124 réponses à ce sujet

[N7Jamaican]

As much as I would like to go back to the Milky Way (even though I am totally fine with the setting being Andromeda), I think we will be in Andromeda for more than one game.

 

Knowing that Mass Effect was developed in mind with it being a trilogy, I can see the developers taking the same approach with Andromeda.  Whether if it is two games, three, or we will remain here until (EA/BioWare) is done with the Mass Effect Universe, remains to be seen.

 

I am hoping for at least 2-3 games in Andromeda.  But, what would you prefer? One and done? 

[ABASOVA]

Like DA:

 

each a stand alone game with a new protagonist

 

a new team

 

a new area of the galaxy

 

a new conflict

 

major choices from the previous games can be checked off in a keep

 

No continuous railroading of a protagonist into relationships with whatever NPC was most popular with the fanbase, just a fresh start

[Sanunes]

The only thing I want is if BioWare does want to make it span across multiple games, they don't force a specific number of games for at least to me Mass Effect 3 felt like one game up to the point of where we assault Cerberus's HQ and taken another full game to get back to Earth and defeat the Reapers.  Unfortunately they said it was going to be a trilogy of games and felt like they needed to end it there so they can move onto a new project.  The other thing is I wouldn't want to have a major choice right at the game like the Collector Base at the end of Mass Effect 2 for it never really seem to have any significance unless one or two specific squad members were in your party.

 

My personal taste generally varies so it is hard to say what I would like to see how the game spans, for there are times where I would like to continue with the same protagonist, but others where I would want to see the game from a new perspective.

Modifié par Sanunes, 11 février 2016 - 04:41 .

[N7Jamaican]

The only thing I want is if BioWare does want to make it span across multiple games, they don't force a specific number of games for at least to me Mass Effect 3 felt like one game up to the point of where we assault Cerberus's HQ and taken another full game to get back to Earth and defeat the Reapers.  Unfortunately they said it was going to be a trilogy of games and felt like they needed to end it there so they can move onto a new project.  The other thing is I wouldn't want to have a major choice right at the game like the Collector Base at the end of Mass Effect 2 for it never really seem to have any significance unless one or two specific squad members were in your party.

 

My personal taste generally varies so it is hard to say what I would like to see how the game spans, for there are times where I would like to continue with the same protagonist, but others where I would want to see where that goes.

 

I've always felt like "The Arrival DLC" was the true ending to Mass Effect 2.  Like, imagine after you completed the suicide mission and soon after Hackett sends you a high priority message telling you to gear up and get Kenson.

 

And yes that happened, but I'm talking about seeing your battered Normandy in action, before it could get the necessary repairs.  Before you could even mourn the death (if any) of your squad mates. Before you can even take your boots off and relax.  Imagine the players reaction to that.

[NM_Che56]

I'm sure that Andromeda will be the new home for Mass Effect.  As for whether or not we'll retain the same character from game to game...I don't know.  I can see justification for keeping it like that as a differentiation from Dragon Age; however, there's nothing restricting them from switching it up. 

 

Hell, Mass Effect: Andromeda could be a platform; i.e., we don't get a Mass Effect: Andromeda 2 (or whatever), but meaty expansions that launch from the same game menu.  No no no! I don't mean MMO or anything of that nature.  But I can see substantial expansions that include a new main story with new regions of Andromeda to explore.  

[Sanunes]

I've always felt like "The Arrival DLC" was the true ending to Mass Effect 2.  Like, imagine after you completed the suicide mission and soon after Hackett sends you a high priority message telling you to gear up and get Kenson.

 

And yes that happened, but I'm talking about seeing your battered Normandy in action, before it could get the necessary repairs.  Before you could even mourn the death (if any) of your squad mates. Before you can even take your boots off and relax.  Imagine the players reaction to that.

 

To me what you describe would show the general consequences of the entire trip through the Omega Relay, but I don't see how it would expand on the status of the Collector Base itself.  Sadly I think there would be people like me that would enjoy that type of tie-in, but at the same time I think there are enough people that would feel that EA hid the true ending to Mass Effect 2 behind DLC.

[LightningPoodle]

I'm hoping for another trilogy, where we can grow attached to our protagonist over multiple game. Grow attached to the same individual characters over multiple games. It's one of the things I think Mass Effect does better over Dragon Age. I don't feel attached to any of the three protagonists in Dragon Age, whereas I do with my Shepard. I don't feel as big a connection with the companions of Dragon Age, as I do with the companions of Mass Effect.

[N7Jamaican]

I'm hoping for another trilogy, where we can grow attached to our protagonist over multiple game. Grow attached to the same individual characters over multiple games. It's one of the things I think Mass Effect does better over Dragon Age. I don't feel attached to any of the three protagonists in Dragon Age, whereas I do with my Shepard. I don't feel as big a connection with the companions of Dragon Age, as I do with the companions of Mass Effect.

 

Yes, this! I would feel attached to "RYDER" or any character if we get a new squad and protagonist every game.  I think ME is about the overarching storytelling, choices, and the relationships we've built.  That's something Dragon Age doesn't do (or do well) in my opinion).

[Sanunes]

I'm hoping for another trilogy, where we can grow attached to our protagonist over multiple game. Grow attached to the same individual characters over multiple games. It's one of the things I think Mass Effect does better over Dragon Age. I don't feel attached to any of the three protagonists in Dragon Age, whereas I do with my Shepard. I don't feel as big a connection with the companions of Dragon Age, as I do with the companions of Mass Effect.

 

I just hope this time if a companion dies they don't come back, to me that hurt the experience with returning companions in Mass Effect 3 for they could have had a strong impact if they didn't have to write them in a way that if they were killed in a previous game it didn't impact the current game.  At least for me that is why the game has a focus on Liara and all the other returning companions felt like they were only a shadow of themselves which why people wanted them to return.

[Ahriman]

Like DA:

How about DA being like DA and ME like ME?

[themikefest]

Standalone

 

I like to see more games take place in the Milky Way.

 

Another thing, and this is my opinion, is EA could have the team continue making ME in Andromeda especially if the game is successful and bring in another team to have ME in the MIlky Way as well. I'm sure the chances of that happening are most likely zero. It would be interesting if EA were to do that.

[goishen]

Like DA:

 

each a stand alone game with a new protagonist

 

a new team

 

a new area of the galaxy

 

a new conflict

 

major choices from the previous games can be checked off in a keep

 

No continuous railroading of a protagonist into relationships with whatever NPC was most popular with the fanbase, just a fresh start

 

 

I'm totally not down with that.  Part of what makes ME is the fact that the story follows through to a conclusion.  DA is fine, but I'm more interested in a continuing overarching reaching for the stars, and galaxies, story.

[ABASOVA]

How about DA being like DA and ME like ME?

No. I like the way DA does it, especially having playable races.

[NM_Che56]

No. I like the way DA does it, especially having playable races.

We'll have playable races...in MULTIPLAYER. huehuehuehue

[N7Jamaican]

To me what you describe would show the general consequences of the entire trip through the Omega Relay, but I don't see how it would expand on the status of the Collector Base itself.  Sadly I think there would be people like me that would enjoy that type of tie-in, but at the same time I think there are enough people that would feel that EA hid the true ending to Mass Effect 2 behind DLC.

 

I could see EA hiding the true ending of a game behind DLC.

[SardaukarElite]

There are merits to either approach. I think it depends on what the developers are interested in doing, if they have a good idea for a trilogy plot and are committed to following through on consequences then the potential is great, but on other hand sticking to standalone entries avoids Rachni Queen scenarios. 

 

I'm hoping for another trilogy, where we can grow attached to our protagonist over multiple game. Grow attached to the same individual characters over multiple games. It's one of the things I think Mass Effect does better over Dragon Age. I don't feel attached to any of the three protagonists in Dragon Age, whereas I do with my Shepard. I don't feel as big a connection with the companions of Dragon Age, as I do with the companions of Mass Effect.

 

I think how attached to the characters we get has to be bound by how we feel about the characters to begin with. I like the idea of the import trilogy but I find Shepard about as interesting as a bowl of porridge. 

[Durack]

Like DA:

each a stand alone game with a new protagonist

 

[ABASOVA]

I'm totally not down with that.  Part of what makes ME is the fact that the story follows through to a conclusion.  DA is fine, but I'm more interested in a continuing overarching reaching for the stars, and galaxies, story.

The problem with the continuing arch is that certain people want their version of their protagonist and their protagonist's relationships to take precedence over another person's version. And BioWare obliges. This is why so many people hate Liara (always in Shep's cabin forced friendship) and Garrus ("No Shepard without Vakarian" forced friendship). These two were the most popular and had the loudest fanbases and BioWare catered to them. Every one else got schlock (outside of the Citadel dlc).

 

I mean why do we need to follow one protagonist. They always end up becoming Space Jesus in the end. In ME1 it was about humanity and Shepard leading humanity by example. In ME3 it was only one special person (the Shepard) can save the entire galaxy and every species. For me it takes one game for my character to achieve something great, settle down if I want, and get old and die, and then on to a new story.

[mopotter]

Like DA:

 

each a stand alone game with a new protagonist

 

a new team

 

a new area of the galaxy

 

a new conflict

 

major choices from the previous games can be checked off in a keep

 

No continuous railroading of a protagonist into relationships with whatever NPC was most popular with the fanbase, just a fresh start

 

I also want a new protagonist in each game and a stand alone story.  

 

I enjoyed Shepard.  ME series is still one of my most loved video games, but more than one of the Shepards I started with in ME1 got sideswiped by ME3 and I'd much rather have a new character for each game.  

 

I don't mind if someone shows up from Andromeda 1 in future games, I liked seeing how Cullen grew up in DA2 and he turned out to be one of my favorite characters in inquisition. And I actually enjoyed seeing Conrad Verner in all three games including the Jenna connection in ME3.     But if they don't bring anyone over I'm fine with it.

 

Romances, yes, no railroading.  If they are going to give us choice, then give us choices, no encouragement's from them towards one in particular.  

[goishen]

The problem with the continuing arch is that certain people want their version of their protagonist and their protagonist's relationships to take precedence over another person's version. And BioWare obliges. This is why so many people hate Liara (always in Shep's cabin forced friendship) and Garrus ("No Shepard without Vakarian" forced friendship). These two were the most popular and had the loudest fanbases and BioWare catered to them. Every one else got schlock (outside of the Citadel dlc).

 

I mean why do we need to follow one protagonist. They always end up becoming Space Jesus in the end. In ME1 it was about humanity and Shepard leading humanity by example. In ME3 it was only one special person (the Shepard) can save the entire galaxy and every species. For me it takes one game for my character to achieve something great, settle down if I want, and get old and die, and then on to a new story.

 

 

You just contradicted yourself there.  First you say that so many people hate Liara and then you say that Liara and Garrus have such huge fanbases.  Yes, I can see how some people don't like Liara.  Just in the same way that I don't like Vivienne.  I keep hearing, "Oh, she's so great!  Oh she's so powerful!"  Don't care.  If I never see her face again, it'll be too soon.  I would say the same was true for Isabella, but she's only in my DA2 game for what?  1/3rd of the game?  Sten, I didn't like either.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that we'll always have people we don't like.  Either deal with it or don't.  That's part of what makes a story good, is the people that you don't like. 

[Gothfather]

The approach to Me over the next few games should be dictated by the story they are telling. If they want to tell a longer story arc for Ryder then a single stand alone game like those for DA would be insufficient and force the story to be condensed and feel rushed. Not something I'd want to see. If they have no specific idea for ME:A2 (for lack of a better title) then continuing Ryder for the sake of Ryder might be a bad plan, again it would depend on the story written. As much as Players want X,Y or Z it really shouldn't be dictated by us but by the needs of the story.

 

If they need multiple games to tell a single story like the saga of Shepard then they should take it. If they have multiple separate stories that fit well with a DA approach to storytelling then they should do that. What the shouldn't do is listen to their fans as to what they should do because we don't have all the facts so we can't make any INFORMED decisions.

[ABASOVA]

You just contradicted yourself there.  First you say that so many people hate Liara and then you say that Liara and Garrus have such huge fanbases.  Yes, I can see how some people don't like Liara.  Just in the same way that I don't like Vivienne.  I keep hearing, "Oh, she's so great!  Oh she's so powerful!"  Don't care.  If I never see her face again, it'll be too soon.  I would say the same was true for Isabella, but she's only in my DA2 game for what?  1/3rd of the game?  Sten, I didn't like either.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that we'll always have people we don't like.  Either deal with it or don't.  That's part of what makes a story good, is the people that you don't like. 

Not a contradiction. The haters aren't as loud as the lovers, but there are still many people who hate Liara. And certainly the haters don't make fanfiction and fanart for character's they hate. Casey Hudson admitted using fanart as a gauge in determining popularity of character's, that's why Garrus got a romance upgrade. In fact, I think a major part of Garrus' popularity is due to fangirls, even though they are, what is it, 18% of the fanbase.

[N7Jamaican]

Not a contradiction. The haters aren't as loud as the lovers. And certainly don't make fanfiction and fanart for character's they hate. Casey Hudson admitted using fanart as a guage in determining popularity of character's, that's why Garrus got a romance upgrade.

 

Link?

[ABASOVA]

The approach to Me over the next few games should be dictated by the story they are telling. If they want to tell a longer story arc for Ryder then a single stand alone game like those for DA would be insufficient and force the story to be condensed and feel rushed. Not something I'd want to see. If they have no specific idea for ME:A2 (for lack of a better title) then continuing Ryder for the sake of Ryder might be a bad plan, again it would depend on the story written. As much as Players want X,Y or Z it really shouldn't be dictated by us but by the needs of the story.

 

If they need multiple games to tell a single story like the saga of Shepard then they should take it. If they have multiple separate stories that fit well with a DA approach to storytelling then they should do that. What the shouldn't do is listen to their fans as to what they should do because we don't have all the facts so we can't make any INFORMED decisions.

True. Although, I wonder if the "multiple separate stories"  is what they intend to do,and I only say this because of the ars technica interview where Flynn stated we were starting out in a small region of the galaxy to tell a smaller story, one that didn't encompass the whole galaxy. If this 'Ryder' turns out to be so important to the plot that his/her adventures take them all over Andromeda over the course of several games, fine. But I hope they have a plan from the beginning and don't make it up as they go along, again.

[goishen]

Not a contradiction. The haters aren't as loud as the lovers, but there are still many people who hate Liara. And certainly the haters don't make fanfiction and fanart for character's they hate. Casey Hudson admitted using fanart as a gauge in determining popularity of character's, that's why Garrus got a romance upgrade. In fact, I think a major part of Garrus' popularity is due to fangirls, even though they are, what is it, 18% of the fanbase.

 

Right, but you think that just because say 9% of the fanbase are haters the BioWare dev's should listen?