91 réponses à ce sujet

[Miss Golightly]

I'm leaning towards it being more of a standalone title.

[alienatedflea]

I want it to be a standalone if they will only half-@$$ carry our choices from this new mass effect into the next one.   If they are serious then obviously I want a trilogy where choices actually matter. My example of what I mean is in Mass Effect one, It might nothing if you killed off the rachni because in Mass Effect 3 the rachni was involved anyways regardless of your choice in the first one.  That was a slap in the face to ME fans, in my opinion.  If choices the player makes actually carry weight/taken seriously, then I want a trilogy.  Otherwise, I don't know if I want it to be a trilogy then.

[Isaidlunch]

I've yet to see a RPG do save importing without it being a complete mess.

[Makkah876]

I'm hoping for another trilogy or at least 2 games. Part of Mass Effect's appeal is the fact that you can continue your story through multiple games, and see the characters you know and love grow and evolve in a way that feels more natural. That sense of familiarity is quite powerful, I think, and it's also why the Citadel DLC was so popular. It's probably hell for the devs since they have to keep track of so many things, but I think, in the end, it's worth it.

[Dianjabla]

Trilogy or series as preference. They've got the Dragon Age Keep, they can do something similar with the ME universe.

 

Although, with Bioware's history of branching plot lines converging back to minimal difference even in the same game... I dunno. I am ambivalent.

[camphor]

trilogy dont even care if there is save imports 

[barkspawnVEVO]

I'd like to have series because that's what Mass Effect is to me - following the protag across the years, meeting them again in a new game. But I think it will most likely be a standalone. Eh, I'm fine either way, I have been throwing money at screen and screaming since seeing the trailer.

[LemurFromTheId]

I don't really care one way or the other, but if it's a standalone story never meant to be a part of a trilogy, it shouldn't be expanded into one. The main story arc of a trilogy should always be well developed before the first game is made.

[SNascimento]

I don't really care one way or the other, but if it's a standalone story never meant to be a part of a trilogy, it shouldn't be expanded into one. The main story arc of a trilogy should always be well developed before the first game is made.

Nah, great sci-fi works have done well without such planning.

[LemurFromTheId]

Nah, great sci-fi works have done well without such planning.

 

Yet the lack of such planning was one of the biggest problems with the ME trilogy, the writers clearly had no idea where to go after ME1. ME2 was a great game, but the main story was total nonsense ("Oh no! They're harvesting our genetic material! Oh, is that a human reaper!?") and ME3... do I even need to go there?

[camphor]

Yet the lack of such planning was one of the biggest problems with the ME trilogy, the writers clearly had no idea where to go after ME1. ME2 was a great game, but the main story was total nonsense ("Oh no! They're harvesting our genetic material! Oh, is that a human reaper!?") and ME3... do I even need to go there?

to each is own i personally liked all the ME games

[Jaulen]

I am hoping for the start of a new series. With each game having a main plot that gets neatly wrapped up, but interesting tidbits left strewn about that can be picked up in the next game(s) (kind of DA-ish). But I do want to be the same character.....and with a core team....

 

Whole new 'virgin' galaxy to explore.

 

The continuity of the character and some of the core companions is what I really liked about the ME Trilogy.

(just please.....no more Creeper superior officer hitting on the subordinates.....Jacob totally should have filed a sexual harassment suit with how poorly FemShep tried macking on him.....and the leer when hitting on Garrus.....)

 

But I'd be fine with a standalone also. I like both the ME and DA series.

 

Added: And if they do have an overarching plot thread that ties the games together (assuming there is more than 1) then they really should have an idea of how they want to end it.....would make the story more coherent

[RIPRemusTheTurian]

The only reason I wouldn't want a trilogy is that it would mean no hope for an alien protagonist for the next three games.

[LemurFromTheId]

to each is own i personally liked all the ME games

 

So did I. Doesn't mean I'm blind to their faults. With each game the writing of the main storyline got much, much worse (it was great in ME1).

[SNascimento]

Yet the lack of such planning was one of the biggest problems with the ME trilogy, the writers clearly had no idea where to go after ME1. ME2 was a great game, but the main story was total nonsense ("Oh no! They're harvesting our genetic material! Oh, is that a human reaper!?") and ME3... do I even need to go there?

I liked ME2's story. 

[Jaron Oberyn]

Didn't they say that it's a new trilogy? And that the protagonist will be a nobody at the beginning and have to earn respect and notoriety over the course of the games? Read that in one of these threads a while ago.

[Massa FX]

It's not about abandoning the tradition, its about limiting the scope and toning down the promises. Also I doubt most players even know the plot of Mass Effect thouroughly. Usually the are hoping from hype train to hate train and vice versa, not really knowing what is going on.

 

limited scope makes the game mainstream, repetitious and boring. 

 

I know not of what you say about players not knowing the plot of ME thoroughly.  

 

Agreed about hype train and fictitious promises. 

[cactusberry]

I'd be much happier with the idea of this game if it ends up being a trilogy, that would leave a lot of room for character growth and downtime interaction which is one of my biggest fears that Andromeda might lack.

[dgcatanisiri]

My guess is that it's going to have a lot of standalone elements, but be able to carry them through to future stories. Whether or not there will be a continuous ongoing story like Shepard's, though, I'm still undecided on.

 

Because honestly, the Shepard trilogy was a bold plan, and it did some things well. The major problem was that they didn't map out where they were going ahead of time when making the first game, which meant that they set the stage for this invasion story, then realized that the invasion was the story of the third part, which lead to them spinning their wheels in the second game, trying to hold off the invasion while still having that sense of urgency.

 

If they're going to make a new trilogy with a continuing character, as opposed to the Dragon Age model of telling stories within this setting but with a rotating cast of characters, they NEED to make sure they map out at least a rough idea of what they're doing and where they're going with it so they can keep momentum and follow through on these storylines.

[Kunari801]

Carrying over saved game data was also a major problem for the conclusion of the trilogy. Too many variables, too many details, too many plot holes, not enough time to implement and execute something that did justice to the promises made.

 

I don't know if I'd attempt to do the same thing again in a new trilogy.

 

As in any type of writing, they needed to hammer out the major arc first and how the story is supposed to end. This way the writers can have the ending(s) in mind when writing the stories, that way there is a semi-firm target to head toward.  Sure, have sub-plots and variations, and plenty of character arcs and side arcs, but always keep an eye on the main-arc and ending(s).

 

Second, they totally closed the series with how they ended ME3. As a game universe they should of realized there is always a possibility for payers to want more stories. There were ways to resolve the Reaper War while still leaving the door open to more games/books/etc set in Mass Effect universe. IIRC, there was an interview about the time ME3 launched or shortly after where Mac or Casey was quoted to of saying they didn't want a sequel. A game like Mass Effect gave so much player agency that most many of us player felt betrayed by the RBG. Maybe that was their biggest mistake

 

Third, not that they had a choice, but changing head-writer's mid-series is never going to end well.  At least, I can't think of any examples that worked out in books/TV/movies etc.  

[dreamgazer]

Self-contained. Go nuts with choice and consequence without worrying about coddling individual canons later on.

[SolNebula]

Well I hope it's a new trilogy. I never grew attached to DA (I'm an hardcore ME fan) because each game was so self-contained and it was really hard to have any kind of emotional investement for an hero that was changing with each game. No HoF, Hawke or Inqusitor are on the level of The Shepard. Let's be honest about it.

[Massa FX]

As in any type of writing, they needed to hammer out the major arc first and how the story is supposed to end. This way the writers can have the ending(s) in mind when writing the stories, that way there is a semi-firm target to head toward.  Sure, have sub-plots and variations, and plenty of character arcs and side arcs, but always keep an eye on the main-arc and ending(s).

 

Second, they totally closed the series with how they ended ME3. As a game universe they should of realized there is always a possibility for payers to want more stories. There were ways to resolve the Reaper War while still leaving the door open to more games/books/etc set in Mass Effect universe. IIRC, there was an interview about the time ME3 launched or shortly after where Mac or Casey was quoted to of saying they didn't want a sequel. A game like Mass Effect gave so much player agency that most many of us player felt betrayed by the RBG. Maybe that was their biggest mistake

 

Third, not that they had a choice, but changing head-writer's mid-series is never going to end well.  At least, I can't think of any examples that worked out in books/TV/movies etc.  

 

Yes.

 

They needed a continuity team, separate from development and not QA. This team solely focuses on lore, story, plot, and character continuity. This team works the entire series.

 

They never should do a complete re-write of an ending after Alpha.

 

Ohhh... I'm not touching on player agency now. 

 

Changing the head writer... problem might be solved with my first point... but probably not. Changing leads is a bad idea after a certain point.

 

But... what game dev house is really going to dish out $$ for a complete dedicated team of fact checkers? No-one. They'll set aside a few test passes in QA and call it done. The dev's themselves will think they've got it covered, but they don't. Book authors can do it because it's one Author writing the novel, not 7 - 10 writers, 5 producers, marketing team dipping in with their suggestions, quick changes due to publisher demands etc... etc... Too many people. To much to track. Not enough time.

[LemurFromTheId]

The only reason I wouldn't want a trilogy is that it would mean no hope for an alien protagonist for the next three games.

 

Three games can form a trilogy without sharing the same protagonist.

[Panda]

I'm hoping for standalone at the moment, cause nothing has yet pointed out to epic story with great characters. So if it's another open world game like DAI standalone would be better.