751 réponses à ce sujet

[Killroy]

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.

Halo ODST and Reach both failed to meet sales expectations. CoD has never had a compelling narrative, let alone an interconnected, sequential narrative. And Assassin's Creed has always been about time travel/period piece stuff so you're just being willfully obtuse.

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.

Again, willfully obtuse.

[AlanC9]

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.

Yep. But if you're making an argument here, it's going to be heard by us.
 
 

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.

Do tastes need explanation? Would an explanation be of any use to anyone?

[Il Divo]

 

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.

 

No, my assertion is that it's possible Bioware has reason to believe that no one wants a prequel. Their goal is to create a product that's going to make money after all.

 

And ignoring of course that no one who releases a big time franchise is fully aware of its future success at release. Star Wars and ME1, as I recall, were made under the belief that there might not actually be a chance for a Mass Effect 2 or an Empire Strikes Back. Of course, banking on your franchise being the next Star Wars probably is a bad financial investment.

 

Not to mention, ME1 in many ways received extremely heavy criticism, which played a subsequent role in crafting ME2, another game that's acclaimed here on the BSN.

[Mcfly616]

This argument would be a lot more convincing if ME2 had been poorly-received for not revisiting locations from ME1. We see one Ward of the Citadel that we never saw before, and one room that we did. The TES games also get along fine without revisiting locations.

I agree that this means more work for Bio, but I don't see the problem.

The problem with using TES as an example is that each game takes place in some races homeland. Whereas when we go to Andromeda we are all going to leave our ties way behind. Humans, Asari, Turians etc ...we're all just Milky Wayans in a strange place. Those BSNers that already have an issue with how "human" all the aliens are, they're about to witness them all get alot more similar. We're all in the same boat.

 

 Earth, Thessia, Palaven....they shouldn't even be talked about in depth. They're all basically the same place. Back there. 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Pretty much. I have several issues that are pretty much unavoidable with a Mass Effect prequel that would automatically drive me to hate it. It retreads all the old history and all the old conflicts. Batarian/human relations, the genophage, the geth, the state of the human race, etc.. These are all widespread things that set the climate of the galaxy, but they were all resolved and I would prefer them to stay that way. The only way to avoid them entirely would be to simply set the story in as far out off the ass-end of the Milky Way as possible, which would then beg the question as to the point of this setting in the first place. Then there's the plot itself. The only value I see in a prequel is its setup for the conflict or character presented in a story prior to this one, but it obviously can't do that here because the trilogy is pretty much self contained. Without that, I have zero interest. Frankly, I find abandoning the galaxy preferable to going backward in time. 

 

Also why bother doing a video game prequel? They did 3 prequel novels by the original lead writer and several comic books series set in the past and an anime movie exploring backstory of various characters.  

[AlanC9]

The problem with using TES as an example is that each game takes place in some races homeland. Whereas when we go to Andromeda we are all going to leave our ties way behind. Humans, Asari, Turians etc ...we're all just Milky Wayans in a strange place. Those BSNers that already have an issue with how "human" all the aliens are, they're about to witness them all get alot more similar. We're all in the same boat.

Earth, Thessia, Palaven....they shouldn't even be talked about in depth. They're all basically the same place. Back there.

We bring our cultures with us. I suppose Bio could go full Starflight and have the races blend into one homogenized culture, but if they did that it'd be because they wanted to.

Earth, Thessia and Palaven won't be talked about in depth, yep. I'm still looking for a reason to be bothered by that.

[Gothfather]

No, they had plenty of other choices. They just decided not to use them and took the easy way out, throwing away the lore and practically everything else as they did so in most cases. Plus a lot of the team that worked on ME1-3, including the main people, are still on it. They just moved to a new studio. 

 

 

They had all the choice in the world. Plenty of  logical ways they could've continued using the Milky Way setting and avoided the endings entirely. 

 

 

Irrelevant since they've decided on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Moving along.

 

 

Really? And what possible choices could they go with? please explain all these vast options that could of be chosen.

 

There are four endings with multiple aspects to them that are mutually exclusive. So please how do you create a sequel where there are No reapers all reapers are dead, but all reapers are organic and synthetic, but all reapers are purely synthetic reapers that are under the command of God-Shepard who is both renegade and paragon and there are reapers that have harvest all of citadel space.

 

Please tell me what possible sequel can be written in that soup?

 

Canon ending so all out choices in the previous 3 games get struck down in favour of a canon ending? What if they picked Synthesis for there canon? 

 

Please give me this LIST of multiple choices they could have gone with.

[AlanC9]

You're a little late there, Gothfather.. we're discussing prequels.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If the galaxy is able to rebuild the citadel as seen in the EC then rebuilding the relay's isn't out of the question (Aethyta even suggest that the galaxy start making their own). So its quite possible to continue the series in the milky way.

 

True but at the same time the relay's are an iconic part of the series.

 

Did you read?

 

Look at the state of the worlds. What are the most pressing problems? Food; Fresh Water; Sanitation; Rebuilding infrastructure - the reapers destroyed pretty much  all of it. The worlds went from their futuristic Golden Ages to post nuclear holocaust worlds. It's a wasteland.

 

Are you going to build mass relays or feed the people on your world?

 

But the slides in the EC make it look like everything is magically fine in a few months.   With the help of our new reaper friends we can rebuild easily..,.. oh you destroyed them.... well it'll take a while. A long while....  I think it was a 10,000 year dark age. But we can rebuild. better than before! Just about 10,000 years in the future!

[Drone223]

 

I'm sitting right here proving you wrong on that first point. And anyway, I don't see a huge distinction between visiting pretend stars and planets in the MW versus pretend stars and planets in Andromeda.

 

Actually there is, staying in the milky way means has both elements of the familiar and new at the same time, exploring another galaxy means there won't have that familiarity.
 

 

With regard to the last point - the endings and Mac Walters' pet human supremacist org were enough to sour the whole trilogy for me, and even I'm gonna call that out as an uncharitable mischaracterization of what he's actually saying.

 

No he's clearly ignoring the problems people had with the ending it wasn't just because Shepard died.

[Killroy]

Actually there is, staying in the milky way means has both elements of the familiar and new at the same time, exploring another galaxy means there won't have that familiarity.

You mean aside from the aesthetic, races, technology, organizations and tone? Because that stuff all seems mighty familiar.

[dreamgazer]

Actually there is, staying in the milky way means has both elements of the familiar and new at the same time, exploring another galaxy means there won't have that familiarity.

If we're exploring uncharted areas of the Milky Way any time soon after the highly-destructive Reaper War, it'll still be a predominately unfamiliar setting, and the Milky Way has survived the highest stakes it could possibly encounter.
 

No he's clearly ignoring the problems people had with the ending it wasn't just because Shepard died.

Why, because he's not going around talking about each and every grievance someone might have with the ending?

[Drone223]

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?
 

The Milky Way doesn't revolve around Shepard its more than capable of telling lots of different stories from many perspectives.

 

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

 

A lot of people have asked for a small scale and more personal story which can be just as interesting, there's no need to try and making another large scale story about something that threatens the entire galaxy.

 

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?

 

 

ME:A is being made by the Montreal team who also made the Omega DLC which is considered to be okay at best and its also their first time making a full release title.

 

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?

 

I don't care how Bioware deals with their mistakes as long as they don't run away from them and not pretending they made them in the first. But Bioware are clearly running away from their mistakes and pretending they never made them.

[AlanC9]

Look at the state of the worlds. What are the most pressing problems? Food; Fresh Water; Sanitation; Rebuilding infrastructure - the reapers destroyed pretty much  all of it. The worlds went from their futuristic Golden Ages to post nuclear holocaust worlds. It's a wasteland.

Wait a minute. The Reapers didn't want to wreck the infrastructure that badly on the planets they were going to harvest. They want to take the organics alive, not starve them to death before processing.

[AlanC9]

I don't care how Bioware deals with their mistakes as long as they don't run away from them and not pretending they made them in the first. But Bioware are clearly running away from their mistakes and pretending they never made them.

You can't simultaneously run away from something and pretend it doesn't exist. Pick one.

[Drone223]

You mean aside from the aesthetic, races, technology, organizations and tone? Because that stuff all seems mighty familiar.

From is seen so far it looks like another sci-fi franchise and most of the organization that existed will be gone as well.

 

If we're exploring uncharted areas of the Milky Way any time soon after the highly-destructive Reaper War, it'll still be a predominately unfamiliar setting, and the Milky Way has survived the highest stakes it could possibly encounter.
 

Not exactly old places such as Sur'kesh, Illium Omega etc. can be visited as well as exploring new places in the galaxy.

 

 

Why, because he's not going around talking about each and every grievance someone might have with the ending?

 

No it clearly said that the only problem people had with the endings was that Shepard died he said so himself, but clearly Shepard's death little as to why people had problems with the endings.

[Killroy]

The Milky Way doesn't revolve around Shepard its more than capable of telling lots of different stories from many perspectives.

Who said it does? I certainly didn't. But the ME3 endings ruined the setting so "lots of stories" can't be told there any more.
 

A lot of people have asked for a small scale and more personal story which can be just as interesting, there's no need to try and making another large scale story about something that threatens the entire galaxy.

Where are all of these people? They certainly didn't have any sort of majority or large presence when BioWare was asking fans what they wanted for future titles.
 

ME:A is being made by the Montreal team who also made the Omega DLC which is considered to be okay at best and its also their first time making a full release title.

A team that didn't make ME3. So answer my question: Why does Inquisition get a pass but Andromeda does not?
 

I don't care how Bioware deals with their mistakes as long as they don't run away from them and not pretending they made them in the first. But Bioware are clearly running away from their mistakes and pretending they never made them.

You NEVER make sense. You want them to ignore the endings, you just want them to do it in the way you want. You've advocated for a canon ending and homogenizing all the endings into one. How is that not ignoring the endings? 

[Drone223]

Did you read?

 

Look at the state of the worlds. What are the most pressing problems? Food; Fresh Water; Sanitation; Rebuilding infrastructure - the reapers destroyed pretty much  all of it. The worlds went from their futuristic Golden Ages to post nuclear holocaust worlds. It's a wasteland.

 

Are you going to build mass relays or feed the people on your world?

 

But the slides in the EC make it look like everything is magically fine in a few months.   With the help of our new reaper friends we can rebuild easily..,.. oh you destroyed them.... well it'll take a while. A long while....  I think it was a 10,000 year dark age. But we can rebuild. better than before! Just about 10,000 years in the future!

I did, and I pointed that the EC shows the galaxy rebuilding itself after the war its no longer depicted as a wasteland as it was originally intended.

[Kierro Ren]

Setting Mass Effect 4 in another galaxy was the most logical direction to take the series, from both a business and artistic standpoint. However I'm still seeing threads and comments popping up with people upset that it's not in the Milky Way, or theory crafting how it could take place in the Milky Way.

 

You have to understand the incredibly awkward position the new team has been put in. Mass Effect 3's ending was written in such a way that they really left no room for a sequel, unless an ending is canonized. As much as I'm sure some of us would be happy for them to just say "Screw it" and canonize Destroy, the reality is that canonizing any ending would be a huge PR mistake and cause another controversy. 

 

Do you really think that is how the new team wants to start things off? They're not gonna say "Okay we canonized Destroy, the game takes place 10 years later." And then proceed to bury their heads in the sand. Especially after they've flat out stated many times that there is no canon ending. After Bioware's history of being caught lying and feeding misinformation, mainly during ME3's production, this is something I imagine they'd like to keep their word on.

 

There is no possible way to handwave the three endings in a respectable manner either. It doesn't matter how far ahead you set the game. The three choices are galaxy wide, culturally/biologically impacting decisions. It's an unfortunate truth that the Milky Way Galaxy, no matter how much we love it, is completely changed. It's future only exists in our heads. It's unreasonable to suggest the new team should've canonized an ending or try to handwave/retcon all three. They'd be asking for trouble. Even just addressing the endings in any form would bring up bad feelings again.

 

Setting the new game in another galaxy gives them the most freedom to craft whatever brand new story they want, without having to be chained to the Shepard Trilogy. I know it sucks we'll never see Omega, The Citadel or any of the familiar locations of the Milky Way again. But blame that on the older team's decision to end ME3 the way they did, not the new team for trying to take lemons and make lemonade. 

 

I have my own concerns about ME:A, but setting place in another galaxy isn't one of them, and it shouldn't be for you either.

 

I'm completely fine with a new galaxy. I'm into ME for the exploration. Besides, MEA's the closes I'll ever get to the Andromeda galaxy. So, I'm living my dream of space travel.

[Killroy]

From is seen so far it looks like another sci-fi franchise and most of the organization that existed will be gone as well.

 

What other sci-fi franchise does it look like? Because I don't know of any other sci-fi franchise with omni-blades, N7 operatives, galaxy maps like on the Normandy, Krogans, and Carnifex pistols. I'd love to hear about this other sci-fi franchise that has all of those familiar things.

[Drone223]

Who said it does? I certainly didn't. But the ME3 endings ruined the setting so "lots of stories" can't be told there any more.
 

Except the endings didn't ruin the setting since they can clearly be dealt with also stories can also be told before the events of the trilogy.

 

Where are all of these people? They certainly didn't have any sort of majority or large presence when BioWare was asking fans what they wanted for future titles.

 

All over the forums there have been plenty of threads asking for more small scale and personal stories they aren't hard to find.
 

A team that didn't make ME3. So answer my question: Why does Inquisition get a pass but Andromeda does not?

 

 

DA:I was made by the same team who made the previous DA games and Bioware Montreal has usually made DLC expansions, ME:A is going to be their first full title.

 

You NEVER make sense. You want them to ignore the endings, you just want them to do it in the way you want. You've advocated for a canon ending and homogenizing all the endings into one. How is that not ignoring the endings?

 

Bioware is already ignoring and homogenzing the endings by moving to another galaxy Bioware wants to pretend the whole ending fisaco never happened in the first place, also Bioware has made certain choices canon in the past.

[Drone223]

What other sci-fi franchise does it look like? Because I don't know of any other sci-fi franchise with omni-blades, N7 operatives, galaxy maps like on the Normandy, Krogans, and Carnifex pistols. I'd love to hear about this other sci-fi franchise that has all of those familiar things.

Those things only appear for a brief second, the whole teaser could've easily been taken for another IP.

[Mcfly616]

That's just demonstrably false. You made at least 100 posts about how stupid/lazy Andromeda is.
 

 Stupid? No. That's you putting words in peoples mouths again. Lazy? Sure. Doesn't change the fact I'm quite indifferent about the game overall. You're demonstrably incorrect (again).

 

 

 

Show me this "great deal" of support for a small-scale prequel. BioWare asked the fans what they wanted and prequels were not it, so I'm curious to see all this support.

 You really can't help yourself apparently. Even when you are the one quoting the post, the words are right in front of your face and your reading problem rears its ugly head again. 

 

"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."

 

I never said anything about a prequel in that post. And I'm not sure what you want me to do when you say "Show Me...". Are you expecting me to post a bunch of quotes from people on these forums that wish not to save the galaxy again? Sorry, I didn't take the time out to archive them. Regardless, those types of posts are seen on the boards on a daily basis (regardless of the move to Andromeda. Though, they were much more prevalent before Andromeda was officially revealed at E3 -you know, before you ever signed up). Nobody wants to be a space messiah all over again.

 

 

 

Prequels in every medium almost always fail to perform as well.

 

Source?

 

 

 

You're moving into Drone territory of nonsense. If you go through a rough breakup do you gotta see your ex wallowing in their sorrow filth before you can go find someone new?

You're using the same "ex relationship" analogy you failed with weeks ago? 

 

But I'll play along with your crap analogy. I can find someone new without picking up sticks and moving out of state. 

 

 

You mean aside from avoiding the terrible, setting-ruining writing of ME3 and endless possibilities for sequels?

 there's endless possibilities for games in the Milky Way, just not after ME3.

 

 

 

Again, nonsense. Makes no sense.

 Must be pretty sensible if it's nonsense to you.

[AlanC9]

Bioware is already ignoring and homogenzing the endings by moving to another galaxy Bioware wants to pretend the whole ending fisaco never happened in the first place, also Bioware has made certain choices canon in the past.

This is just confused. The point of moving is precisely to avoid homogenizing or ignoring the endings. They can all stay completely divergent and completely real because we aren't participating in them.

[Il Divo]

This is just confused. The point of moving is precisely to avoid homogenizing or ignoring the endings. They can all stay completely divergent and completely real because we aren't participating in them.

 

Case in point: Rachni Queen, Collector Base, ME2 squad-mate imports. ​