92 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

That's not entirely true. Remember what EDI said about other galaxies in a conversation with Shepard? It's very likely the laws of physics and everything the races in the Milky Way know are entirely different in another galaxy. The example she used was "1 + 1 = 3." This means that essentially everything we "know" about Mass Effect would go out the window as the entire experience could be drastically different from anything we've seen before. In other words, as many others have said time and time again, this is a reboot.

  
Other then what Kaboooom said, the point is it COULD be different. We don't have a clue if if the laws are different or not. They might very well not be.
So, once again, it's not (necessarily) a reboot.

[Redbelle]

Keeping ME in the Milky Way will result in James Vega Syndrome.

 

The new standing shoulder to shoulder with established and developed aspects of Mass Effect. With the new needing more screen time to develop which means the old will have less time on screen to push the narrative.

 

But this brings up something that I think is overlooked.

 

Mass Effect is going to get new races, new designs, alot of new content will be appearing but according to some of the posts I've been reading some say that new designs in another galaxy will make ME4 unrecognizable as Mass Effect.....

 

But not if those same designs appear in the Milky Way? Maybe if the new does appear with the old it'll be accepted but that's like dropping new designs in a sea of old designs..... The new will be overlooked in favour of what we're familier with. But going to a new galaxy means that established ME design will still be present as the ship and crew from the Milky Way will have the established ME design asthetic but will be be swarmed with new designs as they move throughout the new galaxy.

 

From a design perspective where concept artists, modellers and skin designers need to pump out new environments, new character etc it makes sense to go to a new galaxy where they have more agency to design new assets without being constrained by old established designs.

[von uber]

That's true, because we are still using designs from the 1950's.

[Revan Reborn]

  
Other then what Kaboooom said, the point is it COULD be different. We don't have a clue if if the laws are different or not. They might very well not be.
So, once again, it's not (necessarily) a reboot.

His point is irrelevant. We can use scientific theory to predict what other galaxies are like. Until we actually go there and observe them ourselves (not through the lens of a telescope), anything is possible. We don't know anything about other galaxies and we don't know what could be potentially possible. Again, there are so many unknowns that BioWare has free will to essentially do what they want. In other words, this could easily be a reboot because everything could change.

[Balkankerverkoper]

The laws of physics in Andromeda are the same as in ours as they are both in the same universe.

[Revan Reborn]

The laws of physics in Andromeda are the same as in ours as they are both in the same universe.

Again, this is all speculation based on theory and our "understanding" of how galaxies and the universe works. In case you don't know, gravity is a "theory," meaning it's not an absolute truth nor can it ever be definitively proven. It is merely a way of expressing our understanding of a phenomenon that happens on Earth. As you should know, gravity is different for every other planet in the solar system.

[Balkankerverkoper]

That is due to their different mass. It doesn't mean different mathematics apply to them.

[Revan Reborn]

That is due to their different sizes. It doesn't mean different mathematics apply to them.

It also doesn't mean different mathematics don't apply to other galaxies. Science is largely theory, observation, and speculation. It is based on our limited understanding of our own planet and solar system and trying to use that as a base to understand other solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. In reality, we know very little outside of Earth, and even we don't know that much about our own planet.

 

We can continue jumping back and forth. The point is it's ridiculous to make affirmative statements about our understanding when we've never been to these places and likely never will in our life time. We just don't know and that is why BioWare could potentially do anything if any of this "leak" is actually true.

[Heimerdinger]

Again, this is all speculation based on theory and our "understanding" of how galaxies and the universe works. In case you don't know, gravity is a "theory," meaning it's not an absolute truth nor can it ever be definitively proven. It is merely a way of expressing our understanding of a phenomenon that happens on Earth. As you should know, gravity is different for every other planet in the solar system.

Gravity is an absolute truth and it has been proven. It depends on mass. More mass, more gravity. Black holes have enormous mass and enormous gravitational pull, not even light can escape. You can see the relation.

[MisterJB]

It certainly sounds like it

They are compeltely getting rid of the Milky way because they don't want to deal with ME3's endings

 

But that hardly solves the problem.

I mean, even if we travel to another galaxy, the ME universe needs to be recognizable. Either through characters or species or technology.

However, in the Synthesis ending, even the biology of the species we know would have been affected as well as the way people interact with technology.

If you change galaxies and the most your game will resemble the previous ME games will be through similar technology and ship design, you might as well make a new science fiction universe and not deal with the baggage of the previous games.

[The Elder King]

But that hardly solves the problem.
I mean, even if we travel to another galaxy, the ME universe needs to be recognizable. Either through characters or species or technology.
However, in the Synthesis ending, even the biology of the species we know would have been affected as well as the way people interact with technology.
If you change galaxies and the most your game will resemble the previous ME games will be through similar technology and ship design, you might as well make a new science fiction universe and not deal with the baggage of the previous games.

Some people theorized that moving to Andromeda happened during ME3, to avoid the endings' effects.

[7thGate]

Gravity is an absolute truth and it has been proven. It depends on mass. More mass, more gravity. Black holes have enormous mass and enormous gravitational pull, not even light can escape. You can see the relation.

 

Maybe.  Gravity is weird and the least understood out of all the fundamental forces.  Gravity was thought to be proven to work a certain way along time ago....then relativity exposed some edge cases where it doesn't work that way.  My understanding is that quantum and relativistic physics still don't agree how gravity works.

 

That being said, there isn't a really compelling reason to believe the laws of physics are different in different galaxies.  If they were though, it would probably be hard to tell, since its tough to run experiments on something that far away.

[Torgette]

Keeping ME in the Milky Way will result in James Vega Syndrome.

 

The new standing shoulder to shoulder with established and developed aspects of Mass Effect. With the new needing more screen time to develop which means the old will have less time on screen to push the narrative.

 

But this brings up something that I think is overlooked.

 

Mass Effect is going to get new races, new designs, alot of new content will be appearing but according to some of the posts I've been reading some say that new designs in another galaxy will make ME4 unrecognizable as Mass Effect.....

 

But not if those same designs appear in the Milky Way? Maybe if the new does appear with the old it'll be accepted but that's like dropping new designs in a sea of old designs..... The new will be overlooked in favour of what we're familier with. But going to a new galaxy means that established ME design will still be present as the ship and crew from the Milky Way will have the established ME design asthetic but will be be swarmed with new designs as they move throughout the new galaxy.

 

From a design perspective where concept artists, modellers and skin designers need to pump out new environments, new character etc it makes sense to go to a new galaxy where they have more agency to design new assets without being constrained by old established designs.

 

The concept of being stranded in space isn't anything new, ie: Red Dwarf, they adapt to their new locations but they're still carrying references to earth all the time (curry!), it might take time but no reason for them to abandon everything built up - but no reason they can't adapt it either

[Kabooooom]

His point is irrelevant. We can use scientific theory to predict what other galaxies are like. Until we actually go there and observe them ourselves (not through the lens of a telescope), anything is possible. We don't know anything about other galaxies and we don't know what could be potentially possible. Again, there are so many unknowns that BioWare has free will to essentially do what they want. In other words, this could easily be a reboot because everything could change.

Dude, this isn't true at ALL. Yes, we can observe objective truths about the laws of physics in other galaxies. This statement of yours is so incorrect that it makes me think you understand nothing about physics or cosmology. You also don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is and how they are applied and tested with regards to gathering knowledge about the universe.

And don't even get me started on your "gravity is different on different planets in our solar system comment". Wtf are you talking about? The force of gravitational attraction is different, yes, because their masses are different. But the gravitational constant is a universal constant bro. It doesn't vary everywhere that we look in the universe - and yes, contrary to your claim, we can know this with certainty.

And I am seriously astounded by your lack of grasping what a scientific theory is. You are talking like a Creationist with zero background in science.

[Iakus]

Keeping ME in the Milky Way will result in James Vega Syndrome.

 

The new standing shoulder to shoulder with established and developed aspects of Mass Effect. With the new needing more screen time to develop which means the old will have less time on screen to push the narrative.

 

But this brings up something that I think is overlooked.

 

Mass Effect is going to get new races, new designs, alot of new content will be appearing but according to some of the posts I've been reading some say that new designs in another galaxy will make ME4 unrecognizable as Mass Effect.....

 

But not if those same designs appear in the Milky Way? Maybe if the new does appear with the old it'll be accepted but that's like dropping new designs in a sea of old designs..... The new will be overlooked in favour of what we're familier with. But going to a new galaxy means that established ME design will still be present as the ship and crew from the Milky Way will have the established ME design asthetic but will be be swarmed with new designs as they move throughout the new galaxy.

 

From a design perspective where concept artists, modellers and skin designers need to pump out new environments, new character etc it makes sense to go to a new galaxy where they have more agency to design new assets without being constrained by old established designs.

But the new and old standing together has been going on all along in Mass Effect.

 

I mean, ME2 had krogan, turians, asari, etc, but it also introduced us to drell and vorcha, And allowed us to learn more about others, like the geth and batarians.  We got to see places we'd only heard about, like the Migrant Fleet, the Terminus systems, even the galactic core.  

 

We don't need "old" reminders like returning characters or epilogues.  But there is so much yet to be explored and built upon in this galaxy, with familiar touchstones like the Citadel COuncil, or the Terminus, and even the mass relay network, that it would be a shame to be forced to throw it all away because Bioware screwed up.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That's not entirely true. Remember what EDI said about other galaxies in a conversation with Shepard? It's very likely the laws of physics and everything the races in the Milky Way know are entirely different in another galaxy. The example she used was "1 + 1 = 3." This means that essentially everything we "know" about Mass Effect would go out the window as the entire experience could be drastically different from anything we've seen before. In other words, as many others have said time and time again, this is a reboot.

EDI said other universes, not galaxies. The laws of physics we experience govern the entire universe. They will be exactly the same in Andromeda as in the Milky Way. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You are talking like a Creationist with zero background in science.

One can be a Creationist yet still support science. Many of the best scientists in human history believed in a creator. 

[Kabooooom]

One can be a Creationist yet still support science. Many of the best scientists in human history believed in a creator.

This is actually true, and I should have phrased my statement differently. Their ideologies exist on a scale from something more akin to deism to the absurdity of YEC. What I meant was, many of the things he was saying (such as his misunderstanding of what a theory is, what constitutes scientific evidence and knowledge, how we can't be sure of thoroughly tested hypotheses, etc.) are almost verbatim the nonsense that many of the lesser informed Creationists spout.

I of all people know of the contribution of some Creationists to science. One of them helped invent the MRI which I use to diagnose patients almost daily.

That doesn't make having a rational conversation about science with most of them over the internet anything less than pounding one's head against the wall.

But I dont want to get the thread too far off topic.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This is actually true, and I should have phrased my statement differently. Their ideologies exist on a scale from something more akin to deism to the absurdity of YEC. What I meant was, many of the things he was saying (such as his misunderstanding of what a theory is, what constitutes scientific evidence and knowledge, how we can't be sure of thoroughly tested hypotheses, etc.) are almost verbatim the nonsense that many of the lesser informed Creationists spout.

I of all people know of the contribution of some Creationists to science. One of them helped invent the MRI which I use to diagnose patients almost daily.

That doesn't make having a rational conversation about science with most of them over the internet anything less than pounding one's head against the wall.

But I dont want to get the thread too far off topic.

I agree that Reven Reborn was saying inaccurate things. I just wanted to address that point. The rest of your post I agreed with. 

[Han Shot First]

Again, this is all speculation based on theory and our "understanding" of how galaxies and the universe works. In case you don't know, gravity is a "theory," meaning it's not an absolute truth nor can it ever be definitively proven. It is merely a way of expressing our understanding of a phenomenon that happens on Earth. As you should know, gravity is different for every other planet in the solar system.

 

Kaboooom is correct here. We know the laws of physics are the same in Andromeda because it exists within the same universe as us, and because  astrophysicists, cosmologists, and astronomers can also observe and have data supporting that the physical laws of the universe are the same in Andromeda as they are for the Milky Way.

 

Second, the word theory has entirely different meaning in the realm of science than it does in popular usage by the general public. You are using it in the manner that the general public often does, in the sense that it just means 'speculation.' In general usage the word theory refers to a hunch, often based on fragmentary evidence or completely unsupported by it. But that isn't what a theory is within the realm of science. A scientific theory is an explanation for some aspect of the natural world supported by a vast body of verifiable evidence obtained through detailed observation and experimentation.. Creationists often misunderstand this when they declare that 'Evolution is just a theory.' Gravity and plate tectonics are also theories.

[katamuro]

It really does not matter if laws of physics are the same in theory because in practice whether they are or not for the sake of game they will be. Also the only reason they went with the whole Andromeda thing is because they had no really good way of getting past the endings. This way they can avoid it easily since new galaxy=no impact on anything that happens in the old galaxy

 

That really is all what is this about. Its not about them wanting something more or requiring a new field to play on because the old one was crowded. Its simply because there was no satisfying way of keeping their "player choice is important" statement and yet moving on with the game. Because while prequel might have been interesting we all know that it would have tanked in sales like a particularly flimsy Titanic. 

[CroGamer002]

I think it does to some extent. You couldn't really do the story line that was hinted at in the leak because, although the council has only explored 1% of the galaxy, the reapers will have explored the entire thing. You probably wouldn't get the Remnant or the Khet in the milky way.

 

Where did you get the idea Reapers known an entire inch of galaxy?

 

 

Also remains of older civilizations from Portheans still exist.

[Balkankerverkoper]

One can be a Creationist yet still support science. Many of the best scientists in human history believed in a creator.

But still, those scientists kept their beliefs out of the lab, as it has no logical base to reason from.

[Kabooooom]

Kaboooom is correct here. We know the laws of physics are the same in Andromeda because it exists within the same universe as us, and because astrophysicists, cosmologists, and astronomers can also observe and have data supporting that the physical laws of the universe are the same in Andromeda as they are for the Milky Way.

Second, the word theory has entirely different meaning in the realm of science than it does in popular usage by the general public. You are using it in the manner that the general public often does, in the sense that it just means 'speculation.' In general usage the word theory refers to a hunch, often based on fragmentary evidence or completely unsupported by it. But that isn't what a theory is within the realm of science. A scientific theory is an explanation for some aspect of the natural world supported by a vast body of verifiable evidence obtained through detailed observation and experimentation.. Creationists often misunderstand this when they declare that 'Evolution is just a theory.' Gravity and plate tectonics are also theories.

Exactly. I don't know - I have very few "pet peeves", and perhaps it is my background in science that makes this one of them. I've often thought that perhaps this is a trivial complaint - to expect people to understand very basic principles of logic and the scientific method.

But then I think, this is 2015. Our civilization is literally built on these concepts. People should learn them, regardless of if they are going into a field related to science or not. It's fundamental knowledge to have.

One of the reasons why I love good science fiction is because it takes these concepts and extrapolates and embellishes them. It's good old fashioned fun. Obviously, it falls far short of reality most of the time, for the sake of entertainment. I guess I always assumed that most fans of science fiction would either have a background in science like myself, or at least an interest in it such that they are familiar with basic concepts. I mean, why else would one be interested in the subject matter? So his posts were surprising to me, because of how off-base they were. Maybe he simply phrased his thoughts incorrectly and came off wrong...I'd like to give the benefit of a doubt.

[katamuro]

Exactly. I don't know - I have very few "pet peeves", and perhaps it is my background in science that makes this one of them. I've often thought that perhaps this is a trivial complaint - to expect people to understand very basic principles of logic and the scientific method.

But then I think, this is 2015. Our civilization is literally built on these concepts. People should learn them, regardless of if they are going into a field related to science or not. It's fundamental knowledge to have.

One of the reasons why I love good science fiction is because it takes these concepts and extrapolates and embellishes them. It's good old fashioned fun. Obviously, it falls far short of reality most of the time, for the sake of entertainment. I guess I always assumed that most fans of science fiction would either have a background in science like myself, or at least an interest in it such that they are familiar with basic concepts. I mean, why else would one be interested in the subject matter? So his posts were surprising to me, because of how off-base they were. Maybe he simply phrased his thoughts incorrectly and came off wrong...I'd like to give the benefit of a doubt.

 

Yeah if I had a dollar for every time I had to explain something really basic these days to people who should really have known better I would be easily living off those earnings. What doesn't help is that some people get their knowledge of science from sources that are not exactly the prime examples of it like tv shows and movies and even games.