12 réponses à ce sujet

[Brass_Buckles]

Bioware keeps saying they aren't necessarily doing a prequel or sequel to the Mass Effect trilogy.  That sounds like they're either doing a reboot of the series, or they're planning an offshoot side story or two.

 

While I wouldn't mind following around an old crew member in a mobile game, it's not what I want to do for a new game in the franchise.  I don't want to see a prequel, either, because anything there is going to be overshadowed by Shepard's story.

 

I wouldn't mind at all another trilogy with a different character, though.

 

In any case I thought of a way that we would not get a true sequel, but without it being a prequel or side story:

 

During the Reaper Wars, the Council recognizes that the most likely outcome--even with the Conduit due to the fact that they don't know how to activate it--is that all intelligent life in the galaxy gets wiped out yet again this cycle.  Before the war ends, they gather together a group of people of all known races in secret for a special mission:  They will be put in cryostasis and flown to the next nearest galaxy, in hopes that they evade detection by Reapers and the Indoctrinated, and so each species will be allowed to survive.

 

Hundreds of years later, the crew wakes up and lands on a habitable planet in that other galaxy.  They have no clue whether there's anyone left back home, and the assumption is that there is no Milky Way civilization left to go home to.

 

Whether you'd be part of this crew, or some descendant from years upon years down the line, I don't know, but you'd never hear about Shepard and the player's actions throughout the previous game would be totally irrelevant.  It'd save Bioware a lot of work figuring out how to bring the ME-verse forward without having to choose a specific canon ending or having to put in extra work to fit every possibility into the game.  It would also leave open the possibility of going back to the Milky Way and its inhabitants at some point in the future.

 

Drawbacks?  I doubt there would be mass relays, etc. to travel around with.  So the scope of the game would be limited to just a handful of worlds, unless we were to find out that the Reapers and Leviathans had gone all across the universe--after all, they did hide in dark space between galaxies.  Or unless someone else had also developed mass relays or comparable technology.

 

As for the plot in this scenario?  I have no idea.  Again, it's only a potential background that would allow Bioware to move forward.  It would be a sequel-but-not-a-sequel, since it would be chronologically in the future but again, we wouldn't know what happened as a result of our previous playthrough.  The advantage, though, is that it would also allow the developers to keep their galaxy this time around, and work within a scope where you could hope to bring your save data forward into the next game, even after this character's series (assuming he or she had one) concluded.

 

It would also allow for us to visit the Milky Way again in the future at such a point when the ME3 ending might be irrelevant (developers have hinted that synthesis was inevitable, eventually, regardless which ending you chose, so that the only difference might be whether or not there were Reapers still around)--and you'd basically discover that it's Not Home Anymore.

 

Thoughts?  Any backstories of your own you think could work, given what little Bioware has told us?

[K2LU533]

This is pretty much what I was thinking too, although I think it will be set some time after the exodus.

[SwobyJ]

"Calling it Mass Effect 4 would be a disservice."

[Brass_Buckles]

"Calling it Mass Effect 4 would be a disservice."

 

Your post has nothing to do with the topic.  I only call it ME4 because we currently have no working title etc. to go by, and there's no reason to get technical about that when most people outside of the developers' office are calling it ME4, for lack of a better name.

 

The fact that they don't want it to be "Mass Effect 4" would also play into the backstory I wrote up, seeing as you probably wouldn't have mass relays and the influence of Mass Effect might be greatly diminished.

[SwobyJ]

I'll repeat the possibly important part: "disservice"

 

How could that be?

 

I actually don't know, and this might not even be important, but I just found the quote interesting. It could imply that it's nothing like a side game, but something that surpasses the scope of the previous games (at least in some way).

 

I like the backstory you typed up. I'm less sure of anything like it happening in the next game, but I would love for something like it at some point.

[Rodus Maxumus]

I will point out one thing, the stasis ship would not need to travel to the next galaxy, all they would need to do is leave the galaxy and hide in dark space. The stasis ship could go into “stand-by mode” for several hundred years then come back after the Reapers have left and prepare for the next Reaper invasion.

[Killdren88]

I honestly would prefer a reboot. I would love to play Me1 with the mechanics of Me3. Plus, I see it as a viable loophole to avoid the endings and create ones that can be more open ended and thus way more freedom for sequels. 

[durasteel]

I cannot see a "reboot" (in the sense of removing the first 3 games from continuity altogether) as being possible. I think ME4 will be more of a re-engagement, an invitation for fans to reconnect to the Mass Effect universe outside of the context of Shepard and the Reaper War, while retaining those elements of the universe as history and context.

 

The relays and the Citadel are really indispensable parts of Mass Effect, and a game without them might as well not carry the name. The Reapers provide the origin of the galactic infrastructure, and so some version of the Shepard trilogy has to have happened as the backdrop for any game to re-launch the franchise.

 

Personally, I think the only reasonable choice from a business standpoint is to roll forward one or more generations to allow the trilogy to become blurred by distance. "Shepard defeated the Reapers" may become accepted Truth without the need for exposition on "how" that happened. Different NPCs could even offer different version of "history" without the need to identify which one is correct. (I'm looking forward to the version that has Shepard riding into battle on the back of a Geth Armature.)  

[Malanek]

Personally I am still hoping for a sequel set about 10-30 years after the reaper war but this is quite a cool way of doing a reboot. Assuming it was a big enough ark to store enough variety and preserve numbers of each species, it would have taken a massive amount of resources to build at a time they could not be spared. I guess you could change it so that it was built after Sovereigns attack by a group that heeded the initial warnings. Alternatively you could make it so that the ark simply took copies of dna, and virtually everyone in the new galaxy is a "tankbred".

 

As for bringing save data forward, I don't consider that an advantage. I would prefer it be dropped so the story tellers have freedom they haven't had since me1. In the situation you described it would be virtually ignored anyway.

 

In terms of synthesis being inevitable, well a gradual form of technological evolution seems extremely likely, but the chances of it being the same as synthesis are virtually 0. Anyway, that was an offhand comment, I wouldn't read too much into that.

[JamesFaith]

I'll repeat the possibly important part: "disservice"

 

How could that be?

 

I actually don't know, and this might not even be important, but I just found the quote interesting. It could imply that it's nothing like a side game, but something that surpasses the scope of the previous games (at least in some way).

 

I like the backstory you typed up. I'm less sure of anything like it happening in the next game, but I would love for something like it at some point.

 

I think that this quote have simple explanation - name Mass Effect 4 would imply return of Shepard and people would later complain when there would be new hero.

 

It is reaction on similar case with DA1 and DA2. BW said there would be new hero during PR campaign, yet people complain about missing Gray Warden after played it. For that reason new DA is presented without number, just with new title. I expect similar name for new Mass Effect.

[wright1978]

I cannot see a "reboot" (in the sense of removing the first 3 games from continuity altogether) as being possible. I think ME4 will be more of a re-engagement, an invitation for fans to reconnect to the Mass Effect universe outside of the context of Shepard and the Reaper War, while retaining those elements of the universe as history and context.

 

The relays and the Citadel are really indispensable parts of Mass Effect, and a game without them might as well not carry the name. The Reapers provide the origin of the galactic infrastructure, and so some version of the Shepard trilogy has to have happened as the backdrop for any game to re-launch the franchise.

 

Personally, I think the only reasonable choice from a business standpoint is to roll forward one or more generations to allow the trilogy to become blurred by distance. "Shepard defeated the Reapers" may become accepted Truth without the need for exposition on "how" that happened. Different NPCs could even offer different version of "history" without the need to identify which one is correct. (I'm looking forward to the version that has Shepard riding into battle on the back of a Geth Armature.)  

 

Yeah rolling forward into far future and starting afresh is the best option i conceive of. Obviously there are issues with the excplicit differences in the endings and whether they'd opt to go for an alternative future based on only one version or could reflect some differences whilst re-merging some elements(reapers leaving for dark space even if not destroyed)

 

OP suggestion certainly has some merit. Suppose it would be akin to standalone tale(like DA2).

[JeffZero]

I think that this quote have simple explanation - name Mass Effect 4 would imply return of Shepard and people would later complain when there would be new hero.

It is reaction on similar case with DA1 and DA2. BW said there would be new hero during PR campaign, yet people complain about missing Gray Warden after played it. For that reason new DA is presented without number, just with new title. I expect similar name for new Mass Effect.

There's also an industry-wide trend wayward of the numerical as late. While many series are holding onto it, many more, frequently as a result of having completed the Western ideal of "three" projects interconnected (although the film industry is moving toward four lately, but that's another discussion) are seeking to ensure there is no dread feeling of a new installment being too convoluted to jump into without prior understanding by replacing the number system with a subtitle.

This is easiest in cases of prequels and side stories and new epics and so forth. God of War Ascension. Gears of War Judgment. Dragon Age Inquisition. Mass Effect Unlimited (or whatever). It's a smart business move and project names are ultimately business decisions through and through.

To say nothing of the fact that regardless of name, people will be up in arms over lack of Shepard. Can't you hear it too? From the as-yet-unrecorded YouTube fan rants of 2015 and beyond?

"BioWare was supposed to have been lying to us about no Shepard to save it as a big surprise to the fans. That's what everyone believed. But they blew it. I guess this game was terribly rushed. Or something. Because you play as someone else and I feel so betrayed. In not confirming Shepard they basically promised us Shepard and I'll never trust them again."

[Drone223]

OP if that happens Bioware may as well start a new franchise altogether. The next ME game is meant to allow players to experience the galaxy from a different perspective since according to the codex only about 1% of the milky way galaxy has been explored, this still a lot to discover.