28 réponses à ce sujet

[Queen Skadi]

Why does everything have to be a trillogy? Why can't we just have a good standalone single installment with a satisfying conclusion? If you ask me stretching your story over the course of a trillogy is only setting yourself up for an unsatisfying conclusion.

[Valkyrja]

because money.

[Salfurium]

Mass Effect was so great because the player spent 3 games with the majority of the characters, a single game can't possibly go that deep into all these characters.

[LoRD KYRaN]

I personally disagree. I think trilogies allow for a much greater development of the character, relationships and the universe as a whole. It takes a lot of time to grow a story while paying detailed attention to the many relationships and interactions that form the core of it. A trilogy also allows for the series direction to be a bit more fluid. If some aspect doesn't get much love while another does, it allows for the devs to correct it. To me, a ME standalone only works if the main game alone is like 90 hours long. Otherwise, I don't think it'll be done to it's best potential.

[goishen]

K, look.  

 

If the end of the story was so absolutely horrid that people are still talking about it 2-3 years later?  I think that's a fail in the right direction.

[DebatableBubble]

Who says they have to be trilogies? I would rather they make as many games as they need to tell a proper story (and not switch gears two-thirds of the way through).

[LoRD KYRaN]

Who says they have to be trilogies? I would rather they make as many games as they need to tell a proper story (and not switch gears two-thirds of the way through).

I would rather not have a 7 game battle with Space Voldermort. 3 games for Space Saron is just nice. Then introduce a new PC and Big Bad.

[Oldren Shepard]

Of course it will be a trilogy, if it wasn't, wouldn't be a Mass Effect game.

[The Arbiter]

Why does everything have to be a trillogy? Why can't we just have a good standalone single installment with a satisfying conclusion? If you ask me stretching your story over the course of a trillogy is only setting yourself up for an unsatisfying conclusion.

Problem is this is not the Final Fantasy franchise

[Mcfly616]

Hopefully not. I'm all for standalone adventures from here on out. Explore the setting. Experience it from a different pov.

[Broganisity]

"Let me guess: return of exploration and a new generation of fan angst?" Yep
"A new trilogy?" Most likely.

". . .Bring it on."


(I wish this gif had the mako shopped into it. *sigh* I can dream.)

 

 

---------------

It likely will be, but I can only hope Bioware won't set itself up for grandeur and a finale that it cannot deliver. Give us stories that are large but contained; that let us feel our choices yet don't destroy the galaxy and require a jump to the Triangulum after we mess this one up.

[Sartoz]

Who says they have to be trilogies? I would rather they make as many games as they need to tell a proper story (and not switch gears two-thirds of the way through).

 

                                                                               <<<<<<<<<<0>>>>>>>>>>

 

Agreed

However, the focus appears to be on exploration. Ergo, the huge number of planets to explore. Ergo, the need for a Mako. though an anti-grav sled is better for exploration than a ground based vehicle. With the focus on exploration, somehow telling a story with engaging characters seems to be a secondary objective..

[Sylvius the Mad]

Trilogies are bad for business. It creates way too much pressure for the third game, and prevents much in the way of experimental game design.

Also, I dislike playing the same character in multiple games if they're going to change the ruleset
each time, or if we have to start over at level 1 each time.

For example, my canon Shepard in ME1 loved her sniper rifle. She used it for everything. She was an engineer. ME2 comes along, and there's no way for an engineer to use a sniper rifle. That was irritating. But if I hadn't been asked to play the same character, that wouldn't have bothered me.

I prefer standalone games.

[dreamgazer]

Who says they have to be trilogies? I would rather they make as many games as they need to tell a proper story (and not switch gears two-thirds of the way through).

Two-thirds? I'd say the gear was shifted with Lazarus and the two-year time jump into "Ah yes, Reapers" land.

I'd rather they go crazy with choice and consequence inside standalone entries, with or without a carried-over protagonist and squad.

[Kingthlayer]

Right now it's just assumption that we're getting a second trilogy.  Because the only Mass Effect we know was in trilogy form.

 

I'd rather BioWare do what they feel is best, as long as at this exact moment they're planning a trilogy and have move forward in writing a cohesive story over three games, I'm fine with them doing a trilogy.  But if not I'd prefer them to go the Dragon Age route and give us a new character each time, with a new band of misfits each time around.

[Mcfly616]

I'd rather they go crazy with choice and consequence inside standalone entries, with or without a carried-over protagonist and squad.

 This.

 

It allows for drastically branching narratives within each individual installment.

[In Exile]

Trilogies are bad for business. It creates way too much pressure for the third game, and prevents much in the way of experimental game design.

Also, I dislike playing the same character in multiple games if they're going to change the ruleset
each time, or if we have to start over at level 1 each time.

For example, my canon Shepard in ME1 loved her sniper rifle. She used it for everything. She was an engineer. ME2 comes along, and there's no way for an engineer to use a sniper rifle. That was irritating. But if I hadn't been asked to play the same character, that wouldn't have bothered me.

I prefer standalone games.

 

Stadalone games also allow for greater variance in the actual timeline and the location. ME2 would have less problems with its contrivances (so too ME3 with how to defeat the reapers) if they happened centuries apart. 

[LoRD KYRaN]

Stadalone games also allow for greater variance in the actual timeline and the location. ME2 would have less problems with its contrivances (so too ME3 with how to defeat the reapers) if they happened centuries apart.

While that is true, it also reduces your emotional attachment to said character. It's a similar concept to TV series and books; you could restart NCIS every season with pretty much the same story as currently but with completely different characters and it would not be as successful.

Simple psych, you identify and form bonds even with fictional characters, especially ones as well fleshed out as Shepard, and that is what makes the game great.

[In Exile]

While that is true, it also reduces your emotional attachment to said character. It's a similar concept to TV series and books; you could restart NCIS every season with pretty much the same story as currently but with completely different characters and it would not be as successful.

Simple psych, you identify and form bonds even with fictional characters, especially ones as well fleshed out as Shepard, and that is what makes the game great.

 

I disagree. I find that, with games where I have a lot of control over who/what the main character is, future games in the series serve to undermine my connection to the protagonist. This is because the writers don't typically - and really can't practically - envision all of the ways we might play the character, and all of the ideas we might have in our head about who they are/what they believe. So this will lead to a failure in execution.

 

I can appreciate a consistent lead in the same series. I dropped MSG after the debacle that was MSG2 and Raiden. 

 

I also just prefer novelty. I would much rather have games, movies, etc. set in the same setting with no returning cast. Apart from being something new, it makes the world feel bigger. 

[BatarianBob]

If they have any sense (big "if", I know) it'll be stand alone stories with a returning protagonist and supporting characters.

Play to the original trilogies strengths and avoid its weaknesses.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Let's see if we like ME:A first before speculating about a trilogy, mh? We wouldn't want to play some crap games, right?

[exboomer]

                                                                               <<<<<<<<<<0>>>>>>>>>>

 

Agreed

However, the focus appears to be on exploration. Ergo, the huge number of planets to explore. Ergo, the need for a Mako. though an anti-grav sled is better for exploration than a ground based vehicle. With the focus on exploration, somehow telling a story with engaging characters seems to be a secondary objective..

A very large percentage of gamers wanted the Mako brought back after having to do the stupid orbital mining nonsense so that is why Bioware is bringing it back. And I really hope they don't put flags on all the planets telling you where to go. That REALLY destroyed the immersion for me in ME2 and ME3. 

[Majestic Jazz]

I would like if Mass Effect took the approach of Dragon Age by telling the story of a world (Galaxy in ME:A's case) instead of a particular character. Meaning that ME:A should have one protagonist but in ME:A2, there should be a new one, and in ME:A3 another new one and so on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

While that is true, it also reduces your emotional attachment to said character. It's a similar concept to TV series and books; you could restart NCIS every season with pretty much the same story as currently but with completely different characters and it would not be as successful.

Simple psych, you identify and form bonds even with fictional characters, especially ones as well fleshed out as Shepard, and that is what makes the game great.

Only of you're expecting the game to write the character for you.

This isn't a.movie; it's a roleplaying game. The character is who you want it to be. You don't need to form an emotional attachment to it because you built it.

[MrFob]

Only of you're expecting the game to write the character for you.

This isn't a.movie; it's a roleplaying game. The character is who you want it to be. You don't need to form an emotional attachment to it because you built it.

 

I am actually surprised that Shepard was brought up here. What really made the old trilogy so special IMO was the bond you formed, not so much with Shep (whom you can roleplay to an extent) but with the team mates.

 

The kind of conversations Shep has with Garrus, Tali or Liara would not have been possible (or at least wouldn't have had the emotional impact) if this were the first game with these characters and we'd only know them for a couple of hours. However, in this case, these characters have had 60+ hours of screen time and development with us. Shepard has accompanied them through some rought times and some good times and it shows in the kind of interactions the writers can now capitalize on. Do you think the Citadel DLC would have worked if ME3 were just one game? I doubt it.

 

I am not sure if I want the new game to be the start of another trilogy. It very much depends on the premise, the story, the protagonist and the team mates but I am not generally opposed to the idea. My only condition would be that this time around, they do have a real plan fr a cohesive main plot line before for it and don't start rewriting everything as every part comes along.