All it'll take is a few lines of dialogue and a few codex entries and your problem is solved and Bioware can focus on a new story in a new location in the same universe.
A few codex entries isn't going to do any justice and moving to another galaxy is just completely unnecessary since the vast majority of the MW is unexplored.
1) And we are still left with tech that is more advanced with the Reapers, lying around for us to conveniently find and even more conveniently figure out. Like I said, this scenerio is hugely contrived.
2) If we are hypothetically saying this technology came from a (yet another) precursor race, then a logical extension of that is this race is even more advanced than the Reapers, as they have (apparently) never even tried to visit other galaxies, despite their absolutist mandate to preserve all life. And if there is something out there bigger than the Reapers, then we have to consider the implications of that
3) "a million times" is a bit of an exageration. But keep in mind this would be doubly contrived, as not only would this be a derelict that we just happen across, it would be one the Reapers did not happen across, even while actively searching fro advanced organics.
I apologize if I miss a few things. I haven't read the prior posts in this string of the discussion.
Also, I would just like to comment on one last thing. Is it really so contrived that a race in a galaxy with no Reapers is really more advanced? The Reapers were created countless cycles ago by the most technologically advanced race in the galaxy so far. Every race after that was always cut off around the 50,000 year mark. Given the kind of technological advances that we can make in a thousand years, why is it so crazy to think that this precursor race could do far more when given millions of uninterrupted years to develop and grow?
BTW it's always good to see you Iakus. You're like the one familiar username that I can always count on seeing whenever I return to the BSN.
A few codex entries isn't going to do any justice and moving to another galaxy is just completely unnecessary since the vast majority of the MW is unexplored.
But it'll address the issues left behind and leave plenty of resources and funding for the current story and characters.
And the entirety of the Milky Way, while not explored, is fundamentally altered based on each different ending.
There are too many variables for Bioware to realistically address them.
So, basically, get over it. That's my advice.
But it'll address the issues left behind and leave plenty of resources and funding for the current story and characters.
Its unlikely that a few codex entries would be able to explain the state of the galaxy after the war, a lot of things can still happen and there would be too much to fit in.
And the entirety of the Milky Way, while not explored, is fundamentally altered based on each different ending.
There are too many variables for Bioware to realistically address them.
So, basically, get over it. That's my advice.
Sooner or later Bioware will have to address the endings because they can't ignore them forever and because it'll hurt them in the long run. Also most of the variables only affect a hand full of individuals. there's only about 4-5 of things Bioware needs to address which can be done with some thought and effort. CDPR manged to do it with the Witcher 3 so Bioware should be capable of doing something similar.
Except it leaves too many questions about the state of the galaxy unresolved, in addition it makes all the choices made in the trilogy become meaningless since the galaxy is being ditched altogether.
I'm somehow reminded of all the Dragon Age posts claiming that the Warden's story "isn't done" when some fans really just won't accept that some things come to an end.
Mass Effect was always intended as a trilogy. This decision is no worse than if they had never decided to return to the Universe altogether.
The only thing that ended with the trilogy was Shepard's story, the galaxy however still has room for more stories.I'm somehow reminded of all the Dragon Age posts claiming that the Warden's story "isn't done" when some fans really just won't accept that some things come to an end.
Mass Effect was always intended as a trilogy. This decision is no worse than if they had never decided to return to the Universe altogether.
The only thing that ended with the trilogy was Shepard's story, the galaxy however still has room for more stories.
The galaxy having room for more stories does not negate my point. Any setting obviously has room for potentially infinite stories to be told, which often times works to their detriment (see huge parts of the Star Wars EU).
Mass Effect was the story of Shepard and his effort to prevent galactic extinction, which was completed. But your whole argument makes about as much sense as saying that any story which stops isn't worth telling. Lord of the Rings? We don't know what happens in the Undying Lands, story pointless. Star Wars? We don't know the ultimate fate of the Imperial Remnant, story pointless.
Plenty of people would like to see how the galaxy works in the aftermath of the reaper's it can easily be a compelling story.
Wrong only Shepards story has ended but the MW at large still has lots of stories left to tell there's no need to move to another galaxy.
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
The point you conveniently ignore is that Bio has moved on. Also, there is a need to move elsewhere. Bio has looked at the controversy from ME3 and made a conscientious decision to find greener pastures. A wise decision.
Standing on a soap box shouting " we have more stories in the MW" won't change that decision. The game's location is set in stone.
I'm somehow reminded of all the Dragon Age posts claiming that the Warden's story "isn't done" when some fans really just won't accept that some things come to an end.
Mass Effect was always intended as a trilogy. This decision is no worse than if they had never decided to return to the Universe altogether.
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
The point you conveniently ignore is that Bio has moved on. Also, there is a need to move elsewhere. Bio has looked at the controversy from ME3 and made a conscientious decision to find greener pastures. A wise decision.
Standing on a soap box shouting " we have more stories in the MW" won't change that decision. The game's location is set in stone.
I apologize if I miss a few things. I haven't read the prior posts in this string of the discussion.
- Has it been confirmed that this precursor race is more advanced than the Reapers or is this pure speculation on your part?
- It's hard to understand the exact programming of the Reapers -- another reason as to why the original ending of ME3 was so loathed. The only reason that I can think of was that the Reapers were limited in their power supply. The things that the Reapers were capable of is still staggering to think about, but I doubt that they could make a 2.5 million light year trip and still have the energy to wipe out both galaxies. And for reference, the Milky Way is only around 100,000 lights years in diameter.
- Has it been shown that the Reapers can actually detect sentient life though? Most of the extinction cycles centered around the fact that galactic civilizations utilized the Citadel and Mass relays. If anything, the only thing they knew for sure, was that their technology was being used. Add to that the likely smorgasbord of info regarding colonies, settlements, and populations that could be taken from the Citadel, and the Reapers wouldn't really need to detect life. The job is basically done for them. Hell, they even left old Sovereign behind to keep watch on things! Why would they need to do so if they could just detect life worth harvesting?
Also, I would just like to comment on one last thing. Is it really so contrived that a race in a galaxy with no Reapers is really more advanced? The Reapers were created countless cycles ago by the most technologically advanced race in the galaxy so far. Every race after that was always cut off around the 50,000 year mark. Given the kind of technological advances that we can make in a thousand years, why is it so crazy to think that this precursor race could do far more when given millions of uninterrupted years to develop and grow?
BTW it's always good to see you Iakus. You're like the one familiar username that I can always count on seeing whenever I return to the BSN.
1) Speculation. We have no idea how we get to Andromeda. A precursor race's litter is just one possible way we could figure out how. Since it would take over 200 years for even a Reaper to reach Andromeda.
2) Both the Catalyst and the Leviathan confirm that the intelligence's purpose is to preserve life "at all cost". Power supply is a valid point. But it still goes towards and precursor race that visits the Milky Way from somewhere else would have this more advanced power source. Also, the Reapers wouldn't have to go to each galaxy. SOme could set up shop in Andromeda and start a cycle of harvesting there with purely Andromeda-built Reapers. Just saying 
3) That's...a good point. But that would mean this precursor race never used, or likely even investigated, the relays. Which would be rather strange.
The fact that Bioware is setting the game in another galaxy speaks for itself, it doesn't inspire much confidence that they've learned anything said mistakes in the trilogy. Running away from the problems doesn't make them go away because they're still there.
Opportunity to explore new ideas Bioware have for the Mass Effect universe, like new species. The ability to distance themselves from having to choose a canon-ending. Avoid the direct consequences of player choices which would be wide in scope and would require a great deal of resources to address, resources that would otherwise go into making a stronger story with strong characters, like if the Quarians are alive or extinct, are the Geth extinct, is everyone in the galaxy some weird sort of organic/synthetic hybrid, are Reapers still around or are they destroyed, was the genophage cured, how much of the galaxy was roughly saved because of galactic readiness, did the Krogan have a cultural reinassance or did they start a new rebellion, are the Rachni still around?
So long as Bioware can give us a plausible way to get to Andromeda, they don't have to address the wide-ranging consequences of Mass Effect 3's ending, keep some races while expanding the mass effect universe. New races to meet, new planets to explore and no need to devote a lot of resources dealing with player choices that span an entire trilogy.
Yes, some people aren't happy, but quite frankly, I think this is the best option Bioware could make to both expand the universe and still be able to provide us with great characters and a great story without being tied down by Shepard's story.
All possibly, but all presumptuous in the end.
For me I am sure the new game will be great, but I do have issue with the fact that they destroyed the ending of the trilogy so much that they believe they have to go to another galaxy to continue.
This isn't some writer freely publishing his story for no monetary gain, this is a company that would have fully expected to create a sequel to the trilogy based on it's success, and chose to F it all up with the ending making it so they upset their fan base so strongly that it will affect the profit margins of the next negatively. It's still going to be successful, that i'm sure of, but it could have been much more successful and gave us a better continuity of the Mass Effect world story.
To me as a customer and huge fan, it is a big deal to continue forward in what we have already accomplished, to move the story forward and not sideways. They destroyed the world we all invested so heavily in, and now they are leaving it that way and taking us to another galaxy because they don't know how to continue with that ending.
Reapers are done, they can easily move on to tell the exact same story they are for Andromeda as our game has barely touched upon all the area's of our galaxy, which they could just as easily put in.
So that's my beef, but don't get me wrong, I am positive the next installment will be good, just not what many of us were hoping for.
The only thing that ended with the trilogy was Shepard's story, the galaxy however still has room for more stories.
Every setting ever has room for more stories. Even ones where the universe ends. Does that mean no setting should ever be abandoned? Of course not. The MW was abandoned and I seriously doubt ME will ever return there, or if we do return there it will be so far into the future or after an event such that all possible ME3 endings have been homogenized.
As a potential example: 50 years after ME3 a terrorist gets into the catalyst after Shep picked Synthesis (cause he was a hippy apparently) and activated the destroy module. Basically doing all but cannonizing the destroy ending is the only way I can see for them to progress.
But in reality there are so many stories they can tell without ever returning to the MW. Just look at Star Wars, there isn't a single story in Star Wars about the origins of humanity, they don't need to return to the 'roots' of humanity to come up with new stories. ME doesn't need the MW anymore than SW does.
I get that you are totally bummed about ME3 being more or less ignored, but the sooner you accept that Bioware has moved on the happier you'll be. Bioware does not need to address the ME3 endings, and I'd say the majority of people on these forums have already accepted that, showing that Bioware really doesn't need to return to the MW.
The galaxy having room for more stories does not negate my point. Any setting obviously has room for potentially infinite stories to be told, which often times works to their detriment (see huge parts of the Star Wars EU).
Mass Effect was the story of Shepard and his effort to prevent galactic extinction, which was completed. But your whole argument makes about as much sense as saying that any story which stops isn't worth telling. Lord of the Rings? We don't know what happens in the Undying Lands, story pointless. Star Wars? We don't know the ultimate fate of the Imperial Remnant, story pointless.
Yes there would be no difference if the Trilogy was just ended and no other games in the universe were made. The problem there is there was. They are taking the IP that became hugely successful and destroyed it in the ending and even before they made the third game I'm pretty sure they fully intended to continue the IP. So then why destroy the world that made them so successful? So they intended to create another game while alienating the fan base that made it successful?
Going to another galaxy in the game normally wouldn't be so bad, but the only thing that most everyone associates Mass Effect with is the Trilogy which was left in a horrible place, and then why can't they just tell the same story they are about to tell in the same galaxy which is more than doable while showing that fanbase that the game world they came to love is still supported and improved by them.
The whole ending of the Trilogy left me feeling exactly how I do in regards to Star Trek. They advanced technology and events so far that the writers destroyed the future of the universe. Why do you think all they have ever done since is go backwards in time to tell stories or plain old just redo.
The Shepard story is complete and overall I really enjoyed it, but the galaxy's story is ended because there is no way for any of the races to travel to each other. Now with Andromeda, they realize they destroyed the galaxy that housed the IP, and in order to make money of the IP going forward, they will do exactly what everyone else has done, and that is to go back in time to add some caveat to how they got to another galaxy before the ending. And yet for some reason the Humans had enough man power and resources to pull together a sizable amount to send off to another galaxy in a method we are yet to learn of.
The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars example you mention are not the same thing, because the world / galaxy continues on, and further stories are told in that same place that made it successful. This is not true with Mass Effect.
Every setting ever has room for more stories. Even ones where the universe ends. Does that mean no setting should ever be abandoned? Of course not. The MW was abandoned and I seriously doubt ME will ever return there, or if we do return there it will be so far into the future or after an event such that all possible ME3 endings have been homogenized.
As a potential example: 50 years after ME3 a terrorist gets into the catalyst after Shep picked Synthesis (cause he was a hippy apparently) and activated the destroy module. Basically doing all but cannonizing the destroy ending is the only way I can see for them to progress.
But in reality there are so many stories they can tell without ever returning to the MW. Just look at Star Wars, there isn't a single story in Star Wars about the origins of humanity, they don't need to return to the 'roots' of humanity to come up with new stories. ME doesn't need the MW anymore than SW does.
I get that you are totally bummed about ME3 being more or less ignored, but the sooner you accept that Bioware has moved on the happier you'll be. Bioware does not need to address the ME3 endings, and I'd say the majority of people on these forums have already accepted that, showing that Bioware really doesn't need to return to the MW.
If ME was to return to the MW, it would be because they destroyed any remaining story angles in other galaxies and they need to go back to reduce the tech some, as the MW will most certainty have a lower tech standard than the others sinse now no one even has the potential to travel anywhere making the galactic community void.
Human origins have never been a story arc let alone a major part of what made star wars successful, that's why it doesn't matter if it's never touched upon.
But take away all the species being able to interact galactically, completely end the Empire and Rebel/Alliance factions and you have just alienated your Star Wars fan base.
People that are complaining about where the new game is going are still going to buy it and enjoy it, but it could have been so much more to them with with just a little tip of the hat from BW continuing the story in the MW to show us they respect the fans that made ME what it is.
Yes there would be no difference if the Trilogy was just ended and no other games in the universe were made. The problem there is there was. They are taking the IP that became hugely successful and destroyed it in the ending and even before they made the third game I'm pretty sure they fully intended to continue the IP. So then why destroy the world that made them so successful? So they intended to create another game while alienating the fan base that made it successful?
Going to another galaxy in the game normally wouldn't be so bad, but the only thing that most everyone associates Mass Effect with is the Trilogy which was left in a horrible place, and then why can't they just tell the same story they are about to tell in the same galaxy which is more than doable while showing that fanbase that the game world they came to love is still supported and improved by them.
The whole ending of the Trilogy left me feeling exactly how I do in regards to Star Trek. They advanced technology and events so far that the writers destroyed the future of the universe. Why do you think all they have ever done since is go backwards in time to tell stories or plain old just redo.
The Shepard story is complete and overall I really enjoyed it, but the galaxy's story is ended because there is no way for any of the races to travel to each other. Now with Andromeda, they realize they destroyed the galaxy that housed the IP, and in order to make money of the IP going forward, they will do exactly what everyone else has done, and that is to go back in time to add some caveat to how they got to another galaxy before the ending. And yet for some reason the Humans had enough man power and resources to pull together a sizable amount to send off to another galaxy in a method we are yet to learn of.
The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars example you mention are not the same thing, because the world / galaxy continues on, and further stories are told in that same place that made it successful. This is not true with Mass Effect.
Actually, this is not the case. The epilogues in the EC show that galactic travel in the milky way is possible shortly after the ending. We see Wrex/Wreave (& Grunt if applicable) return to Tuchanka. We see Samara reunited with her daughter, etc. All of them were on earth during the final battle, so if they can travel, that does imply an fairly quick improvement of the situation (not to mention the flash forwards to a repaired citadel and such).
The problem is not that the MW is ruined. That galaxy does continue on. The problem is that the endings are so diverse. This is kind of ironic because I think most of us wanted and expected diverse endings to the trilogy and would have been disappointed if there would have just been one ending. But in any case, it is this variety, which would have to be reflected in every future game in the MW that made the writers go to Andromeda. Of course, there would have been other options, such as canonizing one ending and go with that or somehow downplay the long term consequences of the endings, so that they can be accommodated in one single sequel game but I think no matter what they would have chosen, they would have alienated part of the fan base anyway.
IMO, going to another galaxy is not the worst option to avoid all of the above problems. It's not necessarily what I would have done but I get where they are coming from with it and I am willing to give the concept a chance. A lot now depends on how skillfully they will be able to execute the idea.
The galaxy having room for more stories does not negate my point. Any setting obviously has room for potentially infinite stories to be told, which often times works to their detriment (see huge parts of the Star Wars EU).
Mass Effect was the story of Shepard and his effort to prevent galactic extinction, which was completed. But your whole argument makes about as much sense as saying that any story which stops isn't worth telling. Lord of the Rings? We don't know what happens in the Undying Lands, story pointless. Star Wars? We don't know the ultimate fate of the Imperial Remnant, story pointless.
The problem is that the trilogy still has plenty of unanswered questions left regarding the state of the galaxy after the war. There still not enough resolution for the trilogy.
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
The point you conveniently ignore is that Bio has moved on. Also, there is a need to move elsewhere. Bio has looked at the controversy from ME3 and made a conscientious decision to find greener pastures. A wise decision.
It's not Bioware refuses to deal with issue's they've made in the trilogy, they've learned nothing from them.
It doesn't "speak for itself" at all. It just says that they're aware that the endings were a big problem, because they had to move the setting a lot to get around it. You still have yet to demonstrate why that means they are going to repeat the same mistakes.
Ignoring just means that they don't want to deal with the issue's they've made, Bioware is pretending the issue's they've made never happened.
Every setting ever has room for more stories. Even ones where the universe ends. Does that mean no setting should ever be abandoned? Of course not. The MW was abandoned and I seriously doubt ME will ever return there, or if we do return there it will be so far into the future or after an event such that all possible ME3 endings have been homogenized.
As a potential example: 50 years after ME3 a terrorist gets into the catalyst after Shep picked Synthesis (cause he was a hippy apparently) and activated the destroy module. Basically doing all but cannonizing the destroy ending is the only way I can see for them to progress.
But in reality there are so many stories they can tell without ever returning to the MW. Just look at Star Wars, there isn't a single story in Star Wars about the origins of humanity, they don't need to return to the 'roots' of humanity to come up with new stories. ME doesn't need the MW anymore than SW does.
I get that you are totally bummed about ME3 being more or less ignored, but the sooner you accept that Bioware has moved on the happier you'll be. Bioware does not need to address the ME3 endings, and I'd say the majority of people on these forums have already accepted that, showing that Bioware really doesn't need to return to the MW.
If Bioware is ditching the MW for good then the choices made in ME1-3 are pointless since there is no point in saving it, the reapers might as well win.
Actually, this is not the case. The epilogues in the EC show that galactic travel in the milky way is possible shortly after the ending. We see Wrex/Wreave (& Grunt if applicable) return to Tuchanka. We see Samara reunited with her daughter, etc. All of them were on earth during the final battle, so if they can travel, that does imply an fairly quick improvement of the situation (not to mention the flash forwards to a repaired citadel and such).
The problem is not that the MW is ruined. That galaxy does continue on. The problem is that the endings are so diverse. This is kind of ironic because I think most of us wanted and expected diverse endings to the trilogy and would have been disappointed if there would have just been one ending. But in any case, it is this variety, which would have to be reflected in every future game in the MW that made the writers go to Andromeda. Of course, there would have been other options, such as canonizing one ending and go with that or somehow downplay the long term consequences of the endings, so that they can be accommodated in one single sequel game but I think no matter what they would have chosen, they would have alienated part of the fan base anyway.
IMO, going to another galaxy is not the worst option to avoid all of the above problems. It's not necessarily what I would have done but I get where they are coming from with it and I am willing to give the concept a chance. A lot now depends on how skillfully they will be able to execute the idea.
Through the trilogy they have shown that no one has the technology to travel between systems without the gates, including the Asari who are suppose to be at the top of the tech ladder out of the core races. So I must have forgotten or missed that end part but it does seem very unlikely they could just whip something up to do that. I am glad you mentioned it though as that also suggests they might have surpassed the travel problem right away, but it could also just be a happy ending homage to appease many angry fans.
As for the possible endings, I thought Bioware had dictated for each game what the canon choices are, and the destroy ending was the canon option.
But regardless, it doesn't matter that they moved it to another galaxy for that, because we are still playing a N7 human probably of the alliance, and we are an extension of the human / Earth goverment so we would still be reporting back to them. So the MW choices will carry over to this game, though Bioware might not put any focus or emphasis on that, but inevitably those choices would come to light.
Lastly, who is to say the catalyst choice only affected our galaxy, I mean this thing already is encompassing a massive area, what are those boundaries and who's to say it hasn't affected other galaxies?
The problem is that the trilogy still has plenty of unanswered questions left regarding the state of the galaxy after the war. There still not enough resolution for the trilogy.
If Bioware is ditching the MW for good then the choices made in ME1-3 are pointless since there is no point in saving it, the reapers might as well win.
If Bioware is ditching the MW for good then the choices made in ME1-3 are pointless since there is no point in saving it, the reapers might as well win.
If that 'logic' had any real logic then Jade Empire would have no purpose as Bioware may never do a sequel, so somehow that entire game is negated. BG2 is apparently also pointless because Bioware will almost certainly never go back to a DnD setting.
Things end, just let it go. Nothing is forever.
But it'll address the issues left behind and leave plenty of resources and funding for the current story and characters.
And the entirety of the Milky Way, while not explored, is fundamentally altered based on each different ending.
There are too many variables for Bioware to realistically address them.
... which is why they shouldn't adress them and just ignore them like they did the endings of ME1 and ME2.
It's true that they don't want to deal with the endings. That doesn't mean they didn't learn anything. That last point remains to be seen.The problem is that the trilogy still has plenty of unanswered questions left regarding the state of the galaxy after the war. There still not enough resolution for the trilogy.
It's not Bioware refuses to deal with issue's they've made in the trilogy, they've learned nothing from them.
This is going a bit too far. They don't pretend it never happened, nor are your choices in the trilogy pointless, just because the next game will probably have a scenario where these choices do not have an impact.Ignoring just means that they don't want to deal with the issue's they've made, Bioware is pretending the issue's they've made never happened.
If Bioware is ditching the MW for good then the choices made in ME1-3 are pointless since there is no point in saving it, the reapers might as well win.
Retour en haut