447 réponses à ce sujet

[Vortex13]

 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). 

 

 

Even then you still have issues with certain species being absent (the Rachni) or hostile to other races (the Geth) in the setting prior to Shepard getting involved. Even if you forego any content with said species you still have issues with species defining narrative arcs (as far as a prequel / side-quel is concerned) being left unresolved.

 

The Krogan are still going to be fatalistic Mercenaries longing for the days before the Genophage, the Quarians are still going to be on their fleets and the desire to retake Rannoch will be most defining aspect of their culture, etc. Because Shepard was so instrumental to these species' developments it would be very repetitive to set a story before their respective issues were dealt with. 

[Memnon]

They need to get away from their typical "ultra heroism", and tell a more personal story.

 

I don't disagree, really, it's just Bioware's modus operandi ... and I'm not sure that will change in the near future, especially for an existing IP with a grand, epic scope as Mass Effect. In a way, it makes me nervous for ME4, because I fear they're going to feel like they have to outdo themselves in epic heroic-ness, which means epic antagonists ... and it's hard to think of an antagonist more epic than the Reapers.

[Mcfly616]

Even then you still have issues with certain species being absent (the Rachni) or hostile to other races (the Geth) in the setting prior to Shepard getting involved. Even if you forego any content with said species you still have issues with species defining narrative arcs (as far as a prequel / side-quel is concerned) being left unresolved.

 

The Krogan are still going to be fatalistic Mercenaries longing for the days before the Genophage, the Quarians are still going to be on their fleets and the desire to retake Rannoch will be most defining aspect of their culture, etc. Because Shepard was so instrumental to these species' developments it would be very repetitive to set a story before their respective issues were dealt with. 

 I don't see it as an issue. They are easily rectified. For one, just because Wrex was a fatalistic mercenary doesn't mean every single Krogan remotely cares about the entirety of their species. As for the Geth, they never left the Vail prior to ME1. Regarding the Quarians, if they were to give us a squadmate of that particular species, Bioware could distance them from the Flotilla by making the character an exile.

 

 

It would only be repetitive if Bioware gave us the same character and the same stories we already had. I'm not expecting them to do that.

[Mcfly616]

I don't disagree, really, it's just Bioware's modus operandi ... and I'm not sure that will change in the near future, especially for an existing IP with a grand, epic scope as Mass Effect. In a way, it makes me nervous for ME4, because I fear they're going to feel like they have to outdo themselves in epic heroic-ness, which means epic antagonists ... and it's hard to think of an antagonist more epic than the Reapers.

 Hopefully they come to their senses. They shouldn't try to top "Space Jesus/Galactic Messiah" Shepard. And they shouldn't attempt to make the next antagonists live up to the Reapers. They simply need to be different on both fronts.

[Vortex13]

 Hopefully they come to their senses. They shouldn't try to top "Space Jesus/Galactic Messiah" Shepard. And they shouldn't attempt to make the next antagonists live up to the Reapers. They simply need to be different on both fronts.

 

 

Epic Bloat is a serious condition, and one that the ME franchise has had a difficult time in keeping under control. I agree with you and really hope that any new stories aren't out to top the ones already told.

[marcelo caldas]

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.

 

I hope so

[Wayning_Star]

the only "canon" left to go with in the next ME is that there is NO canon. You'll have to form another canon for that story line. The choices in ME 3 et al are enough to limit the scope of belief in the newest ideals left untouched there. Time will have to erase the/those bad memes...er memories.

[Pasquale1234]

I don't see a prequel as a viable option for a couple of reasons: It will involve humans and space exploration. Humans have only been exploring deep space for ~ 30 years, and the events of those 30 years have already been well established.

I think the Ark Theory could work even within the Milky Way, with a team of researchers and explorers sent to explore a previously unknown part of TMW. They could temporarily activate an otherwise inactive relay for this team to shoot through, and then deactivate it behind them. The energy released by the Crucible was sent through relays interconnected with the Citadel, so it would not have reached any parts of the galaxy outside of the AOE of those interconnected relays.

Unless they either canonize an ending or set it far enough in the future to overcome any possible ending selection, it doesn't seem likely we'll ever again see the parts of TMW we came to know in the existing trilogy.

[Mcfly616]

 the events of those 30 years have already been well established.
 

 Not really. Sure, major events have been established. But they're more like bullet points of conflicts over the past 30 years since we entered the galactic community. Nothing accounts for the trillions of beings on their own personal adventures over that time span.

[Aimi]

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.

That makes a couple of storytelling and game-making claims I'm not terribly comfortable with.

One is that the only story that matters is high politics and grand strategy: who wins wars, who gets wiped out, and suchlike things. I don't think that's the case at all. Not everybody on the winning side of a war lives through it; not everybody on the losing side dies. It didn't hurt the drama of Saving Private Ryan to know that the Americans won the war in the end. We might know that the Council eventually defeats the rachni, but does this particular team of soldiers live through it? What happens to them? What are the relationships between themselves, their allies, and their foes?

The other claim is related, namely: the claim that it robs player agency to not have fiat over the world-shaking changes like the outcome of the entire war. That's ridiculous. Awarding that kind of agency to individual soldiers is preposterous, and it's one of the things about Mass Effect's (and to a lesser extent Dragon Age's) story that makes me most uncomfortable. For one thing, agency does not imply causation: you can make a choice, but it might not have the impact you want it to, if it has any impact at all. That you made the choice in the first place is the more important and interesting element of the roleplay, because it demonstrates something about your character. For another, agency does not imply total control over all aspects of a setting: the ability to establish relationships with NPCs, or to choose the way in which your particular corner of the war goes, is a long way away from being the arbiter of races and of the whole galaxy.

I don't think that a Mass Effect prequel is likely for some time, because they've created this setting and to go backwards in time would be to contract it (as you rightly pointed out); they've made all these races and it would be a shame not to put them to good use. But agency, I think, has nothing to do with it. They could very well make an excellent prequel game with a fresh storyline and a great deal of player agency. But they probably won't.

[Pasquale1234]

Not really. Sure, major events have been established. But they're more like bullet points of conflicts over the past 30 years since we entered the galactic community. Nothing accounts for the trillions of beings on their own personal adventures over that time span.

It isn't completely out of the question, but I think it's unlikely.

Assuming it follows the formula, whatever they do will feature:

- Exploration
- Loads of combat missions in different locations
- Conflict with at least one major antagonist, and possibly additional minor ones
- Followers with their own stories
- An overall goal (at least I'd hope the PC has one. DA2's Hawke did not, and that was one of its problems)

The DA team has dealt with different stories in the same world, one following another. They've used some of the same supporting characters across titles, and have had to deal with things like "but that character was killed in my game", "what is that other character doing at this time", and the like. It can be helpful to include a character from another title as it helps create some connectivity and the sense of being in the same world at roughly the same time, but it can also create problems. Some people think it makes the world seem smaller if they keep bumping into the same characters.

Depending on the exact timeframe, the PC would likely know of Shepard, and might even know her. They could have gone through N7 training together. Thing is, if any mention is made of Shepard at all, people start getting nostalgic about the character and want to know what happened with some side story.

DA2 had some characters and follow-up content from things that had happened in DAO. DAI deals with characters (including protagonists) from DAO and DA2. ME is dealing with an entire trilogy's worth of content and characters, and I'm guessing the writers might want to divorce themselves from the associated baggage and go forward with a clean slate.

But - who knows? Only the developers at this point.

[Taleroth]

There's a theory about this?

 

I've been advocating going to another galaxy since ME4 was announced. Mainly because I'm a Farscape fanboy and think it would give them the opportunity to explore that angle. Get sucked into another galaxy and try to find a way home without bringing the dangers there with you.

 

I've also been thinking about it lately as a way to undo the ME3 ending, Days of Future Past style. This new galaxy could have technology that's incredibly advanced due to the lack of Reaper cycles. And that new technology could ostensibly be used to undo some of the more absurd changes (like synthesis) if brought back.

[SNascimento]

They need to get away from their typical "ultra heroism", and tell a more personal story.

That's Mass Effect 2. There is the threat of the collectors true it was a minor one compared to the reapers. The meat of ME2 was the personal quests. But you do that and then some people start complaining the story didn't go foward... 

[Nitrocuban]

Ark theory does not need to happen in another galaxy, it just has to be some place not effected by the RGB spacemagic.

Like the Herpderp Expanse in Star Trek Enterprise with this spheres creating a spacemagic field around it and stuff.

[Memnon]

That's Mass Effect 2. There is the threat of the collectors true it was a minor one compared to the reapers. The meat of ME2 was the personal quests. But you do that and then some people start complaining the story didn't go foward... 

 

I never really thought of ME2 in that context until you mentioned it - I have been one of those that criticizes ME2 for not progressing the story, even though I loved the game. Thanks for that perspective ...

[goishen]

Well, and plus BioWare likes to tie their games together.  So, that right there is a big no for a prequel.  Who wants to hear over and over again how the reapers are coming?   When I've just had three games, where the reapers are coming....   Over and over again.

[marcelo caldas]

That's Mass Effect 2. There is the threat of the collectors true it was a minor one compared to the reapers. The meat of ME2 was the personal quests. But you do that and then some people start complaining the story didn't go foward... 

 

ME2 is the best game I played, for sure, very intimate quests, most of it affecting just a bunch of people, amazing. Of course Shepard was already established as the greatest badass of all time, I guess thats why everything worked so well.

[Vazgen]

That's Mass Effect 2. There is the threat of the collectors true it was a minor one compared to the reapers. The meat of ME2 was the personal quests. But you do that and then some people start complaining the story didn't go foward... 

ME2 is quite fine as a standalone game. It was, however, a second part of the trilogy. That's why people complain about story not going forward. I won't be opposed to having ME:Next similar to ME2 (with obvious improvements, of course). 

[SNascimento]

ME2 is quite fine as a standalone game. It was, however, a second part of the trilogy. That's why people complain about story not going forward. I won't be opposed to having ME:Next similar to ME2 (with obvious improvements, of course). 

I don't see it this way. First because it ignores all the character and world development in ME2 which were paramount to ME3 and second because where is written that in a trilogy every part of it must move the story foward in the same way? 

[Vazgen]

I don't see it this way. First because it ignores all the character and world development in ME2 which were paramount to ME3 and second because where is written that in a trilogy every part of it must move the story foward in the same way? 

I think so, yes. Especially when ME1 established the notion of focusing on Reaper threat in the end. Instead we get "Ah yes, Reapers".

ME2 character development is not really that important in ME3 since you can have almost all of them dead in ME3 and kill the remaining ones.

For example, how would character development impact ME3 if the only two squadmates that survive Suicide Mission are Legion and Thane? One can be avoided altogether, another changes so much that its character development is thrown to the trash bin. 

World development. It made the world feel more alive, true, but how did that impact ME3? Omega is a DLC, we can't visit Ilium, Tuchanka is the same barren wasteland as ever, Citadel changes again. 

[spinachdiaper]

bArk theory: main character is pluto.

[Taleroth]

That's Mass Effect 2. There is the threat of the collectors true it was a minor one compared to the reapers. The meat of ME2 was the personal quests. But you do that and then some people start complaining the story didn't go foward... 

The only reason ME2 didn't move the story forward is because ME3 took it backwards.

 

The team was being prepared for bigger things. EDI could have gone on to bigger things (she's built from Sovereign!). The Collector base, the IFF, Legion, "the genetic destiny of the Asari," Shepard working with Cerberus, dark energy. 

 

All of these could have been foreshadowing for something greater. Instead they became B-plots or ignored. We are talking about a game where we find out the true nature of the Reapers. And it doesn't move the story forward? Only because Bioware did nothing with it.

[Drone223]

The only reason ME2 didn't move the story forward is because ME3 took it backwards.

 

The team was being prepared for bigger things. EDI could have gone on to bigger things (she's built from Sovereign!). The Collector base, the IFF, Legion, "the genetic destiny of the Asari," Shepard working with Cerberus, dark energy. 

 

All of these could have been foreshadowing for something greater. Instead they became B-plots or ignored. We are talking about a game where we find out the true nature of the Reapers. And it doesn't move the story forward? Only because Bioware did nothing with it.

ME3 didn't do anything to the ME2's plot, the entire game was spent resolving loyalty mission's instead of preparing for the reaper's, not to mention the "Ah yes reapers; from the council. DLC's such as LotSB and arrival had more plot than vanilla ME2 because they actually progress the plot and are tied to trying to stop the reapers, in ME2 we only fought merc's for 95% of the game and only four mission's had anything to do with the reapers.

 

Not to mention concepts such as dark energy were scraped because they didn't build it up properly. DE for example was only mentioned four times in all of ME2 and three of those times are optional missions.

[Mcfly616]

That's Mass Effect 2. There is the threat of the collectors true it was a minor one compared to the reapers. The meat of ME2 was the personal quests. But you do that and then some people start complaining the story didn't go foward... 

 as I've always stated, as a stand-alone game ME2 is fantastic. As the second installment/bridge of a trilogy, it was the biggest detriment to the overarching narrative. (hence the complaining)

 

 

 

But we've had that discussion more times than I can remember.

[Mcfly616]

Well, and plus BioWare likes to tie their games together.  So, that right there is a big no for a prequel.  Who wants to hear over and over again how the reapers are coming?   

 Considering only a handful of people even know that the Reapers are anything more than a myth, we wouldn't be hearing anything about them "coming".