Past leaks:
I can't think of a case when there was a 'big leak' that was not found to have a basis in fact,
unless anyone knows differently...
What's more likely?
I dont get why they dont question this AT ALL when it clearly sounds like a Fan mixing DA and ME with ark theory.
People don't seem to be considering the possibility that some fans and Bioware separately came to the conclusion that an ark to another galaxy was a possible place to take the story for the next game. It's not like expeditions and colony ventures to other galaxies or parts of space are uncommon in sci-fi, after all.
In all likelihood Andromeda was picked for the location years ago, maybe in 2012. Fans have only been talking about an ark for a year, maybe two at most. Neither took anything from the other, they just happened to come to a similar conclusion.
So I don't think it's implausible that some fans who were thinking out loud inadvertently "stumbled upon" the actual plot setup for the next game, or at least something close to it. Enough monkeys and typewriters, etc.
People don't seem to be considering the possibility that some fans and Bioware separately came to the conclusion that an ark to another galaxy was a possible place to take the story for the next game. It's not like expeditions and colony ventures to other galaxies or parts of space are uncommon in sci-fi, after all.
In all likelihood Andromeda was picked for the location years ago, maybe in 2012. Fans have only been talking about an ark for a year, maybe two at most. Neither took anything from the other, they just happened to come to a similar conclusion.
So I don't think it's implausible that some fans who were thinking out loud inadvertently "stumbled upon" the actual plot setup for the next game, or at least something close to it. Enough monkeys and typewriters, etc.
It isn't possible when none of the races have the technology for intergalactic travel... This whole "Ark theory" is largely based off your profile pic that BioWare Montreal posted a while ago. We don't know what it means. Everything is merely speculation. Someone creating a "leak" based on the Ark theory, with no content that is shocking, is hardly believable. Of course, all the Ark supporters are going to jump on board immediately because they want it to be true.
It isn't possible when none of the races have the technology for intergalactic travel... This whole "Ark theory" is largely based off your profile pic that BioWare Montreal posted a while ago. We don't know what it means. Everything is merely speculation. Someone creating a "leak" based on the Ark theory, with no content that is shocking, is hardly believable. Of course, all the Ark supporters are going to jump on board immediately because they want it to be true.
No, the whole Andromeda/Ark thing started because E3 2014 video showed a different Galaxy Map than Milky Way. And then Mike Gamble commended a fan during a convention for noticing that he said "creating new galaxy". And then there was the ARKCON logo
It isn't possible when none of the races have the technology for intergalactic travel... This whole "Ark theory" is largely based off your profile pic that BioWare Montreal posted a while ago. We don't know what it means. Everything is merely speculation. Someone creating a "leak" based on the Ark theory, with no content that is shocking, is hardly believable. Of course, all the Ark supporters are going to jump on board immediately because they want it to be true.
Nope, actually.
Ark theory was first talked about months before Bioware posted that picture.
The Ark Theory is as old as oldness itself.
Personally I don't like it for one reason: it would be another slap in the face of the repaers. The repaers were more beaten by writing in Mass Effect 3 than that girl from 50 Shades of Grey, to a level that their threat became comical and it was impossible to believe they would manage to destroy so much circles successfully.
And an ark that can escape them and settle another galaxy would be another offense, unless some great ideas are used to justify it. That is, the exact opposite of what happened in the original trilogy.
I do like the idea it can give the soft reboot I want though. The next Mass Effect should be a fresh start.
they should canonize Destroy and classify the other endings as nontransferable world states, like Shepard dying in the SM of ME2
Why choose the Destroy ending over the others though? None of the endings leave us with a clean ending.
In Destroy all AIs are destroyed leaving no Geth, which, depending on your choices could negatively affect the Quarians
In Synthesis everyone is still alive, but part AI, part biological
In Control there are still Reapers running around and there is a Reaper Shepard.
Why choose the Destroy ending over the others though? None of the endings leave us with a clean ending.
In Destroy all AIs are destroyed leaving no Geth, which, depending on your choices could negatively affect the Quarians
In Synthesis everyone is still alive, but part AI, part biological
In Control there are still Reapers running around and there is a Reaper Shepard.
I think that destroy would result in the most interesting scenario for a new game, personally.
Judging by the epilogues, in Control, ShepAIGod makes us all play nice. In synthesis everyone just plays nice because ... well, don't ask me why, they just do for whatever reason.
Destroy however, basically sets us up for an interesting new situation where the future of the galaxy is really unsure. The war is won but everybody lost a great deal. The galaxy is in shamble and needs to be rebuilt and re-ordered. I'd love to see how that plays out. Plus, Hackett's epilogue is much more ominous in terms of what is actually going to happen exactly than the other two, which are more long term specific.
Therefore, I think if they were to cannonize one ending, I'd go with destroy.
I suppose I should have expected to come back and find pages of ending debate!
...to be fair it makes sense in this context but still. 
The Ark Theory is as old as oldness itself.
This.
It's one of the oldest tropes of the genre.
No, the whole Andromeda/Ark thing started because E3 2014 video showed a different Galaxy Map than Milky Way. And then Mike Gamble commended a fan during a convention for noticing that he said "creating new galaxy". And then there was the ARKCON logo
"You're a 'good nerd' for noticing that our concept art that's supposed to be a basic representation of a galaxy isn't an exact replica of the milky way."
That's how I took it. Doesn't really prove much. Saying that concept art proves "Andromeda Theory" is like saying James Cameron's Titanic doesn't take place on Earth (but in a parallel universe) because the stars and constellations don't represent our own (as pointed out by NdGT).
And if you're referring to the E3 video where they revealed the concepts for the next Mass Effect and the new IP, they never say "new galaxy". They say "new region of space".
Retour en haut