56 réponses à ce sujet

[INVADERONE]

Before I got swallowed up by all things Mass Effect I was all about the Halo franchise. I still love it. Mind you, its a totally different franchise with a totally different focus. 

 

The thing is that, I don't want to have another Trilogy focus for Mass Effect. It will make me feel as if I am always just waiting for the third installment. I honestly want BioWare to make it worse for me and make it so that I am expecting 5+ games. 

 

I understand there are many elements that need to be in place to make something like this happen. (sales mostly)

 

You as the fans, what do you think the Mass Effect franchise would need in order to bring it to that level? You can argue and say that its already there but I don't see support for continued DLC for any of the current Mass Effect games (I do understand they are focused heavily on Andromeda).

 

What would it take, in your mind, for the Mass Effect franchise, both single player, and multiplayer, to rival the likes of Master Chief, our Fallout Vault 101 survivor and the likes...without losing its soul and keeping to its lore/story driven roots?

[Feybrad]

ONLY if they can plan out the whole Story beforehands. Which means, that they still aim for a specific Number of Installments and have to take the Risk of multiple Installments - the more proposed Installments, the bigger the Risk. And that's not going to happen.

[Mcfly616]

No thanks. Standalone stories from here on out, please.

[Ajensis]

What would it take, in your mind, for the Mass Effect franchise, (...) to rival the likes of Master Chief, our Fallout Vault 101 survivor and the likes...without losing its soul (...)?

 

I fully admit my voice here is not an unbiased one, but I had the impression that Mass Effect already rivals them. It occupies its own place that no one does better in the sci-fi video games genre... mainly due to no one else trying to do the same thing, as far as I'm aware. Mass Effect is its own thing and the developers should probably just keep it at that without trying to think in terms of rivalling other franchises.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking in the second-to-last paragraph, but as for the number of installments, I would indeed want a recurring protagonist too, but I'm hesitant to discuss any specific number of games that we should have. As with so many things, it all depends on "what makes sense" - having a recurring protagonist just for the sake of it runs the risk of putting a serious strain on the story, especially if they feel the need for the opposing force(s) to grow in strength each time, which is only natural.

The Mass Effect trilogy, although generally agreed among us fans to be somewhat poorly planned out, at least had the same focus across all three games: stopping the Reapers. (Yes yes, I know, ME2 got a bit lost, etc., but technically it was still connected to the Reapers.) My dream scenario is for Andromeda to be the first of a series of games again, since my attachment to Shepard and the gang was strengthened greatly from the developments in story and (most of the time) characters. Maybe not 5+ games, as you wish for, though - unless they have a specific plan for such a long line of connected games.

[Han Shot First]

The good thing about trilogies is that across the three games the writers get a lot more game hours to develop characters and more opportunities to get the players invested in their stories, or their relationships to the protagonist. That isn't to say that the next game needs to be the start of another trilogy, but there are some benefits to a multi-game series with a returning cast that plays to Bioware's strengths. 

 

On the other hand a trilogy would probably mean that the series would never return to the Milky Way. As much as I think the Andromeda setting has the potential to be interesting, I'd be slightly disappointed if the series never gets a direct sequel to ME3.

 

So I guess my opinion on whether or not the next game should be the start of a trilogy is mixed.

[Faust1979]

Yea more stand alone games in this franchise would be great! they could always just add more story through DLC anyways, I wouldn't be against if this is their goal but coming to a proper close in one game isn't a bad thing

[Ajensis]

Yea more stand alone games in this franchise would be great! they could always just add more story through DLC anyways, I wouldn't be against if this is their goal but coming to a proper close in one game isn't a bad thing

 

DLC can only do so much, though, especially with character interaction and relationship developments. And as for proper closing of games, I think Mass Effect is already a prime example of that, despite being a trilogy. I think most of us agree that the endings of the first two games were pretty satisfying (somewhat ironically, perhaps?): the first game had a pretty solid end-game with scaling the Citadel tower and ending Saren, while the big bad spaceship eventually gets blasted to bits, and ME2 topped this with perhaps one of the most epic video game endings ever (thinking of the Suicide Mission as a whole, not the human-Reaper hybrid, of course).

ME3 is obviously well-done too and quite emotional for many, myself included, but we all know that player response was a little more ambivalent with that one.

[Excella Gionne]

They should consider season passes, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. 

[Ashevajak]

Something more in the direction of Dragon Age would be nice.  New protagonists every game, linked but independent storylines, occasionally reoccuring characters.

 

Although a bit less hamfisted than Dragon Age's attempts would also be nice (please no "missing N7 Pathfinder" story line, or entirely gratuitous cameos).

[Ahriman]

Something more in the direction of Dragon Age would be nice.  New protagonists every game, linked but independent storylines, occasionally reoccuring characters.

Isn't DA already enough? Besides I wouldn't even say that it helps DA get better in terms of story and lore development.

[Faust1979]

What if it's a trilogy but instead of following one main story line it follows the life of your character over the course of the story.  Three seperate stories that make up a whole

[Killdren88]

The problem with stand alone are that you risk not dividing development between all your characters evenly and as a result they may end up being flat with little depth. With three games you are able to give everyone a fair shake.

[Dar'Nara]

I'd actually prefer another trilogy as it will give BioWare a bit more room with character development, especially for any returning characters in games after ME:A. Sure characters could return in a new, seperate game but somehow i dont think it'd be the same.  Romances could also have longer arcs in a trilogy (or actually 'however many games bioware does'-ly ).

[Killroy]

I don't know why the entertainment industry is so enamored with trilogies. It is possible to tell stand-alone stories with the same characters across multiple games.

[Zazzerka]

Despite all of the cons I've read, I'm still hoping this is the start of a new "Andromeda trilogy." I trashtalk ME3 as much as the next fellow, but the truth of the matter is that I did enjoy the game, and mostly I enjoyed the fact that there was a solid connection to the previous titles.

 

There's something special about importing a Shepard. I need better words to describe it.

[Makkah876]

Count me in for another trilogy as well. One of the greatest appeals of Mass Effect for me was seeing characters change over the course of multiple games. Watching Tali grow up, Miranda loosen up, and Jack drop the teen angst routine was great, and that sort of thing tends to feel forced when done in a single game. Limiting it to 3 games also allows them to wrap things up, and keep the series fresh by introducing a new slate of characters in the same universe.

[JeffZero]

I love the way you think, but it is probably too heavy a financial risk. You just cannot tell investors to put their faith in cycles that'd last like 12-15 years.

[Youknow]

Stand alone would be much nicer. I was never a fan of trilogies. There's always that one in a trilogy that's just kind of a drag. 

[Flaine1996]

What made mass effect more interesting, for me than dragon age, was how I could develop my character for three full games despite some drawbacks (particularly autodialogue)  so I'd prefer a trilogy helps feel more connected to everything...

[Guanxii]

The original trilogy was basically 3 separate standalone 'best place to start' individual titles dressed up as loosely connected sequels and I expect business as usual to continue only without pretence. Self contained stories are always best even in long running series, sequels always need to be earned the hard way.

At this point the 3 act structure is so formulaic and passé I can only see it holding back the narrative and dragging it out instead of coming up with newer more innovative stories and characters which would keep the series fresher.

[Fidite Nemini]

ONLY if they can plan out the whole Story beforehands.

 

They didn't with the original ME trilogy, what makes you think they'd do it with even more installments?

 

That's the first thing they have to do whenever they start something, plan the whole story. And if that turns out to be a single, standalone game, I'm totally fine with that. I want quality. If I wanted quantity, I'd be buying Activision or Ubisoft games instead of boycotting them.

[N7_Salohcin]

I'd actually prefer another trilogy as it will give BioWare a bit more room with character development, especially for any returning characters in games after ME:A. Sure characters could return in a new, seperate game but somehow i dont think it'd be the same.  Romances could also have longer arcs in a trilogy (or actually 'however many games bioware does'-ly ).

 

 

Count me in for another trilogy as well. One of the greatest appeals of Mass Effect for me was seeing characters change over the course of multiple games. Watching Tali grow up, Miranda loosen up, and Jack drop the teen angst routine was great, and that sort of thing tends to feel forced when done in a single game. Limiting it to 3 games also allows them to wrap things up, and keep the series fresh by introducing a new slate of characters in the same universe.

 

 

There's something special about importing a Shepard. I need better words to describe it.

 

Couldn't agree more with the above posts. That is all that needs to be said in this thread.

[themikefest]

If they're going to have another trilogy, I would want the same writers throughout all 3 games.

[Killroy]

Why do people seem to think they could only retain the PC and cast of characters if they make another trilogy?

[Broganisity]

The problem, I think, is that Mass Effect, unlike the Thread example of Halo, has CYOA elements in it.

Try carrying those choices on through 5+ games without breaking anything, canonizing certain things no matter what, and ensuring that player choice stays relevant, especially if we keep the same protagonist through each and every one of those games.