163 réponses à ce sujet

[Guanxii]

What ever they do the next game is a series reboot no matter how you look at it. If there are no existing characters and absolutely no reference made to the previous games and it is being put together by a completely different studio, how is that not a series reboot exactly?

 

I'm starting to think from what little we've seen the ending of ME3 will never be touched upon or reconciled in future games and will be forever open to interpretation - a blackspot in the canon if you will, probably for the best. The fanbase will then declare destroy the canon ending and bioware won't mention it ever again. 

[Heimdall]

What ever they do the next game is a series reboot no matter how you look at it. If there are no existing characters and absolutely no reference made to the previous games and it is being put together by a completely different studio, how is that not a series reboot exactly?

 

I'm starting to think the ending of ME3 will never be explained or reconciled in future games and will be forever open to interpretation, probably for the best. The fanbase will then declare destroy the canon ending and bioware won't mention it ever again. 

Depends on how you define reboot.  I define a reboot game as a game that takes the same characters and overwrites the existing storyline.

 

Even a game that's completely narratively separate isn't a reboot as long as its in the same universe with the same timeline in my book.  "Spinoff" might be more accurate (Though with unnecessary diminutive implications).

[Guanxii]

A reboot might imply a retelling or rather a remake to some people but that almost never happens with videogames. Any back to basics approach that attempts to recapture something can be rightfully regarded as a reboot in my book.

[dreamgazer]

I'd still call a distant-future sequel that avoids the details of the Reaper war, with none of the returning characters but all of the tech and races still intact, a form of "reboot".

[Heimdall]

I'd still call a distant-future sequel that avoids the details of the Reaper war, with none of the returning characters but all of the tech and races still intact, a form of "reboot".

To each his/her own then.

 

I'd call that a spinoff as long as long as its ostensibly part of the same timeline.

[KaiserShep]

It'd be like the margarine of reboots.

[Iakus]

One big difference, though, is that while ME3 was being hyped no one was saying "we've listened to feedback from DA2, and we are not going to be doing that again." DAI promotion does include statements like that with regard to ME3.

 

As I see it, the big lesson to be learned from DA2 and ME3 is that you can't rush quality. Both games needed a longer development cycle, and I think it is worth noting that there was no major release from BioWare in 2013. If Inquisition had been released this time last year, I think it would have been a disaster. If ME4 were being released around now, it would be a disaster. The fact that each of these games seem to be getting at least a year and a half of extra development is noteworthy and very encouraging.

Well, part of the ME3 hype was over how they listened to ME2 complaints and reintroduced RPG elements into ME3.  Those elements became a workbench and a slightly (very slightly) more complicated talent tree.

 

Of course, dialogue options and player agency went out the window at the same time, so...yeah...

[Iakus]

It'd be like the margarine of reboots.

 

"I Can't Believe It's Not Mass Effect"? 

[KaiserShep]

Of course, dialogue options and player agency went out the window at the same time, so...yeah...

Well, I did feel a bit...constrained when I feebly objected to working with Cerberus.

[Iakus]

Well, I did feel a bit...constrained when I feebly objected to working with Cerberus.

Tip of the iceberg, as it turned out...

[dreamgazer]

Well, I did feel a bit...constrained when I feebly objected to working with Cerberus.

 

It's part of Shepard's nature.  Just look at how feebly s/he could object to becoming a Spectre, or select somebody, anybody, else on Virmire for bomb duty.

[durasteel]

It's part of Shepard's nature.  Just look at how feebly s/he could object to becoming a Spectre, or select somebody, anybody, else on Virmire for bomb duty.

 

That's funny, in a way, because I really wanted to become a Spectre and there's no one I would have blown up in Kaidan's place. (I did save him a time or two, on FemShep, but OOC Kaidan's the obvious choice.)

 

Even with Cerberus, I started at "not a chance" but I was persuaded by the "you aren't working for us, just take our stuff and do what you do" argument. It wasn't until 3 that I really confronted a "choice" where the obvious course of action for my pretty standard paragon Shepard wasn't among the options at all.

[dreamgazer]

That's funny, in a way, because I really wanted to become a Spectre and there's no one I would have blown up in Kaidan's place. (I did save him a time or two, on FemShep, but OOC Kaidan's the obvious choice.)

 

I have a Shepard who'd resist the idea of becoming a Spectre and working directly under the council more than ME1 allows (and two who, like yours, really dig the idea for different reasons), and I know there are plenty of Shepards out there who'd like the opportunity to send any of the other squadmates to their demise in place of Kaidan and/or Ashley.  But, alas, that's not within BioWare's parameters, just like resisting Cerberus wasn't. 

 

The game has been restricting role-playing ability from the beginning, though. 

[durasteel]

I have a Shepard who'd resist the idea of becoming a Spectre and working directly under the council more than ME1 allows (and two who, like yours, really dig the idea for different reasons), and I know there are plenty of Shepards out there who'd like the opportunity to send any of the other squadmates to their demise in place of Kaidan and/or Ashley.  But, alas, that's not within BioWare's parameters, just like resisting Cerberus wasn't. 

 

The game has been restricting role-playing ability from the beginning, though. 

 

No doubt, but there will always be limits to what we can do with our characters, just like (as you pointed out in another thread) there have always been plot holes in space operas. The key to making a space opera or a game good is to make it enjoyable enough that people are inclined to overlook the limitations and the holes, instead of so annoying that people start trying to list them all.

 

When you end with something emotionally satisfying, shortcomings are forgiven. When you end with a big disappointment, that's when the nitpicking kicks into high gear.

 

Look at Joss Whedon's work: Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, Avengers, etc. You could drive a fleet of trucks through his plot holes, but for the most part no one wants to, because he gives you what you want. I've always finished consuming media he created wanting more of it, even though I knew it wasn't necessarily built on a foundation of sound logic.

[KotorEffect3]

NO NO NO HELL NO!!!  A reboot would be worse than a prequel.  Don't do it bioware.   Don't just throw away the universe I grew to care about over the course of three incredible games.

[dreamgazer]

No doubt, but there will always be limits to what we can do with our characters, just like (as you pointed out in another thread) there have always been plot holes in space operas. The key to making a space opera or a game good is to make it enjoyable enough that people are inclined to overlook the limitations and the holes, instead of so annoying that people start trying to list them all.

 

When you end with something emotionally satisfying, shortcomings are forgiven. When you end with a big disappointment, that's when the nitpicking kicks into high gear.

 

Look at Joss Whedon's work: Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, Avengers, etc. You could drive a fleet of trucks through his plot holes, but for the most part no one wants to, because he gives you what you want. I've always finished consuming media he created wanting more of it, even though I knew it wasn't necessarily built on a foundation of sound logic.

 

Yeah, I think that's largely unfair and don't agree with that being a policy to follow, but I'm well aware that it's the way things work. 

 

Ugh, don't remind me about The Avengers.

[AlanC9]

It's not so much that these arguments are unfair as that they're often intellectually dishonest. People pretend to care about plotholes because they're looking for a way to bash something that made them feel bad, rather than talking about the real source of their discontent.

 

Of course, that's not everybody. Some folks are about to play the nitpick game without pretending that they really care about the things they're nitpicking

[AlanC9]

It wasn't until 3 that I really confronted a "choice" where the obvious course of action for my pretty standard paragon Shepard wasn't among the options at all.

 

Which choice?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Unless your reboot involves removing the reapers ever being part of the story, I don't see how it'll accomplish anything a sequel couldn't.

[Sanunes]

I'd still call a distant-future sequel that avoids the details of the Reaper war, with none of the returning characters but all of the tech and races still intact, a form of "reboot".

 

The problem I see with even remotely mentioning the word "reboot" is the amount of different meanings it has for people.  With Video games I don't know of many franchises that have been "rebooted" because there really isn't a story to consider rebooting, but the one game where I heard it used the most (and that I can recall) is the latest Tomb Raider game for a lot of the comments I remember about it are the same Hollywood uses to describe their reboots.  At the end of the day I think perception is going to be a major issue with the game and using any term that might allow the players to conjure up ideas about how the story is going to work will just hurt the game.  I can only imagine what the wreckage around here would be like if people thought Shepard was returning because someone somewhere along the line said "reboot" and they never did.

[shepskisaac]

I don't agree with Iakus on the irreparable damage to this franchise, but I absolutely agree with him on the principle of the ten-year remake business.

Batman & Robin: 1997
Batman Begins: 2005

X3: The Last Stand: 2006
X-Men: First Class: 2011

Star Trek: Nemesis: 2002
Star Trek Abrams: 2009

I'd mention Spider-Man, but it's debatable whether the recent reboot was a good idea or not. There needs to be some time, longer than two or three years, but there's no concrete amount of years between or anything.

These are all decades-old franchises. Mass Effect barely had 1 major story so far

[DarthLaxian]

So, bring back the guys who wanted the Reapers to have been right all along? Who had no idea what the Reapers were trying to do and didn't much care? I agree that they were better at speeding past silly things like Tali beating Shepard back to the Citadel with that voice recording, but outside of that...

 

since when did the original writing team decide that the reapers were right? (as far as I know, we do not really know that the team had decided on that - we know that their plot involved dark energy (the very thing that makes things like Hyperspace-Travel possible and biotics...all through element zero))

 

greetings LAX

[kyban]

That's a worse idea than the ME3 ending.

[XXIceColdXX]

No need to reboot. Just roll with IT or something similar and things will be fine.

[AlanC9]

since when did the original writing team decide that the reapers were right? (as far as I know, we do not really know that the team had decided on that - we know that their plot involved dark energy (the very thing that makes things like Hyperspace-Travel possible and biotics...all through element zero))
 

"Dark Energy was something that only organics could access because of various techno-science magic reasons we hadn't decided on yet," Karpyshyn said. "Maybe using this Dark Energy was having a ripple effect on the space-time continuum.

"Maybe the Reapers kept wiping out organic life because organics keep evolving to the state where they would use biotics and dark energy and that caused an entropic effect that would hasten the end of the universe. Being immortal beings, that's something they wouldn't want to see.

"Then we thought, let's take it to the next level. Maybe the Reapers are looking at a way to stop this. Maybe there's an inevitable descent into the opposite of the Big Bang (the Big Crunch) and the Reapers realise that the only way they can stop it is by using biotics, but since they can't use biotics they have to keep rebuilding society - as they try and find the perfect group to use biotics for this purpose. The Asari were close but they weren't quite right, the Protheans were close as well.

So, maybe not exactly right... but essentially benevolent. Just doing their bit to save the universe.