332 réponses à ce sujet

[durasteel]

...

Last trilogy is FINISHED. We don't need to hamstring the new one with the old one. ...

 

But that's exactly what you're suggesting, that BioWare allow the stinking turd of an ending of Mass Effect 3 to essentially banish all subsequent Mass Effect media from the Milky Way galaxy. It's pretty severe hamstringing to forbid your game from using anything familiar or iconic to the franchise. It would also be craven and stupid to limit your products that way because you were afraid to revisit your recent spectacular screw-up.

[Heimdall]

When did they say that? And who is "they"?

 

And if you think EA will let the existing setting of Mass Effect stay forever broken and never produce content in the Milky Way set after ME3, then I have a bridge to sell you--it's a real bargain!

Casey said it in an interview before ME3 was released apparently.  I wouldn't take it as gospel.

 

EA would if they thought the better course would be to break new ground instead of trying to repair what's been trampled and burned by telling players that their choices in the trilogy are going to be denied in the next game by setting a canon or triavialized by homogenizing the most divergent outcomes in the series.  Better to let what's done well enough alone instead of breaking it further in an attempt to 'fix' it.

[Heimdall]

But that's exactly what you're suggesting, that BioWare allow the stinking turd of an ending of Mass Effect 3 to essentially banish all subsequent Mass Effect media from the Milky Way galaxy. It's pretty severe hamstringing to forbid your game from using anything familiar or iconic to the franchise. It would also be craven and stupid to limit your products that way because you were afraid to revisit your recent spectacular screw-up.

They can come up with something new and try to to make it great or bind themselves to the old and try to make it suck less.  Personally I prefer Bioware directed its efforts towards new horizons with their lessons learned, not wasted its time trying to nurse ME3's ending into something presentable.

[huntrrz]

Also, this isn't how relays work. You can't have just one relay, they always come in pairs because they create a corridor of mass free space between them. So, you can't have a relay that leads somewhere with no relay on the other side. It'd be lore breaking.

I couldn't remember if both relays needed to be functional for a transit or if you simply needed one on both ends for two-way travel to be possible. You can skip that and go to the 'relay destroyed behind them to prevent pursuit' suggestion.

[Pyro411]

Just a quick reply for while I read through the posts.

 

A few people have been questioning the mass relays on why they're not open & thought it was either the comics or a later game answered.

 

This was answered in ME1 where they stated that Mass Relays would not be activated until the other end was charted and mapped properly in response to the Rachni wars.

 

As for the galaxy, I to believe that looks like Andromeda but if you take into consideration what was posted as what the original ending of 3 was to be, this very well could be the Milkyway going through a tragic gravitational anomaly in the galactic core & is starting to collapse in upon itself warping the entirety of the galaxy.

[Butch Cassidy]

But that's exactly what you're suggesting, that BioWare allow the stinking turd of an ending of Mass Effect 3 to essentially banish all subsequent Mass Effect media from the Milky Way galaxy. It's pretty severe hamstringing to forbid your game from using anything familiar or iconic to the franchise. It would also be craven and stupid to limit your products that way because you were afraid to revisit your recent spectacular screw-up.

 

I'm going to disagree, but it's breaking down into semantics. You say that forgoing what has been established is hamstringing the next ME. I say it's liberating it. While the Citadel, Normandy, and those hallmarks are hallmarks of the last trilogy, I don't need to forever frequent them. I don't need them for the game to qualify as ME to me. But I'm not very nostalgic. To me the universe is simply the look, tone, technology, and feel. I don't necessarily need any particular representation. I don't see it as being scared of it, I just see it as moving on, letting it alone. For me icons are born every day. I'm sure there were people that said you can't do KOTOR because Star Wars is the story of the Skywalkers etc., you need this and this for it to be SW. I think that's a good example of how you can take those things, transport, pay homage, and extrapolate on past iconic ideas to create your own. That's just me. I would prefer this new trilogy to be as separate from the past trilogy as could be. 

[Kabooooom]

Just a quick reply for while I read through the posts.

A few people have been questioning the mass relays on why they're not open & thought it was either the comics or a later game answered.

This was answered in ME1 where they stated that Mass Relays would not be activated until the other end was charted and mapped properly in response to the Rachni wars.

As for the galaxy, I to believe that looks like Andromeda but if you take into consideration what was posted as what the original ending of 3 was to be, this very well could be the Milkyway going through a tragic gravitational anomaly in the galactic core & is starting to collapse in upon itself warping the entirety of the galaxy.

You know, I actually thought of this too - perhaps it is the Milky Way utterly destroyed by dark energy - aka Drew's original plot. But then I thought - "no way they would just adopt that plot after retconning it with the organic-synthetic conflict. And besides, it doesn't avoid ME3: you'd have to address canonizing an ending still".

But, could be man, could be.

I think we can summarize the thoughts on what has been dubbed "Ark Theory" (or rather, hypothesis) as follows:

ASSUMPTIONS:

1) it assumes that Bioware deliberately showed us an image of a new galaxy map to generate hype/speculation as a clue to the setting of ME4. This galaxy map is not a "place holder", although it is likely a rough draft of the finished product.

2) The former assumption means that while any evidence at this point is circumstantial, it is significant with regards to the setting of the game as this image was deliberately shown.

3) The presumed reason why bioware would go this route is because, as they stated, they wish to ENTIRELY avoid the story and ending choices of ME3 and start fresh - at least for the time being.

OBSERVATIONS;

1) The image is NOT that of a barred spiral galaxy, therefore it is NOT the Milky Way.

2) It does not appear to be a star cluster based on the circular and relatively flat shape and vaguely spiral structure.

3) It most closely resembles images of Andromeda, lacking a distinct central bar and a logarithmic spiral shape to the arms. Comparisons between the infrared and ultraviolet images of Andromeda are easiest to see, although the combined image in visual light likewise adheres to this same structure, it is just difficult to see.

4) There is a branching, blue "energy-like" pattern throughout the image, most intense close to the center, which is not reminiscent of anything in real-life cosmology. It may either be the hologram "firing-up" or indicative that the image is not that of a galaxy, or that something else is going on (see below).

POSSIBILITIES:

1) The image is Andromeda.

2) The image is of an unknown galaxy that is similar in appearance to Andromeda.

3) The image is of the Milky Way, but of a Milky Way that is undergoing massive structural changes due to the buildup of dark energy to the point that it is unrecognizable.

4) The image is of an unknown celestial object, such as a worm hole.


More can be added as more people come up with ideas. (1) and (2) and (4) are consistent with Ark Theory or a story that takes place in a region of space that is completely cut off from the Milky Way.

Number (3) is inconsistent with this concept. It would be a story in the future of the Milky Way in which dark energy has obliterated the structure of the galaxy. I guess you could call it "Dark Energy Theory". Personally, I think the circumstantial evidence for that is significantly less, but it is interesting as it IS a plot that we know existed at some point.

So, since everything is circumstantial, I think those are all on equal footing at this point

[Heimdall]

Kabooooom, I think you should make an Ark Theory thread with that post as the header.

 

A place to centralize the discussion of the theory might be best, since its sort of just spilling into other threads now.

[Kabooooom]

Eh, I thought about that, but it would basically be a second thread about the same points given the limited information that we currently have - so I figured the mods would shut it down.

Edit: Wow. So I just discovered that someone over at reddit proposed pretty much this EXACT Ark Theory before even having anything from the trailer to go on...one month ago:

http://www.reddit.co...eory_space_ark/

I wouldnt be particularly impressed by this given that one to two years ago myself and others proposed a similar Andromeda plot to bioware on these forums, but it was never an "ark theory" sort of plot. This dude basically came up with a month ago what we did two days ago.

[Usarean]

Couldn't that image just as well be showing a astrological archive part of a holo recording depicting a phenomenon or occurence we have no context or refrence to yet? Our MW contains 100-400 billion stars and believed to have half as many planets. We've visited Citadel space, and not even all of that. There seems to be a lot of room to create new locations to explore and understand. I personaly see the mass effect setting as the milky way galaxy. As for the endings getting in the way. I can come up with several ways to resolve them. The one main thing they all shared was the galaxy survived.

[Harbingerpromo]

I too believe it's Andromeda or some other galaxy.

 

There's no need to figure it out why or how they survived a long trip. There could be dozens of simpler implications, like a couple of MP teams -which contains all races major races- that discover a new relay that takes them there, when they try to come back the relay is destroyed -you know, since in all endings they were destroyed- and they have to explore their way into that galaxy.

 

Just my two cents.

[Heimdall]

Couldn't that image just as well be showing a astrological archive part of a holo recording depicting a phenomenon or occurence we have no context or refrence to yet? Our MW contains 100-400 billion stars and believed to have half as many planets. We've visited Citadel space, and not even all of that. There seems to be a lot of room to create new locations to explore and understand. I personaly see the mass effect setting as the milky way galaxy. As for the endings getting in the way. I can come up with several ways to resolve them. The one main thing they all shared was the galaxy survived.

Of course there's plenty of stars in the Milky Way, and in truth we really don't know for sure what that hologram is.  However, its set up in too strong a parallel to the galaxy maps of previous ME games to ignore.  It could be something else, but strong speculation says its a galaxy, and possibly Andromeda.

 

There are potentially many stars left to explore in the Milky War, but does that strike you as the sort of "surprising" distance the devs were going on about.  Opening up relays within our own galaxy isn't really that different than the way things opened up between ME and ME2, except we don't know what's on the other side.  Its still a stone's throw away from everything we knew before.  The point of Ark Theory isn't so much the physical distance as the narrative distance.  By staying in the MW, any sequel inevitably needs to address the galaxy-wide effects of ME3, especially the endings.  There are a few ways to resolve that.  One is to set a canon, which sort of sends the wrong message regarding the importance of choice after such emphasis in the trilogy.  Another is to homogenize the outcome of the endings in the distant future, which is arguably worse considering it directly slaps the idea that player choice matters in the face.  There are some options that just can't be reconciled, like the possible extinction of the Quarians.  Or they could try and end up in another situation like the Rachni, awful.

 

Ark Theory avoids all those issues entirely, allowing the devs and the player to focus on a new story without all that baggage.

[Heimdall]

Eh, I thought about that, but it would basically be a second thread about the same points given the limited information that we currently have - so I figured the mods would shut it down.

Edit: Wow. So I just discovered that someone over at reddit proposed pretty much this EXACT Ark Theory before even having anything from the trailer to go on...one month ago:

http://www.reddit.co...eory_space_ark/

I wouldnt be particularly impressed by this given that one to two years ago myself and others proposed a similar Andromeda plot to bioware on these forums, but it was never an "ark theory" sort of plot. This dude basically came up with a month ago what we did two days ago.

I actually heard about that before I started talking about it here.  I liked the idea for the whole avoiding the endings part, but I didn't give it much credit until I saw the vague similarities between that conceptual galaxy map and Andromeda.

[dan155]

There are some options that just can't be reconciled, like the possible extinction of the Quarians.  Or they could try and end up in another situation like the Rachni, awful.

 

Ark Theory avoids all those issues entirely, allowing the devs and the player to focus on a new story without all that baggage.

 

I think people are jumping the gun a bit with the ark theory, I can think of ways to set the story in the Milky Way without having to reconcile the endings, and I'm assuming that the folks making the next Mass Effect are more creative than me.  The Mass Effect Relays were damaged at the end of ME3, therefore entire sections of the Galaxy could be completely cut off from each other in Mass Effect 4 due to many of the Relay's not being repaired.  E.g Mass Effect Relays to the the Quarian + Krogan home world haven't been repaired.  My own idea would be for a Human colony, let's say Shanxi, being cut off from the rest of the Galaxy due to the Relay being damaged at the end of ME3, as a result they decide to open Relay 314 (the relay that the Turian's stopped Humanity from opening in the first contact war).  

[Heimdall]

I think people are jumping the gun a bit with the ark theory, I can think of ways to set the story in the Milky Way without having to reconcile the endings, and I'm assuming that the folks making the next Mass Effect are more creative than me.  The Mass Effect Relays were damaged at the end of ME3, therefore entire sections of the Galaxy could be completely cut off from each other in Mass Effect 4 due to many of the Relay's not being repaired.  E.g Mass Effect Relays to the the Quarian + Krogan home world haven't been repaired.  My own idea would be for a Human colony, let's say Shanxi, being cut off from the rest of the Galaxy due to the Relay being damaged at the end of ME3, as a result they decide to open Relay 314 (the relay that the Turian's stopped Humanity from opening in the first contact war).  

But the effects of the Crucible firing affected the entire galaxy.  That's pretty much why some of us feel Ark Theory is needed, we need to get away from those disparate outcomes to avoid homogenizing them canonizing one of them.  How does one reconcile the differences between Destroy, Control and Synthesis without eliminating them?  Also, isn't Relay 314 just the relay that leads to Arcturus?  I was under the impression that humanity came through the relay, not tried to open it.

 

(As a bonus, Ark Theory allows Refuse to remain a valid option.)

[dan155]

But the effects of the Crucible firing affected the entire galaxy.  That's pretty much why some of us feel Ark Theory is needed, we need to get away from those disparate outcomes to avoid homogenizing them canonizing one of them.  How does one reconcile the differences between Destroy, Control and Synthesis without eliminating them?  Also, isn't Relay 314 just the relay that leads to Arcturus?  I was under the impression that humanity came through the relay, not tried to open it.

 

(As a bonus, Ark Theory allows Refuse to remain a valid option.)

 

Destroy and Control are easy to reconcile, particularly if the game is set in a fractured Galaxy several decades after the war.  Can easily imagine someone explaining it away by saying "The Reapers? We're still not certain what happened to them, after the chaos of the war there are too many contradictory reports, some units report seeing a Reaper being vaporized on Shanxi, perhaps the pulse that passed through the Relay network destroyed them?  A patrol also reported seeing several Reapers retreating through a Relay to the Arcturus Stream, maybe they're still out there?".

 

Synthesis is not so easy to explain, from what I've read it was chosen by a very small number of players.  Still there could be a way to reconcile it, particularly if the new game is only set a decade after the Reaper war.  Again, when discussing the end of the Reaper war have a character say something like "Some people reported physiological changes after the pulse hit the Shanxi Relay, there are even rumours that the pulse altered our genetic structure somehow, the research is ongoing but it's still classified."  Yeah, people had glowing green stuff in the ME3 ending, but who is to say that everyone in the Galaxy experienced the changes in the same way.  

 

There's no way to reconcile the refuse ending, other than to say that the cycle continued and it was game over.  

 

As for Relay 314 leading to Arcturus, I was under the impression that it was a dormant unopened Mass Relay and that the Turian's attacked the Alliance because they were worried opening the Relay might unleash another threat like the Rachni?  

[Usarean]

Of course there's plenty of stars in the Milky Way, and in truth we really don't know for sure what that hologram is.  However, its set up in too strong a parallel to the galaxy maps of previous ME games to ignore.  It could be something else, but strong speculation says its a galaxy, and possibly Andromeda.

 

There are potentially many stars left to explore in the Milky War, but does that strike you as the sort of "surprising" distance the devs were going on about.  Opening up relays within our own galaxy isn't really that different than the way things opened up between ME and ME2, except we don't know what's on the other side.  Its still a stone's throw away from everything we knew before.  The point of Ark Theory isn't so much the physical distance as the narrative distance.  By staying in the MW, any sequel inevitably needs to address the galaxy-wide effects of ME3, especially the endings.  There are a few ways to resolve that.  One is to set a canon, which sort of sends the wrong message regarding the importance of choice after such emphasis in the trilogy.  Another is to homogenize the outcome of the endings in the distant future, which is arguably worse considering it directly slaps the idea that player choice matters in the face.  There are some options that just can't be reconciled, like the possible extinction of the Quarians.  Or they could try and end up in another situation like the Rachni, awful.

 

Ark Theory avoids all those issues entirely, allowing the devs and the player to focus on a new story without all that baggage.

I keep getting lost on how distances, or surprisingly are being debated. What I heard them referecing was the teams dedication, motavations, and ambitions in making a new mass effect game. How far we go as in how far we go to make this a great game. Across the galaxy was mentioned with bigger planet scales. What needs to be asked then is what setting do people believe is mass effect. My belief from all the known lore I've seen is everything before and through the Shepard's trilogy takes place in the MW. The endings can be resolved to fit into a new story without having to retcon or diminishing them. I truely believe that can be done. A new story can be totaly different and still remain within that setting.

[Heimdall]

I keep getting lost on how distances, or surprisingly are being debated. What I heard them referecing was the teams dedication, motavations, and ambitions in making a new mass effect game. How far we go as in how far we go to make this a great game. Across the galaxy was mentioned with bigger planet scales. What needs to be asked then is what setting do people believe is mass effect. My belief from all the known lore I've seen is everything before and through the Shepard's trilogy takes place in the MW. The endings can be resolved to fit into a new story without having to retcon or diminishing them. I truely believe that can be done. A new story can be totaly different and still remain within that setting.

They said we would be going to a new region of space and that the fans would be surprised by how far they were going

[Heimdall]

Destroy and Control are easy to reconcile, particularly if the game is set in a fractured Galaxy several decades after the war. Can easily imagine someone explaining it away by saying "The Reapers? We're still not certain what happened to them, after the chaos of the war there are too many contradictory reports, some units report seeing a Reaper being vaporized on Shanxi, perhaps the pulse that passed through the Relay network destroyed them? A patrol also reported seeing several Reapers retreating through a Relay to the Arcturus Stream, maybe they're still out there?".

Synthesis is not so easy to explain, from what I've read it was chosen by a very small number of players. Still there could be a way to reconcile it, particularly if the new game is only set a decade after the Reaper war. Again, when discussing the end of the Reaper war have a character say something like "Some people reported physiological changes after the pulse hit the Shanxi Relay, there are even rumours that the pulse altered our genetic structure somehow, the research is ongoing but it's still classified." Yeah, people had glowing green stuff in the ME3 ending, but who is to say that everyone in the Galaxy experienced the changes in the same way.

There's no way to reconcile the refuse ending, other than to say that the cycle continued and it was game over.

As for Relay 314 leading to Arcturus, I was under the impression that it was a dormant unopened Mass Relay and that the Turian's attacked the Alliance because they were worried opening the Relay might unleash another threat like the Rachni?

See, that's exactly the sort of homogenization I very much would like to avoid. It basically says that no matter the choice Shapard made, the galaxy ended up more or less the same. Even the one the EC makes out to be decidedly transformative for all organics.

They were meant to be wildly divergent and they should stay that way. Even with your idea, they're cut off from the rest of the galaxy anyway, so narrative distance wise it's the same as AT, except for the ending headaches AT avoids.

As for 314, I'm pretty sure Turians reacted because the humans were exploring the relay network recklessly. They knew that because humans emerged from a previously unused relay.

[Kabooooom]

I think people are jumping the gun a bit with the ark theory, I can think of ways to set the story in the Milky Way without having to reconcile the endings, and I'm assuming that the folks making the next Mass Effect are more creative than me. The Mass Effect Relays were damaged at the end of ME3, therefore entire sections of the Galaxy could be completely cut off from each other in Mass Effect 4 due to many of the Relay's not being repaired. E.g Mass Effect Relays to the the Quarian + Krogan home world haven't been repaired. My own idea would be for a Human colony, let's say Shanxi, being cut off from the rest of the Galaxy due to the Relay being damaged at the end of ME3, as a result they decide to open Relay 314 (the relay that the Turian's stopped Humanity from opening in the first contact war).

Anyone who thinks people are jumping the gun here with speculation has to reconcile that with the fact that bioware deliberately showed us a galaxy map-type image that is clearly not the Milky Way.

Also Relay 314 isn't in Shanxi's star system. We don't know where it is, but it is in another unknown system in Turian space, and that system is presumably linked via another relay to Shanxi's star system.

Your idea is one that I was very supportive of here a few months back - open relay to an unknown region, discover unknown alien threat, here comes Rachni War 2.0.

But after this trailer, I think they went a different route.

[Malanek]

I think its fine to speculate. Its fun and interesting. Just always be aware that we are dealing with imprecise and vague information. No one should be too firm in their beliefs or get too attached to their own personal favorite theory or insult others for theirs. Everything is just educated guesswork at this stage. 

[Malanek]

 

MarieRenée Brisebois ‏@MarieBrisebois

The ME scrum teams gave themselves names, logos and one even made shirts! I'm now an honorary member of team Odyssey!

 

 

 

To get it out of the twiiter thread I will shift an idea here. We were given this picture. (Note Odyssey has been confirmed as a team name not the name of the game, but who knows what inspired it)

 

We know that the galaxy map does not look like the milky way. They said we would be surprised at the distance. There are rumors the game will focus on exploration. The Ark theory is interesting but as presented it really does have problems. Under any sort of conventional travel it would take hundreds of years to simply leave the galaxy. In which case the ark would be hit by the events of the crucible before it even got out of first gear, hence not really avoiding ending issues. Furthermore why wouldn't they simply turn around once the Reapers were defeated?

 

In the original Odyssey by Homer, Odysseus is trying to sail home to Ithaca after the Trojan war and is given a bag of winds containing all the winds but the west to speed his journey. However just when they are in sight of Ithaca his crew open the bag (thinking he is hiding gold) and the winds blow his ship a great distance away leaving them to embark on the Odyssey to get home again.

 

Yesterday, before seeing that shirt, I made this post.

 

In the original ending my first impression after Joker decided to make a dash for the relay was a burst of energy and then the Normandy appeared on an alien planet not through its own propulsion. Although this might not be what happened, to expand on it, a chunk of the fleet (1 ship or many) that was close to the relay when Shepard activated the catalyst, could be transported in an unknown way.

 

Burst of energy from the crucible + their own mass effect drives + relay exploding + space magic = they are in another galaxy.

 

 

I just think the name Odyssey could explain one way how the plot would shift to a different galaxy as a difference to ark theory. Not saying this is what happens, just something to think about.

[Drone223]

I think people are over analyzing the prototype footage too much, it may end up being different in the end.

[Kabooooom]

We know that the galaxy map does not look like the milky way. They said we would be surprised at the distance. There are rumors the game will focus on exploration. The Ark theory is interesting but as presented it really does have problems. Under any sort of conventional travel it would take hundreds of years to simply leave the galaxy. In which case the ark would be hit by the events of the crucible before it even got out of first gear, hence not really avoiding ending issues. Furthermore why wouldn't they simply turn around once the Reapers were defeated?

I just think the name Odyssey could explain one way how the plot would shift to a different galaxy as a difference to ark theory. Not saying this is what happens, just something to think about.

Your idea is good, and the name
Odyssey is certainly interesting. I would just like to point out that it wouldn't take centuries to leave the galaxy - it would actually take less than 30 years to travel across the entire diameter of the Milky Way. So, to travel out of the galaxy itself in a perpendicular direction would probably take a few years.

But, your point still remains- the Crucible wave would probably hit the ship. This can be avoided, possibly, by narrative hand waving. It doesn't have to be an "ark ship" in the traditional sense, but just the idea in general - for example, they could discover and go through a wormhole, they could go through a relay to another galaxy and destroy it's partner to prevent escape or follow by the Reapers, there are ways around it.

[Kabooooom]

I think people are over analyzing the prototype footage too much, it may end up being different in the end.

Doesn't matter, since it isn't the Milky Way that they showed us. So like I said before: either they did it deliberately to troll us into speculating, or they did it deliberately to give us a clue about the setting. In the former, there is no point in speculating, in the latter, there is a point in speculating, and there is no way to differentiate between either possibility. So, there is no harm in speculating, is the point.