...Except they aren't getting rid of it. What part of, the setting is more than the location, aren't you getting?The setting is one many things that made the franchise great and it has such much potential, it'll be a huge waste if they get ride of it not to mention they'll be jumping the shark in doing so.
...Except they aren't getting rid of it. What part of, the setting is more than the location, aren't you getting?
There is a bit more to the setting they will be losing other than location though. You have admitted yourself it is unlikely to have Geth and possibly not Quarians either. Would Batarians be invited? There would be question marks over Vorcha and Krogan (had we not seen one). Tech dependent species like Volus would struggle as the arkships would have to specially cater to them.
Not only that but because of the upheaval the relationship between all the species would be altered as well. There would be no potential Krogan threat. The Batarians wouldn't be martyrs. The Volus won't have any capital. Quarians would not be seen as gypsies. All the species would depend on each other so ancient grudges would have a lot less pull.
All (or at least most) the corporations that manufactured technology and weapons would be gone. The news networks we know would be gone. STG would be gone. The Alliance would be gone. The Ardat Yakshi would be gone. C-Sec would be gone. Laws and treaties would be gone.
Individual characters would be gone. Krogan and Asari would be gone. Thousands of other little individual things would be gone.
Minor creatures like Pyjacks, Thresher maws, Yahg etc would be gone.
As an aside we have seen N7 designated soldiers. We have seen Krogan. Why would these two groups deliberately run away from a fight leaving others to die?
...Except they aren't getting rid of it. What part of, the setting is more than the location, aren't you getting?
They jumped the shark when they created the Lazarus Project. Its a bit late for that.
The series has pretty mitch established itself in the mily way, so it's pretty much part of the setting.
In terms of jumping the shark ark theory will only make things worse.
@Malanek, yeah those things are a iconic part of the series that fans have come to love, it would be a waste just to get ride of them.
They've already stated that they want to start fresh, no connection to the prior trilogy which strongly implies not canonizing an ending, especially when taken with other dialogue from the development team such as wanting to have an entirely new setting. To do that, they will have to either leave the Milky Way or abandon the familiarity of previously explored relay systems to instead travel off the grid or in previously unexplored regions of the network.The series has pretty mitch established itself in the mily way, so it's pretty much part of the setting.
In terms of jumping the shark ark theory will only make things worse.
@Malanek, yeah those things are a iconic part of the series that fans have come to love, it would be a waste just to get ride of them.
They've already stated that they want to start fresh, no connection to the prior trilogy which strongly implies not canonizing an ending, especially when taken with other dialogue from the development team such as wanting to have an entirely new setting. To do that, they will have to either leave the Milky Way or abandon the familiarity of previously explored relay systems to instead travel off the grid or in previously unexplored regions of the network.
Either way, the setting is going to be abandoned regardless of if it is set in the Milky Way or not. You can pretty much guarantee it. So if you are seriously wanting the same old, same old- I think you are gonna be majorly disappointed man.
You could go the "well Bioware is probably just lying because that's what they do" route, but this time it actually makes a lot of sense to not want to canonize an ending and to avoid the prior trilogy entirely by starting over with a new setting. If you are right, you'll be very happy. But if you're not - you'll probably really dislike the game. So, why not keep an open mind to the possibility that a new setting may be a good thing?
A new protagonist and new companion's exploring the uncharted region of the galaxy milky way is what most likely what they meant by "fresh but familiar". There is really no need to have a new galaxy since they've already jumped shark as it is and exploring the uncharted regions of the Milky way is also more believable (since it's set in the same galaxy they aren't really abandoning the setting altogether since it be in a different part of the galaxy), the ending also has to be dealt since ignoring them will do more harm than resolving them.
There is a bit more to the setting they will be losing other than location though. You have admitted yourself it is unlikely to have Geth and possibly not Quarians either. Would Batarians be invited? There would be question marks over Vorcha and Krogan (had we not seen one). Tech dependent species like Volus would struggle as the arkships would have to specially cater to them.
Not only that but because of the upheaval the relationship between all the species would be altered as well. There would be no potential Krogan threat. The Batarians wouldn't be martyrs. The Volus won't have any capital. Quarians would not be seen as gypsies. All the species would depend on each other so ancient grudges would have a lot less pull.
All (or at least most) the corporations that manufactured technology and weapons would be gone. The news networks we know would be gone. STG would be gone. The Alliance would be gone. The Ardat Yakshi would be gone. C-Sec would be gone. Laws and treaties would be gone.
Individual characters would be gone. Krogan and Asari would be gone. Thousands of other little individual things would be gone.
Minor creatures like Pyjacks, Thresher maws, Yahg etc would be gone.
As an aside we have seen N7 designated soldiers. We have seen Krogan. Why would these two groups deliberately run away from a fight leaving others to die?
Vorcha, maybe maybe not. Batarians also maybe, maybe not. Really, it boils down to what the writers decide. It would't be hard to rationalize Batarian involvement or vorcha stowaways.
How the relationships between the species will evolve is really part of the appeal to me actually. I mean, ME3 was pretty much all about overcoming those differences, so I'd think the old relationships wouldn't persist as they had in the Milky Way either, no matter the ending. Krogans are now seen as the saviors of Palaven. Quarians have their own home world and need not be vagrants. The Volus, along with most of the galaxy, virtually emptied their coffers funding the war effort. Every ending (Save refuse, obviously) talks about the galaxy entering a new age of cooperation. As I see it, this sort of thing is going to be evolving anyway. The setting is going to change in any sequel set after ME3, so we're not exactly losing that by going to a different galaxy.
Given how much they've been going on about how separate ME:N is going to be from Shepard's saga, I wouldn't count on returning characters (Indeed, they may want to avoid them. Small world syndrome is something Mass Effect has enough of).
As for other creatures (Pyjak, Yahg, etc.) those are things the writers may discard with... or take them along for the ride in some sort of ecological conservation section, but would the loss of such creatures really make this not Mass Effect for you? Some of them didn't even exist until latter entries.
As for the Krogan coming on the Ark ships, it might not have been their choice. One of the ideas I brought up for populating the Arks was for the cabal to lure in refugees and others with a Sanctuary style scheme. Or maybe they were mercenaries, hired as bodyguards and possibly not told the full extent of the plan. There are plenty of ways to get them there. As for N7, we still don't know what N7 means in ME:N. It could have evolved to hold a new meaning, like those unofficial "N7" operatives of the ME3 multiplayer. So really, we don't know.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've accepted that ME:N, whether set in a different galaxy or not, is going to be radically different from its predecessors in terms of setting. I don't think setting it in this galaxy adds anything except the unnecessary burden of dealing with the endings and the possibility of minor character cameos from previous games (Which, frankly, I have no particular desire for). If it isn't radically different, and we're given the same rehashed conflicts Shepard supposedly resolved in ME3, that would be very disapointing.
The next game is already be different as it is with an new protagonist and companion's a new galaxy isn't needed and the endings have to be dealt with eventually they can't keep avoiding them forever since it'll hurt them in the long run so its best to get it over with.
Okay, why do they have to deal with them? Why would it hurt them in the long run to simply move on?The next game is already be different as it is with an new protagonist and companion's a new galaxy isn't needed and the endings have to be dealt with eventually they can't keep avoiding them forever since it'll hurt them in the long run so its best to get it over with.
Okay, why do they have to deal with them? Why would it hurt them in the long run to simply move on?
I sure fans want to know how the reapers were defeated (it would only take a sentence or two to explain) and see what the galaxy is like without them. Plus the galaxy would be most of species and lore from the trilogy would still be there so it gives Bioware something to work with. They could just set the game 200 years after the trilogy by then enough time would have past between the trilogy and the events of the next game, it won't have any association with the trilogy.
Okay, why do they have to deal with them? Why would it hurt them in the long run to simply move on?
This is something I posted in the next illusive man thread but a lot of it applies here. Its the main reason I would prefer it to be in the milky way. I want to see what happens next. If we miss out on that for a single game, I can live with that. But I would be very disappointed if it was abandoned forever.
There is definitely a place for that. Relationships can be forged in shared warfare so it would be heartening to think that humanity could move forward with other species peacefully and with closer relations following the reaper wars. However chaos is also a chance for the various factions to advance themselves and I suspect that after a brief "feel good" period of unity those motives would start to show.
As I see it the Turians would be furious the Salarians didn't help soon enough. The Volus would see the rebuild as a chance to establish themselves as a major controlling player. The Krogan would be viewed with suspicion from everyone if the genophage was cured... and would be furious if it wasn't. The Asari would be held accountable if anyone in power learned about their prothean relic hypocrisy, although a more interesting scenario could be their government being blackmailed. The Batarians have nothing and likely to be requesting aid to rebuild their homeworld, and when not supplied in sufficient amount elements likely to turn pirate.
This is the main reason I don't want the game set in another galaxy. Despite the flat deus ex nature of the ending, I think things are really, really well set up for a sequel. Its a very interesting political situation.
Tensions will be high and Cerberus would still have high level assets and technology squirreled away under various fronts, and enough of them will have survived that I think it inevitable the organisation continues even if under another name.
This is something I posted in the next illusive man thread but a lot of it applies here. Its the main reason I would prefer it to be in the milky way. I want to see what happens next. If we miss out on that for a single game, I can live with that. But I would be very disappointed if it was abandoned forever.
I respect the thought, but that's what the EC epilogues were designed for. In all three cases, "New Age of Cooperation" seemed to be the big theme.
For my part, I'm actually surprised at just how little interest I feel towards the idea of exploring the post Shepard galaxy. I guess its because I want my Destroy ending and my Synthesis epilogue (I have both in playthroughs and I'm not sure which I prefer) to both be true in their respective cases. In one case, the loss of technology but a newfound brotherhood between all species. In the second, a transhuman utopia of which we cannot entirely comprehend. Between canonization and homogenization, I just don't see a way Bioware could proceed in the Milky Way that would satisfy me.
Then there's that I simply feel a game set in the Milky Way would find it difficult to avoid being all about Shepard's Legacy in some form or another, but I want a new tale.
^They shouldn't try to top Shepard, they should just make a good protagonist instead and experiencing the galaxy after the war is much different than seeing it in the epilogue slides.
^They shouldn't try to top Shepard, they should just make a good protagonist instead and experiencing the galaxy after the war is much different than seeing it in the epilogue slides.
Who said anything about topping Shepard? I just want something new, something that isn't about Shepard's aftermath.
I respect the thought, but that's what the EC epilogues were designed for. In all three cases, "New Age of Cooperation" seemed to be the big theme.
For my part, I'm actually surprised at just how little interest I feel towards the idea of exploring the post Shepard galaxy. I guess its because I want my Destroy ending and my Synthesis epilogue (I have both in playthroughs and I'm not sure which I prefer) to both be true in their respective cases. In one case, the loss of technology but a newfound brotherhood between all species. In the second, a transhuman utopia of which we cannot entirely comprehend. Between canonization and homogenization, I just don't see a way Bioware could proceed in the Milky Way that would satisfy me.
Setting a canon is not saying one of the outcomes is best or the others didn't happen. It would be about saying if this happened, then this is what happens next.
I do agree about homogenisation though. I think combining such massively different changes into one story, and retaining integrity in the story, is impossible.
Synthesis may well be the "best" outcome in terms of a utopian ending, but I don't think it would make for a very good story.
It may not, but I want to go forward with my many canon's intact. I don't want to be restricted to single ME3 outcome going forward, if that makes any sense. I could learn to live with a canon... I'd just rather not.Setting a canon is not saying one of the outcomes is best or the others didn't happen. It would be about saying if this happened, then this is what happens next.
I do agree about homogenisation though. I think combining such massively different changes into one story, and retaining integrity in the story, is impossible.
Synthesis may well be the "best" outcome in terms of a utopian ending, but I don't think it would make for a very good story.
It may not, but I want to go forward with my many canon's intact. I don't want to be restricted to single ME3 outcome going forward, if that makes any sense. I could learn to live with a canon... I'd just rather not.
Some things will need to be made canon sooner or later, so its best to get it over with.
No, they don't. There's no NEED to go any further than the ME3 EC epilogues.Some things will need to be made canon sooner or later, so its best to get it over with.
No, they don't. There's no NEED to go any further than the ME3 EC epilogues.
If fans want to experience the same galaxy not under the reaper influence then it'll have to go further than epilogue, ignoring it will just create more problems.
If fans want to experience the same galaxy not under the reaper influence then it'll have to go further than epilogue, ignoring it will just create more problems.
Except that's not the only path forward, certainly not when the devs have made it clear that they want to distance themselves from Shepard's story. Whatever you believe the fans want, the devs don't seem to want to explore the "legacy of Shepard". Ignoring it won't cause problems. Leaving it be lets them start afresh. That's what Mass Effect needs right now, a blank slate, not a salvage operation.
The whole point of using a canon ending is just saying that Shepard did "X" to the reapers using the crucible nothing more, it's just establishing how Shepard stopped reapers which needs to be explained at some point if the series is to continue, it has nothing to do about "Shepard's legacy" just establishing some background about how the war ended.Except that's not the only path forward, certainly not when the devs have made it clear that they want to distance themselves from Shepard's story. Whatever you believe the fans want, the devs don't seem to want to explore the "legacy of Shepard". Ignoring it won't cause problems. Leaving it be lets them start afresh. That's what Mass Effect needs right now, a blank slate, not a salvage operation.
You do realize that the whole point of Ark Theory is that they really really don't need to address it. You say its not about exploring Shepard's Legacy, but you don't seem to understand that the whole post-Reaper galaxy you want to explore is exactly that. It's not just the ending, though that's big enough, it's big things like the Genophage and Geth/Quarian situation. A galaxy was shaped by Shepard's actions in ME3. This is entirely about exploring Shepard's legacy.The whole point of using a canon ending is just saying that Shepard did "X" to the reapers using the crucible nothing more, it's just establishing how Shepard stopped reapers which needs to be explained at some point if the series is to continue, it has nothing to do about "Shepard's legacy" just establishing some background about how the war ended.
You do realize that the whole point of Ark Theory is that they really really don't need to address it. You say its not about exploring Shepard's Legacy, but you don't seem to understand that the whole post-Reaper galaxy you want to explore is exactly that. It's not just the ending, though that's big enough, it's big things like the Genophage and Geth/Quarian situation. A galaxy was shaped by Shepard's actions in ME3. This is entirely about exploring Shepard's legacy.
Really, explain to me why addressing the endings is NEEDED.
It's not needed if they NEVER intend to return to the milky way. But if they do it needs to be addressed when they do.
I don't want to get into an argument about what "Shepard's legacy" is, but I think that is a terrible description. I think the sequel should be all about the rebuild following the Reaper war. If that is what you mean then so be it, I have no problem with it, but Shepard doesn't even have to be mentioned.
Shepard fought hard to save the galaxy from the reapers, fans should at least experience and explore that galaxy for themeselves the epilogue just tells us the galaxy has rebuilt nothing. Why bother making a interesting galaxy for the fans to care about only to abandon it forever just to "start fresh" in another one, there are ways of starting fresh without setting the next game in another galaxy.You do realize that the whole point of Ark Theory is that they really really don't need to address it. You say its not about exploring Shepard's Legacy, but you don't seem to understand that the whole post-Reaper galaxy you want to explore is exactly that. It's not just the ending, though that's big enough, it's big things like the Genophage and Geth/Quarian situation. A galaxy was shaped by Shepard's actions in ME3. This is entirely about exploring Shepard's legacy.
Really, explain to me why addressing the endings is NEEDED.
I like this human he/she understands.It's not needed if they NEVER intend to return to the milky way. But if they do it needs to be addressed when they do.
I don't want to get into an argument about what "Shepard's legacy" is, but I think that is a terrible description. I think the sequel should be all about the rebuild following the Reaper war. If that is what you mean then so be it, I have no problem with it, but Shepard doesn't even have to be mentioned.
The rebuild following the Reaper War is exactly what I DON'T want the next ME game to be about.It's not needed if they NEVER intend to return to the milky way. But if they do it needs to be addressed when they do.
I don't want to get into an argument about what "Shepard's legacy" is, but I think that is a terrible description. I think the sequel should be all about the rebuild following the Reaper war. If that is what you mean then so be it, I have no problem with it, but Shepard doesn't even have to be mentioned.
Retour en haut