751 réponses à ce sujet

[Erstus]

I'm fine with a new Galaxy but I also still believe that was plenty of potential left in the Milky Way.

My concern is the team just cleaning the slate and erasing the events of the Trilogy. I hope we still get mentions and references about the Milky Way, Alliance, Council and potentially see some familiar organizations like certain corporations and Mercenary organizations.

[Mcfly616]

So you're pushing a prequel? Mathias wouldn't like that either, I'll bet.

 I'm sure you're right. But that would be his own problem (as with anyone who is against anything other than a sequel). Whether a game takes place before or during the events of the trilogy, doesn't effect the quality of the experience (gameplay, narrative or plot) 

 

 

Besides, Mathias proclaims in the thread title that they "had no choice". But as you well know, they certainly did. Some are just too narrowminded to think of or consider anything other than a sequel.

[AlanC9]

No, the easiest course of action is to just move on. There is a difference between easiest and best.

In some cases, perhaps. But in this case? Nobody's made a really compelling case for any particular alternative to Andromeda. Andromeda may not be the first choice of many of us, but it's more broadly acceptable than any of the alternatives. And if there's an actual lesson to take away from the whole ME3 flap, it's to prioritize bland acceptability over everything else.

[FKA_Servo]

 I'm sure you're right. But that would be his own problem (as with anyone who is against anything other than a sequel). Whether a game takes place before or during the events of the trilogy, doesn't effect the quality of the experience (gameplay, narrative or plot) 

 

But of course, the same can be said of a game taking place after the trilogy, in a different place.

 

Ultimately, someone's going to be upset. Considering how deranged the fanbase gets about "retcons," sidestepping the whole thing seems like a perfectly sensible move to me.

[AlanC9]

I'm sure you're right. But that would be his own problem (as with anyone who is against anything other than a sequel). Whether a game takes place before or during the events of the trilogy, doesn't effect the quality of the experience (gameplay, narrative or plot) 
 
Besides, Mathias proclaims in he thread title that they "had no choice". But as you well know, they certainly did. Some are just too narrowminded to think of or consider anything other than a sequel.

Well, "no choice" isn't always meant literally. If I say Shepard has no choice but to use the Crucible, I actually mean that not using the Crucible would be a disaster.

It's his own problem if he doesn't like a prequel. It's Bio's problem if a prequel bombs because too many of us don't like a prequel.

[FKA_Servo]

It's his own problem if he doesn't like a prequel. It's Bio's problem if a prequel bombs because too many of us don't like a prequel.

 

I think I could actually take a prequel if it were set decently distant in the past. As in, long before the first contact war, long before humans were a thing, etc.

 

But, one of the many problem there would be that I'd want to encounter new sentient species, and that's an issue if they're not showing up in the existing trilogy.

 

Plus, no boring humans, which I think sounds friggin' great, but it sometimes seems like that's a non-starter around here.

[Mcfly616]

But of course, the same can be said of a game taking place after the trilogy, in a different place.

 

Ultimately, someone's going to be upset. Considering how deranged the fanbase gets about "retcons," sidestepping the whole thing seems like a perfectly sensible move to me.

  Sure. Sidestepping events by leaving isn't much different than sidestepping by staying, except for that whole bit where by leaving you have to once again start from scratch and establish an entirely new setting. But that's not the title of the thread. The title states that there was no choice. But there undeniably was.

[Il Divo]

In some cases, perhaps. But in this case? Nobody's made a really compelling case for any particular alternative to Andromeda. Andromeda may not be the first choice of many of us, but it's more broadly acceptable than any of the alternatives. And if there's an actual lesson to take away from the whole ME3 flap, it's to prioritize bland acceptability over everything else.

 

Not to mention, coming up with a new setting/races/history/politics isn't exactly easy either.

 

The way to continue games in the Milky Way is also extremely "easy". Canonize an ending. It's the blow back from that decision that's the problem  here.

[Killroy]

Your still putting words in my mouth and also missing the point as well, the scale of the Milky way means there is plenty room for more stories to be told from different perspectives.

You said they have to fully tap the potential of the Milky Way before they can move on. What's the cutoff? Are you just spouting BS because you're butthurt over the setting change or are you actually trying to make a point?
 

It doesn't have to about a particular event it just has to be set in a time period before the events of the trilogy.

So just some crap that no one in the galaxy had ever heard of? Again, who wants to play it?
 

DA:I was made by a different team, ME:A is the next ME game after ME3 and there are people being cautious about it since ME3 was the previous installment in the series.

Who cares about teams? ME:A is also made by a different team, so if DAI gets a pass why doesn't ME:A? And do you think the masses know or care about different teams?
 

Bioware has to remember why they wrote themselves into corner in the first place even after they dealt with it, so if they end up doing it again they'll know what to do.

Again, this doesn't make any sense. They have to stay in the setting that they ruined or else they'll just repeat the ME3 ending in the new setting? Because they're incapable of doing anything right unless they do what you want?

[Mcfly616]

Well, "no choice" isn't always meant literally. If I say Shepard has no choice but to use the Crucible, I actually mean that not using the Crucible would be a disaster.

It's his own problem if he doesn't like a prequel. It's Bio's problem if a prequel bombs because too many of us don't like a prequel.

 It's also Bioware's problem if Andromeda tanks because so many are jaded about abandoning the established setting they fell in love with in the first place. Which, let's be honest, wouldn't happen. It doesn't matter if there are those opposed to Andromeda, or if there are those who are opposed to something taking place before the Reaper War . Whatever they decided on, Mass Effect will sell well. The brand will sell itself. As long the Mass Effect name is on a box, people will buy it.

 

 

My point being, chronology has no sway over the quality of a product. Honestly, those that are skeptical about the move to Andromeda tend to raise some legitimate concerns. Whereas those opposed to anything other than a sequel, have no real reason other than "I don't like prequels" ( and that's essentially the extent of their position). 

[FKA_Servo]

  Sure. Sidestepping events by leaving isn't much different than sidestepping by staying, except for that whole bit where by leaving you have to once again start from scratch and establish an entirely new setting. But that's not the title of the thread. The title states that there was no choice. But there undeniably was.

 

You might as well be doing that in the MW. Assuming we're not going backwards, the setting is either massively different because it's devastated, or it's massively different because we've jumped foward several hundred (thousand?) years to an inevitably changed rebuilt galactic civilization. And that's ignoring the possible presence of pet reapers, or of everyone being a robot.

 

Besides, we'd have the expectation going in of encountering new civilizations, planets, creatures, etc. That stuff has to be conceived and designed no matter what, and again, I don't see a huge difference between sticking it in pretend unmapped Milky Way space or pretend unmapped Andromeda space.

[Mcfly616]

You might as well be doing that in the MW. Assuming we're not going backwards

If you've read anything I've posted, you'd know that I'm not proposing a sequel in the Milky Way. 

[Killroy]

I'm sure you're right. But that would be his own problem (as with anyone who is against anything other than a sequel).

Actually, it's your problem. We're not getting a prequel so you're the one with the problem.

Whether a game takes place before or during the events of the trilogy, doesn't effect the quality of the experience (gameplay, narrative or plot)

It obviously effects the stakes and level of intensity. They could certainly write a good story about some nothing event that no one in the galaxy ever heard about, but who wants to shell out $60 for that? Do the masses want to go from saving the galaxy as Commander Shepard to some small story with a nobody?
 

Besides, Mathias proclaims in the thread title that they "had no choice". But as you well know, they certainly did. Some are just too narrowminded to think of or consider anything other than a sequel.

Sure, if they didn't have to turn a profit then they had a choice. But since this is the real world, and businesses exist to make money, a prequel is hardly the smarter choice.

[Il Divo]

 It's also Bioware's problem if Andromeda tanks because so many are jaded about abandoning the established setting they fell in love in the first place. . 

 

Sure, that's technically possible. Though if they're going through with Andromeda's setting, they probably think either that even less people are interested in a prequel or will outright rage against a Milky Way galaxy sequel.

 

 

My point being, chronology has no sway over the quality of a product. Honestly, those that are skeptical about the move to Andromeda tend to raise some legitimate concerns. Whereas those opposed to anything other than a sequel, have no real reason other than "I don't like prequels" ( and that's essentially the extent of their position).

 

 

 Putting aside too that this is all the reason someone really needs to consider when buying or not buying a product. Not wanting to buy a game because you think a prequel sounds boring is pretty damn logical in my eyes.

 

 

 

[FKA_Servo]

If you've read anything I've posted, you'd know that I'm not proposing a sequel in the Milky Way. 

 

Which I tacitly acknowledged a couple of posts ago, albeit not in a response to you directly.

 

In the post I was responding to there, it doesn't seem like you were specifically ruling it out, though. And it's not like there aren't plenty of people here agitating for precisely that.

[Mathias]

 I never said anything about a sequel. You did.

 

Yeah most fans have made it pretty clear that they do not want a prequel. Some do for sure, maybe even you. But according to twitter questions and polls, people desired the series to move forward.

[Mathias]

Well, "no choice" isn't always meant literally. If I say Shepard has no choice but to use the Crucible, I actually mean that not using the Crucible would be a disaster.

It's his own problem if he doesn't like a prequel. It's Bio's problem if a prequel bombs because too many of us don't like a prequel.

 

 

Not to mention, coming up with a new setting/races/history/politics isn't exactly easy either.

 

The way to continue games in the Milky Way is also extremely "easy". Canonize an ending. It's the blow back from that decision that's the problem  here.

 

These guys get it.

[JamieCOTC]

BioWare loves to overcorrect. Don't like the Mako, take it out. Don't like elevators, take them out. Inventory is a mess, take it out. Don't like the ending to the third game, take out the Milky Way. Oh, I accept it. I just happen to believe MEA is an attempt at running away from the ME3 ending. What else would I have them do? End it.

[Killroy]

BioWare loves to overcorrect. Don't like the Mako, take it out. Don't like elevators, take them out. Inventory is a mess, take it out. Don't like the ending to the third game, take out the Milky Way. Oh, I accept it. I just happen to believe MEA is an attempt at running away from the ME3 ending. What else would I have them do? End it.

...you can just not play any more Mass Effect games.

[KaiserShep]

I love it when all the Pseudo intellectuals open up the thesaurus tab and starting using the big words and grammatical constructions to fool  the scouters into reading power levels over 9000.

Over 9 syllables?!

[KaiserShep]

BioWare loves to overcorrect. Don't like the Mako, take it out. Don't like elevators, take them out. Inventory is a mess, take it out. Don't like the ending to the third game, take out the Milky Way. Oh, I accept it. I just happen to believe MEA is an attempt at running away from the ME3 ending. What else would I have them do? End it.

Anything that doesn't address the endings could be construed as "running away" from the endings, including a prequel or midquel or whatever, and even if the game is set so far in the MW's future that every major event gets handwaved away. The endings themselves are a bit too complicated to really do properly.

[Ahglock]

Over 9 syllables?!

 

 

Otherwise known as German...

[dreamgazer]

These guys get it.

BioWare are already getting chided by sensitive fans for going to Andromeda, which could be described as "blowback".

It's inevitable; it's also not reflective of the fanbase at large. They had/have more choices, both literally and figuratively.

[BatarianBob]

It's also Bioware's problem if Andromeda tanks because so many are jaded about abandoning the established setting they fell in love with in the first place. Which, let's be honest, wouldn't happen. It doesn't matter if there are those opposed to Andromeda, or if there are those who are opposed to something taking place before the Reaper War . Whatever they decided on, Mass Effect will sell well. The brand will sell itself. As long the Mass Effect name is on a box, people will buy it.

That would be true if it was 2011. Since ME3 the series is pretty much back to square one. Hence the soft reboot.

[Mcfly616]

Actually, it's your problem. We're not getting a prequel so you're the one with the problem.

 

 

Actually, it's you who has a problem (as usual). Your reading comprehension still hasn't gotten any better (not surprisingly). You're still coming to ridiculous conclusions based on baseless assumptions of your own warped interpretation of what's said instead of actually understanding what's being discussed by those you childishly attack whilst making yourself look foolish in the process. Basically, you're still the same person that was definitively proven wrong in your own thread that was (ironically) about the same thing. The possibility of a game in the Milky Way.

 

For one, I'm pretty much indifferent towards Andromeda. So you're wrong in saying it's my problem as I really don't care all that much. Secondly, everybody's well aware that they're not doing a prequel, AlanC and I were discussing the prospect of a prequel as it pertains to those who have problems with anything other than sequels. Those problems are nothing but their own personal quips, it puts no burden on the creative process of coming up with a fun experience.

 

 

 

It obviously effects the stakes and level of intensity. They could certainly write a good story about some nothing event that no one in the galaxy ever heard about, but who wants to shell out $60 for that? Do the masses want to go from saving the galaxy as Commander Shepard to some small story with a nobody?
 

 many people would and many people do. In fact, there's a great deal of this forum that are begging for a smaller-scale narrative. They don't want to be the savior of the galaxy and everything in it from another world-eating threat. We did that for three games. Shepard being the galactic messiah doesn't erase every potential adventure that ever took place in the MEU. He was one guy. Plenty of more people have their own stories to tell.

 

 

 

Sure, if they didn't have to turn a profit then they had a choice. But since this is the real world, and businesses exist to make money, a prequel is hardly the smarter choice.

 You don't know what kind of profit a prequel would've had. It's essentially no different than what they're doing. Everybody against a prequel says they want to "move forward". Okay, but what's the point of moving forward if you're not even gonna see the aftermath of the past you're moving forward from? It makes zero difference if, say, some Ark Ship is sent to Andromeda while the Milky Way is getting the Crucible treatment. You're not getting anything out of "moving forward". You're just going to some place far away to avoid something. Which is essentially the same thing as a prequel in the Milky Way, you're just setting it before those events you want to avoid and staying in a familiar (albeit wholly unexplored place).