I really hope that we aren't going to a completely new galaxy and are abandoning the Milky Way forever.
I really didn't like the cheap knock off characters in ME 3 that the narrative forced on you; the "Not-Mordin" and "Not-Legion". I don't want to see that expanded in the next game with our protagonist encountering the "Not-Quarians" or the "Not-Turians" while running around the "Not-Milky Way".
Also where has Bioware explicitly stated that this game takes place after the reaper war is over with? This game could take place during the reaper invasion, or it could even take place a decade before. It could take place within the same timeline as Shepard, but Shepard could be a space cadet, who is on assignment on Torfan and getting his squad killed. And we're out pathfinding new worlds (I think the council did that, they would go out and send first contact parties to primitive species, much like the protheans did)
It would make sense to make this game take place within Shepard's lifetime, but to keep it at a portion where Shepard hasn't achieved the fame and glory that he had when the first three games took place. So that it focuses on the character in the next game.
It could have and there was originally a lot of speculation fueled by some of the dev comments which could have alluded to that very thing. But more recently the devs did say they spent a long time canvassing what fans wanted and the overwhelming message told them to move forward. This was the last time we got any information from Casey. I think it would be very strange to do a pre-quel or side-quel etc having said that.
Prequel within the short timeframe of human interstelar spacetravel?
Like replaying the contact war and getting our a s s kicked by the Turians?
Ain't gonna happen.
Midquel during the Reaper war with everything we do being outshined by Shepard's story and the RGB endings?
That be like eating your own puke and not 'moving on and let go cause Shepard's story is over'.
We do not know much bout ME4, but a sequel is very likely.
ME4 will avoid to refer to the consequences of ME3's endings at all costs, that leaves not much space for a sequel, but I'm sure the writers found a way. And maybe it's a little like what we came up with in this thread,
They can make a game taking place before the Reaper War, but not as far back as the First Contact War. There's 3 decades of time between the two. Plenty of time to tell any number of adventures.
considering how loooooooong things last in space (sans organics;) it's a given that about anything could happen and be only a blip on the cosmic scale. Even the reapers and their subjugated masters didn't really hang around long.. did they?
considering how loooooooong things last in space (sans organics;) it's a given that about anything could happen and be only a blip on the cosmic scale. Even the reapers and their subjugated masters didn't really hang around long.. did they?
they were around for a billion years, possibly. That's a good amount of time no matter what timescale you're on. Cosmic or otherwise.
But Bioware could easily tell a story before or after the Reaper War and it would be as you said, nothing but blip. Which is fine by me. Some of the best stories/adventures are the ones nobody knows about.
Sequel makes it sound like Shepard is coming back though. He's not. I mean, you wouldn't say that DA2 is a sequel to DA:O? And DA:I isn't a sequel to DA2?
Sure, you get to see some of the same people... But it is in no way a sequel. It's a different person... I think that this is a big lesson learned when naming DA2, DA2.
Sequel makes it sound like Shepard is coming back though. He's not. I mean, you wouldn't say that DA2 is a sequel to DA:O? And DA:I isn't a sequel to DA2?
Sure, you get to see some of the same people... But it is in no way a sequel. It's a different person... I think that this is a big lesson learned when naming DA2, DA2.
I consider DA2 a sequel to origins and DAI a sequel to DA2.
They're not. At no point do you ever play as that character that you played in the previous game. Same world? Yes. Sequel? No.
Skyrim is a sequel to Oblivion, which in itself is a sequel to Morrowind. It´s officially labelled as such. Not only the PC defines what makes a sequel, but also the world it is set in and the timeline, obviously. DA2 is a sequel to DA:O, some of the choices you made are mentioned in DA2. How can that be the case if it is not a sequel?
well, the sequel is related directly in real time, where as ME:Next will not be, apparently. Only in real time can we assume it's related to ME 1,2,3 but it won't be in the game. The devs have stated over again that the images are related but the story isn't associated with Shepard'n friends in any way.
I think the there being NO reapers is kind of strange, no Leviathan nor any non human "Buds" that were around in the old days.
((If the game even mentions them old days..then you're completely correct!!))
They're not. At no point do you ever play as that character that you played in the previous game. Same world? Yes. Sequel? No.
They are. You've invented your own definition for the word sequel. The basic definition is 'a literary work that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.' That's all there is to it.
I consider DA2 a sequel to origins and DAI a sequel to DA2.
me too
They're not. At no point do you ever play as that character that you played in the previous game. Same world? Yes. Sequel? No.
The Warden is there, Hawke is there, evereyone remembers them, some places we go are familiar, the world is shapped by all this. There's a strong feel of continuity.
Is Bourn Legacy a sequel?
Ark Theory is the worst idea to fix the worst ideas.
It is entirely possible that the reapers destroy organic civilizations right before they unlock the key to building mass relays and becoming if not as powerful as the reapers themselves technologically then for the reapers to have to chase them down from system to system and probably taking hundreds if not thousands of years. Hopefully that's not too much of a run-on sentence. This could be also why the reapers choose this point in their advancement to harvest them. The reapers know that the next big stepping stone is mass relay deployment.
So now, what does that mean for the next game? Hmmm. Well, depending upon when the game is set... It could be a thousand years or one year after Shepard's lifetime. So, we're gonna go with a basic one hundred year estimate. My thinking is this... The council races will have to have realized the dangers of opening new relays (Mu relay) and will only link star systems that they know are safe.
So that's what this could be... One hundred years after Shepard dies... Building (yet barely functional) a new mass relay to somewhere that has its own mass relays(except they're red and white, not blue and white) and they call them something different and that aren't linked to ours.
And that's what the ARKCON project could be... The three companies that Vaz mentioned conferencing and convening together to make an even larger profit because for each and every ship that passes through the relay a bit of back energy is produced powering the solar systems that are around it.
Hmmmm. Thoughts?
They are. You've invented your own definition for the word sequel. The basic definition is 'a literary work that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.' That's all there is to it.
Look up narrative. Does it continue that person's narrative? No? Not a sequel.
The Warden is there, Hawke is there, evereyone remembers them, some places we go are familiar, the world is shapped by all this. There's a strong feel of continuity.
Of course there's a strong feeling of continuity. It's the same world. And yes, those people are there, but theirs is not the story being told.
Eh, I don;t care if BW takes the game to Andromeda, or wherever. I don't have any special attachment to the Milky Way. I just don't want a prequel. Milky Way. Andromeda. It doesn't matter to me.
I just want to go forward.
I mean, yeah, I would very much like to see the the Milky Way post-Reaper invasion. For me, that would be the most interesting story. But I don't know if they can figure it.
It's like Suicide Mission all over again. A giant, "Oh, God. What do we do now? We put ourselves in corner." But on a galactic scale.
The setting I really want to see is a post Reaper invasion setting. A post Reaper Milky Way. How it's changed. But I'm afraid that won't happen.
So, yeah.
It's odd how so many want a "post reaper setting", when it would simply remain the same considering nobody was ever aware of the Reapers existence in the first place.
Given the state of the universe at the end of ME3 with Reaper forces deployed in nearly all of the connected systems, I´d say it´s fairly safe to assume that everyone was aware that the Reapers exist. Not to mention the destruction of multiple planets of multiple races across the galaxy.
I clearly can see the appeal of the Ark theory, but let´s face it, it´s not gonna happen. The current galaxy still has enough opportunities for stories to be told, not to mention that there are systems that have yet to be linked into the Mass Relay Network. Remember, after the Rachni wars the council forbid the activation of Relays because of the unknown outcome. That is also why the first contact war happened in the first place. The Alliance was recklessly opening new relays for which the Turians answered with lethal force. We don´t really know the state of the universe post-reaper. What happened to all the homeworlds? What is the resource situation like? It wouldn´t be completely unthinkable that the council has to lift the restriction of opening new relays. And that would also fit nicely with the next games focus on exploration.
It's odd how so many want a "post reaper setting", when it would simply remain the same considering nobody was ever aware of the Reapers existence in the first place.
The problem with prequel settings is that if it is set during a major event like the Rachni Wars, the Krogan Rebellion, or the First Contact War...anyone who played the Shepard trilogy knows how it is all going to end. We would know for example that a FCW prequel is going to end with the Council intervening before the Turians can drop the hammer. Other than for new players unfamiliar with the first three games, that would remove much of the suspense or drama from the story. It would also severely limit player agency, as you're now playing through a series of events with an already established outcome.
Another issue with Mass Effect prequels is that you're going to be playing in a smaller setting than the Shepard trilogy. Each prequel setting is a smaller galaxy where contact has yet to be made with some species, or where the story limits the setting to a specific section of space. A First Contact War prequel for example would be limited to just human space and be primarily focused on Shanxi. A Rachni Wars prequel would be set before first contact with either the Turians or the Alliance.
I think its going to be set after the Reaper War with probably high EMS destroy being canonized, a lot of people seemed to feel that it was the best choice available. Plus making a prequel or sidequel is never going to be very popular.
Given the state of the universe at the end of ME3 with Reaper forces deployed in nearly all of the connected systems, I´d say it´s fairly safe to assume that everyone was aware that the Reapers exist. Not to mention the destruction of multiple planets of multiple races across the galaxy.
So that was over your head.
Nobody's talking about the Reaper War. Obviously people are aware of their presence when they're laying waste to the entire galaxy. My point was that nobody (besides Shepard and a handful of his colleagues) knew they were anything other than a myth until they invaded.
The problem with prequel settings is that if it is set during a major event like the Rachni Wars, the Krogan Rebellion, or the First Contact War...anyone who played the Shepard trilogy knows how it is all going to end. We would know for example that a FCW prequel is going to end with the Council intervening before the Turians can drop the hammer. Other than for new players unfamiliar with the first three games, that would remove much of the suspense or drama from the story. It would also severely limit player agency, as you're now playing through a series of events with an already established outcome.
I never suggested it be set during a major (predetermined) event such as the rachni wars, Krogan rebellions, first contact war. I specifically said it should be set between major events (as in the 30 years of time between first contact and the reaper invasion).
There certainly is precedence for prequel games with Bioware, but when you look at KOTOR they went back four millennia ... and a lot can happen in that time. There was a lot of room to create new stories, new lore, and new characters without the metagaming knowledge that some ships, characters, droids, etc. are going to survive. I don't believe there is that same level of flexibility with the Mass Effect series - if they make a prequel, you are always going to be overshadowed by Shepard and the events of ME1 - ME3, which I don't believe is something Bioware, who tends to have unique, ultra-heroic protagonists, is inclined to implement.
They need to get away from their typical "ultra heroism", and tell a more personal story.
Retour en haut