BioWare Teases Another Mass Effect, DLC, New Universe

im ok with some more ME3 dlc, though i think no more ME sequels for me. i think the franchise should settle with the trilogy. if they add more ME sequels it might be a little excessive (like what I felt when i saw the MGS ground zeroes trailer, which is a prequel to MGS 5) or might not live up to the quality of the trilogy. maybe if they want to add sequels bioware should wait awhile, around a few years or so.

Please dont be a Prequel. Please dont be a prequel. Please dont be a prequel....or a damn sidestory.

I don't know. Another Mass Effect after the doctors left. Let's see.

I had a feeling this would happen once EA took control. Not even remotely surprised, but pretty disappointed.

This could be a prequel focused on the contact war; or a sequel that is several centuries or decades after ME3 

@haggis said:

I'd like to see something a bit different and more RPG in Mass Effect. Rather than a named character, give us the same flexibility of race choice, etc. that you see in Bethesda's Skyrim, and give us a more open world with fewer linear maps. It could be happening at the same time as ME1 or ME2, in different parts of the galaxy and dealing with other aspects of the emerging conflict. Give us more armor and weapon customization, character customization, etc. It might even be interesting to play as an agent of Liara after she becomes the Shadow Broker. That would unify some of the mission arcs.

Mostly, though, I want more RPG and less third-person shooter (although I don't mind the mix that ME2 offered, so long as they give more customization).

Well said. ME3's shoebox level design is largely what ruined the game for me, even though the entire series has been guilty of it.

@umdesch4 said:

If they got the people responsible for Tuchanka to handle the branching story-telling aspect of whatever new stuff they come up with, I'd be on board. For all the stuff I hated about ME3, that section of it was a piece of brilliance. After playing Tuchanka though myself, I watched lots of youtube footage of other people's experiences, and was impressed at how intricate that whole section was, and how many different ways it could play out, all of them satisfying in their own ways.

THAT is how you handle story telling in a game, IMHO. If I could have a whole game like that, I'd gladly pay full price for it.

A lot of ME3 plays out this way. A large number of mid-game sections play out very differently based on your previous choices. The Tuchanka bit -- I played the end game of that section through with three different characters, and had wildly different experiences. It was bloody brilliant.

I don't want to rehash the arguments over the ending, but I still think that people are underestimating the amount of customization that went into everything leading up to the last hour of the game. That the story came together at all in the end was quite a feat, given the amount of choices made. I still don't think it's fair to judge the entire franchise by the last section with its rather cut-and-dried choices. It's obvious Bioware didn't know what it was getting into with Mass Effect, and the complexity that would emerge.

I think the lessons they learned from the franchise will help guide any new ME series they build. Key bits: don't let your stories branch out too much or you won't be able to tie them together, and keep the same writers on the project all the way through.

I'd like to see something a bit different and more RPG in Mass Effect. Rather than a named character, give us the same flexibility of race choice, etc. that you see in Bethesda's Skyrim, and give us a more open world with fewer linear maps. It could be happening at the same time as ME1 or ME2, in different parts of the galaxy and dealing with other aspects of the emerging conflict. Give us more armor and weapon customization, character customization, etc. It might even be interesting to play as an agent of Liara after she becomes the Shadow Broker. That would unify some of the mission arcs.

Mostly, though, I want more RPG and less third-person shooter (although I don't mind the mix that ME2 offered, so long as they give more customization).

@PoisonJam7: fuck yo' space monkeys VRRRMMMM

@MarkWahlberg: What!? You mean you didn't like driving the Mako around on barren textured height-map? I mean, planets?

If they got the people responsible for Tuchanka to handle the branching story-telling aspect of whatever new stuff they come up with, I'd be on board. For all the stuff I hated about ME3, that section of it was a piece of brilliance. After playing Tuchanka though myself, I watched lots of youtube footage of other people's experiences, and was impressed at how intricate that whole section was, and how many different ways it could play out, all of them satisfying in their own ways.

THAT is how you handle story telling in a game, IMHO. If I could have a whole game like that, I'd gladly pay full price for it.

Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game, a great trilogy (otherwise I wouldn't have played it for so long, tbf), but I've had my fill. I'd be more likely to go back through ME2 for an ME fix these days

After ME3 ended so badly and Casey Hudson slagging off the fans, saying he is on board may not have been the best PR move. You can't promise and then not deliver and then expect sales for your sequel to be any good.

I'm glad that the last dlc leviathan revealed the how the reapers took the form that they did and their origins. Was a really good piece of dlc that blended well into the story. Still waiting for the aria ta'lok and omega dlc to come. The next game should be set years after the end of 3 with the choice you made at the end affecting that games story.

@Thanatos3 said:

@LikeaSsur: No offense but Tidus was the worst part of X for me, Mass Effect is going to need to distance itself from Shepard and the characters of 1-3 to continue for me, they wont live past the stigma of that ending.

Okay, well, regardless of your opinion on Tidus, the point was that most people associate these universes with the big hero. Without the hero, there's not much of a reason to go back to that world, unless they really pull something awesome out of their hat, and considering the two head honchos of Bioware just left, I doubt this will happen.

Shepard has so many illegitimate babies that they will have sequels for days.

would be nice to get another Jade Empire, but oh well..

Is anyone still interested in ME3 DLC after the finalty (and maybe poor taste) left by the game's ending. In regard to a new game, but I would rather wait until the next set of consoles. Let things settle down from Mass Effect 3.

Maybe that's what they want, the doctors want to hide their retreat? maybe that's my optimism, but they were tired and wanted to leave, if it was scandal or were thrown out maybe. Besides covering their retreat, it reassuring to see news that bioware will continue to move forward...in what direction i have no idea, but moving forward.

You know... despite my sour feelings about ME3, I'm actually pretty excited about the prospect of a new ME game.

@Viking_Funeral said:

@Brodehouse Still proves the point that longer development cycles aren't necessarily a hindrance, which is the original contention.

I said they make the game look X amount of years old after you start getting over 2, 2.5 or 3 years. You lock your technology about 6-9 months into development, at the same time other companies are locking their technology... if their game comes out 1-2 years before yours, it can be reasonably assumed that your game is going to look 1-2 years old. If you started development on a Source engine game in 2006 and are releasing it today, you might get the benefit of adding in some more modern shader effects and whatnot, but it probably won't look much different from Left 4 Dead which was released 4 years ago. This was one of the problems with Duke Nukem Forever, they kept generating new assets and then throwing out old assets until the technology was antiquated, then they'd start all over again on a new engine.

I'm actually for a 3 year development on new franchises and first games in a series, but direct sequels can carry over technology and a certain amount of art and practices. Naughty Dog put together Uncharted 2 in 22 months and that game is unreal. Granted, they're superstars and not everyone is Naughty Dog, but the two year development cycle isn't some new brutal thing. In fact, it's longer than the average cycle had been throughout game history. It's as long as BioWare had ever spent on a game until the original Mass Effect (3 years) and Dragon Age Origins (5 years, which they probably would've preferred to have been 3).

Financially it can be a hindrance as well; if you're paying double the amount of salaries and expenses because of a longer dev cycle, you require your game to sell twice as much to break even.

I would actually say exactly that when talking about Skyrim, for all the excitement about 'brand new graphics engine' it's just a fresh coat of paint on Gamebryo.

Actaully, now that I think of it, Firaxis usually uses Gamebryo too. ... And late game Civ has the same frame rate problems late game Skyrim does. Huh. XCOM is apparently on UE3, so texture pop is the only thing scary there.

I was a little disappointed with ME3 as ME2 was better, so going to wait till all the DLC is released, making it a fuller game for my second play through.

It will have to be a Mass Effect on rails first person shooter...that is the only conceivable idea...that and Mass Effect Virtual Fighter

Mihgt be interesting to have a Mass Effect prequel, set during the First Contact War.

Heck, just make a gaiden game that follows the fan favorites of the trilogy if nothing else. All I care is that the time period takes place AFTER the end of Mass3 or BEFORE the beginning of Mass1. I just can't get behind the DLC they're releasing for 3 that takes place before the singleplayer end. It worked fine in Mass2 but isn't appealing for 3.

@Thanatos3: Well, I love sci-fi, or, actually science in general, and I like the future Bioware created, but yes, I really like the characters as well.

LOL WE'RE MAKING Another mass effect and we need ideas so please send them . are you joking? dragon age 3 is going to be pitiful. this is the worst day ever. first blizzard now bioware. next will be bungie. and valve will be the only great company that remains.

They should tease their way back onto steam again or I won't buy their products.

Wait, so they're making a completely new IP as well as another Mass Effect game? I think I'm more interested to see what that new game is more than a new Mass Effect game even though I still love the series very much, unlike most people.

Hopefully they learn a lesson if there is one to be learned and go on to do better things.

I'm kinda looking forward to the next Mass Effect game despite not enjoying the last one, strange

DLC not so much

The doctors leaving is sad news, but from what they've said, it sounds like their interest in this faded back in april, this news for DLC is good news! It shows that Bioware will continue to push forward and continue to do what they do.

Maybe this is what they want,take attention away from their leaving the company so that they can have the freedom they're looking for in leaving.

Besides i really doubt they'd want to cast doubt on something they created and nurtured for 17 years to this point.

@Fram said:

Really? We're still not over all this "ME3 ending sucks" crap? I would go on a rant of my my own, but this summarises my thoughts too well:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/08/06/film-crit-hulk-smash-a-few-words-on-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3/

Huh.

Fuck that guy.

@cwJoe said:

Mass Effect prequel starring Jon Grissom in the First Contact War, GO GO GO.

The guy from CSI fought Turrians on Mars? What?

@Viking_Funeral: Development on XCOM began in 2008, that would make it 4 years. Like I said. Would you prefer 4.5 years? You can look for sources on the rest, if they're different than the dates listed through wikipedia then I guess I have bad information. But Skyrim was conceptualized in 2006 and entered production after Fallout 3.

Also, knock off the smugness. It does you no credit.

Really? We're still not over all this "ME3 ending sucks" crap? I would go on a rant of my my own, but this summarises my thoughts too well:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/08/06/film-crit-hulk-smash-a-few-words-on-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3/

@Brodehouse said:

Skyrim did not have 5 years of active development. Development is not the same as 'years from the last game'. It had 3 years after they finished with Fallout 3. The Elder Scrolls are more popular than any franchise BioWare has ever had. You might as well point to Call of Duty's 2 year cycle as the reason it sold 25 million copies last year.

XCOM (the shooter, I assume?) has also not had 5 years of active development, because Marin was making BioShock 2. By the time it comes out it will have had 3 years. Unless you're talking about the strategy game, in which case, it's had 4 years of development, much of it shared with Civilization 5.

EDIT: No, I am not not talking about the shooter. I'm talking about the much more popular TBS game. I'll be surprised if the shooter doesn't get scrapped at this point.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/01/xcom-enemy-unknown-preview/

RPS: (laughs) How long have you been doing it for?
Jake Solomon: This project, we’ve been doing it for three and a half years at this point. I mean, some guys, some of the early art staff have been on it for four years at this point, so we’ve been in development for a really long time.

That is from an interview 8 months ago, or last February 1st. So technically anywhere from 4 years to 4.75 years.

I can find sources on the other ones as well, if you want to get really into it, but I think we both know that is a waste of our time.

@Viking_Funeral said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Temg99 said:

Mass Effect Three felt rushed and over promised what they truly could never, ever live up to their promises. Don't let Mass Effect 4 fall into the same trap. Give them 3+ years to develop a full storyline, world and RPG system that everyone can enjoy. Don;'t force them into a 2 year cycle of endless rush so you can have a "BioWare" game every year. You will just destroy the BioWare brand.

You get the idea for the rest. All I want is time given to make the game great. I trust the talent at BioWare can then do something amazing with that time.

BioWare never spent over 3 years to make a game until Dragon Age: Origins (which had a troubled development). Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't 5 years in the making, it came out two years after the original. I don't know if you know a lot about independent development, but you don't have the option to spend forever making a game either. Eventually you need to have money coming in or the lights aren't going to stay on.

You never want to spend 5 years making a game anyways, because when it comes out, it's on 5 year old technology. You start getting past two and a half or three years of active development, and you're working backwards at some point.

Skyrim took 5 years of development, and sold over 12 million copies & counting. TES games are usually on a 5 year cycle.

XCOM has also been in development for 5 years, and pre-sales are very good. Then there's all the Civilization games coming out 5 years apart. So, it's also a Firaxis staple.

Skyrim did not have 5 years of active development. Development is not the same as 'years from the last game'. It had 3 years after they finished with Fallout 3. The Elder Scrolls are more popular than any franchise BioWare has ever had. You might as well point to Call of Duty's 2 year cycle as the reason it sold 25 million copies last year.

XCOM (the shooter, I assume?) has also not had 5 years of active development, because Marin was making BioShock 2. By the time it comes out it will have had 3 years. Unless you're talking about the strategy game, in which case, it's had 4 years of development, much of it shared with Civilization 5.

Any Mass Effect news, I'm ok with.

My thoughts:

@MarkWahlberg: I respect a game that tries something new and is able to pull it off than a decent game that feels pulled from many others, that's why me1 still stands out for so many while 2/3 are still compared to Gears of War with good story.

@LikeaSsur: No offense but Tidus was the worst part of X for me, Mass Effect is going to need to distance itself from Shepard and the characters of 1-3 to continue for me, they wont live past the stigma of that ending.

@LegendaryChopChop Are you kidding? The reason why the ending of Mass Effect 3 is so screwed up is because they wanted to setup a situation for more games. They needed to leave the Mass Effect universe in a state where:

- Shepard is "indisposed"

- Shepard wins "something"

- The Reapers are still around

Congrats they pulled it off....too bad to get it there required hand crafting a mind boggling experience that left a lot of players confused and mad. I'm sure that is exactly what Casey Hudson wanted to do to launch into a new series, right?

@mracoon said:

The more I dwell on ME1, the more it seems like a masterpiece.

It really wasn't. They win points for trying to do something relatively original at the time in terms of game style, but there wasn't a single aspect of that game that could be considered anything more than 'decent'. Except maybe the codec - which is really the only place where the universe was fleshed out - but the font was so fucking small I never spent any time with it.

@SmokePants: True i think reboot is the way to go here, no Shepard this time and a choice in species (that would take a long time with many different story lines...so i don't know if they would ever so that.)

@NTM: While so right, i always found the universe of Mass Effect itself to be very standard and boring anyway. Characters and story is what made the games special not the world itself.

@EXTomar said:

That "one bad apple" was a pretty important piece of fruit. And decisions in other cases where not stellar either.

It doesn't decide the future, either. I will be positive on this, unlike people who are being negative. It is my favorite gaming franchise in the world, and I have been pleased with how it has been done for the most part. I think it would be far worse if someone else, especially a representative of EA, took the helm.

There is no better choice than him, honestly. It's the safest bet for the future. Anything else is unproven, at least he has a good track record for it.

No thanks.