447 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

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.

We only explored the MW for three games! I find it hard to believe that we've explored the whole galaxy in the span of three games considering the codex states that 98% of it is uncharted. No one is asking charcters/places to return in the next game but there is still so much potential left to use and the EC only give a small glimpse of the galaxy after the war it doesn't show the grand scheme of things.

[Heimdall]

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.

If it's an acronym, I'm guessing it's like S.H.I.E.L.D. Sure, it's an acronym, but it exists because the creator wanted to spell out Shield

[Heimdall]

We only explored the MW for three games! I find it hard to believe that we've explored the whole galaxy in the span of three games considering the codex states that 98% of it is uncharted. There is still so much potential left to use and the EC only give a small glimpse of the galaxy after the war it doesn't show the grand scheme of things.

You keep throwing around that word "potential", but really all it means is that Bioware could stick whatever new things they want in those unexplored regions. Which they could just as easily do in a new galaxy without overriding player choice. Why do you keep bringing that point up, anyway? I know this isn't the first time I told you that nobody has ever argued for Ark Theory on the basis that it's the only way to get new things. It isn't. It's just the way that doesn't override player choice in the process.

[Drone223]

You keep throwing around that word "potential", but really all it means is that Bioware could stick whatever new things they want in those unexplored regions. Which they could just as easily do in a new galaxy without overriding player choice. Why do you keep bringing that point up, anyway? I know this isn't the first time I told you that nobody has ever argued for Ark Theory on the basis that it's the only way to get new things. It isn't. It's just the way that doesn't override player choice in the process.

It's the fact that moving to another galaxy is just completely unnessary to explore new places and the bioware created an interesting setting and it's important that potential of the setting is used to its full extant and no of it is wasted.

[Malanek]

I know this isn't the first time I told you that nobody has ever argued for Ark Theory on the basis that it's the only way to get new things. It isn't. It's just the way that doesn't override player choice in the process.

Only if you consider ignoring it adhering to player choice.

[Heimdall]

It's the fact that moving to another galaxy is just completely unnessary to explore new places and the bioware created an interesting setting and it's important that potential of the setting is used to its full extant and no of it is wasted.

The "fact that moving to another galaxy is just completely unnecessary to explore new places" would be relevant if if Ark Theory was about exploring new places. It isn't, not one bit. That argument has no relevance to this discussion.

This setting that is going to be completely different no matter what they decide to do, you aren't getting the old setting back even if it is in the Milky Way. You can rave all you want about vague "potential", but you still haven't explained what potential exists in the new Milky Way that another galaxy can't have.

[Heimdall]

Only if you consider ignoring it adhering to player choice.

With the alternatives being homogenizing player choice or choosing a canon? Yes, I do. Those are the only realistic options Bioware has if they decide to set it in the Milky Way. I'd much rather just leave it behind than send Bioware further down the road of the ME3 Rachni.

[ElitePinecone]

We only explored the MW for three games! I find it hard to believe that we've explored the whole galaxy in the span of three games considering the codex states that 98% of it is uncharted. No one is asking charcters/places to return in the next game but there is still so much potential left to use and the EC only give a small glimpse of the galaxy after the war it doesn't show the grand scheme of things.

 

Again, go back and listen to what Bioware were saying post-EC.

 

Parrish Ley says they "wanted to project your unique Mass Effect galaxy 200, 300, 400 years into the future, and say what does that mean for the characters and races you've come to love." 

 

Those slides are the future of the galaxy in the years, decades and centuries after the ending. It very literally is the grand scheme of things. 

[Drone223]

Again, go back and listen to what Bioware were saying post-EC.
 
Parrish Ley says they "wanted to project your unique Mass Effect galaxy 200, 300, 400 years into the future, and say what does that mean for the characters and races you've come to love." 
 
Those slides are the future of the galaxy in the years, decades and centuries after the ending. It very literally is the grand scheme of things.

Those only show a small glimpse of that future a lot of things can still happen during that time.

[ElitePinecone]

Those only show a small glimpse of that future a lot of things can still happen during that time.

 

Sure, but the original intention was for EC to show the future of the galaxy, period.

 

I don't think they'll have changed that view, which means we won't be returning there.

[Drone223]

The "fact that moving to another galaxy is just completely unnecessary to explore new places" would be relevant if if Ark Theory was about exploring new places. It isn't, not one bit. That argument has no relevance to this discussion.
This setting that is going to be completely different no matter what they decide to do, you aren't getting the old setting back even if it is in the Milky Way. You can rave all you want about vague "potential", but you still haven't explained what potential exists in the new Milky Way that another galaxy can't have.

Its no so much the setting as to retain a degree of familiarity, groups such as the sepectre's, STG and alliance are some of the most iconic things in the franchise those groups would still be around for a very long time and they won't exist in another galaxy people wouldn't like to see the go.

As for potential there can still be a lot of new species to be encountered in the MW as it's quite a big place, this could result in new conflicts and changes in political power or new exploration opportunities.

[Drone223]

Sure, but the original intention was for EC to show the future of the galaxy, period.

I don't think they'll have changed that view, which means we won't be returning there.

That doesn't mean they can still stories in that future they can be more personal stories.

Also bioware said they only done with the reaper arc the didn't say they are done telling stories to be in the galaxy.

[ElitePinecone]

We're just talking in circles now, and this thread has been pretty repetitive for the last three or four pages. 

[Drone223]

We're just talking in circles now, and this thread has been pretty repetitive for the last three or four pages.

To be frank it's be like this for the entire thread.

[wolfhowwl]

This sounds terrible. Instead of running away they should just canonize a base for the next game and move on into the future.

[Heimdall]

We're just talking in circles now, and this thread has been pretty repetitive for the last three or four pages.

And before that, I've basically had the exact same argument with Drone, several times.

It gets to a point were it feels like two brick walls throwing bricks at each other.

[Drone223]

And before that, I've basically had the exact same argument with Drone, several times.
It gets to a point were it feels like two brick walls throwing bricks at each other.

When certain topics are brought up again again the same arguments are bound to happen.

[ElitePinecone]

It might be prudent to move the conversation on to other things though, since it seems nobody is going to change their minds. 

[goishen]

Well, I mean, it's not like they've given us a wealth of information about the game, either.  Most of what's here is wildly speculative.  Until we know more, it's bound to continue to be wildly speculative.

[ElitePinecone]

Well, I mean, it's not like they've given us a wealth of information about the game, either.  Most of what's here is wildly speculative.  Until we know more, it's bound to continue to be wildly speculative.

 

I know, but it's not exactly productive for two or three people to have the same argument for seventeen straight pages over six months, either. 

[Drone223]

I know, but it's not exactly productive for two or three people to have the same argument for seventeen straight pages over six months, either.

Your on BSN these sort of arguments happen all the time.

[jeromefiefdom]

Well, we know that there are at least two new species in mass effect 4, a golem like creature and an angel inspired one. What we dont know is if those are from the Milky Way or not. What we do know is that Krogans and humans are in the new game. THe question is: If the ark theory is true, why would they bring along the krogan?

[Heimdall]

Well, we know that there are at least two new species in mass effect 4, a golem like creature and an angel inspired one. What we dont know is if those are from the Milky Way or not. What we do know is that Krogans and humans are in the new game. THe question is: If the ark theory is true, why would they bring along the krogan?

1)Someone thought they would be useful
2) Whoever organized the Ark wanted at least some of each species, because they're nice like that.
3) Bargaining
4) Stowaways

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Well, we know that there are at least two new species in mass effect 4, a golem like creature and an angel inspired one. What we dont know is if those are from the Milky Way or not. What we do know is that Krogans and humans are in the new game. THe question is: If the ark theory is true, why would they bring along the krogan?

Where did they say there was an angellic one? I heard the two new races are the golem like creatures and one that looks skeletal. 

[jeromefiefdom]

Where did they say there was an angellic one? I heard the two new races are the golem like creatures and one that looks skeletal. 

 

In one of the interviews you can see a quick concept of something that loooks like wings, that was simply conjecture on my part. Hadnt head about the skeletons though