I prefer they do a game (andromeda itself) in which you solve the problem that happening in the Milky Way Galaxy and go back there in the next to rebuild.
Interesting idea, though to solve the problems the milky way has time-travel must become part of Mass Effect's franchise ^^
"1.21 gigawatts! 1.21 gigawatts!! Great Scott, Ryder, how shall we power the time-machine to prevent Mass Effect 2 from happening!? 'tis madness!"
As I've found myself more attached to my characters in the Dragon Age series than my characters in the Mass Effect series, I would likely not find separate protagonists to necessarily be a bad thing. I think I would find it interesting to see the Andromeda develop over time from the changing perspective of different characters.
This should not to be taken to mean that I am opposed to a trilogy and one in which the protagonist do not change. For me to enjoy such a trilogy, however, the flaws of the original Mass Effect trilogy would need to not be repeated such as how I felt characterization became inconsistent and how some character developments felt, to me, like it was done by a demand from the plot as oppose to being because of the characters. While I enjoyed the original trilogy, it also felt like the story was not as planned as it should have been.
You hated Hawke because EA cut the writing team down to a one year turn around on the game and act 3 was written in a month. If they were given two years it would have been amazing, IMHO. ACT I of DA:I just reads like Hawke instead of cookie cutter Inquisitor, and the Corypheus reveal then makes sense and has high stakes.
The writing really isn't that bad dialogue wise the redundant use of locations is what killed it for most people.
Then EA had to give DA:I a year extension to do the race creation instead of just having Hawke...guess they should have let them write it correctly the first time, and we wouldn't have had a crap game in between the two. Inquisition was game of the Year, but the writing could have been much better, they had to write down what they had already written in advance...it's kinda obvious if you write for a living...
EA can screw up a free lunch through greed and pushing deadlines.
They have owned BioWare for 10 years now. Let's hope they get how to make money with it. It's like wine. Let it breathe. It's not two buck Chuck...that's your soccer game and Madden. Pump that crap out every year. It has a market niche, it's not an RPG with a cult following.
You bought something because it was profitable, don't kill it.
I did not know that about DA 2 but wow thinking about Act 1 in DA:I, it does makes perfect sense for Hawke. That would have never even crossed my mind if I did not read this.
You hated Hawke because EA cut the writing team down to a one year turn around on the game and act 3 was written in a month. If they were given two years it would have been amazing, IMHO. ACT I of DA:I just reads like Hawke instead of cookie cutter Inquisitor, and the Corypheus reveal then makes sense and has high stakes.
The writing really isn't that bad dialogue wise the redundant use of locations is what killed it for most people.
I hated Hawke because unlike my Warden she felt like an annoying stranger whose attitudes and actions I could barely control. That may have been due to lack of time and budget as you say. The poor paraphrasing on the dialogue wheel didn't help. While Hawke and Anders had more connection to the plot of DAI than the random Inquisitor, I'm glad we switched out the cast as I preferred the new companions to the DA2 crew. I also like the freedom to play as a nonhuman although the implementation is sometimes rocky.
They have already said that Mass Effect Andromeda will only contain one Cluster of the Andromeda Galaxy, leaving other parts of the Galaxy for later installments to the series.
Unless they Cancel Mass Effect all together or Bioware entierly, we will be going back to explore other parts of the Andromeda galaxy. Who knows, there might even be references to species that we won't encounter until later installments if they get released which we will speculate widely on.
So, yeah, we're there to stay.Least for a a few more games. Maybe a Trilogy. Maybe more, we might never be going back to the Milkyway after the rainbowcolored madness.
A better question is if this game will come out at all. The lack of any gameplay footage or screenshots in over three years along with the departure of Casey Hudson and ME:A's lead writer suggest some trouble in paradise.
A better question is if this game will come out at all. The lack of any gameplay footage or screenshots in over three years along with the departure of Casey Hudson and ME:A's lead writer suggest some trouble in paradise.
I'm sure it will come out.
Whether or not it even vaguely resembles Mass Effect in any way besides the name is probably the bigger question. If the list of features survey from their closed alpha tests that got posted a while back is even close to being true then things are looking pretty grim.
As long as they don't force Liara being your waifu for the entire trilogy. Honestly, trilogy was handled badly where all the companions in ME2 become worthless and most people who die basically get a color swap and very little changes. The romance in the game also being pretty wonky due to the sheer amount of LIs they have to take account for. The story also gets handwave between each game and your choices don't really matter in the end. It's hard to make a continuous story where choices matter, so it basically ends up being unimportant.
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.
I think you are conflating. It is more than possible to tell a "smaller" story in terms of scale that is done over multiple games. having a smaller community in a narrow defined geography doesn't prohibit a multiple game story. look a Baldur's Gate series. This was a "smaller" geographic game than the original ME trilogy set in a relatively smaller community compared to the galactic community of citadel space but told over multiple games.
Story's setting scale in terms of population size and geographic does not mean the story itself isn't one the spans multiple games. The entire story might be to just establish the health, wealth and security of the colonists. That is a "smaller" story than the Shepard saga but one that could be told over multiple games. Without any difficulty what so ever because a colony cut off from its host civilization will have multiple issues and difficulties that are ripe for story telling. No where near as "epic" in scale as saving the entire galaxy from certain death but still something that would feel rushed if just told in one game.
People buy and play these games by choice. If it's a story they don't want to hear, what's to stop them from walking away or returning the game? And what story is so important that they NEED to hear it, anyway?
That was my question too. As much as i think fans should STFU about telling devs how to develop a game, mostly because fans are not a homogeneous group and want mutually exclusive things, it is therefore impossible for bioware to please their fans by listening to them because for every fan they please they p!ss off another fan. So they should just make the game they want to make at least that is my reasoning. I don't see what "story" their fans NEED to hear how would you determine that to begin with and why would it be assumed that every fan needs to hear the same story?
You hated Hawke because EA cut the writing team down to a one year turn around on the game and act 3 was written in a month. If they were given two years it would have been amazing, IMHO. ACT I of DA:I just reads like Hawke instead of cookie cutter Inquisitor, and the Corypheus reveal then makes sense and has high stakes.
The writing really isn't that bad dialogue wise the redundant use of locations is what killed it for most people.
Then EA had to give DA:I a year extension to do the race creation instead of just having Hawke...guess they should have let them write it correctly the first time, and we wouldn't have had a crap game in between the two. Inquisition was game of the Year, but the writing could have been much better, they had to write down what they had already written in advance...it's kinda obvious if you write for a living...
EA can screw up a free lunch through greed and pushing deadlines.
They have owned BioWare for 10 years now. Let's hope they get how to make money with it. It's like wine. Let it breathe. It's not two buck Chuck...that's your soccer game and Madden. Pump that crap out every year. It has a market niche, it's not an RPG with a cult following.
You bought something because it was profitable, don't kill it.
I agree. For me hawke is my favourite bioware protagonist of all time in their worst game. DA2 is the only game I have not finished more than twice.It is the only game I dropped the difficulty down to the easiest level just so I could get to the story elements faster and I normally play on the highest difficulties. I hated the GAME not the story of DA2. The game mechanics especially combat in DA2 were terrible yet I love the combat in DA:I you can see the similarities but they removed the terrible and kept the good. At least from my perspective.
I think however it is high time people stop blaming EA for every little thing the Bioware gets wrong. They made a mistake on the development time for DA2 and the LEARNED from that mistake and never repeated it with at least Bioware again. Isn't time we as a community blame Bioware for issue we have with bioware games? EA have become a scape goat because they were responsible for some really crappy practices in the past but what did they do that was so bad in 2014 or 2015? i can't recall anything. So when do we stop blaming everything on EA?
I would want this game to be stand alone where in you fix the situation in the milky way galaxy then all sequels continue on with the numeric sequel number, and take place in the Milky Way.
And what story is so important that they NEED to hear it, anyway?
I don't know. That is why it needs to be told.
I would want this game to be stand alone where in you fix the situation in the milky way galaxy then all sequels continue on with the numeric sequel number, and take place in the Milky Way.
That is why I think of ME:A as a spin-off. Same universe different location and characters.
I hope that we stay away from our galaxy. Or, if we do go back, hundreds or thousands have years have passed and it's not the same galaxy we left behind, with the Reaper War confined to stories and history books. I'm looking forward to MEA as a way of casting off the shackles of the Council, the Reapers, etc. and starting something new, and hopefully fairly fresh.
Tim
I'm sure it will come out.
Whether or not it even vaguely resembles Mass Effect in any way besides the name is probably the bigger question. If the list of features survey from their closed alpha tests that got posted a while back is even close to being true then things are looking pretty grim.
Do you have a list of this my chance? I am curious as to what it is.
i would love there to be a trilogy.. but what people have to realize is that the trilogy would be developed over a decade.. not a couple of years.. thus, essentially every game will be its own, and there is no guarantee that companions would carry over to each game in the trilogy.
why would each game be different?
they have to make sure and bring in new fans.. so odds are each story would have to be relatively unique. there is very little room for a cliffhanger.
bioware will feel they have to "spice things up" each game, and thus new characters, etc will have to be introduced.. see mass effect 2 and 3.
so i think the better approach is to have multiple games in the same universe.. each with different characters and companions. and this should be known from the get go so the appropriate expectations are set.
I did not know that about DA 2 but wow thinking about Act 1 in DA:I, it does makes perfect sense for Hawke. That would have never even crossed my mind if I did not read this.
No trilogies
No imports
No multigame arcs
Just do a standalone game where choices matter in that game. If you want to make another game, then make a different game with a new protagonist, a new crisis, a new cast of characters.
Carrying over baggage simply doesn't work.
No trilogies
No imports
No multigame arcs
Just do a standalone game where choices matter in that game. If you want to make another game, then make a different game with a new protagonist, a new crisis, a new cast of characters.
Carrying over baggage simply doesn't work.
The entire success of the Mass Effect trilogy begs to differ. What you are suggesting is what Dragon Age does, and it has been a far less successful franchise than Mass Effect.
I thought EA announced that DA:I is BioWare's best selling release to date? I doubt that the DA franchise is less successful...
I'd prefer another triology through, preferably better planned and with a consistant core squad. This would provide more time for the writers to develop their characters and more opportunities for the player to get invested in those characters (as evidenced by the popularity of Liara, Garrus and Tali).
I thought EA announced that DA:I is BioWare's best selling release to date? I doubt that the DA franchise is less successful...
I'd prefer another triology through, preferably better planned and with a consistant core squad. This would provide more time for the writers to develop their characters and more opportunities for the player to get invested in those characters (as evidenced by the popularity of Liara, Garrus and Tali).
Incorrect. DAI was the fastest selling BioWare game to date. That's not too hard to achieve when you are on five platforms (PS3, X360, PS4, X1, PC). It is by no stretch of the word more successful than the Mass Effect trilogy, which blows it away in terms of sales and popularity.
The entire success of the Mass Effect trilogy begs to differ. What you are suggesting is what Dragon Age does, and it has been a far less successful franchise than Mass Effect.
Yes, because everyone raves at how much choices matter in Mass Effect 
Yes, because everyone raves at how much choices matter in Mass Effect
I'm not suggesting ME didn't have issues. On the contrary, it did, but that wasn't exclusively due to the struggles of maintaining a trilogy. It had more to do with BioWare not planning ahead and not building a trilogy properly. Again, the love of Mass Effect far outweighs the hatred of it. The trilogy wasn't perfect, but to say it wasn't a huge success is to be out of touch with society.
Retour en haut
