME3 and had some potential for character development.

So I do think it's entirely possible to make several new games in the ME universe. Some of them can be linked as sequels, and some not, but as long as the characters are well-written and believable, fans will enjoy them. And let's try to incorporate some of the mystery and wonder found in ME1 where possible.

Bottom line: Don't try to outdo the Reaper story - that can only end in disaster.

Modifié par Monty Hall, 02 février 2014 - 05:14 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

What I think would be best is to have each game be a self contained story, with no large scale conflicts. Then the next game in the series would start with mostly difference characters but placed in the same universe that is affected by the previous games decisions; however, the decisions would have to be kept small so they don't end up being trivialized.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 02 février 2014 - 04:57 .

[cap and gown]

I will say this about the value of importing decisions: it probably increases BW's revenue which is good if you like their products and want them to stay in business. I started with ME3 thinking it would be like the TES series: part of a series, but you didn't need the earlier games to play it. Then I found out about the import feature, and in particular how you needed to get an import to make peace between the Quarians and Geth, so I went off and bought ME1 and ME2. I also ended up buying pretty much all the ME2 DLC and Bring Down the Sky. So the import feature caused this consumer of a later title to go back and buy the earlier titles.

[Grizzly46]

Monty Hall wrote...

cap and gown wrote...

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.

Monty Hall wrote...

Considering the Reaper storyline was pretty much the Ultimate Universe-Smashing Tale of Serious You Guys, attempting to match or outdo it would not only be pointless, it could result in wrecking the universe even more thoroughly than the most negative of ME3's endings.

The Dragonlance series, first under TSR and then WOTC, is a prime example of this: After two epic trologies, TSR decided they couldn't do too much else with the series, so they hired the original writers to write a book that massacred the main characters (including much of the "next generation") and completely trashed the dynamics of the world. Only the result (a "groundbreaking" new box set to hawk to the shell-shocked fans) ending up sucking, so when WOTC bought TSR, they hired the original writers again to retcon the biggest changes from the world-breaking book and write a whole new trilogy. While not bad, the new trilogy seemed kinda silly in retrospect when you consider that much of what they were doing was (1) fixing the original changes they themselves had put in place and (2) fixing the crappy world that had been imposed by TSR after the world-breaking in the first place. In the end, the new characters were generally not as interesting or memorable as those whacked in the first place, and I really wished many of them (the longer-lived ones, anyway) hadn't been booted from the story.

I'm not familiar with Dragonlance personally, but that seems like the exact scenario I'm dreading regarding Mass Effect - that it will be retconned to hell and back, mainly to serve as a cash cow for EA.

Monty Hall wrote...

This has also been a major characteristic of Dragonlance's fellow fantasy world (and Baldur's Gate setting), Forgotten Realms, where every couple of years the developers decide to trash the gameworld, randomly make gods explode, pull new armies of antagonists out of hammerspace, etc., though it is all managed better than it was in Dragonlance.

So what I'm saying here is that attempting to make another trilogy could result in disaster, especially if it attempts to out-do the Reaper story.

Indeed. The reapers were pretty much the ultimate enemy for any game setting - you can destroy the Japanese and German armies in pretty much any WW2 game, and the Baldurs Gate saga (which is still the best game series ever produced, even beating Mass Effect) was a more personal adventure where the protagonist went up against the big bad not so much for the world, but for himself. But no game has really produced this kind of destructive force as Mass Effect's reapers.

Monty Hall wrote...

Oh, and by the way. To the Abyss with trilogies. Why do you have to confine yourself to three installments? The Reaper story, as many others have noted, should not have been shoehorned into three games when four would have been more appropriate (and EA would have been all for this for the extra $$$). Top-tier television series routinely tell outstanding stories over single or multiple seasons.The Aubrey-Maturin (Master and Commander) novel series by Patrick O'Brian is over 20 books long.

I'm not really with you here. The trick is to find a balance - a triology is a damn fine way to balance things out over a reasonable time (Lord of the Rings anyone?), and if a show or series or what have you go on too long, it might go stale. I began suspecting this at the middle of the second season of The Walking Dead (and IMHO I was right); MASH lasted for ten seasons and went bad after the fifth; X-files went on for eleven seasons and churned out a couple of films as well and especially the later seasons were so bad they could have been used as torture devices at Gitmo.

Monty Hall wrote...
What we do have in the Mass Effect universe is a tremendously well-developed and well-realized SF setting with a large variety of interesting races, factions, and technology. It would be a shame for it to come to a halt with ME3.

I have to disagree with you again. I admit the Mass Effect universe is great and very well developed (as long as they can get rid of some hats), but no matter where on the timeline you put another Mass Effect game, it will be affected by the ME triology:

Before the reaper war: Everything you do will be made null and void when the reapers come and flatten everything. A very common feeling will be "this is so pointless".

After the reaper war: This will be most difficult to pull off since no matter what the ending was, it will have a tremendous impact on the universe for a very, very long time, not to mention that any try to appeal to all endings will be a massive effort, and I doubt anyone would like to wait for the next game for ten-fifteen years or so - if it would come ever. One solution would be to make one ending canon, but then you would ****** off the people NOT wanting that. I personally hate and despise  the synthesis, but others like it. Would I be comfortable with a canon synthesis ending? No, period.

During the reaper war: This would explouit the current universe better, but no matter where you are, the reapers WILL affect the game (or they should). This will also feel pointless, since no matter what you do, you know that everything is second fiddle to whatever Shepard is doing. I do think however that this is the easiest way to expand the game without expanding Shepard's story.

Monty Hall wrote...
Working around the issue of the multiple endings, which has been addressed by many others, I am confident the best way forward for the series is to produce a number of smaller scale, self-contained games with a few strong connections to the original ME story. As long as the characters well-written and the gameplay effective, I'm sure this concept would be a success.

I'm not so sure.

When the allies landed in Italy and started the Meditterreanean campaign, the US soldiers there started calling themselves 'D-Day Dodgers' - they knew that the real fight against Germany would take place later in France at D-Day. What you are suggesting is pretty much to make a series of games where the player becomes a D-Day Dodger. Sure, you'll bleed and fight just as much as the guys on D-Day, but it kind of sucks to know you are only a sideshow.

Monty Hall wrote...
I'm also a big proponent of tying the original series into the new games by using some of the same NPCs, and possibly introducing some of the more well-realized NPCs as squadmates. For example, Aethyta is one of the better-realized characters from ME2 and ME3 despite her limited screentime, and I'd love to see her return. I really don't think we need any of the main cast to return outside of a cameo or two or some name-dropping in dialogue (and everyone should stop automatically knowing the Shadow Broker is Liara). Maybe James could return. I didn't like him that much, but, like many others, he got shortchanged for story in ME3 and had some potential for character development.

And where would these characters show up? We know Vega was with Shepard up until the earth assault, so he is pretty much locked for a D-Day Dodger game.

I liked Aethya, but I liked a lot of characters. The universe - or rather, the galaxy in this case - is a darn big place, so there's really no reason that we should bump into old characters all the time. Aethya, Vega, Parasini, the 'Biotic God' and several others were really loved by the fans, but I see that more as a testament to the writers that they could come up with good likeable characters.

Monty Hall wrote...
So I do think it's entirely possible to make several new games in the ME universe. Some of them can be linked as sequels, and some not, but as long as the characters are well-written and believable, fans will enjoy them. And let's try to incorporate some of the mystery and wonder found in ME1 where possible.

Nope. See above for my reasoning regarding this.

I think that the only way we can hold onto this great universe and to be honest pretty darn fantastic game, would be a total reboot of the franchise - spice it up, clean it up and expand what is already there. Mass Effect 1-3 is Shepard's story, and I think it should stay that way.

Monty Hall wrote...
Bottom line: Don't try to outdo the Reaper story - that can only end in disaster.

This I can agree with.

Modifié par Grizzly46, 07 février 2014 - 05:08 .

[Derpy]

I really don't care at this point. As long as I can choose my race and not be a creepy shep im happy.

Oh yeah and there is Reegar Carbine, Harrier and Arc Pistol im happy too.

[Sovereign330]

I'm expecting them to go the Dragon Age route now. As in, we'll be changing shoes a lot but the characters we know in game one will make cameos in 2 and 3 and so on. We'll have a Warden then a Hawke, then an Inquisitor...but the galaxy won't forget the actions of your characters..IF they don't stick with the import system, they'll likely adopt a Keep system like in DA:I

[Heimdall]

Ideally, I'd like to see a trilogy with self contained but interrelated plots.

Less forthright connection than the Reaper plot, so as to avoid ME2's feeling of being filler waiting the Reaper's show up. However, its important in a trilogy to be building up to something, I feel. So there needs to be some connecting thread in that manner.

I wouldn't say no to the Dragon Age style of protagonist shifting on the other hand

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 10 février 2014 - 07:20 .