136 réponses à ce sujet

[Teddie Sage]

Are you softly his honey? 

*giggles* Let's drop it. I wasn't trying to start a war here.

[CrutchCricket]

The problem wasn't that ME was a trilogy, the problem was that it was a trilogy with zero planning.

 

So I'm not going to say no trilogies. I'm going to say decide now whether it's a trilogy or a one-off and for the love of God, stick to that.

 

Or better yet, find the sweet spot where it is a trilogy but each game can stand up on it own and be a self-contained story.

[WildOrchid]

I have no problem either way. It's more about how interesting the protagonist can be for me.

[CrutchCricket]

As for protagonist continuity- it was a pretty big selling point of the existing trilogy. They've learned what works and what doesn't (in theory, anyway). As long as they avoid the same mistakes, why not?

[Foxhound2121]

It's a way of speaking. And sorry, I call everyone honey by habit.
My point is that the endings aren't the only reason why I'm upset with the former trilogy.

I can only guess if you don't say so that you want to a change of pace because you don't want writers to go in a unsatisfied direction or a sour note. I honestly liked being more invested in the series as it went on no matter what note it had. 

[cap and gown]

I side somewhat with dreamgazer here. I think a continuing protagonist is a good idea for a set amount of time. My inquisitor never had the connection with Varrick that Hawke did because the inquisitor did not have a history with Varrick the way Hawke did. Shepard, OTOH, had a history with Garrus that was built upon in each game until it fully blossomed in ME3. One game is just not enough to build that kind of connection, IMO. Well, not for me anyway. Other people can be totally invested in some character based on one paragraph of dialogue.

 

Another reason I would like to see a continuing PC over several game (2-3) is because I would like to see the consequences of the PC's actions in one title come back to effect him/her in another title. The fact that the hero of Fereldan did something that effects the Inquisitor's world doesn't carry the same impact of the PC doing something in one game only to find out in a later game it resulted in some dire consequences for him/herself. The following scene, where Falere confronts Shepard over the loss of Samara during the Suicide Mission, for example, would not be possible with a different PC.

 

Spoiler

 

OTOH, I think three games is enough for any one PC. Beyond that point the flags become too numerous to keep track off, the permutations in the story too complex to really deliver a satisfying story. How many people were upset because their favorite NPC from ME2 only made a cameo appearance in ME3? Yet how could it be otherwise when each and everyone of those 12 squad mates could be dead? The permutations simply got out of hand. A new PC provides a blank slate on which to work AS LONG AS YOU DON'T DESTROY AN ENTIRE GALAXY!

[Teddie Sage]

I can only guess if you don't say so that you want to a change of pace because you don't want writers to go in a unsatisfied direction or a sour note. I honestly liked being more invested in the series as it went on no matter what note it had. 

I need to apologize though, I wasn't clear enough in my rant and obviously, people can't read minds.

[Torgette]

Nope, I'd rather they let the two IP's differentiate on this aspect at least.

[AlexiaRevan]

they did that with DA serie , warden in DAO , Hawke in DA2 and DAI Inquisitor . 

 

While this worked for say Final Fantasy serie (never played) but apparently its a different cast every game and none of them show up again in the next game . 

 

The main issue here , is if they wanna avoid another Warden tantrum . would be to know how to close said protagonist chapter at the end of the game . If you leave peoples guessing there is more and the next game you plan someone new..thats neither right or fair but cruel . 

[katerinafm]

I disagree. I actually think that the new protagonist each game is what's hurting the Dragon Age series. Sure, we get cool protagonists and awesome characters to love, but in the end it's like 'okay, you're giving me this, but I know you will replace it in the next game anyway so what's the point in getting attached to these characters?'

[Indigenous]

This topic scares me. I just assumed Andromeda would be the start of another trilogy. I hope it is.

[Teddie Sage]

This topic scares me. I just assumed Andromeda would be the start of another trilogy. I hope it is.

I'm just throwing ideas out of my mind for this game or future Mass Effects. Not sure I want a new trilogy. Maybe a two part story? I mean, what's the idea of always making trilogies for big epic stories while you could go shorter or even bigger? Harry Potter had 7 years after all and people loved that franchise. I know, it's a different setting, but I'm speaking of numbers here and not exactly story genres. 

[Dabrikishaw]

I'm largely against this because I really liked the trilogy angle Mass Effect had. It's only issue was Bioware never having done it before.

[Foxhound2121]

I need to apologize though, I wasn't clear enough in my rant and obviously, people can't read minds.

But my feelings would still stand on how I think we lose something if we take away the trilogy of a character. I don't recall too much investment and favortism in DA protags as shepard had. People even created more popular songs and meme's about her/him that it became an obsession. I actually kind of enjoyed it.

[AlexiaRevan]

I disagree. I actually think that the new protagonist each game is what's hurting the Dragon Age series. Sure, we get cool protagonists and awesome characters to love, but in the end it's like 'okay, you're giving me this, but I know you will replace it in the next game anyway so what's the point in getting attached to these characters?'

well unless they do it FF style ? and I dunno..disconnect the story and world and time line somehow ? 

[Torgette]

The problem wasn't that ME was a trilogy, the problem was that it was a trilogy with zero planning.

 

So I'm not going to say no trilogies. I'm going to say decide now whether it's a trilogy or a one-off and for the love of God, stick to that.

 

Or better yet, find the sweet spot where it is a trilogy but each game can stand up on it own and be a self-contained story.

 

ME had plenty of planning and lore built around the first game that heavily informed the next 2 games, they just didn't approach the material with a preset way of exploring the material or what to do with Shepard - which isn't a bad thing, collaboration and creativity can lead to some great stuff - if anything Shepard only got stronger as a character as the trilogy went along. I think the only big issue with the trilogy was that scale kind of dominated the story and they missed opportunities to flesh out the Reapers before the final 5 minutes of the final game (ie: ESB explored Vader in part 2 rather than waiting to the ending of part 3).

 

I disagree. I actually think that the new protagonist each game is what's hurting the Dragon Age series. Sure, we get cool protagonists and awesome characters to love, but in the end it's like 'okay, you're giving me this, but I know you will replace it in the next game anyway so what's the point in getting attached to these characters?'

 

I like the idea that each game's hero shows up in the next game as a story-important NPC, each game slowly building up a stable of interesting characters until the big story they're apart of resolves (think Doctor Who).

[Teddie Sage]

Gonna log out for a bit. Will read some of the entries when I come back. Stay nice people. 

[dfjdejulio]

I'm just throwing ideas out of my mind for this game or future Mass Effects. Not sure I want a new trilogy. Maybe a two part story?

 

What I'd kinda like to see is… since the next game is leaving the Milky Way for Andromeda, the stuff that happens in the next game doesn't have to have an impact on the Milky Way (and vice versa).  So, how about an MMO set in the Milky Way?

 

(You could even have different shards for each of the endings, and could make "Destroy" the PvP shard.)

[CrutchCricket]

ME had plenty of planning and lore built around the first game that heavily informed the next 2 games, they just didn't approach the material with a preset way of exploring the material or what to do with Shepard - which isn't a bad thing, collaboration and creativity can lead to some great stuff - if anything Shepard only got stronger as a character as the trilogy went along. I think the only big issue with the trilogy was that scale kind of dominated the story and they missed opportunities to flesh out the Reapers before the final 5 minutes of the final game (ie: ESB explored Vader in part 2 rather than waiting to the ending of part 3).

Lore, yes. Planning? No. They weren't sure ME was going to take off. That's why they went for the cosmic threat right away. A similar lack of planning explains the dark energy thing that went nowhere and the suicide mission in the second installment (unless you wish to imply they were just that stupid), or the way the entirety of ME2 was one giant procrastination, entertaining though it was. Right up until the end they were throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks- hence why they wrote themselves in a corner and turned to "art" to get them out.

[Indigenous]

I'm just throwing ideas out of my mind for this game or future Mass Effects. Not sure I want a new trilogy. Maybe a two part story? I mean, what's the idea of always making trilogies for big epic stories while you could go shorter or even bigger? Harry Potter had 7 years after all and people loved that franchise. I know, it's a different setting, but I'm speaking of numbers here and not exactly story genres. 

I see your point and I kinda agree with it. However, I love Bioware but I feel like if they tried this it wouldn't work out to well. It could though. Bethesda do unrelated games and it well. It depends on the antagonists though. The Mass Effect trilogy worked or at least made sense because of how dominant the reapers were. I would prefer at least a duology of games whatever the story.

[WildOrchid]

This topic scares me. I just assumed Andromeda would be the start of another trilogy. I hope it is.

 

That being said; I think the ME team thinks differently, so I think this will be another trilogy.

[In Exile]

I really dislike serial protagonists. So I'm all for it.

[themikefest]

why not remake the games again with shepard and change the story slightly instead of making a lot or most of the fanbase mad

I wouldn't have a problem if Bioware remade the trilogy by bringing Shepard and characters back. Or remake ME3.

[Saberchic]

I like trilogies, but I'm not against the idea of a new protagonist for each game.

 

I would prefer a trilogy where choices can carry over, and I feel like the character can grow and change. I felt really involved with the ME stories because of this. However, if they are going to have as much auto-dialogie as the 3rd game, they should just go with a new protag each game since I can't really make the character mine. I'd rather not go through the heart-ache of having them take my character away from me again.

[Heimdall]

I think the changing protagonists is one of the great strengths of DA (The only problem is that they insist on bringing back returning characters when they should focus on new ones).

But I'm indifferent to what they do in the new ME. I think keeping the protagonist could work, but they might be better off with a series of connected standalone adventures, like a TV series, rather than a massive trilogy.