736 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

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

I don't believe that. I wouldn't be surprised if this was their intention even if the ending was different.
 
They're working with a new engine.  There's  new people who haven't worked on the previous games. They're starting from scratch going to Andromeda. They won't be limited to what's in the Milky Way. They have a free-for-all for idea's with characters, story, setting and gameplay.
 

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

Is it choice or choices? If its choice, that would be the ending. If its choices, I would suggest to them they play their game before making a comment like that. I like for them to answer how Garrus and Kirrahe know each other on Sur'Kesh if Garrus was never recruited in ME1?
 

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).

They could. I know I would. Since you're a fan of Ashley just as I am a fan of her, wouldn't you like to see her again with a few changes to her character or whatever?


Would a hard reboot be a bad thing? Don't know. But until it happens, no one knows

[UpUpAway]

Is this just rhetoric, or do you actually think that ME:A won't be familiiar?

 

I think it is just rhetoric... no matter what Bioware does with ME:A, there will be people who will complain about it... and if the do rewrite the ME:T, they'll complain about that to... and even if they attempt to write a sequel to the ME:T in the Milky Way galaxy, they'd complain about that as well.  People are just not giving ME:A any chance at all to be judged on whatever its own merits are going to be because they insist on continually dragging it back to ME3.  A movie based on a factual event often doesn't retain very much about that factual event, sequel series often bear little resemblance to the original... and that doesn't arbitrarily make them "bad" stories in their own rights.  All ME:A really has to retain is the concept of using Mass Effect fields in order to be a story about "Mass Effect."

[Iakus]

I don't believe that. I wouldn't be surprised if this was their intention even if the ending was different.
 
They're working with a new engine.  There's  new people who haven't worked on the previous games. They're starting from scratch going to Andromeda. They won't be limited to what's in the Milky Way. They have a free-for-all for idea's with characters, story, setting and gameplay.
 

They hadn't intended to do anything past ME3.  But when they decided to do more in the setting (or perhaps their EA overlords decided to milk a new shooter franchise) they learned that sequels and side-quels weren't exactly enthusiastically embraced.

 

The Milky Way is also full of ideas. Both new and old.  A pity they insist of letting the garbage fire continue to burn.

 

 

 

Is it choice or choices? If its choice, that would be the ending. If its choices, I would suggest to them they play their game before making a comment like that. I like for them to answer how Garrus and Kirrahe know each other on Sur'Kesh if Garrus was never recruited in ME1?

 

https://twitter.com/...495543001321473

 

"There is no canon ending to ME3.  Player choice is something we take very seriously"

 

Yeah, NOW they do!  

 

 

 

They could. I know I would. Since you're a fan of Ashley just as I am a fan of her, wouldn't you like to see her again with a few changes to her character or whatever?

Would a hard reboot be a bad thing? Don't know. But until it happens, no one knows

Depends on what the changes were, of course.  I mean, we saw what a few changes to her character did in ME3...

 

A hard reboot would hardly be worse

[Iakus]

I think it is just rhetoric... no matter what Bioware does with ME:A, there will be people who will complain about it... and if the do rewrite the ME:T, they'll complain about that to... and even if they attempt to write a sequel to the ME:T in the Milky Way galaxy, they'd complain about that as well.  People are just not giving ME:A any chance at all to be judged on whatever its own merits are going to be because they insist on continually dragging it back to ME3.  A movie based on a factual event often doesn't retain very much about that factual event, sequel series often bear little resemblance to the original... and that doesn't arbitrarily make them "bad" stories in their own rights.  All ME:A really has to retain is the concept of using Mass Effect fields in order to be a story about "Mass Effect."

Then I guess Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and Farscape are all pretty much the same because they're about traveling to other worlds.

[themikefest]

They hadn't intended to do anything past ME3.  But when they decided to do more in the setting (or perhaps their EA overlords decided to milk a new shooter franchise) they learned that sequels and side-quels weren't exactly enthusiastically embraced.
 
The Milky Way is also full of ideas. Both new and old.  A pity they insist of letting the garbage fire continue to burn.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have another game in the Milky Way in the future.
 

https://twitter.com/...495543001321473
 
"There is no canon ending to ME3.  Player choice is something we take very seriously"
 
Yeah, NOW they do!  

I remember that one. I wasn't sure if there was another tweet that mentioned choices.
 

Depends on what the changes were, of course.  I mean, we saw what a few changes to her character did in ME3...

2 changes I would make. Have her show up in the arrival dlc and have her on the squad for all of ME3 instead of being in the  hospital for half the game
 

A hard reboot would hardly be worse

It could be. It could be better. Don't know.

[UpUpAway]

Then I guess Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and Farscape are all pretty much the same because they're about traveling to other worlds.

That's a straw dog and you know it.  There are many ways they can connect ME:A to ME:T without staying in the same locations and sticking to all the same species, etc.  In many respects, the series you mention all have similarities that do tend to attract the same sort of fans to each of them.  Several of the different Star Trek series had different characters, different ships, and different locations... and still remained recognizably "Star Trek"... and even if they hadn't... each series did have it's own merits that made each of them uniquely "good" in some way.

[AlanC9]

Well the teaser was barely recognizable as a Mass Effect game, so....

Really? Looked like Mass Effect to me. There was a krogan and everything.

[Iakus]

That's a straw dog and you know it.  There are many ways they can connect ME:A to ME:T without staying in the same locations and sticking to all the same species, etc.  In many respects, the series you mention all have similarities that do tend to attract the same sort of fans to each of them.  Several of the different Star Trek series had different characters, different ships, and different locations... and still remained recognizably "Star Trek"... and even if they hadn't... each series did have it's own merits that made each of them uniquely "good" in some way.

Hey, you are the one who said all they needed were "Mass Effect fields" to make it a Mass Effect game.

 

Star Trek has similarities beyond characters and ships.  It has locations, governments, species, and concepts like the Prime Directive and IDIC.

 

Just because a series attracts a similar crowd doesn't make them part of a shared universe.  A new series with no similarities to it's parent may be a good series in its own right, but that doesn't make it worthy of carrying the name. 

[Iakus]

Really? Looked like Mass Effect to me. There was a krogan and everything.

Looked like a shooter spinoff to Starcraft to me.

 

To have to really Zapruder the thing to even see the krogan.

[UpUpAway]

Hey, you are the one who said all they needed were "Mass Effect fields" to make it a Mass Effect game.

 

Star Trek has similarities beyond characters and ships.  It has locations, governments, species, and concepts like the Prime Directive and IDIC.

 

Just because a series attracts a similar crowd doesn't make them part of a shared universe.  A new series with no similarities to it's parent may be a good series in its own right, but that doesn't make it worthy of carrying the name. 

 

Yes, I said that all they needed were... but that doesn't mean that there aren't many more ways they could connect them without adhering to all the requirements you seem to be putting on the issue nor does it mean that they have to be "very connected" to be "connected enough" to be considered by many to be recognizably of the same "series" of works.  From our previous discussions, I know that there is indeed nothing that Bioware could do that would make you change your negative perceptions of the Mass Effect franchise... and nothing that anyone can say to you to make you feel better about any of it.  You're one who is clearly in the "determined to be unsatisfied" category I've mentioned.  You're not going to be happy with ME:A regardless of what it turns out to be after it gets released... if only for the reason that you've already decided to be unhappy with it.

[shepskisaac]

Spider-Man-2002

Rebooted by Amazing Spider-Man 2012

Rebooted again with Spider-Man: Homecoming 2017

 

 

Hulk:  2003

rebooted by Incredible Hulk 2008

 

X-Men 2000

(soft) rebooted by X-Men: First Class 2011

and completely ret-gone by X-Men: Days of Future Past 2014

Spider-Man debut: 1962

 

Hulk debut: 1962

 

X-men debut: 1963

 

Batman debut: 1939

 

Superman debut: 1938

 

Mass Effect debut: 2007

 

That's my point. And heck, even old properties that kind of HAVE to reboot from time to time may suffer because of it if it happens too soon/too often. Look no further than Spider-Man. Even Marvel's involvement doesn't make the general audience hot with anticipation for yet another reboot in just few years. It will take exceptional reviews to make Spider-Man Homecoming a hit comparable to 2002 flick

[Iakus]

Spider-Man debut: 1962

 

Hulk debut: 1962

 

X-men debut: 1963

 

Batman debut: 1939

 

Superman debut: 1938

 

Mass Effect debut: 2007

 

That's my point. And heck, even old properties that kind of HAVE to reboot from time to time may suffer because of it if it happens too soon/too often. Look no further than Spider-Man. Even Marvel's involvement doesn't make the general audience hot with anticipation for yet another reboot in just few years. It will take exceptional reviews to make Spider-Man Homecoming a hit comparable to 2002 flick

Movies have always been a separate continuity from comics.

 

But if you want to play that game, even comics reboot themselves every 10-15 years

 

For example:

Flash (Jay Garrick 1940)

Flash (Barry Allen) 1956

 

Superman (Kal-L) 1938
Superman (Kal-EL) 1950s, though arguably as early as the mid-40s

 

Also

Superman Returns 2006

Man of Steel 2013

 

If you really want to get into Spider-Man, how many tv series have there been over the years?

 

Batman too, for that matter

[Il Divo]

ut it was still there.  We heard of magisters, we met at least one Rivaini.  The Anderfels and Free marches are mentioned and even appear on maps.  It was all part of what makes Thedas Thedas.

 

Just as the Citadel, Earth, Palaven, drell, and asari matriarchs are part of what make the Mass Effect setting recognizable.

 

 

If that's the standard of evidence, then Andromeda is fine - plenty of original trilogy locations/organizations will be mentioned/referenced, directly or indirectly. Likewise, the occasional Krogan or something similar will allow us to retain the Mass Effect brand. 

[The Elder King]

Well the teaser was barely recognizable as a Mass Effect game, so....

 

 

Looked like a shooter spinoff to Starcraft to me.

 

To have to really Zapruder the thing to even see the krogan.

It's a matter of opinion. Plenty of people said the teaser looked like a ME game. And I didn't need to do anything to recognize the krogan.

[Jedi Comedian]

Gimme a sequel or gimme nothin'.

[VelvetStraitjacket]

Nah, reboots always seemed like a lazy way out to me. Sure ME3 messed things up at the end, but I'd rather they own up to it and just move forward than sweeping the whole trilogy under the rug and pretend like nothing ever happened.

[UpUpAway]

Nah, reboots always seemed like a lazy way out to me. Sure ME3 messed things up at the end, but I'd rather they own up to it and just move forward than sweeping the whole trilogy under the rug and pretend like nothing ever happened.

 

How would you suggest "they own up to it" and what is "it" that they need to own up to anyways.  Opinions about the endings are divided (many people on these forums have repeatedly stated that they enjoyed the endings) and ME3 is still very much a playable game (such that many of use have played it over and over again many times).  People are certainly entitled to their varied opinions about the endings but there is really nothing about them that Bioware hasn't already attempted to rectify... That is, they released an extended cut... which did satisfy some people.  That just leaves those who are not willing to ever be satisfied nomatter what Bioware does with the franchise.

 

ME:A has the potential to be a great game in its own right... even if NOTHING connects it to the original ME Trilogy.  In all likelihood though, Bioware will make some recognizable references to the old ME ways or places and such and the game will be recognizably part of the ME franchise.

 

The ME Trilogy is what it is... and after 4 years, nothing is going to change that.  At some point, yes, the story could be told again in an different way in a "reboot" type scenario... and if they do decide to do a reboot, I'd look forward to that as well... because, at the very bottom line, I enjoyed the ME Trilogy.  For the people who did not enjoy it and cannot find a way to let the issue go... then I would suggest you simply just not invest any time or money in ME:A because you've already convinced yourselves that you are not going to like it no matter what it turns out to be.

[shepskisaac]

Movies have always been a separate continuity from comics.

 

But if you want to play that game, even comics reboot themselves every 10-15 years

 

For example:

Flash (Jay Garrick 1940)

Flash (Barry Allen) 1956

 

Superman (Kal-L) 1938
Superman (Kal-EL) 1950s, though arguably as early as the mid-40s

 

Also

Superman Returns 2006

Man of Steel 2013

 

If you really want to get into Spider-Man, how many tv series have there been over the years?

 

Batman too, for that matter

These franchises can afford early/often and even failed reboots because they've been established for generations. You can't compare Mass Effect to them, as popular as it is. Rebooting a universe after barely 3 main entries in the story arc is really pushing it (comic book reboots within 10-15 years lifespan will cover way more story for that matter too)

[AlanC9]

Looked like a shooter spinoff to Starcraft to me.

To have to really Zapruder the thing to even see the krogan.

If you say so. How come Starcraft in particular, though?

Anyway, it's not like anyone went into that trailer not knowing it was for a Mass Effect game. What's the actual issue here? I mean, I get that you personally want reassurance from Bio because they hurt you so badly with ME3, but I thought the point of that trailer was to tell us stuff about ME:A, not to prove that ME:A really was Mass Effect.

[Iakus]

If that's the standard of evidence, then Andromeda is fine - plenty of original trilogy locations/organizations will be mentioned/referenced, directly or indirectly. Likewise, the occasional Krogan or something similar will allow us to retain the Mass Effect brand. 

There is hope we may see the Anderfels in a future game.  What are the odds we'll ever see Khar'Shan?  Does being Rivaini mean anything if there is no more Rivain?  What good is having all this lore if it's only to be revealed in the past tense?

 

It's a matter of opinion. Plenty of people said the teaser looked like a ME game. And I didn't need to do anything to recognize the krogan.

I didn't even know there was a krogan in the trailer until it was pointed out to me.

[Khrystyn]

... would a hard reboot be so terrible?

 

I thought Shepard's death, the adventure to Andromeda, a jet pack and a new mako IS THE REBOOT of the franchise. I guess I'm such a simpleton to believe that these are all that's needed to indicate the new and improved franchise. Silly me.

[Iakus]

These franchises can afford early/often and even failed reboots because they've been established for generations. You can't compare Mass Effect to them, as popular as it is. Rebooting a universe after barely 3 main entries in the story arc is really pushing it (comic book reboots within 10-15 years lifespan will cover way more story for that matter too)

Umm, those reboots in the 40s and 50s the franchise had barely lasted a decade.

 

If you say so. How come Starcraft in particular, though?

Anyway, it's not like anyone went into that trailer not knowing it was for a Mass Effect game. What's the actual issue here? I mean, I get that you personally want reassurance from Bio because they hurt you so badly with ME3, but I thought the point of that trailer was to tell us stuff about ME:A, not to prove that ME:A really was Mass Effect.

Probably the Johnny Cash music.  And maybe the Protoss Remnant(?) structures warping into existence.

 

But aside from the N7 logo and the omniblade at the very end were the only clues to me that this was a Mass Effect game at all. 

[Khrystyn]

They revealed a tiny bit of a teaser for a brand new IP back in March. It is the last BioWare game that David Gaider helped create. They were wearing a t-shirt with the name of the new IP and no one noticed.

 

I thought 'the new franchise' and ME:A are two different things.

 

If nobody noticed a new franchise T-shirt, it must look like the same ol', same ol'....  Or, hardcore gamers are brain dead (which one can make a legitimate argument for - they have no peripheral vision).   Thankfully, casual-level players have a higher IQ. WE would have noticed.

[Khrystyn]

These threads are getting dumber and dumber.

 

So are the comments, when there's nothing new to comment on...

[Il Divo]

There is hope we may see the Anderfels in a future game.  What are the odds we'll ever see Khar'Shan?  Does being Rivaini mean anything if there is no more Rivain?  What good is having all this lore if it's only to be revealed in the past tense?

 

 

Because past lore has the ability to impact future stories? Bioware may be scrapping the Milky Way, but that doesn't serve to exclude any of those elements from potentially being relevant. Krogans can still hate Turians, referencing the deployment of the genophage. Asari can reference the irony of being fish out of water, after a millenia of being the most important Council race, and how that alters their perspective. We can have a make-shift Spectre force for the population of the Ark.  

 

Like anything else, past stories inform present stories. Considering the entire population (and technology) we're bringing to Andromeda consists of species which inhabited the Milky Way for their entire lives, the idea that all the lore is simply going out the window  is questionable.