140 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

I truly believe games with stories built around a trilogy are the most successful: Mass Effect, The Witcher, Batman: Arkham, Dead Space, Crysis, Halo, etc.

 

The reason I believe these franchises are so successful is for a variety of reasons. For one, they have continuity between games. You see the same world and characters evolve over a period of time and it builds a history and a sense of presence. Secondly, there is a buildup of relationships. In these games, you see relationships grow and become more complex overtime, whether it's Garrus and Shepard, Geralt and Triss, Master Chief and Cortana, etc. Third, maintaining the same protagonist throughout the experience. Characters like Shepard and Master Chief really become your own after so much time controlling those characters and engaging in the events and history that comes to shape them overtime.

 

Fourth, there is an emotional connection and an impact in the storytelling. While ME3 is a controversial game for many, it was a masterpiece in my eyes with scenes such as Mordin sacrificing himself to cure the genophage. The same goes for Cortana sacrificing herself to save MC, Geralt going to rescue Triss, you truly build a connection and a sense of personal accountability for these characters. Lastly, your choices really do have an impact and matter. Over the course of the three games, you have made tough decisions and have created many experiences with others in the game. It's that much sweeter when you can recount those moments and see how they have impacted the future as a result of your choices.

 

There are various other reasons I can list, but these are a few of the major ones that make trilogies so incredibly successful. I love the Dragon Age franchise, but part of the reason I enjoy Mass Effect more, besides the fact its science fiction, is because of the continuity between games and the buildup. Dragon Age just feels disjointed because you have the Warden Commander, Hawke, and now the Inquisitor. DAI did a decent job of tying them all together, but I would have much rather focused on being just one protagonist rather than jumping to somebody new in every game.

 

*A side note, I realize Arkham Origins is also technically a part of the Arkhamverse, but Rocksteady only made Asylum, City, and now Knight. Halo is also built around the original trilogy (Bungie) with Halo 1-3 and the new reclaimer trilogy (343) with Halo 4-6.*

 

Feel free to post your thoughts on whether you believe the next Mass Effect should be a trilogy or not. It's worth noting that the new Lead Writer for the next Mass Effect was the Lead Writer for Halo 4 with 343.

[SolNebula]

I hope for a trilogy too provided they don't mess up the story like they did in ME2. If they do a trilogy they have to know already the plot for each game and have consistency in the writing and game mechanics. I don't want another dark energy plot controversy.

[Revan Reborn]

I hope for a trilogy too provided they don't mess up the story like they did in ME2. If they do a trilogy they have to know already the plot for each game and have consistency in the writing and game mechanics. I don't want another dark energy plot controversy.

In fairness, while BioWare always planned for Mass Effect to be a trilogy, they weren't even sure the first game would be a success. We also have to realize that between ME1 and ME2, BioWare was bought by Electronic Arts and went through a major shift in how they develop games. I agree it's unfortunate that Drew Karpyshyn was the lead writer for the first two games and had a different theory about how the trilogy would end where Mac Walters, who was lead on ME3, came to a different conclusion. It was by no means perfect and the inconsistencies showed because of a change in the author, but I still enjoyed the trilogy immensely overall.

 

With regard to future titles, I believe BioWare could easily avoid this issue as Mass Effect is an established franchise and it makes sense to plan ahead, especially with regard to the story. It makes it that more immersive and impactful when everything makes sense and you can see the ties and parallels clearly between the games.

[InterrogationBear]

I truly believe games with stories built around a trilogy are the most successful: Mass Effect, The Witcher, Batman: Arkham, Dead Space, Crysis, Halo, etc.

All these franchises have a defined PC with a name. Many people here don't want that.

 

I think it's a bad idea to go the route of Dragon Age and introduce several playable species. The Inquisitor has no character and is the opposite of a Shepard, Adam Jensen, Gerald etc. I hate it when the protagonist doesn't have a real name. In fact, Bioware should give the new PC a first name too.

 

As for the Trilogy: I suspect there will be some sort of a mild cliffhanger that sets up a potential sequel. Most (all?) video game trilogies are not planed as such and I don't think they should. It never works.

[Revan Reborn]

All these franchises have a defined PC with a name. Many people here don't want that.

 

I think it's a bad idea to go the route of Dragon Age and introduce several playable species. The Inquisitor has no character and is the opposite of a Shepard, Adam Jensen, Gerald etc. I hate it when the protagonist doesn't have a real name. In fact, Bioware should give the new PC a first name too.

 

As for the Trilogy: I suspect there will be some sort of a mild cliffhanger that sets up a potential sequel. Most (all?) video game trilogies are not planed as such and I don't think they should. It never works.

I'd be careful here. What "many people" are afraid of is playing a character that isn't their own. While it's true Shepard and Geralt are defined characters, that is just largely their backstory and an explanation for where they are in the game at the start. Once you begin playing throughout the trilogy, you realize you build your "own" Shepard or Geralt. The choices are so diverse and the impacts have various consequences that no two Shepards or Geralts are the same.

 

I agree Dragon Age makes it incredibly difficult to have a compelling character due to giving players too much choice. I wouldn't say the Inquisitor is entirely devoid of a personality. The Warden from DAO definitely was, especially since he/she was a silent protagonist. It's just a lot less compelling when BioWare tries to leave all the character building to the gamer, thus it makes storytelling overall much weaker on BioWare's part.

 

Again, it's worth noting many of these series had to prove themselves before they were established. Mass Effect no longer has to do that. BioWare could easily avoid most, if not all, of the inconsistencies the original ME trilogy suffered from. The next Mass Effect is going to have high expectations due to the overall success of the original trilogy. To not plan multiple games and build a truly engrossing and compelling story would be a mistake, in my opinion.

 

If BioWare wants to maintain the relevance of ME games to come and maintain the quality, having a road map with continuity between games makes sense. If you just go from one standalone game to the next, similar to Final Fantasy, you risk having an amazing game one year and a terrible game the next. That's not a wise or effective way to build a franchise.

[Tonymac]

I too believe they should go for (or plan on) a trilogy.  If they plan all three games thematically and simultaneously, I think they can get something epic going.  If it is all planned at once, retconning and plot holes can also be avoided.  

 

A full trilogy takes what, about a decade to make?  Lets hope that the writing team stays together that long.  Sadly, careers change and the realities of business can affect the writing team rather heavily.  Perhaps if a blueprint or a template was created then some of the original  essence can make it through the series.

 

Star Wars is a good example (ok, the originals - for the record) of how well the Trilogy idea can work.  Simply put, you had 3 acts that when put together told an epic tale that had a wonderful ending *cough*.  I think BioWare could learn a lot from looking at other Trilogies out there and study why they are so successful.  

[Revan Reborn]

I too believe they should go for (or plan on) a trilogy.  If they plan all three games thematically and simultaneously, I think they can get something epic going.  If it is all planned at once, retconning and plot holes can also be avoided.  

 

A full trilogy takes what, about a decade to make?  Lets hope that the writing team stays together that long.  Sadly, careers change and the realities of business can affect the writing team rather heavily.  Perhaps if a blueprint or a template was created then some of the original  essence can make it through the series.

 

Star Wars is a good example (ok, the originals - for the record) of how well the Trilogy idea can work.  Simply put, you had 3 acts that when put together told an epic tale that had a wonderful ending *cough*.  I think BioWare could learn a lot from looking at other Trilogies out there and study why they are so successful.  

Exactly. Remember how people complained about killing off the rachhni and having them return anyways? Making Anderson the human councilor in ME1/2 and Udina myseriously being the human councilor in ME3? The dark energy premise was already mentioned in which Tali described in-depth in ME2 only for it to be dropped completely in ME3. A lot of this could have been avoided had the writing team created a basic structure for the three games from the start.

 

Drew is no longer part of BioWare (lead writer on KotOR, ME1, ME2), but Mac Walters (lead writer on ME3) is now taking over as the creative lead and the lead writer from Halo 4 is now the lead writer on the next Mass Effect. This means the new game, and hopefully trilogy, will be starkly different from the original with a new direction while Walters makes sure it's still consistent and reasonable with the universe.

 

We can only speculate on whether the new lead writer will be sticking with more than one game. However, considering he left 343 to join BioWare, I'm under the impression this will be a long-term move and he probably won't leave anytime soon. We can look at the Star Wars original trilogy, we can look at The Dark Knight trilogy, we can look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy, even the Spider-Man trilogy and prequel trilogy for Star Wars did some things right (I still like Revenge of the Sith personally). There's a lot to be said for the trilogy formula and why BioWare should fully endorse it.

[SNascimento]

It's interesting how many people talk about planning a trilogy, yet some of the best trilogies in sci-fiction were not planned in advance. Star Wars for one, I read somewhere Darth Vader wasn't even supposed to be Luke's father when Episode IV came out, but I'm not sure.

Foundation, another hallmark sci-fi work, was also not planned. Asimov said he didn't evne know what the Second Foundation was going to be, and just left it there because he might want to use it in the future. 

[wolfhowwl]

I'm sure they would love to make another trilogy but they probably don't want to announce it, have the game potentially underperform, and then fans are left hanging forever.

 

ME4 could be a story capable of standing alone but with some plot hooks to continue with the same protagonist and cast but not necessarily the same overarching plot (ex. Reapers) if the game does well.

[Revan Reborn]

It's interesting how many people talk about planning a trilogy, yet some of the best trilogies in sci-fiction were not planned in advance. Star Wars for one, I read somewhere Darth Vader wasn't even supposed to be Luke's father when Episode IV came out, but I'm not sure.

Foundation, another hallmark sci-fi work, was also not planned. Asimov said he didn't evne know what the Second Foundation was going to be, and just left it there because he might want to use it in the future. 

Actually, Star Wars was always planned to have been three trilogies. The reason George Lucas started with A New Hope was because it made the most sense as a standalone film in case Star Wars wasn't popular. Once it was, Lucas went directly ahead with the trilogy idea. The movie was never made entirely in isolation of the rest of the story.

 

Regardless, the trilogy concept has worked time and time again and I believe it's for a very good reason. It's consistent, it allows a buildup, and it can lead to an amazing finale. The Dark Knight trilogy wasn't originally going to be a trilogy either, but it turned out that way for a variety of reasons. That's part of the reason there was a huge gap in time (eight years) between TDK and TDKR.

[Revan Reborn]

I'm sure they would love to make another trilogy but they probably don't want to announce it, have the game potentially underperform, and then fans are left hanging forever.

 

ME4 could be a story capable of standing alone but with some plot hooks to continue with the same protagonist and cast but not neccesarily the same overarching plot (ex. Reapers) if the game does well.

Even if the first game in the trilogy were to underperform, that doesn't mean the next two games should necessarily be scrapped. It all depends on the story you are telling and how it's presented.

 

There doesn't need to be a "reaper threat" or anything of the sort to justify a trilogy. The Batman Arkham trilogy didn't have a consistent villain in each game. Halo hasn't. The Witcher hasn't. I truly believe the connection with the same protagonist and crew can go along way regardless of the adventure they are embarking on. All we know is that the next Mass Effect will take place in the future, will have the new characters exploring a new sector of space, and there will be new species to uncover.

[Tonymac]

It's interesting how many people talk about planning a trilogy, yet some of the best trilogies in sci-fiction were not planned in advance. Star Wars for one, I read somewhere Darth Vader wasn't even supposed to be Luke's father when Episode IV came out, but I'm not sure.

Foundation, another hallmark sci-fi work, was also not planned. Asimov said he didn't evne know what the Second Foundation was going to be, and just left it there because he might want to use it in the future. 

 

I think it can go either way, depending on the level of talent.  When you invoke names like Niven, Asimov, Heinlein, Herbert, Clarke, and Bradbury - they are bound to succeed due to their raw talent - these people are the very conerstones of science fiction.

 

I grant you - gaming is a very different medium.  To me, ME1 had that spark.  It was a crazy good story that changed depending on what order you chose to run it.  ME2 was pretty much, "Mark Time, March!"  It took us no where.  ME3 was a rushed box of dogfarts with some potpourri sprinkled in.

 

The level of talent between the cat that wrote the ending(s) to ME3 and the cats that are the cornerstones of science fiction mentioned above is not even close.  Comparing them is blasphemy.  

[cap and gown]

I agree with many of your points, but I call into question the need for a trilogy, as opposed to just two interconnected games with a continuing protagonist and the import features of Mass Effect. There is nothing sacred about having a three part story. Just because Tolkien's publisher told him his book was too long and needed to be split into three separate books doesn't mean every story from now to eternity needs to be a trilogy. Tolkien's story wasn't really a trilogy at all.

 

The reason I think a two game format rather than a three game format would might be better is because the number of variables and permutations would be reduced making the story less prone plot holes or forced retcons.

 

OTOH, I liked very much the way the decisions in one game came back to effect the next game, in particular the Rannoch and Tuchanka arcs. Have one game make the player make decisions, then in the next game he can find out how those decisions play out.

 

I see a lot of value in a continuing PC. The decisions the Warden made never come back to haunt him/her. Instead they have some small impact on the world the Inquisitor has to deal with. I would prefer that if a PC makes certain decisions in one game, he personally has to face the consequences in the next game. For instance, my current Shepard was confronted by Falere over the death of Samara. How would this scene play out if there was one PC in ME2 and another in ME3? It would not have the same impact.

 

 

I also see the value of the PC building up a history with the NPCs. ME3 was rich because of the interactions between Shepard and the NPCs that we had gotten to know over 3 games. One game is simply not enough to build up that kind of relationship. My inquisitor and Varric never developed that strong a relationship even though my Hawke took Varric with him everywhere. "No Shepard without Vikkarian" just doesn't work with only one game of history between the characters.

[Tonymac]

In thinking on this topic some more, I believe we have also missed a crucial / critical point.  Many of the writers that I look up to and admire - that I consider to be the Founding Fathers of Science Fiction may or may not have planned on a trilogy.  In many cases they wrote one story, and then had offers to continue the series and perhaps even make it a trilogy or even more.

 

In the Mass Effect franchise we switched lead writers as we went along.  This kind of nullifies the idea of a trilogy in my opinion.

[Revan Reborn]

I agree with many of your points, but I call into question the need for a trilogy, as opposed to just two interconnected games with a continuing protagonist and the import features of Mass Effect. There is nothing sacred about having a three part story. Just because Tolkien's publisher told him his book was too long and needed to be split into three separate books doesn't mean every story from now to eternity needs to be a trilogy. Tolkien's story wasn't really a trilogy at all.

 

The reason I think a two game format rather than a three game format would might be better is because the number of variables and permutations would be reduced making the story less prone plot holes or forced retcons.

 

OTOH, I liked very much the way the decisions in one game came back to effect the next game, in particular the Rannoch and Tuchanka arcs. Have one game make the player make decisions, then in the next game he can find out how those decisions play out.

 

I see a lot of value in a continuing PC. The decisions the Warden made never come back to haunt him/her. Instead they have some small impact on the world the Inquisitor has to deal with. I would prefer that if a PC makes certain decisions in one game, he personally has to face the consequences in the next game. For instance, my current Shepard was confronted by Falere over the death of Samara. How would this scene play out if there was one PC in ME2 and another in ME3? It would not have the same impact.

 

 

I also see the value of the PC building up a history with the NPCs. ME3 was rich because of the interactions between Shepard and the NPCs that we had gotten to know over 3 games. One game is simply not enough to build up that kind of relationship. My inquisitor and Varric never developed that strong a relationship even though my Hawke took Varric with him everywhere. "No Shepard without Vikkarian" just doesn't work with only one game of history between the characters.

This depends entirely on how long the story actually is. The game doesn't necessarily need to be a "trilogy." There isn't anything especially magical about three parts, other than there being a beginning, middle, and an end. The only issue with a two-part story versus a three-part is the former will end more abruptly and then the writers and developers will have to start all over again. I'd rather they future-proof and build a universe for a much longer period of time.

 

I agree entirely with the need of a continuing protagonist versus a protagonist only in one game. I enjoyed my Warden Commander, Hawke, and Inquisitor, but they have nothing on my Shepard. The relationships I made with Garrus, Tali, Ash, Miranda, etc. actually felt authentic because there was a history and a buildup. It wasn't the same in Dragon Age because I often was starting over playing as a new character either revisiting former companions of someone else or just new companions entirely. It was the same world, but the impact wasn't nearly the same as in Mass Effect.

 

Regardless of the length, maintaining the same protagonist and choices throughout are a must, in my opinion. It's just not the same otherwise.

[Revan Reborn]

In thinking on this topic some more, I believe we have also missed a crucial / critical point.  Many of the writers that I look up to and admire - that I consider to be the Founding Fathers of Science Fiction may or may not have planned on a trilogy.  In many cases they wrote one story, and then had offers to continue the series and perhaps even make it a trilogy or even more.

 

In the Mass Effect franchise we switched lead writers as we went along.  This kind of nullifies the idea of a trilogy in my opinion.

Well that's ultimately why the ME trilogy only really worked to a point. It was fine with regard to companions, side quests, etc. It just didn't work for major plot points and the overarching story because Drew and Mac had very different ideas behind the reapers and their motivation for harvesting organic and synthetic life. The one constant that made it work a bit better was Casey merely because he was the lead visionary on the project since the beginning. Hopefully, with the next Mass Effect, should it be a trilogy, the lead writer won't just disappear. If he does, hopefully he will be tasked with outlining how the story would end.

[AlanC9]

Actually, Star Wars was always planned to have been three trilogies. The reason George Lucas started with A New Hope was because it made the most sense as a standalone film in case Star Wars wasn't popular. Once it was, Lucas went directly ahead with the trilogy idea. The movie was never made entirely in isolation of the rest of the story.

This is a bit misleading. Lucas went back and forth about how many films were going to be in the series all the time. And he certainly didn't have the plot for the first three films in mind, because Vader being Luke's father doesn't show up until the second draft of ESB.

[Revan Reborn]

This is a bit misleading. Lucas went back and forth about how many films were going to be in the series all the time. And he certainly didn't have the plot for the first three films in mind, because Vader being Luke's father doesn't show up until the second draft of ESB.

The absolute, definitive story was never set in stone. There was a lot of collaboration between Lucas, Kasdan, and many others to become what the original trilogy ultimately was. That being said, Lucas did have writing samples for all the movies. He even had writing samples for Episode VII, VIII, and IX in 1983. As far as Darth Vader being Luke's father, I'm sure you are aware there was a lot of secrecy around that major plot point, even amongst the cast. For example, Harrison Ford didn't even know during the shooting of the movie that Vader was Luke's father. He was as shocked as everybody else. Only Lucas, Hamill, and a few others close in development actually knew the full story.

[wolfhowwl]

Even if the first game in the trilogy were to underperform, that doesn't mean the next two games should necessarily be scrapped. It all depends on the story you are telling and how it's presented.

That might depend more on management's willingness to continue investment in the series instead of dropping it like Dead Space.
 

There doesn't need to be a "reaper threat" or anything of the sort to justify a trilogy. The Batman Arkham trilogy didn't have a consistent villain in each game. Halo hasn't. The Witcher hasn't. I truly believe the connection with the same protagonist and crew can go along way regardless of the adventure they are embarking on. All we know is that the next Mass Effect will take place in the future, will have the new characters exploring a new sector of space, and there will be new species to uncover.

 

I agree. I was saying that ME4 could be a self-contained story that doesn't introduce an overarching plot and antagonist like ME1 did with the Reapers. Obviously it could still have some hooks for new arcs with the same protagonist and cast if the game does well.

[Vazgen]

Yes, definitely. The save import is something that makes Mass Effect stand out from the other games. As far as I know, no other game transfers that many variables between games. And I'm with cap and gown here, I think two game structure might be better, simply because not that many variables will be needed to be accounted for. Of course, if Bioware succeeds with two games we'll see fans screaming for more content Which is why I would prefer the story to be more personal, not to make global changes to the universe such as destroying/saving the geth, curing/sabotaging the genophage etc. Will make possible return of the protagonist more likely.

[Revan Reborn]

That might depend more on management's willingness to continue investment in the series instead of dropping it like Dead Space.
 

 

I agree. I was saying that ME4 could be a self-contained story that doesn't introduce an overarching plot and antagonist like ME1 did with the Reapers. Obviously it could still have some hooks for new arcs with the same protagonist and cast if the game does well.

Dead Space and Dead Space 2 performed exceptionally well. Dead Space 3 also did well, but was criticized for becoming more of a third person shooter than a survival horror, focusing too much on coop, and having microtransactions.

 

Definitely. Personally, I'm not a fan of space magic or anything too ridiculous. The reapers were far more interesting when they were a mysterious plot device rather than when they were explained. Personally, I'd like for the next Mass Effect to focus more on the crew experience, relationships, and the team taking on various challenges as they explore unknown regions of space.

 

There are many ways BioWare could make a truly engrossing story without the entire galaxy being on the line.

 

Yes, definitely. The save import is something that makes Mass Effect stand out from the other games. As far as I know, no other game transfers that many variables between games. And I'm with cap and gown here, I think two game structure might be better, simply because not that many variables will be needed to be accounted for. Of course, if Bioware succeeds with two games we'll see fans screaming for more content Which is why I would prefer the story to be more personal, not to make global changes to the universe such as destroying/saving the geth, curing/sabotaging the genophage etc. Will make possible return of the protagonist more likely.

The only other game that I know of that made use of a save import for various decisions and some items was The Witcher to The Witcher 2. Otherwise, it's largely just a Mass Effect device. Yep, I think it will be interesting focusing on a more personal story, somewhat similar to ME2 where it was about relationships. Not every choice needs to have repercussions that could affect the entire galaxy. I'd rather my choices have a large impact on the protagonist and his/her crew in meaningful ways instead.

[Mcfly616]

Nope. No it does not need to be a trilogy. If we're all lucky they'll do standalone games with self-contained narratives from here on out.

[Revan Reborn]

Nope. No it does not need to be a trilogy. If we're all lucky they'll do standalone games with self-contained narratives from here on out.

I believe that would be a grave mistake. Part of what made the Mass Effect series so popular to start is because it was a trilogy. The save imports. The same protagonist. The voiced protagonist with the dialogue wheel. The same crew members and building relationships through various events. Then, being able to reminisce about those events later on fondly with your crew members who have become long-time friends that you built a history with.

 

Turn this into Final Fantasy, which every game is standalone (besides FFX and FFXIII series), and you risk having great success and then abysmal failures. We've even talked about why Dragon Age hasn't been as compelling nor as successful as Mass Effect, and it is largely because of continuity and protagonist disjoints.

[cap and gown]

 

There are many ways BioWare could make a truly engrossing story without the entire galaxy being on the line.

 

Mass Effect 2 didn't have the whole galaxy on the line, just some human colonies in the Terminus systems, and it was a great game. Though we never got enough of the Collectors. The main plot line was too thin. Needed more encounters with the Collectors before the final mission in order to remind us this was about protecting human colonies, not dealing with people's daddy issues.

[Revan Reborn]

Mass Effect 2 didn't have the whole galaxy on the line, just some human colonies in the Terminus systems, and it was a great game. Though we never got enough of the Collectors. The main plot line was too thin. Needed more encounters with the Collectors before the final mission in order to remind us this was about protecting human colonies, not dealing with people's daddy issues.

That's not entirely accurate. Had Shepard and crew not stopped the Collectors, the human reaper would have been completed and Harbinger and the rest of the reapers would have returned from dark space much sooner. By thwarting Harbinger's plans, Shepard was able to largely delay the inevitable, which was the reaper invasion. Mass Effect 2 just felt more intimate because very few knew the entire galaxy was at risk, similar to KotOR II. This was also the first time Shepard actually took the fight to the enemy, going to the Collector Base through the Omega-4 Relay, rather than the fight coming to the Citadel or to Earth.