397 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Probably not a good idea to read this if you haven't played the original trilogy, but then again Mass Effect: Andromeda is the best place to start.

[Kabooooom]

Probably not a good idea to read this if you haven't played the original trilogy, but then again Mass Effect: Andromeda is the best place to start.

The sarcasm is strong with this one.

I love it, lol.

[Nethershadow]

Well, you'll have to tell that to the Retake movement. The outrage caused, at least here on the forums, indicated pretty well that the endings were beyond charred, especially after the EC.

But my point is, if you're still interested in exploring MW galaxy, that's completely fine. But that's a completely different beast from saying "Bioware needs to learn from their mistakes, stop running away, and fix the Mass Effect endings". That's not likely to happen, to anyone's satisfaction. The best case scenario would still be forgetting about the ending and moving on to whatever independent plot they would decide to focus on in the MW.

In other words: I think you're operating from a very different premise than Drone. His is that ME4 needs to fix ME3. Yours seems to be to forget about the reception and focus on other stories told after ME3, as I understand.


The problem here is that we're assuming we have to return to the main universe at some point. That's not required at all, especially depending on ME:A's reception. If ME:A is released to an outstanding reception (I know, try not to laugh), the push for going back to the main universe will be diminished.


Possible, sure, but this still has a number of assumptions, namely that we'll even be able to contact the main universe. Until we know how we even get to Andromeda, neither of us can say.

Just to be clear though, I've never been of the stance that "Bioware needs to learn from their mistakes and fix the trilogy endings."

I am of the stance that they should just 'continue on' in the MW. If this leads right away to them going to Andromeda than that's fine, but it shows they aren't ignoring the trilogy, which is the end result and basis of continuing into a new game. This would also give them a more plausible amount of time to do what they needed for story wise instead of rushing to complete some major projects like the Ark in a few years to escape Reapers. If BW wants a clean slate then why not just label it as an alternate version. So instead of trying to build the Catalyst that they were unsure of, they put all their resources into building an Ark to escape the Reapers by heading to Andromeda. I could get behind that pretty easily. But so far all indication stands that it's the same universe.

One thing that is confusing me is when you say 'main universe', is it not assumed already that everything (MW, Andromeda ext) are all part of the main universe and timeline?

If they do use an alternate universe to tell Andromeda's story, then that fine and by no means would I expect that we would ever have to go back to the main universe at all. But if that's the case, then I would be satisfied with BW just saying, alternate universe.

As for how good the reception is, I take that with a grain of salt because BW stuck to their guns on the ending no matter how bad the reception was for the ending choices, as well as declaring they won't canonize any of the endings, and it's probably the worst reception they have ever had. They didn't change them, so even if the game has a good reception, I see them following through on their vision and not necessarily what the fanbase outcry is for.

So my main focus for another game, is overall continuity in one timeline which you can't have with varying major choices being left.

Wormholes could be the catalyst they use to go alternate dimensions like they did with the star trek reboot.

[Nethershadow]

One of the things about using a wormhole to get to Andromeda is IF there is a significant time dilation involved. I guess I can say I'm not really a fan of moving hundreds of thousands to millions of years in the future as I'm left with the thought that other space faring empires should be drastically more advanced than us by then.

 

Ultimately it is wait and see what the game says, but currently after all the discussions I don't have very much hope for myself that they will do anything that appeals to me in that regard. I think it will be tarnishing the great passion I hold for the trilogy, even though I am sure the gameplay for Andromeda will be good, just not the story / universe.

[Iakus]

Probably not a good idea to read this if you haven't played the original trilogy, but then again Mass Effect: Andromeda is the best place to start.

After ME3, this may be literally true 

[Kabooooom]

One of the things about using a wormhole to get to Andromeda is IF there is a significant time dilation involved. I guess I can say I'm not really a fan of moving hundreds of thousands to millions of years in the future as I'm left with the thought that other space faring empires should be drastically more advanced than us by then.

Ultimately it is wait and see what the game says, but currently after all the discussions I don't have very much hope for myself that they will do anything that appeals to me in that regard. I think it will be tarnishing the great passion I hold for the trilogy, even though I am sure the gameplay for Andromeda will be good, just not the story / universe.

If there was no harvest in Andromeda, then the species there should already be far more advanced than us, assuming a similar prevalence and frequency of intelligent civilizations there as in the MW, which is roughly 5-10 new ones per 50,000 years, it seems. And there's no reason to think life would be more rare in Andromeda.

So, Bioware will have to address your point whether or not we jump way into the future. It is seriously a major problem because of the way intelligent life is presented in the lore.

[Fade9wayz]

I never said anything about wormhole technology. I was commenting on the finding ancient technology that gets us there. If that tech was Reaper in origin, the Reapers overlooking it makes sense since it is theirs and then the biggest problem of the ancient tech route is dealt with. 

Ah, I see. Since the related conversation I was having with Kabooooom was about wormhole tech, I assumed you were alluding to it. My bad.

Yes the MW citizen will certainly study reaper tech in much more depth after the war (not taking Refuse into account in this case). It remains to be seen if that will have any incidence on MEA (being greeted by our descendants upon arriving in Andromeda, as Nethershadow suggested, for exemple)

[N7Jamaican]

If there was no harvest in Andromeda, then the species there should already be far more advanced than us, assuming a similar prevalence and frequency of intelligent civilizations there as in the MW, which is roughly 5-10 new ones per 50,000 years, it seems. And there's no reason to think life would be more rare in Andromeda.

So, Bioware will have to address your point whether or not we jump way into the future. It is seriously a major problem because of the way intelligent life is presented in the lore.

 

True, or it could be possible that they are just as advanced as we are.  But I do expect the Andromeda species to slightly more advance than us.. Cause if we go in on an even playing field, wouldn't make for much conflict.  But I doubt they would be superior.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Or we could simply wormhole our way into a multi-verse in Andromeda where they had a galaxy-wide calamity that wiped out their galactic civilization thousands of years ago where they were victorious at a great cost, and they're in the middle of a 10,000 year dark age. Then we show up. lol.

[Fade9wayz]

Ah, gotcha. Now I understand. Yea, it would almost necessitate the existence of a multiverse or parallel timelines, as otherwise a lottery jackbox paradox could potentially occur.

Alternatively, free will doesn't exist and Johnny could never actually decide not to write the letters down, therefore the way it happens is the way it happens.

A similar issue would render the grandfather paradox moot - your grandfather never actually died, therefore you know you never travelled in time to kill your grandfather - even if you had the intention to do so. This would imply like a trans-temporal flow of causality where time travelers actually interact with the timeline at all levels and no "change" could ever actually occur.

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about relativity, and he told me about a theory that the universe is composed of "packets" of space-time continuum. I need to read up on it, but it would be consistent with what you described.

[Kabooooom]

True, or it could be possible that they are just as advanced as we are. But I do expect the Andromeda species to slightly more advance than us.. Cause if we go in on an even playing field, wouldn't make for much conflict. But I doubt they would be superior.

Well, if they acknowledge their own lore they shouldn't be slightly more advanced, but way more. The Reapers have been harvesting a handful of new spacefaring civilizations every 50,000 years on average for the last billion years.

That is, honestly, a rather absurdly high number. But apparently intelligent aliens and spacefaring civs are ultra common in mass effect. And there is no reason to assume the Milky Way is unique in that regard.

Lets be more conservative here. What if only one single spacefaring civilization arose every 50,000 years? Then there would have been 20,000 such civilizations since the Leviathan-era. What if we are even more conservative and say that without a relay network, 99% of such civilizations go extinct? Leaving only 1% viable? Then that is still 200 such civilizations that could have arisen, at any time, during the last billion years and thus be unbelievably more advanced than ours.

So I wont buy an explanation of "well maybe they just aren't for reasons" if Bioware goes that route. They better damn well explain it or it breaks their own lore.

[Kabooooom]

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about relativity, and he told me about a theory that the universe is composed of "packets" of space-time continuum. I need to read up on it, but it would be consistent with what you described.

I'm not certain what he was referring to, although most physicists accept that spacetime should be quantized like everything else in the universe, and that the smallest units of distance and time are therefore the Planck length and Planck time. That may be what he meant. As these numbers arise naturally from the math of the most accurate physical theory in existence, they must exist as real quantities. The problem, however, is that it implies that general relativity breaks down at the quantum level, and must be replaced by a model of quantum gravity that simplifies to general relativity on the macroscale. Such a theory has not been found, although there are contenders, and thus gravity is the last force not to be quantized and we do not currently have a grand unified theory of everything.

[Fade9wayz]

I'm not certain what he was referring to, although most physicists accept that spacetime should be quantized like everything else in the universe, and that the smallest units of distance and time are therefore the Planck length and Planck time. That may be what he meant. As these numbers arise naturally from the math of the most accurate physical theory in existence, they must exist as real quantities. The problem, however, is that it implies that general relativity breaks down at the quantum level, and must be replaced by a model of quantum gravity that simplifies to general relativity on the macroscale. Such a theory has not been found, although there are contenders, and thus gravity is the last force not to be quantized and we do not currently have a grand unified theory of everything.

I'm not certain as well, lots of beer and amareto sour was involved in this particular conversation  . I will read the book he advised to me, hopefully it will shed some light

[Kabooooom]

I'm not certain as well, lots of beer and amareto sour was involved in this particular conversation . I will read the book he advised to me, hopefully it will shed some light

Which book was it, out of curiosity? For a casual read that has exactly zero math but introduces people to these sorts of subjects on a level that is satisfying to most, I would recommend The Elegant Universe from Brian Greene or A Brief History of Time by Hawking.

[Fade9wayz]

Which book was it, out of curiosity? For a casual read that has exactly zero math but introduces people to these sorts of subjects on a level that is satisfying to most, I would recommend The Elegant Universe from Brian Greene or A Brief History of Time by Hawking.

The universe in your hand: http://www.christophegalfard.com/  I have been told it's pretty good vulgarisation

 

Zero math you say? Exactly what I need 

[LinksOcarina]

Well, I've said it before and I will say it again - we correctly predicted the move to Andromeda a year ago based primarily on the assumption that Bioware would want to completely divorce the setting from the prior trilogy to avoid the ending debacle.

And I don't think that was a lucky guess. It ended up being correct, and the most logical reason for the change of setting is exactly that reason - otherwise they could just set it in the Milky Way. But they don't want to deal with the endings.

 

Conisdering were not in the room making the game, it is still presumptions. Predictions and reasons why, in situations such as this, are not relevant until we see the whole scope of the game itself. Until then, it really doesn't matter if that is the logical reason for it or not. 

[Kabooooom]

Conisdering were not in the room making the game, it is still presumptions. Predictions and reasons why, in situations such as this, are not relevant until we see the whole scope of the game itself. Until then, it really doesn't matter if that is the logical reason for it or not.

It's called abductive reasoning, and it is a perfectly valid and logically sound thing to do with regards to anything, but certainly here. Abductive reasoning isn't "projection", to quote you directly.

It's good to stay open-minded, but I do think there's a thing called being so open minded that your brain falls out. In this case, we correctly deduced the move to Andromeda long, long before any news or any leak by assuming that Bioware would want to entirely divorce themselves from the prior trilogy.

Like I said, maybe that was a lucky guess and the reason for moving to Andromeda is nothing of the sort. But the odds of that are, quite frankly, pretty slim I think. Most of us here are in agreement that the simplest explanation is that, indeed, Bioware wants to avoid the ending shitshow altogether.

Speculation to the contrary about how Bioware may account for ending differences and incorporate them into the story is totally fine, but just like people who had their hopes up that the game would be set in the Milky Way (and I tried to warn people...especially that Revan guy), well, I am afraid that people will get their hopes up with this too.

[LinksOcarina]

It's called abductive reasoning, and it is a perfectly valid and logically sound thing to do with regards to anything, but certainly here.

It's good to stay open-minded, but I do think there's a thing called being so open minded that your brain falls out. In this case, we correctly deduced the move to Andromeda long, long before any news or any leak by assuming that Bioware would want to entirely divorce themselves from the prior trilogy.

Like I said, maybe that was a lucky guess and the reason for moving to Andromeda is nothing of the sort. But the odds of that are, quite frankly, pretty slim I think. Most of us here are in agreement that the simplest explanation is that, indeed, Bioware wants to avoid the ending shitshow altogether.

Speculation to the contrary about how Bioware may account for ending differences and incorporate them into the story is totally fine, but just like people who had their hopes up that the game would be set in the Milky Way (and I tried to warn people...especially that Revan guy), well, I am afraid that people will get their hopes up with this too.

 

This is why we have court systems though; it's an innocent until proven guilty kind of thing which seems to be the real problem here. Abductive reasoning is why we have conspiracy theorists for example; people who frame the evidence of actions without actual proof to them. Not saying this is such an example, but it is not necessarily useful all the time, which is kind of the bigger point.

 

See, the thing is, the reasons behind the move by BioWare are inconsequential. We don't know what they really are, and even if you are right, and everyone is in agreement as to why it's in Andromeda...the real question is so what? The fact of the matter is the reason why is not really important to any context. The only thing that is important through that is how it shapes the game a bit, but even then, the context is not known.

 

How we get there, the story told while were there, that has a bit more weight. The constant back and forth on this forum between how to get to Andromeda so far has grinded my gears a bit because its speculation that is tying too much real-life motivations into it. The calls of people asking for plausibility in reaching there, the time-frame being realistic, the way we get there being realistic to the series lore, yet I think we all deep down  know it is likely going to be some sort of warp or gate or mass effect field that hits that system in some form, maybe even reaper or new tech thats found.

 

Which in turn is the bigger problem; its already set in stone. If it is to avoid the Mass Effect 3 endings, then it's as everyone says, set before the final battle on Earth in some form. That is our story then, we don't really need to argue the point anymore. If it is set in the future by 500 years or whatever, or if something is found in the process of the war, or what have you, the endings will be addressed in some form I presume to reflect that choice as well. I am sure we will have tie-ins to previous parts of the game too to make it more plausible, but the fact of the matter is the lack of details behind lead to it being an unknown, "innocent until proven guilty." 

 

We simply don't know, and the real world reason behind it is inconsequential to the result basically. If they do it during the war, or after it, the bigger point is were there and we will be doing things there. Our position in that timeline will reflect what we can and can't do, the tone of the story, and a few other details i'm sure, but without details such discussions on what needs to stripped, or how scientifically plausible it is to get there, are kind of worthless when we present such discussions.

 

For example, if it's set during the war, I would bet money Cerberus gets involved and sends a contingent of sleeper agents to Andromeda. They still exist, for one, have resources and likely spies in the alliance, and can probably ensure Cerberus survives through that with a new leader.

 

Can that affect the story? Of course. How it will, who knows?  We need more information before we jump the gun further. Thats why it's speculation. It's fine to speculate, but let's not pretend we know the motivations behind everything here; if they are purging the whole series because of one ending, then it's not a Mass Effect game, and we all know that is not true.

[Kabooooom]

I disagree almost completely. Discussion on how to get there in a plausible manner IS important, if for no other reason than solely because on the off chance that if Bioware hasn't pinned down the details, they may take ideas or advice from these discussions.

The last thing I want is something that ignores or breaks the lore. It would completely ruin Andromeda for myself and for many others.

[N7Jamaican]

We will see how advanced the Andromeda species are.  I don't expect them to be at Reaper level.  The "ancient" evil that we'll face sure.

[LinksOcarina]

I disagree almost completely. Discussion on how to get there in a plausible manner IS important, if for no other reason than solely because on the off chance that if Bioware hasn't pinned down the details, they may take ideas or advice from these discussions.

The last thing I want is something that ignores or breaks the lore. It would completely ruin Andromeda for myself and for many others.

 

I can tell you right now they likely won't, or if they do its very minimal things, especially considering how expensive a whole script re-write in the middle of production can be for a video game at this point. I am under the presumption Andromeda has been worked on since 2013 right? At this point I am guessing the game is over half-way complete, to the point where they can show off alpha/beta builds. So that means the entire story and level design, the character designs, and so forth, are probably set in stone. Maybe a line or two can help that, but it's not going to change. 

 

And it's not important at all how we get there. For one, how we get there is not going to contradict or break lore when lore in of itself is fluid. Got to remember, BioWare contradicts their own world all the time for story effect; the Rachni were extinct, but they found one egg and hid it on Noveria for some reason. Also the Protheans...

 

This is why I don't really understand people who feel married to the lore in anything, be it a game or tabletop setting, that makes any game very determinist in what they expect; if its written down, it's law for some reason. There is no in-between most of the time.

 

Which is stupid. Things change, or are not what they always seem. History is like this for example; the historian reads between the lines to find further information to formulate conclusions. Being right or wrong is not the point because the evidence is inefficient, and historians have different opinions on same topics, or use the same evidence to formulate a different perspective or conclusion to a topic. Some things, like appearance or physiology obviously you can't change, but events and behavior can always be contrary to what is said to be true.

 

Frankly i'm surprised you aren't angry at Mass Effect for breaking their lore since game one in that regard, but on the flipside, people probably give it a pass because it was in game one. As to the point of how we get there, BioWare's reasons as to why were going to Andromeda are not important. Simple as that. The only way it affects us is the story and the gameplay, which we need to see in action to judge it I feel.

 

So again, who gives a **** why BioWare moved it to Andromeda? It doesn't matter why until we see how and when, which we can only guess. And even then, why is still inconsequential, besides the reason they give in-game, which is the only thing that really matters here. 

[N7Jamaican]

 

And it's not important at all how we get there. For one, how we get there is not going to contradict or break lore when lore in of itself is fluid. Got to remember, BioWare contradicts their own world all the time for story effect; the Rachni were extinct, but they found one egg and hid it on Noveria for some reason. Also the Protheans...

 

But they've explained how they've found the egg... Bit of a stretch that a derelict ship could be adrift for soo long without anyone by chance stumbling on it... Rachni wars were a thousand years ago.. But maybe I am missing something, how they broke the lore?

 

With Protheans, on Ilos, you find out that there were stasis pods... Fast forward to ME3, and I could believe that their were other stasis pods, on other worlds.  I got the impression that Protheans were pretty much doing whatever during their Reaper war, without much communication with other Protheans off-world.

[Kabooooom]

Lol dude, "the lore is fluid". Not so fluid that the MW species could suddenly just fly to Andromeda without having to discharge or anything.

Explaining how we got there hardly qualifies as a "script rewrite". Hyperbolic, much? At best, it would require some lines in the codex or a NPC.

[LinksOcarina]

But they've explained how they've found the egg... Bit of a stretch that a derelict ship could be adrift for soo long without anyone by chance stumbling on it... Rachni wars were a thousand years ago.. But maybe I am missing something, how they broke the lore?

 

With Protheans, on Ilos, you find out that there were stasis pods... Fast forward to ME3, and I could believe that their were other stasis pods, on other worlds.  I got the impression that Protheans were pretty much doing whatever during their Reaper war, without much communication with other Protheans off-world.

 

You are proving my point.

 

It was explained in-game how it worked. That becomes the new lore despite contradicting what is written in the games lore. 

 

The argument for the in-game reason as to why we get there, is kind of a moot point because more than likely, it's going to be explained why we get there. To say that the reason can be lore-breaking is ridiculous, because however it is explained becomes the new lore.

 

Now will be there plot-holes? Sure.  The Rachni kind of prove that. My point is moreso the fact that the charge of lore-breaking is silly because it's a fluid world, the lore is not set in stone and can change, and should change to reflect the world changing.

[Kabooooom]

You are proving my point.

It was explained in-game how it worked. That becomes the new lore despite contradicting what is written in the games lore.

The argument for the in-game reason as to why we get there, is kind of a moot point because more than likely, it's going to be explained why we get there. To say that the reason can be lore-breaking is ridiculous, because however it is explained becomes the new lore.

Now will be there plot-holes? Sure. The Rachni kind of prove that. My point is moreso the fact that the charge of lore-breaking is silly because it's a fluid world, the lore is not set in stone and can change, and should change to reflect the world changing.

He didn't really prove your point. The Rachni extinction never violated the lore, it was written into it as a part of ME1. If ME1 said they were extinct, and then you find out they weren't in ME2, even THAT wouldn't violate the lore. New knowledge =/= lore violation.

What does violate the lore would be if ME1 explained how FTL and the Mass Effect works, and then Andromeda completely discards or contradicts it. To summarize, new knowledge does not violate lore. Violating lore violates the lore.