397 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

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.

 

Missing the point completely. However it's explained, people are pissed off because of how it can supposedly happen, and the reasons why don't matter to the context of the game.

 

As to the lore, however the story reflects the explaination as to how or when its done, becomes the new lore as to how or when it's done. Simple as that.

[N7Jamaican]

What are some legit lore violations though?

[LinksOcarina]

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.

 

Wrong.

 

By definition, new knowledge can always contradict the world that is built around that knowledge. New knowledge violates that rigid definition of lore because it says that information is wrong. Does it make sense that the Rachni still exist? Does it make sense that the knowledge we gain from this changes our perspective of the established story accordingly?

 

In other words, if you have new knowledge, you have new perspective on events and things that have happened. If you are taught that something is so, and that new knowledge changes your thoughts about it, you are now contradicting what you are taught. It's teaching 101; what you know is not necessarily what you think you know. There is always something that can change that thought process.

 

Your other example is the same thing as the Rachni. The only issue is the Rachni got resolved and is accepted because it's not hard science it seems. I doubt we shall see FTL drives that can warp of course. Yet, if they add Reaper tech to ships so they can have little personal mass effect drives, then the lore is again, changed to reflect that change. That is your new information your looking for. 

 

So the two are the same, to argue one is not contradicting is a fallacy. 

[LinksOcarina]

What are some legit lore violations though?

 

See thats the thing, it doesn't really matter. It is how the stories are written that reflects the changes accordingly.

 

I can name a bunch, Rachni of course, the Batarians original appearance (if you want to count that one), Thermal clips, omni-gel, the Omega-4 relay and the Collectors, the Protheans, their history, and people bring up the Catalyst and the Crucible of course all the time. The bigger point though is that all of this, whether we call it new info or not, changes the established canon of what these codex say. 

 

The bigger point of all of this, like I said, is that lore changes, and expecting something to always be consistent is not realistic to how worlds change. Not all Krogan should be battle-hungry. Not all Salarians should be logical or methodical. Not all technology should stay the same. 

 

Eh...i'm tired. My old man rants are probably getting on your nerves. 

[N7Jamaican]

See thats the thing, it doesn't really matter. It is how the stories are written that reflects the changes accordingly.

 

I can name a bunch, Rachni of course, the Batarians original appearance (if you want to count that one), Thermal clips, omni-gel, the Omega-4 relay and the Collectors, the Protheans, their history, and people bring up the Catalyst and the Crucible of course all the time. The bigger point though is that all of this, whether we call it new info or not, changes the established canon of what these codex say. 

 

The bigger point of all of this, like I said, is that lore changes, and expecting something to always be consistent is not realistic to how worlds change. Not all Krogan should be battle-hungry. Not all Salarians should be logical or methodical. Not all technology should stay the same. 

 

Eh...i'm tired. My old man rants are probably getting on your nerves. 

 

Remember the love struck Krogan on Illum?  How about Wrex? Wrex isn't your typical Krogan. The salarian (Fargut?) on Omega when you first dock there, he seems out of it.  Garrus isn't your typical military grunt-of-a-Turian.  Matriarch Aetheyta isn't your typical matriarch (serving drinks).  Liara isn't a pole dancer on Omega..

 

I mean, just because the Lore may have something viewed one way, doesn't mean characters in that universe have to abide by it to be lore..

[LinksOcarina]

Remember the love struck Krogan on Illum?  How about Wrex? Wrex isn't your typical Krogan. The salarian (Fargut?) on Omega when you first dock there, he seems out of it.  Garrus isn't your typical military grunt-of-a-Turian.  Matriarch Aetheyta isn't your typical matriarch (serving drinks).  Liara isn't a pole dancer on Omega..

 

I mean, just because the Lore may have something viewed one way, doesn't mean characters in that universe have to abide by it to be lore..

 

I agree.

 

This is why writing species behavior and character traits is difficult. I did it for a role-playing supplement, and I was asked to not make anything super definitive; give the major stereotypes, but point out outliers exists, which more or less gives you the opening to make those outliers more or less common.

 

And to the bigger point like I said, it doesn't matter that the lore is saying something and we see characters going against type. Arguing the lore has to always be solid and set in stone is again, too determinist in it's approach. It makes the world rigid, and that is bad because it is unrealistic then.

 

I feel like were on the same page...i'm not sure though...

[Iakus]

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.

 

No, the rachni doesn't break the lore because for over a thousand years it was genuinely believed by everyone that the rachni were extinct.  The discovery of an egg simply demonstrated that the assumption was wrong.  This does not alter the existence of the Rachni war, or the uplifting of the krogan to fight them, or the genocidal war they fought to eradicate them.

 

Thermal clips are a violation of the lore , since it involved an instantaneous galaxy-wide shift to this new technology including apparently going back in time to stock them on a ship that crashed on an uninhabited world ten years prior.

 

Lore can be incomplete.  But it is not fluid.  If it were, then it wouldn't be lore.  You would gain no deeper understanding of the setting or the characters from knowing it, as it could be altered at any time. 

[Dantriges]

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.

 

Why?TIM is a control freak. Everyone he sends there is out of his grasp and it never looked like TIM would be fine with Cerberus under a new leader. And he has a plan that will catapult him eh humanity at the top of the Milky Way. And he is indoctrinated anyways. No idea what the Reapers think about going there but Cerberus inAndromeda opens up the questions about their hidden masters.

[themikefest]

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.

If Bioware announces this will be a trilogy, I will wait for the third game and buy it to know what happened in the previous 2. Look at the money I will save

[LinksOcarina]

No, the rachni doesn't break the lore because for over a thousand years it was genuinely believed by everyone that the rachni were extinct.  The discovery of an egg simply demonstrated that the assumption was wrong.  This does not alter the existence of the Rachni war, or the uplifting of the krogan to fight them, or the genocidal war they fought to eradicate them.

 

Thermal clips are a violation of the lore , since it involved an instantaneous galaxy-wide shift to this new technology including apparently going back in time to stock them on a ship that crashed on an uninhabited world ten years prior.

 

Lore can be incomplete.  But it is not fluid.  If it were, then it wouldn't be lore.  You would gain no deeper understanding of the setting or the characters from knowing it, as it could be altered at any time. 

 

Which it was regarding the fate of the Rachi. The history of the Rachni wars is contradicted by a live Rachi Queen on Noveria. The wars happened, but the result is incorrect in that way.

 

Once again, what is presented is a fallacy that the two are different, when they aren't.

 

But my point is again, it doesn't really matter. You gain an understanding of the world and the lore in what they present, and how it changes while you witness it. The point is it will be altered at any time in a lot of different ways, and has been since the first game because thats the point; it challenges the perceptions you are taught.

 

The thing seems to be whats acceptable and whats not by the definitions of the person playing, which makes the treatment of the lore wholly subjective. Like your thermal clip bit there, yeah it makes no sense Shepard would know what that is, I agree on that. But let's not pretend one does not equate the other here; introducing a long-dead species you are told is extinct in my example is not incomplete information. 

 

But again, old man links must harp on these silly things constantly it seems. 

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

[Fade9wayz]

I think that what worries most people here and drives them to speculate so much is not so much lore-breaking - as you said, it can be expanded upon - , but to find explanations for the travel that wouldn't completely break suspension of disbelief. The Lazarus project is a perfect example of this. It is not per se a violation of lore. It is however so completely unbelievable that even in such a magicky sci-fi universe as ME, it gives anyone pause.  A certain adherence to existing lore would make acceptance of the reasons for being in Andromeda easier.

[Il Divo]

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.
 

 

Granted, I don't have any desire to go back to the MW, but I don't think your reasons are necessarily problematic. I just think that the endings torched and burned the setting to the point where I'm not likely to enjoy the MW anymore. My point regarding Drone was simply that he's operating from an unsupported statement: namely, that the only way for Bioware to learn from their mistakes is to fix ME3's ending. Hence the burger comparisons: you don't need to continue cooking the same burger to learn from your mistakes. Simply don't make the next burger in the same way is usually much simpler.

 

Sorry, I tend to refer to the MW as the "main universe" mainly because Andromeda is often referred to as a soft reboot. In a sense, I think of it as an Elseworlds tale like you find in comics.

[Kabooooom]

No, the rachni doesn't break the lore because for over a thousand years it was genuinely believed by everyone that the rachni were extinct. The discovery of an egg simply demonstrated that the assumption was wrong. This does not alter the existence of the Rachni war, or the uplifting of the krogan to fight them, or the genocidal war they fought to eradicate them.

Thermal clips are a violation of the lore , since it involved an instantaneous galaxy-wide shift to this new technology including apparently going back in time to stock them on a ship that crashed on an uninhabited world ten years prior.

Lore can be incomplete. But it is not fluid. If it were, then it wouldn't be lore. You would gain no deeper understanding of the setting or the characters from knowing it, as it could be altered at any time.

There's no use trying to explain it, man. He has a fundamental misunderstanding about things and has created his own rules and definitions, and thus cannot be argued against in a sensible fashion.

[In Exile]

Which it was regarding the fate of the Rachi. The history of the Rachni wars is contradicted by a live Rachi Queen on Noveria. The wars happened, but the result is incorrect in that way.

Once again, what is presented is a fallacy that the two are different, when they aren't.

But my point is again, it doesn't really matter. You gain an understanding of the world and the lore in what they present, and how it changes while you witness it. The point is it will be altered at any time in a lot of different ways, and has been since the first game because thats the point; it challenges the perceptions you are taught.

The thing seems to be whats acceptable and whats not by the definitions of the person playing, which makes the treatment of the lore wholly subjective. Like your thermal clip bit there, yeah it makes no sense Shepard would know what that is, I agree on that. But let's not pretend one does not equate the other here; introducing a long-dead species you are told is extinct in my example is not incomplete information.

But again, old man links must harp on these silly things constantly it seems.

It's more than that: the war almost certainly happened because Sovereign indoctrinated them.

But people take "history is a lie" not to be a retcon when it happens in the same game the plot is introduced because they see it as the writers "meaning" it all along.

A better example is how ME1 can't decide if there's a galactic language or everyone uses translators, since it's closer to a point about technology than history.

A different and more confusing contradiction is ME1s suggestion Saren and Cerberus both have a stake in Binary Helix.

[Nethershadow]

Wrong.

 

By definition, new knowledge can always contradict the world that is built around that knowledge. New knowledge violates that rigid definition of lore because it says that information is wrong. Does it make sense that the Rachni still exist? Does it make sense that the knowledge we gain from this changes our perspective of the established story accordingly?

 

In other words, if you have new knowledge, you have new perspective on events and things that have happened. If you are taught that something is so, and that new knowledge changes your thoughts about it, you are now contradicting what you are taught. It's teaching 101; what you know is not necessarily what you think you know. There is always something that can change that thought process.

 

Your other example is the same thing as the Rachni. The only issue is the Rachni got resolved and is accepted because it's not hard science it seems. I doubt we shall see FTL drives that can warp of course. Yet, if they add Reaper tech to ships so they can have little personal mass effect drives, then the lore is again, changed to reflect that change. That is your new information your looking for. 

 

So the two are the same, to argue one is not contradicting is a fallacy. 

You and I, plus a few others have different interpretations to what 'Lore' is. The Lore is not 'contradicted' when there is additional information, it just adds to what is there. When it is too extreme it is contrived. So with the Rachni egg, it doesn't invalidate the lore or the history, it just adds but how well determines how much pressure it puts on immersion. 

 

The thermal clip thing is a retcon that's pushed and said this is how we want it, so pretend it was always this way.

 

I also think your missing some of the points to what these threads are about, which is a big part is speculating based on what we know. If you have a fanbase that are all wracking their brains to what possible story could they use to make sense, deductive reasoning is giving us a good idea of how they will proceed as it's unlikely the handful of writers at BW are going to come up with some solution that we haven't, because you know our confidence in them has been shaken.

 

And yes, the game is probably at a point where very little can be changed, but I have been still hearing how BW has been going around and having secret meetings with fans to get feedback, which suggests everything is not set in stone as of yet. And feedback on what fans think I would always think is welcome, even when they don't want to hear it.

[In Exile]

You and I, plus a few others have different interpretations to what 'Lore' is. The Lore is not 'contradicted' when there is additional information, it just adds to what is there. When it is too extreme it is contrived.

 

The thermal clip thing is a retcon that's pushed and said this is how we want it, so pretend it was always this way.

 

I also think your missing some of the points to what these threads are about, which is a big part is speculating based on what we know. If you have a fanbase that are all wracking their brains to what possible story could they use to make sense, deductive reasoning is giving us a good idea of how they will proceed as it's unlikely the handful of writers at BW are going to come up with some solution that we haven't, because you know our confidence in them has been shaken.

 

And yes, the game is probably at a point where very little can be changed, but I have been still hearing how BW has been going around and having secret meetings with fans to get feedback, which suggests everything is not set in stone as of yet. And feedback on what fans think I would always think is welcome, even when they don't want to hear it.

 

It's silly to get so up in arms about the thermal clip bit. This whole no-ammo thing was just nonsense invented to justify a mechanic that didn't have reloads to pander to a particular crowd. Then Bioware realized their gameplay sucks, and needed to make a change. But since people start to froth at the mouth if they just say "there was ammo all along, better gameplay if we do that", since everyone will say "retcon!", they tried to make nice by inventing a justification. But that's not good enough, apparently. 

 

When you invent nonsense to justify a gameplay mechanic, you're going to need to throw that nonsense away for new nonsense when you need to change the gameplay to have a fun game. 

[shodiswe]

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.

The Ark was probably constructed after the destruction of Sovereign, the Citadel archives shows that the council did indeed belive the Reapers were real but it was classifeid on the heighest level, Spectres and up could access it, meaning, Spectres going through the archives, or Councilors. A Spectre would need Council clearence to gain access to begin with. (to avoid panic, they also didn't want to edknowledge it in the council Chambers because they had an audience and were being monitored)
Point is, they knew it was a problem that was about to hit them and that thousands of species had been wiped out Before them. Ofcourse they did something.

And as I've said Before, gradeschool physics can solve the disscharge problem, the problem isn't science, it's the commonly used spaceship design that makes sense for short range vessels utilising Reaper Relays.

All you have to do is redesign the core discharge system to instead radiate the charge, rather than conducting or grounding it. And ensure that it can't transfer the energy into the crew section or other sensitive areas.(all of which is easily done if you so desire). You will have to build new ships however, that are designed for long range travel through the vacum of space and disscharge on their own.

I'm guessing this is what the Reapers did, they disscharged in space which is why they didn't need to heatsink or disscharge as often as the ships of the council races.

The Reapers wanted all species to build simpler ships that were dependant on the Relays for travel sicne that made it easier to Clean up the petridish once each experimental run was over. So the Tech left behind would be capsuled ships that disscharge around and on planets to contain travel within tight star clusters. That way they could Cleans one cluster at a time and keep the relays shut down. Like they always did up until this cycle...

After the Ark was completed the Council races started diverting Resources to the Crusible as they became available. Remember, the Asari didn't start sharing Resources until after the fall of Tessia. So it's not an either or deal. The Crusible didn't show up as viable until after the invasion and after Shepard brought the plans from Mars. By which time the Ark would have been mostly completed, or Ark fleet, which ever the case might be.

I prefer the slow way of travel since it's the least space magicy and can be explained using known lore and gradeschool physics to solve the problem of discharging via Radiation.

You will have to excuse the Council for trying soemthing extreme, for the sake of survival, after all, the Reapers had been exterminating thousands of civilisations Before them, what were their chances of survival of their only solution would have been to fight? Close to 0 in any projection I would believe.

[MrFob]

The thermal clip thing is a retcon that's pushed and said this is how we want it, so pretend it was always this way.

While I agree that the thermal clip thing was handled very badly, this is not the case. BW did acknowledge a couple of times in later works that the thermal clips were introduced in universe sometime between 2183 and 2185.
There is a codex entry about it and a conversation with Conrad Verner in ME3. The fact that you find them on Jacob's loyalty mission is the only real "contradiction" to this I know of and even that could be explained with lot's of effort.

 
In fact, I'd say that ME has very few outright retcons and lore-breaks. The problem with ME's consistency is not that they outright contradict themselves but rather that they like to change a ot of stuff and then use ludicrous and IMO unbelievable explanations to justify the change. They often seem to write backwards, starting to think about the result they want before thinking about how to get there and than they force their way that result. But they do try to give explanations.
Look at Zaeed as the perfect example. He was introduced via DLC and they wanted him to be the founder of the Blue Suns. Unfortunately, the Blue Suns already had a backstory from the main game, plus, if you read Revelation, this makes no sense at all. However, BW wanted it so, so it was declared that everything we knew about the Blue Suns before was false information, even in-universe and the new story was the right one.
 
Is that a break of lore? Technically no. Is it a good way to deal with the story and the worldbuilding? In my opinion not at all!
But LinksOcarin is not wrong when he says that this is a subjective viewpoint. The problem is, you can justify any actual lore breaking with contrivances within the universe but you do so by stretching thin the believability of your setting. I am almost certain that we will see another contrivance to explain how we will get to Andromeda.I guess one of the points of the discussion that has been going on in this thread was that we were thinking of ways to keep the contrivance as feasible as possible under the circumstances, therefore thinking of ways to preserve the believability of the setting and the entire reason why this discussion kept going is because there are multiple subjective viewpoints on how to do it.

 

It is clear that the writers can do whatever they want. If they want to write that the tooth fairy was discovered on one of Jupiter's moons and she sent us to Andromeda, they can of course do it and technically it would not violate existing lore. However, it might be better to come up with something that is more rooted in this universe IMO.

[Nethershadow]

While I agree that the thermal clip thing was handled very badly, this is not the case. BW did acknowledge a couple of times in later works that the thermal clips were introduced in universe sometime between 2183 and 2185.
There is a codex entry about it and a conversation with Conrad Verner in ME3. The fact that you find them on Jacob's loyalty mission is the only real "contradiction" to this I know of and even that could be explained with lot's of effort.
 
In fact, I'd say that ME has very few outright retcons and lore-breaks. The problem with ME's consistency is not that they outright contradict themselves but rather that they like to change a ot of stuff and then use ludicrous and IMO unbelievable explanations to justify the change.They often seem to write backwards, starting to think about the result they want before thinking about how to get there and than they force their way that result. But they do try to give explanations.
Look at Zaeed as the perfect example. He was introduced via DLC and they wanted him to be the founder of the Blue Suns. Unfortunately, the Blue Suns already had a backstory from the main game, plus, if you read Revelation, this makes no sense at all. However, BW wanted it so, so it was declared that everything we knew about the Blue Suns before was false information, even in-universe and the new story was the right one.
 
Is that a break of lore? Technically no. Is it a good way to deal with the story and the worldbuilding? In my opinion not at all!
But LinksOcarin is not wrong when he says that this is a subjective viewpoint. The problem is, you can justify any actual lore breaking with contrivances within the universe but you do so by stretching thin the believability of your setting. I am almost certain that we will see another contrivance to explain how we will get to Andromeda.I guess one of the points of the discussion that has been going on in this thread was that we were thinking of ways to keep the contrivance as feasible as possible under the circumstances, therefore thinking of way to preserve the believability of the setting and the entire reason why this discussion kept going is because there are multiple subjective viewpoints on how to do it.

 

It is clear that the writers can do whatever they want. If they want to write in that the tooth fairy was discovered on one of Jupiter's moons and she sent us there, they can of course do it and technically it would not violate existing lore. However, it might be better to come up with something that is more rooted in this universe IMO.

Overall this ^ was essentially what I was trying to say, though maybe you said it better.

 

And to add, even though writers can create anything they want, when they stretch the lore thin like how we are going to get to Andromeda, if they choose a non-plausible way then it just becomes another loss of confidence in the writers and the games story, and after you get to many of such occurrences you will see the game flop and be considered a failure. Though how many it takes for that to happen is another question. So lets hope the writers stay away from the tooth fairies.

 

As for LinksOcarins view of lore, I don't really agree with how he explains it.

[LinksOcarina]

There's no use trying to explain it, man. He has a fundamental misunderstanding about things and has created his own rules and definitions, and thus cannot be argued against in a sensible fashion.

 

And now we go to passive-aggressiveness. How quaint. And pathetic.

 

 

You and I, plus a few others have different interpretations to what 'Lore' is. The Lore is not 'contradicted' when there is additional information, it just adds to what is there. When it is too extreme it is contrived. So with the Rachni egg, it doesn't invalidate the lore or the history, it just adds but how well determines how much pressure it puts on immersion. 

 

The thermal clip thing is a retcon that's pushed and said this is how we want it, so pretend it was always this way.

 

I also think your missing some of the points to what these threads are about, which is a big part is speculating based on what we know. If you have a fanbase that are all wracking their brains to what possible story could they use to make sense, deductive reasoning is giving us a good idea of how they will proceed as it's unlikely the handful of writers at BW are going to come up with some solution that we haven't, because you know our confidence in them has been shaken.

 

And yes, the game is probably at a point where very little can be changed, but I have been still hearing how BW has been going around and having secret meetings with fans to get feedback, which suggests everything is not set in stone as of yet. And feedback on what fans think I would always think is welcome, even when they don't want to hear it.

 

Oh I understand the points. It is what I call "cherry picking" though.

 

If were going to say something contrived is not "lore breaking" because it's either plausible in some form, or doesn't contradict the lore because it was ancient history, is what I would egregious error on the parts of those judging it.

 

That is where the subjectivity of the world comes into play. See, the problem again, which I feel like people understand but don't mind it, is that everything still changes. The real litmus test for people seems to be how drastic does it change? If were going to start weighing this stuff by degrees and what not, then it starts to get a bit nitpicky and tedious, saying this plot hole is not as important as that plot hole, and so forth, not to mention how were all going to formulate different conclusions in some form or another.

 

 

It's more than that: the war almost certainly happened because Sovereign indoctrinated them.

But people take "history is a lie" not to be a retcon when it happens in the same game the plot is introduced because they see it as the writers "meaning" it all along.

A better example is how ME1 can't decide if there's a galactic language or everyone uses translators, since it's closer to a point about technology than history.

A different and more confusing contradiction is ME1s suggestion Saren and Cerberus both have a stake in Binary Helix.

 

As a historian I attest to that, nothing is ever as it seems and I get why people are not surprised if those parts of the world change. But then that sort of logic would mean every single plot-point introduced in a game can change at any time if the writers wanted it to. It doesn't change the fact that it's still contradicting what is established as well. And you pretty much do what I said above, in trying to find "better examples."

 

It's all the same in the end. Our own perception of what is a bigger offense is what makes us search for "better examples", and it does not always match what others believe of course.

 

 

 

But LinksOcarin is not wrong when he says that this is a subjective viewpoint. The problem is, you can justify any actual lore breaking with contrivances within the universe but you do so by stretching thin the believability of your setting. I am almost certain that we will see another contrivance to explain how we will get to Andromeda.I guess one of the points of the discussion that has been going on in this thread was that we were thinking of ways to keep the contrivance as feasible as possible under the circumstances, therefore thinking of way to preserve the believability of the setting and the entire reason why this discussion kept going is because there are multiple subjective viewpoints on how to do it.

 

It is clear that the writers can do whatever they want. If they want to write in that the tooth fairy was discovered on one of Jupiter's moons and she sent us there, they can of course do it and technically it would not violate existing lore. However, it might be better to come up with something that is more rooted in this universe IMO.

 

Speculation is all well and good, but I don't think people will be surprised in the end when it involves something that no doubt will be seen as contrived and "lore breaking."

 

Which then makes this entire ordeal a circular argument which is not going to go anywhere I feel. 

[LinksOcarina]

 

 

As for LinksOcarins view of lore, I don't really agree with how he explains it.

 

I have that problem sometimes, thankfully when i'm in front of people it's easier to clarify. Whether or not people agree though is pretty irrelevant to the discussion if you ask me. 

[MrFob]

Speculation is all well and good, but I don't think people will be surprised in the end when it involves something that no doubt will be seen as contrived and "lore breaking."

 

Which then makes this entire ordeal a circular argument which is not going to go anywhere I feel. 

 

I wouldn't call what we do speculation, I'd call it "coming up with stuff". And no, I don't suspect that BW will give a whit what we say here on the board (which is probably for the best in most cases anyway). I am not doing it to influence development, I am just doing it for the fun of it.

 

EDIT: I should clarify here: I guess when we still thought the Cerberus News thing was genuine, we might have speculated but for the last 10 pages or so not anymore, at least I would expect any of our stuff here to show up in the game just like that.

[LinksOcarina]

I wouldn't call what we do speculation, I'd call it "coming up with stuff". And no, I don't suspect that BW will give a whit what we say here on the board (which is probably for the best in most cases anyway). I am not doing it to influence development, I am just doing it for the fun of it.

 

EDIT: I should clarify here: I guess when we still thought the Cerberus News thing was genuine, we might have speculated but for the last 10 pages or so not anymore, at least I would expect any of our stuff here to show up in the game just like that.

 

Doing it for the fun of it is always good then.

 

I feel like its more speculation vs brainstorming though.

[Wazzanut]

Its a pointless trip if its for resources, because they would never get them transported back.. If its purely for exploration the reasoning remains the same, no-one back home would ever know what you found. But what if the ARK was a space station monitoring a black hole.. Maybe sending messages and probes through... And one day receiving a message back. And perhaps the ARK isnt an actual Ark, what if its just an acronym that stands for something else.. Maybe were being too literal. Advanced Research K(Something)?