Continuous story? or One game One Hero

If there's a continuous story with the same dude, then they better not do something as derpy as have a fake out "death" at the end of the first game, only to have him get killed within the first five minutes of the next game(and revived almost "instantly") like with the past games. That was especially jarring if you did ME1 and 2 back to back.

This is my opinion too.  

Self contained story. From a gameplay perspective, the save import does not do anything but add a few bells and whistles for my play through. The save import causes this huge dependency which makes it risky because of not adapting to technological changed such as new consoles. Some Choices are also dependant on it which limits the freedom on what bioware can do. I would rather we gave a self contained story to give more freedom to the developers. Bioware's problem is it's dependencies

I actually very much like the One Hero Series kind of games.

I do love Dragon Age, but the thing with that series is that they're trying to tell stories about the world of Thedas itself, and we play movers and shakers within that world, which is cool and I enjoy immensely. But it's hard to become too attached to the series (for me) because each game you're playing someone new, so you don't get to see one character develop over time into someone possibly unrecognizable from when you first started playing. Don't get me wrong, Dragon Age is amazing and I am a huge fan, but it doesn't have the same emotional draw for me that Mass Effect had.

The reason ME3 was so horrible for me was because we had the same hero and mostly same companions for 2-3 games, so I had become very attached to them all emotionally because they were familiar to me. So when BW basically ripped the rug out from under us, it hurt probably a lot more than it would have had they done that with a Dragon Age game, specifically because of that extra attachment.

I want Andromeda to be successful. I want it to be an amazing game. I want BW to have learned from their mistakes so I can return to the ME universe without trepidation and enjoy another trilogy with characters and a heroine that I love. Being able to get to see a new cast of characters develop and grow would be an awesome thing, and I hope they can pull it off.

I prefer a continuous story; since I'm always "me" in these games, it's sort of weird to have to rebuild my relationships with the same characters.

Unless they renew all characters from one game to the next.

Contrary to most, if not all, in this thread I would prefer if Andromeda was a stand alone game for a couple of reasons.


1. Having a trilogy can be a great thing but only if the games were planned as such from the start. Obviously Bioware can't do that since they can never be sure how many more games they'll be able to make. The decision isn't theirs, it depens on EA and how popular the first game will be. In this situation their only option is to do it like they did with ME, make one game and if it turns out to be popular enough, think about a plot to the second game. Plot wise it's a really bad thing. Between parts the writers changed, there were changes not only to the plot but also to characters, the way they act or what motivated them (for example ME2 Geth vs ME3 Geth). ME 1-3 when taken seperatly are fun games but when you look at them as a whole than it turns out that they don't seem to "fit" together. To many inconsistencies, to many plot holes, to much "space magic".

2. The more time we spend with our character the more attached we'll get. It's normal and usually it's a really good thing, thanks to that we get more invested in the game and the time we spend playing is even more enjoyable. Unfortunatly to make one game you need a lot of time, to make a trilogy you need years. The more time you wait to finish your story the more invested you get. You expectations get bigger and bigger spured by your own imagination. Then the time finally comes you play the last part of the trilogy, after all those years of waiting you''ll finally going to see how it all ends...In most cases it'll end with disappointment, not necessarly because the ending was so bad but because it wasn't as good as you imagined. It couldn't be, not after you spent so many years imagining how "epic" it's going to be. 

3. When I started playing ME I liked Shepard as a character. But by the time ME3 came along I was sick of him. Not because suddenly he became a bad character but because he was the same character. The same main character,  the same problems, the same "big bad", everything was pretty much the same. Three games were way to much. It was getting boring. 


So basically I would prefer a stand alone game with a good well though out plot that makes sense and has an enjoyable ending. Than a trilogy with a mess of a plot streched thin to fit three games and be forced to wait years to see how it all is going to end.

I have a feeling ME is going to go the Dragon age roue from here on out with new heros. I have a feeling they feel their hands get tied a bit to much with one protag.

                                                                                                 <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

I believe it will start small, because of the loyalty missions. However, at the start of the game you will have Cora and the Krogan to
handle the initial missions. These characters would level up ahead of any other.

I wish for a trilogy. It's the better way to engage with a character.... sorta like a long term relationship..

 

                                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

Ouch

I think you can have a sequel to a game with the same character without it becoming boring or overusing the same villain. Other games, movies, tv shows and books do it all the time. You simply bring back the old characters and put them in a completely new situation.

I agree

Bring back Shepard. excellent

Stories drive storytelling.  You can have good characters in a cr*p story (look at ME3).

The problem here is, since this is a choice based narrative, future installments will have to either account for numerous divergent events, or canonize a bunch of stuff and effectively negate the importance of those choices.  Either option will p*ss a lot of people off.

Even leaving the major stuff out of it, look at what happened with Shepard's crew:  almost complete turnover from ME1 to ME2.   Then most of the ME2 crew got sidelined in ME3.  Both moves angered a lot of people.  Understandably so.  So what happens in a game with Shepard in ME4?  What do we do with the crew then?  We have close to 20 potential companions.  Most of which could potentially be dead.  Some are DLC.  Many are potential LIs.  Who stays and who goes?  And how do you bring in new companions?  Do you just dump everyone and start with a new batch?  relegate old relationships to emails?  Yeah, that would go over so well 

And that's a comparatively minor issue.  What happens when you get to actual mission choices.  Factions your Shepard sided with.  Enemies you killed, won over, or ignored.  What DLCs you may have purchased and used.  How certain missions were completed.  The list goes on and on and on  

Switching protagonists and locations at least delays the inevitable collapse