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.
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.
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.
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.
We already know where the story came from, keep the story going forward.
I would rather Mass Effect be left alone and Bioware develop a new IP.
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.
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.
Honestly? I'd just like if they started a new series instead of forever churning out Mass Effect games that each become less interesting and good. I'm a fan of series' that finish and stay finished.
Thing that I think is that a prequel will allow you to maybe learn about prometheans and play around with that part of the timeline, while a sequel will just be some kind of spin off that kind of fits in with the other 3 games.
Whether it be a prequel, interquel, or sequel there's problems Bioware will have to get around, to wit:
Prequel: The history of the Mass Effect universe is already pretty well established, so anybody that's played the first trilogy is going have at least general idea what's going to happen (this is one of the reasons the prequel trilogy of Star Wars was terrible). Also, and more importantly, in a series that emphasizes choice, having an already decided history will GREATLY limit those choices, unless Bioware is smart and just says "screw it" and makes several noncanon paths in addition to the canon one.
Interquel: Same problem as the prequel, but choices would be even more restrictive. However, this might actually be a good idea, since an interquel would be able possibly create another set of alternate endings to the original series that the future sequels could then run off of, (in short, a retcon trilogy) solving the ME3 endings issue. The could even go the parallel universe route for their sequels so that the original trilogy doesn't end up being pointless.
Sequel: The problem here is either things must take place a long time into the future so that the events of the original trilogy will have been forgotten or at least don't really affect things, or a canon choice for the ME3 ending will have to be chosen, either will probably piss fans off. The other problem is that they will have to create something EVEN WORSE than the Reapers as the bad guys, (and the Reapers as threats set the bar massively high) that antagonists make must escalate with each sequel, otherwise the audience won't take the threat all that seriously. In other words, if the Reapers are beaten, if this new evil is weaker or the same then what chance does it have?
Regardless, Bioware will have to do a LOT of work to continue the francise from this point on, it won't be easy for them. I'm personally in support of any of them, but I think the interquel retcon idea that I mentioned is probably the best idea
I want a sequel, just to see how they'll make it work.
Also I want Casey Hudson to be kept far, far away from it. I know its being developed by a new team but I cant remember if Casey was still working on it.
Just because you claim to lose intrest in a franchise doesn't mean you won't keep an eye on it
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.
I disagree with the bolded line more than anything else, but I do understand your reasoning despite having a hard time articulating a response. In a way, that's like saying that old fans of, say, Spongebob have no right to complain about why the new episodes suck because they simply don't care about him anymore. They only stopped watching because it got so bad in the first place.
You are correct in a way, if someone has grown to be completely apathetic toward a series then they won't come back around and complain about it. That is assuming that they are completely apathetic toward it and it doesn't hold some sort of sentimental value for that person anymore.
Enjoying just a small part of that experiance makes it hard to be completely apathetic toward something. For a lot of people, the earlier games of the series was where it peaked, and they'd like to see more of those. The parts they don't care for are the ones that have deviated away from what they enjoyed, be it gameplay or storywise. For them, it can be a matter of personal preference, and they could still hold the hope that it will become better again while retaining a "I don't really care," attitude to keep the dissapointment of them not doing so at bay.
Or it simply could be that they saw the potential and still do, just was dissapointed the first time around.
Or they could just want to bitch about it, as you said earlier.
seems like a prequel has more potential. first contact war, morning war, ranchi wars, korgan rebellion, and heck even do a game about the fall of the prothys. use it a chance to flesh the world out a bit
Like how far back are we speaking here? I think they should go back a handful or so cycles. See how creative they can be.
No. Just let it go, Bioware. It can't be salvaged.
You done goofed with ME3, and we already endured months of insipid rage and desperate rationalization.
Don't add to it.
Ooooh no, nice try Bioware>:) Afraid of the work load of make a sequel with the amount of different possible outcomes that have piled up over the the trilogy?
Well... Considering the way it ended, it's not that daunting of a task actually...
In all seriousness, there's an interesting question that needs to be asked. Will it just be the Reapers again, or it will it be some completely different new threat? I think there's still more that could be done with the Reapers. What if the Mass Effect galaxy found out that the same thing was happening to other galaxies, and with the Reaper tech they acquired (by either scraping it off the ground, taking direct control of it or making friends with it at the end of ME3) to get to those other galaxies and go all man hunter on them, to save the rest of the universe?!
But at the same time, it seems a bit weird to have this big interesting world of characters and possibilities and have it always come back to the Reapers.
I would rather see a sequel than a prequel. A sequel would have had the Human Revolution problem, where a game series built on choices is forced to conform with the pre-determined storyline. If there is a prequel, it should be in an 'alternative universe/reboot' style so that it isn't handicapped by the past games.
I think a prequel in the previous cycle would work pretty nice. Having it during the heyday of the Prothean empire. It doesn't necessarily have to touch down on the reapers at all.
i would like to be play as one of the other spiecies, see a new story mass effect 3 let me down but i think that a new mass effect has hope that does not mean im hopful im not but i do want a mass effect 4 i love the games and i want them to do well
i would like to see the mass effects after the end of the war with the reapers i also liked all the merc bands in mass effect 2, i want those back
I'm still waiting for a proper sequel from ME1...
Garrus. Garrus Garrus Garrus Garrus. Make the game star Garrus.
I was about to say something new but I second this notion. Garrus is cool enough to deserve his own game.
How about reboot mass effect as a borderlands/rage hybrid with some ME2/3 combat elements, then add in more polished vehicles(with vehicle upgrades) stuff and quick path planet mining/data,ect setup so you can quickly scan it or go down and rock crawl or hover!
I don't know, Mass Effect 3 derped iy hard IMO, so I don't know if I'd want another game in the series. However, EA inevitably will make another one for da moneyzz so in that case I'd want a prequel or a very, very late sequel. Like the Old Republic is to Star Wars except in reverse. (Making the game thousands of years in the future)
I guess after. If only to see "what happened next". But dammit, don't make it a generic shooter with forced Origin and online passes. Make a good BIOWARE game, like pre-EA BioWare. Give us a choice of races. Give us a different experience and story if we play as good or evil. The ability to buy and upgrade ships, or at least *a* ship. Romances. And for heaven's sake, learn from the ending fiasco and do it right this time.
That is a game an ex-BW fanboy would like.
If it had to be a prequel, it should beset in between the Human/Turian conflict and ME1 and unrelated to Reapers.
But after is better as there can be cameos. I can see what happened to the queen I let live on Noveria, what happened to the Krogan population with the genophage cured, etc. I would love it if it weren't set against a military backdrop, ie. Alliance, SPECTERs, etc. Maybe the player can be a smuggler, citizen, criminal, etc. Or DAO style, a choice of starting jobs. Oh my, I'm getting too excited, please excuse me.
I'd be happy if they let the Mass Effect universe lay low for a long while. The sheer scope of the trilogy set the bar too high in my opinion.
The Galaxy is in danger of being wiped out, problem solved. Move onto another Galaxy? Save the Universe? They're backing themselves into a corner.
Is anyone in the US reminded of the time after 9/11 when the government asked the citizens how to prevent further terrorist attacks with what EA/Bioware is trying to do here?
Does it sound just as stupid? Or is it just me? *shrugs*
Anywho, EA desperately needs to follow Bill Hicks' advice, especially as it concerns the ME series:
The thing is, Bioware has kinda shot themselves in the foot with this already; if they did a prequel they are constrained with the established canon, and because Shepard's beginning is not fixed (if s/he is involved in this game, i personally hope not).
If they did something like well and truly before humans came into it, i could see it, doing things like the Krogan rebellion, the Morning War and the Rachni wars might work, and somehow tying the Asari into it (they didn't have much to do with these events, but bringing them in on a tangent might work)
If they did a sequel, i think it'd go wrong because they'd have to decide on an official ending (otherwise the story could vastly change depending on Shepard's choice), and they'd have to set it far in the future, post Shepard, but still bringing his/her choice into the story.
And they will ignore feedback and go with whatever they want anyway. But hey, illusion of choice!
No. If Bioware seeks to have my money again and my interest they need to go back to the basics and figure out where shit went wrong with their approach to RPG design. I lost interest after ME2 and am not in any sort of rush to play 3 so - - -*pbbbttthhhtt
i don't see why they should make it a prequel.
set it after the trilogy, that would be better for the story, since it wouldn't be constrained by having to end a certain way