Okay, I really don't like prequels, but that ending.
I'd want a very unconnected sequel. Yeah, that sounds about right.
I'd want a very unconnected sequel. Yeah, that sounds about right.
BioWare Asks Gamers if They Want a Mass Effect Prequel
- Thread starter MikeWehner
- Start date
to be fair, in reach, the planet itself was the center of their military, as well as a BIG research and development place, so the new toys just never got distributed, because Halo FTL is slow, and there are many administrative and logistical problems to work out, not unlike that of the Imperium of Man tying to.... well do ANYTHINGJosh12345 said:
honestly, its sad how completely reasonable, and likely true, the idea that you NEED humans in these games to have them sell.
i would LOVE to play in the rachni wars as a member of an asari commando unit, or turian soldiers, or salarian spec-ops.
i would LOVE to play in the morning war, as either a geth platform not unlike legion (or even as legion himself) going through the path to sentience, or to see the perspective of the quarians, who are likely horrifically divided on this issue, and their reactions as they slowly realize their mistakes, but never understanding how badly they fucked up everything until they had to retreat from their home system.
those games could be FANTASTIC, buuuuut there are no humans involved, since for the former event, the dark ages were still in full swing, and for the latter of the 2, america was just turning into a thing.
though, if/since either of those 2 aren't options, i would really rather see a sequel, so long as they make it so that you either went control or destroy, and the AI was lying, so the geth didn't get wiped out, or at least not the ones way back on rannoch. It would be interesting to see how the galaxy looks after such a hugely devastating conflict. I can imagine it would be a bit like post world war 2. People going back to their homes to find some lingering old problems, like racism, and also EVERYTHING IS BROKEN.
and also, if the genophage is cured, that could be very VERY interesting and/or problematic how the world is reacting to that. i can only hope to god wrex is keeping them in check, but he is probably going to need some help.
Only problem I have with a Mass Effect sequel; How the hell do you top the Reapers?
Just get this for a second, in ME1, when you flew around in the Normandy, nothing ever happened to you. It was a safe haven. In ME2, the first thing that happens is you get blown to pieces and get spaced by the Collectors. That works out great because not only do you die, your safe haven was destroyed, it showed how much stronger the Collectors are than the Geth from ME1. In ME3, the Reapers are the end all. Not only do you see them take over Earth, you already know what and who they are. Their strength is already apparent.
The point is, how do you top the end all? How do you top endless armies that were going to destroy the whole galaxy? Once beaten, how is anything else a threat? Ignoring the endings, I just don't see how there can be anything threatening anymore.
But that's just me on a story standpoint and apologies is mentioned before.
Just get this for a second, in ME1, when you flew around in the Normandy, nothing ever happened to you. It was a safe haven. In ME2, the first thing that happens is you get blown to pieces and get spaced by the Collectors. That works out great because not only do you die, your safe haven was destroyed, it showed how much stronger the Collectors are than the Geth from ME1. In ME3, the Reapers are the end all. Not only do you see them take over Earth, you already know what and who they are. Their strength is already apparent.
The point is, how do you top the end all? How do you top endless armies that were going to destroy the whole galaxy? Once beaten, how is anything else a threat? Ignoring the endings, I just don't see how there can be anything threatening anymore.
But that's just me on a story standpoint and apologies is mentioned before.
That is exactly what it means, otherwise you still show intrest by reading such news. One either backs out and doesn't bother anymore or he does and he keeps commenting in the hope that his oppinion matters to someone. Simple as that, if you don't care- you don't get to have an oppinion, and as soon as the "I'm through with this franchise" idiots get it, the better.SilverBullets000 said:
I want a Mass Effect 3 remake. That's pretty much the only chance they have of ever getting me to play a Mass Effect game again.
That or make a 3d FTL style game, with more detail and abilities. So you pick a race, pick a ship type can go to hubs and upgrade your weapons/ship abilities. Board enemy ships etc.
That or make a 3d FTL style game, with more detail and abilities. So you pick a race, pick a ship type can go to hubs and upgrade your weapons/ship abilities. Board enemy ships etc.
Start a new trilogy, get the continuity right, and plan the decisions that are supposed to matter beforehand.
I don't give a flying whether it even plays in the ME universe, much less when in the ME universe. Just fucking get your shit together.
I don't give a flying whether it even plays in the ME universe, much less when in the ME universe. Just fucking get your shit together.
They need to move forward and find some way to get around that ending.
Those worried about tarnishing that turd of an ending pretty much demonstrate why their opinion should be ignored. Even EA has to realize by this point it was a bad idea and pretty much turned a huge portion of their fan base against them.
I'll also say I've never been a big fan of prequels in general.
If Bioware is "asking our opinion" I imagine they have already made up their mind. You know, looking back at the entire "Hawke" thing. No matter what the response is, expect them to go ahead with the prequel and then claim it was done due to "fan demand" or whatever. Bioware asking for fan response is pretty much a rhetorical question and part of a marketing gimmick since they have already decided what the majority of us fans are going to say, whether we did or not.
If they want to keep the franchise alive, they need to do a ME4 sequel, and pretty much undo 99% of what people criticize that ending for one way or another.
Those worried about tarnishing that turd of an ending pretty much demonstrate why their opinion should be ignored. Even EA has to realize by this point it was a bad idea and pretty much turned a huge portion of their fan base against them.
I'll also say I've never been a big fan of prequels in general.
If Bioware is "asking our opinion" I imagine they have already made up their mind. You know, looking back at the entire "Hawke" thing. No matter what the response is, expect them to go ahead with the prequel and then claim it was done due to "fan demand" or whatever. Bioware asking for fan response is pretty much a rhetorical question and part of a marketing gimmick since they have already decided what the majority of us fans are going to say, whether we did or not.
If they want to keep the franchise alive, they need to do a ME4 sequel, and pretty much undo 99% of what people criticize that ending for one way or another.
No, please. The ending already pissed a large majority of the fanbase off, the last thing Bioware needs is bad backlash about a prequel mucking up that story even more. Just start from scratch, put to use what you learned from the trilogy, and give us a whole new perspective on the Mass Effect universe.
Prequel wouldn't work very well since it would be hard to do anything worth note storywise compared to Reapers killing everyone in the galaxy and the fact that you already know how it turns out in the end. And i'm kinda interested in how a sequel would work since i made everyone part robot after the ME3 ending, would they ignore the endings completely or would they just pick one of their preference?
No. Mass Effect is dead Bioware deal with it and move on before papa EA takes you for a long walk in the woods.
Prequel: Choices would be irrelevant or only minor changes to history due to pre-existing history in the Mass Effect Codex. That's assuming it's set after humans came onto the stage (cause people like to play as humans mostly) which also limits us in conflicts to the First Contact War.
Sequel: Two variants here, though both share the problem of old save bonuses. Seriously, ME3 had to cover so many variables it was crazy (and made the devs lose track of some of them). Can you imagine how many a post-ME3 game would have to cover? Heck, the whole setting would be radically different just based on what ME3 ending you chose.
Near-future (from ME3's ending): Lack of obvious credible enemy (everyone's cooperating or has had it's opposition killed in ME3). That's all I've got right now.
Far-future: Presumably there would be advances in tech, culture, galactic society, etc. Probably enough that returning players would feel lost in a familiar environment. Plus there's the same problem of conflict as the Near-future variant has.
Both options have some pretty big problems, so it's a hard choice... How about a new franchise instead? Oh right, cash cow and all that; fine I'll choose a prequel. Better a tight-knit story that ends up with little impact on the setting than one that tried to shake up the setting but had to spread itself too thin.
Sequel: Two variants here, though both share the problem of old save bonuses. Seriously, ME3 had to cover so many variables it was crazy (and made the devs lose track of some of them). Can you imagine how many a post-ME3 game would have to cover? Heck, the whole setting would be radically different just based on what ME3 ending you chose.
Near-future (from ME3's ending): Lack of obvious credible enemy (everyone's cooperating or has had it's opposition killed in ME3). That's all I've got right now.
Far-future: Presumably there would be advances in tech, culture, galactic society, etc. Probably enough that returning players would feel lost in a familiar environment. Plus there's the same problem of conflict as the Near-future variant has.
Both options have some pretty big problems, so it's a hard choice... How about a new franchise instead? Oh right, cash cow and all that; fine I'll choose a prequel. Better a tight-knit story that ends up with little impact on the setting than one that tried to shake up the setting but had to spread itself too thin.
This sounds like a cop out, but... just stop. Seriously. Mass Effect is DONE. Work on something totally new and original, like you USED to do, Bioware. We had a string of original games, from Neverwinter Nights to KOTOR to Jade Empire to Mass Effect to Dragon Age. Do something new again. Something fresh.
But Mass Effect is done.
If you make a prequel, you now are enslaved to the lore you already created, with events sent in stone. The wars and battles found have their pre-determined outcomes, the events of history are locked in stone. Unless you want to throw in some nonsensical time-traveling plot, Mass Effect's history has already been explored and defined.
If you make a sequel, you suddenly have to factor in the diverse (and widely hated) ending situations of the trilogy, and I find that unless you're given unlimited resources, you just can't harmonize those three endings into a new game. You commit genocide against two species with Destory (Geth and Reapers), you end up enslaving the Reapers in one ending and making them a constant presence, or you fuse all life with machines and taint the very fabric of all life in the universe. Any sequel would have to either ignore two of these endings and declare them "non-canon", and I'm sure fans will just LOVE having their final choice matter even less under that circumstance.
The only thing I can think they can do is what they're doing now with the DLC: stories told during the events of the main games. But I still don't like that. It feels very lame to try and do a story whose ending remains set in stone and whose war we all know is over. It's concluded. It's over. It doesn't matter what we do; Shepard will still make one of three color-coordinated choices.
I love the Mass Effect universe, but ME3's ending both tarnished my love for the franchise and I think Bioware is also learning first-hand how the ending slammed the door shut on the possibility of making new games as freely as they had before. From a development standpoint, those endings are AWFUL to try and make sequels or prequels to, and from a player standpoint those endings are unsatisfying and confusing...
... But they are very clearly and very definitely "endings". It's over. They claimed it was just Shepard's story that was over, but I struggle to see how it's not the whole Mass Effect universe that's over as well.
So, Bioware, I'll forever remain saddened at how ME3 disappointed me in the end, but leave the franchise alone. No good can come from dragging it out again and again. If you have to ask us for direction, it means you have no idea what to do with it yourself. Don't FORCE yourselves to do it (or is EA cracking the whip?).
Take all that talent, all those tired, burned-out creators and artists and storytellers, and ask them what NEW stories in NEW worlds with NEW characters they'd like to explore. I'm certain they'll have better ideas for better games than another cashed-in Mass Effect game driven by EA's greed, probably with a plethora of online passes and day-1 DLC.
But Mass Effect is done.
If you make a prequel, you now are enslaved to the lore you already created, with events sent in stone. The wars and battles found have their pre-determined outcomes, the events of history are locked in stone. Unless you want to throw in some nonsensical time-traveling plot, Mass Effect's history has already been explored and defined.
If you make a sequel, you suddenly have to factor in the diverse (and widely hated) ending situations of the trilogy, and I find that unless you're given unlimited resources, you just can't harmonize those three endings into a new game. You commit genocide against two species with Destory (Geth and Reapers), you end up enslaving the Reapers in one ending and making them a constant presence, or you fuse all life with machines and taint the very fabric of all life in the universe. Any sequel would have to either ignore two of these endings and declare them "non-canon", and I'm sure fans will just LOVE having their final choice matter even less under that circumstance.
The only thing I can think they can do is what they're doing now with the DLC: stories told during the events of the main games. But I still don't like that. It feels very lame to try and do a story whose ending remains set in stone and whose war we all know is over. It's concluded. It's over. It doesn't matter what we do; Shepard will still make one of three color-coordinated choices.
I love the Mass Effect universe, but ME3's ending both tarnished my love for the franchise and I think Bioware is also learning first-hand how the ending slammed the door shut on the possibility of making new games as freely as they had before. From a development standpoint, those endings are AWFUL to try and make sequels or prequels to, and from a player standpoint those endings are unsatisfying and confusing...
... But they are very clearly and very definitely "endings". It's over. They claimed it was just Shepard's story that was over, but I struggle to see how it's not the whole Mass Effect universe that's over as well.
So, Bioware, I'll forever remain saddened at how ME3 disappointed me in the end, but leave the franchise alone. No good can come from dragging it out again and again. If you have to ask us for direction, it means you have no idea what to do with it yourself. Don't FORCE yourselves to do it (or is EA cracking the whip?).
Take all that talent, all those tired, burned-out creators and artists and storytellers, and ask them what NEW stories in NEW worlds with NEW characters they'd like to explore. I'm certain they'll have better ideas for better games than another cashed-in Mass Effect game driven by EA's greed, probably with a plethora of online passes and day-1 DLC.
For me the second game was like Star Trek: TNG going from a cerebral interesting series to Jean Luc Rambo and his team of action men. It was okay, but started a direction for the games I wasn't especially thrilled about.
That said I think they may have really painted themselves into a corner if they wanted to further fleece the fanbase. They've demonstrated that they are dishonest about their promises to the fans and anyone else invested in the series. You've probably all read "Mass Effect 3 Ending-Hatred: 5 Reasons The Fans Are Right" by now, if not it makes a very compelling case for why anyone should just disregard the brand from here on. Mass Effect 2 set the framework for what EA wanted to do with the games, and Mass Effect 3 cemented these ideas.
This is also why I am not a fan of game writers by and large; many of them are just awful at storytelling, and too much of their part in the process seems to take a backseat anyway to everything else, rather than it's deserved prominence, especially in the genre of role-playing games. I was a big fan of the series, felt the bite of disappointment with the oversimplifications and unfulfilled promises of Mass Effect 2, and the crushing reality that the third game was the final nail.
Most importantly, just like with their statistics usage from players, this demonstrates how cheap and pandering they are. Rather than relying on their own creative process they build games based on statistics, which is a poorly conceived way of attempting top garner appeal. They haven't learned from their mistakes yet, and by asking this actually prove they are no longer content with data accumulation as their sole means of creative drive but now want fans to tell them what to make. The first game was a success because it didn't try to be what the fans demanded, the second while successful, appealed to an almost totally different demographic than this first, and the third was just a disaster. In trying to get player input for making future games they've destroyed a very promising IP.
It's really like the one disingenuous person we know that tries to be liked by everyone and manages to be like by no one.
That said I think they may have really painted themselves into a corner if they wanted to further fleece the fanbase. They've demonstrated that they are dishonest about their promises to the fans and anyone else invested in the series. You've probably all read "Mass Effect 3 Ending-Hatred: 5 Reasons The Fans Are Right" by now, if not it makes a very compelling case for why anyone should just disregard the brand from here on. Mass Effect 2 set the framework for what EA wanted to do with the games, and Mass Effect 3 cemented these ideas.
This is also why I am not a fan of game writers by and large; many of them are just awful at storytelling, and too much of their part in the process seems to take a backseat anyway to everything else, rather than it's deserved prominence, especially in the genre of role-playing games. I was a big fan of the series, felt the bite of disappointment with the oversimplifications and unfulfilled promises of Mass Effect 2, and the crushing reality that the third game was the final nail.
Most importantly, just like with their statistics usage from players, this demonstrates how cheap and pandering they are. Rather than relying on their own creative process they build games based on statistics, which is a poorly conceived way of attempting top garner appeal. They haven't learned from their mistakes yet, and by asking this actually prove they are no longer content with data accumulation as their sole means of creative drive but now want fans to tell them what to make. The first game was a success because it didn't try to be what the fans demanded, the second while successful, appealed to an almost totally different demographic than this first, and the third was just a disaster. In trying to get player input for making future games they've destroyed a very promising IP.
It's really like the one disingenuous person we know that tries to be liked by everyone and manages to be like by no one.
I don't think a new game has to be based around any big canon event (Rachni Wars, Krogan Wars, First Contact), but could be just a normal time in the history where you can play as a Spectre, possibly during Shepard's story. Not so much a prequel as much as a parallel story, that way you can see more of your consequences as Shepard throughout a wider galaxy.