As is the case when any successful game series ends, Mass Effect isn't actually ending. BioWare hasn't been coy about the fact that a new game is in the works, an obvious truth that I appreciate BioWare for not trying to hide. What it hasn't been so forthcoming about are the specifics; we know Shepard's story is done, but how do you move ahead in a universe where things could have turned out in a variety of different ways? Some recent posts on the BioWare forums have begun to clue us in on just how it is that Mass Effect can proceed.
After once again reaffirming that Shepard will not be in the next game, BioWare's Chris Priestly wrote on the forums (via Eurogamer), "I see people saying, 'Well, they'll have to pick a canon ending.' No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. Wherever, whenever, whoever, etc. will all be revealed years down the road when we actually start talking about it.
"I do not call the game ME4 when I talk about it ever, because that makes people think of it more as 'what happens after Mass Effect 3' rather than 'what game happens next set in the Mass Effect Universe,' which is far more accurate at this point. Obviously fans are going to speculate content, character and story until we actually reveal details in the years or months to come as you have almost no actual details, just don't get bogged down in 'well how are they going to continue ME3...'"
I'm as guilty as anyone of wondering where Mass Effect goes from here. The Reapers were such an enormous, far-reaching threat -- one that existed not just during a part of Shepard's life, but for millions of years -- that it's difficult to understand how anything can compare. Likewise, even if the same characters or time frame are not used, the outcome of the war against the Reapers is something that I can't see being ignored. In that case, a canon ending would need to be chosen, seeing as the endings (for all of the complaints about them) are very different in terms of the Reapers' fate.
Perhaps I'm being too narrowminded about the possibilities. Expanding upon Priestly's point, BioWare Montreal studio director Yanick Roy made a post of his own earlier this week: "What Chris is saying is that thinking of the next Mass Effect game as Mass Effect 4 would imply a certain linearity, a straight evolution of the gameplay and story of the first three games. But because we are switching to a new engine and need to rebuild a bunch of game systems, we have an opportunity to rethink how we want these systems to be going forward instead of just inheriting them from the previous games.
After once again reaffirming that Shepard will not be in the next game, BioWare's Chris Priestly wrote on the forums (via Eurogamer), "I see people saying, 'Well, they'll have to pick a canon ending.' No, because the game does not have to come after. Or before. Or off to the side. Or with characters you know. Or yaddayaddayadda. Wherever, whenever, whoever, etc. will all be revealed years down the road when we actually start talking about it.
"I do not call the game ME4 when I talk about it ever, because that makes people think of it more as 'what happens after Mass Effect 3' rather than 'what game happens next set in the Mass Effect Universe,' which is far more accurate at this point. Obviously fans are going to speculate content, character and story until we actually reveal details in the years or months to come as you have almost no actual details, just don't get bogged down in 'well how are they going to continue ME3...'"
I'm as guilty as anyone of wondering where Mass Effect goes from here. The Reapers were such an enormous, far-reaching threat -- one that existed not just during a part of Shepard's life, but for millions of years -- that it's difficult to understand how anything can compare. Likewise, even if the same characters or time frame are not used, the outcome of the war against the Reapers is something that I can't see being ignored. In that case, a canon ending would need to be chosen, seeing as the endings (for all of the complaints about them) are very different in terms of the Reapers' fate.
Perhaps I'm being too narrowminded about the possibilities. Expanding upon Priestly's point, BioWare Montreal studio director Yanick Roy made a post of his own earlier this week: "What Chris is saying is that thinking of the next Mass Effect game as Mass Effect 4 would imply a certain linearity, a straight evolution of the gameplay and story of the first three games. But because we are switching to a new engine and need to rebuild a bunch of game systems, we have an opportunity to rethink how we want these systems to be going forward instead of just inheriting them from the previous games.
"Story-wise, the arc of the first trilogy has also been concluded, and what we will do is tell a new story set in the Mass Effect universe. That doesn't mean that events of the first three games and the choices you made won't get recognized, but they likely won't be what this new story will focus on. In other words, because the game takes place before of after the first trilogy does not mean it necessarily is a straight prequel or sequel."
He proceeded to present an analogy he admitted was flawed, where you could have a game about soldiers in World War I and a game about soldiers in World War II, and "the games could have many points in common and feel true to one another, and you likely would have to recognize how the events of the first war influenced the ones of the second, but you would not necessarily think of it as a sequel. Again, the analogy is not great, but what I'm trying to say is that the ME universe is so rich that we are not limited to a single track when coming up with a new story."
In a follow-up, he noted, "What makes it Mass Effect is indead the alien races, the technology, the lore, history, etc. You can safely expect those in the next Mass Effect." Knowing that the next Mass Effect will take place within the confines of this same galaxy again presents serious problems that I don't see solutions to. I know he himself said his analogy was problematic, but it would only work if, at the end of the WWI game, you were able to destroy or seize control of Germany, rather than forcing it to downsize its military, pay reparations, and so on. What Shepard decided to do with the Reapers should have had a profound effect on the entire galaxy that can't be ignored in a future game, even if it takes place hundreds or thousands of years after Shepard's story comes to an end.
It's entirely possible BioWare does have satisfactory answers to dealing with this matter that I haven't been able to come up with myself. However, until we hear about exactly how it plans to address this, I find myself worried about the series and wondering if future games wouldn't be better off taking place in a different galaxy or universe -- in other words, if it weren't a game that has to work within the confines established in Mass Effect. It surprises me to feel this way, considering how much I've enjoyed the Mass Effect games; I firmly remain in the camp of those who continue to be a fan even if the series didn't go in the direction I expected. It may be due to that, and my desire not to see future ME games blatantly ignore the series' past (kind of like how the second X-Files movie did), that I would rather say goodbye to the world we've come to know and love -- and then hate, in some people's case -- than see things go in a direction that doesn't make sense.
He proceeded to present an analogy he admitted was flawed, where you could have a game about soldiers in World War I and a game about soldiers in World War II, and "the games could have many points in common and feel true to one another, and you likely would have to recognize how the events of the first war influenced the ones of the second, but you would not necessarily think of it as a sequel. Again, the analogy is not great, but what I'm trying to say is that the ME universe is so rich that we are not limited to a single track when coming up with a new story."
In a follow-up, he noted, "What makes it Mass Effect is indead the alien races, the technology, the lore, history, etc. You can safely expect those in the next Mass Effect." Knowing that the next Mass Effect will take place within the confines of this same galaxy again presents serious problems that I don't see solutions to. I know he himself said his analogy was problematic, but it would only work if, at the end of the WWI game, you were able to destroy or seize control of Germany, rather than forcing it to downsize its military, pay reparations, and so on. What Shepard decided to do with the Reapers should have had a profound effect on the entire galaxy that can't be ignored in a future game, even if it takes place hundreds or thousands of years after Shepard's story comes to an end.
It's entirely possible BioWare does have satisfactory answers to dealing with this matter that I haven't been able to come up with myself. However, until we hear about exactly how it plans to address this, I find myself worried about the series and wondering if future games wouldn't be better off taking place in a different galaxy or universe -- in other words, if it weren't a game that has to work within the confines established in Mass Effect. It surprises me to feel this way, considering how much I've enjoyed the Mass Effect games; I firmly remain in the camp of those who continue to be a fan even if the series didn't go in the direction I expected. It may be due to that, and my desire not to see future ME games blatantly ignore the series' past (kind of like how the second X-Files movie did), that I would rather say goodbye to the world we've come to know and love -- and then hate, in some people's case -- than see things go in a direction that doesn't make sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment