736 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

A dark and gritty reboot of an increasingly dark and gritty series?

 

The cup runneth over....

[Fortlowe]

I don't know if a reboot is necessary. It was a big galaxy before the reaper threat emerged. Lots of room to tell stories in that setting already. And maybe stories of a different sort than another party based RPG, perhaps. Imagine a shooter concerning the Turian black ops. A stealth action game involving the STG. An adventure who dun it set on Omega.

Love'me or hate'me, the endings aren't the end. Even if it weren't for all the new directions Andromeda is opening up for the franchise, there was already lots of places to use for additional content.

[Killroy]

I've seen plenty of opinions that are ignorant, usually ones that are negative against other people because of their ignorance, and reflective of outdated thinking, and in that case I would take issue with it and not regard it as an equal opinion worth arguing against.

But an opinion on a game character, on any piece of media, even if may seem stupid to you, is their opinion that they are entitled too. It's all subjective and open to critique. You can call it out, and disagree with it, but i personally find it a tad harsh to openly express hatred of it and a gamer's opinion when it doesn't show the same level of thought into it as yours.

Just because everyone is entitled to their opinion that doesn't make all opinions equal. If more objective thought is put into one opinion then it is more valid than the opinion with no objective thought behind it.
If two people are doing a blind taste test of a cookie and one of them is an experienced baker with a developed pallet and the other is a child who just devours sweets, which one do you think is likely to have the better opinion on what kind of cookie it is?

[Killroy]

A dark and gritty reboot of an increasingly dark and gritty series?

The cup runneth over....

Who said anything about dark and gritty?

[Seraphim24]

Who said anything about dark and gritty?

 

Has there ever been any other kind?

[Prince Enigmatic]

Has there ever been any other kind?

 

There's a fine line between "dark and gritty" and moody and broody, often as in the case with reboots or re imaginings what have you. The moody and broody types treat any iota of humor like salt in tea instead of sugar.

[Seraphim24]

There's a fine line between "dark and gritty" and moody and broody, often as in the case with reboots or re imaginings what have you. The moody and broody types treat any iota of humor like salt in tea instead of sugar.

 

Um.

 

 

Not getting it

 

Moody, broody, Gritty and Dark all sound like brother/sisters in the house of sad and bad.

[Gothfather]

That symbolism of the Grey Wardens was still more suitable for that kind of game. The Wardens are neutral and considered heroic to everyone (regardless of the truth). Hence, the whole "grey" name. They scream neutrality and big umbrella organization that welcomes anything. Duncan especially symbolized that.

 

They tried to recreate the "magic" of the first game with DAI, but with very specific civil wars and a Chantry crisis. That kind of story deserved more focus, I think. Not another Warden type of game. It also sucks coming off the back of DA2.. which showed that they can make a fleshed out/personable character.

 

Regardless though, DAO still had it's origins as well as Ostagar. That's kind of like two origin stories for everyone that's puts the protagonist on their path. DAI couldn't even manage one. It seems to assume I like Elder Scrolls stories or MMO protags who get up plopped on a shore.

 

The symbolism of the Inquisitor is perfect FOR the crisis in Inquisition. The grey Wardens work for origins because it is as much about the redemption of the neutrality of the wardens in ferelden as it is eliminating the blight. Wardens in Ferelden has a bit of a chequered past and they are NOT viewed as paragons of neutrality in Ferelden. So I think you are cherry picking your facts to support your belief rather than let the facts shape your belief. It is in fact this chequered past that makes the betrayal of the king by the wardens so believable to the people of Ferelden. (i mean the did it once before already why not this time as well? And why the warden has to work HARD to convince people to join the cause.

 

The inquisitor's symbolism is pretty much all religious because at the heart of the conflict is religious doctrine on how to control magic. And it is this religious symbolism that gives the inquisition its "authority" to impose change. In origins you solved problems by trying to either brokering peace or being forced to pick a side. In Inquisition you are not nor were you ever intended to be a neutral third party. You are intended to IMPOSE your will on the crisis with divine authority based on the religious symbolism. You have to solve issues along the way but these problems are obstacles to be eliminated so it opens the way to allow you to impose your will. Which is very much how religious movements operate. They don't shy away from this in Inquisition you are there to IMPOSE what you believe is right. They don't try to sugar coat this aspect of teh narrative either.

 

Now if players refuse to embrace this facet of the narrative then they are going to rub against constantly and it wont feel all that great but the same is true if you want to play a character in Origins that doesn't give a crap about the wardens as you can be forced into the service of the wardens against your will. If players try to swim upstream in any game's narrative then they are not going to enjoy it as much. 

 

I really don't find Origins and DA:I that similar, they approach problem solving in very different fashions, the narrative isn't really all that similar except in so far as there is a crisis not of the player's making that only they are in a position to solve. Yet this type of similarity is prolific in RPGs, it isn't really anything to point to and say see these games are similar as so are countless other games similar in the same fashion. It is a non remarkable similarity because it is so common.

[Hazegurl]

I really hate gamers sometimes. Too young and sheltered to know who Sid Vicious is or what punk rock looks like, and too immature to understand emotions other than anger and lust. DMC is so much smarter and more artistic than the rest of the series that it was doomed to failure. It's basically Devil May Cry 3 mixed with The Binding Of Isaac so of course it went way over the heads of your average gamers. Dante was always a generic hero that was a completely different character from game to game but dumb gamers had this imaginary image of the perfect badass in their heads, so any nuance was too much to handle. 

Or maybe it didn't fly over anyone's head, it's just a matter of fans just not liking it and that's that. I also think you're doing a bit too much generalizing.

 

"but dumb gamers had this imaginary image of the perfect badass in their heads.." Is hardly a true statement of most DMC fans.  You must have never heard them make fun of DMC1's Dante's corny lines "Dark soul to liiiiiiiiife!"

 

Most fans have always been attracted to a certain type of Dante and that was the DMC 1 type. Funny, mature, handsome, but also a bad ass. Fans didn't care for the DMC2 Dante (or was it more of the story than him?) and fans made fun of DMC 3 Dante's outfit and "lack of maturity" (odd that you would call these same fans immature). DMC 4's Dante was more of a return to the classic Dante but he was a side character in some other guy's story unfortunately.

 

IMO, Give me a "generic" Shakespeare quoting Dante any day.

 

My point is that you win some and lose some.  I personally didn't like this 'sid vicious' reboot Dante who had to shout "shyt" at the end of every sentence. What's next a Sister's of Mercy Dante? Cradle of Filth Dante?  They could have simply just created an original character for that and give them an original story.  Overall, the story in the reboot wasn't horrible but it wasn't great, and some of the characters were just forgettable. Reboot Vergil and the music was good, though.

 

If two people are doing a blind taste test of a cookie and one of them is an experienced baker with a developed pallet and the other is a child who just devours sweets, which one do you think is likely to have the better opinion on what kind of cookie it is?

 

The one who's going to be making that company the most money, that's who.

[Killroy]

Has there ever been any other kind?

Yes. None of the Spider-Man movie reboots are darker or grittier. DMC wasn't darker or grittier than Devil May Cry, it was just more of an exploration of character and emotions.

[AlleyD]

I would say that a hard reboot strategy has far more negatives applied than positives. Hard Rebooting a franchise is most effective when it has been deployed to disconnect the franchise from a major negative commercial or critical reception to a previous incarnation of the franchise. While ME3 had a vocal negative response from within a section of the fanbase, it was a minority opinion that was amplified by the echo chamber effects of social media and it did not cause a negative on the commercial uptake of the games. Going on the figures that have ME3 outperforming previous games, the controversy may have helped the franchise's commercial success and "proved" its future potential.

 

Where I think the Hard Reboot strategy would have most negative effect is on Brand equity, identity and attachments. Mass Effect created powerful attachments in its users over an extended period of time and a Hard Reboot strategy may be perceived as an attempt at divorcing the brand from that legacy. Like the New Coke controversy, this perception can have major negative impact that is hard to quantify. These "lovemarks" within a brand's users may be more powerful than the trademark recognition. The ME3 ending controversy had elements of a brand equity crisis across a minority of the core consumers, but a Hard reboot could be perceived in a similar way by a far larger segment of previous ME users.

 

Where a Hard Reboot stratgy could work in the future is regards the LoveMarks that are contained within the Shepard character or the Milky Way setting. ME:A may fail to connect as powerfully and suffer a negative commercial/critical response that forces a reboot back into the MW setting. 

[IST]

No one at BioWare has ever said this is a reboot: all that is known is that it's set in another Galaxy and it's got returning races from the original series with a Human protag.

 

This in no way makes it a reboot, more accurately an offshoot.

[Iakus]

I would say that a hard reboot strategy has far more negatives applied than positives. Hard Rebooting a franchise is most effective when it has been deployed to disconnect the franchise from a major negative commercial or critical reception to a previous incarnation of the franchise. While ME3 had a vocal negative response from within a section of the fanbase, it was a minority opinion that was amplified by the echo chamber effects of social media and it did not cause a negative on the commercial uptake of the games. Going on the figures that have ME3 outperforming previous games, the controversy may have helped the franchise's commercial success and "proved" its future potential.

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you thought the endings were fine?  

 

 

 

Where I think the Hard Reboot strategy would have most negative effect is on Brand equity, identity and attachments. Mass Effect created powerful attachments in its users over an extended period of time and a Hard Reboot strategy may be perceived as an attempt at divorcing the brand from that legacy. Like the New Coke controversy, this perception can have major negative impact that is hard to quantify. These "lovemarks" within a brand's users may be more powerful than the trademark recognition. The ME3 ending controversy had elements of a brand equity crisis across a minority of the core consumers, but a Hard reboot could be perceived in a similar way by a far larger segment of previous ME users.

 

Wheras the alternative is to remove all the characters, locations, move several million light years away to a different galaxy, introduce previously nonexistent technology, and stamp "Mass Effect" on the name?

 

 

Where a Hard Reboot stratgy could work in the future is regards the LoveMarks that are contained within the Shepard character or the Milky Way setting. ME:A may fail to connect as powerfully and suffer a negative commercial/critical response that forces a reboot back into the MW setting.

 

MEA is running away from the screwups in ME3 without actually admitting there were any screwups.  It's as simple as that.

[Iakus]

I don't know if a reboot is necessary. It was a big galaxy before the reaper threat emerged. Lots of room to tell stories in that setting already. And maybe stories of a different sort than another party based RPG, perhaps. Imagine a shooter concerning the Turian black ops. A stealth action game involving the STG. An adventure who dun it set on Omega.

Love'me or hate'me, the endings aren't the end. Even if it weren't for all the new directions Andromeda is opening up for the franchise, there was already lots of places to use for additional content.

Sadly, they canonically had the endings affect the entire galaxy.

 

Thus they can't use the Milky Way without canonizing something, which they won't do, because (LOL) "Player choice is important to us"  

 

 I wonder where that sentiment was when they made ME3 to begin with...

[Fredward]

Not for me but I also don't really see why they would/should want to.

[AlleyD]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you thought the endings were fine?  

 

Wheras the alternative is to remove all the characters, locations, move several million light years away to a different galaxy, introduce previously nonexistent technology, and stamp "Mass Effect" on the name?

 

 

MEA is running away from the screwups in ME3 without actually admitting there were any screwups.  It's as simple as that.

 

No, I didn't think the ending of ME3 was fine by any means, but I was taking my own subjective taste out the equation.

[MrObnoxiousUK]

I'm all for a reboot of any franchise if it moves it forward.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm all for a reboot of any franchise if it moves it forward.

 

Isn't that the antithesis of a reboot? That they go back to the start?

 

 

Mind you, when I hear people clamor for a reboot it's never quite clear what they want changed and what they want to keep. For a lot of people 'reboot' seems to be 'remake'- same protagonist, same characters, same conflicts. There's vague, handwavey things about how things will be Different and Better but rarely any clarity on what and how, and the more they try to justify the less a reboot seems justified.

 

Like, if your idea of a reboot is that it's going to be Shepard again, and it's going to be the whole gang all over again, and the plot will have everything you like and ignore the parts you don't like... just replay the games and ignore the parts you don't like. A new plot will have new things you won't like.

 

But if the goal is new protagonist, new companions, new adventure... I really don't see the need to stay in the Milky Way. The only places the ME trilogy ever made reoccuring in the first place were the Normandy, the Citadel, and (arguably) Omega, if you count the Omega DLC. Otherwise, the 'familiar universe' we explored for our reoccuring iconic placement was the Citadel. Which, aesthetically, seems to be the Arc in all but name.

 

Not really sold on the vital importance of a Citadel hub as integral to the Mass Effect experience, and definitely not interested in a reboot of ME that amounts to a remaster edition. Okay,  omnitools and better combat come back to ME1, maybe some improved level design... and what else? Are they going to ditch ME2?

 

I guess that'd be interesting, but if we're going to be using new characters I'd be just as happy or happier with a new adventure entirely, rather than one that had some fundamental weaknesses from the start.

[Iakus]

Isn't that the antithesis of a reboot? That they go back to the start?

 

 

Mind you, when I hear people clamor for a reboot it's never quite clear what they want changed and what they want to keep. For a lot of people 'reboot' seems to be 'remake'- same protagonist, same characters, same conflicts. There's vague, handwavey things about how things will be Different and Better but rarely any clarity on what and how, and the more they try to justify the less a reboot seems justified.

 

Like, if your idea of a reboot is that it's going to be Shepard again, and it's going to be the whole gang all over again, and the plot will have everything you like and ignore the parts you don't like... just replay the games and ignore the parts you don't like. A new plot will have new things you won't like.

 

But if the goal is new protagonist, new companions, new adventure... I really don't see the need to stay in the Milky Way. The only places the ME trilogy ever made reoccuring in the first place were the Normandy, the Citadel, and (arguably) Omega, if you count the Omega DLC. Otherwise, the 'familiar universe' we explored for our reoccuring iconic placement was the Citadel. Which, aesthetically, seems to be the Arc in all but name.

 

Not really sold on the vital importance of a Citadel hub as integral to the Mass Effect experience, and definitely not interested in a reboot of ME that amounts to a remaster edition. Okay,  omnitools and better combat come back to ME1, maybe some improved level design... and what else? Are they going to ditch ME2?

 

I guess that'd be interesting, but if we're going to be using new characters I'd be just as happy or happier with a new adventure entirely, rather than one that had some fundamental weaknesses from the start.

The thing is, a reboot can mean lots of things.

 

I mean, yeah you could remake the same characters, same or very similar story, and all (Spider-Man).

Or you could do the same characters with a new  story (Star Trek reboot)

Or a new(ish) character with a similar story (the Equalizer tv show vs movie, old vs new Battlestar series) 

Or a brand new character in a familiar setting (Jay Garrick vs Barry Allen in The Flash comics)

[SKAR]

Speaking of opinions...

A reboot is pointless. What next, reboot gears of war because Dom is dead. Grow up people. Reboots only make things worse. They end up something the same than the original but worse. Then people want a reboot for the reboot. The f&#k?!

[SKAR]

Isn't that the antithesis of a reboot? That they go back to the start?


Mind you, when I hear people clamor for a reboot it's never quite clear what they want changed and what they want to keep. For a lot of people 'reboot' seems to be 'remake'- same protagonist, same characters, same conflicts. There's vague, handwavey things about how things will be Different and Better but rarely any clarity on what and how, and the more they try to justify the less a reboot seems justified.

Like, if your idea of a reboot is that it's going to be Shepard again, and it's going to be the whole gang all over again, and the plot will have everything you like and ignore the parts you don't like... just replay the games and ignore the parts you don't like. A new plot will have new things you won't like.

But if the goal is new protagonist, new companions, new adventure... I really don't see the need to stay in the Milky Way. The only places the ME trilogy ever made reoccuring in the first place were the Normandy, the Citadel, and (arguably) Omega, if you count the Omega DLC. Otherwise, the 'familiar universe' we explored for our reoccuring iconic placement was the Citadel. Which, aesthetically, seems to be the Arc in all but name.

Not really sold on the vital importance of a Citadel hub as integral to the Mass Effect experience, and definitely not interested in a reboot of ME that amounts to a remaster edition. Okay, omnitools and better combat come back to ME1, maybe some improved level design... and what else? Are they going to ditch ME2?

I guess that'd be interesting, but if we're going to be using new characters I'd be just as happy or happier with a new adventure entirely, rather than one that had some fundamental weaknesses from the start.

Why can't there be more rational thinkers like this guy?

[MrObnoxiousUK]

Isn't that the antithesis of a reboot? That they go back to the start?

 

 

Mind you, when I hear people clamor for a reboot it's never quite clear what they want changed and what they want to keep. For a lot of people 'reboot' seems to be 'remake'- same protagonist, same characters, same conflicts. There's vague, handwavey things about how things will be Different and Better but rarely any clarity on what and how, and the more they try to justify the less a reboot seems justified.

 

Like, if your idea of a reboot is that it's going to be Shepard again, and it's going to be the whole gang all over again, and the plot will have everything you like and ignore the parts you don't like... just replay the games and ignore the parts you don't like. A new plot will have new things you won't like.

 

But if the goal is new protagonist, new companions, new adventure... I really don't see the need to stay in the Milky Way. The only places the ME trilogy ever made reoccuring in the first place were the Normandy, the Citadel, and (arguably) Omega, if you count the Omega DLC. Otherwise, the 'familiar universe' we explored for our reoccuring iconic placement was the Citadel. Which, aesthetically, seems to be the Arc in all but name.

 

Not really sold on the vital importance of a Citadel hub as integral to the Mass Effect experience, and definitely not interested in a reboot of ME that amounts to a remaster edition. Okay,  omnitools and better combat come back to ME1, maybe some improved level design... and what else? Are they going to ditch ME2?

 

I guess that'd be interesting, but if we're going to be using new characters I'd be just as happy or happier with a new adventure entirely, rather than one that had some fundamental weaknesses from the start.

Moving it forward could mean a new art style,a new interface system,a new armour look,i was not specifically referring to a whole new plot wholly different from the original.So it is hardly the opposite or to use your fancy Greek term Antithesis.

[capn233]

Remastered editions of the games... sure.

 

Don't see a need for them to do a reboot or remake of the Shepard story.

[SKAR]

Remastered editions of the games... sure.

Don't see a need for them to do a reboot or remake of the Shepard story.

Thank you!!!!!!

[shepskisaac]

I just think it's way too early to reboot anything in Mass Effect, the franchise is not even 10 years old yet