27745 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

That watch looks pretty sweet, will have to see how much it costs.

 

It's further down on the pre-order page: $350.  I'm not big on merch, but yeah, that watch is slick.

[Heimdall]

 

Fabrice Condominas ‏@Faburisu

New swag for the team! What could this mean...

 

 

Hmm...

 

"Pathfinder Initiative" - Well that definitely indicates we're on a journey of exploration of some-kind, I'd say, which is fantastic

 

"ARKCON"?  Hmm, I'm tempted to think the inclusion of "ARK" there is very deliberate and that this is an indication of some sort of resettlement program (Yes, I'm a proponent of Ark theory).  Just me though.

[SNascimento]

Is that NME related?

[ElitePinecone]

Is that NME related?

 

Well, nobody's been able to find any other possible meaning for it.

 

And "pathfinder" does fit what we know about the focus on exploration.

[SNascimento]

And "pathfinder" does fit what we know about the focus on exploration.

I don't think exploration is the focus of the game. It seems to be one of the priorities, but from the interviews I don't think saying NME will be a game about exploration to be accurate. In the N7 day stream for example one of the developers, if I understood right, said how you can not do a lot of exploring, that it's optional so they want to make it very good so people will want to explore. Michael Gamble also said more than once how shooting people and dialogue is at least as important as exploration.

[InterrogationBear]

I like the idea. The central hub in ME:N could be a giant deep-space exploration vessel.

[fyz306903]

"Pathfinder Initiative" - Well that definitely indicates we're on a journey of exploration of some-kind, I'd say, which is fantastic

 

"ARKCON"?  Hmm, I'm tempted to think the inclusion of "ARK" there is very deliberate and that this is an indication of some sort of resettlement program (Yes, I'm a proponent of Ark theory).  Just me though.

 

Can someone explain to me what the 'ark theory' is? 

[Heimdall]

Can someone explain to me what the 'ark theory' is? 

Its the theory that, in order to avoid ME:Next becoming ME: Damage Control, the new game will avoid addressing the endings entirely by having a cross section of the galaxy hop over to a new galaxy(Via Cryostasis, Secret Protheans ships, whatever, the writers could find a way) before they happen, and the new game will take place in the future of that settlement.

[ElitePinecone]

I don't think exploration is the focus of the game. It seems to be one of the priorities, but from the interviews I don't think saying NME will be a game about exploration to be accurate. In the N7 day stream for example one of the developers, if I understood right, said how you can not do a lot of exploring, that it's optional so they want to make it very good so people will want to explore. Michael Gamble also said more than once how shooting people and dialogue is at least as important as exploration.

 

Exploration seems to be at the heart of NME's story and gameplay, so... yeah I think it will actually be a major focus.

 

They're building giant Frostbite levels and reintroducing the Mako specifically to allow the player to go out and find new things.

[Nitrocuban]

Ark theory is about council races sending a big 'arc' fleet to another galaxy (one way or another) during the Reaper War.

ME4 would then take place in this setting and avoids all consequences of ME3's ending.

The more BW tells us ME4 is about new worlds and exploration the more I tend to belief this theory.

[cap and gown]

Ark theory is about council races sending a big 'arc' fleet to another galaxy (one way or another) during the Reaper War.

ME4 would then take place in this setting and avoids all consequences of ME3's ending.

The more BW tells us ME4 is about new worlds and exploration the more I tend to belief this theory.

 

If they go with the ark theory for ME4 they will be advertising to the world and basically admitting "we screwed up the ending to ME3 so bad we had to find a new galaxy to play in." I find that unlikely. Will the ME series become a traveling road show of destroying one galaxy after the other?

 

I personally despise the ark idea because it basically says all the Asari, Turians, Krogans, Salarians we will ever meet are one this one ship. There will never be anything like Illium or Omega where numerous different races interact, at least not the races we know. It will demolish the cosmopolitan feel of Mass Effect.

[Heimdall]

If they go with the ark theory for ME4 they will be advertising to the world and basically admitting "we screwed up the ending to ME3 so bad we had to find a new galaxy to play in." I find that unlikely. Will the ME series become a traveling road show of destroying one galaxy after the other?
 
I personally despise the ark idea because it basically says all the Asari, Turians, Krogans, Salarians we will ever meet are one this one ship. There will never be anything like Illium or Omega where numerous different races interact, at least not the races we know. It will demolish the cosmopolitan feel of Mass Effect.

Well the alternative is to tiptoe around the endings the entire game, set a canon, or homogenize the endings until they all get the same result. These endings weren't intended to be jumped off from in the first place.

Well, that's why it's set in the future, where the colonists have been established in the new galaxy for some time, centuries even.

[Tonymac]

I don't think exploration is the focus of the game. It seems to be one of the priorities, but from the interviews I don't think saying NME will be a game about exploration to be accurate. In the N7 day stream for example one of the developers, if I understood right, said how you can not do a lot of exploring, that it's optional so they want to make it very good so people will want to explore. Michael Gamble also said more than once how shooting people and dialogue is at least as important as exploration.

 

Well, yeah - think about it.  Exploration can always be a lot of fun, but think about subsequent playthroughs....  you will know where everything is - i.e. exploration is fun once, but after that it can be tedious.  For example, I played ME2 a lot.  I liked taking different team members through missions and seeing different reactions from them - different dialogue.  Yes, I did things like take Legion on Tallis Loyalty Mission, or taking Legion to see the Council.  In all of those rather fun runs - resource gathering got old really quickly.  Unless the game generates random maps, exploration can become tedious as well.

 

For some reason, shooting fools in the face never gets old.

[Drone223]

Well the alternative is to tiptoe around the endings the entire game, set a canon, or homogenize the endings until they all get the same result. These endings weren't intended to be jumped off from in the first place.
Well, that's why it's set in the future, where the colonists have been established in the new galaxy for some time, centuries even.

May as well start a new franchise instead or make refuse canon since everything Shepard did to save the galaxy would be for nothing since players will never experience a reaper free galaxy that they worked hard for.

There is also no way Bioware are going to abadon the milky way forever since its a place a lot of people have instead themselves in and it would also be a waste of potentioal stories. Not to mention 99% of he milky way is unexplored so having the game in another galaxy is just unnecessary.

[Heimdall]

May as well start a new franchise instead or make refuse canon since everything Shepard did to save the galaxy would be for nothing since players will never experience a reaper free galaxy that they worked hard for.

There is also no way Bioware are going to abadon the milky way forever since its a place a lot of people have instead themselves in and it would also be a waste of potentioal stories. Not to mention 99% of he milky way is unexplored so having the game in another galaxy is just unnecessary.

We've talked about this.  The problem is that there is no satisfying way to portray the radically divergent endings, those many different Reaper free galaxies.  This way, there is no canon and nobody gets their choice overwritten.  This way we can get a satisfying new story without getting bogged down in damage control for the trilogy.  The point is to move forward, not give you an ego massaging victory tour.

 

I'm pretty sure I've told you before that Ark theory isn't about going to new places, its about getting away from the old ones, the ones irrevocably altered by the variable state of the ME3 ending.  This is a new chapter in ME with a new story and a new PC.  It doesn't have to carry the trilogy on its back, that's the point.

[SNascimento]

Exploration seems to be at the heart of NME's story and gameplay, so... yeah I think it will actually be a major focus.

 

They're building giant Frostbite levels and reintroducing the Mako specifically to allow the player to go out and find new things.

I wouldn't say that. Right now, we barely know anything for the next Mass Effect. What I'm saying is that in interviews the developers said exploration is just one aspect of the game, and not the main focus. 

[Drone223]

We've talked about this.  The problem is that there is no satisfying way to portray the radically divergent endings, those many different Reaper free galaxies.  This way, there is no canon and nobody gets their choice overwritten.  This way we can get a satisfying new story without getting bogged down in damage control for the trilogy.  The point is to move forward, not give you an ego massaging victory tour.
 
I'm pretty sure I've told you before that Ark theory isn't about going to new places, its about getting away from the old ones, the ones irrevocably altered by the variable state of the ME3 ending.  This is a new chapter in ME with a new story and a new PC.  It doesn't have to carry the trilogy on its back, that's the point.

And like a said before no matter what Bioware does people will be unhappy so they may as well make one of the endings canon (destroy) and go from there. Bioware have also already made certain choices canon with Udina being the canon human councilor, they can easily do it again (it's once choice compared to several dozen).

Also you don't need to set the next game in another galaxy to explore new places, most of the galaxy is unexplored in addition to most relay's being inactive, it's just completely unnecessary to move to another galaxy.

[themikefest]

 Liara would worry about everybody and keep saying 'By the Goddess!")

 

After learning the Protheans were their goddess, she will now say 'by the Prothean'.

[fyz306903]

And like a said before no matter what Bioware does people will be unhappy so they may as well make one of the endings canon (destroy) and go from there. 

 

Well, I'm sure that's the ending that would cause the least controversy. But wouldn't this a) p*** off people who prefer the Synthesis, Control and Destroy endings (I don't actually consider 'destroy' an ending, I think most people who choose it, just do it to give Bioware the finger) and P*** people off who like EDI, the Geth and synthetics in general? What about people who caused a quarian/geth peace? The destroy ending would kill the Geth, and if it makes the Geth explode like it did to the reapers, it would probably kill loads of quarians as well! 

 

IMO, they would either make a retconned 'Destroy' canon where only the reapers are killed. (It's a sci-fi game, they could easily change this with just one sentence from an NPC) or, set ME4 about 200 years in the future where any differences between the endings make become superficial. (reapers went away/dead, green glow 'wore off', EDI and Geth rebuilt etc.). If they did this they could just change a few NPC lines and it would be fine. 

[fyz306903]

Its the theory that, in order to avoid ME:Next becoming ME: Damage Control, the new game will avoid addressing the endings entirely by having a cross section of the galaxy hop over to a new galaxy(Via Cryostasis, Secret Protheans ships, whatever, the writers could find a way) before they happen, and the new game will take place in the future of that settlement.

 

I dunno, they'd have to handle that really well. I'm not sure I want the devs to abandon the Milky Way just yet because I'd really like to meet some of the original trilogy races. 

[Nitrocuban]

The ME3 endings are like a sleeping wasp nest now, you won't fiddle around in it with a stick if  it can be avoid it somehow.

And what ever BW does, ME4 using ME3's ending will start the shitstorm all over again.

 

With arc theory BW can leave all that problems behind, show us a new world to discover and give us enough of the old world to recognise ME4 as Mass Effect game. It's just a matter of how big the arc fleet is.

[ElitePinecone]

If they go with the ark theory for ME4 they will be advertising to the world and basically admitting "we screwed up the ending to ME3 so bad we had to find a new galaxy to play in." I find that unlikely. Will the ME series become a traveling road show of destroying one galaxy after the other?

 

No. That's the wrong interpretation of what ark theory would mean.

 

They never intended to set anything after ME3. It was always going to be the chronological endpoint of the series. Go read Geoff Keighley's Final Hours of ME3, where Casey says games after ME3 would only take place during or before Shepard's trilogy. Mac specifically said in an interview that they could go crazy and give huge decisions to the player about the fate of civilisations because they'd never have to do another save import into a sequel.

 

After ME3, when lots of fans were saying they wanted something set after the trilogy, this was a huge problem. They can't set something after the third game in the same galaxy without downplaying, ignoring, retconning or canonising the endings in some way - which would obviously disregard the choices Shepard and the player made.

 

A new galaxy is required because when they made ME3, they didn't realise the next game would be set after it. 

 

It's not about advertising that the endings were bad, it's about being stuck between their original plans and what a lot of players said they want.

[ElitePinecone]

set ME4 about 200 years in the future where any differences between the endings make become superficial. (reapers went away/dead, green glow 'wore off', EDI and Geth rebuilt etc.). If they did this they could just change a few NPC lines and it would be fine. 

 

So.... every choice Shepard ever made in the trilogy was pointless and they died for absolutely no reason because everything wears off?

 

I'm sure people will love that.

 

That's storytelling cowardice, to be honest. Bioware made the decision to put those choices in, it should stick to them.

[Heimdall]

I dunno, they'd have to handle that really well. I'm not sure I want the devs to abandon the Milky Way just yet because I'd really like to meet some of the original trilogy races. 

There's no reason the other races couldn't come with them.

[Heimdall]

And like a said before no matter what Bioware does people will be unhappy so they may as well make one of the endings canon (destroy) and go from there. Bioware have also already made certain choices canon with Udina being the canon human councilor, they can easily do it again (it's once choice compared to several dozen).

Also you don't need to set the next game in another galaxy to explore new places, most of the galaxy is unexplored in addition to most relay's being inactive, it's just completely unnecessary to move to another galaxy.

"All choices will be unhapppy, so they may as well canonize the ending I prefer"?  Just because Bioware has done it before doesn't mean its a good idea.  Plenty of people are still upset over Anderson and Udina being forced into their roles like that.  Especially when the whole point of the ending choice was that you would be defining the fate of the galaxy.  There was never meant to be a direct follow up, no good will come of forcing it.

 

What part of its-not-about-going-to-new-places aren't you hearing?