73 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

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.

I have the completely opposite stance. I think inheriting decisions/consequences is what made Mass Effect great, to start. The innovation of the save import and how it impacted the story on a variety of levels was game changing and really made Mass Effect far more personal than any other game ever could. Sure, it's a hassle having to maintain consistency and stomp out plot holes, but the effort is ultimately worth the sacrifice.

 

I don't see what was wrong at all giving players perks if they imported their characters. The whole point of the incentive is because BioWare wanted players to import because they knew they'd appreciate the game more if their personal decisions changed the outcome of future games. Character development is one of the most crucial aspects of a BioWare game, and I believe standalone games will force BioWare into mediocrity and ultimately irrelevancy.

[AlleyD]

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 specifically said the brands problems in 2012 were more complex. I agree, Bioware had two underperforming games in 2012 and I agree that the SWTOR was probably more damaging from a financial POV, ME3 was more of a social media echo chamber thing, but it didn't help the situation. I was sad to see the brand executives leave, but I can appreciate their reasons. 

 

I really liked Citadel DLC, one of my favourite game experiences. I left the franchise with a positive memory, the Citadel DLC was a good sign off for me.

 

I think we are both on the same page. I don't think it is wrong at all to have nothing at all to do with Shepard. I'm all for that move. To me the N7 trailer is just marketing making the best of the connections and introducing some speculation. I'm more intersted in the ARK than anything. I'd like to see how BioWare cover that.

[Revan Reborn]

I specifically said the brands problems in 2012 were more complex. I agree, Bioware had two underperforming games in 2012 and I agree that the SWTOR was probably more damaging from a financial POV, ME3 was more of a social media echo chamber thing, but it didn't help the situation. I was sad to see the brand executives leave, but I can appreciate their reasons. 

 

I really liked Citadel DLC, one of my favourite game experiences. I left the franchise with a positive memory, the Citadel DLC was a good sign off for me.

 

I think we are both on the same page. I don't think it is wrong at all to have nothing at all to do with Shepard. I'm all for that move. To me the N7 trailer is just marketing making the best of the connections and introducing some speculation. I'm more intersted in the ARK than anything. I'd like to see how BioWare cover that.

You did. I just like to clarify that SWTOR was more of a catalyst for BioWare's "shake up" than any sin ME3 committed. I'm not saying ME3 doesn't get some of the blame, but SWTOR clearly was the elephant in the room that tipped over. I loved the doctors. I was sad to see them go as well. They were the face of BioWare and they will be missed.

 

Even though Citadel was entire fan service... I loved EVER SECOND OF IT. It's one of the reasons I have hope for MEA, because Citadel was made by BioWare Montreal. If they could understand a lot of the emotional beats and pop culture references people loved in the games, it gives me hope they understand how to make an awesome Mass Effect game.

 

The ARK will certainly be the mystery to unravel about everything regarding Andromeda. We had some allusions to this ARK in ME3 and during MEA's development, but there is still much we do not know. Honestly, I want to know how the heck the Council races were able to create a spacecraft capable of intergalactic flight without the reapers finding out.

 

We'll have to see how this is all ultimately explained; but I won't be surprised if BioWare uses some flimsy logic just to avoid having to deal with ME3's ending at all cost.

[Danny Boy 7]

I think we could get the same level of attachment that we did with the entire trilogy. It would be very tricky, but I think if enough attention was given to the same characters across a particularly long game or two (plus DLC) than we could get the same level of enjoyment.

[Revan Reborn]

I think we could get the same level of attachment that we did with the entire trilogy. It would be very tricky, but I think if enough attention was given to the same characters across a particularly long game or two (plus DLC) than we could get the same level of enjoyment.

That would be unlikely due to the short development cycle as well as the limited budget BioWare would have. EA isn't just going to double BioWare's funding or give them a 5+ development cycle so they can make the game twice as long. This is why a trilogy formula is really the only way to truly explore these characters and the protagonist in the most effective way possible.

[DarthSliver]

I really don't want a Trilogy, I prefer to have it be similiar to DA format because it seems alot more successful. With the new galaxy and we are exploring it piece by piece it would work out perfectly in my opinion.  

[Revan Reborn]

I really don't want a Trilogy, I prefer to have it be similiar to DA format because it seems alot more successful. With the new galaxy and we are exploring it piece by piece it would work out perfectly in my opinion.  

How so? DAO did fairly well, but suffered on consoles due to being more of a PC-centric title. DAII was a financial disappointment that suffered on all platforms due to oversimplified mechanics and its short development cycle. DAI is the first game of the series to truly gain its footing, but still suffers from inconsistencies and flaws that were largely created from its new innovations.

 

Without a doubt, the Mass Effect trilogy is more successful, more popular, and its trilogy arc is a large contributor to why it's the overall better BioWare IP. If we just have solo games in which we are constantly shuffling protagonists, I don't believe we'll ever fully get to appreciate them or their companions and a lot of potential for character development will have been lost.

[blahblahblah]

How so? DAO did fairly well, but suffered on consoles due to being more of a PC-centric title. DAII was a financial disappointment that suffered on all platforms due to oversimplified mechanics and its short development cycle. DAI is the first game of the series to truly gain its footing, but still suffers from inconsistencies and flaws that were largely created from its new innovations.

 

Without a doubt, the Mass Effect trilogy is more successful, more popular, and its trilogy arc is a large contributor to why it's the overall better BioWare IP. If we just have solo games in which we are constantly shuffling protagonists, I don't believe we'll ever fully get to appreciate them or their companions and a lot of potential for character development will have been lost.

And expect another ME3 level trainwreck again.

[Revan Reborn]

And expect another ME3 level trainwreck again.

That won't happen again. The only reason it happened the first time was because BioWare did not properly plan out the trilogy and there was a change in lead writer. If BioWare future proofs their story, instead of coming up with it as they go, this won't be an issue.

[blahblahblah]

That won't happen again. The only reason it happened the first time was because BioWare did not properly plan out the trilogy and there was a change in lead writer. If BioWare future proofs their story, instead of coming up with it as they go, this won't be an issue.

And they gave the players too much choices that they don't even address in their respective sequels aside from that they don't have any concrete plan on creating a trilogy.

[DarthSliver]

How so? DAO did fairly well, but suffered on consoles due to being more of a PC-centric title. DAII was a financial disappointment that suffered on all platforms due to oversimplified mechanics and its short development cycle. DAI is the first game of the series to truly gain its footing, but still suffers from inconsistencies and flaws that were largely created from its new innovations.

 

Without a doubt, the Mass Effect trilogy is more successful, more popular, and its trilogy arc is a large contributor to why it's the overall better BioWare IP. If we just have solo games in which we are constantly shuffling protagonists, I don't believe we'll ever fully get to appreciate them or their companions and a lot of potential for character development will have been lost.

 

DA only sounds like from what you said techincal issues that were out of our control but the story that was contained in them were great. But that is true on the most part for DA, great story alright game mechanics. ME I don't believe will suffer that mainly because the forumla that it has already can only be improved and DAI is Biowares first tickering with frostbite engine so I would say DAI did pretty well, Replay value sucks unfortuntely.

 

But as someone posted before me, I don't want another trainwreck. Or better put I don't want to invest so much into something only to get crapped on at the end. Worst part we were writing them fixes for the mess of the ending in hopes they would fix it lol. But a single proganist can make it easier for them to pull away if the series starts to fail instead of leaving us with a hanging story arc too.  

[Revan Reborn]

And they gave the players too much choices that they don't even address in their respective sequels aside from that they don't have any concrete plan on creating a trilogy.

Keep in mind ME1-3 was the first time BioWare ever tried a trilogy model. It's perfectly reasonable that they would make mistakes, and they made plenty. However, overall it was a huge success.

 

DA only sounds like from what you said techincal issues that were out of our control but the story that was contained in them were great. But that is true on the most part for DA, great story alright game mechanics. ME I don't believe will suffer that mainly because the forumla that it has already can only be improved and DAI is Biowares first tickering with frostbite engine so I would say DAI did pretty well, Replay value sucks unfortuntely.

 

But as someone posted before me, I don't want another trainwreck. Or better put I don't want to invest so much into something only to get crapped on at the end. Worst part we were writing them fixes for the mess of the ending in hopes they would fix it lol. But a single proganist can make it easier for them to pull away if the series starts to fail instead of leaving us with a hanging story arc too.  

DAI was definitely a step in the right direction for the franchise. I'm just stating ME is far more popular and has been far more successful overall. Again, future proofing, proper planning, and writing the story well in advance instead of haphazardly writing it as they go can avoid a lot of these pitfalls. BioWare was experimenting, so of course they'd do some things right and other things wrong.

[thebigbad1013]

I don't know if I think that Mass Effect was that much of a success in terms of being a trilogy. I mean, we got an almost entirely new cast of characters in ME2 and the story didn't have all that much to do with the overall plot. I mean, don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed Mass Effect (though not so much the ending) but I don't think there is anything to take from the original trilogy that we can point to as evidence as to why the next one absolutely should be a trllogy.

 

Also, I do not agree that Dragon Age is not as engaging as Mass Effect because the series uses a different protagonist each game. While I enjoy both franchises, Dragon Age wins out over Mass Effect for me.

 

Also, Varric is my favorite character in any BioWare game and he became that during Dragon Age 2 (long before I ever knew he was going to be in Inquisition), so I also don't think it is true that you become more attached to characters in a trilogy than in a "one and done" kind of game. Sure, the more time you get to spend with a character the greater chance there is of you becoming attached to that character, but it is not an automatic thing by any means.

 

Overall I wouldn't have a problem with the next Mass Effect game being a "one and done". I also wouldn't have a problem if they decided to stretch the story out for more games--in the end it really depends on the story they want to tell and what that story requires.

[Scarlett]

I think I already replied to a similar subject so I will say it again : I had a lot more implication with my Shepard during 3 games than on the DA serie with a new character each time. so I vote for a new trilogy... each new game made me feel at home. It was pretty hard to finish ME3, not only because the ending was too quick and not what I expected but also because I wanted to stay on this univers I loved so much.... I want to feel this again with MEA.

 

I'm sure for now it's just one game but they have ideas for the next parts. They're just waiting to see how the sellings will be and what people will think about the game.

[Helios969]

It's somewhat irrelevant whether they tried to design a game as a standalone.  If wildly successful, the fanbase and shareholders would demand a direct sequel.  They might as well plan for a trilogy...at the very least have a reasonably coherent outline ready to go.

[DarthSliver]

I think I already replied to a similar subject so I will say it again : I had a lot more implication with my Shepard during 3 games than on the DA serie with a new character each time. so I vote for a new trilogy... each new game made me feel at home. It was pretty hard to finish ME3, not only because the ending was too quick and not what I expected but also because I wanted to stay on this univers I loved so much.... I want to feel this again with MEA.

 

I'm sure for now it's just one game but they have ideas for the next parts. They're just waiting to see how the sellings will be and what people will think about the game.

 

Maybe this one will be a standalone to set us up in Andromeda and if successful they will make three more games, aka the Trilogy for Andromeda after the success of this game. 

They are probably testing out the waters with MEA. If this one is to be the first of the trilogy I do hope they plan it out. I also don't mind the choices that we make in game but I think they should do a website voting for the sequels with what choice will make canon ending or canon in a sense so newcomers can come into the series. But maybe less major decision choices in the game if they do make a trilogy so its easier to keep track of what choices go forward and which don't. They could also do nods to some of the small choices if the story demands it in the following games. But they need a system to better track the choices we make.

 

I know people don't like canon endings but it might be something we should ask for so it is easier for them to move the story forward too. 

[AlleyD]

You did. I just like to clarify that SWTOR was more of a catalyst for BioWare's "shake up" than any sin ME3 committed. I'm not saying ME3 doesn't get some of the blame, but SWTOR clearly was the elephant in the room that tipped over. I loved the doctors. I was sad to see them go as well. They were the face of BioWare and they will be missed.

 

Even though Citadel was entire fan service... I loved EVER SECOND OF IT. It's one of the reasons I have hope for MEA, because Citadel was made by BioWare Montreal. If they could understand a lot of the emotional beats and pop culture references people loved in the games, it gives me hope they understand how to make an awesome Mass Effect game.

 

The ARK will certainly be the mystery to unravel about everything regarding Andromeda. We had some allusions to this ARK in ME3 and during MEA's development, but there is still much we do not know. Honestly, I want to know how the heck the Council races were able to create a spacecraft capable of intergalactic flight without the reapers finding out.

 

We'll have to see how this is all ultimately explained; but I won't be surprised if BioWare uses some flimsy logic just to avoid having to deal with ME3's ending at all cost.

 

I believe that BioWare were made to do the near impossible and it is impressive they did so much. Produce the most complex and expensive mmo, close off one of the most ambitious game franchises, plus build in a competitive and fun multiplayer element from the ground up. Most developers I can think of would struggle with one of those tasks, BioWare had to handle all 3 in the same development time, and the sales release dates were far too close together, cannibalising attention and sales.

 

I had the same opinion of Citadel. I liked having the change in pace, the humour etc all clicked with me. It's my favourite DLC of all time and is my favourite part of ME trilogy. That gave the same hope you mention. I want more of that please.

 

I did a little lore diving to see if the ARK could be justified from the existing lore. I think it can and have no issues with the change of setting. I try and not build any preconceived attachments or bias too much.

[pdusen]

The premise of this thread is kinda silly. It's pretty clear that Drew had no better idea of where the games were going than Mac did.

[Vox Draco]

Maybe this one will be a standalone to set us up in Andromeda and if successful they will make three more games, aka the Trilogy for Andromeda after the success of this game. 

They are probably testing out the waters with MEA. If this one is to be the first of the trilogy I do hope they plan it out. I also don't mind the choices that we make in game but I think they should do a website voting for the sequels with what choice will make canon ending or canon in a sense so newcomers can come into the series. But maybe less major decision choices in the game if they do make a trilogy so its easier to keep track of what choices go forward and which don't. They could also do nods to some of the small choices if the story demands it in the following games. But they need a system to better track the choices we make.

 

I know people don't like canon endings but it might be something we should ask for so it is easier for them to move the story forward too. 

 

Well ... people seem to love to have the illusion of making choices that "matter", and want all those choices be relevant and adressed in sequels...which was the undoing in my opinion of the trilogy.

 

With Dragon Age they almost got the same problem, but mostly avoided it by having each title a new protagonist, and taking place in some different spot of Thedas. The advantage? You can simply ignore many things or leave them "ambigous" or unclear.

 

And that route I am rather sure they'll not only continue with Dragon Age (Next game will probably have yet another protagonist, and take place in Tevinter), but use for Mass Effect as well from now on. It just leaves Bioware with more freedom to do what they want to do. Especialyl if there is a larger ingame-time-gap inbetween each game.

 

I also think that every game nowon will have a canon-ending that will be used as the groundwork for the next game. How we achieve that ending will be the differences and all. But drastically different endings? Noone should expect this anymore. And surely they'll never advertise with those as well ^^

 

Time will tell if I am right, or if Bioware gives in to a possible demand by fans to have more "Ryder" - but maybe a third approach would be possible (though not likely): Larger DLC/addons for Andromeda or even "spinoff"-games.

 

Like Mass Effect Andromeda 1 , 2 3 etc telling each the big stories about the colonization of the galaxy, each with centuries in between. And have somewhat "smaller" games inbetween. Smaller in scope, tighter in story and focused more on the adventures of the characters introduced in each new "main"-game, to satisfy the need fans might have for more of their Ryder and all.

 

Think of the concept of the Star wars anthology-movies - "smaller" stories/movies (yeah, I hope you know what I mean with that), while still having that huge trilogy telling the new main story.

 

Sadly DA2 was received too poorly by many fans (unjustly in my book), as it was pointing into that direction already, or at least could be used as a template..just done better in the details

[Revan Reborn]

I think I already replied to a similar subject so I will say it again : I had a lot more implication with my Shepard during 3 games than on the DA serie with a new character each time. so I vote for a new trilogy... each new game made me feel at home. It was pretty hard to finish ME3, not only because the ending was too quick and not what I expected but also because I wanted to stay on this univers I loved so much.... I want to feel this again with MEA.

 

I'm sure for now it's just one game but they have ideas for the next parts. They're just waiting to see how the sellings will be and what people will think about the game.

I agree with you entirely! I loved ME1-3 so much, regardless of how it ended! I have never felt that level of attachment to any game series before, and it was all thanks to the trilogy format and reprising our role as Shepard!

 

Perhaps, although they have to figure this will be the best selling ME game to date. I think part of the reason they are essentially doing a clean slate is to make sure they obtain as many new fans as possible. Since Mass Effect started late for PS3 owners, BioWare wants to make sure everybody is on the same footing this time around on all platforms. Without a doubt, even if the game sucks, I think the game will sell well just because of the name. Hopefully, it doesn't suck though.

 

It's somewhat irrelevant whether they tried to design a game as a standalone.  If wildly successful, the fanbase and shareholders would demand a direct sequel.  They might as well plan for a trilogy...at the very least have a reasonably coherent outline ready to go.

We can hope. That would make the most sense at least!

 

I believe that BioWare were made to do the near impossible and it is impressive they did so much. Produce the most complex and expensive mmo, close off one of the most ambitious game franchises, plus build in a competitive and fun multiplayer element from the ground up. Most developers I can think of would struggle with one of those tasks, BioWare had to handle all 3 in the same development time, and the sales release dates were far too close together, cannibalising attention and sales.

 

I had the same opinion of Citadel. I liked having the change in pace, the humour etc all clicked with me. It's my favourite DLC of all time and is my favourite part of ME trilogy. That gave the same hope you mention. I want more of that please.

 

I did a little lore diving to see if the ARK could be justified from the existing lore. I think it can and have no issues with the change of setting. I try and not build any preconceived attachments or bias too much.

BioWare, without a doubt, was in over their heads. At that time, however, EA just loved BioWare and was throwing money and resources at them. EA put BioWare in charge of its entire RPG department and even made all the other RPG studios part of the BioWare umbrella. BioWare had so much power and authority in 2011-2012 it's kind of insane how much authority EA game them.

 

I think the ARK can probably work. I just want an explanation on how that technology is possible due to it being pretty convenient to escape the reaper threat at the beginning of ME3.

 

The premise of this thread is kinda silly. It's pretty clear that Drew had no better idea of where the games were going than Mac did.

Only "silly" to you. I'm not praising Drew over Mac. I'm merely saying they had different ideas and that they would have taken the series in different directions. That lack of inconsistency was part of the problem and led to ME3's ending, of which is a divisive issue for many. So to avoid that, having a plan and being consistent is a great idea!

[Hazegurl]

IMO, The DA franchise proves that having a different PC each game doesn't stop the writers from telling an inconsistent convoluted story that is limited based on structure. The only difference is that Shepard and Co were far more familiar and compelling than any of the DA gangs.  The romances felt more long term, the dialogue felt a bit tighter and there is no way the Citadel DLC would have worked with a brand new cast of characters.  Just look at the awkward card game scene in DAI.

 

With DA, the most annoying aspects of it aside from having to be yet another hero crawling out of some hole somewhere in Thedas and the fact that they can't even make up their minds about their own lore and even what their own Elves and Qunari should look like, is constantly meeting "popular" characters over and over and over again. I never felt Varric was my IQ's buddy, I got sick of being introduced to Leliana and given the same old BS storytelling of hardening her. Meeting Alistair again in any of the other games is lackluster compared to if my Warden had kept him alive and met up with him again. I felt Morrigan and my Warden could have had a much better story line dealing with Flemeth and their child together than my IQ standing there just soaking in the plot like an exposition sponge.

 

Please, no DA mechanics, story structure or anything else in ME.

 

Oh yeah, and no choice in DA compares to befriending Wrex in ME1 and talking him down, then saving the research in ME2 after greeting him as a buddy on Tuchanka, then sabotaging the Genophage cure in ME3, shooting Mordin in the back after he helped me in ME2, then getting confronted by Wrex on the Citadel for playing him.  The ME team should focus more on stories and choices like this over trying to copy DA's lackluster method.

[Revan Reborn]

IMO, The DA franchise proves that having a different PC each game doesn't stop the writers from telling an inconsistent convoluted story that is limited based on structure. The only difference is that Shepard and Co were far more familiar and compelling than any of the DA gangs.  The romances felt more long term, the dialogue felt a bit tighter and there is no way the Citadel DLC would have worked with a brand new cast of characters.  Just look at the awkward card game scene in DAI.

 

With DA, the most annoying aspects of it aside from having to be yet another hero crawling out of some hole somewhere in Thedas and the fact that they can't even make up their minds about their own lore and even what their own Elves and Qunari should look like, is constantly meeting "popular" characters over and over and over again. I never felt Varric was my IQ's buddy, I got sick of being introduced to Leliana and given the same old BS storytelling of hardening her. Meeting Alistair again in any of the other games is lackluster compared to if my Warden had kept him alive and met up with him again. I felt Morrigan and my Warden could have had a much better story line dealing with Flemeth and their child together than my IQ standing there just soaking in the plot like an exposition sponge.

 

Please,  no DA mechanics, story structure or anything else in ME.

I agree with your first paragraph entirely. I'd actually argue Dragon Age's story is far more convoluted and messy than anything in Mass Effect. With each game Gaider just continued to create more plot holes, inconsistencies, and retcons because he felt like it. The whole idea that the "one and done" approach is more clean is just a myth. By far, Citadel would not have worked without these long-term relationships and friendships we built over the course of three games.

 

I agree with your second paragraph too! Half of the plot in DAI should have been a game with the Hero of Ferelden as the protagonist! It didn't make any sense at all that the Inquisitor, by far the weakest protagonist in DA to date, was at the center of all these conflicts. He was a nobody until he got a mark and I never felt like he actually became anybody by the time the game was over. Worst character development of a BioWare game to date.

 

The less we have of DA, the better. Thankfully, ME and DA have two separate writing teams, so I'm not expecting any overlap. ME has also never borrowed systems from DA. It's always the other way around where DA borrows systems from ME. Of course, MEA sounds a lot like DAI based on the leak, so I'm a little worried.

[SNascimento]

Oh yeah, and no choice in DA compares to befriending Wrex in ME1 and talking him down, then saving the research in ME2 after greeting him as a buddy on Tuchanka, then sabotaging the Genophage cure in ME3, shooting Mordin in the back after he helped me in ME2, then getting confronted by Wrex on the Citadel for playing him.  The ME team should focus more on stories and choices like this over trying to copy DA's lackluster method.

In the history of humankind, no other games have that. 

[SKAR]

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?

OMG let it go! ME 3 endings weren't even that bad. Maybe they'll do it better this time around. They gave us a damn extended cut for Christ sake.