28 réponses à ce sujet

[x Raizer x]

After spending a great portion of my gaming career playing Bioware RPG games, I noticed something during my time falling in love with these characters, places, and stories: a certain trend that sticks out to me, and one that I am surprised I didn't notice sooner.

 

One that will most certainly be as apparent in Mass Effect "Next" as it was in previous Bioware RPG's.  This trend isn't a bad thing, either.

I am sure by now you are just wanting me to shut up and say what the trend is:  Well, in each game, you start from nothing, facing oppression that is either racial or culturally based in one way or another.  99% of the time you aren't a legend or anyone of much renown, but soon after you become a legend early on, and its up to you to justify that legendary status (1st Human Spectre, or the Herald of Andraste, etc).  Then you have to gather a team to save the world, or prevent something that can lead to the destruction of the world (or the fear that it could lead to the destruction of the world.)  To do this, you build an army.  You gather assets.  You gather allies.  You find companions.  And more!

Don't get this post wrong.  I love these aspects of Bioware games the most!  I love building up a powerful faction, all from being a nobody.  I love the power, the choices, the companions, I love gathering assets and knowing that each little thing I do adds power to my faction.

The reason I mention this, is because if this trend is so apparent in every Bioware RPG game lately, it will certainly be apparent in Mass Effect "Next."  But to what degree?  Are we going to prevent the destruction of the universe again?

Or something, different?  Maybe something more personal, or something that would not prevent the physical destruction of the world, but maybe the social or cultural destruction?
 

Thoughts on any of this?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Well, DA2 is sort of an exception in that it's not about saving the world and Hawke can't do much besides help his/her preferred faction in the battle at the end, but its mixed reception might discourage Bioware from going in that direction again. I hope that isn't the case, because my only big problem with DA2 is the abrupt ending, which boils down to Cassandra telling Varric, "Okay, you can stop now." We should have at least seen what specifically happened to Hawke and his/her companions after the big batlte at the end, as well as what Kirkwall's future looks like.

 

Personally, I would like for ME:Next to be a prequel centered around the human/batarian tensions in the Attican Traverse, with some of the galaxy's other political conflicts coming into play along the way and the goal being to ensure the best outcome for, say, a group of colonies as opposed to the entire galaxy. No idea if that's where they're headed - I tend to think not based on the small pieces of information that have trickled out so far.

[silent-man73]

The "formula" for BioWare games has been consistent since the first "Knights of the Old Republic".  Gather party, get to know them, become legendary, have a set number of objectives you can complete in whatever order you want, with no ticking clock, and have final climactic battle.

 

It sounds jaded to say, but I'm not being that way.  It's a formula that's worked.  Even as panned as Dragon Age 2 was (I'm not even going to justify the idiocy of the whiners over ME3's ending, save by noting here that they exist; BioWare should have given them the middle finger and said, "This is the game you got, deal with it"), it was still a runaway success.

 

I imagine that the diversity of lifestyles and races in BioWare games is intentional, and is likely going to be there for the next Mass Effect.  ME2 and ME3 stand as the benchmarks by which I judge sci-fi games: I require that level of storytelling and action.

[x Raizer x]

Well, DA2 is sort of an exception in that it's not about saving the world and Hawke can't do much besides help his/her preferred faction in the battle at the end, but its mixed reception might discourage Bioware from going in that direction again. I hope that isn't the case, because my only big problem with DA2 is the abrupt ending, which boils down to Cassandra telling Varric, "Okay, you can stop now." We should have at least seen what specifically happened to Hawke and his/her companions after the big batlte at the end, as well as what Kirkwall's future looks like.

 

Personally, I would like for ME:Next to be a prequel centered around the human/batarian tensions in the Attican Traverse, with some of the galaxy's other political conflicts coming into play along the way and the goal being to ensure the best outcome for, say, a group of colonies as opposed to the entire galaxy. No idea if that's where they're headed - I tend to think not based on the small pieces of information that have trickled out so far.

 

I always thought the Batarian-Human conflict was ripe for so much more opportunity.  They could have written a trilogy about that aspect alone!  One of the most moving parts of the trilogy for me (but underplayed in game) was when you got the Batarian commander to ally his remaining forces with the Humans and the Council to help fight the Reapers.  Reminded me of the Geth and Quarian peace.

[Mister J]

Well that really is the big question isn't it? Where does your story go after having dealt with saving the galaxy? You could safe the whole observable universe I guess, but that's only postponing the problem and would probably feel repetitive...

 

A smaller story with less high stakes is also possible, but that would seem mundane compared to the original trilogy and not-Shepard would never be quite the hero that Shepard was.

 

Unless they got some brilliant idea that is far beyond my imagination, I guess the choice would be between repetitive and mundane...

[chris2365]

You are definitely not the first to notice this

[x Raizer x]

Never seen that chart before!  Nice, haha!

 

Like I said, the trend doesn't bother me, even if it is repetitive, as long as its done well each time.

[chris2365]

Never seen that chart before! Nice, haha!

Like I said, the trend doesn't bother me, even if it is repetitive, as long as its done well each time.

Same here. Execution matters most. I've been playing Bioware games since KOTOR, and all I ask of Bioware is that they continue to make incredible games, even if they must rely on the same formula.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if you try something new and it works more or less(DA2 for instance), go back to the tried and true for a game then try again. No shame in doing so if it makes for better games

[SwobyJ]

For Mass Effect Next I'm currently expecting something like the plot and character progression trend of ME1-ME3 combined, with a little more of the initial orientation that we didn't see Shepard go through.

 

Plus a lot of unique takes on things, and a focus more on Order instead of Chaos. I have mah reasons!

 

Basically, when it comes to your thread's topic, I think we'll get a lot more exploration and spread out discovery, but it may still result in many large battles and epic scale authority and decisions. No longer a trilogy, but one very long game, and probably with the overall stakes higher than the Reapers (especially considering the fact that the Reapers still kept organic existence preserved - they never ever intended on full extinction or change of all organics; ME3's ending however introduces the concept of stuff like the synthesis conversion of the entire galaxy, which is a scale that the next game might play with).

[MrFob]

I really really hope the won't up the stakes for the next game, even if it is a sequel.
I think it doesn't always have to be a threat to the entire galaxy or all life or whatever. You could as well make it a more personal story. The protagonist doesn't have to make a huge impact (not everyone can be "the Shepard" ), just give me a good personal motivation and a really good antagonist and I'll be happy.
It would also go well with the exploration gameplay if there is not some doomsday machine lurking in the background, waiting to go off.

As for the topic: I believe what you describe there, OP is the essence of most RPGs. I do like that BW tried to go different routes from time o time (see ME2 for example, which is structured quite differently from the old KotOR/DA:O/ME1 theme). For the next ME, I am curious what they will do. Something that could be interesting is a more investigative approach to the main story.
in ME1, you just went from planet to planet, doing one story mission after another. while doing so, you gained the different pieces of information and once you had done all four, you could go to the final act.
How about instead, there are much more but smaller pieces of information, forming sort of a network where one piece can lead to multiple others. Which piece you get at what point is up to you but the order may have some influence on how the story plays out. This may involve some backtracking but it would be up to the level design to make it this a non issue.
You also wouldn't need all pieces to start the ending (maybe you can;t even get them all in one play-through and there may even be detractors, that set you on a false path or something. I am thinking along the lines of games like the Blade Runner adventure, just in an RPG environment with more exploration and combat in it.
This approach would also give the option of letting the player fail missions (i.e., when you go down in combat in certain missions, it's not game over but you fail the mission instead, loosing a piece of the puzzle you are trying to solve. Having gameplay impact the story is one of those things that are too rarely done (Heavy Rain comes to mind, although of course, that didn't have a whole lot of gameplay to start with ).

Sorry if I got distracted there and if this is possibly quite off topic but I do think, one of that great chances of the new hardware now is to bring more dynamic into games. I certainly hope that we won't just tick off one story planet after another again.

These are the things I care about, how does the story develop within the game and for my character. If that is implemented well, I am all fine with a smaller scale story and I don't need the next galaxtic threat.

[Vazgen]

Starting from nothing is not about Mass Effect. In each background choice you've done something remarkable. I'd like for Mass Effect: Next to actually allow us to start from nothing and a more personal story with less world-altering decisions. We save the world in all Bioware games that I've played (ME 1-3, DA: Origins). While it makes us feel big goddam heroes, it overshadows minor conflicts that can be no less life-changing for the people involved.

I'd love to have a more agent-like storyline, a bit like The Sum of All Fears where you balance on the verge of an all-out war and deal with very tense relationships between different races. 

[Mcfly616]

Smaller scale, more personal story......has it's appeal compared to becoming the savior of the galaxy all over again. It's been done before.

[J.Ezra]

People like underdogs. To see someone normal or that they can relate to be greater then would be ordinary. As you say, most BW games follow the pattern of starting out as a regular(most of the time) person and growing to be the hero of the *Insert world/universe*. Though isn't that why people keep buying the games?

ME series let you build upon the legacy you made in the first game with the other two and that was great, you could connect with your character properly.

 

Personally I wish DA had done this, or maybe executed the way they did DA:I better since we are just saving a larger part of the world we saved ten years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I love DA:I but it always bugged me how poorly they handled your Warden,"Oh yeah, he/she is.....um, west? Yep, that's it, they went West to save themselves and maybe the other Wardens instead of saving the world." because fighting something you can battle for another 20 years is more important then the end of the world. 

Anyway, rant about DA over. I just kinda hope the next ME will not say "Here, save the world...again" as I'm not sure you can beat defending the galaxy and it would be a bad idea to try. 

 

What I'm trying to say is the next ME shouldn't try and trump what Shepard did in the first three. Sticking with something that works and attempting to up the previous games are different things. Assuming the next game is a sequel, trying to push Shepard under the rug like they did with the HoF in DA is a bad idea. We(I at least) don't need to save a planet in order to feel like a hero. Well, that's my opinion.

[Lee T]

Humble beginnings are used in a many RPGs, they are good for story and help explain the drastic power curve most of them put your character through.

[StealthGamer92]

Starting from nothing is not about Mass Effect. In each background choice you've done something remarkable. I'd like for Mass Effect: Next to actually allow us to start from nothing and a more personal story with less world-altering decisions. We save the world in all Bioware games that I've played (ME 1-3, DA: Origins). While it makes us feel big goddam heroes, it overshadows minor conflicts that can be no less life-changing for the people involved.

I'd love to have a more agent-like storyline, a bit like The Sum of All Fears where you balance on the verge of an all-out war and deal with very tense relationships between different races. 

 

Speaking of the backgrounds, did anyone else feel middle choice feel like it should've been Paragon and vice-versa?

[B.Shep]

I always thought the Batarian-Human conflict was ripe for so much more opportunity.  They could have written a trilogy about that aspect alone!  One of the most moving parts of the trilogy for me (but underplayed in game) was when you got the Batarian commander to ally his remaining forces with the Humans and the Council to help fight the Reapers.  Reminded me of the Geth and Quarian peace.

For me things like this or the Hanar saving the Drell from a Industrial Revolution's ecological disaster are what made the ME universe so rich of details.

[RoboticWater]

I'd actually like to see what the Obsidian writing team could do with Mass Effect. Somehow, they seem to have a knack for refurbishing existing IP. Using Bioware's existing framework they constructed a much more intricate story in KoTOR II.

 

As for the underdog trope, it can be hard to avoid in an RPG. What's the most logical backstory for a guy without powers that players can project onto? Duh, let's make him a nobody. How do we get this loser to fight? I don't know, light some stuff on fire, that usually works. etc. etc.

 

The formula is used because it works. Hell, who doesn't love Star Wars? I won't fault Bioware for sticking with something that's proven effective (as long as they spruce things up with a bit of character), but recently Bioware have slipped a little too far into convention. I was completely enthralled by the DA:I reveal up until "and then there's demons falling from the sky!" Again, it's not necessarily bad writing, but would it kill Bioware to ditch the old crutch and make a story centered around social conflict exclusively? I can't imagine it'd be that hard for them. Take Reapers out of ME3 and the best bits, Rannoch and Tuchanka, would still be fantastic (better, if you thought "reaper code" was just too convenient to the plot).

 

I'm no writer, but if Bioware hired a guy to slap the writers any time one of them says "Ancient Evil," then I think we'd be much better off.

 

Obviously, some tropes are essentially unavoidable. People can relate more easily to the nobody farmer and no one particularly likes being that loser for very long. So if Bioware want to start us off as some vapor farmer who teams up with a puckish rouge and his carpet to quickly get into some excellent adventures, I'm fine with that. It's approachable and works mechanically, but for the love of God Bioware, you don't need a big bad wolf to move you're plot along.

[spinachdiaper]

Bioware needs to back off the old formula and make the next ME about an under the radar hero/squat. Make them independents, wild cards, while being personally driven and not some messiah trope.

[goishen]

I'd actually like to see what the Obsidian writing team could do with Mass Effect. Somehow, they seem to have a knack for refurbishing existing IP. Using Bioware's existing framework they constructed a much more intricate story in KoTOR II.

 

As for the underdog trope, it can be hard to avoid in an RPG. What's the most logical backstory for a guy without powers that players can project onto? Duh, let's make him a nobody. How do we get this loser to fight? I don't know, light some stuff on fire, that usually works. etc. etc.

 

The formula is used because it works. Hell, who doesn't love Star Wars? I won't fault Bioware for sticking with something that's proven effective (as long as they spruce things up with a bit of character), but recently Bioware have slipped a little too far into convention. I was completely enthralled by the DA:I reveal up until "and then there's demons falling from the sky!" Again, it's not necessarily bad writing, but would it kill Bioware to ditch the old crutch and make a story centered around social conflict exclusively? I can't imagine it'd be that hard for them. Take Reapers out of ME3 and the best bits, Rannoch and Tuchanka, would still be fantastic (better, if you thought "reaper code" was just too convenient to the plot).

 

I'm no writer, but if Bioware hired a guy to slap the writers any time one of them says "Ancient Evil," then I think we'd be much better off.

 

Obviously, some tropes are essentially unavoidable. People can relate more easily to the nobody farmer and no one particularly likes being that loser for very long. So if Bioware want to start us off as some vapor farmer who teams up with a puckish rouge and his carpet to quickly get into some excellent adventures, I'm fine with that. It's approachable and works mechanically, but for the love of God Bioware, you don't need a big bad wolf to move you're plot along.

 

 

Underdog trope, I'll give that in ME1 and ME3.   In ME2, ehhhh....   Not so much.  If you remember, the tag for ME2 was, "Fight for the lost."  This is one thing that I think also made ME2 successful.  "Fight for the lost."  In other words, I don't care if you lost in an argument, a fist fight, a gun fight, a knife fight...   We're gonna fight for you.  Because it's what makes you, you.  Right or wrong. 
 

[Mcfly616]

*coughDragonAge][cough*

I have no interest in Dragon Age, whatsoever....

[Vazgen]

War and Peace you mean (Clancy is excellent but no match for Leo).

Though Anna Karenina was better.

Agreed Video game adaptations of Tom Clancy's writings were always engaging, at least for me. R.I.P. 

 

Mass Effect universe can have a very engaging storyline, having it again focus on dealing with some galaxy-threatening alien species will be not using that potential IMO. Less generic shooter, more tension and politics, like Eric Frank Russel's Wasp. 

[Heimdall]

Sure, but just saying that it does that.I agree that it can, but Bioware doesn't seem to either A. be proficient in that area, or B. Want to go in that area.

A pity, Mass Effect might have been better off if they had taken the series in that direction rather than the Reapers.

I think they might be willing though. Awhile ago they mentioned pitching an idea for a spy/espionage RPG but it got shot down.

[Mcfly616]

A pity, Mass Effect might have been better off if they had taken the series in that direction rather than the Reapers.
 

They can still do it and it'll be just as good as it ever could've been. If they want to leave the Shepard/Reaper saga as the high level narrative (and chronological endgame) to the MEU, I have no problems with that. More personal standalone stories is what I'm looking for.