Leave the sucky protagonist revolving door to DA please.
Yes there should be a new trilogy. ((If MEA is good, obviously))
Yes! I really want to grow to love Ryder(if that is his/her name) and all the companions that come along. Personally I think the revolving door Pcs in Dragon Age hurt more than help that game series.
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.
That's why we have Dragon Age Keep you big silly!
Yes! I really want to grow to love Ryder(if that is his/her name) and all the companions that come along. Personally I think the revolving door Pcs in Dragon Age hurt more than help that game series.
I agree. I've always felt more of an attachment and an anticipation for Mass Effect games more than Dragon Age. Having that connection to the same character over multiple games that you have developed truly does create something special.
Mass Effect probably always was intedned to be more than jsut one game - I mean, just look at ME1 and its clear, the Reapers were alerted and coming, and nothing in that regard was truly resolved, and the door open to continue on this in anyway possible.
What sucked badly was that Bioware did not COMMIT to this trilogy-idea, and I can only assume it was out of fear to "alienate" people new to the franchise not getting into it? ME2 for me just resetted too much, didn't focus hard enough on continuing the story etc. And I say if you are planning a trilogy with "mass appeal" and want to play it relatively save: KEEP IT SIMPLE!
With the original trilogy: ME1: Reveal what Reapers are, that they will come etc, ME2 have the galaxy face this truth and threat, prepare for war, give us more knowledge about them, add an enemy closely connected to the Reapers logically and already hinted at in ME1 (indoctrinated Cerberus), ME3 have the galaxy fight the war against the Reapers, and have us either win or lose or win/lose. And leave all the bullshiate out of it that drags a simple story only down. My opinion at least.
With Andromeda? I am mostly against a trilogy-attempt. My main reason however is that I see the ultimate focus of Andromeda shold be on "Mankind colonizes a new Galaxy, and establishes themselves there" - this isn't a "story" told over the lifetime of one mere human aka our new protagonist.
I would like to see decades, maybe even centuries between each Adromeda-title - and see how each time the new Galaxy has changed, how mankind settles in more and more etc. There could still be some additional overarching plot, like some native powerful race serving as the badguys etc.
Yet a closely connected trilogy, with the same protagonist each title? I am not sure it is the best idea, and they should follow the Dragon Age example. I still revere every three DA protagonists. Shepard was a great char, but after three games she was also almost too much: Super-soldier, super-diplomat and super-spy and super-commando and super-lover and super-dancer, and in the end super idiot. Oh and space-jesus! ... Yeah, worst of all, space-jesus...no need to get THAT route again with Andromeda
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
You're speaking for yourself, not for me or for the fanbase. There's no difference for me between the "connection" to characters between ME or DA. I find that Bioware's very inconsistent writing of Shepard across the games makes it harder to have the same level of connection as any one of the DA protagonists.
My point is simple: Bioware has demonstrated across three games that they are completely and comically incapable of putting together a trilogy. Your premise is "if Bioware didn't suck at putting together a trilogy, a trilogy would be great!" I'm sure that a well-done trilogy series could be a great experience - certainly I think that despite some issues TW3 did a decent job - or at least TW2/TW3 did a good job at consistency across two games and allowed for deeper exploration of certain character relationships.
But that's really not what we have here. We have comical incompetence at Bioware in actually creating a trilogy.
Mass Effect probably always was intedned to be more than jsut one game - I mean, just look at ME1 and its clear, the Reapers were alerted and coming, and nothing in that regard was truly resolved, and the door open to continue on this in anyway possible.
What sucked badly was that Bioware did not COMMIT to this trilogy-idea, and I can only assume it was out of fear to "alienate" people new to the franchise not getting into it? ME2 for me just resetted too much, didn't focus hard enough on continuing the story etc. And I say if you are planning a trilogy with "mass appeal" and want to play it relatively save: KEEP IT SIMPLE!
With the original trilogy: ME1: Reveal what Reapers are, that they will come etc, ME2 have the galaxy face this truth and threat, prepare for war, give us more knowledge about them, add an enemy closely connected to the Reapers logically and already hinted at in ME1 (indoctrinated Cerberus), ME3 have the galaxy fight the war against the Reapers, and have us either win or lose or win/lose. And leave all the bullshiate out of it that drags a simple story only down. My opinion at least.
With Andromeda? I am mostly against a trilogy-attempt. My main reason however is that I see the ultimate focus of Andromeda shold be on "Mankind colonizes a new Galaxy, and establishes themselves there" - this isn't a "story" told over the lifetime of one mere human aka our new protagonist.
I would like to see decades, maybe even centuries between each Adromeda-title - and see how each time the new Galaxy has changed, how mankind settles in more and more etc. There could still be some additional overarching plot, like some native powerful race serving as the badguys etc.
Yet a closely connected trilogy, with the same protagonist each title? I am not sure it is the best idea, and they should follow the Dragon Age example. I still revere every three DA protagonists. Shepard was a great char, but after three games she was also almost too much: Super-soldier, super-diplomat and super-spy and super-commando and super-lover and
super-dancer,and in the end super idiot. Oh and space-jesus! ... Yeah, worst of all, space-jesus...no need to get THAT route again with Andromeda
There's no "probably" about it... BioWare literally said before Mass Effect even released that it would be a trilogy. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. It was always intended...
I actually don't mind the whole Mary Sue approach if it's written well. It's when it's written bad that it's incredibly obnoxious. I have to disagree with regard to Dragon Age though. I care for my Shepard far more than my Hero of Ferelden, Hawke, or the Inquisitor. The Inquisitor, by far, is the worst protagonist I've seen in a BioWare game to date. I just never became invested in the character, and I'll never have that chance to either with his story being over.
You make an interesting argument about being able to see more changes if sequels were to take place centuries later rather than a few years, but again there was still a lot of great moments in Mass Effect seeing old friends or how decisions in previous games impacted results in future games.
You're speaking for yourself, not for me or for the fanbase. There's no difference for me between the "connection" to characters between ME or DA. I find that Bioware's very inconsistent writing of Shepard across the games makes it harder to have the same level of connection as any one of the DA protagonists.
My point is simple: Bioware has demonstrated across three games that they are completely and comically incapable of putting together a trilogy. Your premise is "if Bioware didn't suck at putting together a trilogy, a trilogy would be great!" I'm sure that a well-done trilogy series could be a great experience - certainly I think that despite some issues TW3 did a decent job - or at least TW2/TW3 did a good job at consistency across two games and allowed for deeper exploration of certain character relationships.
But that's really not what we have here. We have comical incompetence at Bioware in actually creating a trilogy.
I'm aware I'm speaking for myself. I also happen to know that many agree with my sentiments that they have a larger connection to their Shepards than any of the protagonists in Dragon Age.
I've already explained to you BioWare did not plan ahead in order to do a trilogy effectively. That's not my premise at all... My premise is proper preparation turns to obvious success, because the trilogy model did work. It's largely why Mass Effect is more popular than Dragon Age.
The Witcher was a great trilogy. Going all the way back to TW1, there was player agency and meaning in your choices. While the impact wasn't as big from TW1 to TW2, there were actual NPCs who recognized your feats in the first game and determined whether you'd even meet certain individuals in TW2.
No. You have a comical and pessimistic belief in BioWare's ability to do a trilogy justice. They only attempted once in which they did not properly prepare and had a change in lead writers.
I actually don't mind the whole Mary Sue approach if it's written well. It's when it's written bad that it's incredibly obnoxious. I have to disagree with regard to Dragon Age though. I care for my Shepard far more than my Hero of Ferelden, Hawke, or the Inquisitor. The Inquisitor, by far, is the worst protagonist I've seen in a BioWare game to date. I just never became invested in the character, and I'll never have that chance to either with his story being over.
You make an interesting argument about being able to see more changes if sequels were to take place centuries later rather than a few years, but again there was still a lot of great moments in Mass Effect seeing old friends or how decisions in previous games impacted results in future games.
The thing why I nowadays hold my DA-Chars in higher regard as Shepard (with the exception of Hawke, the Dragonage-Shepard-wannabe) is mostly that both the Quizzy and even more so, naturally, the Warden, feel much more like they are "my" creations. Shepard just was too much like, dunno, a premade-char. not as basd as with Geralt of Ricia of course, but still, I could add more of my own imagination to the DA-duo then to Shepard. And I love that Bioware left it also to me how the warden's and quizzy's personal story might end, and they don't force some ending to their lives/fate down my throat (I still firmly believe my Warden found a cure for the Blight and lived happily ever-after with alistar ^^)
With ME - yes, it is probably possible as well, but I just have a harder time than some maybe...might be different if Shepard had been writtenmore consistent over the course of the trilogy, and damn, having Shepard dead and return, the potential for that was so wasted and .... I must stop living in the past ^^
With the "seeing old squadmates again" etc ... I personally don't care that much, and see much more potential to do harm to the games, for the sake to pander to nostalgic feelings of the gamer-crowd that want to see their favorite people back - even if it made no sense or was just reduced to a cameo (or, worse, a DLC...)
Yet I am not totally oppsed to the trilogy-idea. Especially for one reason: I would LOVE to see MEA introduce a squadmate that fights at our side, is helpful, charming, likeabble and ... a damn traitor in the end, revealed to be our main antagonist for the rest of the games. Because Bioware of late (and other games too) suffer from lack of proper villains. But having an entire game building up the character of a future villain? That could be amazing
We'll see how things work out in the end. First of all MEA HAS to be a good game and a successful one anyway, with a hopefully self-contained story like ME1 that could lead us anywhere after this. And then in 2-3 years we can meet again here and speculate how they'll continue the franchise ^^
I recall that Square Enix's Holdings president-Yosuke Matsuda- mentioning something last July about IP/AAA game franchises.
"Cultivating a new IP is very important," Matsuda said. "This is my own personal view, but I believe that it is very difficult to immediately build up a big IP. Looking retrospectively at the gaming industry, many games take off or get their big break at their third title. There are cases where the opposite is true of course. [laughs] But regardless, you need at least three games before you can tell whether an IP is going to be really successful or not. I call this my Law of Third Titles. [laughs] That's why for the first and second games, you experiment to a degree where you can still be flexible, and if the series has grown enough to be able to expect a big hit for the third game, you expand the scale. If the third title is successful then all is well."
The situation facing Mass Effect:Andromeda is very similar to a new IP. While Mass Effect is a recognised brand name; and its reported sales performance and growth did follow the model described in the Law of third titles. There are historical factors that have impacted on the value of the IP. I am talking of course about the controversy in the last generation's finale, and how a perception of the IP was influenced through social media echo chambers
The design choice imposed by the previous IP design also negatively impacts on the IP's potential. There are no known connections to the previous generation of the IP's main attachment triggers; Characters and World Setting. The marketing so far is trying to build on secondary IP assets, N7 branding, Mako, Omni Tools etc. Those are assets, but they are not the major anchors in an IP. ME:A in essence is a hybrid strategy. A recognised brand name, but being regenerated in a way that uses reduced attachment triggers as the brand connectors.
AAA gaming is exceptionally expensive, and the costs might not be covered in the sales of one game, but need offsetting against a longer, or broader range of titles that exploit the potential of the IP.
I would hope that BioWare do not choose to make the choices in the IP as previous generation; ie. hang the entire IP on a single character. Mass Effect became Shepard Effect. A galaxy of story potential, crammed into an action hero script that had very limited aspect for growth and not enough depth to anchor an IP that covered an entire galaxy or epic scope in Mass Effect.
A more effective IP strategy is being developed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Building a range of iconic characters who, not only had dedicated character arcs, but can combine into ensemble scripts. Broadening the Universe potential by sharing the load and maximising the inherent potential in the IP's setting.
The thing why I nowadays hold my DA-Chars in higher regard as Shepard (with the exception of Hawke, the Dragonage-Shepard-wannabe) is mostly that both the Quizzy and even more so, naturally, the Warden, feel much more like they are "my" creations. Shepard just was too much like, dunno, a premade-char. not as basd as with Geralt of Ricia of course, but still, I could add more of my own imagination to the DA-duo then to Shepard. And I love that Bioware left it also to me how the warden's and quizzy's personal story might end, and they don't force some ending to their lives/fate down my throat (I still firmly believe my Warden found a cure for the Blight and lived happily ever-after with alistar ^^)
With ME - yes, it is probably possible as well, but I just have a harder time than some maybe...might be different if Shepard had been writtenmore consistent over the course of the trilogy, and damn, having Shepard dead and return, the potential for that was so wasted and .... I must stop living in the past ^^
With the "seeing old squadmates again" etc ... I personally don't care that much, and see much more potential to do harm to the games, for the sake to pander to nostalgic feelings of the gamer-crowd that want to see their favorite people back - even if it made no sense or was just reduced to a cameo (or, worse, a DLC...)
Yet I am not totally oppsed to the trilogy-idea. Especially for one reason: I would LOVE to see MEA introduce a squadmate that fights at our side, is helpful, charming, likeabble and ... a damn traitor in the end, revealed to be our main antagonist for the rest of the games. Because Bioware of late (and other games too) suffer from lack of proper villains. But having an entire game building up the character of a future villain? That could be amazing
We'll see how things work out in the end. First of all MEA HAS to be a good game and a successful one anyway, with a hopefully self-contained story like ME1 that could lead us anywhere after this. And then in 2-3 years we can meet again here and speculate how they'll continue the franchise ^^
I've heard this argument before. While Shepard might come across as being pre-made with the opening moments of ME1, it is by making choices and defining who he/she is, who he/she loves, and how he/she conducts himself/herself throughout the trilogy that really makes the character your own. Not to mention, having the ability to customize his/her appearance also goes a long way to personal attachment.
Out of all the DA protagonists, I liked my Hero of Ferelden the most, just because I felt he/she was the best written character. Hawke was okay, but never had a chance to really shine in DAII. I just felt the Inquisitor was too much of a blank slate and none of your choices really developed or defined that character in any meaningful way. I just never cared about the Inquisitor or anything he/she did.
Consistency is something that can be addressed and likely would not have happened with a change in lead writers halfway through the trilogy. Not to mention, BioWare's lack of planning is why ME2 was kind of a mess as it really has no plot or story and didn't really push the narrative forward in any meaningful way. It was just a bunch of ideas and characters thrown together.
Honestly, I love returning characters. Part of what I enjoyed was seeing Leliana, my HoF's love interest, and Morrigan, who I did the dark ritual with, again. It led to an interesting and complex love triangle and is even somewhat addressed in DAI as Leliana is grateful to Morrigan saving my HoF. I found Leliana and Morrigan's brief time in the game to be far more interesting than most of the major companions and characters in DAI. I think there is absolutely something to be said about returning characters and the kinds of impact they can have from a continuity perspective as well as an emotional touch.
I actually really like that idea of a companion over the course of three games becoming a villain. Just imagine how heart-breaking it would have been to find out that Garrus or Tali turned out to be the masterminds behind the reaper's return and subsequent invasion? That would have made for an emotionally-gripping experience. That is one thing only a trilogy would be able to pull off effectively, as it just wouldn't be nearly as powerful in a single game.
Well I figure BioWare will either tell us MEA is clearly the start of a new trilogy at E3 this year or it should be rather obvious by the ending of the game. Either way, this game will sell well just because of the name, so certainly a sequel is coming. I just really prefer the trilogy approach over the "one and done." But again, with the lead writer already having left the studio, it makes you wonder how that could impact the story going forward.
Revan's just a troll, pay it no mind, for reference see what an ahole they're being here
http://forum.bioware...ea-multiplayer/
Completely off-topic and I didn't realize an opinion was "trolling." Nice one bud.
...
It's ironic you use Square Enix, as an example, as their most recent Final Fantasy game, FFXIII, was a trilogy revolving around Lightning.
I think you just provided more reasons than not why a trilogy model makes sense. You are building an IP. You are finding it's identity. By having a familiar protagonist continuing through the experience with you, it provides a sense of familiarity and safety, rather than throwing something entirely new at you every time.
I don't believe for a second Shepard was ever a detractor from Mass Effect. In fact, without Shepard, there is no Mass Effect, which you even agree is true. Shepard made Mass Effect great and to go away from that single protagonist model for multiple games would be a mistake.
Comparing video games to film is fallacious due to the nature of the audience never having any actual control over the events of the film or the characters. There is absolutely no reason BioWare could not create another character similar to Shepard for another trilogy in the Mass Effect universe. In fact, I'd even argue it's expected that BioWare do exactly this.
I think Bioware should see how Andromeda works out before starting work on a sequel.
I think BioWare should cancel Andromeda and reuse the assets in a new post-ME3 Milky Way game.
I think BioWare should cancel Andromeda and reuse the assets in a new post-ME3 Milky Way game.
While I would love that, considering my Shepard lived as I had the perfect high EMS Destroy ending, it's just not going to happen. I would love to revisit the Milky Way at some point in the future though. I think jumping ship to an entirely new galaxy when we only explored 1% of the Milky Way was pretty ridiculous.
While I would love that, considering my Shepard lived as I had the perfect high EMS Destroy ending, it's just not going to happen. I would love to revisit the Milky Way at some point in the future though. I think jumping ship to an entirely new galaxy when we only explored 1% of the Milky Way was pretty ridiculous.
"Pretty Ridiculous" is practically BioWare's middle name at this point.
"Pretty Ridiculous" is practically BioWare's middle name at this point.
Touche. I just hope their "ridiculous" antics going forward are actually a benefit to Mass Effect and not a detriment. Andromeda is what we are getting. I'd rather it be awesome than not. Otherwise, it's going to be another painful wait until BioWare finally releases a Mass Effect game done right.
Well I figure BioWare will either tell us MEA is clearly the start of a new trilogy at E3 this year or it should be rather obvious by the ending of the game. Either way, this game will sell well just because of the name, so certainly a sequel is coming. I just really prefer the trilogy approach over the "one and done." But again, with the lead writer already having left the studio, it makes you wonder how that could impact the story going forward.
I agree to some parts (totally in regards to ME2 being a story-mess! 100% spot-on, sadly) and understand others.
But I am not so sure if the lead-writer will be such a big deal, or was in regards to the original trilogy. I never had the feelingin ME2 that the writers were at fault, but somehow that the studio simply wanted to go in a different direction. I am not in the game-business or anything, no clue how they work. But I never got the feeling Bioware was "allowed" to really continue the game it should have been...reason being in my mind that "new players" should not be excluded *sigh* - one reason why I prefer (and expect) Mass Effect Andromeda to use a more "stand-alone" approach to its sequels to avoid this very problem
Also even having one talented writer sole responible for a story is no guarantee for a suceessful story...I just had to think about Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time that totally lost me after dunno how many books as it was just going this way and that way and never seemed to really progress. Or George Martin nowadays, the last two books felt mostly like a waste of time and energy not realyl serving the main plot, but opening a dozen more (actually a bit like Mass Effect 2, thinking of it)
So yeah, if Bioware wants Andromeda and its new protagonist to be a connected trilogy, I am not sure the writers are THAT important. More important would be they have a focus and theme - a simple one, and this time STICK with it and KEEP it as a focus, and not straying away from it and letting us feel like we play a pseudo-reboot...
Touche. I just hope their "ridiculous" antics going forward are actually a benefit to Mass Effect and not a detriment. Andromeda is what we are getting. I'd rather it be awesome than not. Otherwise, it's going to be another painful wait until BioWare finally releases a Mass Effect game done right.
They can justify Andromeda by letting the journey take place a couple of centuries into the future, after the galaxy has rebuilt and they've developed the necessary technology for the journey to happen in the first place. They cannot justify it if it takes place during ME3. They didn't have the technology, the resources or the funding to build an Arkship during the Reaper War - an important point people are way too eager to ignore.
I'm sour as f*ck that they're running away from the Milky Way, but if they ABSOLUTELY have to set the game in Andromeda, there should be about 400-500 years of galactic peace, recovery and reconstruction before they undertake such a complex expedition. But knowing BioWare, they'll go with the "LEL Reapers are attacking better journey to Andromeda in this ultra-convenient and ultra-advanced intergalactic ark to find a new human homeworld."
It's ironic you use Square Enix, as an example, as their most recent Final Fantasy game, FFXIII, was a trilogy revolving around Lightning.
I think you just provided more reasons than not why a trilogy model makes sense. You are building an IP. You are finding it's identity. By having a familiar protagonist continuing through the experience with you, it provides a sense of familiarity and safety, rather than throwing something entirely new at you every time.
I don't believe for a second Shepard was ever a detractor from Mass Effect. In fact, without Shepard, there is no Mass Effect, which you even agree is true. Shepard made Mass Effect great and to go away from that single protagonist model for multiple games would be a mistake.
Comparing video games to film is fallacious due to the nature of the audience never having any actual control over the events of the film or the characters. There is absolutely no reason BioWare could not create another character similar to Shepard for another trilogy in the Mass Effect universe. In fact, I'd even argue it's expected that BioWare do exactly this.
I cannot comment on FF games to understand any irony, never played them and have no interest or knowledge of that IP. I was simply making the point of a senior industry figure that knows more about gaming franchises than I do. I also assume that he would have more understanding on the issues of creating and managing an IP than anyone on this forum.
Yes, I was trying to say that adopting a larger strategy for IP management is probably a wiser strategy than hanging on a single game.
My point is not that Shepard isn't an important character; it was that s/he was the ONLY character that we got to experience the MEU in the MW; and made far too important. I feel, in retrospect of all the criticism applied to ME3, that was a mistake in franchise management and it almost crippled the Mass Effect brand name.
I was mentioning Marvels strategy of using multiple characters to flesh out the IP. Marvel launched the cinematic universe with Iron Man and developed a trilogy around the character. BUT they went a lot further in maximising the IP potential by introducing other character arcs, and weaving the universe through a lot of installments that featured these icons in ensemble pieces.
That worked in film, and I believe that if the characters are strong enough to have a game that builds the larger IP world setting, then why not do it in gaming? I think, in retrospect of how popular characters became, that could have worked in ME.
I agree to some parts (totally in regards to ME2 being a story-mess! 100% spot-on, sadly) and understand others.
But I am not so sure if the lead-writer will be such a big deal, or was in regards to the original trilogy. I never had the feelingin ME2 that the writers were at fault, but somehow that the studio simply wanted to go in a different direction. I am not in the game-business or anything, no clue how they work. But I never got the feeling Bioware was "allowed" to really continue the game it should have been...reason being in my mind that "new players" should not be excluded *sigh* - one reason why I prefer (and expect) Mass Effect Andromeda to use a more "stand-alone" approach to its sequels to avoid this very problem
Also even having one talented writer sole responible for a story is no guarantee for a suceessful story...I just had to think about Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time that totally lost me after dunno how many books as it was just going this way and that way and never seemed to really progress. Or George Martin nowadays, the last two books felt mostly like a waste of time and energy not realyl serving the main plot, but opening a dozen more (actually a bit like Mass Effect 2, thinking of it)
So yeah, if Bioware wants Andromeda and its new protagonist to be a connected trilogy, I am not sure the writers are THAT important. More important would be they have a focus and theme - a simple one, and this time STICK with it and KEEP it as a focus, and not straying away from it and letting us feel like we play a pseudo-reboot...
Well as I explained in the OP, the lead writer changed from Drew Karpyshyn to Mac Walters halfway through the trilogy. The reason this is a big deal is because the lead writer creates the main story and determines what happens. Other writers create companions, side content, etc. With a change in lead writers, you will inevitably have a change in direction. It didn't help that BioWare didn't properly plan, to start, so the lead writers were haphazardly building a chronology as they went.
As far as new players being excluded, BioWare had no control over ME1 not originally being on the PS3. It was inconvenient that ME started out as a X360 exclusive and then went multiplatform because EA demanded it. Think of it this way though. Star Wars. The Lord of the Rings. The Dark Knight trilogy. None of these would be as great and iconic as they are without this trilogy arc. Having a beginning, a middle, and an end, focusing on one protagonist and his/her struggle.
Yes, it would be unfortunate if newcomers didn't get to start at the beginning of the trilogy. However, you also severely limit the potential of the IP when you do standalone experiences rather than trilogy arcs. I can tell you with certainty that no one would care nearly as much about Mass Effect had Shepard only bee the protagonist in ME1 and then BioWare moved onto somebody else for a sequel. It just wouldn't be Mass Effect.
Well again this ultimately comes back to planning. I do agree that the lead writer would be less crucial for consistency if BioWare plans ahead and maps out where this trilogy is going.
They can justify Andromeda by letting the journey take place a couple of centuries into the future, after the galaxy has rebuilt and they've developed the necessary technology for the journey to happen in the first place. They cannot justify it if it takes place during ME3. They didn't have the technology, the resources or the funding to build an Arkship during the Reaper War - an important point people are way too eager to ignore.
I'm sour as f*ck that they're running away from the Milky Way, but if they ABSOLUTELY have to set the game in Andromeda, there should be about 400-500 years of galactic peace, recovery and reconstruction before they undertake such a complex expedition. But knowing BioWare, they'll go with the "LEL Reapers are attacking better journey to Andromeda in this ultra-convenient and ultra-advanced intergalactic ark to find a new human homeworld."
Well unfortunately, all of the teases and even the N7 Day video point to the ARK leaving during the events of ME3. Even the message with Shepard speaking to the crew on the ARK seems to suggest the galaxy somehow had the resources and manpower to build something that was capable of intergalactic travel, however unreasonable.
I don't like the direction BioWare has taken the franchise, but there's not much I can do about it either. They wanted an escape for a blank slate and that's exactly what they've done. We'll see if it's ultimately for the better or not.
I cannot comment on FF games to understand any irony, never played them and have no interest or knowledge of that IP. I was simply making the point of a senior industry figure that knows more about gaming franchises than I do. I also assume that he would have more understanding on the issues of creating and managing an IP than anyone on this forum.
Yes, I was trying to say that adopting a larger strategy for IP management is probably a wiser strategy than hanging on a single game.
My point is not that Shepard isn't an important character; it was that s/he was the ONLY character that we got to experience the MEU in the MW; and made far too important. I feel, in retrospect of all the criticism applied to ME3, that was a mistake in franchise management and it almost crippled the Mass Effect brand name.
I was mentioning Marvels strategy of using multiple characters to flesh out the IP. Marvel launched the cinematic universe with Iron Man and developed a trilogy around the character. BUT they went a lot further in maximising the IP potential by introducing other character arcs, and weaving the universe through a lot of installments that featured these icons in ensemble pieces.
That worked in film, and I believe that if the characters are strong enough to have a game that builds the larger IP world setting, then why not do it in gaming? I think, in retrospect of how popular characters became, that could have worked in ME.
I don't really see Shepard as the issue at all. What was the issue is how the ending was handled and how utterly life-changing, literally, it is. There's no simple way for BioWare to create separate world states symbolizing the player choice and still create a new story. Thus, instead of returning to the Milky Way, BioWare is running away. As far as the brand being "crippled," I think that is an over-dramatic reaction to a poorly-handled ending that BioWare largely rectified with DLC and an a free, extended cut. If anything, Mass Effect is stronger than ever. The Citadel DLC was massively popular and well-received, and that came after the ME3 ending fiasco.
I don't understand your point. BioWare is more than capable of creating other protagonists alongside Shepard. We knew Mass Effect wasn't going to be over once the Shepard trilogy was done. It's only going to continue to develop more and more overtime, so I fail to see why having one protagonist for three games is so detrimental to the health of the IP.
I think the only real mistake BioWare made was leaving the Milky Way. We only explored 1% of it. Instead of returning, we are being forced into an entirely different galaxy because BioWare doesn't want to deal with the ME3 ending. While Shepard started Mass Effect, it is going to grow and clearly outlive his influence. Again, I don't think there was anything inherently wrong with the Shepard model. On the contrary, I think BioWare would be foolish not to continue it for new protagonists who take over.
Honestly I think the storytellers should determine how long their story should be. I'm not against a standalone story if it's great, equally I wouldn't touch a crappy trilogy.
I think their are some stories like Star Wars 1-6, The Matrix, Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, Twilight, Dark Knight and Micheal Bay's Transformers that started out strong but by the end they were too long, convoluted, and finally just plain boring because their stories were drug out and were either under and overthought to a sickening degree. While some accidental trilogies like Back to the Future, The Evil Dead, Star Trek 2-4, and Spider-Man where the trilogy format worked very well.
Honestly I think the storytellers should determine how long their story should be. I'm not against a standalone story if it's great, equally I wouldn't touch a crappy trilogy.
I think their are some stories like Star Wars 1-6, The Matrix, Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, Twilight, Dark Knight and Micheal Bay's Transformers that started out strong but by the end they were too long, convoluted, and finally just plain boring because their stories were drug out and were either under and overthought to a sickening degree. While some accidental trilogies like Back to the Future, The Evil Dead, Star Trek 2-4, and Spider-Man where the trilogy format worked very well.
Star Wars and The Dark Knight were failures but Back to the Future and Spider-Man were not?
Moving beyond your questionable rationale for what is objective a "good" trilogy format and what is a "bad" one, I think the Mass Effect trilogy, alone, proves it can be an effective model. Yes, it had downsides. However, Mass Effect overwhelmingly had a positive effect (no pun intended) and became an overnight success. Whereas standalone games, like Dragon Age, continue to struggle to find consistency and a identity.
I just think the pros far outweigh the cons when considering whether to do another trilogy arc of games or not.
snipI don't really see Shepard as the issue at all. What was the issue is how the ending was handled and how utterly life-changing, literally, it is. There's no simple way for BioWare to create separate world states symbolizing the player choice and still create a new story. Thus, instead of returning to the Milky Way, BioWare is running away. As far as the brand being "crippled," I think that is an over-dramatic reaction to a poorly-handled ending that BioWare largely rectified with DLC and an a free, extended cut. If anything, Mass Effect is stronger than ever. The Citadel DLC was massively popular and well-received, and that came after the ME3 ending fiasco.
I don't understand your point. BioWare is more than capable of creating other protagonists alongside Shepard. We knew Mass Effect wasn't going to be over once the Shepard trilogy was done. It's only going to continue to develop more and more overtime, so I fail to see why having one protagonist for three games is so detrimental to the health of the IP.
I think the only real mistake BioWare made was leaving the Milky Way. We only explored 1% of it. Instead of returning, we are being forced into an entirely different galaxy because BioWare doesn't want to deal with the ME3 ending. While Shepard started Mass Effect, it is going to grow and clearly outlive his influence. Again, I don't think there was anything inherently wrong with the Shepard model. On the contrary, I think BioWare would be foolish not to continue it for new protagonists who take over.
I wasn't being over dramatic. If anything it was an understatement. BioWare totally imploded as a brand in 2012. They had a decapitation of both senior brand executives and founders, one of the largest consumer complaint waves, PR disasters and saw mass exodus' of fans through their dlc and ending policies.
Don't try and say it was simply a bad ending. BioWare's crisis in 2012/13 was a far more complex issue than that.
Sorry you totally misunderstand my point. I am saying that you launch an IP with a strong, and charismatic lead character. One that has a trilogy plan built in and serves as the flagpole or centre anchor. But you also have additional characters planned in, with an option of being developed into lead characters and having games produced.
I wasn't being over dramatic. If anything it was an understatement. BioWare totally imploded as a brand in 2012. They had a decapitation of both senior brand executives and founders, one of the largest consumer complaint waves, PR disasters and saw mass exodus' of fans through their dlc and ending policies.
Don't try and say it was simply a bad ending. BioWare's crisis in 2012/13 was a far more complex issue than that.
Sorry you totally misunderstand my point. I am saying that you launch an IP with a strong, and charismatic lead character. One that has a trilogy plan built in and serves as the flagpole or centre anchor. But you also have additional characters planned in, with an option of being developed into lead characters and having games produced.
I'll give you a bit more insight. BioWare's "shake up" in 2012 had little to do with Mass Effect 3's ending. What was actually the reason the company started falling apart at the seams was the failure of their MMORPG, Star Wars: The Old Republic.
SWTOR is the most expensive MMORPG ever produced, costing an estimated $150 million, of which much of it went into the game's ambitious amount of voice overs for three different languages. The game still holds the record for the fastest selling MMO to date. However, it's community declined and depreciated by 75% after three months. In order to save face and prevent the game from operating at a loss in the future, heads rolled, the studio saw massive layoffs, and the game was converted to a F2P model.
It was SWTOR's failure, and not the small controversy that was ME3's ending, that caused a ruckus that shook the foundation of BioWare. Really, the absurdity that ME3's ending "ruined BioWare" is nothing more than idiotic hyperbole due to a fringe of the community who hated the ending. Most people, while disappointed, didn't pick up pitchforks and instead just got over it. As far as DLC, people loved it, especially Citadel.
While that model could work, I also don't see what's wrong with having an entirely separate protagonist of which has nothing to do with Shepard. However, the N7 teaser video seems to suggest that the protagonist of MEA is, at the very least, indirectly influenced by Shepard. To what degree did they have a relationship? They probably didn't have one at all. However, there is still a connection to the past while allowing the franchise to grow and go new places without being held down by old traditions and precedent.
I would prefer standalone stories rather than a trilogy. I would also prefer not to inherit any sort of decision/consequences import but that is a slightly different topic. It gives the writers a lot more freedom in what they want to write and a lot less overhead in maintaining an ever increasing web of consistency. It also helps keep things fresh and helps game balance (ie not having to cater to a 1st level and 30th level starting character). The one downside is you don't develop characters in quite the same way as you do when they are around for a longer period of time, but I don't think it is worth the cost.
Retour en haut