That might've been true in 2011, not even remotely so now.
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.
nobody denies that. I just don't subscribe to the implementation of fan service. If fans knew what they needed, they'd be the creators. I think Bioware should do whatever they want without taking fan requests. But that'll never happen with this company. The creative process is stagnant.
Most who are vehemently opposed to anything taking place before Shepard saves the MW, they really have no reasoning behind it. " They want to move forward". They don't like sequels (just "because"). That's hardly a legitimate reason.
Holy ****. Some new info needs to be released!
I suspect that this tune would be different if the situation was reverse. You want a prequel set in the Milky Way, and if enough people swayed BioWare to go that route regardless of the direction they might have preferred, then it'd be groovy, because getting what you want makes for less grief. In any case, it's just as likely that BioWare themselves want to go forward in time rather than backward. That they might also feel that it would ensure wider appeal for their fanbase is no less valid a reason to go that route.nobody denies that. I just don't subscribe to the implementation of fan service. If fans knew what they needed, they'd be the creators. I think Bioware should do whatever they want without taking fan requests. But that'll never happen with this company. The creative process is stagnant.
They do have reasons; you simply don't accept them. However, the opposition to a prequel is no less rational than opposition to the setup of Andromeda.Most who are vehemently opposed to anything taking place before Shepard saves the MW, they really have no reasoning behind it. " They want to move forward". They don't like sequels (just "because"). That's hardly a legitimate reason.
BioWare are already getting chided by sensitive fans for going to Andromeda, which could be described as "blowback".
No matter what they did they would've upset certain fans. But setting the new game in another galaxy wouldn't create a blowback the size of canonizing and ending would.
I suspect that this tune would be different if the situation was reverse. You want a prequel set in the Milky Way, and if enough people swayed BioWare to go that route regardless of the direction they might have preferred, then it'd be groovy, because getting what you want makes for less grief. In any case, it's just as likely that BioWare themselves want to go forward in time rather than backward. That they might also feel that it would ensure wider appeal for their fanbase is no less valid a reason to go that route.
They do have reasons; you simply don't accept them. However, the opposition to a prequel is no less rational than opposition to the setup of Andromeda.
On the other end of the spectrum too, the idea that fans have no idea what they want is pretty absurd. It's true that sometimes fans don't realize that what's in their heads doesn't always play out so well on screen, but that's still not the same thing as saying devs should just completely ignore fan desire when creating content. It goes back to the simple economics of making a product no one wants.
No matter what they did they would've upset certain fans. But setting the new game in another galaxy wouldn't create a blowback the size of canonizing and ending would.
So they would lose 100 hundred sales instead of 50..
Larger blowback when the numbers are insignificant either way isn't that big of a deal.
If its a sci-fi shooter with a good story and decent characters sales wouldn't be effected either way in a noticeable fashion.
They do have reasons; you simply don't accept them.
False. I'd love some actual reasons other than "move forward" or "the Reapers are still coming". That way we could discuss them instead of just mindlessly accepting the rationale that prequels=bad.
However, the opposition to a prequel is no less rational than opposition to the setup of Andromeda.
I disagree. As I've already pointed out, those opposed to Andromeda seem quite rational to want to stay in and further explore a setting they know and love, because there's massive potential for more stories there. Whereas people who are opposed to staying in the Milky Way under such conditions just say that they want to " move forward", seemingly not comprehending that going to Andromeda renders the chronology totally irrelevant anyway. Who cares if we move to Andromeda before or after the Crucible fires? You're still not going to experience any of the aftermath. So, when your logic in "moving forward" is essentially just moving away from dealing with the endings, that's alot less rational than the other side who logically wants to further experience what they've come to expect from the setting (also avoiding the endings). That of course, is just my opinion though.
I suspect that this tune would be different if the situation was reverse.
You suspect wrong. I subscribe to Alan Moore's rationale: "It’s not the job of the artist to give the audience what the audience wants. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audience. They would be the artists. It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need"
On the other end of the spectrum too, the idea that fans have no idea what they want is pretty absurd.
indeed, it is absurd. Especially considering I never said that fans don't know what they want.
It goes back to the simple economics of making a product no one wants.
You're painting with rather broad strokes to say the least. Your assertion that the absence of fan input would result in a product no one wants is quite absurd.
I'm pretty sure nobody knew they wanted Star Wars until it premiered in theaters back in '77. Same goes for A Song of Ice and Fire. Or say, even the original Mass Effect. There's a reason a good deal of BSNers favor the original over the sequels, regardless of its flaws. You know, when Bioware was exercising their creativity without any fan requests determining the direction of development.
But "fun experience" is subjective, by definition. If enough of the customers will find a prequel unfun, then you're not going to have much luck making a "fun" prequel even if the customers who don't mind a prequel think it's great.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.
But "fun experience" is subjective, by definition. If enough of the customers will find a prequel unfun, then you're not going to have much luck making a "fun" prequel even if the customers who don't mind a prequel think it's great.
They'd be just fine. Bottom line is it'll sell regardless of the setting or chronology, based on name recognition alone.
Halo ODST did just fine even though it took place concurrently with the plot of Halo 2. Black Ops sold amazingly despite being in the Cold War setting when it's predecessor was set in modern times. Assassins Creed still sells, and they've been hopping back and forth across history in each installment.
There's not enough of those people you speak of (those obsessed with chronology) in order to put a noticeable dent in the sales of a popular/beloved AAA game.
I disagree. As I've already pointed out, those opposed to Andromeda seem quite rational to want to stay in and further explore a setting they know and love...
Not really - most of the arguments are that only 1% of the Milky Way is explored so they want to explore they other 99% which is only fractionally better known than the Andromeda galaxy (i.e. basically not at all)... so it's not a setting they know and love, it's merely that they quite like the wallpaper.
For me it makes little difference one way or the other - except that all advanced races are either dead (shot the star-kid), partially robots, or protected by the Shepalist and his Reaper army... I actually hate the Destroy ending most of all; Refuse or Control are the only really acceptable outcomes for me so I'll happily take a magic space hopper to bounce to another galaxy rather than deal with Shepard's total clusterf*ck.
Seriously, he should have just teleported a nuke strapped to a big ol' lump of Eezo up to the Citadel instead of going up the teleporter himself from London - ideally with "Screw you" painted on the side in neon pink.
Doesn't Assassin's Creed's history jumping basically include time travel? As for Black Ops, I can't imagine why anyone would care when a Call of Duty game takes place.They'd be just fine. Bottom line is it'll sell regardless of the setting or chronology, based on name recognition alone.
Halo ODST did just fine even though it took place concurrently with the plot of Halo 2. Black Ops sold amazingly despite being in the Cold War setting when it's predecessor was set in modern times. Assassins Creed still sells, and they've been hopping back and forth across history in each installment.
There's not enough of those people you speak of (those obsessed with chronology) in order to put a noticeable dent in the sales of a popular/beloved AAA game.
Seriously, he should have just teleported a nuke strapped to a big ol' lump of Eezo up to the Citadel instead of going up the teleporter himself from London - ideally with "Screw you" painted on the side in neon pink.
Not really - most of the arguments are that only 1% of the Milky Way is explored so they want to explore they other 99% which is only fractionally better known than the Andromeda galaxy
I'm pretty sure you're mistaking their justification for staying there, as well as there response to those who say there is no reason to stay....for their actual reason for wanting to stay.
If you stay in the Milky Way you're having your cake and eating it too. You can explore all new places (the other 99% of the galaxy) and you can revisit places we know well and know of.(we had 1 mission a piece for Thessia and Sur'Kesh out of all 3 games. We never even went to Palaven. There's also those people that probably wouldn't mind seeing the Citadel or Omega from a different perspective with a coat of next gen polish).
So yes, staying in the MW has one distinct difference than going to Andromeda. You can have the familiar and the new. Whereas Andromeda uproots everything. You're just taking familiar species with you. Everything is new and unfamiliar. Nobody in the MEU has ties to where we're going.
So yes, staying in the MW has one distinct difference than going to Andromeda. You can have the familiar and the new. Whereas Andromeda uproots everything. You're just taking familiar species with you. Everything is new and unfamiliar. Nobody in the MEU has ties to where we're going.
And then the prequel loses here anyway since most of us don't think a prequel would be as much fun as some other approach..
It goes without saying, that 'most of us' make up a miniscule amount of the people who buy and play Mass Effect. So, it makes little difference what we think.
Aside from that, I haven't heard one solid explanation of why someone's idea of "fun" hinges solely on when a game takes place.
I can't imagine why anyone would care when a Call of Duty game takes place.
I can't imagine why anyone would care when a Mass Effect game takes place. It doesn't effect gameplay or prevent the writers from coming up with a good story.
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.
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.
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).
Given the Citadel's importance to the relay network and the Reapers' ability to transfer consciousness between vessels, that would be far less prudent and very likely wouldn't actually accomplish anything.
Best case for the nuke is that he detonates the Citadel Relay and annihilates Earth.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem with that... 
What I hate about the endings is the fact that the Starbrat/Reapers hand them to you on a plate; you have basically zero agency. I will happily kill everything in the galaxy just to say "Yeah, f*ck off" - in fact I did, by shooting the Starbrat.
I hate the Destroy ending most of all as the Reapers basically give you their off switch and tell you that by pressing it you'll kill EDI and the Geth which in all bar one of my play-through's I've had working hand-in-hand with the Quarians to rebuild Rannoch. The Geth basically prove that the Reapers are full of crap, that synthetics don't have to be utterly genocidal towards all organic life, and yet that's not a consideration at the end - the Starbrat basically turns around and says "synthetics will eventually kill all organics" ... where's the "open your eyes you stupid space toaster!" option, or "sod off and come back in 50,000 years and see how it's working out"?
... but no - you can either accept one of the options the starbrat gives you or let all advanced civilisations be destroyed... or, of course, stop playing after the Citadel DLC and turn the game off.
...
So yes, staying in the MW has one distinct difference than going to Andromeda. You can have the familiar and the new. Whereas Andromeda uproots everything. You're just taking familiar species with you. Everything is new and unfamiliar. Nobody in the MEU has ties to where we're going.
Unless you'd canonise Refuse ... which I would over Destroy every single time.
Retour en haut
