333 réponses à ce sujet

[Capt_Kangaroo]

They also had the Reaper tech for nearly a thousand years (on Thessia) and didn't share it.., could of easily built some thing like the ark or new type of relay and not let the rest of the galaxies know about it.

 

Cheers

[Hanako Ikezawa]

They also had the Reaper tech for nearly a thousand years (on Thessia) and didn't share it.., could of easily built some thing like the ark or new type of relay and not let the rest of the galaxies know about it.

 

Cheers

The Asari had Prothean tech, not Reaper tech. Huge difference. 

[Drone223]

Who is saying that?

 

We're saying it is using a line to justify the Ark. Come on. They made Leviathan after the fact to justify Starbrat. Leviathans, billions of years old should  have been part of the fossil record. But they weren't. They needed them because they screwed up the ending so bad and then compounded the problem with the EC.

 

Leviathan was something that should've been in the main game from the get go, the lack of proper build up was one of the many problems with the endings. While leviathan wouldn't fix the problems with the endings, the endings would at least have some form of build up. The whole ark thing will have no build up and therefore come off as jarring like the Lazarus project and original endings.

 

So this one line is an ass pull, but unlike Leviathan, it has some merit. It's no worse than any of the other crap we saw pulled during the trilogy. It's no worse than Vigil giving Shepard the magic data disk that overrode Saren's commands in ME1, in fact it's better than that because something like this could have been in the works.

 

 

No it doesn't, it'll be just as bad as the Lazarus project it'll come out of nowhere with no build up and its explanation hand waved. There's also the fact that the council did nothing in regards to Shepard's warnings on the reaper's. 

 

 

 

We all know that Bioware had no intention of writing another ME game after ME3. That ending was a "torch the franchise" ending. Even Mac Walters all but admitted it in February 2012.

 

Q: "Will there be any post ending DLC?"

Walters: "No. Why? It's a wasteland."

 

There was a 10,000 year dark age. We stopped the reapers but we blew up the galaxy.

 

Now, by popular demand, we get a new game. No one wanted a prequel or sidequel, so we get ME: Andromeda. And how does it get this way?

 

ARKCON. Ark Theory. "Continuity of civilization must be considered. I never thought this day would come."

 

Ass pull. We leave before the ending so we don't ever have to deal with the ending. Go for it.

 

IIRC before that Bioware stated that they'll be more ME games after the trilogy .

 

 

Get over it. The game is in Andromeda because they ruined the Milky Way.

The endings didn't ruin the ME, leaving the MW for good is what ruined it.

 

 

You can see the Crucible's effect spreading throughout the entire galaxy. And what sort of asspull reason could they come up to justify keeping us out of charted space that you wouldn't complain about?

 

Making one of the endings canon is a lot better than moving to another galaxy (moving to another galaxy is an asspull).

[Killroy]

The endings didn't ruin the ME, leaving the MW for good is what ruined it.

Right, because that makes perfect sense...   
 

Making one of the endings canon is a lot better than moving to another galaxy (moving to another galaxy is an asspull).

If by better you mean "1,500% worse because it undermines player choice, the core principle of the franchise" then yeah, totally.

[Drone223]

Right, because that makes perfect sense...   
 

Pretending the whole fiasco never happened in the first place is not a good way to continue with the franchise and that's what Bioware is doing.

 

 

If by better you mean "1,500% worse because it undermines player choice, the core principle of the franchise" then yeah, totally.

 

Except moving to another galaxy trivializes player choices in the trilogy and having 3-4 choices canon is preferable to having all of them made pointless.

[Sartoz]

Pretending the whole fiasco never happened in the first place is not a good way to continue with the franchise and that's what Bioware is doing.

 

 

Except moving to another galaxy trivializes player choices in the trilogy and having 3-4 choices canon is preferable to having all of them made pointless.

 

                                                                            <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

"Pretending the....."

Bio, unlike some fans, knows the trilogy is ended and is now moving on to better pastures.

 

"...another galaxy trivializes player choices..."

No. Choices is a game plot device, within the game and in this case, supposedly within the trilogy.  Choices and their consequences  was poorly handled by the writers. The EC did not, in my opinion, fix anything. It's realy unfixable for the purists. Better Bio leaves the trilogy undisturbed.

[Drone223]

                                                                         

"Pretending the....."

Bio, unlike some fans, knows the trilogy is ended and is now moving on to better pastures.

Except this is not the case, what Bioware is doing has more in common with starting a new IP then making a new installment in the series. Uts why some people are very skeptical about the upcoming title.

 

 

"...another galaxy trivializes player choices..."

No. Choices is a game plot device, within the game and in this case, supposedly within the trilogy.  Choices and their consequences  was poorly handled by the writers. The EC did not, in my opinion, fix anything. It's realy unfixable for the purists. Better Bio leaves the trilogy undisturbed.

 

Except the choices in the trilogy become meaningless since what happened in trilogy may as well not have happened at all. Then there the fact that some aspects of the trilogy are unresolved such as the political state of the galaxy after the war.

[Killroy]

Pretending the whole fiasco never happened in the first place is not a good way to continue with the franchise and that's what Bioware is doing.

Why rub your own nose in the poo on the floor? Why should BioWare be self-destructive?
 

Except moving to another galaxy trivializes player choices in the trilogy

In no way is that logical. Not unless you only played the trilogy to get to the fourth game.

"Everything I'm going in this trilogy had better be validated in a separate game, otherwise I've just been wasting my time!"
 

and having 3-4 choices canon is preferable to having all of them made pointless.

How are they pointless? See above. You made all of those decisions and played through a trilogy with a self-contained story. If they stopped at ME3 and never began a fourth game would you say that the trilogy is pointless since there's no direct continuation?

[Zana]

Pretty sure that's the point.  Keep the recognizable franchise but not have to deal with the baggage that has been built up over the course of 3 games.  Clean (mostly) slate, and is almost guarantee to attract the fans of the franchise.

 

There is a very good explanation as to why Shepard hears nothing other than the possible vague line from the Councillor.  It has been stated that Reapers tended to comb through any data left by the harvested civilizations to find the 'safe' pockets.  So the less information shared with people who aren't going to be on the Ark, the better.

[shodiswe]

Except this is not the case, what Bioware is doing has more in common with starting a new IP then making a new installment in the series. Uts why some people are very skeptical about the upcoming title.
 
Except the choices in the trilogy become meaningless since what happened in trilogy may as well not have happened at all. Then there the fact that some aspects of the trilogy are unresolved such as the political state of the galaxy after the war.

The political situation in the galaxy or the same after the war was never the main focalpoint of the Trilogy. However it did contain several tidbits to build up the lore and setting for the trilogy. It wasn't a political manuscript.

It was a game about survival, adventure, interaction with interesting characters. To a certain degree a lot of the trilogy was a survival horror.

I would have loved to explore the post-war setting, but I can see the difficulty of doing that in any meaningful way given the endings and how that would transfer all of your choices in such a way that it would be unmanagable for just about any devs. It was likely hard enough transfering all the ME1 chocies to ME2 and then on to ME3, just immagine bringing them over to a new trilogy where people expect their choices in the new trilogy to matter.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

"But everything was fixed in 30 days. The worlds were restored and everything was farting rainbows and unicorns in all the endings! It said so in the EC. Didn't you see the slides?"

 

See this is where the EC actually broke the endings even worse. We went from a galactic wasteland and 10,000 year dark age in all of the endings - "Releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy the mass relays." - to farting rainbows and unicorns in the Extended Cut within what appears to be weeks after the end of the war. The galactic economy must have been more robust than they gave everyone credit. Building that destroyed industry from the ground up must have been a simple task, but with space magic anything is possible.

 

Who can take the sunrise

Sprinkle it with dew

Cover it in chocolate

And a miracle or two

The candy man

 

But which one do we choose? Synthesis? Control? or Dead Reapers? Decisions decisions decisions. We can't do one. And we can't do all  of  them because that would  really be dumb.

 

I  know let's sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened in the first place. Let's just say that because Shepard was with Cerberus that the Council simply didn't tell him/her about the Ark project. How about that? Makes sense to me.

 

It's better than the alternative. Our choices matter. We're going to Andromeda before the reapers kill us all.

[Drone223]

Why rub your own nose in the poo on the floor? Why should BioWare be self-destructive?
 

Its not, Bioware should face their mistakes instead of running away from them and have their problems catch up to them eventually.

 

 

In no way is that logical. Not unless you only played the trilogy to get to the fourth game.

"Everything I'm going in this trilogy had better be validated in a separate game, otherwise I've just been wasting my time!"

 

Its wasted potential the MW clearly has a lot to offer in terms off stories that can be told and its never going to be used its hard to care about the MW if its going to be ditched for good.

 

How are they pointless? See above. You made all of those decisions and played through a trilogy with a self-contained story. If they stopped at ME3 and never began a fourth game would you say that the trilogy is pointless since there's no direct continuation?

 

IF there were no more games being made then the state of the series will be left the way the trilogy ends. But since the series is continuing there is no way the MW is going to be the way it is after the trilogy forever. At lot things can happen after the trilogy in the ME and there will be no way to know about them since its going to be ditched for good.

 

Pretty sure that's the point.  Keep the recognizable franchise but not have to deal with the baggage that has been built up over the course of 3 games.  Clean (mostly) slate, and is almost guarantee to attract the fans of the franchise.

 

Except Bioware is removing a good amount of what made the series recognizable in the first place.

 

 

There is a very good explanation as to why Shepard hears nothing other than the possible vague line from the Councillor.  It has been stated that Reapers tended to comb through any data left by the harvested civilizations to find the 'safe' pockets.  So the less information shared with people who aren't going to be on the Ark, the better.

 

The problem is that there is no build up at all for the ark and the fact that Bioware didn't come up with the idea at the time of ME3's development. So its hard to see that one vague line as definitive proof for the existence of an ark.

[Killroy]

Its not, Bioware should face their mistakes instead of running away from them and have their problems catch up to them eventually.
 
Its wasted potential the MW clearly has a lot to offer in terms off stories that can be told and its never going to be used its hard to care about the MW if its going to be ditched for good.
 
IF there were no more games being made then the state of the series will be left the way the trilogy ends. But since the series is continuing there is no way the MW is going to be the way it is after the trilogy forever. At lot things can happen after the trilogy in the ME and there will be no way to know about them since its going to be ditched for good.

Again, none of this is logical. What are these stories and what is this potential that ONLY exists in the Milky Way and why is continuing the series in a new setting effecting the original trilogy in any way? The trilogy still happened exactly the way it happened and the ending is the same as it ever was. You cannot make a coherent argument that Andromeda impacts your trilogy experience because it makes ZERO sense. Move on.

[rapscallioness]

Walters: "No. Why? It's a wasteland."

 

This guy, I swear. Sometimes I really get the feeling he does not like what he's doing. Thinks it's beneath him. Resents the players, and has no sensitivity.

 

That was some traumatic shite, and it's like he does not even get it. Does not want to get it. And I confess, the fact that he's..what is it now? ...Creative-narrative director? It really gives me pause because frankly idk if I trust him. I don't feel "Safe" with him because I feel like he actively dislikes me as a player. And will take it out on my PC.

 

I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but seeing that just rustles my proverbial jimmies all over again.

 

Um, yeah. Look, a post Reaper war setting in the MW held alot of potential if they could have pulled it off. But they are not doing that. It's over. That's not gonna change no matter how much you b!tch all over the forum about it. My God.

 

As to OP, yes, I think what the Councilor said could be used as a viable tie in. However, that does not mean it was necessarily a Council/Gov't endeavor.  Tevos could well have gone to private, or semi-private interests for such a project.

 

But honestly, I think it would take more time than that to build such a project. Maybe...there was already something in the works from awhile ago, and it was just a matter of greenlighting the final stages....?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

See they get us into Andromeda, then in about 2024 when everyone has forgotten about the Shepard trilogy, they announce they're bring us back to the Milky Way! This happens in 2028There are new Mass Effect fans and they can simply ignore all evidence that Shepard ever existed. They can rewrite the lore so  that it was the Protheans that built the Mass Relays, and their  empire just collapsed about 25000 years ago. And we find out that the Protheans were the Turians, and the Turian Hierarchy is all that's left of them. Only a small minority of the fans will remember and care. That's 13 years from now. Don't you see the genius in this?

[NaclynE]

After Thessia falls, the asari councillor says "they must take precautions to ensure continuity of civilization."

Now I don't know much about the ark theory or what people been saying about the ark theory, but do you think that's what she's talking about?

 

well I know the asari have been around far longer than us so it seems like how like Noah from the bible they have everything about themselves stashed somewhere or everywhere. I know unlike our civilization they have kept their history documented and unlike us they have never once tried to destroy their own history in any form ranging from statues and documents.

[Drone223]

Again, none of this is logical. What are these stories and what is this potential that ONLY exists in the Milky Way and why is continuing the series in a new setting effecting the original trilogy in any way? The trilogy still happened exactly the way it happened and the ending is the same as it ever was. You cannot make a coherent argument that Andromeda impacts your trilogy experience because it makes ZERO sense. Move on.

The act of moving to another galaxy alone render's player choices in the trilogy meaningless since there isn't much of a reason to save the MW anymore. Then there's the fact that people will begin to wonder what is happening in the MW because there is no definitive answer to what happened to it  so there will still be no sense of closure for the trilogy.

[Red Panda]

After Thessia falls, the asari councillor says "they must take precautions to ensure continuity of civilization."

Now I don't know much about the ark theory or what people been saying about the ark theory, but do you think that's what she's talking about?

Honestly, it could be anything, but occam's razor says you might be on to something if that is the simplest answer.

 

 

aka, nice catch.

[Undead Han]

Only if the hypothetical Ark is a council endeavour rather than a private affair. Mac seems to be generally anti-government competency so I wouldn't expect this to be a government project.

 

You might be right...

 

On that note lets hope it isn't a project started by rogue Cerberus scientists. 

[Chealec]

Except this is not the case, what Bioware is doing has more in common with starting a new IP then making a new installment in the series. Uts why some people are very skeptical about the upcoming title...

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

I'm perfectly happy for it to be a brand new property set in the ME universe... I also quite liked Star Trek: DS9

[Newt]

I've seen some people mention about this before, but no. she was talking about retreating from thessia. because there wasn't any hope left for saving thessia and they started to leave the planet. (they had some other colonies right?) I think traynor said something about this after the mission.

also sorry for my bad english :/

[Killroy]

The act of moving to another galaxy alone render's player choices in the trilogy meaningless since there isn't much of a reason to save the MW anymore.

Again, completely illogical. Makes no sense whatsoever. Should I hate Die Hard now that A Good Day To Die Hard has stabbed me in the brain? No, because that's completely stupid.

Then there's the fact that people will begin to wonder what is happening in the MW because there is no definitive answer to what happened to it  so there will still be no sense of closure for the trilogy.

Again, how is it any different than if they never made another Mass Effect game? If they just left it without making Andromeda there would be no room for wonder or discussion? Suddenly the ending of ME3 is different and lacking enough closure because the next game won't address it?

Your arguments are silly.

[Drone223]

Again, completely illogical. Makes no sense whatsoever. Should I hate Die Hard now that A Good Day To Die Hard has stabbed me in the brain? No, because that's completely stupid.
 

It isn't, it'[s hard to care about saving a the MW in the trilogy if its going to be ditched for good and making everything Shepard did in the trilogy pointless.

 

Again, how is it any different than if they never made another Mass Effect game? If they just left it without making Andromeda there would be no room for wonder or discussion? Suddenly the ending of ME3 is different and lacking enough closure because the next game won't address it?

Your arguments are silly.

 

If the ME3 was the end of the series then what happened at the end would be the end all be all for the series. But this is not the case and people will began to wonder what's happening to the MW after the trilogy and Bioware can't ignore it forever because people are going to continue asking them what happened.

[Drone223]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

It is bad thing.

 

I'm perfectly happy for it to be a brand new property set in the ME universe... I also quite liked Star Trek: DS9

 

Apples and oranges DS9 was set in the same galaxy as the other star trek series, it didn't ditch the established setting completely. ME:A is ditching the ME for good it might as well be a new IP.

[Killroy]

It isn't, it'[s hard to care about saving a the MW in the trilogy if its going to be ditched for good and making everything Shepard did in the trilogy pointless.

A new title in a new location retroactively makes the trilogy pointless? How? Has EA developed time travel technology, to bend time and space and ruin your Mass Effect experience before it began?
Listen to how silly you're being. You played the trilogy. You had a complete experience. No sequel can have any effect on that. Even if they rebooted the series and did a canon wipe, your experience with the trilogy would still be the same as it ever was.
 

If the ME3 was the end of the series then what happened at the end would be the end all be all for the series. But this is not the case and people will began to wonder what's happening to the MW after the trilogy and Bioware can't ignore it forever because people are going to continue asking them what happened.

So you had no questions or thoughts on what happened after the epilogue but now that Andromeda is forthcoming nothing else but those thoughts and question matter?
This is maddeningly stupid.