3 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyrandori]

We don't know who or what will be ME4's antagonist(s), so I was wondering what would be you guys' preference(s) when it comes to that aspect for Mass Effect 4 (and possibly beyond).
 
In Mass Effect (1) we had Saren, but he wasn't exactly what I would call a "personal-level" villain, one that would have been specifically "against Shepard". I mean Saren himself was only a tool and was indoctrinated by Sovereign. The "real" threat were the Reapers. Although, of course, the Reapers as the actual threat in Mass Effect was only understood near the end of the game when in reality and until that point (Reapers' revelation / Sovereign speech) we probably all considered Saren as the "main" antagonist. And well, to a point, he really was the main threat, since of course he wanted to (or was indoctrinated to) open the way for the Reapers themselves.
 
But it's not like Saren had something against Shepard specifically (or only). Now of course Shepard sort of got in the way so they clashed, but Saren never threatened Shepard's friends and family specifically while leaving the rest of the galaxy alone. And again, Saren was indoctrinated anyway, so I'd almost go as far as saying that he barely counts as an actual villain, he didn't know what he was doing (he was indoctrinated into believing that what he was doing was the right thing to do, obviously). I guess that what I'm trying to say is that I thought that Saren was a galactic threat rather than a "Shepard threat". In fact, come to think of it, I would consider Balak a more "personal-level antagonist" than Saren ever was.

In Mass Effect 2 we had the Collectors and... that's about it. They were also a potential threat for the galaxy and had been an immediate threat against Shepard at the beginning but it wasn't actually part of the game. It's not like during ME2 we had to avoid being killed by them. Instead Shepard IS killed by them right ahead and THEN the game "starts" after our resurrection. And THEN the Collectors sort of "become a threat". They're more a threat against Humans (and Human colonies) than anything else but aren't a "personal" threat specifically against Shepard. They WOULD have been had we had to actually avoid dying from them in the actual game's events. Now of course Shepard can technically die at the end of ME2, but we all know that such a death is not "canon" since of course Shepard is in ME3 and there's no Lazarus Project 2.0 in ME3. So yeah Shepard canonically survives ME2 no matter what. There were some personal-level threats against our teammates, however, but this thread specifically refers to a threat that's more personal against the protagonist rather than being personal against the main character's "friends" (although it could be part of a "personal" threat, if your friends are threatened, it can "get personal", certainly).

And in Mass Effect 3... well, we have both Cerberus and the Reapers as threats and the Illusive Man is "kinda" a semi-personal level threat but not quite so... or at least not the way I'd perceive such a villain. Now of course in ME3 the Illusive Man was a villain, but to repeat myself he was basically Saren 2.0 more than anything else. He was getting insane (or already had been months prior to ME3's events starting) and he's definitely indoctrinated, he just happens to want more control than he ever had before. The Reapers themselves... they wouldn't and shouldn't care less about Shepard and that's ok, for Shepard to them is but one individual and nothing else, he (or she) is meaningless to them. As for Cerberus, they're about as frequent against Shepard as Reapers themselves, heck one could wonder if we're facing a Reapers invasion or a Cerberus one. You know what, let- ... let's just forget about ME3 here.

Now let's speak of Mass Effect 4 (tentative title I guess, whatever they decide to call it).

Since we've had a galactic threat in the form of Reapers and since we all know how that ended up... then I'm asking to you guys what would you actually prefer between another one (right there in threat level with Reapers or... as if that was even possible something even more dangerous than Reapers could ever be, but that would just be pushing it in my book) or "something different". By "different" I certainly refer to a LESSER threat level in terms of scale per say. It would be a threat against the protagonist specifically BUT not a threat to the entire galaxy. What about a threat against the protagonist and MAYBE against some of the new teammates as well (you know, to help fuel a potential "you hurt my friends means you hurt me" sort of classic drama during the game). The antagonist I picture would be someone along the lines of the Illusive Man but definitely NOT with that same amount of resources NOR the same ambitions.

I'm thinking about perhaps one single individual OR maybe a SMALL group, let's say probably not bigger than Cerberus was back in Mass Effect 1 (maybe even smaller). I'm not exactly thinking about terrorism here, or taking innocent hostages to provoke the hero into action. In such a case (acts of terrorism) we could have the antagonist planting bombs around the Citadel and hurting innocents because the hero wouldn't do something that the villain wanted... but that's sort of cliché and boring. I'm thinking about something more "direct" against the main character such as hiring mercenaries against us as the game progresses, or doing ambushes against our group as we play and perhaps taking ONE teammate (or two) as "hostages", or something along the lines. It would be more of a personal conflict with ONE person, and that villain would NOT be indoctrinated and would certainly be aware of everything he (or she, or they) are doing, everything would be planned and they wouldn't happen to just be another "pawn of a greater force pulling the strings behind the curtain".

What say you, what would you like for ME4?

[Charcolt]

I definitely agree. You really can't get much bigger than the Reapers (and I sincerely hope the Leviathans aren't going to be the new antagonist) and attempting to do so would be a mistake. I really would rather not get a prequel, but even if we do it would be better to explore the Mass Effect universe as something other than a soldier. The villain doesn't need to be some cosmic horror or an evil government or an evil species. Aspecific, well-developed antagonist that the player has personal motivation for fighting would be awesome.

[HTTP 404]

I hope the next game sticks to a small cluster of solar systems without using mass relays.   So I do like your idea of an individual bad guy, a more personal story in a more intimate setting.  I wouldn't mind if the antagonist has a personal relationship with the main character, like a sibling or a best friend.   A post Me3 galaxy would be rife with danger, I would imagine pirates and outlaws being prevalent.  So there is plenty of action there.

[Arcian]

It's a distressing trend among BioWare fans to blame the franchise's problems on its scope instead of its execution. There is nothing done with a galactic threat when it's done right. There is nothing wrong with a small, contained threat that doesn't affect the galaxy when it's done right. The key is that it is done right. If it's done badly, it doesn't matter how big or small the scope is - the end result is going to suck regardless.

 

EDIT: Also, there is the matter of different types of galactic threats. A galactic threat like the Reapers is a threat to life itself, while another type of galactic threat may simply be a threat to a WAY of life. The scopes are the same, but the severity of the threat is different. That's important to keep in mind instead of harping on about the evils of using large-scale threats.