60 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

I don't know.

 

It would depend on if I like the character I play in Andromeda

[Mathias]

I would only be open to the idea of one protagonist in a self contained story, IF Andromeda is the jumping off point for a new trilogy. In other words if ME:A tells the story of how the natives of the Milky Way colonized Andromeda, and then the next game is the start of a new trilogy that takes place centuries into the future, I'd be down with that.

 

But again if that were the plan, I wouldn't know that anyway until well after ME:A releases and Bioware announces their next game. So I guess I'll be disappointed either way.

[ComedicSociopathy]

That depends. Are we going to have a occurring villain in this series like the Reapers? It made sense for Shepard to keep on returning because we had a same adversity and therefore same plot line for that entire trilogy. The same can't be said for for the DA series because we moved from the Archdemon to Mages vs Templars to Corypheus. Three different issues that required three different protagonists.

[SinisterSquash]

That depends. Are we going to have a occurring villain in this series like the Reapers? It made sense for Shepard to keep on returning because we had a same adversity and therefore same plot line for that entire trilogy. The same can't be said for for the DA series because we moved from the Archdemon to Mages vs Templars to Corypheus. Three different issues that required three different protagonists.

Was Shepard really that important after ME1 though?  Could no one else with a team of the best of the best unrelated to ME1 have done the job in ME2? And if that someone dies in ME2, someone else in ME3 (with Javik) done the job?

[MarchWaltz]

Would be cool to have your old character as an NPC in a sequel, kind of like Hawke in DA:I

[Rappeldrache]

Three games - one hero! Would be my favorite.

 

Never chance a running system.

[Killroy]

Why does everyone think of every franchise as a trilogy or series of trilogies these days? 

[Ashii6]

Overall, I hate changing character every new game. But if I had to continue, let's say, new Dragon Age with Inquisitor I wouldn't be happy. Inky is the only PC I didn't like in BW games. That was just one exception, so I'll just stick with having one character for more than just one game if we know that sequel will happen.

[KaiserShep]

Was Shepard really that important after ME1 though?  Could no one else with a team of the best of the best unrelated to ME1 have done the job in ME2? And if that someone dies in ME2, someone else in ME3 (with Javik) done the job?

 

Perhaps, but I don't think I would've liked it, at least so long as we keep getting the familiar faces, like Garrus, Tali, Liara, and possibly Wrex, Mordin, etc.. I don't want to have a bunch of "old pal" characters get carried over to the new game while the protagonist keeps changing. Constantly resetting history with these companions would not be satisfying, and I hope they don't do this with the new game either. 

[AgentMrOrange]

new protagonist every game. it free the developers from getting bogged down in all the small choice and allows them to focus on the big ones and gives them the opportunity to add more to each new game and expand the Mass Effect universe 

[dgcatanisiri]

Depending on the story, I can see it going either way.

 

The big thing is, how are they writing this? If they're writing this as a standalone story, where the focus is on the continuing world over the continuing story, that's one thing. But if they're going for a new trilogy with a continuing protagonist, then they HAVE to write things as a trilogy, not a loose affliation of games. That's the problem of the Shepard trilogy, they wrote it as three separate stories rather that three acts of a single story. While some of that's due to the three game structure, it causes a LOT of problems - ME2 suffers severe bridge syndrome, where the main story spins its wheels to hold off on the big payoff in the third game, to the point that if you remove ME2 from the story, there's no significant damage done to the structure of the story, you just lose some of the poignancy of the character moments. All the pay off is held for the third act, leaving the second act with nothing but additional set up for that third act, rather than resolving some smaller points to clear the board before everything gets paid off at the end.

 

I can enjoy either set up, but I hope they make a solid effort at correcting the flaws and missteps that came about from the Shepard trilogy. Much as I enjoy it, there are some pretty big flaws throughout there, and I would like to see these addressed in future games. Making a trilogy like this, an RPG trilogy with a lot of options of choice and variation for the players, is an ambitious goal. I don't think there'd ever really been anything like it before the Shepard trilogy, so of course they weren't getting it perfect. Now that it has been done, they should have a better idea how to pad out those bumps along the way.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Why does everyone think of every franchise as a trilogy or series of trilogies these days? 

 

Because that's how the film industry was been planning their franchises in the past decade or two. Video games have been deciding to copt that model regardless of whe

 

Was Shepard really that important after ME1 though?  Could no one else with a team of the best of the best unrelated to ME1 have done the job in ME2? And if that someone dies in ME2, someone else in ME3 (with Javik) done the job?

 

Well, since Shepard is THE SHEPARD of the ME trilogy and is the super duper most special person in the whole wide galaxy whose the only one capable of stopping the Reaper, yes, he/she is really that important. 

[SlottsMachine]

Personally, I'm all for ditching the protagonist across games. ME3's import system really didn't do it for me. Now, hypothetically, if Bioware could learn to implement an import system with smaller scale story decisions, planned right from the start, I could be open to it. But it would have to be radically different from what we saw with the ME3 trilogy.

 

This. Though the failure of the import feature didn't really bother me that much, I'm just not interested in having a protagonist return and all the trappings that come along with that. I think for me the only way I'd be interested is if protagonist was much more defined than previous ones. 

[Black Jimmy]

I prefer trilogy. Any call backs mean a lot more if it's the same character.

[Mcfly616]

You have Dragon Age for that

 No I don't. I don't play DA. It's a different fictional universe. And a more fantastical one at that. So, as I said, I'd rather Mass Effect start having standalone, self-contained stories with a new cast for each installment. Allows for a much more drastically branching narrative/decision tree.

 

 

Just because Shepard had a trilogy, doesn't mean Mass Effect is predetermined to be a series made up of multiple trilogies. It doesn't solidify ME:A as the beginning of a new trilogy.

[LightningSamus]

Let's see how things go first.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Depends.

I don't mind a stand alone Mass Effect game or a duology or trilogy.  The point is that "the game" must stand on its own.  If it does, then the PC and squad can change from game to game.  The advantage of single story games is that Bio can "experiment" with the format.

 

However, if a trilogy story is done properly from the very beginning, then the series can bring fans back for the next game because the player  has an invested interest in the characters and their "universe".

 

 

 

 

 

[laudable11]

I'm still waiting for the Warden to return..

[Dermain]

Standalone installments with one off protagonists. I like to experience the MEU from different perspectives.

 

Which would be even better if we were allowed to play as set species character. X character is always human, Y character is always Turian, and so on and so forth. Having the ability to choose different races is nice, but it becomes a burden when the developers have to design every single encounter to account for any sort of species restricted dialogue.

 

Pretty much.  Killing off the Warden turned out to be such a bad move for the DA team to the point where they tried to implement a central PC for the rest of the series only for the fan backlash to force them to abandon the idea.  As a result the DA series feels thrown together more by fan whims than a consistent tale.

 

Which is why BioWare shouldn't listen to the fans for anything but game play feedback.

 

Then again, perhaps BioWare's held to an undeserved standard in story telling...

 

I want to play as the same protagonist. I love how I play as Shepard, carrying over the character story, character interactions, building romances over time, etc. I want to do this again.

IMO, KotOR II would've been a better game if we got to play as Revan again, and the Jedi Exile was a member of the crew. That and if Obsidion were able to finish the game and not have it released in the state that it was.

 

That pretty much explains every game Obsidian has ever made.

 

Why does everyone think of every franchise as a trilogy or series of trilogies these days? 

 

I blame movies...and books...slightly...

 

I'm still waiting for the Warden to return..

 

Keep waiting.

[dgcatanisiri]

The trilogy is kind of a staple of storytelling. One of the basics in writing a story is a three act structure, we have (broadly) the set up, the climax, and the resolution. Three points with three different goals that make up the relative core of storytelling. So writers like going with a three part story. We've seen it from Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings to George Lucas and Star Wars to Suzanne Collins and the Hunger Games. So it's not surprising to see it being favored here.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Continue with the same protagonist for as long as possible. Do NOT go the Dragon Age way. With the same protagonist you get to actually connect and CARE for the characters of the game, without it ever being weird that the same few main characters keep poping up all over the galaxy.

 

The protagonist does not have to save the entire galaxy in every game. The first game could focus on something as simple as establishing a main human colony, and then escalate the story from there. Also, it doesn't HAVE to ramp up the ante with every game. Actually I detest that form of storytelling, and find it hopelessly uninspired.

[DebatableBubble]

If it's going to be a trilogy, make it a good one Bioware. Small-scale stuff. No reality-warping decisions, hmm?

[rocklikeafool]

It really depends. I don't see Andromeda being a start of a trilogy though.

[Lyrandori]

Trilogy Protagonist

 

Pros

- Opportunity to create trilogy-long lasting relationships and characters story development(s), including romances (in relation to the protagonist)

 

- Creates the opportunity for a trilogy-long lasting antagonist that would serve as the protagonist's nemesis

 

- Allows (potentially) a player to create a bond with their own protagonist that can last years

 

Cons

- In the event that the writer(s) screw up the main arc in relation to (or directly about) the protagonist, a years-old 'bond' would be entirely destroyed

 

- In the event that the voice actor/actress wouldn't portray (well, voice) the protagonist justice, we would have to cope with that for years

 

- In the event that one or more original protagonist writer(s) leave before the trilogy is over, the opportunity to screw up the remaining one or two titles' worth of main or sub-story arcs (in relation to the protagonist) would be very high, inflicting inevitable damage to any would be logical continuity in regards to original events and character story development (which is related to the first point about would-be years-old bond that players might have created)

 

Separate Protagonists

 

Pros

- Opportunity to act differently / interact / see / comprehend the trilogy's universe (or at least main story arcs surrounding the protagonist) under different perspectives three times (for each titles), with original stories (and back-stories), as well as possibly creating the opportunity to finally have an alien protagonist (which we all know will never happen, but still, the opportunity would be there on paper)

 

- Opportunity for the writers to create different contexts and affiliations for the unique protagonists (I.E. 2nd and 3rd title's protagonists could be part of another 'factIon' / group / organization, with different-yet-commendable goals, and in relation to the point above would allow us to understand events with different views (similarly to how ME2 was essentially Cerberus' view on the current events)

 

- Obivously, writers could create DAO-styled 'Origins' stories with a fleshed-out pre-main events 1 or 2 hours-long (with game-play) intro detailing the background story(ies) of our protagonists for each of the three titles (literally, think DAO intros, but three of them scattered among three titles over a period of five or six years of development)

 

Cons

- Might be more difficult for some players to create a 'bond' with their protagonist if they only have one title to play with them. Although it would also depend on the types of events portrayed in the game, if the protagonist actually has a background story to relate to, and if the VA's performance was convincing and fitting (DA2 in my opinion did a superb job in giving us a fun protagonist that was just as interesting if not better to play as than either the Warden or the Inquisitor)

 

- Characters-specific stories and/or Romance development would have to be both started and finalized in one single title. That would obviously have the side-effect (perhaps negative for most) to not have a 'returning' love affaire in the following titles since a new protagonist would be replacing the previous one

 

- Having a new protagonist for each titles would likely mean that most of the secondary 'teammates' characters cast would also be entirely new. Having "Shepard & Co." in the ME trilogy worked simply because we had the same protagonist all along, and characters-specific stories (in relation to Shepard and current game's events) could resume in the following titles whenever original characters returned (which ultimately of course only depends on the developer's will to actually bring original characters back from the original title). In Dragon Age's case, each title had a majority of new characters, with a minority of 'returning' ones playing 'a role' at one point or another, although never really been part of your hireable team (for example Leliana returning in Inquisition, while playing a significant role, cannot be part of your actual 'team' per se, nor are we able to have a romance with her, as she even refers to her romance with the Warden if you fell in love with her back in Origins). Having too many new characters within a trilogy simply drastically reduces the amount of long-lasting, eventful and detailed story developments that would otherwise be possible if we had the same protagonist for the whole duration of the trilogy (in other words, having one trilogy-lasting protagonist interacting and creating bonds with roughly the same characters over the period of three games is the best opportunity BioWare has to give Andromeda the ultimate original Mass Effect trilogy 'vibe' of characters stories development)

 

In Conclusion

 

In my opinion, they should definitely do another trilogy protagonist, simply because that specifically works very well for the Mass Effect franchise. But for comparison's sake, wouldn't work for the Dragon Age franchise at all, simply because the DA franchise never actually 'started' with a multi-title lasting protagonist in the first place.

[CuriousArtemis]

Keep the same PC throughout the Trilogy. I feel far more invested in Shepard than I do any of DA's PCs because I've spent more time with him, the romances feel deeper because you can continue them, I actually wouldn't have minded romancing Cullen as my female mage Warden in DAI. And my MShepard's romance with Kaidan would always top my romances with Fenris and Dorian due to the years it took for them to get together. 

 

Not even gonna read the rest of the thread because this sums up my thoughts exactly (Although Hawris is still my #1 BioWare pairing, but maybe playing the romance 20x made it feel like playing it over several games )

 

But yes to the slow burn of MShenko.