447 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

A game set in the Milky Way that disregards the ending choices because "they wore off" is just as bad as retconning them straight out. That, more than anything else, makes our decisions and story over three games feel pointless.

Either what Shepard did was important, or it wasn't.

Either player choices matter, or they don't.

ME3 changed the galaxy enormously - to the extent that a Synthesis galaxy is immensely different to the other two. Turning right around and saying "hey this is too hard let's just skip ahead 10,000 years and make it all irrelevant" is a pretty ridiculous idea.

Won't be something new. Look at Mass Effect 2, for example. And you forget that ME:Next is a whole new story. It does not have to account for player choices in the trilogy (part of a reason I'm optimistic about it).
What Shepard did was important but there is no reason for everyone to sing praise to him after 10000 years. Events of the trilogy will be barely mentioned. You might see Shepard memorial and read some codex entries on how Shepard ended the war for your choices to matter. Will be cheap, true, but ditching the entire galaxy to not have to deal with the ending consequences is worse IMO.

[ElitePinecone]

Just because people like old places doesn't mean they won't come to love new ones that they haven't had a chance to see yet.

 

Yep.

 

A dev said once that one of the most frustrating things about die-hard fans is that they just want more of whatever the last thing was, and are innately suspicious of new things - but making new things is vital if the series is going to keep growing. 

 

People might miss familiar locations and characters, but there's no guarantee they won't like new ones even more. 

[ElitePinecone]

Won't be something new. Look at Mass Effect 2, for example. And you forget that ME:Next is a whole new story. It does not have to account for player choices in the trilogy (part of a reason I'm optimistic about it).

 

I think the handling of ME2's choices in ME3 could've been improved, but at least they tried hard in a situation where they were basically backed into a corner, and most critics and players were fairly satisfied with how the game felt like it responded to their personal story. Mac Walters said when they wrote the Suicide Mission nobody stopped to think how it would affect future games, so I reckon they did their best under the circumstances.

 

A new galaxy cleverly sidesteps that issue by letting the Milky Way continue on, affected by everything Shepard did in ME3, but giving us a new setting to play in. It's the best solution they could hope for that allows for a game set after ME3 but also one that doesn't disregard the player's canon.

 

What Shepard did was important but there is no reason for everyone to sing praise to him after 10000 years. Events of the trilogy will be barely mentioned. You might see Shepard memorial and read some codex entries on how Shepard ended the war for your choices to matter. Will be cheap, true, but ditching the entire galaxy to not have to deal with the ending consequences is worse IMO.

 

I wasn't actually being serious about the 10,000 years thing - that's an insane and terrible idea, even if they're just using it as a weak excuse to get rid of the ending consequences. The Milky Way after 10,000 years would be a far worse option than a new galaxy. 

 

Both of them will be different from Shepard's trilogy, but I reckon a new galaxy with Ark Theory would be closer to what fans are familiar with, at least in terms of the species and conflicts being similar to what we had in the first three games. 

 

After 10,000 years one could argue (in a really stupid way) that "oh the endings wore off", but... everything else would change too. Nothing will be the same as we remember it. All the characters would be dead, civilisations would've risen and fallen many times, there'd probably be dozens of new species, and they'd still be ignoring the consequences of player choices over three games. That is *far* more different than the scenario Ark Theory imagines.

 

I don't know about most people, but to me a different area of space is less jarring than a different area of time - and they don't need to disregard player canon if they're in a new galaxy. 

[Vazgen]

I think a reasonable jump in the future is a given. They'd need to explain an evolution in technology that will undoubtedly occur with the new engine capabilities. And Ark theory also requires a certain time if you want a noticeable presence of the trilogy races. 

I also don't think anyone will take a krogan or a geth with them and doubt that the geth/Wrex/Wreav will order to make an ark ship. 

 

ME1 to ME2 jump is also not perfect. Councilor choice, Reaper threat disregard, thermal clips. There were a lot of changes to the lore and technology in ME2 and it was only two years. 

[Heimdall]

I think a reasonable jump in the future is a given. They'd need to explain an evolution in technology that will undoubtedly occur with the new engine capabilities. And Ark theory also requires a certain time if you want a noticeable presence of the trilogy races. 
I also don't think anyone will take a krogan or a geth with them and doubt that the geth/Wrex/Wreav will order to make an ark ship. 
 
ME1 to ME2 jump is also not perfect. Councilor choice, Reaper threat disregard, thermal clips. There were a lot of changes to the lore and technology in ME2 and it was only two years.

Geth, maybe not, but I could definitely see someone bringing Krogan, they would be useful in an alien hostile environment. Somebody would think they could be controlled or manipulated (And probably turn out wrong)

[Vortex13]

Geth, maybe not, but I could definitely see someone bringing Krogan, they would be useful in an alien hostile environment. Somebody would think they could be controlled or manipulated (And probably turn out wrong)

 

 

See that's one of the problems I have with the Ark Theory. The fact that we are going to see a pick and choose methodology to the the races that are deemed 'worthy' or 'fan favorites' will get to become part of the new story, whereas everyone else is getting left behind. You know that the Humans, Turians, Krogan and Asari are going to survive into the new Mass Effect universe, but the Geth, the Quarians, the Rachni, the Hanar, the Elcor, the Volus, etc? It's looking rather bleak that we will ever see them again. All of that lore, the interesting characters and unique cultures are going to be 'Old Yeller-ed' because they aren't popular enough, or they would be too hard to animate, etc.

 

 

I have no doubt that the writers can and will introduce new alien species to the setting, but how many of those are going to be copies of the themes and elements we had previously; are we going to arrive in the new galaxy and meet the 'Not-Quarians' and the 'Not-Rachni'? Also, BioWare's track record of having new alien species and cultures that are not just rubber fore-headed humans has been very poor ever since the first game; outside of the expansion on the Geth in ME 2 there have been no new 'alien' aliens introduced to the universe, just more human-like ones.

[ElitePinecone]

Whether certain aliens make it into NME really has nothing to do with Ark Theory, since the game is going to be entirely rebuilt in Frostbite anyway. None of the models and animation sets are going to be transferred over, so they'd have to start again with everything.

 

Like I said in another thread, it could depend on things that have nothing to do with what galaxy the game takes place in - things like the animation cost, the workload of 3D artists, memory budgets, etc. Maybe getting every species in the game is a lower priority than modelling 454354 different armour pieces, who knows.

 

It's certainly a convenient reason to not have some species and to introduce new ones, but fundamentally it's less about the setting and more about the realities of game development. They can't possibly include everything, and those decisions have to be made in the interests of what BW think is a better game.

[Drone223]

I think the handling of ME2's choices in ME3 could've been improved, but at least they tried hard in a situation where they were basically backed into a corner, and most critics and players were fairly satisfied with how the game felt like it responded to their personal story. Mac Walters said when they wrote the Suicide Mission nobody stopped to think how it would affect future games, so I reckon they did their best under the circumstances.

 

A new galaxy cleverly sidesteps that issue by letting the Milky Way continue on, affected by everything Shepard did in ME3, but giving us a new setting to play in. It's the best solution they could hope for that allows for a game set after ME3 but also one that doesn't disregard the player's canon.

 

 

I wasn't actually being serious about the 10,000 years thing - that's an insane and terrible idea, even if they're just using it as a weak excuse to get rid of the ending consequences. The Milky Way after 10,000 years would be a far worse option than a new galaxy. 

 

Both of them will be different from Shepard's trilogy, but I reckon a new galaxy with Ark Theory would be closer to what fans are familiar with, at least in terms of the species and conflicts being similar to what we had in the first three games. 

 

After 10,000 years one could argue (in a really stupid way) that "oh the endings wore off", but... everything else would change too. Nothing will be the same as we remember it. All the characters would be dead, civilisations would've risen and fallen many times, there'd probably be dozens of new species, and they'd still be ignoring the consequences of player choices over three games. That is *far* more different than the scenario Ark Theory imagines.

 

I don't know about most people, but to me a different area of space is less jarring than a different area of time - and they don't need to disregard player canon if they're in a new galaxy. 

A new galaxy actually makes the whole point of saving the MW in the trilogy worthless since its telling players that they'll never visit it again and makes Shepard a failure as character, may as well let the reapers win. Its far worse than making one of the endings canon, its basically the refuse ending on steroids. If they go with ark theory they shouldn't bother call the game Mass effect they should just start a new franchise altogether as they are just wasting a interesting world they created by ditching it and all the potential it had. The MW is largely unexplored the next game can be set in the uncharted regions of the galaxy. The EC slides are not the end all be all state of the galaxy, they only show the intimidate future after the war and a lot can still happen after it.

 

No one is asking for the game to be set in the same places as the trilogy we don't want to see all the things that have defined the franchise gone forever. Which is what ark theory does it'll mean no more STG, Alliance, Citadel, Omega, Thresher maws, justicar's, mass relay's etc. Bioware crafted an amazing world they shouldn't ditch it just to avoid the endings as its only going to hurt them in the long run.

[Taleroth]

ME3 didn't do anything to the ME2's plot, the entire game was spent resolving loyalty mission's instead of preparing for the reaper's, not to mention the "Ah yes reapers; from the council. DLC's such as LotSB and arrival had more plot than vanilla ME2 because they actually progress the plot and are tied to trying to stop the reapers, in ME2 we only fought merc's for 95% of the game and only four mission's had anything to do with the reapers.

 

Not to mention concepts such as dark energy were scraped because they didn't build it up properly. DE for example was only mentioned four times in all of ME2 and three of those times are optional missions.

Building a ship out of Reaper remains is preparing for the Reapers. Building guns based on a Reaper is preparing for the Reapers. Finding out Reaper secrets is preparing for the Reapers.

 

You don't have to explicitly have everything be about a problem to be moving towards solving a problem. This is how lots of plots handle things. They introduce keys to a problem separately from the problem itself, then it comes down to later development to show how they fit together. That's what foreshadowing is largely about.

 

ME3 just ignored everything ME2 gave the world largely.

[Drone223]

Building a ship out of Reaper remains is preparing for the Reapers. Building guns based on a Reaper is preparing for the Reapers. Finding out Reaper secrets is preparing for the Reapers.
 
You don't have to explicitly have everything be about a problem to be moving towards solving a problem. This is how lots of plots handle things. They introduce keys to a problem separately from the problem itself, then it comes down to later development to show how they fit together. That's what foreshadowing is largely about.
 

Except most of those things never happened in ME2, the council just dismissed the reaper threat as a geth attack and there is no mention of preparation against the reapers by the council at any point in ME2, ME2 added nothing to the overall plot.

[ElitePinecone]

A new galaxy actually makes the whole point of saving the MW in the trilogy worthless since its telling players that they'll never visit it again and makes Shepard a failure as character, may as well let the reapers win. 

 

No.

 

I don't think you understand that not seeing something again doesn't make it magically disappear. The galaxy will continue the way the EC slides and ending video said it would, period. That includes hugely varying consequences based on the player's choices and the ending. Use your imagination if you have to. 

 

By the looks of things they never intended to set anything after ME3 in the Milky Way, so Shepard's trilogy was always going to be the chronological endpoint of the series. It's done with, for good. 

 

I really suggest you go back and listen to some of the developer statements around the release of ME3, the Extended Cut, and Citadel. Those were the end of the galaxy as we know it, and they won't be going back. It's time for somewhere new.

[themikefest]

I would prefer to stay in the milky way. I like to see more of it before going to any other galaxy

[Drone223]

No.

I don't think you understand that not seeing something again doesn't make it magically disappear. The galaxy will continue the way the EC slides and ending video said it would, period. That includes hugely varying consequences based on the player's choices and the ending. Use your imagination if you have to.

By the looks of things they never intended to set anything after ME3 in the Milky Way, so Shepard's trilogy was always going to be the chronological endpoint of the series. It's done with, for good.

I really suggest you go back and listen to some of the developer statements around the release of ME3, the Extended Cut, and Citadel. Those were the end of the galaxy as we know it, and they won't be going back. It's time for somewhere new.

I think your missing the point about leaving the galaxy forever and never returning, it invalidates the whole point of saving it in the first place. Shepard may as well lay down his/her arms a let the reaper's kill everyone one in the galaxy if we aren't allowed to revisit it at some point. People don't want to head canon the state of the galaxy after the war EC slides alone aren't enough they want to see it for themselves. The bioware dev's clearly said they wanted a fresh but familer fell in the next game at no point did they say they wanted to leave the galaxy forever. They said they are done with anything related to Shepard and the reapers the not the galaxy itself and there is clearly still a lot of stories that can be told.

[ElitePinecone]

 

there is clearly still a lot of stories that can be told.

 

You can't tell those stories without disregarding the player's choices. 

 

As far as I see it, nothing is more important than preserving the integrity of the player's canon - and retconning the endings is the same as saying what Shepard did was pointless. 

 

I think Bioware agrees with the importance of player canon, which is why we won't be playing in a Milky Way with a canon ending.

 

If that's the case, Ark Theory is a really good idea. Maybe the only idea. 

[ElitePinecone]

Another theory that came up on Reddit:

 

A.R.K.C.O.N could be a portmanteau:

 

Ark Contingency 

[Drone223]

You can't tell those stories without disregarding the player's choices.

As far as I see it, nothing is more important than preserving the integrity of the player's canon - and retconning the endings is the same as saying what Shepard did was pointless.

I think Bioware agrees with the importance of player canon, which is why we won't be playing in a Milky Way with a canon ending.

If that's the case, Ark Theory is a really good idea. Maybe the only idea.

They already made Udina the human councilor, so can do it again for the endings because sooner or later they'll have to deal with them since if they don't it'll come back to hunt them. They only need to make one of the endings canon that's it, the choices made in the trilogy can be left alone. Leaving the galaxy forever will only cause an outcry even bigger than the original ME3 endings since it renders the whole point of stopping the reaper's pointless.

Again Bioware said nothing about leaving the MW forever in any of their interviews they said adding a fresh but familiar feel in their next game.

[ElitePinecone]

They already made Udina the human councilor, so can do it again for the endings because sooner or later they'll have to deal with them

 

These two choices are on very different levels - and imposing canon once doesn't justify doing it again. 

 

At this point I think we should agree to disagree, since I'm never going to think erasing canon for the endings is acceptable, and you don't seem to think that leaving the galaxy is a good idea. 

 

I do think, though, that the outcry over canonising an ending would be larger than if they moved the setting to a new galaxy. Only one of those things involves disregarding the player's choices. 

[Drone223]

These two choices are on very different levels - and imposing canon once doesn't justify doing it again. 
 
At this point I think we should agree to disagree, since I'm never going to think erasing canon for the endings is acceptable, and you don't seem to think that leaving the galaxy is a good idea. 
 
I do think, though, that the outcry over canonising an ending would be larger than if they moved the setting to a new galaxy. Only one of those things involves disregarding the player's choices.

You can also argue that moving to another galaxy also disregards choices made through out the trilogy since it renders the the investment players put into the setting worthless its the equivalant of starting a new franchise rather than making another ME game.

[Heimdall]

Another theory that came up on Reddit:
 
A.R.K.C.O.N could be a portmanteau:
 
Ark Contingency

Oooh, that's good.

[Heimdall]

You can also argue that moving to another galaxy also disregards choices made through out the trilogy since it renders the the investment players put into the setting worthless its the equivalant of starting a new franchise rather than making another ME game.

It doesn't though, not at all. Frankly I can't fathom the mental process that leads you to the idea that not seeing the Galaxy again somehow invalidates saving it.

[Drone223]

It doesn't though, not at all. Frankly I can't fathom the mental process that leads you to the idea that not seeing the Galaxy again somehow invalidates saving it.

Why bother saving the galaxy in the first place if your just going abandon it forever and not return. Bioware may make the refuse ending canon since everything Shepard fought for is destroyed by the reapers and leaving said galaxy forever is no different.

[ElitePinecone]

Oooh, that's good.

 

If we're assuming ARKCON is one word rather than an acronym, it surely has to be Ark + Con(...), and I think "contingency" is one of the better words that fits there. 

 

A contingency to get some people out of the galaxy in case Shepard's gamble with the Crucible doesn't work, in the same way that Liara tried the time capsules.

[ElitePinecone]

Why bother saving the galaxy in the first place if your just going abandon it forever and not return. Bioware may make the refuse ending canon since everything Shepard fought for is destroyed by the reapers.

 

A creator choosing to leave a setting doesn't imply that the setting is destroyed. Sometimes things just end. 

 

It's kinda frustrating that you don't seem to be able to see the difference between something not having a totally specific future and something actively being destroyed.

 

If you want to know what happens after Shepard, look at the ending slides and Extended Cut. That's as specific as Bioware are going to get.