23 réponses à ce sujet

[jkd1975]

This is what I'm hoping for.  I love the Mass Effect trilogy but I have to say after the defeat of Saren/Sovereign I don't think we had a really great villain for our Shepard.  Harbinger was built up in ME2 but ME3 failed to deliver.  Illusive Man was awesome in ME2 but I don't think he was handled very well in ME3 and in my mind it's debatable whether he was a 'villain'.  And Kai Leng, man what a disappointment.  I was hoping as an N7 operative working for Cerberus he would be a great physical and mental antagonist for Shepard but again, didn't really deliver.

 

My point in all this is I'd love to see a complex Saren type villain who is well developed and a worthy adversary and my suggestion is, don't kill such a character off at the end of Andromeda.  Let him (or her) stick around for a sequel or two.  I think it would be great to see such a character develop and change over more than one game just as our new protagonist character no doubt will.

 

also other suggestion is I hope this time around the scope may not be quite as big as the original trilogy.  ME2 is probably my favorite of the Mass Effect trilogy (and oddly the one that could most easily be skipped) and it was a much smaller and personal story overall than 1 and 3 yet really delivered in a lot of satisfying ways.

[Mcfly616]

No thanks. Hopefully each game from here on out has absolutely zero connections to either story or characters from previous installments.

[God]

I hope to see some sort of broad, over-arching arc between games, similar to Dragon Age. We don't necessarily have to follow the same protagonist every journey, but we shouldn't just up and abandon every plot and character after every game either. We can and should have recurring characters. We can and should have our protagonists have an impact on the universe and the story.

 

What the guy above me is suggesting is that we don't have any of that. I disagree entirely. I want to see a connected universe. I want to see a universe where what we do has an effect on what happens. It doesn't need to be as linear as one man's trilogy (the ME trilogy), but each story does not need to be a standalone that has nothing in common with the previous games.

[MrFob]

Agree with God. There should be some connection between the games. I for one wouldn' even mind having a trilogy, similar to Shepard's. I think there were a bunch of huge advantages to it, most importantly how they could take their time to develop characters and make the PC (and player) form a bond with them over time. That was something the trilogy did really well and that I haven't see in any other game or series yet.

The problems that arose from the whole connection and saveame import idea had more to do with the scale of the decisions we were allowed and the number of variables that were used. They did it until the divergence got overwhelming but who says they need to make 1000 relevant variables? Just keep it to a few and make those changes smaller in scale and the whole thing could work much better.

I would get it if they didn't want to go down this road again but I think it canbe done well if they learn from past mistakes.

[Wulfram]

I think it's tough to have a villain that continues over installments.

Firstly, you need to have a satisfactory conclusion to the individual installments. Over-arcing narratives are all very well, but considering the size of each game and the gap between them, they need to stand satisfactorily on their own.

Secondly, they need to still be credible opponents. After 3 games, the player will likely have foiled their plans repeatedly, and that makes it quite difficult for them still to be imposing.

I think the best option if you wanted to do this would be to keep them quite remote in the first game. Or you could have them start out as allies, and have their turn to the bad guys happen in later installments.

[RoboticWater]

I think there should be overarching characters. Big players like Anderson and TIM who help move the plot along and act as figureheads for their sects. I don't care whether the protagonist stays the same or we have the same squad, but continuity is important to keep players connected to the universe.

 

However, I don't think the antagonist should remain the same. There are likely two outcomes: either it would end up like the Reapers (become progressively less interesting each game) or it would become a supervillain cliche (a character who constantly comes back with yet another nefarious scheme and an even pointier mustache). There are some good examples of an overarching villain, like the Arkham series. Of course, those games changed up the direct antagonist each game and pushed The Joker more and more into a support role.

 

I think it would be best if each game focused on a different antagonist (or group of antagonists) much like Mass Effect 1 did with Saren and at least loosely tie each character to a larger plot. If you don't kill them, then at least they have room to develop in the sequels like Joker did in Batman.

[Xaijin]

A returning anti-villain would be nice, would anyone at BWM be up to the task of writing one is another story.

[jkd1975]

I think it's tough to have a villain that continues over installments.

Firstly, you need to have a satisfactory conclusion to the individual installments. Over-arcing narratives are all very well, but considering the size of each game and the gap between them, they need to stand satisfactorily on their own.

Secondly, they need to still be credible opponents. After 3 games, the player will likely have foiled their plans repeatedly, and that makes it quite difficult for them still to be imposing.

I think the best option if you wanted to do this would be to keep them quite remote in the first game. Or you could have them start out as allies, and have their turn to the bad guys happen in later installments.

 

It would definitely be tough to pull off.  I agree.  I'm thinking along the lines of maybe someone you think as a comrade in the game perhaps even a squadmate betrays you at the climax of the game and gets away and is set up as an antagonist for the next game.  Something like that, I'm not sure.  Just throwing ideas out.  There would have to be a satisfying conclusion yes.

 

 

I think there should be overarching characters. Big players like Anderson and TIM who help move the plot along and act as figureheads for their sects. I don't care whether the protagonist stays the same or we have the same squad, but continuity is important to keep players connected to the universe.

 

However, I don't think the antagonist should remain the same. There are likely two outcomes: either it would end up like the Reapers (become progressively less interesting each game) or it would become a supervillain cliche (a character who constantly comes back with yet another nefarious scheme and an even pointier mustache). There are some good examples of an overarching villain, like the Arkham series. Of course, those games changed up the direct antagonist each game and pushed The Joker more and more into a support role.

 

I think it would be best if each game focused on a different antagonist (or group of antagonists) much like Mass Effect 1 did with Saren and at least loosely tie each character to a larger plot. If you don't kill them, then at least they have room to develop in the sequels like Joker did in Batman.

 

Also good points.  Lots of good points all around.

 

I guess my thinking in this being the old saying the hero is only as good as his villain.  We had a great villain in ME1 and after that IMO we really didn't.  I'd really like to see another villain of Saren's caliber.

[Chealec]

No thanks. Hopefully each game from here on out has absolutely zero connections to either story or characters from previous installments.

 

Helps if you read more than the thread title ... <joker>just putting in out there</joker>

[Sartoz]

I hope to see some sort of broad, over-arching arc between games, similar to Dragon Age. We don't necessarily have to follow the same protagonist every journey, but we shouldn't just up and abandon every plot and character after every game either. We can and should have recurring characters. We can and should have our protagonists have an impact on the universe and the story.

 

What the guy above me is suggesting is that we don't have any of that. I disagree entirely. I want to see a connected universe. I want to see a universe where what we do has an effect on what happens. It doesn't need to be as linear as one man's trilogy (the ME trilogy), but each story does not need to be a standalone that has nothing in common with the previous games.

 

                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Well, DA is a FAIL in this regard or if you prod me enough I'll concede to not a successful implementation of the idea.

 

DA failed in consistency and maintaining Lore for the expediency of button smashing and console combat simplification.  I'd rather see individual ME games than being disappointed again.

 

Don't get me wrong, the idea has merit. It's the execution that worries me. If the design concept, story, villains  are written with some tie-in amongst future games and the ending of ME:A allows for such a continuation... I"m all for it.

 

A ParaMilitary Merc company for hire or a criminal organization even a key Oupost or colony town are good candidates for overlapping into future games.

[Mcfly616]

Helps if you read more than the thread title ... <joker>just putting in out there</joker>

 read the entire OP. And it changes nothing about my post. I'm not for sequels, so I'm not for a recurring villain.

 

 

 

Helps if you think before posting. Just putting it out there.

[jkd1975]

 read the entire OP. And it changes nothing about my post. I'm not for sequels, so I'm not for a recurring villain.

 

 

 

Helps if you think before posting. Just putting it out there.

 

Don't act like a rude child and not expect to be treated like a rude child.  Chealec is clearly correct either you read only the title, did not read my OP at all, or did not understand it as your reply in no way relates to the OP.

 

Take your own advice.  Just putting it out there.

[Chealec]

No thanks. Hopefully each game from here on out has absolutely zero connections to either story or characters from previous installments.

read the entire OP. And it changes nothing about my post. I'm not for sequels, so I'm not for a recurring villain

Helps if you think before posting. Just putting it out there.

Fair enough - I took "previous instalments" to mean the original trilogy (rather than MEA -> MEA2 for instance) - my bad, I apologise.

[Patchwork]

I'd prefer one antagonist leads into the other, sort of similar to the Star Wars prequels where you have someone in the shadows pulling the strings and they keep the protag busy with other threats until it's time for them to make their move.

 

It would probably work best with a Andromeda native who acts welcoming and is oh so shocked at the troubles the Ark is facing trying to colonise the cluster. 

 

If MEA is going to be another trilogy I hope that it starts a bit Ark centric but they slowly become drawn into the goings on of the Andromeda galaxy. 

[SolNebula]

Well I kind of hope for a more relateable villain. Not the giant machines of doom or one of their puppets. While Saren and TIM were ok both in the end were puppets of the Reapers, I want someone with his/her own agenda and goals that while we oppose in the game we could potentially relate and understand.  I despise the concept of evil per se but would be more attracted to different and radical views on a common problem or issue. Just don't throw the indoctrination things at us again since it cheapens our rivals and make them look like fools.

[Vortex13]

I want to see an antagonist that is actually a threat to the player, and one that has compelling reasons for doing what they are doing and most importantly is consistent; no stupid evil please. Evil is such a subjective term, and the whole black and white morality is something that I've noticed BioWare has a problem with. Grey Morality, and 'alien' motivations are something to strive towards (IMO). 

 

It's possible to have an 'alien' character or faction that are antagonistic with the player without them being monsters like that like to eat babies or are the incarnation of the space devil. The ending to ME 3 tried to make the Reapers into this, but the other 99.98% percent of the series had them as malicious entities that took pleasure in causing as much pain and suffering to their victims as possible (Sovereign's utter disdain for organic life, Harbinger's incredibly inefficient, but wholly sadistic harvesting methods in ME 2, etc). An ant exterminator can be antagonistic to the ants without evilly laughing to himself while he poisons them, or methodically pulling off their legs with a pair of tweezers or hunting them down with a magnifying glass.

[Jay P]

I think it's tough to have a villain that continues over installments.

Firstly, you need to have a satisfactory conclusion to the individual installments. Over-arcing narratives are all very well, but considering the size of each game and the gap between them, they need to stand satisfactorily on their own.

Secondly, they need to still be credible opponents. After 3 games, the player will likely have foiled their plans repeatedly, and that makes it quite difficult for them still to be imposing.

I think the best option if you wanted to do this would be to keep them quite remote in the first game. Or you could have them start out as allies, and have their turn to the bad guys happen in later installments.

This is not necessarily true.

You just need to let the villains gave victories in the trilogy.

Think about your favorite trilogies. They often have the villains scoring some victories either early or mid-trilogy. (Luke getting his hand cut-off, Gandalf being thrown down the well, Shepard being killed prior to be resurrecting, etc).

The trick to making a good villain is to make them compelling and interesting, of course, but also to give them success to create further narrative drama for the protagonist.

[Jaquio]

As much as I'd love a great linking of villains and a rich tapestry of storyline to unveil, at this point I'd simply settle for for a villain who wasn't insane and mustache-twirlingly evil.

 

I'd like a villain with depth and complexity, and who is more a villain of circumstance rather than just a raving evil lunatic.  But a lot of this is due to serial escalation, and it's hard to talk developers down from that cliff.

[Mcfly616]

Don't act like a rude child and not expect to be treated like a rude child.  Chealec is clearly correct either you read only the title, did not read my OP at all, or did not understand it as your reply in no way relates to the OP.

 

Take your own advice.  Just putting it out there.

 blaaah.  Your assertions are laughable. Hush hush. You're rude. Telling me what "I" read. Also acting like a child, clearly, since you fail to see how my original post relates to your OP. Acting rude and childish and you point the finger at me. My original post literally says "No 'thanks'", btw. Chealec was clearly mistaken. He apologized.

 

Your original post proposes that ME:A introduce a villain that will "stick around for a sequel or two".  I clearly stated that I wouldn't want that because that would mean the game(s) following ME:A would have a story/character connection to ME:A. 

 

That's all clear as day. English 101. You should take it. Or retake it. Just putting it out there.

[Wulfram]

This is not necessarily true.

You just need to let the villains gave victories in the trilogy.

Think about your favorite trilogies. They often have the villains scoring some victories either early or mid-trilogy. (Luke getting his hand cut-off, Gandalf being thrown down the well, Shepard being killed prior to be resurrecting, etc).

The trick to making a good villain is to make them compelling and interesting, of course, but also to give them success to create further narrative drama for the protagonist.

I agree it's possible, but it's tough.

Particularly in video games, because player agency makes it harder to beat the player without the player feeling it's unfair, and while still providing a satisfying game experience. Look at Malak in KotOR and Kai Leng in ME3, for example.

Also, CRPGs are really rather long forms of fiction. A trilogy of computer games will have had a lot more things happen, and thus a lot more victories for the player, than say a trilogy of movies.

I think the best solution is to keep your ultimate boss type from having too much contact with the player, and give him notable victories in the players absence, but even that isn't perfect if the player keeps rolling up their plots. Corypheus was feeling quite weak by the end despite a strong start, and that was just one game and limited contact with the player.

[prosthetic soul]

I hope to see some sort of broad, over-arching arc between games, similar to Dragon Age. We don't necessarily have to follow the same protagonist every journey, but we shouldn't just up and abandon every plot and character after every game either. We can and should have recurring characters. We can and should have our protagonists have an impact on the universe and the story.

 

What the guy above me is suggesting is that we don't have any of that. I disagree entirely. I want to see a connected universe. I want to see a universe where what we do has an effect on what happens. It doesn't need to be as linear as one man's trilogy (the ME trilogy), but each story does not need to be a standalone that has nothing in common with the previous games.

Then we'll just get a repeat of the original trilogy.  Broken promises, outright lies, and exaggerated claims.

[In Exile]

A game that follows the same antagonist will have a hard time justifying different protagonists, and Bioware's shown they're not very good at writing for a single serial protagonist.

[Battlebloodmage]

I want a mastermind type that start out as allies or even temporary companions that you wouldn't suspect to be the bad guy. Building up to be revealed to be the big bad all along. 

[corporal doody]

Next time, Inspector Gadget. NEXT TIME!!!!