332 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabooooom]

I kind of like the idea of an espionage focused mass effect game. I'm not even terribly opposed to the prequel idea, but honestly there's something about prequels that sort of drains the tension out of whatever threat there happens to be.

There's only been one prequel that I have ever enjoyed, and that was Reach. It was nearly unanimously panned as a prequel, and I don't understand why. I guess those people wanted something different. But specifically the reason WHY it succeeded as a prequel story was because it revolved entirely around the fall of Reach as a standalone event. It was still overshadowed by the larger threat of the Covenant War and the future discovery of Halo, but that didn't matter because it was a PART of the Covenant War.

That would never work for Mass Effect. The only way that sort of thing would work would be with a midiquel set during the Reaper invasion. And I would not support that. We've had enough of the Reapers.

[kyban]

The known relay network covers less than 1% of the known galaxy.  And the trilogy only visited a tiny fraction of that.

 

There's still a big freaking galaxy to explore.  Abandoning the Milky Way for another galaxy would be wasteful.

 

I'm in the same line of thinking. There's a ton left to explore in the Milky Way. However, this concept photo makes it hard to tell what galaxy it is. 

 

I want to make an argument that it is the Milky way, feel free to discuss or agree/disagree. Check out the video: https://www.youtube....7mX2_163cg#t=53

Notice how the map turns on. There are different lighting effects going on, the part the jumps out to us are the light blues and the bright whites. But pay attention the the background, the darker, harder to see shades of blue. You can almost make out spirals, sort of. It's hard to see. 

Also note how this image is 3D, it has depth. It's not a 2D map, some of the stars are moving toward the character. Take a look. 

 

My assumption? The map is highlighting something, something the character is looking for. So the Ships computer, or hopefully A.I, projects the map, and applies a filter with all of the deep blue colors that skew the image of the galaxy. I think we might be looking at the Milky Way, just from a different angle with some kind of color filter on it.


Also, as a note, I've worked in the game industry for four years (not for Bioware or EA). That's not a long time, but I have seen concept art before. Concept art very rarely looks the same in the final product. I can't stress enough that these pictures say "conceptual footage." I think it would be best if we waited for more information, instead of taking wild speculations too far. Some food for thought.  

[durasteel]

...

I guess I don't understand why so many on BSN are averse to a prequel, though. ...

 

For me, it is the same reason I haven't played a Mass Effect game after my first completion of ME3, other than to play the DLC hoping for something to magically fix it.

 

Anything set before the space magic explosion has that mess to look forward to. Any character you create before hand is likely to become a husk. Any ship you use to explore the galaxy with will probably be blown up by the Reapers, and any choice you make before that moment is rendered moot.

[Medievalist]

I'm in the same line of thinking. There's a ton left to explore in the Milky Way. However, this concept photo makes it hard to tell what galaxy it is. 

 

I want to make an argument that it is the Milky way, feel free to discuss or agree/disagree. Check out the video: https://www.youtube....7mX2_163cg#t=53

Notice how the map turns on. There are different lighting effects going on, the part the jumps out to us are the light blues and the bright whites. But pay attention the the background, the darker, harder to see shades of blue. You can almost make out spirals, sort of. It's hard to see. 

Also note how this image is 3D, it has depth. It's not a 2D map, some of the stars are moving toward the character. Take a look. 

 

My assumption? The map is highlighting something, something the character is looking for. So the Ships computer, or hopefully A.I, projects the map, and applies a filter with all of the deep blue colors that skew the image of the galaxy. I think we might be looking at the Milky Way, just from a different angle with some kind of color filter on it.


Also, as a note, I've worked in the game industry for four years (not for Bioware or EA). That's not a long time, but I have seen concept art before. Concept art very rarely looks the same in the final product. I can't stress enough that these pictures say "conceptual footage." I think it would be best if we waited for more information, instead of taking wild speculations too far. Some food for thought.  

 

I'm totally with you here.

And just for the record, I just watched the video again and Casey Hudson himself, disproves the Ark Theory by saying:

 

"Pick a planet across the other side of the galaxy and fly there and see, what you'll discover" (at about 0:49 mins)

 

If you regard all those other snippets as proof, you definitely need to take this into account as evidence against the Ark Theory and Andromeda, too!

[Heimdall]

I'm totally with you here.

And just for the record, I just watched the video again and Casey Hudson himself, disproves the Ark Theory by saying:

 

"Pick a planet across the other side of the galaxy and fly there and see, what you'll discover" (at about 0:49 mins)

 

If you regard all those other snippets as proof, you definitely need to take this into account as evidence against the Ark Theory and Andromeda, too!

Its been brought up before.  Unfortunately we can't take it as evidence against either idea because Casey could be referring to Andromeda when he said "the galaxy".  Especially when they're being so cagey about details.

[Medievalist]

Its been brought up before.  Unfortunately we can't take it as evidence against either idea because Casey could be referring to Andromeda when he said "the galaxy".  Especially when they're being so cagey about details.

 

True, but if we take miniscule evidence as the foundation for a theory, those little tidbits should be treated equally. Andromeda came up, just because someone thought that the blue, blurry nebula in the teaser's "Galaxy Map sequence" resembled that galaxy.

And in that case, you should apply Ockam's razor and route for the easiest solution (or the theory that uses the least amount of steps to explain a certain question). In this case, if Casey Hudson, the creator of the franchise (!!!) talks of "the galaxy" it is very, very likely, he is talking about the Milky Way.

[Heimdall]

True, but if we take miniscule evidence as the foundation for a theory, those little tidbits should be treated equally. Andromeda came up, just because someone thought that the blue, blurry nebula in the teaser's "Galaxy Map sequence" resembled that galaxy.

And in that case, you should apply Ockam's razor and route for the easiest solution (or the theory that uses the least amount of steps to explain a certain question). In this case, if Casey Hudson, the creator of the franchise (!!!) talks of "the galaxy" it is very, very likely, he is talking about the Milky Way.

I would agree if Casey (I'm not sure how involved in ME4 he is, he and the Edmonton team are working on the new IP) and the ME4 developers weren't avoiding giving away the slightest details about the next ME.  What they're doing with ME4 is such an open question right now, I don't think Ockam's razor can be applied clearly.  All we really know is "it takes place in a galaxy" and its a sequel, considering they've made clear their intention to separate it from Shepard's arc and anything to do with Shepard or the Reapers (The primary focus of the trilogy), we're pretty much adrift here.

[durasteel]

I would agree if Casey (I'm not sure how involved in ME4 he is, he and the Edmonton team are working on the new IP) and the ME4 developers weren't avoiding giving away the slightest details about the next ME.  What they're doing with ME4 is such an open question right now, I don't think Ockam's razor can be applied clearly.  All we really know is "it takes place in a galaxy" and its a sequel, considering they've made clear their intention to separate it from Shepard's arc, we're pretty much adrift here.

 

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on that. We have almost nothing to go on.

[Medievalist]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on that. We have almost nothing to go on.

 

I basically agree with both of you! We have next to no evidence supporting any theory regarding ME:Next. Right now, it is not even sure, if it is a sequel, because the only "evidence" for this is the use of the words "moving forward". Right now, everything is conjecture!

 

I just want to point out, that as we have no evidence for either view, also the supporters of the AT (Andromeda/Ark Theory) should be aware, that their views are pure conjecture right now!

However, if you decide to ignore that and decide to treat pseudo-evidence as hard facts, THEN you need to apply Ockam's razor, which would (IMO) lead to a dismissal of AT.

[Heimdall]

I am hopping over here from the dragon age fandom. I am new to bioware games, but saw the Ark Theory thread and saw the debate. I might jump in mass effect soon. In the trailer every landscape with buildings was in ruins with downed ships and bridges. I am assuming that would be the result of the last game in the milky way galaxy? 

 

Why would andromeda be in such a devastated state?

Could be a recent war in that galaxy (By the theory, ME:N would be set centuries after the colony is well established).  It could just be a crashed ship.  In any case, they want to distance themselves from the Reaper plot.  Whatever they choose to do, I doubt it would be set right after the war.

[Kabooooom]

True, but if we take miniscule evidence as the foundation for a theory, those little tidbits should be treated equally. Andromeda came up, just because someone thought that the blue, blurry nebula in the teaser's "Galaxy Map sequence" resembled that galaxy.
And in that case, you should apply Ockam's razor and route for the easiest solution (or the theory that uses the least amount of steps to explain a certain question). In this case, if Casey Hudson, the creator of the franchise (!!!) talks of "the galaxy" it is very, very likely, he is talking about the Milky Way.

Nebula? That's not a nebula bro. Basic astronomy knowledge disproves that. It most closely resembles a galaxy, and not the Milky Way.

It may be filler or concept art that is meaningless, but don't write off legitimate speculation with easily refuted counterpoints like "it's a nebula" or "it's the milky way" when it clearly isn't. At least support your argument with something tangible. And no, quoting "fly across the galaxy" doesn't count - because last I checked there were trillions of galaxies in the known universe.

Also, that not the way Occam's Razor works.

I'm all for being supportive of speculation and intelligent debate - even in this early stage of the game. But it goes nowhere if people a) get p*ssed over something stupid and b ) repeatedly present arguments that aren't relevant. Instead, acknowledge when the other side has good points, and the same should be done in turn.

For example, the Ark Theory supporters have good points - the image DOES resemble Andromeda, the proposal DOES avoid the ME3 endings and this is EXACTLY what Bioware stated they wanted.

The opponents also have good points - Ark Theory DOES stretch the lore to the extreme, it DOES require a drastic change to the setting to the point that it may turn off fans and it WOULD be thematically easier to base the story in the Milky Way.

Now, everyone act and debate civilly.

[Medievalist]

Could be a recent war in that galaxy (By the theory, ME:N would be set centuries after the colony is well established).  It could just be a crashed ship.  In any case, they want to distance themselves from the Reaper plot.  Whatever they choose to do, I doubt it would be set right after the war.

 

However, you need to admit that the teaser scene showing the Krogan looks exactly like Tuchanka. It even shows a broken radar dish in the background, which you could see in ME2 and ME3.

[Kabooooom]

However, you need to admit that the teaser scene showing the Krogan looks exactly like Tuchanka. It even shows a broken radar dish in the background, which you could see in ME2 and ME3.

Yes, this is another good point - it certainly does resemble Tuchanka.

Minus roaring Krogan.

[KrrKs]

the image DOES resemble Andromeda

Right there is the first disagreement, IMO it does not look like Andromeda.

It does look flashy, but since it is a concept art that is to be expected.

[durasteel]

Yes, this is another good point - it certainly does resemble Tuchanka.

Minus roaring Krogan.

 

The genophage was repressing nose-horn growth, and having a rhino face makes anyone want to roar.

 

Also, warriors from Tuchanka had spent some time on Earth, and experienced some really old classic Earth pop music, including a particular video from the early 21st century from a woman called Katy something-or-other. 

[Heimdall]

However, you need to admit that the teaser scene showing the Krogan looks exactly like Tuchanka. It even shows a broken radar dish in the background, which you could see in ME2 and ME3.

Honestly, I didn't think so. Most of the planetary scenes in the trailer looked pretty generic. I'll look at it again and get back to you.

[Kabooooom]

Right there is the first disagreement, IMO it does not look like Andromeda.
It does look flashy, but since it is a concept art that is to be expected.

Really? It looks nothing like the MW or a nebula, it is a flat, circular structure with no bar and vaguely diffuse spiral arms - similar to Andromeda. Keep in mind that we can only view Andromeda from Earth at a thirty degree angle, so any perpendicular view would be extrapolation.

Honestly, it may not be Andromeda - I personally like the "MW destroyed by dark energy" train of thought. But it sure isn't a barred spiral galaxy or a nebula.

I think that is one of the legit points that the Ark supporters have.

[KrrKs]

Really? It looks nothing like the MW or a nebula, it is a flat, circular structure with no bar and vaguely diffuse spiral arms - similar to Andromeda. Keep in mind that we can only view Andromeda from Earth at a thirty degree angle, so any perpendicular view would be extrapolation.

 

Very vaguely. Andromeda's spiral arms seem to be more accentuated.

Furthermore, the image is completely missing large parts of the galaxy-core -> which has always been displayed on previous galaxy maps.

 

Really, we don't even know if that is a (galaxy) map, much less what it displays.

[Kabooooom]

Very vaguely. Andromeda's spiral arms seem to be more accentuated.
Furthermore, the image is completely missing large parts of the galaxy-core -> which has always been displayed on previous galaxy maps.

Really, we don't even know if that is a (galaxy) map, much less what it displays.

I think it's a safe enough deduction, given that it appears to be a galaxy map interface that any ME player would be instantly familiar with.

Good point with the arms though - Andromeda's are more accentuated. That's why I'm starting to prefer the alternative hypothesis about the image.

I do think they showed it deliberately for a reason though.

[Heimdall]

I think it's a safe enough deduction, given that it appears to be a galaxy map interface that any ME player would be instantly familiar with.
Good point with the arms though - Andromeda's are more accentuated. That's why I'm starting to prefer the alternative hypothesis about the image.
I do think they showed it deliberately for a reason though.

I feel similarly about the alternate, except I just feel a bit doubtful that they'd revisit the dark energy idea at this juncture.

[Kabooooom]

I feel similarly about the alternate, except I just feel a bit doubtful that they'd revisit the dark energy idea at this juncture.

I don't know, I'm at odds with it - what is compelling to me is that we know this was the major plot right up through the entirety of ME2, and then was dropped in ME3. While brainstorming for ideas for ME4, I'm sure someone brought up past plot ideas as potential conceptual seeds for a new story.

Another interesting aspect of it is that IF the image we were given is legit, it does potentially explain why it resembles a distorted galaxy more than anything else.

Benefits of it include staying in the milky way and presenting a new threat that is a force of nature rather than a Reaper-like pseudodeity enemy.

It would also tie in nicely with what are now meaningless curiosities from the prior trilogy - like Haestrom.

But what isn't compelling to me is that I really, really don't see how they could avoid canonizing an ending with it. That's what's so compelling about Ark Theory for me - it is EXACTLY what they said they wanted to do, avoid the endings altogether.

So, I could go either way, but Dark Energy may be one way to stay in the MW and avoid canonizing an ending - if someone can come up with a clever idea of how. I can't. I mean Destroy and Control are easy - but Synthesis isn't.

[shepskisaac]

I feel similarly about the alternate, except I just feel a bit doubtful that they'd revisit the dark energy idea at this juncture.

They may. Having dark energy be the 'enemy' of the new trilogy would certinately be refreshing. Completly different from the Reapers. At the same time, a natural phenomen is basically the only thing that can measure up/top the Reaper threat. Conflicts/arguments could arise based on different views how to deal with the natural disaster threat, instead of prepping military armies etc.

 

For the old Trilogy, I think they made the right choice to dump dark energy. It was barely foreshadowed, was not a major theme in during the first 2 games at all and really would feel way more out of nowhere. The issues of artificial intelligence and self determination against the Intelligence/Reapers/Leviathans fit much better. But that's been done and Dark Energy concept could be revisited with great success.

 

 

 

I don't know, I'm at odds with it - what is compelling to me is that we know this was the major plot right up through the entirety of ME2, and then was dropped in ME3. While brainstorming for ideas for ME4, I'm sure someone brought up past plot ideas as potential conceptual seeds for a new story.

Urhm no, it was barely a small quarian side-plot/mystery in ME2

[Heimdall]

They may. Having dark energy be the 'enemy' of the new trilogy would certinately be refreshing. Completly different from the Reapers. At the same time, a natural phenomen is basically the only thing that can measure up/top the Reaper threat. Conflicts/arguments could arise based on different views how to deal with the natural disaster threat, instead of prepping military armies etc.
 
For the old Trilogy, I think they made the right choice to dump dark energy. It was barely foreshadowed, was not a major theme in during the first 2 games at all and really would feel way more out of nowhere. The issues of artificial intelligence and self determination against the Intelligence/Reapers/Leviathans fit much better. But that's been done and Dark Energy concept could be revisited with great success.

Don't think they need to top the Reapers. I'd prefer a smaller scale threat with a more personable antagonist.

[shepskisaac]

Don't think they need to top the Reapers. I'd prefer a smaller scale threat with a more personable antagonist.

Not against such concept. Writing would have to be impeccable though, more intimate stories are much more unforgiving.

 

Though a dark energy 'threat' is really something completly different than Reaper military invasion