Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 15:39:28 GMT
This is the way I see it; Easiest and most acceptable option: Andromeda 2 Good alternative: Remaster of the trilogy Risky but still good option: Remake of the trilogy Cliché option: Alternate parallel universe sequel to ME1, ME2 or ME3 Terrible option: Sequel to canonized ending of ME3 My version is similar:
Easiest and most acceptable option: Andromeda 2 Inevitable in Time: Remaster of the Trilogy (as newer hardware demands) Probably Inevitable in Time (and probably not done by Bioware itself): Complete remake of the trilogy... which would likely be equivalent to your next option as well, introducing an alternate parallel universe sequel to ME3 since the total remake would likely not repeat ME3's endings. Your next option is also tied into this and I also believe that it is a terrible option for Bioware to undertake at this time, particularly if it involves making one of the existing ME3 endings canon.
|
|
Ascend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 370 Likes: 492
inherit
3282
0
492
Ascend
370
February 2017
ascend
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Ascend on Aug 19, 2019 15:43:05 GMT
This is the way I see it; Easiest and most acceptable option: Andromeda 2 Good alternative: Remaster of the trilogy Risky but still good option: Remake of the trilogy Cliché option: Alternate parallel universe sequel to ME1, ME2 or ME3 Terrible option: Sequel to canonized ending of ME3 Under what criteria? The criteria that we want the next game to be; - good, as in memorable, polished and an impactful experience. - satisfying to the existing fan base and thus restoring faith in BioWare - Satisfying to newcomers - successful financially so the franchise can survive
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Aug 19, 2019 16:03:06 GMT
The criteria that we want the next game to be; - good, as in memorable, polished and an impactful experience. - satisfying to the existing fan base and thus restoring faith in BioWare - Satisfying to newcomers - successful financially so the franchise can survive If you'd adhere to that criteria, I can't see how you'd come to the conclusion you set.
|
|
inherit
1227
0
3,665
Phantom
2,658
August 2016
deathscepter
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Phantom on Aug 19, 2019 16:21:34 GMT
If we have a Milk way Mass Effect game, I do see that a Con current game series that acknowledges Shepard and his actions but allows the New Player Character to stand on his own two feet(or more depending the species at hand).
A possible way to increase sales of the MET and still have an Con Current game series is using Save Import System that acknowledges your Shepard's choices and behaviors and reflect that in the Con Current game.
|
|
Ascend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 370 Likes: 492
inherit
3282
0
492
Ascend
370
February 2017
ascend
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Ascend on Aug 19, 2019 16:47:01 GMT
The criteria that we want the next game to be; - good, as in memorable, polished and an impactful experience. - satisfying to the existing fan base and thus restoring faith in BioWare - Satisfying to newcomers - successful financially so the franchise can survive If you'd adhere to that criteria, I can't see how you'd come to the conclusion you set. Why do you say that? Elaborate, because... A second game in Andromeda (it can be called something else) is perfect. It is still fresh enough to basically go into whatever direction they wish. They can change the main character, squad mates etc, because no one really has a large enough emotional attachment to anyone of the first Andromeda game. There are no huge plot or story elements to work around, a lot of the work on the engine, graphics models etc is already done and simply requires some polish. They can make the setting as early and as late is they wish in Andromeda. What reason is there to NOT continue in Andromeda? A remaster is nice and would bring in some money, but it would be a way to buy time. By no means will this restore faith in BioWare, because everything was already there. All that is required is upgrading a few things like graphics and ironing out existing bugs. A remake is risky because it risks breaking what people love of the original. And obviously, as things are right now, there's a higher chance they ruin it, rather than making it better. But if they can pull it off, it could be a huge hit. An alternative parallel universe is cliché and honestly unimpressive, but it does allow freedom to rewrite everything how they wish. But the fault in this is that it has the potential to undermine player choice. They can get around this if they plan the game well and have completely new characters, a new protagonist, a completely different focus instead. I'm not sure if people would dig an alternate ME2 where Shepard never died and the Collectors never existed for example. It changes the core of the games too much. But imagine if in an alternate universe, you are a human fulfilling the role that Archangel did in ME2, building a team to reshape Omega for the better. The most important thing is that Shepard never shows up to take you on some suicide mission, and Shepard nor any of the important characters of the canon game are important for this game. The whole game would be independent of the main events of the trilogy. There are countless things that could be done in this way. But again, it is cliche and honestly a bit lazy when you start having multiple universes where different things happened. Choosing a Canon ending and creating a sequel based on that is by far the worst option. This is the only route for the next game that is guaranteed to kill one of those criteria I listed. By default it undermines all the choices of a huge part of the existing fan base. As a company that has been constantly saying that they value player's choice, well... Let's just say that I would skip buying that game on principle, and I'm sure many think the same way. Or they have to go the Pokemon route, releasing red, green and blue versions depending on the ME3 ending you chose. I don't see that happening.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Apr 30, 2024 21:40:20 GMT
9,181
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,830
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Aug 19, 2019 17:24:05 GMT
I don't actually see how the "undermine" part works.
|
|
Ascend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 370 Likes: 492
inherit
3282
0
492
Ascend
370
February 2017
ascend
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Ascend on Aug 19, 2019 17:31:06 GMT
I don't actually see how the "undermine" part works. I don't want to play a sequel to ME3 that has canonized the ending to be destroy while I prefer Control over all else. Just like many would feel their choices would be undermined if BioWare canonized Control while they chose destroy.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Apr 30, 2024 21:40:20 GMT
9,181
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,830
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Aug 19, 2019 17:40:36 GMT
Hmm. This isn't a problem for me. I've got a Shepard or three for every ending. None of them invalidate each other, right?
As for future games, the criterion should be which world-state is the most interesting to play in, right? (That might include player reaction too; IIRC a very large percentage of players strongly prefer Destroy so, yeah, your preference would lose out.)
|
|
Ascend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 370 Likes: 492
inherit
3282
0
492
Ascend
370
February 2017
ascend
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Ascend on Aug 19, 2019 18:05:26 GMT
Hmm. This isn't a problem for me. I've got a Shepard or three for every ending. None of them invalidate each other, right? I also have multiple Shepard playthroughs, but, there is a "main" one that I value the most. I played that one how I would have acted if it was literally me in that situation. The others are playing to see the differences of the games. They don't invalidate each other, but a sequel can invalidate any of them by canonizing something that didn't happen in the main playthrough. I don't mind little things, like the Conrad Verner bug in ME2. But the Rachni being alive after killing it is already pushing it for me. Canonizing an ending is way too far. As for future games, the criterion should be which world-state is the most interesting to play in, right? (That might include player reaction too; IIRC a very large percentage of players strongly prefer Destroy so, yeah, your preference would lose out.) I don't think that should be the criterion at all. Not from a company that claims to take player choice very seriously. They should start from a place where there is no 'world-state' that alienates parts of their fan base. How they attempted the continuation with Andromeda was the right way to go. Andromeda's setup was great in theory. It's the execution that they messed up. I am very much aware that the majority prefers destroy, but, that majority is not the majority. In other words, that the highest percentage of all the choices was destroy, does not mean that destroy was the largest amount of individuals. The combined amount of people that did not choose destroy is slightly larger than the ones that did. I remember seeing a poll done with over 5000 votes. Around 49% of people chose destroy. The rest chose something else. So by canonizing the ending for destroy, you're technically alienating 51% of your player base, even if the next most popular ending choice was Synthesis at about ~30% iirc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 19:04:56 GMT
Hmm. This isn't a problem for me. I've got a Shepard or three for every ending. None of them invalidate each other, right? As for future games, the criterion should be which world-state is the most interesting to play in, right? (That might include player reaction too; IIRC a very large percentage of players strongly prefer Destroy so, yeah, your preference would lose out.) It isn't a problem for you. It isn't a problem for some others; but I think you have to respect that it is a problem for some of us as well... and it's as valid a problem as any other (like desperately wanting Shepard alive again when even the majority of destroy endings have Shepard dying and the Shepard Breath Scene was even unattainable by the vast majority of players until after the EC was released).
As for future games,, it literally doesn't matter whose preferences "lose out." That a majority of fans will "lose out" in some way or another is inevitable no matter what Bioware writes. The criterion should be based on what world state Bioware feels they can write their best story and game to start from... not anything else. The fans had no say in the story when they started ME1. Just because there were fans who liked that particular story doesn't give them an actual vote in determining what sort of story Bioware writers feel they can write best now. They can continue to try to corner and push and shove Bioware all they want (as they have been trying to do for 7 long years now)... what it comes down to what sort of story Bioware actually wants to tell.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Apr 30, 2024 21:40:20 GMT
9,181
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,830
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Aug 19, 2019 20:15:49 GMT
They don't invalidate each other, but a sequel can invalidate any of them by canonizing something that didn't happen in the main playthrough. I don't mind little things, like the Conrad Verner bug in ME2. But the Rachni being alive after killing it is already pushing it for me. Wait a second. Those things are conceptually unrelated. The Verner bug involves your Shepard making a particular choice which the game gets wrong, and the Rachni thing involves your Shepard involves your Shepard making a choice which the game-world fudges to make nearly indistinguishable from the other option. What they have in common is that your Shepard's choices were not respected. Canonization is about a completely different Shepard, one you did not play, making a particular set of choices which the game-world gets right.
|
|
inherit
4578
0
5,014
griffith82
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
4,259
Mar 15, 2017 21:36:52 GMT
March 2017
griffith82
|
Post by griffith82 on Aug 19, 2019 21:40:24 GMT
Hmm. This isn't a problem for me. I've got a Shepard or three for every ending. None of them invalidate each other, right? I also have multiple Shepard playthroughs, but, there is a "main" one that I value the most. I played that one how I would have acted if it was literally me in that situation. The others are playing to see the differences of the games. They don't invalidate each other, but a sequel can invalidate any of them by canonizing something that didn't happen in the main playthrough. I don't mind little things, like the Conrad Verner bug in ME2. But the Rachni being alive after killing it is already pushing it for me. Canonizing an ending is way too far. As for future games, the criterion should be which world-state is the most interesting to play in, right? (That might include player reaction too; IIRC a very large percentage of players strongly prefer Destroy so, yeah, your preference would lose out.) I don't think that should be the criterion at all. Not from a company that claims to take player choice very seriously. They should start from a place where there is no 'world-state' that alienates parts of their fan base. How they attempted the continuation with Andromeda was the right way to go. Andromeda's setup was great in theory. It's the execution that they messed up. I am very much aware that the majority prefers destroy, but, that majority is not the majority. In other words, that the highest percentage of all the choices was destroy, does not mean that destroy was the largest amount of individuals. The combined amount of people that did not choose destroy is slightly larger than the ones that did. I remember seeing a poll done with over 5000 votes. Around 49% of people chose destroy. The rest chose something else. So by canonizing the ending for destroy, you're technically alienating 51% of your player base, even if the next most popular ending choice was Synthesis at about ~30% iirc. Agreed. I use a save editor to fix the Conrad bug but the Rachni one while slightly different is annoying. Still canonizing an ending definitely is a no no for me.
|
|
Ascend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 370 Likes: 492
inherit
3282
0
492
Ascend
370
February 2017
ascend
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Ascend on Aug 19, 2019 22:27:51 GMT
They don't invalidate each other, but a sequel can invalidate any of them by canonizing something that didn't happen in the main playthrough. I don't mind little things, like the Conrad Verner bug in ME2. But the Rachni being alive after killing it is already pushing it for me. Wait a second. Those things are conceptually unrelated. The Verner bug involves your Shepard making a particular choice which the game gets wrong, and the Rachni thing involves your Shepard involves your Shepard making a choice which the game-world fudges to make nearly indistinguishable from the other option. What they have in common is that your Shepard's choices were not respected. Canonization is about a completely different Shepard, one you did not play, making a particular set of choices which the game-world gets right. Then why does it HAVE to be Shepard? Why can't it be another character? I am not interested in playing a Shepard that is not my Shepard.
|
|
inherit
265
0
Apr 26, 2024 22:14:28 GMT
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Aug 19, 2019 22:32:12 GMT
There's people wanting Jesus to come back. Why do you think the zombie genre is do popular? Dont bring that into this. I'm a Christian and dont appreciate it. Zombie Jesus gives uneasy thoughts.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Apr 30, 2024 21:40:20 GMT
9,181
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,830
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Aug 19, 2019 22:43:46 GMT
Who said you'd be playing as Shepard? The idea is to play someone else in a universe where a Shepard has already existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 22:52:56 GMT
Who said you'd be playing as Shepard? The idea is to play someone else in a universe where a Shepard has already existed. Whoa - Shepard has already existed regardless of whether or not the game takes place in the Milky Way or Andromeda. It's the same GD universe and they did connect references to Shepard, Liara, Miranda, TIM and Conrad Verner into ME:A. They've merely avoided specifying a particular "canon" for such Shepard so that any Shepard you played is still possible to have been the one who existed 600 years in the past.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
24,268
themikefest
14,812
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Aug 20, 2019 2:31:28 GMT
Saying that the "overlooked" the other ME3 endings to make one canon to continue the story there stretches the boundaries of believable. It is something that, at this point, would have to be done intentionally. On the Garrus issue, you simply have no evidence of intent so the two are not equal in theory or in practice. You're just trying to warp it to support your position on the matter... just as you're willing to accuse them of not caring based on no evidence. What's your explanation for Garrus saying, while shooting bottles with Shepard, that he saved Shepard on Ilos, Feros and Noveria? How does that happen if he wasn't recruited in ME1? You mentioned in your above post that when first seeing Garrus in ME2, it's acknowleged that he wasn't recruited, yet a moment later, Garrus says, just like old times. What old times is he talking about if he wasn't recruited in ME1? In a tweet from Gamble, he says there's no canon ending, but also says that we take players choice seriously. Is that an overlook on his part forgetting that Garrus doesn't have to be recruited in ME1? I mentioned in my above post that if he's not recruited in ME1, he remains silent when taken on Horizon. Why not do the same in ME3? Or, as you believe, he encountered Kirrahe off-screen. Why not have Shepard ask how they know each other? It happened in ME2 during the packages for Ish side mission. If Jacob and/or Miranda are taken on Omega, Shepard will say I take it you know each other. I wouldn't like it, but I would still get the game, but only for the laughs. With regards to T'soni romance. I wouldn't care since Shepard is dead in the blue and green. If they did that when they bring Shepard back for a sequel, I would avoid the asari for the whole game, if possible. The question(s) are, Would you accept them having all new characters in a sequel to MEA without any mentioning of the previous characters? How about having an asari squadmate who talks highly of humanity throughout the game? The main character would not have a sam implant which means that the profile system would not return? How about they bring back renegade and paragon? Bring back the power wheel? I doubt that would be your preference, right? Let them? I'm not stopping them from making whatever they want. That's up to EA. And I would say you wouldn't riot if they continued in the Milky Way, right? And do you believe that they can completely forget everything that happened in MEA, and still produce a good game with new characters in Andromeda for you?
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Apr 30, 2024 21:40:20 GMT
9,181
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,830
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Aug 20, 2019 2:33:11 GMT
UpUpAgain: You're quite right. So: "to play someone else in a universe Milky Way where a Shepard has already existed."
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Apr 30, 2024 21:40:20 GMT
9,181
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,830
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Aug 20, 2019 2:38:10 GMT
The question(s) are, Would you accept them having all new characters in a sequel to MEA without any mentioning of the previous characters? How about having an asari squadmate who talks highly of humanity throughout the game? The main character would not have a sam implant which means that the profile system would not return? How about they bring back renegade and paragon? Bring back the power wheel? I doubt that would be your preference, right? Let's strawman a little less. Some of the ME:A characters would have to be mentioned in a MEA:2, at least as Codex entries. I'm agnostic on the rest. P/R is worse than useless, but it's an easy enough mechanic to ignore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 3:13:54 GMT
Saying that the "overlooked" the other ME3 endings to make one canon to continue the story there stretches the boundaries of believable. It is something that, at this point, would have to be done intentionally. On the Garrus issue, you simply have no evidence of intent so the two are not equal in theory or in practice. You're just trying to warp it to support your position on the matter... just as you're willing to accuse them of not caring based on no evidence. What's your explanation for Garrus saying, while shooting bottles with Shepard, that he saved Shepard on Ilos, Feros and Noveria? How does that happen if he wasn't recruited in ME1? You mentioned in your above post that when first seeing Garrus in ME2, it's acknowleged that he wasn't recruited, yet a moment later, Garrus says, just like old times. What old times is he talking about if he wasn't recruited in ME1? In a tweet from Gamble, he says there's no canon ending, but also says that we take players choice seriously. Is that an overlook on his part forgetting that Garrus doesn't have to be recruited in ME1? I mentioned in my above post that if he's not recruited in ME1, he remains silent when taken on Horizon. Why not do the same in ME3? Or, as you believe, he encountered Kirrahe off-screen. Why not have Shepard ask how they know each other? It happened in ME2 during the packages for Ish side mission. If Jacob and/or Miranda are taken on Omega, Shepard will say I take it you know each other. I wouldn't like it, but I would still get the game, but only for the laughs. With regards to T'soni romance. I wouldn't care since Shepard is dead in the blue and green. If they did that when they bring Shepard back for a sequel, I would avoid the asari for the whole game, if possible. The question(s) are, Would you accept them having all new characters in a sequel to MEA without any mentioning of the previous characters? How about having an asari squadmate who talks highly of humanity throughout the game? The main character would not have a sam implant which means that the profile system would not return? How about they bring back renegade and paragon? Bring back the power wheel? I doubt that would be your preference, right? Let them? I'm not stopping them from making whatever they want. That's up to EA. And I would say you wouldn't riot if they continued in the Milky Way, right? And do you believe that they can completely forget everything that happened in MEA, and still produce a good game with new characters in Andromeda for you? I still say it was an oversight... an incongruity they could have avoided but overlooked so it exists. If they did it to make it canon that Garrus was recruited, why bother with the two different dialogues in ME2? They could have saved themselves some money reducing that little scene to just a single dialogue. Even if it makes it canon that Garrus was recruited in ME1, you've been complaining about it for how many years now?... so obviously it's not a great thing for them to do.
They did not do ME:A with no mention of previous characters from the OT. They did mention several of them, including Shepard. They mentioned the Reaper War. Furthermore, they didn't cut off an unfinished story with the OT. They have clearly stated several times that ME3 was the finale of Shepard's story and this was well known to be the last installment of a Trilogy long before it released. You want to undo that.
So, at the bottom line, you're conflating apples and oranges. However, to answer your question - If they drop ME:A now and return to the Milky Way to make a direct sequel of ME3, then I'm going to naturally feel like they dropped the story midway. I want to know who the Jaardan are and who attacked them at Meridian, I want to know who the benefactor is, I want to know where the kett are from, and I want to see the Initiative establish themselves in the Andromeda Galaxy. Ryder is not critical to any of that as far as I can see. My preference is to continue Ryder, but it is just that - a preference.
ME:A is an easy story to continue (and improve upon) in many different ways. Much easier than trying yet again to deal with the multiple and varied issues people have been complaining about in the OT for many years now. Much easier to have Ryder just grow into an edgier personality than to revive a retired/dead Shepard yet again and dance around more of those incongruities you love to bring up time and again.
As far as being able to produce a good game in the Milky Way for me. It's possible. I believe that the story was planned to eventually take us back into the Milky Way... just after a long, long time and after some other event/catastrophe brought the galaxy to a world state that is different from the ones we were given at the end of ME3. I"ve said many times I"ll wait to see and judge it only after the game comes out. My bets are, though, that if they do revive Shepard, it won't be me complaining... but the people who pushed so hard to bring him/her back... because he/she is very unlikely to actually be the Shepard they remember. Of course, they'll just dump all over Bioware because it will be Bioware's fault for not listening precisely to them, etc., etc., etc. One thing I'm abolsutely looking forward to if they do bring Shepard back and it fails to impress is the final end to this GD debate.
|
|
inherit
4578
0
5,014
griffith82
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
4,259
Mar 15, 2017 21:36:52 GMT
March 2017
griffith82
|
Post by griffith82 on Aug 20, 2019 3:20:04 GMT
Dont bring that into this. I'm a Christian and dont appreciate it. Zombie Jesus gives uneasy thoughts. Ugh that is not what Christians believe and I'm not about to debate this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 5:44:03 GMT
I'm going to bet the next game will take place in Andromeda, and there's going to be a whole bunch of pissed off people complaining that it didn't feature Shepard or the Milky Way.
Sometimes you have to step outside your small neighborhood. There's a whole city, country, etc to explore.
|
|
Gileadan
N5
Agent 46
Clearance Level Ultra
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: ALoneGretchin
Posts: 2,671 Likes: 6,651
Member is Online
inherit
Agent 46
177
0
Member is Online
6,651
Gileadan
Clearance Level Ultra
2,671
August 2016
gileadan
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
ALoneGretchin
|
Post by Gileadan on Aug 20, 2019 6:28:45 GMT
The one advantage the Andromeda galaxy has over the Milky Way in the ME setting is that it isn't currently written into a corner like the Milky Way is through ME3's different endings.
Other than that, no galaxy is inherently more interesting than the other. Both are largely unexplored and will remain so for a long time to come, both obey to the same laws of physics and therefore contain the same types of stars and planets. Nothing that exists in one could not exist in the other.
But Andromeda is much easier to continue than the Milky Way. No vastly different endings to canonize and all that. It has a protagonist whose story isn't over yet. I'd rather leave Shepard alone - bringing him/her back now would feel like one of those awkward athlete comebacks ten years after their retirement. Please don't do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 16:39:52 GMT
Mass Effect 3 didn't write itself into a corner. They just stopped writing, because the trilogy was over.
|
|
inherit
7671
0
1,046
NotN7
1,080
Apr 15, 2017 17:34:16 GMT
April 2017
notn7
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by NotN7 on Aug 20, 2019 18:47:52 GMT
Mass Effect 3 didn't write itself into a corner. They just stopped writing, because the trilogy was over. They stopped writing was because most peeps didn't pay attention how the story was going (not going to argue) it was their bad sadly but none the less, and I'll leave it there
|
|