I think the next ME game should be the sequel to Andromeda. But I was wondering what Mac Walters mean with this, at the end of the answer (that's from an interview on GameSpot):
" One of the things that we were thinking about yesterday in relation to the ending was like, it felt like a suicide mission for BioWare. Like you guys have to account for so many variables in ending a story, which means it's almost impossible to do that. You have a series about giving people the options to make decisions, to find their own characters, create their own path for a story, and then to end that, to put a full stop in that story, you have to take that away from them for a moment and wrap it up. It's difficult to see how it'd all end well. How are you thinking about that for this game and perhaps the games that follow it? You're given more options to create your own story than ever. Inevitably, you're going to reach a point where you'll need to wrap it up. How are you going to do that and try to avoid the same mistakes again?
I think one of the things is we're approaching each game to be a little bit more standalone, even though I said there's a lot of mystery in it that will carry forward, but we want each game to stand on its own and feel like it has a satisfactory conclusion. Even just the type of game that we're making now: This is the first Mass Effect game we'll make where, when the story ends, the game continues. The world continues and there's much more you can still do.
Whenever we get to, we'll call it the last Andromeda--for now--game, it'll very likely be a game that feels like it continues even past the story and people can still stay in the world and see the characters that they love and be invested in. I think, even just that in and of itself is probably going to change the way people perceive it. Who knows? By then, maybe people will be ready to go back to the Milky Way. "
One option that's missing is a spin-off story in the Milky Way, around the time of ME2 and ME3. Like an N7 operative in a remote corner of the galaxy, gathering a team to fight off Cerberous and Collectors/Reapers?
Pissing off folks isn't actually proof that the reaction was rational. We can certainly stipulate that plenty of people whined about Refuse, though.
wait, I'm confused. Are you now agreeing that Refuse was trolling the angry fans?
Not at all. The angry response is real, sure -- we've all observed it. But like I said, the fact that people react badly to something doesn't make their reaction rational. Being angry about adding Refuse is stupid.
Adding a Refuse option was highly popular on the pre-EC forums. As a matter of RP, it's hard to make a case against it, and I don't actually recall anyone being opposed to the concept. But having a Refuse option do anything but what Bio had it do was far less popular. So Bio implemented a widely popular option instead of a less popular option
It's OK to want the Citadel forces to win through the Power of Friendship, and to regret that Bio didn't implement that option. But how does implementing the Refuse option we got make you worse off? You still have the options you had before. The worst thing Refuse can be is utterly irrelevant to you. (Well, unless you really gain a lot of satisfaction from shooting at a hologram, but I find that hard to take seriously.)
wait, I'm confused. Are you now agreeing that Refuse was trolling the angry fans?
Not at all. The angry response is real, sure -- we've all observed it. But like I said, the fact that people react badly to something doesn't make their reaction rational. Being angry about adding Refuse is stupid.
Adding a Refuse option was highly popular on the pre-EC forums. As a matter of RP, it's hard to make a case against it, and I don't actually recall anyone being opposed to the concept. But having a Refuse option do anything but what Bio had it do was far less popular. So Bio implemented a widely popular option instead of a less popular option
It's OK to want the Citadel forces to win through the Power of Friendship, and to regret that Bio didn't implement that option. But how does implementing the Refuse option we got make you worse off? You still have the options you had before. The worst thing Refuse can be is utterly irrelevant to you. (Well, unless you really gain a lot of satisfaction from shooting at a hologram, but I find that hard to take seriously.)
You are greatly overestimating the desire for players to have their Shepard commit suicide-by-Reaper. Those were largely the ones that let Marauder Shields do the job. By MY experience, people wanted to tell Starbrat where he can stick his "solutions" and let the forces Shepard spent three games building up determine success or failure. You know, let this cycle stand on its own and earn its freedom, rather than hand it handed to them by the Reapers themselves.
Sure the Reapers were OP. But that's on Bioware. They made them so ridiculously powerful and numerous that by any measure of logic the game should have ended in the first hour.
And Bioware did implement Citadel forces winning through the Power of Friendship. It's called "Synthesis"
What people wanted, and what Bioware give them the finger with Refusal's outcome, is an option to WIN. Not a flawless victory, but a victory that actually felt earned. But no, Bioware simply had to have their "Art"
Shooting the hologram was a way to vent frustration at the endings. Bioware knew that. So causing that to trigger Refusal was simply a d*ck move on their part. There's really no denying it.
Either remake the game and include all cut content or my personal favorite, remake the whole trilogy
Explore the 99% of the Milky way no one has seen yet.
yep. I always wanted to know what can be found in the rest of galaxy
Elizabeth Nancy Shepard - Earthborn/soldier/ruthless Humanity #1 I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite playthrough in ME Carolina Panthers(1-2) vs Cincinnati Bengals(0-3) Sept 29 100PM FOX #4Alabama Crimson Tide(3-0) vs #2Georgia Bulldogs(3-0) Sept 28 730PM ABC If you see a soldier or veteran, shake their hand and thank them for their service
The poll is limited to a faulty sample size. People who are regularly hanging out here like Andromeda on some level.
The general gaming population gives us very different answers
Oh? Can I see links to the polls undertaken on the general gaming population, with the results broken down by age/sex and country? Would be really interesting too see all of this (especially as it seems I was not asked my opinion).
I voted for direct sequel to ME3 but that is unlikely. I could do with an MEA sequel as long as they get back to their Mass Effect roots with a tighter linear game and stop trying to please the multiplayer crowd with the combat system. Bring back the power wheel, squad commands, and give us squad customization.
Those poll numbers are a bit surprising. The vocal minority is real......besides American liberals
The poll is limited to a faulty sample size. People who are regularly hanging out here like Andromeda on some level.
The general gaming population gives us very different answers
Sorry I wasn't being completely serious. But a lot of this forum vocally speaks about the OT is much better and there are several threads with people saying MEA is bad. From this community, I wouldn't expect that many people wanting a direct sequel
Those poll numbers are a bit surprising. The vocal minority is real......besides American liberals
The poll is limited to a faulty sample size. People who are regularly hanging out here like Andromeda on some level.
The general gaming population gives us very different answers
I also feel like lot of the general gaming population does not care about mass effect anymore anyways. It was rare for me to come across anyone in my own gaming community excited about the game . But most didn't even know another game was coming out
Explore the 99% of the Milky way no one has seen yet.
You wouldn't even need to make ME3 non-canon, just the last 10 or so minutes of it.
Still, I'd rather jump clear back to the end of ME1 and try again from there. The trilogy could have been really epic if it had a proper second chapter. Most of ME3's issues come from the fact the whole middle of the story is missing.
Not at all. The angry response is real, sure -- we've all observed it. But like I said, the fact that people react badly to something doesn't make their reaction rational. Being angry about adding Refuse is stupid.
Adding a Refuse option was highly popular on the pre-EC forums. As a matter of RP, it's hard to make a case against it, and I don't actually recall anyone being opposed to the concept. But having a Refuse option do anything but what Bio had it do was far less popular. So Bio implemented a widely popular option instead of a less popular option
It's OK to want the Citadel forces to win through the Power of Friendship, and to regret that Bio didn't implement that option. But how does implementing the Refuse option we got make you worse off? You still have the options you had before. The worst thing Refuse can be is utterly irrelevant to you. (Well, unless you really gain a lot of satisfaction from shooting at a hologram, but I find that hard to take seriously.)
You are greatly overestimating the desire for players to have their Shepard commit suicide-by-Reaper. Those were largely the ones that let Marauder Shields do the job. By MY experience, people wanted to tell Starbrat where he can stick his "solutions" and let the forces Shepard spent three games building up determine success or failure. You know, let this cycle stand on its own and earn its freedom, rather than hand it handed to them by the Reapers themselves.
Wait a minute. I wasn't saying that all that many people really needed a Refuse option in the first place. It's one of those nice-to-have RP options which should be implemented if the budget allows. Though I'm taking people's arguments at face value, which may be a mistake. Saying that your problem is that "my Shepard would never use the Crucible in any of those ways" when you're really after a retcon of the situation around that choice is both intellectually dishonest and, more importantly, tactically stupid, since you might get what you're asking for rather than what you want. OTOH, a lot of posters are idiots.
But yes, people did ask to have victory determined the way you say. And that's where the arguments happened. Like I said, that argument was controversial, while Shepard refusing in itself was not controversial. Refuse leading to victory would require everyone on both sides to be wrong about the military situation after months of experience. It's OK to ask for even more nonsense, but that argument didn't seem to have much traction.
What people wanted, and what Bioware give them the finger with Refusal's outcome, is an option to WIN. Not a flawless victory, but a victory that actually felt earned. But no, Bioware simply had to have their "Art"
I still don't see how this is giving you the middle finger. Bio didn't give you the option you wanted, yep. But adding Refuse isn't any worse than not adding Refuse as far as that goes. Either way, you don't get what you wanted. Why did adding Refuse hurt you more than simply not getting what you wanted hurt you?
A direct sequel. The foundations ME:A left are good for a sequel, not so much for a large time jump which would feel like water down your actions in the first game. If the sequel (and DLCs) tiethe major storylines from ME:A, then I'd be more open for a time jump to help them flesh out more our new galactic society.
I'd like to see just a tiny jump, like say 10 years when the planets we kick-started are really thriving. I'd be okay with still being a Ryder twin if we could see they've matured in that ten years so we could have better conversation diversity and show authority instead of having to accept and forgive bad judgement on some of the team. And as for the team, I'd want a scoundrel on board, Reyes or Massani type. What we have at this point is the Mickey Mouse club vibe. Put the Ryders in their late 20's/early 30's or do like the Dragon Age series and put us in a whole different protaganist within the Andromeda establishment.
You are greatly overestimating the desire for players to have their Shepard commit suicide-by-Reaper. Those were largely the ones that let Marauder Shields do the job. By MY experience, people wanted to tell Starbrat where he can stick his "solutions" and let the forces Shepard spent three games building up determine success or failure. You know, let this cycle stand on its own and earn its freedom, rather than hand it handed to them by the Reapers themselves.
Wait a minute. I wasn't saying that all that many people really needed a Refuse option in the first place. It's one of those nice-to-have RP options which should be implemented if the budget allows. Though I'm taking people's arguments at face value, which may be a mistake. Saying that your problem is that "my Shepard would never use the Crucible in any of those ways" when you're really after a retcon of the situation around that choice is both intellectually dishonest and, more importantly, tactically stupid, since you might get what you're asking for rather than what you want. OTOH, a lot of posters are idiots.
But yes, people did ask to have victory determined the way you say. And that's where the arguments happened. Like I said, that argument was controversial, while Shepard refusing in itself was not controversial. Refuse leading to victory would require everyone on both sides to be wrong about the military situation after months of experience. It's OK to ask for even more nonsense, but that argument didn't seem to have much traction.
The big movement behind Refusal was specifically because the Catalyst's options were unacceptable to players. You think if he Crucible shut all the Reapers down Independence Day-style there's have been a big outcry of "My Shepard would NEVER do that!"? Does it really take a genius to understand this concept? Was Bioware really that blind to their audience?
What people wanted, and what Bioware give them the finger with Refusal's outcome, is an option to WIN. Not a flawless victory, but a victory that actually felt earned. But no, Bioware simply had to have their "Art"
I still don't see how this is giving you the middle finger. Bio didn't give you the option you wanted, yep. But adding Refuse isn't any worse than not adding Refuse as far as that goes. Either way, you don't get what you wanted. Why did adding Refuse hurt you more than simply not getting what you wanted hurt you?[/quote]
See above. People hated the functions of the Crucible. There is no way Bioware could not know this unless they were being willfully stupid. So adding a Refuse option where Shepard says pretty much what the audience was saying right before a "rocks fall, everyone dies" ending AND triggering the same ending by shooting the Catalyst (which people showed on Youtube to express their anger and frustration) displayed some truly breathtaking amounts of douchebaggery. They were basically saying "yeah, we heard you. We just don't care."
THe original endings MIGHT have been passed off as greatly misreading the audience. Oops. But adding a passive-aggressive Refuse ending was simply telling the audience "f*ck off, we don't care what you think"