140 réponses à ce sujet

[Ski Mask Wei]

Not everything has to be about stopping the Reapers. I don't know why you'd be in a rush to hear it. A big bad evil is going to destroy the galaxy. How many times have we seen that before? Hundreds. Maybe thousands.  It will NEVER be interesting. It's fun, but ultimately childish. What's interesting is the world and stage it's set in. And all the side issues. It's important to get to know the world you're trying to save. That make you want to fight all the more.

 

That said, Cerberus and the Krogan are still pretty important to the main themes about evolution in the series. The follies of uplift and trying to play god. The follies of getting too much of a jumpstart before you earn it. The follies of trying to control the world around you, micromanaging every aspect of evolution like the Reapers do. Can Shepard be any different than the Reapers? Or is he going to be a control freak himself?

 

Those things you mention don't have to be in a continuous story to get shown.  They could be done in other games/media.  I would love a game about being a C-Sec officer but that doesn't mean they have to stuff it in the next trilogy of games.  Mass Effect could easily do the Star wars EU thing instead of trying to crank out more trilogies.  

[Ski Mask Wei]

You are acting as if BioWare is a novice when it comes to writing stories. How can you say something is too "difficult" or "cannot be done" when BioWare has never actually tried it? Again, Halo 4 and the Reclaimer Trilogy is an example of a series of games where their stories have been planned and defined before 343 began development. That is probably a large reason why BioWare got the lead writer of Halo 4 as their lead writer for the next Mass Effect.

 

They don't want to make the same mistakes of poor planning leading to inconsistencies and plot holes. I don't believe making a cohesive trilogy is difficult at all if you craft it in a way that makes sense. Dragon Age is unlikely to adopt the trilogy approach, which seems to be intrinsically a Mass Effect method. I don't believe the Casey Hudson IP will remotely be similar to anything we've seen from BioWare before, storytelling-wise and gameplay-wise.

 

When BioWare creates a new franchise, they build that franchise. It's not conducive to building a universe when you have a "one and done" mentality. Of course there will be sequels, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are direct sequels and tied to one another. BioWare did make save imports and choices from previous games affecting subsequent things a standard in their storytelling after all.

 

You have faith, I'll give you that but from what I've seen I can't cosign it.  How good is the writing in the Halo games?  How big is the story in the Halo games?  I played Halo 2 for an hour so I don't know.  However I do know good writing takes time especially when you're using the same people over and over again.  Sometimes having a plan isn't enough.  Take "A Song of Ice and Fire" for instance.  GRRM has said he's known the ending a long time ago but he's still writing the books.  Hell, I'll be surprised if he's finished before 2020 and he's a godlike author.     

[Iakus]

I've already explained how the rachni returning and udina as the councilor were not systemic issues of a trilogy, but instead issues of poor planning and bad execution. In fact, those issues could have easily been avoided had BioWare treated the three games as a trilogy and written the story well in advance. As far as the ending, again, that speaks to Drew leaving and Mac taking over, which created a plethora of plot holes and contradictions that would have likely never surfaced had the story been completed before the writing team changed. All of your supposed "issues" with the Shepard trilogy can be avoided.

Can be?  Maybe.

 

Will be?  I doubt it.  They seem to think any dissatisfaction with the series is our fault.  

[Malanek]

I've already explained how the rachni returning and udina as the councilor were not systemic issues of a trilogy, but instead issues of poor planning and bad execution. In fact, those issues could have easily been avoided had BioWare treated the three games as a trilogy and written the story well in advance. As far as the ending, again, that speaks to Drew leaving and Mac taking over, which created a plethora of plot holes and contradictions that would have likely never surfaced had the story been completed before the writing team changed. All of your supposed "issues" with the Shepard trilogy can be avoided.

OK, so what would the solution in ME1 be if you knew in ME3 you wanted Anderson on Earth and the Rachni turned into reaper husks? Probably not to offer the choice. I want to see big choices with vastly differing consequences much more than I want to see a lot of cosmetic consequences to irrelevant decisions.

 

The big benefit of planning out the entire story, or at least key concepts along with the ending, is so they can drop hints and refer to it along the way. It helps reduce plot holes and makes the story seem more authentic. It doesn't magically reduce the amount of work they need to do to handle branching narratives.

[Balsam Beige]

MENext needs to be a stand alone. Written with a good beginning and a "really" good ending. All big choices wrapped up within the game. The goal should be to regain the faith of the fan base and move the ip forward. If all goes well, a trilogy could be considered for future games. Imho.

[Iakus]

MENext needs to be a stand alone. Written with a good beginning and a "really" good ending. All big choices wrapped up within the game. The goal should be to regain the faith of the fan base and move the ip forward. If all goes well, a trilogy could be considered for future games. Imho.

Can't like twice, so I'll add a "this"

 

Prove to me that one good story can be written, then we can start to entertain the possibility of a trilogy at some point in the future.

[Heimdall]

I'm really indifferent to be honest.

I think they might be better off with a standalone that ends strong. Then we can see about more.

[Revan Reborn]

You have faith, I'll give you that but from what I've seen I can't cosign it.  How good is the writing in the Halo games?  How big is the story in the Halo games?  I played Halo 2 for an hour so I don't know.  However I do know good writing takes time especially when you're using the same people over and over again.  Sometimes having a plan isn't enough.  Take "A Song of Ice and Fire" for instance.  GRRM has said he's known the ending a long time ago but he's still writing the books.  Hell, I'll be surprised if he's finished before 2020 and he's a godlike author.     

Halo 2 is the worst game out of the numbered series in terms of storytelling, so you are already off to a rough start lol. The new lead writer for the next Mass Effect only wrote Halo 4, which, in my opinion, has the best story out of all of the Halo games. It ties heavily into the lore of the Halo universe and substantially builds on MC and Cortana's characters. I can see why BioWare would want to include the guy as he shows a talent for character depth, drama, and he helmed the way for a new Halo trilogy. I believe seeking him for the next Mass Effect was very deliberate.

 

GRRM is easily distracted and he writes his novels on a PC built in the 80s. I'd hardly use him as an example of why a trilogy isn't a good idea. Not to mention, GoT is vary more than just three books, which is the problem. He has a lot to say and so many characters that of course it's incredibly taxing. A BioWare game will never have more than one main protagonist more than likely, so that's hardly a concern.

 

OK, so what would the solution in ME1 be if you knew in ME3 you wanted Anderson on Earth and the Rachni turned into reaper husks? Probably not to offer the choice. I want to see big choices with vastly differing consequences much more than I want to see a lot of cosmetic consequences to irrelevant decisions.

 

The big benefit of planning out the entire story, or at least key concepts along with the ending, is so they can drop hints and refer to it along the way. It helps reduce plot holes and makes the story seem more authentic. It doesn't magically reduce the amount of work they need to do to handle branching narratives.

I believe that's an assumption on your part. More than likely, those choices would have turned out very differently had BioWare executed properly. Choice doesn't need to be taken away necessarily. In fact, at least with Udina, they give an explanation for why he is now the human councilor. That would have been probably better to have included via Mass Effect 2 in the story. In all actuality, Shepard was a Spectre, so he really didn't have any authority with who was on the Council anyways other than his initial recommendation in ME1. Again, that whole scenario could have been avoided through planning.

 

I don't believe anybody is claiming planning ahead makes crafting a trilogy easier. What it does do is make developers stay on point and lead to a more cohesive experience. Doing a trilogy the right way will always be a challenge. The same can be said for doing a cohesive story in just one game. I've played very few games that truly did a phenomenal job of telling a story in just one game. The most memorable games I've played generally have stories continued in subsequent games.

 

MENext needs to be a stand alone. Written with a good beginning and a "really" good ending. All big choices wrapped up within the game. The goal should be to regain the faith of the fan base and move the ip forward. If all goes well, a trilogy could be considered for future games. Imho.

BioWare doesn't need to "regain the faith of the fan base." Most players still love Mass Effect regardless of the controversial ending to the trilogy. The only people who cry "doom" and "gloom" are those who are stuck in the past and believe BioWare committed a mortal sin beyond redemption. If anything, I'd argue the controversial ending was likely a benefit due to how much exposure and coverage it received by the media.

[Iakus]

 

BioWare doesn't need to "regain the faith of the fan base." Most players still love Mass Effect regardless of the controversial ending to the trilogy. The only people who cry "doom" and "gloom" are those who are stuck in the past and believe BioWare committed a mortal sin beyond redemption. If anything, I'd argue the controversial ending was likely a benefit due to how much exposure and coverage it received by the media.

Yeah...they kinda do.  The Mass Effect fanbase is seriously broken.

 

ME3 has become the punchline of a sad joke.  Is Bioware beyond redemption?  No.  But they do have something to prove now.

[dreamgazer]

BioWare doesn't need to "regain the faith of the fan base." Most players still love Mass Effect regardless of the controversial ending to the trilogy. The only people who cry "doom" and "gloom" are those who are stuck in the past and believe BioWare committed a mortal sin beyond redemption.

Pretty much.

[Display Name Owner]

I couldn't complain about having 3 games to look forward to instead of just 1.

 

Part of me also likes the idea of ME having a load of standalone games just involving a series of adventures that have nothing to do with each other, the galaxy being the big place it is. We could play around with a whole load of different places and situations and walks of life that way - a soldier, a mercenary, a normal guy, an explorer, an assassin. Just examples. 

 

I'm interested either way.

[wolfhowwl]

BioWare doesn't need to "regain the faith of the fan base." Most players still love Mass Effect regardless of the controversial ending to the trilogy. The only people who cry "doom" and "gloom" are those who are stuck in the past and believe BioWare committed a mortal sin beyond redemption. If anything, I'd argue the controversial ending was likely a benefit due to how much exposure and coverage it received by the media.

 

The original trilogy of games had turnover of around 50% between each entry (according to BioWare's save import data) and that was with just two year gaps. This game is going to be four years and a console generation later.

 

It will be more important to generate hype with great graphics, fun combat, an interesting premise, and ads, lots of ads.

[SlottsMachine]

I knew a man who once went three days without a Tupari! And he got hit by a shuttle. Oh, wrong ads.

[Balsam Beige]

BioWare doesn't need to "regain the faith of the fan base." Most players still love Mass Effect regardless of the controversial ending to the trilogy. The only people who cry "doom" and "gloom" are those who are stuck in the past and believe BioWare committed a mortal sin beyond redemption. If anything, I'd argue the controversial ending was likely a benefit due to how much exposure and coverage it received by the media.

You ask active bsn Mass Effect posters "What do they think of the Mass Effect trilogy?" The majority would say "Excellent trilogy, good but not great endings".

You ask ex-bsn Mass Effect posters the same question and the majority would say "Love the trilogy but the endings were awful and ruined the experience."

The non bsn Mass Effect players response would be mixed but the controversial endings would be brought up in the conversation.

The majority of gamers who have not played the trilogy would respond "Hear good things about the games but also hear that the endings were controversial."

Non gamers would say "I don't know anything about the games but I heard that the endings were controversial."

My point is; The Mass Effect trilogy has a bad reputation primarily because of the ending controversy.

In my opinion, to begin MENext as the first game in a new trilogy would not do anything to levitate the bad reputation because the story would be open ended and many would say "Here we go again! "

A standalone would do more to improve the reputation with a good beginning, a "really" good ending with all big decisions wrapped up within the game.

My two cents. For what it's worth.

[SNascimento]

Mass Effect doesn't have a bad reputation, it has a great reputation with a *. 

I think gamespot did a poll a while ago about the best franchise of the generation or something like that. Mass Effect lost to GTA in the semi-finals but defeated some heavy weights like Metal Gear. Point being there are a lot of people who loves the franchise.

[Dr. Rush]

I've already explained how the rachni returning and udina as the councilor were not systemic issues of a trilogy, but instead issues of poor planning and bad execution. In fact, those issues could have easily been avoided had BioWare treated the three games as a trilogy and written the story well in advance. As far as the ending, again, that speaks to Drew leaving and Mac taking over, which created a plethora of plot holes and contradictions that would have likely never surfaced had the story been completed before the writing team changed. All of your supposed "issues" with the Shepard trilogy can be avoided.

The problem is, all the examples you are citing are things that will very likely happen again. Mass Effect was originally planned and announced as a trilogy. Bioware already knew what they were getting themselves into. You seem to have convinced yourself that if only Bioware had tried a little harder that the trilogy would have been some cohesive masterpiece. This is not how game design works. This is not how the game industry works. No writers are going to write 3 games worth of content up front. No writers are going guarantee that they will be working on the same project for 3 entire games of development. As I've explained to you earlier in this thread, what you want is an ideal that is not based in the realities of game design. Game development is a revolving door, yes, even at magical studios like Bioware, that is why so many of the writers who have worked on the first ME trilogy have changed. 

 

No one is ever going to write 3 full games in advance, while you might feel passionately about this issue, it is fantasy and not going to ever happen in the realistic confines of the game industry. 

[dreamgazer]

Mass Effect doesn't have a bad reputation, it has a great reputation with a *.

This.

[wolfhowwl]

In my opinion, to begin MENext as the first game in a new trilogy would not do anything to levitate the bad reputation because the story would be open ended and many would say "Here we go again! "

A standalone would do more to improve the reputation with a good beginning, a "really" good ending with all big decisions wrapped up within the game.

 

It makes sense to wait until after the next game to announce sequels. Not that anyone doubts that if ME4 does well there will be more coming, but you let the game make the case for you and also avoid the messy problem of leaving fans hanging on a trilogy that will never be finished if the game bombs.

 

As for being a standalone, I wouldn't be surprised if they were more conservative and leaned more towards more self-contained titles instead of a single overarching plot like with the Reapers. ME4 could finish its story but leave some good plot hooks to continue with the same protagonist and cast if the game is a success.

[Iakus]

Mass Effect doesn't have a bad reputation, it has a great reputation with a *. 
 

Sounds like my reputation with the Dozens in Pillars of Eternity:  "Eccentric"

 

I'vedone some nice things for them.  But I've also fracked them over pretty badly too.  As a result they don't know what to make of me.  And they aren't really willing to trust me.

[Andrew Lucas]

 

BioWare doesn't need to "regain the faith of the fan base." Most players still love Mass Effect regardless of the controversial ending to the trilogy. The only people who cry "doom" and "gloom" are those who are stuck in the past and believe BioWare committed a mortal sin beyond redemption. If anything, I'd argue the controversial ending was likely a benefit due to how much exposure and coverage it received by the media.

This.

Just because some of you don't like the outcomes, you don't need generalize everything. Regardless of your opinion about the ending, ME3 is a damn good game,possibly the best of the trilogy IMO.

[Iakus]

This.

Just because some of you don't like the outcomes, you don't need generalize everything. Regardless of your opinion about the ending, ME3 is a damn good game,possibly the best of the trilogy IMO.

And just because some of you think "Me is is a damn good game" you don't need to dismiss everything.

 

Regardless of your opinion of the ending, ME3 burned a lot of fans, and drove a lot of people away fro the trilogy.

[Andrew Lucas]

And just because some of you think "Me is is a damn good game" you don't need to dismiss everything.
 
Regardless of your opinion of the ending, ME3 burned a lot of fans, and drove a lot of people away fro the trilogy.

I'm not dismissing anything, I know that some people left the franchise, it happens with every single license out there, and ME is no exception. They can't please everyone.

It's obvious that the trilogy is remembered with high remarks, and considered one of the best franchises in gaming history. The brand isn't damaged, three solid games, three games acclaimed by both critics and a large variety of players. Yeah.

Oh wait, are we talking about the ending again? And how it ruined the entire franchise? Yeah, sure, whatever lol.

Being remembered by a bad ending doesn't mean anything, Halo 2 and Deus Ex Human Revolution survived, and they are considered as fantastic games by a huge proportion of gamers. And guess what? Bungie didn't need to prove anything with Halo 3, even after that awful "conclusion" as a standalone game.

[dreamgazer]

I'm still mad about ME1 burning me with its forced-death ending choice and Virmire decision.

[wolfhowwl]

I'm still mad about that inventory.

 

Scrolling through five million copies of Polonium Rounds VII haunts my dreams.