140 réponses à ce sujet

[D.C.]

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.

I thought lucas started with IV, V, and VI because of the technological film advances at the time, he realized he was gonna be way over budget for extras to do I, II and III first

 

But yes you are correct Nolan stated he wasn't sure how Batman Begins was gonna do they had an idea for a sequel but wasn't sure how it would turn out so they waited for a response to BB, the concept for the trilogy wasn't even thought of and wanted to make sure that the story was right for each one.

[Mcfly616]

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.

FF sucks because-amongst other things- their game world is different in every single installment. I'm not suggesting that at all. By your line of thinking all the future Star Wars spin offs are doomed before they're even made because they're not part of the core storyline. Just like I can't get with the line of thinking some people have towards prequels  "knowing that the Reapers eventually come, puts a dark cloud over whatever story they might tell", I can't understand your mentality either. If the Shepard/Reaper Trilogy is the high-level narrative of the MEU, I have no problems with it. I find the more personal tales to be much more interesting. I don't need to save the entire galaxy over the course of a three part space opera.

 

The protagonist carrying over is nothing new to games, and the save import proved how trivial it was in end. They were in no way 'the' highlights of the series. It was an intriguing feature that ultimately fell far short of its promise. The Mass Effect games were good in their own right, and would've been successful/well received games regardless if save imports were included.

 

I don't play Dragon Age, but I'm sure it has many more problems than just the protagonist that add to its criticism. Bottom line is, a good story is a good story and doesn't require returning characters or a trilogy to tell one.

[wolfhowwl]

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.

 

Companion quests are an RPG staple but yeah the ratio of that stuff to the actual plot was pretty extreme. It felt tacked on and also caused pacing issues where it felt like nothing was really happening because well it really wasn't.

 

If there had been a plot point about eliminating Collector allies before striking them directly I think you could be able to fold some of the companion content into those. Legion's stuff is pretty obvious and you could also have a mission with Krogan collaborating to get help with genophage research where Mordin's loyalty mission and Grunt's recruitment could fit in.

[Revan Reborn]

I thought lucas started with IV, V, and VI because of the technological film advances at the time, he realized he was gonna be way over budget for extras to do I, II and III first

 

But yes you are correct Nolan stated he wasn't sure how Batman Begins was gonna do they had an idea for a sequel but wasn't sure how it would turn out so they waited for a response to BB, the concept for the trilogy wasn't even thought of and wanted to make sure that the story was right for each one.

That certainly was one of the reasons that George Lucas stated. However, that explains more so why he waited 16 years before he made TPM after RotJ. His main reason for starting with ANH was for storytelling reasons and because he felt it could be a standalone film. Starting with TPM would have been awkward and not necessarily made sense as it would have introduced all these characters but not really explained what was going on.

 

FF sucks because-amongst other things- their game world is different in every single installment. I'm not suggesting that at all. By your line of thinking all the future Star Wars spin offs are doomed before they're even made because they're not part of the core storyline. Just like I can't get with the line of thinking some people have towards prequels  "knowing that the Reapers eventually come, puts a dark cloud over whatever story they might tell", I can't understand your mentality either. If the Shepard/Reaper Trilogy is the high-level narrative of the MEU, I have no problems with it. I find the more personal tales to be much more interesting. I don't need to save the entire galaxy over the course of a three part space opera.

 

The protagonist carrying over is nothing new to games, and the save import proved how trivial it was in end. They were in no way 'the' highlights of the series. It was an intriguing feature that ultimately fell far short of its promise. The Mass Effect games were good in their own right, and would've been successful/well received games regardless if save imports were included.

 

I don't play Dragon Age, but I'm sure it has many more problems than just the protagonist that add to its criticism. Bottom line is, a good story is a good story and doesn't require returning characters or a trilogy to tell one.

When did I ever state the next trilogy needs to be as intense and over-the-top as the original trilogy with reapers as the antagonist? On the contrary, I have stated the opposite several times. I'd enjoy a much more personal and smaller-scale experience. What I am saying, however, is I'd appreciate continuity, growth, and buildup over separate stories. That's essentially what Dragon Age does, as I've said, and it has garnered mixed results. Personally, I think Mass Effect's method is far more successful.

 

I disagree. What made Mass Effect different was that you became Shepard and evolved that experience over three games. The save import was a crucial experience to that, and I'd argue one of the main reasons Mass Effect was so successful. I know friends who absolutely refused to play the sequel unless they had a Shepard they could import into the game. It's just not the same if there is a lack of consistency and a lack of a connection between games. Save imports bridged that disjoint that is common in most games.

 

A good story is only good if you have great characters and you place them in situations that require the best and worst of them. This is much more easier to achieve when you have a trilogy of games with a continuing story. It's the difference between having an epic saga with an on-going story or an episodic experience with different flavors every time. I believe you gravely undervalue and misunderstand why Mass Effect is so popular. Had the original trilogy just been three separate games, it would not have been the same experience at all.

[Gwydden]

I'm all for a new trilogy. I think that's what made ME stand out, being able to carry a character and his or her choices and relationships through three entire games. There's a certain appeal to that, an appeal that made ME unique and memorable.

 

Standalone games? Not a bad idea, per se, but a wasted opportunity. They already have DA covering that department. A duology? A reason why they're rare is that they're not a very elegant system. Trilogies have the classic beginning, middle, and end structure that allow for a more dynamic development and a more climactic arc.

 

And more than three entries, well, after that stories are well into Terra Incognita and there there be dragons. Dangerous territory. Few continuous stories survive that perilous journey.

[Gwydden]

I don't play Dragon Age, but I'm sure it has many more problems than just the protagonist that add to its criticism. Bottom line is, a good story is a good story and doesn't require returning characters or a trilogy to tell one.

ME's status as a good story is... open to discussion. It's very dodgy, it is, relying on the player's personal investment, through a protagonist that is both enough of an action hero and with the proper amount of customization to make them seem as the player's own. Add a dozen spoonfuls of fanservice and put in the oven and you've got a pulpy, easily likable action franchise.

[Revan Reborn]

I'm all for a new trilogy. I think that's what made ME stand out, being able to carry a character and his or her choices and relationships through three entire games. There's a certain appeal to that, an appeal that made ME unique and memorable.

 

Standalone games? Not a bad idea, per se, but a wasted opportunity. They already have DA covering that department. A duology? A reason why they're rare is that they're not a very elegant system. Trilogies have the classic beginning, middle, and end structure that allow for a more dynamic development and a more climactic arc.

 

And more than three entries, well, after that stories are well into Terra Incognita and there there be dragons. Dangerous territory. Few continuous stories survive that perilous journey.

Exactly. Without the save import the capacity to intrinsically shape the experience, Mass Effect would be half the franchise it is.

 

Indeed. I think trilogies are a just more natural means of addressing a story. Not to mention, it makes more sense to draw out an experience instead of wrapping one up after a few years and starting over again.

 

I think trilogies are a happy medium. BioWare doesn't need to go the Harry Potter or Game of Thrones route. The games should be long enough to matter, but not be drawn out to the point where they lose their effectiveness.

[JohnDoe60]

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.

...

You have it backwards. They are not successful because they are trilogies, they are trilogies (or more) because they started out as successful.

 

I like series for all the reasons you mentioned, but a game needs to stand on its own and I would actually be more hesitant to purchase one where I knew in advance that I will need to purchase a couple more to get closure - there are just too many variables and too much time between releases to be able to count on the next one(s) being as good as or even like the first.

[Mcfly616]

 

When did I ever state the next trilogy needs to be as intense and over-the-top as the original trilogy with reapers as the antagonist? On the contrary, I have stated the opposite several times. I'd enjoy a much more personal and smaller-scale experience. What I am saying, however, is I'd appreciate continuity, growth, and buildup over separate stories. That's essentially what Dragon Age does, as I've said, and it has garnered mixed results. Personally, I think Mass Effect's method is far more successful.

 

I disagree. What made Mass Effect different was that you became Shepard and evolved that experience over three games. The save import was a crucial experience to that, and I'd argue one of the main reasons Mass Effect was so successful. I know friends who absolutely refused to play the sequel unless they had a Shepard they could import into the game. It's just not the same if there is a lack of consistency and a lack of a connection between games. Save imports bridged that disjoint that is common in most games.

 

A good story is only good if you have great characters and you place them in situations that require the best and worst of them. This is much more easier to achieve when you have a trilogy of games with a continuing story. It's the difference between having an epic saga with an on-going story or an episodic experience with different flavors every time. I believe you gravely undervalue and misunderstand why Mass Effect is so popular. Had the original trilogy just been three separate games, it would not have been the same experience at all.

Epic sagas and personal/small-scale stories are quite the oxy-moron. You don't need 3 games to tell a personal tale.

 

I've never played through the trilogy without an imported protagonist either. But that's besides the point. As I said it was an intriguing feature, but inarguably trivial. You gravely overestimate the value of the import system, as it apparently blinds you from all of the other aspects of what make a good videogame that Mass Effect did well. I never suggested the trilogy be "3 separate games". I clearly stated that continuity and carry over is easily achieved without the import. I.e. the import is not essential.

 

Let's be honest though, they were 3 separate games with 3 different narrative styles despite the same protagonist. "Flavors" as you say. And what's wrong with different flavors? Variety is a good thing. I'm only one of many that are and have been ready to experience the MEU from a different point of view. 

[Mcfly616]

 

Standalone games? Not a bad idea, per se, but a wasted opportunity. They already have DA covering that department. A duology? A reason why they're rare is that they're not a very elegant system. Trilogies have the classic beginning, middle, and end structure that allow for a more dynamic development and a more climactic arc.

 

And more than three entries, well, after that stories are well into Terra Incognita and there there be dragons. Dangerous territory. Few continuous stories survive that perilous journey.

 on the contrary seeing as DA is fantasy and Mass Effect is sci fi, I'd say it's quite an opportunity. They should distance themselves from being tied down by past installments. The implementation of the beginning/middle/end trilogy structure was shoddy at best the last time around. And I simply disagree  that it leads to a more climactic arc. Standalone games allow for a much more branching narrative with much more opportunities for choices to have actual impact.

 

The Witcher series has already proved it and it'll do it again next month. All with the same protagonist. It is a trilogy of standalone tales. Quite unconventional. And it's swimming in success. Do people like Geralt as the protagonist? Sure. But each game would be possible without him in that role.

[Mcfly616]

Add a dozen spoonfuls of fanservice and put in the oven and you've got a pulpy, easily likable action franchise.

 Fan service is a detriment to creativity and overall quality.

[Gwydden]

 on the contrary seeing as DA is fantasy and Mass Effect is sci fi, I'd say it's quite an opportunity. They should distance themselves from being tied down by past installments. The implementation of the beginning/middle/end trilogy structure was shoddy at best the last time around. And I simply disagree  that it leads to a more climactic arc. Standalone games allow for a much more branching narrative with much more opportunities for choices to have actual impact.

 

The Witcher series has already proved it and it'll do it again next month. All with the same protagonist. It is a trilogy of standalone tales. Quite unconventional. And it's swimming in success.

I only claimed that trilogies had a more climactic arc than duologies. With standalones is more of a tie.

 

A trilogy of standalone games? So if every entry had the same protagonist, but a different plot, much like The Witcher — would that count for you? Becaue I would agree that's the best way to go. Minimal risks, greater rewards.

[Gwydden]

 Fan service is a detriment to creativity and overall quality.

Technically, yes.

 

But ME has (let's not fool ourselves) one of the biggest Sues who ever Sued for a protagonist. Fanservice is a big pull here. That's why it's is done in the first place, because it works. People are easy to please. 

[Revan Reborn]

You have it backwards. They are not successful because they are trilogies, they are trilogies (or more) because they started out as successful.

 

I like series for all the reasons you mentioned, but a game needs to stand on its own and I would actually be more hesitant to purchase one where I knew in advance that I will need to purchase a couple more to get closure - there are just too many variables and too much time between releases to be able to count on the next one(s) being as good as or even like the first.

In some cases, but not all. Either way, the end result is the same.

 

That was exactly the case with Mass Effect. Before the first game even came out in 2007, BioWare had already stated it was going to be a trilogy. That, in my opinion, shouldn't necessarily be a cause for hesitation. You just need to judge the game based off its own merits and see if you'd like to continue that story.

 

Epic sagas and personal/small-scale stories are quite the oxy-moron. You don't need 3 games to tell a personal tale.

 

I've never played through the trilogy without an imported protagonist either. But that's besides the point. As I said it was an intriguing feature, but inarguably trivial. You gravely overestimate the value of the import system, as it apparently blinds you from all of the other aspects of what make a good videogame that Mass Effect did well. I never suggested the trilogy be "3 separate games". I clearly stated that continuity and carry over is easily achieved without the import. I.e. the import is not essential.

 

Let's be honest though, they were 3 separate games with 3 different narrative styles despite the same protagonist. "Flavors" as you say. And what's wrong with different flavors? Variety is a good thing. I'm only one of many that are and have been ready to experience the MEU from a different point of view. 

Your first sentence doesn't relate at all to the second sentence. Who says you can't have three games explain a personal tale? What do you think The Witcher series largely is? A personal story focusing on Geralt of Rivia. It has worked extremely well.

 

Playing Mass Effect without an imported character is a drastically different experience. I played Mass Effect 2 on PC as I got it for free after buying Dragon Age II on PC. I had Mass Effect on the Xbox 360, so I didn't have my imported character. It actually ruined the game. I couldn't customize and tailor every point and choice from ME1 and thus the Shepard I had didn't belong to me. It was a less engaging and less fulfilling experience as a result. That's why the save import matters.

 

You and I must have played a different Mass Effect then. The point of the trilogy was to always destroy the reapers. That had been the message since the very beginning and all the way to the very end of ME3. While the journey may have turned and shifted in different ways, the overarching goal was always identical. Mass Effect was always on target that reapers are bad and they must be stopped.

 

 on the contrary seeing as DA is fantasy and Mass Effect is sci fi, I'd say it's quite an opportunity. They should distance themselves from being tied down by past installments. The implementation of the beginning/middle/end trilogy structure was shoddy at best the last time around. And I simply disagree  that it leads to a more climactic arc. Standalone games allow for a much more branching narrative with much more opportunities for choices to have actual impact.

 

The Witcher series has already proved it and it'll do it again next month. All with the same protagonist. It is a trilogy of standalone tales. Quite unconventional. And it's swimming in success.

The Witcher series isn't three standalone games... TW2 had an import system for TW1 so you could import gear and choices... TW3 is also going to have a different kind of import feature at the very start where you input the choices you made in TW1 and TW2 to shape the story and to build your "world state." In other words, The Witcher trilogy is exactly like the Mass Effect trilogy. The only reason TW3 won't have a direct import is because of new consoles and it's not technologically feasible. Again, the Wild Hunt was at the very beginning of TW1, in much of TW2, and, surprise, it will be a major element for TW3. No difference.

[Revan Reborn]

 Fan service is a detriment to creativity and overall quality.

Except when it's not. The Citadel, arguably the most popular ME DLC of all time, is nothing but fan service. From falling through a fish tank, competing between Hammerhead and Mako squad, to having conversations about "I should go," it was priceless. When a game creates so many pop culture references and then brings them back to make fun of itself in an engaging way, that's when you know you've made an iconic franchise. That's what the Citadel was: A culmination of brilliance and the epic saga that Mass Effect had created for five years. I enjoyed every ounce of fan service that was dripping from the Citadel DLC.

[Gwydden]

Except when it's not. The Citadel, arguably the most popular ME DLC of all time, is nothing but fan service. From falling through a fish tank, competing between Hammerhead and Mako squad, to having conversations about "I should go," it was priceless. When a game creates so many pop culture references and then brings them back to make fun of itself in an engaging way, that's when you know you've made an iconic franchise. That's what the Citadel was: A culmination of brilliance and the epic saga that Mass Effect had created for five years. I enjoyed every ounce of fan service that was dripping from the Citadel DLC.

This is a good example. Hardly the only one, but a good one. And more palatable than most.

 

It's often fan service at the detriment of other fans though. It gets to the point where half of the fanbase is left out. Ash and Kaidan didn't get much content in ME2.. Jack and Miri in ME3 (and lets not even get into the femshep options).

True. But that's just the thing. Squadmates are around for fanservice. They're here to entertain and praise and pontificate. To get people's romantic drives rolling. It's almost inevitable that it turns into a popularity contest.

 

Do you think they'd have the same effect if they'd only been around for one game?

[Dr. Rush]

I actually think the ME trilogy is a great example as to why Bioware shouldn't make commitments to mutliple-game spanning series. Mass Effect trilogy was a product of too many different creative minds and visions. Too many chefs in the kitchen. Design by committee. Too many voice actors changing. Too many writers changing characters or leaving entirely. 

 

Look at KOTOR. A masterpiece. Look at Jade Empire, a masterpiece. I don't have a problem with sequels, but committing to a trilogy is too demanding for Bioware to sustain over the entire course of the development of the trilogy. Bioware just needs to focus on making one great RPG at a time.

[Gwydden]

I actually think the ME trilogy is a great example as to why Bioware shouldn't make commitments to mutliple-game spanning series. Mass Effect trilogy was a product of too many different creative minds and visions. Too many chefs in the kitchen. Design by committee. Too many voice actors changing. Too many writers changing characters or leaving entirely. 

 

Look at KOTOR. A masterpiece. Look at Jade Empire, a masterpiece. I don't have a problem with sequels, but committing to a trilogy is too demanding for Bioware to sustain over the entire course of the development of the trilogy. Bioware just needs to focus on making one great RPG at a time.

Hey, if they can make NME into a great standalone game, that would be best. But, just in case, they should probably leave the doors open in case there's potential to extend it.

 

I'd rather care about stories and decent follow through... than popularity contests. For heaven's sake, I'm pushing 40. I have better things to do really. I want everyone's experiences to be rich and fun... and not worry about competitions like this.

Agreed. Doesn't seem like what we want is quite the same as what Bioware wants, though 

[Revan Reborn]

I actually think the ME trilogy is a great example as to why Bioware shouldn't make commitments to mutliple-game spanning series. Mass Effect trilogy was a product of too many different creative minds and visions. Too many chefs in the kitchen. Design by committee. Too many voice actors changing. Too many writers changing characters or leaving entirely. 

 

Look at KOTOR. A masterpiece. Look at Jade Empire, a masterpiece. I don't have a problem with sequels, but committing to a trilogy is too demanding for Bioware to sustain over the entire course of the development of the trilogy. Bioware just needs to focus on making one great RPG at a time.

That is not a fault of the trilogy concept in itself, but BioWare's execution of it. Again, BioWare knew they were doing a trilogy, but they didn't have each story written out before the games were released. Thus, when Drew left, there were major plotholes present that did not connect and weren't addressed. I think if they do a better job of establishing the story, characters, and what will happen in future games ahead of time, this won't be a concern.

 

BioWare only developed KotOR I. Personally, I thought KotOR II was better story-wise as it was more original and nuanced. Jade Empire was a financial disappointment and BioWare placed it on the shelf as a result. BioWare is all about storytelling. One of the greatest tools any story can have is the ability to continue. Again, this goes back to why Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, and The Dark Knight trilogy is so iconic. It's an epic story taking place over a period of films. I don't see why video games have to be different from that.

 

I'd rather care about stories and decent follow through... than popularity contests. For heaven's sake, I'm pushing 40. I have better things to do really. I want everyone's experiences to be rich and fun... and not worry about competitions like this.

Had BioWare not been rushed by EA to complete ME2 (less than three years) and ME3 (two years) so quickly, a much better job could have been done for many companions. The simple fact of the matter is BioWare just didn't have the time to make an articulate and full experience. This led to the "fan service," of certain crew members getting more screen time than others. It was a lack of resources and having to make calls to meet deadlines. Thankfully, BioWare is taking their time with the next Mass Effect. I much prefer the long development route of Blizzard/Rockstar/BGS rather than the short development route of Ubisoft Montreal/Treyarch/Infinity Ward.

[Mcfly616]

Technically, yes.

 

But ME has (let's not fool ourselves) one of the biggest Sues who ever Sued for a protagonist. Fanservice is a big pull here. That's why it's is done in the first place, because it works. People are easy to please. 

Pleasing people with fan service doesn't make it quality work.

 

 

 

 

"If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audience.  They would be the artists.  It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need." -Alan Moore