751 réponses à ce sujet

[PlatonicWaffles]

I mean, sure? It doesn't mean I'm not uneasy with the fact that they threw the baby out with the bathwater. 

[Iakus]

Would it be smarter to stick in the MW and give us more Shepard? Who would be more satisfied doing it that way? Really supporting all the choices is a non-starter unless a ten hour game would be OK; I don't think that would work. So if that's out, what's left?

I see a few options. Do what they're doing, canonize one particular Shepard's story, retcon the crap out of everything or grind everything into indistinguishable mush so it doesn't matter what happened in the trilogy, or outright reboot the series so Shepard never existed anyway. All these options have real downsides, depending on what a player likes. Going to Andromeda may not be the favorite of too many of us, but my bet is that it's a tolerable second choice for most of us. (For example, if they'd gone with mush I wouldn't buy the game at all, and I don't think I'd pay any attention to a reboot.)

Mush is what we were getting already by ME3.  A reboot I'd have to see if it actually improved anything compared to the original trilogy.  

 

I'd probably go for retconning the cr*p out of everything (might as well have retcons working for us for once)  I think I wouldn't mind canonizing something as long as what was canonized was something we couldn't have created on our own.

 

Problem with going to Andromeda is that they are in real danger of turning Mass Effect into something not-Mass Effect.  It's understandable to want to get away from the ME3 ending controversy.  But they are in real danger of abandoning the good as well as the bad.  Remember the backlash of DA2 when it departed from the DAO formula.

[AlanC9]

Mush is what we were getting already by ME3.  A reboot I'd have to see if it actually improved anything compared to the original trilogy.  

 

Wait... is this another one of those threads where you pretend that you can't tell the difference between the endings?

[Iakus]

Wait... is this another one of those threads where you pretend that you can't tell the difference between the endings?

Uh, no. I'm talking about choices being made which end up being little different from each other: the rachni choice, keeping or destroying the Collector base, etc. Do we really want more Big Choices that are only good for cameos and codex entries?

[Il Divo]

Mush is what we were getting already by ME3.  A reboot I'd have to see if it actually improved anything compared to the original trilogy.  

 

I'd probably go for retconning the cr*p out of everything (might as well have retcons working for us for once)  I think I wouldn't mind canonizing something as long as what was canonized was something we couldn't have created on our own.

 

Problem with going to Andromeda is that they are in real danger of turning Mass Effect into something not-Mass Effect.  It's understandable to want to get away from the ME3 ending controversy.  But they are in real danger of abandoning the good as well as the bad.  Remember the backlash of DA2 when it departed from the DAO formula.

 

The problem here is that turning Mass Effect into something essentially "not Mass Effect" doesn't really apply to Andromeda any more than it would to a Milky Way setting.

 

By this point, in ME3's history: the Reapers are finished, Cerberus has been destroyed, Shepard is out of the picture, most of the companions have been overplayed, all our choices will likely be ignored, and we've discovered far too many Prothean beacons/artifacts.

 

Quite literally, in terms of being "Mass Effect", the only elements we would be actually retaining in this new game, even in Milky Way, would be the technology, the races, and the locations. And it's pretty safe to say Andromeda will be featuring those first 2. Location-wise, it's hard to believe that we need the Citadel for the game to be considered "Mass Effect". Overall, it's not clear what would make ME4 a "Mass Effect" game, unless it's going to rely on a plethora of cameos, which isn't really the best idea in my opinion.

[Chealec]

... Remember the backlash of DA2 when it departed from the DAO formula.

 

Actually I don't... I remember the problem I had with DA2 was that it felt lazy and rushed.

 

 

... it's been a really, really long time since I played it though.

[Killdren88]

Actually I don't... I remember the problem I had with DA2 was that it felt lazy and rushed.


... it's been a really, really long time since I played it though.

Pretty much. Nowhere near the amount of time origins had. Plus this was around the time of the Hepler incident, made reception for the game all the more polluted..

[Iakus]

The problem here is that turning Mass Effect into something essentially "not Mass Effect" doesn't really apply to Andromeda any more than it would to a Milky Way setting.

 

By this point, in ME3's history: the Reapers are finished, Cerberus has been destroyed, Shepard is out of the picture, most of the companions have been overplayed, all our choices will likely be ignored, and we've discovered far too many Prothean beacons/artifacts.

 

Quite literally, in terms of being "Mass Effect", the only elements we would be actually retaining in this new game, even in Milky Way, would be the technology, the races, and the locations. And it's pretty safe to say Andromeda will be featuring those first 2. Location-wise, it's hard to believe that we need the Citadel for the game to be considered "Mass Effect". Overall, it's not clear what would make ME4 a "Mass Effect" game, unless it's going to rely on a plethora of cameos, which isn't really the best idea in my opinion.

 

Yeah the same thing could happen if we stayed in teh Milky Way as well.  But such a radical shift in setting increases these fears, makes it seem more likely.

 

And really, we don't know what kind of technology MEA will have.  Omniblades, and the Mako, sure, we saw those in the Starcraft III Mass Effect Andromeda teaser.  And there will be guns, of course.  But jump jets?  And I'm sure you're aware of the question of how we're even getting to Andromeda to begin with.

 

Races, yeah we know there will be krogan.  But what others?  Is every race making the trip?  Including extinct ones (krogan can be virtually wiped out after all)?  Geth?  Quarians?  Batarians?  Drell?  Or will we be loaded with a whole new set of alien companions straight from Andromeda?  

 

 

Actually I don't... I remember the problem I had with DA2 was that it felt lazy and rushed.

 

 

... it's been a really, really long time since I played it though.

Redesigned elves and darkspawn.  Limiting the setting to one city. Drastically speeding up combat.  Among other complaints, this led to declarations that DA2 didn't "feel" like a Dragon Age game.

[themikefest]

But jump jets? 

I don't see anything wrong with having those in the game. The Cerberus guys used them when jumping down from heights and used them for getting onto  shuttles above them

[ddraigcoch123]

I'm really looking forward to ME:A and I would have looked forward to whatever the next ME game was going to be.  I'm not going to love it unconditionally but I'm going to play it with an open mind (and maybe heart though gonna miss my LI from the trilogy)

 

Its been said before but it will be really easy to locate whats needed from the milky way mass effect universe to Andromeda by stating the mission to Andromeda was started before the end of the Reaper war.  It could even be a secret Council project that was set in train even before the Reaper threat became an issue, it won't be to hard to think up a bridge.

 

As far as the ending of ME3 goes well, all I'll say is that on my play through's I get to the part where Shepard is whacked on the way to the beam I stop the game and then sit back and head cannon the ending of my choice.

 

If BW ever decides they ever want to dive back into controversy/pain of the endings (and I've no idea why they would want to do that to themselves or the rest of us) there is one way to make a true sequel to ME3 which would be to start ME4 with Shepard waking up after being whacked on the way to the beam and continuing one. With some clever dialogue and the shaking of the head we and Shep realise the previous ending was a 'dream/nightmare'... yes its the very overdone 'it was all a dream' ending' to the rescue

[Mcfly616]

Uh, no. I'm talking about choices being made which end up being little different from each other: the rachni choice, keeping or destroying the Collector base, etc. Do we really want more Big Choices that are only good for cameos and codex entries?

 Yeah, I'm also a bit sick of how transparent said "big choices" were in the Shepard Trilogy. You pretty much knew, this is the good guy decision, and the other is the ***hole choice. And you pretty much had a clear idea of what the immediate results of either one would be.

 

 

The things that Bioware could learn from CDPR and TW3 have been discussed and argued over for the entirety of this past summer. But one thing they could absolutely learn from (and it's not even debatable imo) is the seemingly irrelevant dialogue choices and the unforeseen consequences that follow later in the game. Shades of gray. Not always having a right or wrong answer. 

[Mcfly616]

I don't see anything wrong with having those in the game. The Cerberus guys used them when jumping down from heights and used them for getting onto  shuttles above them

 I'm indifferent towards the inclusion of jetpacks (just so long as they're completely optional). But Bioware sure as hell better include a jump button this time around.

[naddaya]

As far as the ending of ME3 goes well, all I'll say is that on my play through's I get to the part where Shepard is whacked on the way to the beam I stop the game and then sit back and head cannon the ending of my choice.

 

If BW ever decides they ever want to dive back into controversy/pain of the endings (and I've no idea why they would want to do that to themselves or the rest of us) there is one way to make a true sequel to ME3 which would be to start ME4 with Shepard waking up after being whacked on the way to the beam and continuing one. With some clever dialogue and the shaking of the head we and Shep realise the previous ending was a 'dream/nightmare'... yes its the very overdone 'it was all a dream' ending' to the rescue

 

The IT zealot in me appreciates this option despite knowing it's nearly impossible

[themikefest]

 I'm indifferent towards the inclusion of jetpacks (just so long as they're completely optional). But Bioware sure as hell better include a jump button this time around.

I'm sure they will and  the player might have to hit the jump button twice in succession to activate the jetpacks

[Il Divo]

Yeah the same thing could happen if we stayed in teh Milky Way as well.  But such a radical shift in setting increases these fears, makes it seem more likely.

 

But that still requires something concrete to base those fears off of. If they're going out of their way to emphasize N7, Krogan, omniblades, and Mako vehicles, that's already a huge number of Mass Effect elements on the traditional checklist. My point is that if people are going to make the argument that this isn't a Mass Effect game, they need to point to something concrete that a Mass Effect game could give us which Andromeda couldn't. The only thing I can think of is the Citadel, which itself doesn't really work since ME2 barely featured it.

 

And really, we don't know what kind of technology MEA will have.  Omniblades, and the Mako, sure, we saw those in the Starcraft III Mass Effect Andromeda teaser.  And there will be guns, of course.  But jump jets?  And I'm sure you're aware of the question of how we're even getting to Andromeda to begin with.

 

 

I don't see why jump jets would be a problem. Hell, the Mako itself employs a similar concept. Not to mention too, we've never had a Mass Effect game with this emphasis on exploration (ME1 barely counts I'd argue).

 

Races, yeah we know there will be krogan.  But what others?  Is every race making the trip?  Including extinct ones (krogan can be virtually wiped out after all)?  Geth?  Quarians?  Batarians?  Drell?  Or will we be loaded with a whole new set of alien companions straight from Andromeda? 

 

 

I hinted at this above, but the point of a teaser trailer is to tease, not outline the "this is every last thing that Andromeda is going to contain connected to Mass Effect" trailer. If that's our standard of evidence, no teaser trailer ever invented could meet that burden. That they did go out of their way to emphasize Krogan, the Mako, etc, should indicate pretty clearly that those Mass Effect elements (and others) are going to make it to Andromeda.

 

Sure, it's possible Bioware could jettison all those elements at the last second. But my point is that our current evidence indicates the exact opposite of this missing any Mass Effect elements.

[Iakus]

But that still requires something concrete to base those fears off of. If they're going out of their way to emphasize N7, Krogan, omniblades, and Mako vehicles, that's already a huge number of Mass Effect elements on the traditional checklist. My point is that if people are going to make the argument that this isn't a Mass Effect game, they need to point to something concrete that a Mass Effect game could give us which Andromeda couldn't. The only thing I can think of is the Citadel, which itself doesn't really work since ME2 barely featured it.

It's hard to have concrete fears on MEA given we've been told almost nothing about the game.  But Bioware's pattern of behavior for the last few years I think is very much a cause for concern.

 

And the only thing they are going out of their way to emphasize is the N7 logo.  And to some extent the Mako and how different it will be from ME1)  The omniblade was shown in the teaser, as was a krogan (in a scene so brief you literally have to go through the scene in slow motion at just the right moment to see him)

 

 

 

I don't see why jump jets would be a problem. Hell, the Mako itself employs a similar concept. Not to mention too, we've never had a Mass Effect game with this emphasis on exploration (ME1 barely counts I'd argue).

 

Simply shifting the emphasis can potentially be problematic.  Me3 certainly shifted its focus from a fairly typical heroic shooter/rpg and became a rather dark war story with a "bittersweet" outcome, and look how that turned out

 

Heck remember how DA2 shifted focus to a "smaller, more personal" story.  Looked good on paper, but they got crucified for that.

 

Not that I'm saying shifting focus is inherently bad.  I'll be the first to say they need to shift gears after ME3.  But it is inherently risky.  And Bioware has a tendency to overdue these kinds of things.  Remember hwo they ripped out inventary and the Mako rather than try to fix it

 

 

I hinted at this above, but the point of a teaser trailer is to tease, not outline the "this is every last thing that Andromeda is going to contain connected to Mass Effect" trailer. If that's our standard of evidence, no teaser trailer ever invented could meet that burden. That they did go out of their way to emphasize Krogan, the Mako, etc, should indicate pretty clearly that those Mass Effect elements (and others) are going to make it to Andromeda

Do you remember the "The Fires Above" teaser for DAI?

[Il Divo]

It's hard to have concrete fears on MEA given we've been told almost nothing about the game.  But Bioware's pattern of behavior for the last few years I think is very much a cause for concern.​

 

 

Concern in a general sense, sure. I'm concerned about ME:A. I just don't think there is really a logical argument that ties that concern to how much like "Mass Effect" the game feels.

 

 

the only thing they are going out of their way to emphasize is the N7 logo.  And to some extent the Mako and how different it will be from ME1)  The omniblade was shown in the teaser, as was a krogan (in a scene so brief you literally have to go through the scene in slow motion at just the right moment to see him)​

 

 

Except that just outlined about 3 different traditional Mass Effect elements (let's not forget the omniblade now). For a teaser trailer, that would be considered huge.
 

 

Simply shifting the emphasis can potentially be problematic.  Me3 certainly shifted its focus from a fairly typical heroic shooter/rpg and became a rather dark war story with a "bittersweet" outcome, and look how that turned out

 

 

 

There's truth to this, although ME:A also enjoys the benefits of being a spin off. In that sense,

 

Not that I'm saying shifting focus is inherently bad.  I'll be the first to say they need to shift gears after ME3.  But it is inherently risky.  And Bioware has a tendency to overdue these kinds of things.  Remember hwo they ripped out inventary and the Mako rather than try to fix it

 

 

Putting aside my own dislike ME1's inventory and Mako, I'm not sure that's the best comparison. Both elements were heavily criticized, but Bioware didn't exactly run to show off the Mako and inventory in ME2. I'm just saying if the goal at present is "burn every last element of the Mass Effect universe", that teaser trailer is really doing a remarkably poor job of that goal.

 

Do you remember the "The Fires Above" teaser for DAI?

 

 

​

 

I don't know all that much about it, I'd need more details. Still, my point isn't whether Bioware can backpedal and change ME:A' focus. As you said, we don't know much. My point is, that based on what we do know at present, that doesn't seem to be the case, particularly since so many "Mass Effect" elements are by necessity finished regardless of ME3's ending.

 

When the only elements you have left are the races, the technology, and the Citadel, a teaser trailer emphasizing 2 of those 3 isn't half bad for a spin off.

 

[Chealec]

 Yeah, I'm also a bit sick of how transparent said "big choices" were in the Shepard Trilogy. You pretty much knew, this is the good guy decision, and the other is the ***hole choice.

 

Perspective..? Which were the good guy and which were the a-hole choices in your opinion?

 

There's a chance I'll totally disagree on a couple of them which means they're not quite as clear cut as you make out, no?

[Iakus]

 

 

I don't know all that much about it, I'd need more details. Still, my point isn't whether Bioware can backpedal and change ME:A' focus. As you said, we don't know much. My point is, that based on what we do know at present, that doesn't seem to be the case, particularly since so many "Mass Effect" elements are by necessity finished regardless of ME3's ending.

 

When the only elements you have left are the races, the technology, and the Citadel, a teaser trailer emphasizing 2 of those 3 isn't half bad for a spin off.

 

The Fires Above trailer, which was shown at about the same point MEA was when it got its trailer showed:

 

Morrigan (who was also doing voiceover for the trailer)

Cassandra

Varric

A qunari who later turned out to be The Iron Bull

Grey Wardens

a high dragon

 

All recognizable elements of Thedas

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=rh8v3Et4tGE

[Il Divo]

The Fires Above trailer, which was shown at about the same point MEA was when it got its trailer showed:

 

Morrigan (who was also doing voiceover for the trailer)

Cassandra

Varric

A qunari who later turned out to be The Iron Bull

Grey Wardens

a high dragon

 

All recognizable elements of Thedas

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=rh8v3Et4tGE

 

Interesting trailer overall (been a long time since I've seen it) , but a couple quick points:

 

Regarding the Qunari, if that's the argument we're allowed, then that applies equally to the ME:A trailer's Krogan. If we can retroactively point out that a 2 second shot of a character can indicate that he has a huge presence, then that applies equally to our 2 second Krogan shot. The two are on equal footing in that regard.

 

Regarding the other elements, notice for example that at least 3 of the "references" you mentioned are character-based, which wouldn't be applicable to any new ME game. Dragon Age, while separate installments, has the benefit of building narrative threads. What iconic characters would we have gotten with an alternative ME4? More of the old companions + Admiral Hackett? Unlike Dragon Age, given the ME3 ending context, I don't think that would have worked at all.

 

Keep in mind too, that I was pointing towards teasers in general.

 

 

How much did ME2's teaser give us? A broken shot of N7 armor and a quick look at Shepard's name/list of companions. Likewise with the ME3 trailer having about 2-seconds of Reapers and a husk for its teaser. Hell, look at other examples too: the first Transformers teaser, the first Dark Knight teaser, etc.

​

[Iakus]

Interesting trailer overall (been a long time since I've seen it) , but a couple quick points:

 

Regarding the Qunari, if that's the argument we're allowed, then that applies equally to the ME:A trailer's Krogan. If we can retroactively point out that a 2 second shot of a character can indicate that he has a huge presence, then that applies equally to our 2 second Krogan shot. The two are on equal footing in that regard.

 

Regarding the other elements, notice for example that at least 3 of the "references" you mentioned are character-based, which wouldn't be applicable to any new ME game. Dragon Age, while separate installments, has the benefit of building narrative threads. What iconic characters would we have gotten with an alternative ME4? More of the old companions + Admiral Hackett? Unlike Dragon Age, given the ME3 ending context, I don't think that would have worked at all.

 

Keep in mind too, that I was pointing towards teasers in general.

 

 

How much did ME2's teaser give us? A broken shot of N7 armor and a quick look at Shepard's name/list of companions. Likewise with the ME3 trailer having about 2-seconds of Reapers and a husk for its teaser. Hell, look at other examples too: the first Transformers teaser, the first Dark Knight teaser, etc.

​

Except there wasn't a two second shot of a krogan in the teaser.  I doubt it was two tenths of a second.  You literally have to watch that part frame-by-frame to see him.  IB, otoh was standing there in plain view, looking muscular.

 

As for character references, well, we don't know if there are any returning characters.  Or if anyone will be mentioned or not.  But even without specific people, we could see uniforms, ships, other races, "familiar faces" does not have to be literal.  

 

Heck how about a definition of what "N7" means now?

 

Well, I'll admit that ME2 teaser is every bit as non-informative as the MEA one.

[Il Divo]

As for character references, well, we don't know if there are any returning characters.  Or if anyone will be mentioned or not.  But even without specific people, we could see uniforms, ships, other races, "familiar faces" does not have to be literal.  ​

 

 

If that's our qualification, then I'd argue the N7 symbol, the Mako, the paladin pistol, the omniblade, etc, meet that standard pretty well.

 

What ships are considered iconic in the Mass Effect universe, outside of the Normandy itself and the Reapers? Most of Mass Effect is a tps shooter, we barely have any meaningful interaction with other space ships in the style of, say, the Millenium Falcon or X-Wings.

 

 

 

Well, I'll admit that ME2 teaser is every bit as non-informative as the MEA one.

 

 

 

True, and that can be said for quite a few teaser trailers out there, Mass Effect related and otherwise. Like I said, that's why I'm not a fan of the "it doesn't feel like Mass Effect" argument. Teaser trailers, quite often, take that approach (Dark Knight teaser is another great example, so is the original DA:O trailer).

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...Teaser_campaign

 

Wikipedia certainly isn't flawless as a source, but a quick check shows that ME:A meets that definition pretty well.

[LinksOcarina]

Pretty much. Nowhere near the amount of time origins had. Plus this was around the time of the Hepler incident, made reception for the game all the more polluted..

 

I'm sorry, but i'm blaming the fans for the Hepler stuff. That **** was inappropriate to do to her in the end, especially considering the reason people were pissed had to do with her comments from an obscure interview in 2006.

[Iakus]

If that's our qualification, then I'd argue the N7 symbol, the Mako, the paladin pistol, the omniblade, etc, meet that standard pretty well.

 

What ships are considered iconic in the Mass Effect universe, outside of the Normandy itself and the Reapers? Most of Mass Effect is a tps shooter, we barely have any meaningful interaction with other space ships in the style of, say, the Millenium Falcon or X-Wings.

 

 

Geth and asari ships are pretty distinct.  I'd also go so far as to say turian and human ships are also likely to be recognized by fans of the previous games, at least.

 

But as I have said before, what does N7 mean now?  It's unlikely the Systems Alliance will be a presence in Andromeda, so will it still mean a level of proficiency in a military special forces?  Will it be a military rank?  A civilian title?  a designation marking a Shepard clone?

 

And I seriously doubt any pistol would be as iconic to mass effect as seeing a turian, any turian, on the screen.  Nor an omniblade as identifiable as an Alliance frigate.

[Il Divo]

 

 

And I seriously doubt any pistol would be as iconic to mass effect as seeing a turian, any turian, on the screen.  Nor an omniblade as identifiable as an Alliance frigate.

 

I'd take that bet. Just in terms of general marketing, we've seen more of the omniblade in ME3 than any ship in the Mass Effect universe, barring Reapers and the Normandy, which aren't really applicable any more. Even more in terms of general gameplay. It's for the same reason why I'd argue the Mako is more recognizable than most, if not all, ships we encounter, again Normandy/Reapers aside.  

 

Edit: Though I'd say you're probably right on the Turian race front, compared to the Paladin.

 

But as I have said before, what does N7 mean now?  It's unlikely the Systems Alliance will be a presence in Andromeda, so will it still mean a level of proficiency in a military special forces?  Will it be a military rank?  A civilian title?  a designation marking a Shepard clone?

 

 

To that I'd respond with another question: what did N7 ever really mean? I think it's overthinking the problem for us to suggest that N7 meant anything other than "potentially strong human associated with the Systems Alliance". And that all can be maintained pretty easily. This would be like saying if ME:A had decided to make us a Spectre, to then ask: "What does it mean to be a Spectre?". At the end of the day, in both cases, you're a badass marine responsible for preserving the species in some capacity, most likely by murdering hostiles with moral scenarios thrown in for good measure.

 

Alan also brought up something similar quite a while ago, but there's nothing stopping the Systems Alliance from having a presence in Andromeda, particularly in the context of us trying to preserve some semblance of our society. Leaders will be wanted/needed. Even more than a possibility given the N7 association. We can even have our own Citadel Council, though given their portrayal throughout the series that might not be the best "iconic" idea to go for.

 

Geth and asari ships are pretty distinct.  I'd also go so far as to say turian and human ships are also likely to be recognized by fans of the previous games, at least.​

 

 

In terms of how many we've seen/dealt with? I'm not sure I'd agree, putting aside the Destiny Ascension. Given how rarely turian ships of any kind are seen, I'd say much the same there. Certainly not even remotely on the scale of either the N7 label, omniblade, or the Mako.

 

Though having just looked up a Geth ship, they are more distinct than I'd remembered. On the other hand too though, given how up in the air the Geths' final fate is, it's arguable they would not be in any version of ME4.