73 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

I thought the trilogy storytelling arc was the most innovative thing BioWare accomplished with Mass Effect. A continuous story. An expansion and re-occurrence of loved companions. A game in which you really felt your personal story and choices were being reflected and impacting the story over a period of years. Not to mention, a sense of familiarity as well as excitement for what new adventures you'd take your Shepard on.

 

I think Mass Effect Andromeda will undoubtedly be a disappointment if it doesn't continue the trilogy process that the original trilogy started. Dragon Age has gone the approach of "one and done" with a new protagonist each game, and it's just not nearly as compelling. I love Dragon Age, but not being able to return as the Hero of Ferelden, or Hawke, and even now the Inquisitor, is why I believe that franchise will never be as great.

 

However, with the recent news of lead writer Chris Schlerf's departure, a trilogy is no longer practical:

 

http://www.gameinfor...oin-bungie.aspx

 

While I love the Mass Effect trilogy, what was one of its undoings was the fact the stories weren't planned in advance and the lead writer changed halfway through the trilogy. As many probably know, Drew Karpyshyn was the lead writer on ME1. He was a co-writer, along with Mac Walters, on ME2. By ME3, Mac Walters was the lead writer, as Drew had left BioWare Endmonton to work on Star Wars: The Old Republic with BioWare Austin.

 

This, clearly, left inconsistencies. Drew was building up the trilogy to follow a dark energy plot. Mac turned the direction of the series and made it into a organics vs synthetics plot. We all have our own opinions, but what we likely can agree on is changing writers throughout the trilogy was a detriment to the storytelling, consistency, and progression of the series.

 

With Mass Effect Andromeda already losing its lead writer after only two years, if this were to be a new trilogy, that means the next two games already need a new lead writer. That also means whatever Schlerf likely foreshadowed by the ending of Andromeda would never come to fruition due to creative liberties and the new guy taking the trilogy a new direction. It is this fear of issues in terms of plot holes and consistency that I believe Andromeda should be a single arc to avoid the backlash BioWare suffered due to ME3.

 

Thoughts? Concerns?

[Draining Dragon]

I think Bioware should see how Andromeda works out before starting work on a sequel.

[Revan Reborn]

I think Bioware should see how Andromeda works out before starting work on a sequel.

That misses the point of the issue at hand. Before ME1 was ever released, BioWare stated they were doing a trilogy. They knew this story arc would require three games. The problem is that BioWare did not have a story laid out well in advance, so when lead writers changed, so did the story.

 

If BioWare was doing another trilogy, they would already know and Andromeda would compensate that creative direction. If they don't have any plans post-Andromeda, this is purely a standalone game, which is fine. However, it likely won't have the kind of impact or success that the Mass Effect trilogy had due to just being a contained story in one game.

[Totally Not a Poodle]

I reckon they the developers would have some plan for the beginning, middle and end of a trilogy, if that is what they are planning to do. They must know that the ending to ME3 was a diabolical disappointment. They must have looked at the reasons why it was so. If not, they're imbeciles. I don't think they seek to make the same mistake.

 

I hope they don't do one and done with Mass Effect. One of, if not the main reason why Mass Effect is superior in my eyes in everything from story to the tiniest detail is because it is a trilogy, because I have grown to love the characters that inhabit that trilogy.

[Sanunes]

I really doubt they planned the game out that much, I read an old AMA with Drew Karpyshyn and it seems they had a few ideas they wanted to work on across games, but there was never really a solid plan.  Elements such as Dark Energy were never guaranteed to be more then what was presented in Mass Effect 2, but it would give them areas to explore and expand if needed.

 

Drew Karpyshyn AMA

 

Personally, I don't think true trilogies work in gaming because it is such a fluid medium to work in and I would just like to have ties between the games and not major story elements.  The only way I think a trilogy would work is if they remove choices from us to create a more uniform narrative to move between games for even with Mass Effect 2 people were upset about how major story choices were handled from Mass Effect 1.

 

Edit:

 

A second AMA he did with some Mass Effect talk as well including some Dark Matter

 

Second AMA

Modifié par Sanunes, 20 février 2016 - 08:28 .

[Revan Reborn]

I reckon they the developers would have some plan for the beginning, middle and end of a trilogy, if that is what they are planning to do. They must know that the ending to ME3 was a diabolical disappointment. They must have looked at the reasons why it was so. If not, they're imbeciles. I don't think they seek to make the same mistake.

 

I hope they don't do one and done with Mass Effect. One of, if not the main reason why Mass Effect is superior in my eyes in everything from story to the tiniest detail is because it is a trilogy, because I have grown to love the characters that inhabit that trilogy.

The problem is the ending largely was not consistent with the first two games, which is why BioWare received criticism. That's not to say organics vs synthetics wasn't a theme, but it wasn't the major theme BioWare was hinting at in previous games. My point is if Mass Effect Andromeda is the first game in a new trilogy, there needs to be consistency. The easiest way to gain that is having one writer with one vision, and that has already been lost. Unless they had him write up the basic ideas for the story in the next two games, the trilogy will already be disjointed creatively.

 

I agree with you. I think the trilogy format is why Mass Effect was successful. It was because we kept going back to Shepard and seeing what was going on. We made our personal Shepards and we grew to care about the various individuals in the game. I just don't believe a trilogy is a good idea if BioWare is constantly flipping through lead writers for each game.

 

I really doubt they planned the game out that much, I read an old AMA with Drew Karpyshyn and it seems they had a few ideas they wanted to work on across games, but there was never really a solid plan.  Elements such as Dark Energy were never guaranteed to be more then what was presented in Mass Effect 2, but it would give them areas to explore and expand if needed.

 

Drew Karpyshyn AMA

 

Personally, I don't think true trilogies work in gaming because it is such a fluid medium to work in and I would just like to have ties between the games and not major story elements.  The only way I think a trilogy would work is if they remove choices from us to create a more uniform narrative to move between games for even with Mass Effect 2 people were upset about how major story choices were handled from Mass Effect 1.

This is exactly what I'm saying. BioWare knew it was going to be a trilogy, but they didn't plan for it. They didn't really know where they were going, which is why we have a lot of missions and content that was never followed through on. The dark energy theory, which is prominently shown during ME2 with Tali, is a perfect example of that.

 

Well the problem is that BioWare didn't provide enough reactivity to our choices. The council, being human or alien didn't have a significant impact. Anderson becoming the human councilor was forcibly reversed in order to make Udina the councilor. BioWare did not thoroughly plan ahead, so there were mistakes made that hurt the impact of our choices. That's not because a trilogy format will not work, but rather BioWare did not have a system in place to accommodate it properly.

 

I think they can, if they plan well in advance and have an idea of what they want to do. Again, which the lead writer already leaving, that could have an adverse impact on the next Mass Effect game if Andromeda happened to be the first one in a new trilogy.

[Navasha]

Not sure that a lead writer leaving makes all that much difference to be honest.   I doubt they planned a 'trilogy' when they were developing the original Mass Effect.   As long as they follow the same sort of themes another good writer can easily pick up the story and continue it.  

 

Even the same writers sometimes mess up badly.    Example:  the Star Wars Prequels were written by the same guy that did the originals.   He lost sight or misunderstood what people loved about the previous films. 

 

If they do set out to do a trilogy and they outline some pre-defined themes and stick to them, I am sure there are plenty of talented writers could fill the role.

[Revan Reborn]

Not sure that a lead writer leaving makes all that much difference to be honest.   I doubt they planned a 'trilogy' when they were developing the original Mass Effect.   As long as they follow the same sort of themes another good writer can easily pick up the story and continue it.  

 

Even the same writers sometimes mess up badly.    Example:  the Star Wars Prequels were written by the same guy that did the originals.   He lost sight or misunderstood what people loved about the previous films. 

 

If they do set out to do a trilogy and they outline some pre-defined themes and stick to them, I am sure there are plenty of talented writers could fill the role.

Before ME1 even released, BioWare said they were doing a trilogy. No, it was not planned, which was the problem. However, they knew they were doing a three story arc in three games.

 

Star Wars is entirely different. People criticized Lucas because the prequels weren't enough like the original trilogy. What people failed to realize is they weren't supposed to be like the original trilogy. It was a story about the fall of Anakin Skywalker and the birth of Darth Vader.

 

It's the same thing with Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. The latter wasn't supposed to be as grand or epic as the former. One was a story about destroying the ring of power. The other was about the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and how the events in the latter were set up.

 

We can hope, but they certainly fumbled with the first ME trilogy. I hope they learn from their mistakes, but we'll only know when we play the game, assuming it's part of a trilogy.

[Kabooooom]

You "wanted Andromeda to be a trilogy?". That's quite surprising to me, since you didnt want Andromeda at all. Indeed, you made countless posts railing against myself and others who predicted and supported the move to Andromeda, calling it "trampling on the lore" and "offensive to true fans of the trilogy". This one is my personal favorite:

http://forum.bioware...e/?fromsearch=1

At one point, I'm quite certain that you even proclaimed that you wouldn't be buying the game if it turned out to be true, but I'm too lazy to dredge through your posts to find it.

So what changed, OP? First you didnt want Andromeda, then you wanted it to be a trilogy, and now you want it but as a stand alone game because the lead writer left? Have you come around to the dark side, Revan?

I agree that it is somewhat concerning that the lead writer left, and that having an entire trilogy planned out would be ideal, and I agree that this was detrimental to the prior trilogy - all good points. While the ME trilogy are my favorite games of all time, I do wonder how much better they would have been otherwise.

Personally, I'm more upset about L'Etoile having nothing to do with this game (correct me if I'm wrong) than the main writer leaving.

[Revan Reborn]

You "wanted Andromeda to be a trilogy?". That's quite surprising to me, since you didnt want Andromeda at all. Indeed, you made countless posts railing against myself and others who predicted and supported the move to Andromeda, calling it "trampling on the lore" and "offensive to true fans of the trilogy". This one is my personal favorite:

http://forum.bioware...e/?fromsearch=1

At one point, I'm quite certain that you even proclaimed that you wouldn't be buying the game if it turned out to be true, but I'm too lazy to dredge through your posts to find it.

So what changed, OP? First you didnt want Andromeda, then you wanted it to be a trilogy, and now you want it but as a stand alone game because the lead writer left? Have you come around to the dark side, Revan?

I agree that it is somewhat concerning that the lead writer left, and that having an entire trilogy planned out would be ideal, and I agree that this was detrimental to the prior trilogy - all good points. While the ME trilogy are my favorite games of all time, I do wonder how much better they would have been otherwise.

Personally, I'm more upset about L'Etoile having nothing to do with this game (correct me if I'm wrong) than the main writer leaving.

I didn't want Andromeda. I'm still disappointed we are going to another galaxy. However, this is what we have been given, and if BioWare does anything with Mass Effect, I want it to be a trilogy. Dragon Age has proven "one and done" type games are less effective and don't perform as well.

 

It's cute of you to have bookmarked one of my threads and kept it so close to your heart. I do believe, in a lot of ways, Andromeda is a slap in the face to fans. It provides BioWare a blank slate for Mass Effect, meaning they don't have to respect anything they did in the previous games. It allows them to get away with completely turning Mass Effect on its head and not facing any repercussions because "another galaxy" argument.

 

I don't believe I ever made the statement I wouldn't buy the game. I certainly did voice my opinion that I'd be disappointed if it were to go the direction it has gone.

 

Nothing has changed. I'm a huge BioWare fan. As you can see under my profile pic, I've played most of their games. I'm a huge Mass Effect fan. It's my favorite BioWare property. That doesn't mean I have to be happy with the direction BioWare Montreal has taken it, but I'm willing to give it a shot nonetheless.

 

I'm glad we can actually agree on something. I believe the Mass Effect trilogy is one of the greatest series of games ever made. I believe this was in large part because of the trilogy format that it used so well (for the most part). I want BioWare to continue that tradition, but with the lead writer already leaving, it presents challenges going forward for Mass Effect if this is part of a new trilogy.

 

I'm under the impression Andromeda is part of a new trilogy, just because that is what Mass Effect established originally, and Schlerf started the Reclaimer Trilogy for Halo (4, 5, and 6). I think BioWare recruited him specifically because he had prior experience in helping lay the foundation for a three-part story arc.

 

L'Etoile wrote the content about EDI, the Geth, and AI in ME1 and ME2? Correct? My only answer for why he isn't involved is simply because the geth, EDI, and AIs largely won't have a role in Mass Effect Andromeda. I think the team is making some massive changes and there are going to be aspects of Mass Effect that won't be present in Andromeda. This was one of my fears, especially if the new content isn't as compelling or as interesting.

 

Whatever BioWare does, I will give Mass Effect Andomeda a chance just because of where it comes from. If I'm disappointed, then I will know after playing it.

[Kabooooom]

I didn't want Andromeda. I'm still disappointed we are going to another galaxy. However, this is what we have been given, and if BioWare does anything with Mass Effect, I want it to be a trilogy. Dragon Age has proven "one and done" type games are less effective and don't perform as well.

It's cute of you to have bookmarked one of my threads and kept it so close to your heart. I do believe, in a lot of ways, Andromeda is a slap in the face to fans. It provides BioWare a blank slate for Mass Effect, meaning they don't have to respect anything they did in the previous games. It allows them to get away with completely turning Mass Effect on its head and not facing any repercussions because "another galaxy" argument.

I don't believe I ever made the statement I wouldn't buy the game. I certainly did voice my opinion that I'd be disappointed if it were to go the direction it has gone.

Nothing has changed. I'm a huge BioWare fan. As you can see under my profile pic, I've played most of their games. I'm a huge Mass Effect fan. It's my favorite BioWare property. That doesn't mean I have to be happy with the direction BioWare Montreal has taken it, but I'm willing to give it a shot nonetheless.

I'm glad we can actually agree on something. I believe the Mass Effect trilogy is one of the greatest series of games ever made. I believe this was in large part because of the trilogy format that it used so well (for the most part). I want BioWare to continue that tradition, but with the lead writer already leaving, it presents challenges going forward for Mass Effect if this is part of a new trilogy.

I'm under the impression Andromeda is part of a new trilogy, just because that is what Mass Effect established originally, and Schlerf started the Reclaimer Trilogy for Halo (4, 5, and 6). I think BioWare recruited him specifically because he had prior experience in helping lay the foundation for a three-part story arc.

L'Etoile wrote the content about EDI, the Geth, and AI in ME1 and ME2? Correct? My only answer for why he isn't involved is simply because the geth, EDI, and AIs largely won't have a role in Mass Effect Andromeda. I think the team is making some massive changes and there are going to be aspects of Mass Effect that won't be present in Andromeda. This was one of my fears, especially if the new content isn't as compelling or as interesting.

Whatever BioWare does, I will give Mass Effect Andomeda a chance just because of where it comes from. If I'm disappointed, then I will know after playing it.

Considering the recent potential leak about a synthetic squad member, I would assume Bioware isnt leaving the synthetic thing behind. After all, they probably want to further validate the Starkids nonsense by demonstrating that in a new galaxy divorced from the Reapers, synthetics still are in conflict with organics. Calling it.

[Revan Reborn]

Considering the recent potential leak about a synthetic squad member, I would assume Bioware isnt leaving the synthetic thing behind. After all, they probably want to further validate the Starkids nonsense by demonstrating that in a new galaxy divorced from the Reapers, synthetics still are in conflict with organics. Calling it.

I haven't kept up with leaks so I have no idea what's been going on in more recent times.There are a multitude of real life reasons for why L'Etoile may be out. I don't know off hand. I can only speak to what he has created in the past and whether that would be relevant going forward.

 

I really hope we don't get another game about synthetics vs organics. That was beat to death in ME3 and I think everybody had their fair share of it. Honestly, why even bother going to a new galaxy if it is just going to suffer from the same issues the Milky Way did? I hope BioWare is not that foolish as to waste this opportunity to do something actually different and new.

[Kabooooom]

I think the game will be incredibly fun and probably mindblowingly awesome, but honestly I think you have more faith in Biowares writing ability than I do.

They write good characters. But you should probably expect a cliche and overused plot.

[ZipZap2000]

I think the game will be incredibly fun and probably mindblowingly awesome, but honestly I think you have more faith in Biowares writing ability than I do.

They write good characters. But you should probably expect a cliche and overused plot.

Where they shine is the weaving of the characters stories into the main story. Mordin/Wrex, Tali/Legion, Thane, Javik and Liara are good examples. It doesn't always work and eventually that contributes to how well received the character is. But it will be mediocre if they shy away from that.

[Revan Reborn]

I think the game will be incredibly fun and probably mindblowingly awesome, but honestly I think you have more faith in Biowares writing ability than I do.

They write good characters. But you should probably expect a cliche and overused plot.

Well, I'm not really sure where I stand with BioWare at this point in terms of writing. Most of their senior writers have either left or changed roles, so BioWare is not what it used to be. BioWare certainly has a legacy of having strong writing, so I hope that remains, but only time will tell.

 

Characters are definitely where BioWare shines. It's not so much the journey, but who you spend the journey with that makes the games so much fun.

 

Where they shine is the weaving of the characters stories into the main story. Mordin/Wrex, Tali/Legion, Thane, Javik and Liara are good examples. It doesn't always work and eventually that contributes to how well received the character is. But it will be mediocre if they shy away from that.

Definitely. If Andromeda has to do anything well, it's making this new cast of characters who are our companions just as great, if not better, than the previous ones.

[In Exile]

I don't understand how you can look at ME1-3 and think anything other than a trilogy arc is a total and complete failure. Bioware wants to do too much to change their tone and mechanics between games to tell a consistent story. Combine that with the ME team's apparent love of making their plot up as they go along and there's no way the trilogy works.

[Kaweebo]

I used to be in agreement that the trilogy format was the best thing and that Bioware should have continued it with Dragon Age. However, after seeing the treatment of both ME2 and 3 being marketed to new players as 'the perfect jumping on point' (and yes I've seen that exact quote somewhere...) I don't think Bioware can handle it. It's kind of lame to market a sequel to a franchise like this with an import mechanic for your character and previous decisions to new players because that causes you to change how you design the game, which can alienate older players who have been around since the beginning and yet...that's how they've been doing it. Why wouldn't they?

 

With Dragon Age, each game IS the 'perfect jumping on point' because each game features a new character. Your experience in that world starts and ends WITH that character instead of showing up halfway through Shepard's story and having to assume his/her identity. 

[Revan Reborn]

I don't understand how you can look at ME1-3 and think anything other than a trilogy arc is a total and complete failure. Bioware wants to do too much to change their tone and mechanics between games to tell a consistent story. Combine that with the ME team's apparent love of making their plot up as they go along and there's no way the trilogy works.

I never said anything about a "total and complete failure." I just believe if they don't do a trilogy arc, our connection to these characters and the story won't be nearly as compelling. What made the Mass Effect trilogy was the build up over three games. That won't be possible with just one. Play DAO, DAII, and DAI. They are all chronologically one after the next, but they are independent stories. I love Dragon Age, but I've just never enjoyed any of my characters as much as Shepard, and part of that is because I never get to revisit them in future games.

 

Again, it's all a matter of planning. BioWare did not plan adequately for the originally trilogy, so they fumbled in certain areas. That can be rectified as they've been through this process before.

 

I used to be in agreement that the trilogy format was the best thing and that Bioware should have continued it with Dragon Age. However, after seeing the treatment of both ME2 and 3 being marketed to new players as 'the perfect jumping on point' (and yes I've seen that exact quote somewhere...) I don't think Bioware can handle it. It's kind of lame to market a sequel to a franchise like this with an import mechanic for your character and previous decisions to new players because that causes you to change how you design the game, which can alienate older players who have been around since the beginning and yet...that's how they've been doing it. Why wouldn't they?

 

With Dragon Age, each game IS the 'perfect jumping on point' because each game features a new character. Your experience in that world starts and ends WITH that character instead of showing up halfway through Shepard's story and having to assume his/her identity. 

ME2 and ME3 were only marketed that way due to ME1 only being available on the Xbox 360 and PC, thus a large market of console gamers (PS3) never even played the game. EA was attempting to take what was an incredibly successful franchise and make it multiplatform, so it was merely PR saying jumping in at any point made sense, when it didn't. Going forward, I'd be surprised if BioWare ever took that approach again.

 

That's what makes Dragon Age less compelling. I never get to know any of those characters more. I enjoyed playing as the Hero of Ferelden. I enjoyed playing as the Champion of Kirkwall. Even the Inquisitor, who was a bit of a disappointment, was largely fun. However, those experiences can never be revisited. Their stories are over and will never return. Thus, my connection to them is far less significant than Shepard, who I experienced three games with.

 

Again, the problems with ME1 is it started out as a console exclusive pre-EA and then changed course. BioWare did what they could to try and expand the player base onto the PS3, but it was difficult. Obviously, ME2 and ME3 didn't make a lot of sense if you did not play ME1, which is why they did the story book feature for those on PS3 to have some control over their choices.

[BioWareM0d13]

I have mixed feelings about it.

 

I was more invested in Mass Effect's characters than most of those from the three Dragon Age games, in part because of the trilogy setup. It was three games spent with Mass Effect's core cast, and that gave the writers more time and a greater word budget to develop them compared to any DA character not named Leliana or Varric. So in that sense I'd rather see a trilogy, since characters are by far the biggest draw to a Bioware game.

 

On the other hand, as much as I think the Andromeda setting has a lot of potential to be interesting, I also don't want the series to completely jettison the Milky Way setting. I'm hoping that eventually, we'll get a Milky Way sequel, even if it is years down the road. That would be very unlikely if were announced that Andromeda was the first game of a planned trilogy. Or at least, not anytime within the next 10 years.

[Midnight Bliss]

Leave the sucky protagonist revolving door to DA please.

 

Yes there should be a new trilogy. ((If MEA is good, obviously))

[Revan Reborn]

I have mixed feelings about it.

 

I was more invested in Mass Effect's characters than most of those from the three Dragon Age games, in part because of the trilogy setup. It was three games spent with Mass Effect's core cast, and that gave the writers more time and a greater word budget to develop them compared to any DA character not named Leliana or Varric. So in that sense I'd rather see a trilogy, since characters are by far the biggest draw to a Bioware game.

 

On the other hand, as much as I think the Andromeda setting has a lot of potential to be interesting, I also don't want the series to completely jettison the Milky Way setting. I'm hoping that eventually, we'll get a Milky Way sequel, even if it is years down the road. That would be very unlikely if were announced that Andromeda was the first game of a planned trilogy. Or at least, not anytime within the next 10 years.

I agree with this sentiment a lot, and is another reason I hope this is kind of a "one and done" experience.

 

While I think it would ultimately be to the detriment of the game, for reasons you and I have listed, I also would like to return to the Milky Way. I understand BioWare wanted to get out of dodge due to the backlash of ME3 and not being sure how to continue the franchise after that. At the same time, I think one of the aspects that will be a downfall to Andromeda is a lack of familiarity due to the first three games being exclusive to the Milky Way.

 

If Andromeda were to only be one contained story like Dragon Age, our chances of going back to the Milky Way sooner would likely be greater. At the same time, it would be awkward for there to just be a "one and done" Mass Effect game and honestly probably be a waste to build up this new galaxy for just one story. It's pretty conflicting to me because I just can't see how BioWare can truly do a respectable job with this IP in just one game.

 

Mass Effect, in my opinion, only really works well with the trilogy approach.

[Revan Reborn]

Leave the sucky protagonist revolving door to DA please.

 

Yes there should be a new trilogy. ((If MEA is good, obviously))

Ultimately I would likely agree as I believe BioWare should just do a trilogy format for all of their games going forward. Dragon Age. Mass Effect of course. Probably even the new IP should follow this approach, assuming it's a single player story-driven RPG.

[Scofield]

Yip, i farted as well just to hear some noise

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm all for ditching the trilogy. Andromeda can have a lot of games in the setting without forcing itself to contort to such a structure.

 

Follow the DA model. Don't let the problems, or the choices, be irrevocably big.

[malloc]

I'm going to tell you one thing though, if the save imports continue being a superset of all previous games, it is going to hurt them.