Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It has to be assumed that its false until proven otherwise because there is no evidence to support its possible. If it somehow turns out to be true the whole thing will still come out of nowhere with no explanation or build up and that's part of what makes it contrived.
Wouldn't it feel kind of, wrong I guess, to speak to the old gang while not Shepard?
No she can't, I chose her because she's the only one with plot armor and she has the lifespan to still be around in a few centuries.Why Liara? She can be dead. What's wrong with having someone else to talk with?
I'm glad you see you mirror Elitepinecone in that matter if he does the same. But please, just ease up on the repetitive posts. I am pretty sure I have seen the same postings in different topics. It makes coming here not so entertaining.
We were just discussing iconic symbols. Both were rigid in our positions, but it never went to where the conversation stagnated or at least from my perspective. I was enjoying the discussion until Elitepinecone became rude.
For the subject I was being repetitive on, that was a while ago and I've dropped that topic. Now I'm mainly discussing ways that it could work without a Deus Ex Machina, or as small a DEM as possible, and whether the Reapers were intergalactic or not, since if they weren't then more problems arise for this ark.
No she can't, I chose her because she's the only one with plot armor and she has the lifespan to still be around in a few centuries.
She can die by Harbinger in the beam charge if you have low enough EMS.
Why Liara? She can be dead. What's wrong with having someone else to talk with?
The Asari from Paragon Lost can be great for that role.
No she can't, I chose her because she's the only one with plot armor and she has the lifespan to still be around in a few centuries.
Yes she can. If ems is below 1900 she can die on the beam run
Wouldn't it feel kind of, wrong I guess, to speak to the old gang while not Shepard?
The Asari from Paragon Lost can be great for that role.
How about no asari. And I haven't seen that cartoon. I heard it wasn't that great
How about no asari. And I haven't seen that cartoon. I heard it wasn't that great
Nah. It adds a different perspective and tone. I enjoyed doing this in Inquisition while talking with Leliana and Morrigan.
You only played the Warden in one game though, and I only did so once.
Shepard I played in all about 10 times, over 7 years.
How about no asari. And I haven't seen that cartoon. I heard it wasn't that great
I don't really care 
I mentioned her because she was a fan of Liara and could tie with the trilogy through that connection.
I don't really care
I don't really care if she's a fan of Liara and seeing her wouldn't mean anything for me since I haven't seen the cartoon
I thought that was removed in the EC?Yes she can. If ems is below 1900 she can die on the beam run
I thought that was removed in the EC?
Well, even if she dies, they can just create a new character of any species or pick a Krogan or Asari character from the existing cast that can't die..
What was removed were the bodies lying dead on the ground. Now what happens is both get vaporized by Harbinger
It is when this is not even remotely "Mass Effect." The ending complaints are relatively minor in the larger scheme of things because people took issue with the implications and how much their choice mattered. Whereas this is essentially rebooting Mass Effect and turning it into something entirely new. That's not just making an incoherent and ambiguous ending. That's telling your fan base "yeah we don't like that Mass Effect anymore, deal with the new one."
A few folks may have left the franchise over the ending of ME3. Many will leave if the next Mass Effect completely disregards everything that made Mass Effect what it is.
This. I am here for Mass Effect, not a new series.
Mass Effect is the first sci fi series that I ever actually got into.
Also the name wouldn't even make sense anymore if its a new series, because Mass Effect tech is Reaper Tech is the Milky Way Tech.
That said I've love to see the Normany. Maybe the planet they crashed on is in the andromeda? Yaknow, they were in FTL transit when everything went boom, so maybe it just catapulted them beyond trajectory into the next galaxy?
The endings, they can only explain so much about galaxy after the war.
Moving to another galaxy defeats the purpose of preserving player choices since it renders them irrelevant since it defeats the purpose of saving the galaxy in the first place. Not to mention ark theory is built on nothing but contrivances, conveniences and hand weaving which is are some of the major issues in the trilogy. If they want to learn from their mistakes then they should avoid using said issues in their plots.
And we're right back to this argument, the idea that because you didn't like the endings Bioware has to address them in the next game, when the simple truth is, they don't. Bioware can move onto the Andromeda Galaxy and never discuss the future of the society in the Milky Way since they concluded that story. The fact the game is not called Mass Effect 4 should be a major tip off that they do not necessarily feel bound to show you what happens after ME3. They could set the rest of the series in Andromeda, using their past experience to craft a better games.
Not going back to the Milky Way after that tale is concluded respects the original intent of the devs to conclude that storyline, it respects the decisions of the players, and frees the devs from the plight of other game developers which is to make the same game over and over again until they are desperately trying to breath life into a dead franchise (I'm looking at you Ubisoft).
Preserve life
The creators of the Catalyst controlled the Milk Way, and were only interested in ensuring that their subjects remained alive to pay tribute. There's no indication that they sought power/influence beyond the borders of their galaxy which makes sense. Just because your top dog in your neck of the woods doesn't mean there's not something on the other side of the hill that could flatten all you hold dear. So they create an AI and task it with solving the Organic/Artificial issues that keep cropping up in their own backyard. The Catalyst tries many different solutions before arriving at it's Reaper protocols. In that way it's able to preserve life. So why doesn't it go to other galaxies even if it has the means? Because controlling the cycle in the Milky Way is a difficult enough task that taking resources away from the project thst could cause the entire thing to collapse resulting in the destruction of life it was designed to preserve. Unlike the Geth, the Catalyst can't just keep building Reapers it needs something to base those forms on, meaning each time a Reaper is lost, it suffers a significant reduction in capability. Throwing Reapers at another Galaxy that might very well have the ability to take a number of them out now becomes less cost effective than just maintaining it's own borders. At least this way it can concentrate the reaper forces to deal with an external threat if one arises.
And we're right back to this argument, the idea that because you didn't like the endings Bioware has to address them in the next game, when the simple truth is, they don't. Bioware can move onto the Andromeda Galaxy and never discuss the future of the society in the Milky Way since they concluded that story. The fact the game is not called Mass Effect 4 should be a major tip off that they do not necessarily feel bound to show you what happens after ME3. They could set the rest of the series in Andromeda, using their past experience to craft a better games.
Not going back to the Milky Way after that tale is concluded respects the original intent of the devs to conclude that storyline, it respects the decisions of the players, and frees the devs from the plight of other game developers which is to make the same game over and over again until they are desperately trying to breath life into a dead franchise (I'm looking at you Ubisoft).
The fact of the matter is Bioware is only going make themselves look bad by not addressing them, it'll show that they haven't learned anything from the mistakes they've made in the trilogy since they're running away from them. If Bioware can't deal their own mistakes that they put themselves into then they're just going to end up making the same mistakes again and again.
Leaving the galaxy is also invalidating plaers chocies since all the effort put into saving it is made meaningless and it doesn't matain continuity since a lot of the setting is going to thrown away for good leaving nothing but wasted potential. The trilogy also wasn't going to be the end all be all state of the galaxy since it only about Shepard and the reapers and that story is finished so many more can still be told in the same galaxy.
iakus, I'm surprised to see you liking that last post. You've been the chief spokesman for running away from the endings for years.
Not like this. Not at the expense of throwing the entire galaxy away. I do have my limits, you know.
The fact of the matter is Bioware is only going make themselves look bad by not addressing them, it'll show that they haven't learned anything from the mistakes they've made in the trilogy since they're running away from them. If Bioware can't deal their own mistakes that they put themselves into then they're just going to end up making the same mistakes again and again.
Leaving the galaxy is also invalidating plaers chocies since all the effort put into saving it is made meaningless and it doesn't matain continuity since a lot of the setting is going to thrown away for good leaving nothing but wasted potential. The trilogy also wasn't going to be the end all be all state of the galaxy since it only about Shepard and the reapers and that story is finished so many more can still be told in the same galaxy.
This.
I'm not interested in "something completely new". I want to continue enjoying the mass effect universe.
Especially since, regardless of the ending chosen, the Milky Way's story is far from over. No matter what, things need to be rebuilt, there's advanced tech for people to exploit, the Citadel is gone, the galactic community's military is stranded on Earth, etc, etc.
Leaving the galaxy is also invalidating plaers chocies
Nope.
Like the 9000 times before.
You don't like that ark thing, we got it. And now pls stop repeating invalid aruments over and over again.
I'm a fan of the sidequel trip to Andromeda with a new crew and new outlook on the universe but I have to admit if they ever announce a direct sequel to 3 I would probably scream with joy. 
Retour en haut