22 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Do you think that, given there will be a new mass effect game, that they need to "raise the stakes" as it were in terms of threat? Or that this new story, which is almost certainly not going to be a continuation of shepards story, may be able to stand on its own two legs without needing to make up a threat greater then the reapers?

 

I personally believe that trying to beat the reapers in terms of antagonist threat level, is a bit of a moot point. You had an enemy that was successful in wiping out life every 50,000 years for presumably hundreds of millions of years, given the age of the leviathan of dis. An entire race of sentient warships whose threat wasn't just likely, but previously assured. This, essentially, broke the setting of the game rather badly, as it removed a driving force within the galaxy, that of extinction and renewal. It'd be like a fantasy setting managing to beat the god of evil, old age, and death, all at the same time in the same game, then wanting to make a new game with an even bigger enemy then that.

 

In short, its better to stop thinking of enemies in term of scale to previous bad guys, and start thinking of possible antagonists who have a reason to be fought by the protagonist. Don't fall into the bad anime trope of requiring a bigger bad guy to always be lurking in the shadows, hidden until the previous super bad is taken down, to show that that superbad was just a weakling. Make an enemy that is a threat on a smaller, but more personal scale.

 

My suggest would be someone trying to spark a galactic war. Sure, it lacks the finality and absolute apocalyptic consequences of all life in the galaxy being wiped out, but it's not as if war is some nice little stroll down the parkway either.

[SwobyJ]

They don't need to raise the stakes.

 

I think they should, and may be, explaining the stakes. And that will naturally raise the perception of the stakes anyway.

 

Its one thing to fight off the faceless horde. It's another to see their faces and understand why they were fighting you.

[Han Shot First]

I would rather they not try to up the ante by continually rolling out bigger and badder main antagonists for each chapter. That would quite quickly become old. You can have a main antagonist who is just as interesting as the Reapers, if not more so, who also has goals that are far less ambitious than wiping the galaxy clean of sapient life.

[cap and gown]

The majority of the problem with the trilogy, and in particular the ending, was that the enemy was way too powerful and the threat way too big. I kinda doubt they are going to repeat that mistake.

[SwobyJ]

I still don't get how this is am outright problem.

 

The MEU has only been barely explored. We've seen small sections of a galaxy. Most of this galaxy is unexplored. Beyond this galaxy is not explored.

 

We have no damn clue how far things go, and how big the enemies can be. Maybe we need a shift of perspective.

 

I guess if you just mean the enemy being too powerful in relation to the allies, okay. At the same time, I still kinda like that.

[SwobyJ]

BTW don't take this as me saying the ante should be raised significantly or anything. I just don't feel as pessimistic as it seems others are, about the next game screwing up how we viewed the trilogy and the Reapers.

 

The trilogy urged us forward with a huge threat and looming disaster.

I think Bioware this time may be capable of tempting us to explore, with the promise of new information.

 

Both are fine.

[Ryuzetsu]

I think the biggest part of why I fell in love with Mass Effect was the sense of awe and wonder at the vastness of a now accessible galaxy. The sense of mystery that had me captivated, not knowing what new thing was over the next rise. Especially in ME 1. I know a lot of people complain about the endless landscapes that get somewhat repetitive over time (and they do), but when you came across some edifice that seemed to come out of nowhere or looking out on the vista of some strange new world, that to my mind is where the Mass Effect universe makes it's money. You want to up the ante? You don't need to have a galaxy spanning conflict, just give us that sense of discovery and exploration back and the stakes elevate by default.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I'm not looking to up the ante.

 

And I think ME1's planets were too vague and too generic to actually inspire awe. But then again, that's just me.

[Kabooooom]

I think the biggest part of why I fell in love with Mass Effect was the sense of awe and wonder at the vastness of a now accessible galaxy. The sense of mystery that had me captivated, not knowing what new thing was over the next rise. Especially in ME 1. I know a lot of people complain about the endless landscapes that get somewhat repetitive over time (and they do), but when you came across some edifice that seemed to come out of nowhere or looking out on the vista of some strange new world, that to my mind is where the Mass Effect universe makes it's money. You want to up the ante? You don't need to have a galaxy spanning conflict, just give us that sense of discovery and exploration back and the stakes elevate by default.

I feel the same way.

I've said this literally probably fifty times on this forum, but I fully expect Bioware to take this predictable route: sequel, likely canonize destroy, new threat is previously undiscovered and aggressive alien race beyond a dormant relay who is not necessarily super technologically advanced, but has an advantage as they never encountered the Reapers and thus their civilization didn't suffer. This new race initiates conflict with the galaxy, reminiscent of the Rachni War, and tough/morally ambiguous decisions need to be made to stop them.

And honestly, I'd be fine with that degree of predictable specifically because it doesn't up the ante and it doesn't downgrade the story to a minor conflict. Unlike others, I think that downgrading significantly would be a terrible move. It would be fine for a spin-off or something, but not for a new game which may be the start of a second trilogy.

[SwobyJ]

The closest Mass Effect has to the concept of exploration, is ME1.

The closest Mass Effect has to the concept of awe, is ME2.

And the closest Mass Effect has to the concept of epic, is ME3.

 

How's about all 3?

[dreamgazer]

Do you think that, given there will be a new mass effect game, that they need to "raise the stakes" as it were in terms of threat?

 

No.

[Kabooooom]

No.

I do think it is a legitimate concern that they will feel the need to up the ante though. It is a classic mistake that writers make in stories like this. You see it all the time.

[SwobyJ]

They can up the nature of the threat, not the power level of the threat itself (at least by any significant degree).

[10K]

I don't think the threat stakes needs to be raised, as long as the main plot is interesting and engaging enough I don't think the Devs have to worry about surpassing the reapers. Besides the reapers were just a blatant trope by the end of the trilogy anyway. If BW is creative enough it will take little to no effort in surpassing the reapers. Personally I think they'll have a harder time trying to surpass the likableness of the trilogy's characters, not to mention Shepard. That's what they'll have to surpass, because ME was all about the characters and that's what made the trilogy shine.     

[We'll bang okay]

No i'm sick of this big threat what can destroy the whole universe, or the whole world, and only one man can stop it, and of course he is a big buff white male in his 30's half bald and in some kind of army like almost every other game we have now. 

[Blad3Zer0]

They can up the nature of the threat, not the power level of the threat itself (at least by any significant degree).

I know it's overused, but since it's over 9000, that's to be expected.

[Usarean]

The urgency of the main plot can be slowed down as well. Being in a long conflict rather then rushing to one would make sense in a exploration type game.

[windsea]

not really a need for them to do that, really thing higher then a reaper will be just a little bit too unbelievable.

 

i would like a more self-centered like hunting down your family's killer or something like. The stakes are lower but you care more about it.

[RoboticWater]

Shhh, don't give Bioware any ideas.

 

Honestly, Bioware should consider lowering the stakes if anything. For some reason the writers cling to this idea of a dark lingering evil in their stories when they really don't have to (and even shouldn't). For one, large stakes can needlessly ruin a game's pacing. I for one, much prefer ME1's slow, yet detailed story which had you explore rather than just drop in shoot and get out (like ME3). Now, call me crazy but I never liked the idea of Mass Effect being a space epic. I like Star Wars as much as the next guy but Star Trek is where the real interesting stuff happens. Why? Because it was slow, it never lost focus of its characters, and it always had something to say. You didn't watch it for the fight scenes (they were terrible), you came to see what cool mystery the gang would solve next. 

 

No, this doesn't mean epics can't be deep, but there's always this expectation of a grand finally with some huge explosion when all you really need are a few insightful words.

 

But worse than that, having such a grand scale just makes the devs lazy.

"So team, how are we going to go about the political tension between Cerberus and the Council?"

"Cerberus is indoctrinated, next."

 

"So how are we going to handle the Reaper's motivation throughout the story, how are we going to flesh out their character?"

"Uhhh, I don't really want to think about this for very long so... God?"

"No, no, Space God. Even better "

 

It's unfortunate that it happens, but when you're dealing with epic proportions, it's so easy to just toss in a little divine intervention here and there. Keeping things small means less slack for the writers. Without some grand convenience to turn to, the writers are forced to come up with good material. And I know they can do it, Rannoch and Tuchanka prove that, but the writers just can't get lazy. And sticking with the same old "Big Bad" is just lazy.

[crimzontearz]

Please let's keep the story personal and contained. Galaxy altering stories tend not to end well

[nallepuh86]

Leviathans could be next big enemy.

 

They didnt seem to be very respectful towards people in me3, so i think they could be next big enemy.

[von uber]

There's a reason Tolkien abandoned a sequel; everything subsequent would be a shadow of the threat that had been faced and it would merely be a tale of petty kingdoms fighting each other.

[RoboticWater]

There's a reason Tolkien abandoned a sequel; everything subsequent would be a shadow of the threat that had been faced and it would merely be a tale of petty kingdoms fighting each other.

 

You say that but shows like Buff the Vampire Slayer (Spoilers ahead but seriously, you should have seen this show by now) were able to pull off multiple season finales which were about some sort of Apocalypse (during two of which the main character died).

 

In the second season, Buffy's boyfriend turns evil and tries to awaken some demon lord who wants to destroy humanity, but I didn't care about that. I wanted to to Buffy and her boyfriend: could she save him from the evil which controlled him? Would she have to kill him? How would she feel about that?

 

The same happened with ME3. The Reapers want to destroy earth? I don't really care. They want to kill one of my crew? Now it's my problem. 

 

Plot should always take a back seat to characters, Bioware knows this (they're famous because of it), but for once they have to take off the training wheels and do a straight character driven sci-fi adventure without all the unnecessary demons and evil robots taking the center stage.