104 réponses à ce sujet

[slaythatdragon]

According to recent articles, like https://www.vg247.co...-me3-save-file/  your decisions won't matter one bit!

I'm not saying the ending of ME3 should matter (no way I can see it working) but assuming the theories are correct and we leave the Milky Way before the finale of ME3, I thought at least some decisions will carry some weight. They should at least reference past events in a consistent manner like the gender of your Shepard and the heroes who are fighting the good fight back home etc.

Everyone knew them. I find it hard to believe there will be no acknowledgement of these events.

 

I figured an easy way to get out of having to use the ending as a factor was just leaving the galaxy before any of that took place. This would leave the manageable decisions intact. But it seems that's not gonna happen 

 

Now on to the second part of this post. While I love the DA series, I haven't connected to any of the protagonists as much as Shepard. A major reason for this is the returning protagonist throughout the trilogy which made it feel like his/her story actually had a beginning, a middle and an end. I'm not sure how I feel about them making a self contained story like a Dragon Age game. It reduces my anticipation for the series. While it has its pros like tighter and cohesive writing, I think one of the original trilogy's biggest strengths was that it was built as a trilogy from the beginning and made me anticipate the next game so much more. For me personally, the trilogy as a whole is one of the best gaming experiences to date (and yes even given the crappy ending). We don't even know for sure if Ryder will return in the next few games or we only have this game to connect with him/her. Long story short, I would feel much better if the story they were planning to tell spanned multiple games with the same protagonist.

 

Wanted to know if others felt the same way or are they happy with these decisions. 

Cause I'm a genuinely worried fan.

[AlanC9]

What should be carried over? In Andromeda, who the hell cares if the Destiny Ascenscion was destroyed? Who would even know about the Collector base?

[MrBSN2017]

Your decisions didn't matter in the trilogy anyways, so you should be used to it by now.

[Blueblood]

Don't worry, mate.

Our decisions aren't going to be ignored or disregarded, they're just not going to be touched upon. For now, Anyway. This is a new story with a new protagonist, and new characters, in a new place. We the player know what we did in the trilogy, those decisions don't have to carry over or be mentioned in every non direct ME sequel; not if we're in a place unaffected by all that.

I doubt any of the decisions we made in the trilogy will be contradicted, ambiguity is the key. And the key is silver. And goes into locks. And opens things. And there are different kinds of keys. Like monkeys, and donkeys and Alicia Keys.

Um, so yeh.

[Hadeedak]

With Schrodinger's Geth and the rest of it, leaving before the big choices or avoiding the others is the best way to start out with a lemony-fresh new Mass Effect.

[slaythatdragon]

Sure

 

I guess I'm able to glean what everyone thinks about the whole "No saves" issue

 

But what about the likelihood of a DA like structure of the series from now on?

[Mello]

It's not like our decisions mattered in the first place. The only significance of the ending is that the reaper threat is over nothing else really matters in the writer's eyes. 

 

Anyways, it seems like Bioware is trying their hardest to make sure this game has no relation to Shepard's story... literally. The decisions (s)he made, the people, everything. Don't even think of Mass Effect 1-3 when talking about Andromeda tbh. This is a whole new game just with the basic lore and history of the Mass Effect universe. 

[Shechinah]

What should be carried over? In Andromeda, who the hell cares if the Destiny Ascenscion was destroyed? Who would even know about the Collector base?

 

Pretty much; there is not much reason for any of the decisions made in the trilogy to be of significant weight in Andromeda and I'm fine with that. I should note that I have little problem with somebody mentioning Shepard and such in passing but I see little reason for them to be brought up repeatedly.

 

I've also felt closer to my characters in the Dragon Age series so I'd be fine with changing protagonists especially since I wouldn't have to worry about and experience inconsistent characterization like I did with Shepard. I don't mind a continuing protagonist as long as it does not negatively impact the story and cause inconsistent characterization.  
 

[slaythatdragon]

Pretty much; there is not much reason for any of the decisions made in the trilogy to be of significant weight in Andromeda and I'm fine with that. I should note that I have little problem with somebody mentioning Shepard and such in passing but I see little reason for them to be brought up repeatedly.

 

I've also felt closer to my characters in the Dragon Age series so I'd be fine with changing protagonists especially since I wouldn't have to worry about and experience inconsistent characterization like I did with Shepard. I don't mind a continuing protagonist as long as it does not negatively impact the story and cause inconsistent characterization.  
 

Huh

It was completely the opposite for me

The changing protagonist actually took away from my experience.

But I took that as a DA trope cause I played DA for a completely different reason. My fantasy fix came from DA so I excused the lack of a solid main character throughout and eventually it started working for me. And when DA tried to emulate ME it led to DA2 (  )

 

So I don't want the same thing to happen to ME with MEA. I'd like the 2 games to have their own strengths and weaknesses.

[Mello]

Huh

It was completely the opposite for me

The changing protagonist actually took away from my experience.

But I took that as a DA trope cause I played DA for a completely different reason. My fantasy fix came from DA so I excused the lack of a solid main character throughout and eventually it started working for me. And when DA tried to emulate ME it led to DA2 (  )

 

So I don't want the same thing to happen to ME with MEA. I'd like the 2 games to have their own strengths and weaknesses.

I didn't like the changing of protagonist either since I also believed it was more of a DA thing. I'm hoping that instead of having Ryder for one game, Bioware will do the same thing they did with Shepard and we'll play Ryder for two more games. However, that depends on whether or not Andromeda's story is 3 installments worthy or if they would like the extend the Mass Effect series to that many games. 

[Gothfather]

According to recent articles, like https://www.vg247.co...-me3-save-file/  your decisions won't matter one bit!

I'm not saying the ending of ME3 should matter (no way I can see it working) but assuming the theories are correct and we leave the Milky Way before the finale of ME3, I thought at least some decisions will carry some weight. They should at least reference past events in a consistent manner like the gender of your Shepard and the heroes who are fighting the good fight back home etc.

Everyone knew them. I find it hard to believe there will be no acknowledgement of these events.

 

I figured an easy way to get out of having to use the ending as a factor was just leaving the galaxy before any of that took place. This would leave the manageable decisions intact. But it seems that's not gonna happen 

 

Now on to the second part of this post. While I love the DA series, I haven't connected to any of the protagonists as much as Shepard. A major reason for this is the returning protagonist throughout the trilogy which made it feel like his/her story actually had a beginning, a middle and an end. I'm not sure how I feel about them making a self contained story like a Dragon Age game. It reduces my anticipation for the series. While it has its pros like tighter and cohesive writing, I think one of the original trilogy's biggest strengths was that it was built as a trilogy from the beginning and made me anticipate the next game so much more. For me personally, the trilogy as a whole is one of the best gaming experiences to date (and yes even given the crappy ending). We don't even know for sure if Ryder will return in the next few games or we only have this game to connect with him/her. Long story short, I would feel much better if the story they were planning to tell spanned multiple games with the same protagonist.

 

Wanted to know if others felt the same way or are they happy with these decisions. 

Cause I'm a genuinely worried fan.

 

What if they leave between Shepard's death and resurrection in ME2? Shepard is dead and not really anything special now.

 

I think they are doing the right thing. Leaving Shepard in the Past allows them to start the IP fresh. At some point you have to STOP referencing the past games in terms of player choice because these choices become far too divergent so much so that you have to create multiple references to the past and that adds up in terms of costs. Just 3 choices per game creates 27 different combinations, you include just 4 choices per game and you get 64 combinations. 5 choices per game and poof it is 125 possible combinations. You can't expect the developers to continue this process indefinitely. If we extend this to 4 games  3 choices becomes 81 combinations, 4 choices becomes 256 possible combinations, 5 = 625 combinations.

 

The maths get away from you so quickly here that it just isn't reasonable to keep expecting Bioware to do so. They have to cut it off at some point and start a fresh. The fact that Bioware realises this and isn't even trying to continue our choices to me is a sign of their honesty and intelligence with regards to this issue. They won't pretend to keep our choices when really just ignoring it nor will they try to do something that just isn't feasible. This is a smart move on their part. 

[Shechinah]

But what about the likelihood of a DA like structure of the series from now on?

 

Eh, I think it depends on a number of things but I'm hoping most importantly it comes down to what works best within the story.

 

As I see it the premise of the game holds a lot of potential as the backdrop for multiple games. Basically, the premise of settling in a new galaxy and establishing or entering an intergalactic society could take multiple games to achieve without making it feel like nothing was accomplished.

 

This could be accomplished with or without changing the protagonist with each having potential and difficulties. I should note that I consider this route to require the Mass Effect team to make the decisions be of a smaller scale but that would fit with the bit we've had presented of the story being more personal.

 

Before continuing on, I'll briefly note my thoughts about a trilogy option: the Mass Effect trilogy was not planned out as well as it should have been, in my opinion, and suffered a lot as a result of this. Basically, I feel that if they are going to make a Ryder trilogy then I'd like for them to actual plan out the storyline, the character growth and so forth.

 

As I believe it has been confirmed to be a hero's journey so this aspect of the story could be continued over the course of multiple games. It does not necessarily have to be a journey restricted to a single game. Once more, I would like to emphasize that if this is the course they've decided on then I'd desperately want it to be something they've thought out and planned beforehand.     

 

Also, decide beforehand between neutral auto-dialogue and non-neutral auto-dialogue.

[KaiserShep]

What should be carried over? In Andromeda, who the hell cares if the Destiny Ascenscion was destroyed? Who would even know about the Collector base?

 

 

The most important outcome should be Conrad Verner. If he dies before the trilogy's conclusion, one of the arks fail to make it to Andromeda. 

[Shechinah]

Huh

It was completely the opposite for me

The changing protagonist actually took away from my experience.

But I took that as a DA trope cause I played DA for a completely different reason. My fantasy fix came from DA so I excused the lack of a solid main character throughout and eventually it started working for me. And when DA tried to emulate ME it led to DA2 (  )

 

So I don't want the same thing to happen to ME with MEA. I'd like the 2 games to have their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

Part of why I am more fond of my characters from the Dragon Age series is because I feel like they have more options in terms of fleshing them out as people that existed with hobbies and interests outside of their occupation. While there were some options in the Mass Effect series, I felt there desperately needed to be more.

 

It's not a bad thing to give the player the options that can make the player character a bit of a dork or a bit of a goof in some situations.  

 

The personal backgrounds could provide some humanizing options so it didn't help that I felt the personal backgrounds more or less disappeared besides a few nods. Sole Survivor!Shepard goes right on to work with Cerberus without much more than a mention as far as I could recall. Even if Shepard was forced to work with Cerberus, this should have given way to some good options if Shepard's personal mission was accomplished in the first game. Spacer!Shepard does not even have the option of having a conversation with their mother in Mass Effect 2 despite the fact that they've been dead and their mother learns Shepard is alive and apparently knew how to get a message to the Normandy.

 

Additionally, there were Shepard's lack of reaction to not only having died but also having been resurrected. I thought this was a bit of a thing that called for a few options including some to have more of a reaction.   

 

While there were auto-dialogue beforehand in the Mass Effect series, it was mostly neutral which meant it became much more noticeable in Mass Effect 3. There also seemed to be more of it.

 

TL:DR: I may have less time with my characters from the Dragon Age series but I feel like I learn more about them in the course of one game than I do my characters from the Mass Effect series in the course of multiple games.
 

[TheRevanchist]

I'm always confused by the mentality of "Should we have X character for Z amount of time?" etc.

 

I've said it on the Dragon Age forums, and I'll say it again. I believe as long as the current protagonist still feels relevant and has a personal stake in the stories direction, they should return as the protagonist. I am of the firm opinion that the Inquisitor should be the protagonist of Dragon Age 4, because Trespasser. No one will convince me a new character is a superior choice for that type of cliffhanger. As long as Ryder seems relevant and has a reason to pursue the plot direction, we should play as Ryder. Weather thats 1 game, 2 games, 3 games, 4 games whatever. After however many games that takes, move on to the next character for however many games that makes sense for that character to be in. There is no logic in limiting the story telling possibilities by restricting weather or not a character should have an arbitrary number of games. 

[Shechinah]

I'm always confused by the mentality of "Should we have X character for Z amount of time?" etc.

 

I've said it on the Dragon Age forums, and I'll say it again. I believe as long as the current protagonist still feels relevant and has a personal stake in the stories direction, they should return as the protagonist.

 

I feel that is a good way of putting it but I feel it should be as long as the current protagonist has a specific relevence and a specific personal stake to the story's direction.

 

Example: The Inquisitor has a specific relevency to the story's direction because they are amongst the few who are aware of Solas' agenda and the Inquisitor has a specific personal stake in that they've come to build a relationship with Solas regardless of whether or not it is friendly or hostile.

 

Basically, a protagonist disappears, a protagonist remains or a protagonist returns because of their importance to the story.

 

 

Note: I'm in the camp of people who are in favor of a dual protagonist approach to Dragon Age 4.  

[legbamel]

They should keep Ryder around as long as the story revolves around him or her.  It would be interesting to have a whole series of protagonists in various parts of the new galaxy, as well, whether it's as expansions telling the same story from different points of view (playing as Asari or Quarian?!) or just leaving a well-established colony at the end of one game to follow a struggling ship cut off from the rest in the next.

[Furisco]

I hope that Andromeda will be the beginning of a new trilogy.

[Dutch's Ghost]

Andromeda will be an exploration and fetch-quest/resource gathering game with little plot, characterization, and quality made side-quests.

[Shechinah]

Andromeda will be an exploration and fetch-quest/resource gathering game with little plot, characterization, and quality made side-quests.

 

Dutch's Ghost, this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. If you want to make your assumptions then you can do so in threads where it is relevant to the topic.
 

[Sanunes]

Personally I believe one of the reasons why they are not having Shepard return and why they decided to end the run with Shepard after three games is because of importing saves and it having become and unwieldy mess where they know they cannot please anyone with a direction they pick to go in.  The way I see it is that a lot of people will be upset that BioWare didn't give enough impact to our choices from the previous games and another group of people would be disappointed because those choices negatively impacted the new game (and they might not realize that is the cause). I like using the companions returning in Mass Effect 3 as an example, since the majority of characters that were returning had a chance to be dead they had to create an alternate character to fill those roles because they wanted to still include those aspects of the game.

 

My hope is that BioWare changed direction with their choices and they instead of a greater impact on the current game and have a conclusion to those choices at the same time so the expectations of a world altering future based on those choices isn't there, but it can still be referenced in the future.

 

As far as making the Mass Effect protagonist more like how they handle Dragon Age, I would prefer the character stay around longer, but I also think that will be determined by how they are handling choices as well.  Now I do highly doubt that they are going to make it into a trilogy again for there are too many variables in game design and having a self contained story is much easier to handle then a game with an open ending and hoping it ties together nicely.

[SKAR]

@slaythatdragon They have to do a trilogy and hopefully with same Ryder. I hate making choices for only one stand alone game. Basically meaningless bull$#!t. Why did I even play the game? I could give a **** about orig tril choices but I'm with you on DA. I don't give a **** about the protagonists. No connection. Same protagonist all the way. Give em a trilogy at least.

[SKAR]

Andromeda will be an exploration and fetch-quest/resource gathering game with little plot, characterization, and quality made side-quests.

Go back to some wasted thread, we don't need your negativity here.

[goishen]

Every time I see a post like this it makes me think of what we do know.  

 

1.  We know that Batarians are pricks

2.  We know that the genophage is still a thing 

3.  We know that krogans still hate the turians and salarians because of said genophage

4.  We know that asari are the most technologically advanced (or at least were)

     4a.  I'm hoping that they fall back on their commando days, but they could become pacifists.

5.  We know that humans are still considered an underdog species

     5a.  A few of them tried to take over the council

6.  Salarians are still one the smartest races in the MW galaxy, only being close are the quarians.  We have no idea about Andromeda.

7.  Turians having the largest military force in the MW could cause them to either become complete pacifists or complete guerrilla agents in Andromeda. 

8.  Thresher maws are still a PITA.

 

 

That's about all I can think of, and I was reaching on number eight.

[ZipZap2000]

I quite literally don't even care anymore.



*Sips Ryncol*