56 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

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

 

Good point.

 

They could potentially combine the approaches used for the Shepard trilogy and the Dragon Age games by having each game be a standalone with new villains and a different plot from the game preceding it, but yet retaining the protagonist and core group of squadmates from a previous game. 

 

That might actually be interesting, assuming that the protagonist and his or her squadmates are characters worth following for more than one game.

[chris2365]

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. 

 

See, this is where I think we will have to temper our expectations a bit in regards to MEA. Since we'll obviously be comparing MEA to the original ME trilogy, we have to keep the following in mind as well:

 

Mass Effect Trilogy had 3 games and a bunch of DLCs dedicated to the universe, characters, etc. You literally spent 150+ hours with the same cast, with evolving circumstances, jumps in timeframe, new events unfolding. These different conditions and circumstances allowed our favorite characters to evolve, and let us get more attached to them. Just look at how Liara evolved. She went from shy scientist, to information broker, to gushing over an actual Prothean. We got to see her in different situations over multiple games, allowing us to get attached to her more.

 

In MEA, we will most likely have one single standalone game. Say we have a Turian squadmate. This Turian squadmate will not have the same depth of character and backstory of Garrus. That's unreasonable to expect. MEA will have this Turian squadmate for 1 game, vs 3 for Garrus, not to mention we get to see Garrus go through a big evolution from ME1 to ME2, thanks to Shepard's encouragement.

 

Unless MEA has triple the content of a single original Mass Effect game in terms of character development, loyalty missions, dialogue, etc., we will not get attached to these squadmates as much as the ones in the original trilogy. That is, unless we get even higher quality character development then we're accustomed too. 

 

Just hopping that everyone doesn't start setting expectations for Garrus Dudebro 2.0 (though that would be awesome if they managed to do it  )

[DarthSliver]

I think they should just do it like Dragon Age, create a Mass Effect Keep after Andromeda for the sequels of the series. I think what made Dragon Age continuation was they didn't preplan crap until the game was successful. Mass Effect Trilogy just had too many promises they didn't keep and than on top of that the writers seem to drive the series downhill. 

[Reorte]

Good point.

 

They could potentially combine the approaches used for the Shepard trilogy and the Dragon Age games by having each game be a standalone with new villains and a different plot from the game preceding it, but yet retaining the protagonist and core group of squadmates from a previous game. 

 

That might actually be interesting, assuming that the protagonist and his or her squadmates are characters worth following for more than one game.

I like that idea and there's no particular reason it shouldn't work. It's got a long history in just about every other fictional medium.

[Han Shot First]

See, this is where I think we will have to temper our expectations a bit in regards to MEA. Since we'll obviously be comparing MEA to the original ME trilogy, we have to keep the following in mind as well:

 

Mass Effect Trilogy had 3 games and a bunch of DLCs dedicated to the universe, characters, etc. You literally spent 150+ hours with the same cast, with evolving circumstances, jumps in timeframe, new events unfolding. These different conditions and circumstances allowed our favorite characters to evolve, and let us get more attached to them. Just look at how Liara evolved. She went from shy scientist, to information broker, to gushing over an actual Prothean. We got to see her in different situations over multiple games, allowing us to get attached to her more.

 

In MEA, we will most likely have one single standalone game. Say we have a Turian squadmate. This Turian squadmate will not have the same depth of character and backstory of Garrus. That's unreasonable to expect. MEA will have this Turian squadmate for 1 game, vs 3 for Garrus, not to mention we get to see Garrus go through a big evolution from ME1 to ME2, thanks to Shepard's encouragement.

 

Unless MEA has triple the content of a single original Mass Effect game in terms of character development, loyalty missions, dialogue, etc., we will not get attached to these squadmates as much as the ones in the original trilogy. That is, unless we get even higher quality character development then we're accustomed too. 

 

Just hopping that everyone doesn't start setting expectations for Garrus Dudebro 2.0 (though that would be awesome if they managed to do it  )

 

People on the whole probably won't become as attached to the Andromeda cast as they did to their favorites from the Shepard trilogy, assuming of course that the cast of Andromeda only gets a starring role in one game. Shepard was front and center for three games, and some of the Mass Effect squadmates had a large role in two, and in some cases three, games. That's just a lot more game hours spent with those characters providing more opportunities for the writers to develop them and to get the players invested in their stories.

 

At this point however we know nothing about Andromeda other than its setting, so it is impossible to say whether or not its cast could be returning for more than one game. 

[EmissaryofLies]

 I hate the idea of another trilogy. I hate the idea of something great like Mass Effect becoming a franchise wh*re. Do another Mass Effect and then make something else. Please don't Assassin's Creed this series, Bioware.

[Han Shot First]

 I hate the idea of another trilogy. I hate the idea of something great like Mass Effect becoming a franchise wh*re. Do another Mass Effect and then make something else. Please don't Assassin's Creed this series, Bioware.

 

There is no reason why Bioware couldn't continue the series and work on a new IP simultaneously. In fact, they are doing that now. They've just said less about the new IP than they've said about ME:A, in part probably because ME:A is their next big release.

 

It will probably go ME:A > New IP > DA4

[JeffZero]

 I hate the idea of another trilogy. I hate the idea of something great like Mass Effect becoming a franchise wh*re. Do another Mass Effect and then make something else. Please don't Assassin's Creed this series, Bioware.

 

There's a tremendous difference between successfully telling cool new stories in an established universe every few years, and... what Ubisoft does with Assassin's Creed.

[YouKnowMyName]

I'd like there to be two or three games following the same protagonist, with recurring companions, but with different stories for each game.

[Sartoz]

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

 

Actually, I'm hoping it is only one, as a means to get their feet wet using the new FB3 engine and try out some new game mechanics.

 

If the Halo 4 writer was brought in  to write a new "universe" in the ME IP, then Andromeda would be were to start. Chris Schlerf has a blank canvas to work on.  The Shep's universe is gone... welcome to the Helius Cluster. If the background setting is done properly, we can have our own Halo type universe.... were the Khet are the equivalent of the Covenant races.

 

Exploration, then, is two fold. One is to find new tech and two is to find possible abandoned Remnant bases that can be used as fortified Outposts against Khet attacks. This can lead to many games with a common theme.

 

Let's face it. If you are going to have a shooter, you must have hostiles. 

 

 

[JeffZero]

Near as I can tell, Schlerf does not have much to work on as of now. >_>

[Panda]

I love ME3 and it works as trilogy, but for some reason I'm hoping ME:A is standalone and ME game that cames after it (hopefully there is fifth one) can then be either standalone or something else in Andromeda or somewhere else. I think the good side in trilogy is that it gives you strongest story overall, everything has time to develop. However game series with standalone's can have strong lore, maybe stronger, since you have chance to experience more stories and see more viewpoints in the same universe than just one (Shepard's in ME-wise). For this reason I'm hoping new ME games if there is to be one's also give us chance to play as alien, to experience the world of ME from non-human point of view.. well within limits of what species selection allows.

[Chealec]

I'm probably the only person that doesn't think that Mass Effect worked all that well as a trilogy...

 

ME1: Shep vs Saren/Sovereign - ends with an epic space battle and all ties up nicely; foreshadows the coming of the giant robo-demons.

 

ME2: Shep dies, gets resurrected and has to go off on some side-quest to fight the minions of the robo-demons. Apart from Arrival there's not really much in ME2 that has anything to do with the main plot-line... it's essentially one big standalone sidequest.

 

ME3: Shep vs the giant robo-demons ... and we're back on track. The giant robo-demons win but allow Shep to decide their fate and plot the course for the future (unless Shep goes "screw you" then the robo-demons still win but take that choice away from Shep). The end.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, ME2 is a great game, but it's a really contrived way of stalling Shepard and shoe-horning another story into the main plot. I'd rather a single overarching story that's coherent or each game standing on its own merits. Mass Effect, as a trilogy, is a little muddled for me.

[Ajensis]

I'm probably the only person that doesn't think that Mass Effect worked all that well as a trilogy...

 

Actually, I think a lot of people agree in large part with what you're saying here, while still considering the trilogy a success overall. Basically, the good stuff outweighs the bad in this case. Obviously there's room for improvement, especially in regards to ME2's role, but don't forget that this was their first attempt at a trilogy of games (unless I'm forgetting something), so maybe that's why some of us give them a bit of leeway when regarding the trilogy as a whole.

 

I'm sure they've learnt a lot from creating the first Mass Effect trilogy. Now we just have to wait and see if they'll try and improve on it with Andromeda or a later game

[Degrees1991]

Yes one great game then move on.

[Panda]

I'm probably the only person that doesn't think that Mass Effect worked all that well as a trilogy...

 

ME1: Shep vs Saren/Sovereign - ends with an epic space battle and all ties up nicely; foreshadows the coming of the giant robo-demons.

 

ME2: Shep dies, gets resurrected and has to go off on some side-quest to fight the minions of the robo-demons. Apart from Arrival there's not really much in ME2 that has anything to do with the main plot-line... it's essentially one big standalone sidequest.

 

ME3: Shep vs the giant robo-demons ... and we're back on track. The giant robo-demons win but allow Shep to decide their fate and plot the course for the future (unless Shep goes "screw you" then the robo-demons still win but take that choice away from Shep). The end.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, ME2 is a great game, but it's a really contrived way of stalling Shepard and shoe-horning another story into the main plot. I'd rather a single overarching story that's coherent or each game standing on its own merits. Mass Effect, as a trilogy, is a little muddled for me.

 

Well I think ME2 gave better base for ME3 than ME1. Cerberus and Illusive Man would been very one-dimensional villains without experiencing ME2, horrors of reapers wouldn't be as blatant, character count would have been lower and many of characters wouldn't have had enough time to develop and synthetics would have been left as evil, Geth as lightbulbs that serve reapers and Als as dangerous things that murder people if they aren't shackled, ME3 would have needed lot more work in making synthetics sympathetic if ME2 would not have been there.

[RZIBARA]

Halo > Mass Effect (and I love them both)

[Ajensis]

Well I think ME2 gave better base for ME3 than ME1. Cerberus and Illusive Man would been very one-dimensional villains without experiencing ME2, horrors of reapers wouldn't be as blatant, character count would have been lower and many of characters wouldn't have had enough time to develop and synthetics would have been left as evil, Geth as lightbulbs that serve reapers and Als as dangerous things that murder people if they aren't shackled, ME3 would have needed lot more work in making synthetics sympathetic if ME2 would not have been there.

 

No one is saying ME2 should've been removed altogether, only reworked to serve the overall narrative better. You could easily accomplish all the things you described while tailoring the story to focus more on the Reapers and finding a way to defeat them

[Mathias]

Trilogy please. Some guy already said if not one overarching story, then at least have us follow the same protagonist and recurring characters. That was a huge part of what made Mass Effect so special. This is why I don't understand why some people want Mass Effect to become every other RPG and be a stand alone story. Hell nah! Getting back into the boots of Commander Shepard and seeing all of our friends and loved ones again was some of the most emotional parts every time a new Mass Effect game came out. Why take that away?

[DarthSliver]

Trilogy please. Some guy already said if not one overarching story, then at least have us follow the same protagonist and recurring characters. That was a huge part of what made Mass Effect so special. This is why I don't understand why some people want Mass Effect to become every other RPG and be a stand alone story. Hell nah! Getting back into the boots of Commander Shepard and seeing all of our friends and loved ones again was some of the most emotional parts every time a new Mass Effect game came out. Why take that away?

 

I am for stand alones because I don't want another random ending like ME3 had. I think it would be better because they could do a Keep thing for Mass Effect and may end up being able to bring more of our choices over to the next game. 

[Chardonney]

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 ).

 

I feel the same way. I would definitely prefer trilogy over a stand alone game. So yes, please, trilogy for me.

[Beerfish]

There re goof things and bad things about stand alones and we can see the difference between the DA franchise and Mass Effect 1-3.

 

Having no trilogy or continuation frees the game makers from constraints that having for instance shepherd and his buddies.  It is easier to pick out what works and what doesn't and start fresh and also I would imagine would be easier for the game makers to have some fresh approach and story arch each game.  BioWare sort of pulled this off in DA but not with out some problems.

 

The plus side for a trilogy is that it allows a far greater degree of character and companion development.  Mass Effect sort of pulled this off as well.  As BioWare learned having a trilogy also puts far more pressure on you to deliver a really good ending and wrap up, something they failed miserably on to start and in which they tried to redeem via dlc.

[Ashevajak]

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

 

But think of the hundreds of "bring back the N7 Pathfinder" threads we could have.

 

Just think of it!

[DarthSliver]

Well I think a ME Keep is in need for our choices to go forth and I just don't know if they would do that with a Trilogy settting. One can hope but our choices need to actually matter instead of being white wash away

[Sion1138]

Stand-alone stories are impotent.