736 réponses à ce sujet

[NKnight7]

If it would up to me I think it would have been more interesting to do a prequel game and explore some of the history of the Mass Effect Universe. Sure we know some of the basic facts and the outcomes of the events, but I think it would be cool to have a game set during the first contact war, krogan rebellions or the rachni war. Plus, I think it would be fascinating to possibly have the element of no humans and we could see some of the other alien cultures in a more in depth way. 

 

In terms of Andromeda, I guess I am okay with it. Part of me is tentative about it but the other part of me wants more Mass Effect because I love it and am curious to see what they do with it. 

 

I always thought a prequel could be interesting for the series, especially with the krogan rebellions or the first contact war as possible settings.

[Mdizzletr0n]

The narrative screwed up way before the end of the trilogy. More like the beginning of ME2. I think Andro is the closest we'll get to a reboot. Especially placing it a long time after Shep. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if Shep and his yes men were never really even mentioned outside of a codex entry. I'd even prefer that.

[Sanunes]

That would be a remake, not a reboot. I gave the specific example of DMC to explain what a reboot is.

 

The way I took what you said is along the lines of this definition of reboot, remake, and re-imagining 

 

Remake: A straight re-telling of a story for the purpose of updating it for a contemporary audience, or making it accessible to a different culture or region.

 

Reboot: A course correction done with the purpose of restarting a franchise. A reset. Fealty to the original story or film is not a priority.

 

Re-Imagining: A re-telling of a story, but only in the broadest sense. Characters and some story elements may be retained, but mostly plot and story have been repurposed.

 

I wasn't saying I wanted a retelling of Shepard's story, I just would want Kaiden for instance to be the same person he has been in the first three games for I wouldn't want him to take on a more rebel type personality and fighting the system because "that is cool".

[Gothfather]

Would it be good to reboot the ME franchise?

 

The answer to this question can really only be answer based on what direction Bioware wants to take the IP. If bioware wants to create a sci-fi IP with a rich history and build upon this history with each new game, then yeah a reboot would be bad for the IP. If they have no specific goal of moving the IP in this direction then a reboot wouldn't hurt much. 

[Gothfather]

Man, I love the original trilogy but there were a lot of problems with it. I wholeheartedly disagree with the common held belief that ME3 was perfect except for the last 10 minutes. Cerberus' role and depiction in ME3 is downright groan inducing and they were all over the game. Not to mention that much of ME3's narrative issues are a result of ME2's lack of a relevant plot.

 

/snip

 

I agree, I think the original trilogy suffered from narrative dissonance. The mechanics of the game where that of the power fantasy, and this tells a very different narrative to the story of the series. The story narrative was on of fighting an overwhelming force that we should rationally feel we have no hope in hell of defeating. Yet each time we encounter the reapers we kick their ass. It is more than possible to play the series without losing a single active crew member post ME2 opening cutscene. That is 67% of the game telling us mechanically that we are invincible yet the story saying we don't stand a chance. 

 

By the time you reach priority:earth in me3 you think "Reapers smeapers, I got this." Yet you as suppose to think things are even more of a "hail Mary" then the original plan intended or at least that is what everyone keeps telling you in the story but the mechanics tell you over and over again the reapers are push overs. This creates a narrative dissonance where you are told two different narratives and no ending could provide closure because the two narratives are working at cross purposes to each other.

[78stonewobble]

1. There was nothing wrong with the original trilogy. 2. Sure the endings could have been done better but I haven't heard any bright ideas from the fanbase. 3. The extended cut was all we needed. 4. It's time to leave the past behind. Keep calm and head to Andromeda.

 

1. Really, they were all three 100 percent perfect? Interesting, because some things did seem to change between them. 

 

2. I'm still gonna say that the reapers finding intelligent species tasty is a better explanation than the yo dawg meme we got. 

 

3. No... and since I can speak for all 7 billion people of the world... it wasn't enough for us, including you... apparently you just don't know it. 

 

4. I wholeheartedly agree... and I'm looking forward to it.

 

PS: Sorry, if this came off harsh... but everybody's got oppinions and on subjective matters it's not an objective universal truth and ya can't speak for everyone is all.

[78stonewobble]

Personally?

 

I've grown to like the idea of a whole new galaxy and a focus on exploration, whatever the hell that means so far... 

 

 

As others mentioned I wouldn't have minded a prequel either. I think that could have been interesting, but I can also see the limitations they would have to work under. Tho I could humbly suggest that the theme of exploration could have worked post first contact war, if you cut out hugely galaxy altering stories. 

 

 

A reboot? No, I don't feel the time is right for that yet... Possibly in the future a reimagining could be fun... Before then tho I would like to see a remastered trilogy edition first. Would love to play through it all again with 2020 tech. 

[MaxQuartiroli]

There is no need for a reboot or a retelling imho.

I think that a simple spin-off (which is what I get Andromeda will be) would suffice

[Fogg]

It makes a lot of sense, although the Mass Effect-series will have to go back to our own galaxy sooner or later, they can't stay in Andromeda forever.

[KaiserShep]

It makes a lot of sense, although the Mass Effect-series will have to go back to our own galaxy sooner or later, they can't stay in Andromeda forever.

 

Sure they can. It's my impression that Andromeda's introduction draws the Milky Way as a setting to a close indefinitely. More than likely, Andromeda is the start of a new series set strictly in this galaxy then it ends, or Andromeda is just one more Mass Effect title then it ends. 

[Undead Han]

I'd rather see a sequel to Mass Effect 3, even if it means basing the sequel on just one of the ending choices, than a hard reboot. That's just my preference though, and I'm sure between those two choices some would prefer a reboot.

 

One of the unfortunate consequences of the whole ending fiasco with ME3, is that any decision the writers make regarding the setting of future ME games isn't going to please everyone. They sort of painted themselves into a corner with ME3's endings, since it made it literally impossible to make a single sequel that imports all three of the ending choices. Anything except a sequel is also going to disappoint some fans.

[heinoMK2]

A change of setting is just a change of setting. A hard reboot is like Spider-Man 3 -> Amazing Spider-Man.

This is exactly why i despise reboots of franchises nowadays. Amazing Spiderman is disgusting piece of degenerate sh*t compared to the "originals" which weren't even all that good(still tolerable). Various other reboots(Terminator TV series, last Star Trek movies and the series, even the last Star Wars movie) are getting just worse rather than better compared to originals because there are hardly new impulses or stories, it's just repeat of the same setting, same characters, same time frame in a supposedly new yet actually worse interpretation while the things that were originally making the franchises interesting are slowly marginalized away.

 

Rebooting ME series would mean to discard absolutely everything about Shepard, about the story, the characters, everything players accomplished. The way they tried to kill off ME franchise with ME:3 is already - mildly said - irritating, making a reboot now would be basically spitting in player's collective face.

 

Just think about what Bioware story writers or whoever was overseeing/directing the main plot have tried to do:

 

They "took away" Shepard from us by introducing lots of auto dialogue and loading the protagonist up with some emotional crap we did not care about much - that annoying kid Shepard suddenly worried about.

Then they did everything in their power to kill off Shepard, to end the character so they would not have to continue Shepard's story, because, according to tweets and interviews, they were tired of Shepard and somewhat tired of ME. Okay this is understandable, after 3 games some creative people might really want to try something new.

But no, this wasn't enough, they just went and *literally* nuked their entire franchise to hell. The entire franchise in a single stroke, by killing off the entire Milky Way galaxy. Here, have some galactic Dark Age, no more ME for you. Also F**k you, thanks for playing, plis gib more monies - right there in the middle of your screen, while you sit there, dumbfounded by what the heck just happened.

They basically took what all of us liked so much and smashed it to bits right before our eyes, while cackling something about "artistic integrity".

 

And now you serously think a reboot would be a good idea? More like a giant middle finger to the most of the playerbase.

 

 

In my opinion, ME1-3 should be aknowledged in ME:A, Shepard needs to be an important historical figure(certainly one of a kind hero of humanity), Reapers a topic among scientists and historians(ie discussions about whether or not they were or could come to Andromeda). Not only that, but we should be given a chance to come back to Milky Way in another installment of ME:A series, to explore what happened to the galaxy we left behind. I outlined a possible way to handle the ME3 endings in such a case or we just go with IT theory where Reapers won and we suddenly face leftovers of Reaper force eradicating the last remnants of the dying galactic civilization.

Going back to Milky Way, now as strangers and outsiders, would make a lot of sense from a story telling and marketing point of view anyway, in my opinion.

[STARS_MEDIC_87]

Shame it's not going to follow after ME3 because I think that would be great but I have to say I am looking forward to a whole new cast, and to see where the series is going, I just hope they pull it off well and it's going to be as good as the first 3

[goofyomnivore]

I would love a hard reboot of Mass Effect. I would like to play as a Spectre and travel around the galaxy doing Spectre things. I would like to see a BioWare game without companions/squad that you can pick from a pool for every mission. I'm not saying do away with social networks and relationships, but let them be out in the galaxy doing their thing rather than strapped down to the player character all the time. I'd love to explore an Omega or Illium the size of Novigrad or Velen in the Witcher 3.

[Shinobu]

Andromeda isn't a reboot, it's a spinoff a la Stargate Atlantis and Star Trek Voyager. Some spin offs are good, but they rarely surpass the original series in terms of general popularity. We'll see how this one does. I hope it's good (ST:TNG and not Stargate Universe).

I"d personally prefer to keep the original characters in the original setting with either a reimagining of the story (Battlestar Galactica reboot) or a sequel. Mostly it's because I'm very attached to the squaddies and have a hard time believing I will like a PC VA as well as I like Jen Hale. (So far I haven't really liked Hawke and the Inquisitor. The VAs do a good job but I don't care about their characters the same way as I do Shepard.) I'm open to moving on if Andromeda is great, however.

I think Andromeda is a test balloon. Bioware will float it and see what happens. If it does well, then they will continue the story. If it does poorly they will either scrap the Mass Effect franchise or go back to Shepard's story (like Halo with Master Chief). Or maybe drop Andromeda and try a different spinoff with yet a new protagonist, making Mass Effect more like Dragon Age.

[UpUpAway95]

Spectacular Spider-Man isn't a movie, and they're not different universes. That implies a multiverse and that all the different Spider-Man film iterations co-exist. The transition from Spider-Man 3 to Amazing Spider-Man was a hard reboot. Same characters, same setting, but new stories, actors and style.

 

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're positing redoing Mass Effect with Shepard (and in Shepard's time)... just in a different way.  Intriguing idea, but I don't think it will get done because, ultimately, that would like mean eventually putting one of the end scenarios (or a new and different ending scenario) into the position of becoming the "canon" ending for the original trilogy.  I'd be quite willing to accept them doing that... but aI lot of others who are simply unwilling to let the old endings issue go would probably start a riot.

 

I think the new setting with new characters and telling a new story is the better move (which is basically what they've said they're doing with Andromeda).  They may go so far as to re-interpret much of their "science" in a different way... which would, no doubt, draw the ire of fans, but might help pave the way for a better story overall for Andromeda.  There will, of course, be a number of "fans" who will probably still refuse to make the transition and who will probably go on complaining about the original trilogy... but they're a lost cause anyways, IMO.

[SimonTheFrog]

Making me invested in whatever happens in "Andromeda" takes probably much more effort than milky way because milky way starts right here, at our doorsteps. Hell, walking around the moon surface in ME1 was one of the most memorable moments for me in the entire trilogy. It was tangible, you know? Not some fantasticle planet in a galaxy far far away but it was OUR moon... the one i see in the night-sky.

And mars... (the environment... not the "story" that is perpetrated there).

 

Random planets in the Andromeda Galaxy? I simply don't care.

 

It will be some fantasy setting. Probably pretty... but still... its not Kansas anymore.

[Cyonan]

Andromeda isn't a reboot, it's a spinoff a la Stargate Atlantis and Star Trek Voyager. Some spin offs are good, but they rarely surpass the original series in terms of general popularity. We'll see how this one does. I hope it's good.

I"d personally prefer to keep the original characters in the original setting with either a reimagining of the story (Battlestar Galactica reboot) or a sequel. Mostly it's because I'm very attached to the squaddies and have a hard time believing I will like a PC VA as well as I like Jen Hale. (So far I haven't really liked Hawke and the Inquisitor. The VAs do a good job but I don't care about their characters the same way as I do Shepard.) I'm open to moving on if Andromeda is great, however.

I think Andromeda is a test balloon. Bioware will float it and see what happens. If it does well, then they will continue the story. If it does poorly they will either scrap the Mass Effect franchise or go back to Shepard's story (like Halo with Master Chief). Or maybe drop Andromeda and try a different spinoff with yet a new protagonist, making Mass Effect more like Dragon Age.

 

I think the main thing that made more people care more about Shep is the fact that we're with him/her for 3 full games. In the Dragon Age universe at this point we already know that after one game, that's it for that protagonist being the PC. I'm likely never going to get to play my Warden, Hawke, or Inquisitor again.

 

In fact that's the case for me for all the characters. I'm more attached to characters like Kasumi, Tali, and Garrus than I am to Alistair and Varric who are my favourites of the Dragon Age games.

 

Although I think ME3 ending kind of made too much of a change in the milky way galaxy for us to really be able to go back unless it's either the hard reboot that the OP is asking for or they literally make our choices irrelevant and just pick one to be the canon and go with that.

[themikefest]

I'd rather see a sequel to Mass Effect 3, even if it means basing the sequel on just one of the ending choices, than a hard reboot.

I have no problem having a sequel. Like you say, choose an ending. Choose destroy and go with it. Or, as I've posted before, have BioWare choose another ending that currently doesn't exist.

Hackett says the people working on the crucible believe there's enough energy to destroy the reapers. So let the thing destroy them. As soon as the Citadel arms are fully opened, the crucible fires its bag of goodies all over the galaxy destroying the reapers. Simple. Or, it just fires a very powerful pulse that changes the programming of the reaper to stop the harvest. They're seen flying out of the galaxy. I'll let BioWare flip a coin to decide which one to use

What it does it leaves the reapers as a mystery about why they did what they did. This could be used for a sequel to discover why they did what they did.
 

That's just my preference though, and I'm sure between those two choices some would prefer a reboot.

My personal preference is to redo the trilogy.
 

They sort of painted themselves into a corner with ME3's endings,

They still can fall back on the guy saying the details have changed over time and the one more story line. But even if they were to do that, many folks, as you say, won't be happy.
 

[Fade9wayz]

On principle I have nothing against it, but I'd rather move on to something new. Besides, a reboot isn't a guarantee it will be better than the original. In a nutshell, I'd be happier if they made a movie centered on Venom and Carnage than another reboot with Spidey. Might not be better either, but at least I'll be told a new story.

[Beerfish]

As long as Dot and Megabyte are in it I'm all in favour of it.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                     <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>

 

I'm looking forward to Andromeda and hope the jumping combat mechanics adds a positive experience to the player. Also hope that the studio refrained from making too many changes in other combat mechanics as Bio did with DA:I vs the previous two DA games.

 

Andromeda is a Mass Effect game and is a hard reboot of the franchise, imo. It's an opportunity for the studio to atone for the crap ME3 endings by avoiding at all costs any hint of galaxy wide apocalyptic events and just concentrate in the immediate neighbourhood of the Helius cluster.  The main story arc is the story equivalent of ISABELLA, JAMESTOWN and PLYMOUTH colonial settlements starting from 1493. ISABELLA, for example, soon fell prey to hunger, disease that soon led to mutiny, punishment, disillusion...  <=== hint of the human antagonist?

 

See brief synopsis of the settlements here:  http://nationalhuman...1/text1read.htm

 

Personally, any "hard reboot" of the Shep universe, even with new chars and story, just won't work for me. Why? This universe has the Mass Relays and Relays pops the Reapers in my mind with its inevitable galaxy wide pogrom.

[Statichands]

Look at DMC. Criminally underrated, but vastly superior to Devil May Cry 4

 

DMC  was a failure, a reboot let down by unlikable characters and a dumbed down combat system. I liked how it was more story driven but that's the only good thing about it, Devil May Cry 4 was more fun. Thanks to DmC, the franchise is floating in an empty void and Capcom don't know what to do with it. 

[Commander Rpg]

A lot of people are severely booty blasted over a simple change of setting to avoid the fallout from ME3

Some people with good tastes believe that anything coming out after that game, as things appear to be now, is a complete waste of time.

Stagnant water always becomes a receptacle for all kinds of bacteria in it, therefore, rebus sic stantibus (things being as they are), it would be much more original to do brand new games or to have the balls to do an actual derivate with serious ideas, not the stuff with which the market can easily seize money from the goats' wallets. Which leads to the following statement: a poorly sold game isn't necessarily a bad game and a hot selling game isn't necessarily a good game, because all the market does is to reason in terms of numbers related to money; on the other hand, a quality game which had a good sponsorship and that sells little, widely criticised, means that people don't comprehend beauty, and that a miry game with the same marketing that sells a lot, and is widely appreciated, means that the company has done a good work on their sponsors, that the buyers are partly ignorant (which is the best they can aspire to be) and for the most part people without good taste.

 

^

|
|
|

Common sense

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Spectacular Spider-Man isn't a movie, and they're not different universes. That implies a multiverse and that all the different Spider-Man film iterations co-exist. The transition from Spider-Man 3 to Amazing Spider-Man was a hard reboot. Same characters, same setting, but new stories, actors and style.

They did this with batman and superman series too.

Unlike Bond or Dr who. These were a continuation with different actors.