273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

No one is saying it doesn't, the point is that it's not the only part. Lore, timeline, stories, characters, fashion, architecture, style, techology etc are just as important parts. Whichever direction they take with ME4, something WILL be sacrificed. If it's a reboot/AU then most (if not all) timeline and established stories that built the universe will be thrown out of the window. If it's totally new regions of the Milky Way or different galaxy all-together then most if not all old locations will be 'sacrificed'. If it's a sequel with canon or railroaded ending then we will have biggest choices the franchise had sacrificed.

 

It boils down to a question what is everyone more willing to 'give up', locations or established timeline/events.  Or we're going with prequels/sidequels. There's not that many ways out of this situation and I don't see any being perfect and requiring no tough design choices

 

THe stories aren't exactly "thrown out the window"  The original trilogy is still there.  You can still play it.  It just won't impact on what comes next.  Just like you can play Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, which are the same setting, yet their stories don't connect.

[dreamgazer]

Distant-future sequel that works almost like a reboot. All roads lead to Rome.

[Drone223]

And if they pick 1 ending and it's Synthesis? Or heck, Refuse lol? You wouldn't be so keen on the idea then. Also, having just minor quests about Geth/Krogan would be repeating the same mistakes original Trilogy did with choices & consequences.

Bioware are smart enough to know that people will be furious if they make either those endings canon so I doubt they'll do it.

THe stories aren't exactly "thrown out the window" The original trilogy is still there. You can still play it. It just won't impact on what comes next. Just like you can play Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, which are the same setting, yet their stories don't connect.

Except you dismiss the significance of the trilogy in the franchise, it's basically the same as rendering the trilogy non-canon. The next game ME game can be unrelated to the trilogy yet events and characters from the trilogy can be refernced.

[shepskisaac]

THe stories aren't exactly "thrown out the window"  The original trilogy is still there.  You can still play it.

Obviously, but I can't change the fact that it will feel 'lesser' if it has no relation to the new timeline/AU. Continuity is important to me, I'm not gonna burn orphanages if they reboot it, but I won't be extatic either. I mean we're talking a franchise that's just few years old, kind of early for a reboot/AU

 

 

Bioware are smart enough to know that people will be furious if they make either those endings canon so I doubt they'll do it.

True, but at the same time I doubt fans of other endings combined wouldn't be furious if it was Destroy that got picked. Control has many fans for good reasons, Refuse is the favourite of the most angry fans who wanna "show middle finger" to BW. Personally I pick Destroy most of the time, but I wouldn't want Control to become non-canon.

[Drone223]

Obviously, but I can't change the fact that it will feel 'lesser' if it has no relation to the new timeline/AU. Continuity is important to me, I'm not gonna burn orphanages if they reboot it, but I won't be extatic either. I mean we're talking a franchise that's just few years old, kind of early for a reboot/AU

Not to mention that it won't sell very well since there are only three major releases in the franchise. I wouldn't mind a reboot but that should wait until the franchise has been around for a few decades.

[Malanek]

Trying to write around the endings is no better as sooner or later they'll have to deal with them. They should just pick one ending make it canon (destroy) and go forward from there as it and Udina being councilor will be only choices made canon. Rachni, genophage and geth can be dealt with by having something like DA: keep and have minor quest revolve around them depending on what choices were made. Its not the most ideal choice but it gives Bioware something to work with and saves the trouble of having to do everything from scratch.

I don't think they should do a mix and match approach. Pick a state and make everything that is important to the story canon. They can be ambiguous, there is no need for instance to say whether Commander Shepard was a man or a woman. There is not even any real need to say exactly how the Reapers were defeated.

 

For instance say they wanted to write a story about rebuilding the galaxy set 15 years after the reaper war. They don't need to say "commander shepard picked destroy" but rather "the Reaper threat was ended but leaving the galaxy is chaos." Leave it to the players imagination, perhaps Shepard picked control but decided to send all the reapers flying into the sun. If they want to do a story theme around the emerging threat of the Krogan who are now free of the genophage, they don't need to say "Commander Shepard cured the genophage."  That shouldn't even be common knowledge, someone else could have cured it like the council. Or someone else could simply be claiming to have cured it. It could be a mystery with Krogan claiming it was down to rapid evolution.

 

Carrying more and more choices forward to new games becomes more and more chaotic over time. While it sounds really cool, the reality is that the differences you see are entirely cosmetic and the story suffers through constraints because of it. And it's not about right or wrong. In the previous example it doesn't say to a Synthesis player, haha, destroy was the correct choice. It says wow look at all the crap you managed to avoid and all the lives you saved by picking synthesis.

[AsheraII]

Sidequel?

[Iakus]

Obviously, but I can't change the fact that it will feel 'lesser' if it has no relation to the new timeline/AU. Continuity is important to me, I'm not gonna burn orphanages if they reboot it, but I won't be extatic either. I mean we're talking a franchise that's just few years old, kind of early for a reboot/AU

 

Why?  If it still has the mass relays, biotics, turians, krogan, The Council, The Terminus, the Systems Alliance, etc, and simply doesn't have the baggage of the Reapers and the "Shepard Incident", then what's not to like?  It's still Mass Effect.

[Vazgen]

Why?  If it still has the mass relays, biotics, turians, krogan, The Council, The Terminus, the Systems Alliance, etc, and simply doesn't have the baggage of the Reapers and the "Shepard Incident", then what's not to like?  It's still Mass Effect.

The relays and the Citadel are different if they are not Reaper-created. You ask for changing the universe. It's not the same Mass Effect

[Iakus]

The relays and the Citadel are different if they are not Reaper-created. You ask for changing the universe. It's not the same Mass Effect

How are the relays any different in ME1 when we didn't know that, then they were in ME2-3?

[shepskisaac]

Why?  If it still has the mass relays, biotics, turians, krogan, The Council, The Terminus, the Systems Alliance, etc, and simply doesn't have the baggage of the Reapers and the "Shepard Incident", then what's not to like?  It's still Mass Effect.

Like I said, timeline and continuity are important to me and I see them as core part of any universe. It's subjective of course but what more can I say And if we reboot after just 3 games, I'm concerned it's gonna get only more overused in future. Look at the utter mess with Spider-Man universe going on, it's just off-putting and makes you not want to get invested in the universe at all when they hit reboot button in such liberal fashion

[Vazgen]

How are the relays any different in ME1 when we didn't know that, then they were in ME2-3?

They are an integral part of the universe. That's the reason ME1 explained their origins. Remove Reapers and you'll be forced to change their origin thus changing the established universe. It won't be the same Mass Effect

[Drone223]

They are an integral part of the universe. That's the reason ME1 explained their origins. Remove Reapers and you'll be forced to change their origin thus changing the established universe. It won't be the same Mass Effect

Also worth mentioning is that plots that have already been resolved will have to be resolved yet again which isn't a good idea.

[Mcfly616]

Easiest route is the one people are most outspoken about. A game set before the Reaper War.

[shepskisaac]

Easiest route is the one people are most outspoken about. A game set before the Reaper War.

Definitely, but given what we've seen and heard about the game so far, I would be shocked if that was the case. Exploration of uncharted worlds in whole new region of space by N7 soldier, discovering new races and stuff yet it amounts to nothing in the end? Humanity ends up having no contant ever again with those races just few years later and doesn't adapt any of the new uncharted worlds into their colony program? Would the ultimate prequel syndrome

[Ithurael]

Easiest route is the one people are most outspoken about. A game set before the Reaper War.

 

Hmm. How is that easier? I mean, don't get me wrong. Mechanically it is a bit easier than a sequel. But from a story and design point of view wouldn't the ultimate easyness just be an AU?

 

Trust me when I say that we both know there will be many complaints. Many people want many different things. ITers want to see what happens after the breath scene, pro enders could go for sequel or midquel, anti enders seem to want a reboot or AU, and then there are those that just want cake - and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

I know I keep saying it over and over but I think from a mechanical perspective and even a story perspective bio could (and imo should) do the AU.

 

Leave out a prequel or midquel (cause we already know what color the galaxy will be in the end)

 

Leave out a reboot (pls bioware..no more reapers)

 

It will probably make many unhappy, but I want bioware to have the absolute MOST creative freedom for this next game both from a story perspective and a game design perspective. And I only see that happening with an AU. New story, new characters, new(ish) galaxy.

 

I mean, in an AU, the possibilities are endless...We could go into wormholes, traverse new worlds and find new species, fight new big bads that are as bad if not worse than the reapers - who knows.

 

I will tell you what I can't stand, if it is a sequel, is when the writers make a new antagonist that 'one ups' the previous antagonist. That.Drives.Me.Crazy.

 

TLDR: An AU (to me) seems to have much more creative freedom than any option I have seen discussed (except maybe the ark theory...but ehhh. not sure about that one)

[Drone223]

TLDR: An AU (to me) seems to have much more creative freedom than any option I have seen discussed (except maybe the ark theory...but ehhh. not sure about that one)

Except an AU isn't a mass effect game it'll be a different IP instead. A lot of the defining aspects of the franchise such as the mass relay's and their origins are integrated to the lore changing them will resut in a completely different universe. There is also the problem of resolving plot points that have already been resolved it's not good practice to make people go throw those plot arc's a second time just after they've been finished.

[Mcfly616]

 

Leave out a prequel or midquel (cause we already know what color the galaxy will be in the end)

 And this is the only issue with going this route. Fans not allowing themselves to let go of the ME3 endings. It's their own problem. Not an obstacle to the games development. 

 

It's the easiest route because the setting is already established and we can jump right back into it. All Bioware would have to do is tell a story that has nothing to do with Shepard or Reapers. Considering Shepard is one guy and the Reapers are nothing more than a myth to everyone except a handful of people, that's rather easy.

 

 

With an AU you would have to re-establish the foundation and lore of the entire fictional universe.

[Iakus]

They are an integral part of the universe. That's the reason ME1 explained their origins. Remove Reapers and you'll be forced to change their origin thus changing the established universe. It won't be the same Mass Effect

 

Again, why?  For thousands of years the relays were "Prothean" and no one had heard of the Reapers.  They still functioned the same way when Shepard learned of the Reapers.

 

 

 

Also worth mentioning is that plots that have already been resolved will have to be resolved yet again which isn't a good idea.

I admit this is a good point, matters such as the gneophage would have to be revisited.

 

But they don't have to be "resolved" as in "do we cure it or not?" in a game.

[Iakus]

Except an AU isn't a mass effect game it'll be a different IP instead. A lot of the defining aspects of the franchise such as the mass relay's and their origins are integrated to the lore changing them will resut in a completely different universe. There is also the problem of resolving plot points that have already been resolved it's not good practice to make people go throw those plot arc's a second time just after they've been finished.

Did Spider-Man stop being Spider-Man when Tobey Maguire stopped wearing the outfit?

[God]

Nope its all go do with inferor technology and low numbers not the change of weapons used in game and the word of god (no pun intended) pretty much states this over and over again. The only reason why different weapons were used in the games is to make the game more interesting and because the dev's didn't think of making certain weapons at the time.

Changes in weapons used in the games has always been for gameplay reasons rather than lore. But this is for another discussion best not derail the tread any further.

 

As I said, don't quote lore to me. I know it, and I know it better than you do.

 

Also, your grasp of tongue-in-cheek humor is inspiring.

[Drone223]

As I said, don't quote lore to me. I know it, and I know it better than you do.
.

The users on the halo waypoint forums would disagree with you, there is also gameplay and story segregation to consider which is nothing new in gaming.

[Drone223]

Again, why? For thousands of years the relays were "Prothean" and no one had heard of the Reapers. They still functioned the same way when Shepard learned of the Reapers. Here's the thing someone built the mass relay's so it's in the galaxies best interest to find out who built them. There is also the question of what happened to the ones who built them, they don't vanish into thin air for no reason, so obviously something catastrophic has happened to them. Buy removing the reaper's from the lore your basically changing the entire history of the galaxy in the lore the origins of the relay's would be different.


I admit this is a good point, matters such as the gneophage would have to be revisited.

But they don't have to be "resolved" as in "do we cure it or not?" in a game.

Well it deciding on curing it or not has to happen eventually so it's going be very similar.

[dreamgazer]

Did Spider-Man stop being Spider-Man when Tobey Maguire stopped wearing the outfit?

That depends on your opinion of Andrew Garfield.

Personally, I wouldn't further pursue the comparison to the rebooted Spider-Man universe, which was met with "too soon" criticism from the get-go and didn't result in very well-received output.