751 réponses à ce sujet

[PlatonicWaffles]

No, they had the choice to keep it in the Milky way, but instead they threw everything they established over three games, countless comics, three (four if you count that joke) novels and more out just so they wouldn't have to try and clean up the mess they made with the Mass Effect 3 ending. 

 

Sure, the Andromeda aspect is fine and I like the idea of being a pathfinder a long way from home, but I still just have this sharp pang in my belly whenever I think about why they chose it over the Milky Way. I'd be pretty insulted if they didn't even mention anything about it at all in the game.

[Chealec]

No, they had the choice to keep it in the Milky way...

 

Not in my Milky Way they didn't ... well, unless they were doing a prequel.

[dragonflight288]

Well, hundreds of billions of people who would have died didn't die. I figure that has to count for something.

 

 

Just looking at the scale.  When you're measuring what you're saving in planets and galaxies, what is a "small scale" story anymore?

 

 

"One life lost is a tragedy. 1,000 lives lost is a statistic."

 

Stalin. 

 

Absolute jerk and power-hungry maniac, but he knew the human condition. We get caught up in scales and what is important or what is not, and it's easy for us gamers to think less on the impact of our protagonists in the lives of those fictional characters saved and more on "well this game didn't let me save the whole galaxy so why should I think it's as good as the one that did?"

 

I'm less concerned with the scale of what is or is not accomplished and more concerned with literary unity, cohesiveness of story and lore, the characters and finally how much fun I'll have with the gameplay. 

 

For example, I don't play Kingdoms of Amalur or Dragon's Dogma because I love the story, those games I play because I love the seamless and immsersive combat, and I play the Mass Effect games and the Dragon Age games because it's easy to immerse yourself in the world and roleplay within the context of the story and the wonderful cast of characters. 

 

If something is done well, people will buy and play it for that reason. If Andromeda shines on its own merits and doesn't need the original trilogy to hold its hand, people will buy it and play it, both long-time fans and new gamers. 

[AnAccountWithNoName]

Not in my Milky Way they didn't ... well, unless they were doing a prequel.

 

I think they should have given us a prequel instead of Andromeda.  It's too soon to jump to a whole new galaxy, leaving the old one in the dust.  There is still more room to create interesting stories in a pre-ME3 Milky Way.

 

Whether it be in a future game, or books/comics, there should be more future prequel material, because I love the mass effect milky way, and the prequel route is the only way to return to that world without contradicting someone's ME3 ending/choices.

 

Seeing humanitys actions/exploration/relationship with aliens pre-ME1, a story set post ME1 pre-ME2, explore the Krogan Rebellion Era or Rachni Wars , all has potential.

 

Regardless, instead of the grand scope of the ME trilogy and Andromeda, I think prequel material (not set in the Krogan Rebellion or Rachni Wars) should instead focus on a smaller "world".  Maybe a story just set within one solar system.

 

In other words, I don't want to see all future ME stories just focused in the Andromeda Galaxy.  Bioware can create stories focused in Andromeda while sometimes returning to the Milky Way of the Past.

[Chealec]

I think they should have given us a prequel instead of Andromeda.  It's too soon to jump to a whole new galaxy, leaving the old one in the dust.  There is still more room to create interesting stories in a pre-ME3 Milky Way.

 

 

 

... explore the Krogan Rebellion Era or Rachni Wars , all has potential.

 

 

Setting the game at the time of the Rachni Wars, more than 2000 years before the events of ME1, abandons almost as much as (if not more than) moving to another galaxy though... no Spectres, the Turians aren't a council race, humans haven't yet entered the scene so no N7 program and we're talking tech that's > 2000 years old as well, probably no omni-tools. The Drell are still on their homeworld, busily destroying the place and the Quarians haven't even developed Geth yet let alone been exiled by them.

 

So you'd probably have most of the races but not all, Reaper tech (Citadel and most of the known Mass Relays) and the same stars.

 

Is that really more "Mass Effecty" than taking everything that is Mass Effect and changing the backdrop? The galaxy doesn't really play any part in the games. Apart from Earth, the moon and Mars, you pretty much fly from one made-up planet to another; I honestly don't see what a big deal it is to just change the star map.

[Mcfly616]

I've never been keen on setting it at a time when there's no humans. Set it 10-20 years before ME1. Very doable. 

 

 

I never set foot on Palaven. Disappointing. Went to Sur'Kesh once. It went by in a blink. Visited Thessia when it was burning to the ground. Didn't really get to enjoy it. It would've been nice to actually have had the time to experience the Council homeworlds we've heard so much about. Experience them in some other manner than just sprinting through a shooting gallery.

[Chealec]

I've never been keen on setting it at a time when there's no humans. Set it 10-20 years before ME1. Very doable. 

 

 

I never set foot on Palaven. Disappointing. Went to Sur'Kesh once. It went by in a blink. Visited Thessia when it was burning to the ground. Didn't really get to enjoy it. It would've been nice to actually have had the time to experience the Council homeworlds we've heard so much about. Experience them in some other manner than just sprinting through a shooting gallery.

 

Even 20 years before ME1 you still have to throw away the possibility of a human Adept, Vanguard or Sentinel for the protagonist as there are no human biotics at that time; Kaiden was literally one of the first.

[Mcfly616]

Even 20 years before ME1 you still have to throw away the possibility of a human Adept, Vanguard or Sentinel for the protagonist as there are no human biotics at that time; Kaiden was literally one of the first.

 okay. And I said 10 - 20 years. There were biotics 10 years before ME1. Or, just set it concurrent to the trilogy. Problem solved.

[WillieStyle]

Setting the next game in Andromeda does make sense.  But it's merely a short-term expedient.  Someday, the developers are going to want to make a Mass Effect game that features Omega, Tuchanka, Illium, and most of all, Earth! Do you really think that a decade from now, if the ME series is still going strong, Bioware developers are going to let themselves be held hostage by a decision made in 2012? Of course not. This means that eventually Bioware will canonize Destroy.  It's a matter of when not if. 

[Mathias]

Setting the next game in Andromeda does make sense.  But it's merely a short-term expedient.  Someday, the developers are going to want to make a Mass Effect game that features Omega, Tuchanka, Illium, and most of all, Earth! Do you really think that a decade from now, if the ME series is still going strong, Bioware developers are going to let themselves be held hostage by a decision made in 2012? Of course not. This means that eventually Bioware will canonize Destroy.  It's a matter of when not if. 

 

If ME:A ends up being a success, there's no reason for them to return to the Milky Way. Not to mention there's probably going to be a good portion of angry fans who are gonna have a change of heart after they play the new game, and will end up wanting too see more of Andromeda. I would say it's more likely that if ME:A ends up with disappointing sales, they'll probably abandon the Mass Effect IP and put their eggs into the New IP's basket.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Setting the next game in Andromeda does make sense.  But it's merely a short-term expedient.  Someday, the developers are going to want to make a Mass Effect game that features Omega, Tuchanka, Illium, and most of all, Earth! Do you really think that a decade from now, if the ME series is still going strong, Bioware developers are going to let themselves be held hostage by a decision made in 2012? Of course not. This means that eventually Bioware will canonize Destroy.  It's a matter of when not if.

Better than canonizing destroy, by far the best option at all IMHO, is IT. They could always still do that, even after Andromeda. In which case Shepard either got indoctrinated, or stuck to his intent to destroy the Reapers, and survived the Reapers' attempt to destroy him/her if (s)he had enough allies and assets to support him/her. The Reapers are still around and the stakes are higher than ever.

[Chealec]

... This means that eventually Bioware will canonize Destroy.  It's a matter of when not if. 

 

That'll probably be a game I won't buy then - that's my most hated ending :|

[Chealec]

 okay. And I said 10 - 20 years. There were biotics 10 years before ME1. Or, just set it concurrent to the trilogy. Problem solved.

 

Smaller scale, spin-off games could work concurrent to the trilogy yeah - I'd actually be up for that if I got to play as one of the companions... find out what Ash or Kaiden were doing while Shep was with Cerberus, playing through Vega's back-story where he got his squad killed... that kind of thing.

[AlanC9]

Setting the next game in Andromeda does make sense. But it's merely a short-term expedient. Someday, the developers are going to want to make a Mass Effect game that features Omega, Tuchanka, Illium, and most of all, Earth! Do you really think that a decade from now, if the ME series is still going strong, Bioware developers are going to let themselves be held hostage by a decision made in 2012? Of course not. This means that eventually Bioware will canonize Destroy. It's a matter of when not if.

By 2025, Bioware will be as far removed from the Citadel and Omega as they are today from Neverwinter and Athkatla. I'm not saying that going back wouldn't work, but I don't think there will be any interest from the devs.

[AlanC9]

Better than canonizing destroy, by far the best option at all IMHO, is IT. They could always still do that, even after Andromeda. In which case Shepard either got indoctrinated, or stuck to his intent to destroy the Reapers, and survived the Reapers' attempt to destroy him/her if (s)he had enough allies and assets to support him/her. The Reapers are still around and the stakes are higher than ever.

Well, except for IT being, you know, hated. And Shepard's story already having to many variables to deal with before the endings. And Bio not wanting any more Reapers. Or any more Shepard.

[AnAccountWithNoName]

 okay. And I said 10 - 20 years. There were biotics 10 years before ME1. Or, just set it concurrent to the trilogy. Problem solved.

 

The time between ME1 and ME2 could also be explored.

[CYRAX470]

I'm very curious to know how long the Milky Way species have been in Andromeda by the start of the game. 

[Ahglock]

I'm very curious to know how long the Milky Way species have been in Andromeda by the start of the game.

Good question. I think a lot of people are assuming very recent arrivals. But it could be the story of 3rd or 4th generation arrivals as well.

There is a big story difference between existing colonies and trying to set up the first one.

[themikefest]

If ME:A ends up being a success, there's no reason for them to return to the Milky Way.

I believe the game will be successful. Time will answer the question of how much of a success.

Why not have a Mass Effect game in both galaxies? The team working on Andromeda continue to make Mass Effect for that galaxy and EA/Bioware puts together a team to work on a Mass Effect game that takes place in the Milky Way. Of course I might be the only one on the planet who has that idea. But who knows.

I do believe there will be another game that will take place in the Milky Way and Shepard will make a return. Again, that' just me. My personal preference is the trilogy is remade
 

Not to mention there's probably going to be a good portion of angry fans who are gonna have a change of heart after they play the new game, and will end up wanting too see more of Andromeda.

Possible. Only time will answer that question
 

I would say it's more likely that if ME:A ends up with disappointing sales, they'll probably abandon the Mass Effect IP and put their eggs into the New IP's basket.

That depends how badly it does. I wouldn't be surprised if EA steps in and tells Bioware to bring Shepard back. But that's just me.

[Killroy]

I believe the game will be successful. Time will answer the question of how much of a success.

Why not have a Mass Effect game in both galaxies? 

 

Because ME3 left the Milky Way a cluster**** of a mass and Mass Effect isn't a big enough franchise to warrant two franchises. 

[themikefest]

Because ME3 left the Milky Way a cluster**** of a mass and Mass Effect isn't a big enough franchise to warrant two franchises. 

That's up to the writers if the Milky Way  is a cluster ****, right?

[Mathias]

I believe the game will be successful. Time will answer the question of how much of a success.

Why not have a Mass Effect game in both galaxies?

 

Because they can't set the game in the Milky Way galaxy after the events of ME3 without stepping on a lot of toes. I mean a lot of people who disagree with me on this thread probably don't realize to a certain extent that I am on their side. I wish the endings didn't suck, because I want to stay in the Milky Way galaxy. I want to keep being Shepard and I want to continue adventuring with my Normandy buddies. But the endings happened the way they did, and they did a lot of damage in more ways than one. Deep down would I want them to just say "F it" and canonize Destroy? I guess I do. But I'm looking at the big picture here, and this really wouldn't be a case where the positives outweighed the negatives.

 

Canonizing an ending or retconing the endings would stir a lot of controversy. If they were going to make major changes to how ME3 ended, the time to do that was 3 years ago. Not now when people have moved on and want to continue moving on. The ending is so bad that the mere mention of it puts people in a bad mood. I don't blame the new team for not wanting to touch on anything related to ME3 with a ten foot pole.

[Killroy]

That's up to the writers if the Milky Way  is a cluster ****, right?

 

No, that's a matter of fact. It's up to the writers if they want to wade into the cluster****.

[themikefest]

No, that's a matter of fact. It's up to the writers if they want to wade into the cluster****.

 If they want to write this, that or the other, they can.

 

You really don't want to have another game in the Milky Way. Did you make a choice that isn't popular that you don't want Bioware to ignore?

[Chealec]

That's up to the writers if the Milky Way  is a cluster ****, right?

 

Yup - and they've already said it is; the Extended Cut is the final word on the matter, they could have changed it at that point but they didn't - that's the ending they wanted. Shepard is dead (in 80% of all outcomes) it's over, it is deceased, it is, in fact a dead parrot... there will be no more Shepard (prequels notwithstanding) and probably no more Liara, Ash, Garrus or anyone else from the original Trilogy; though technically given Asari and Krogan life-spans and the fact that BioWare isn't beyond resurrecting dead characters, it's possible Grunt or Liara could be on the Ark.