2122 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Why does moving to another galaxy make sense, when it's not possible with technology as described?  Especially since so little has been done with this galaxy?

 

Moving to another galaxy makes sense if you assume - with good reason - that the first thing BioWare decided on was to what degree they were willing to invalidate decisions in the original trilogy for the new setting. If you look at their original statement when ME3 came out, they didn't plan on any future games taking place after ME3 in order to preserve the player's decision.

 

Preserving player choice was always the guiding principle behind the setting - whether it be space or time - of the next ME game.

 

Once it became evident through surveys with the fanbase that fans wanted a sequel much more than a prequel, the question became whether it was possible to make a game set after ME3 while preserving player choice. Two options: Make a 10-hour game for each ending choice, or set it outside the scope of the ending choice somehow. The former is unattractive for obvious reasons, so you need to roll with the latter. The scope of the ending choice dictates another galaxy, with a departure before ME3's close.

 

Currently you have been arguing that preserving player choice in future games does not matter, but I don't recall this tune when it came to homogenized decisions during ME3 (feel free to correct me here). Your guiding principle, rather, is a steadfast will to make ME3's endings non-canon, and any argument that supports this is what you will undertake. You are the one who said numerous times in the past, after all, that the ME franchise is dead to you so long as ME3 still happened. And that's fine if it's your goal, but it's a bit different than the arguments you've been making, which is highlighted by your response to whether a Destroy-canon ME4 would work for you.

[Iakus]

Personally I think ark in andromeda is the best solution to the self inflicted problem they created. Think staying in the Milky Way and ripping up all choices is vastly worse option.
Don't agree that new area is a place this cycle has no place being. Guess all the races should have stayed on their home worlds & not expanded by that logic.

This cycle doesn't have the technology to make the journey.  It's highly doubtful that even the Reapers had it.  And this cycle certainly doesn't have the resources to invest in such a project while fighting a war for their existence (on two fronts) and build the Crucible.

 

Moving to another galaxy makes sense if you assume - with good reason - that the first thing BioWare decided on was to what degree they were willing to invalidate decisions in the original trilogy for the new setting. If you look at their original statement when ME3 came out, they didn't plan on any future games taking place after ME3 in order to preserve the player's decision.

 

Preserving player choice was always the guiding principle behind the setting - whether it be space or time - of the next ME game.

 

Once it became evident through surveys with the fanbase that fans wanted a sequel much more than a prequel, the question became whether it was possible to make a game set after ME3 while preserving player choice. Two options: Make a 10-hour game for each ending choice, or set it outside the scope of the ending choice somehow. The former is unattractive for obvious reasons, so you need to roll with the latter. The scope of the ending choice dictates another galaxy, with a departure before ME3's close.

 

Currently you have been arguing that preserving player choice in future games does not matter, but I don't recall this tune when it came to homogenized decisions during ME3 (feel free to correct me here). Your guiding principle, rather, is a steadfast will to make ME3's endings non-canon, and any argument that supports this is what you will undertake. You are the one who said numerous times in the past, after all, that the ME franchise is dead to you so long as ME3 still happened. And that's fine if it's your goal, but it's a bit different than the arguments you've been making, which is highlighted by your response to whether a Destroy-canon ME4 would work for you.

 

And as I said before, if I wanted to simply ignore the endings, I'd be backing Andromeda, as that makes it extremely easy to do so.

 

But I have also bemoaned the lore of Mass Effect being treated as silly putty:  The Lazarus Project, Cerberus being whatever Bioware needs it to be for a given story, the Crucible, etc.  I dislike the endings because they frakked with the story.  That they were inconsistent with what has come before.  That's what's important to me.  And much as I dislike the endings, I think a deus ex machina causing us to relocate galaxies also does terrible things to the setting.  

 

You could say the problem I have with changing galaxies is similar to the problem I had with ME3's endings.  And even the Lazarus Project.

[ElitePinecone]

And since it is not going to be the final game chronologically, does it not make sense to go back and retcon that which makes it impossible to continue?

 

The onus is on Bioware to find a way to continue to tell the story, and they've decided to do it by going to Andromeda. If the story works out the way I think it might, it's a clever move. They continue the game chronologically after ME3 but not in a way that backs them into a corner.

 

I think retcons are bad in principle, so it certainly does not make sense to go and ignore the endings just because their plans changed.

[Iakus]

The onus is on Bioware to find a way to continue to tell the story, and they've decided to do it by going to Andromeda. If the story works out the way I think it might, it's a clever move. They continue the game chronologically after ME3 but not in a way that backs them into a corner.

 

I think retcons are bad in principle, so it certainly does not make sense to go and ignore the endings just because their plans changed.

Ordinarily I'd agree.  Retcons are bad nine times out of ten.

 

But this may just be the tenth time.  Because the only alternative is yet another deus ex machina that comes from out of nowhere to save the day with space magic.  

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I think retcons are bad in principle, so it certainly does not make sense to go and ignore the endings just because their plans changed.

And yet retconning the lore, the backbone of a franchise, is acceptable? 

[CronoDragoon]

And as I said before, if I wanted to simply ignore the endings, I'd be backing Andromeda, as that makes it extremely easy to do so.

 

And as I said, you don't simply want to ignore the endings, you want them non-canon. So Andromeda doesn't work for you. In any case, I'll stop telling you what you do or don't want, though I have ample evidence in your own posting history. Nevertheless it doesn't contribute a whole lot to the discussion.

 

And yet retconning the lore, the backbone of a franchise, is acceptable? 

 

Do you know something we don't? We don't really know how they are getting there. If Scylla's tweet is a hint, then it's a wormhole, and wormholes don't break ME lore. But we don't even know if it's a hint, so we're pretty much in the dark.

[ZoliCs]

It's highly doubtful that even the Reapers had it. 

Oh but they did:

Reaper power sources seem to violate known physical laws. Reapers usually destroy fuel infrastructure rather than attempting to capture it intact, indicating that Reapers do not require organic species' energy supplies. Consequently, the Reapers attack without regard for maintaining supply lines behind them, except to move husks from one planet to another. Unlike Citadel ships, Reapers do not appear to discharge static buildup from their drive cores.

[ElitePinecone]

And yet retconning the lore, the backbone of a franchise, is acceptable? 

 

I've seen no indication that they're going to retcon the lore, yet. You've attempted multiple times to say that it'll happen, but I don't find any of those explanations ("an eezo core the size of a star", what?) convincing. 

 

Wait and see what the explanation is, if we are indeed going to Andromeda. 

 

You've posted literally hundreds of times about this issue in the past two days. I think the best idea is to calm down a little and see how they explain it when it finally gets a full reveal.

[ZoliCs]

And yet retconning the lore, the backbone of a franchise, is acceptable? 

Small alteration to a fraction of the lore =/= retcon.

[wright1978]

This cycle doesn't have the technology to make the journey.  It's highly doubtful that even the Reapers had it.  And this cycle certainly doesn't have the resources to invest in such a project while fighting a war for their existence (on two fronts) and build the Crucible.

As for the technology they have alot of it and that which they don't it's perfectly conceivable for them to have discovered a solution.
Leaps forward have happened before based on Prothean tech. Certainly navigating that writing hurdle seems much easier than the can of worms that would revolve around overwriting 3 games worth of potential decisions & trying to sell a new ending.

I don't agree on the resource issue. If as would be practical the whole contingency was conceived in the wake of sovereign's attack on the citadel that gives them year's before to lay groundwork before war broke out.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Do you know something we don't? We don't really know how they are getting there. If Scylla's tweet is a hint, then it's a wormhole, and wormholes don't break ME lore. But we don't even know if it's a hint, so we're pretty much in the dark.

I know our cycle doesn't have anything even close to Reaper-level technology, but now all of a sudden we will? 

 

A wormhole is the only way I'd even consider accepting this.

 

 

Small alteration to a fraction of the lore =/= retcon.

Exponentially increasing our technological level when games set at the same time are not that = retcon. 

[dreamgazer]

Do you know something we don't? We don't really know how they are getting there. If Scylla's tweet is a hint, then it's a wormhole, and wormholes don't break ME lore. But we don't even know if it's a hint, so we're pretty much in the dark.

I kinda like the idea of an accidental wormhole opening up and drawing a cluster of ships into it, thus transporting them (carrying a wide range of passengers) to another area of space against their will, but not as an answer served on a platter to a recolonization contingency project. That's just ...

[dreamgazer]

Small alteration to a fraction of the lore =/= retcon.

Getting us to another galaxy is a pretty substantial alteration to the lore.

[katamuro]

As for the technology they have alot of it and that which they don't it's perfectly conceivable for them to have discovered a solution.
Leaps forward have happened before based on Prothean tech. Certainly navigating that writing hurdle seems much easier than the can of worms that would revolve around overwriting 3 games worth of potential decisions & trying to sell a new ending.

I don't agree on the resource issue. If as would be practical the whole contingency was conceived in the wake of sovereign's attack on the citadel that gives them year's before to lay groundwork before war broke out.

 

The problem is the Citadel council and most of the species leadership did not believe that Reapers are such a huge threat. There is no way to have a multi-species effort for that kind of thing unless they agreed. 

Unless of course its a purely human thing again and only took on aliens later when they were running too. Still if they had reverse engineered reaper tech enough to build ships with it then they would have been able to build ships that are as strong as Reapers to combat them. Instead of building "who knows what it does" Crucible. 

[ElitePinecone]

The problem is the Citadel council and most of the species leadership did not believe that Reapers are such a huge threat. There is no way to have a multi-species effort for that kind of thing unless they agreed. 

 

They told Shepard that they didn't think the Reapers were a big threat. We have no idea what they were actually thinking and doing. 

 

The classified Citadel archives show that the Council did see Sovereign as a Reaper, and I think it's quite possible they began contingency planning in 2183.

 

(The point of a contingency, after all, is that you use it in case your original plan didn't work. A sensible Council would begin a backup in case their skepticism of the Reaper threat proved unfounded.)

[ZoliCs]

Getting us to another galaxy is a pretty substantial alteration to the lore.

 

No. It only changes FTL drives. The Reapers already don't have to discharge so it's even an achievable goal.

 

Even if you don't think it's plausible, technology is just a small part of the lore. Ships are just one part of technology. FTL is just one part of the ship. It basically doesn't do anything to ~99% of the lore.

[CronoDragoon]

I kinda like the idea of an accidental wormhole opening up and drawing a cluster of ships into it, thus transporting them (carrying a wide range of passengers) to another area of space against their will, but not as an answer served on a platter to a recolonization contingency project. That's just ...

 

There might not be a contigency plan; the secret Council project theory revolves around the idea that ARKCON was exploratory in origin, but if ARKCON is something that starts after the move to Andromeda (which is as you suggested accidental) in an effort to expand and stabilize the accidental Milky Way refugees, it might work. This also sort of fits BioWare's storytelling method (and those of many writers in general) which is to start the story as close as possible to the start of the important action. If ME4 focuses around expansion after the move to Andromeda, then the move itself might be relegated to an intro cinematic with Investigate options filling in the gaps.

 

Going in another direction, does the wormhole have to be accidental?

[LinksOcarina]

Basically:

If it is before or during the Reaper War, our cycle doesn't have the technology so the lore is retconned. 

If it takes place after the Reaper War, our choices regarding the endings will be ignored and retconned. 

 

That is a big assumption isn't it?

[wright1978]

They told Shepard that they didn't think the Reapers were a big threat. We have no idea what they were actually thinking and doing. 
 
The classified Citadel archives show that the Council did see Sovereign as a Reaper, and I think it's quite possible they began contingency planning in 2183.
 
(The point of a contingency, after all, is that you use it in case your original plan didn't work. A sensible Council would begin a backup in case their skepticism of the Reaper threat proved unfounded.)

Yeah you've also got Turians making thanix cannon based on sovereign. It's hardly a stretch to suggest the council working on a secret contingency plan in event sovereign didn't turn out to be the end of the story.

[dreamgazer]

No. It only changes FTL drives. The Reapers already don't have to discharge so it's even an achievable goal.
 
Even if you don't think it's plausible, technology is just a small part of the lore. Ships are just one part of technology. FTL is just one part of the ship. It basically doesn't do anything to ~99% of the lore.

Except completely alter our travel abilities, which is what this series is built upon.

Unless we're forced to exploit Reaper tech, which we'll then have to rework indoctrination, another tenet of the series.

[ElitePinecone]

Unless we're forced to exploit Reaper tech, which we'll then have to rework indoctrination, another tenet of the series.

 

Uh, the turians have already exploited Reaper tech. They did it in eleven months, too.

[dreamgazer]

Uh, the turians have already exploited Reaper tech. They did it in eleven months, too.

A scaled-down version of that canon isn't in the same ballpark as Reaper drive cores.

[ElitePinecone]

A scaled-down version of that canon isn't in the same ballpark as Reaper drive cores.

 

Lol, says who?

 

How do you know how indoctrination works? Why is a drive core different to a cannon if both are just pieces of a starship?

[dreamgazer]

Lol, says who?
 
How do you know how indoctrination works? Why is a drive core different to a cannon if both are just pieces of a starship?

http://masseffect.wi...Derelict_Reaper

[pdusen]

That is a big assumption isn't it?

 

He's good at those.