74 réponses à ce sujet

[PlatonicWaffles]

As cool as the Ark theory is in concept, I really don't want this brand new title in an entirely new setting, with all new characters, races and more to be tied to the events of 3.

 

Personally, I really want Andromeda to take place at least a few centuries after the events of the trilogy, which would be history at that time. The outcome of the Reaper war (one of the three endings) wouldn't have to be clarified (because regardless of the outcome, centuries on it'll just be daily life for the galaxy), allowing BioWare to go back to the Milky Way at will in future installments, rather than leaving the galaxy a mess that they won't clean up. 

 

Of course though, it's just my opinion and I'm sure many will disagree, but personally I hope Andromeda is entirely unrelated to the events of 3.

[Killroy]

A few centuries wouldn't make every living thing in the galaxy being cyberorganic feel the same as the Reapers being controlled by AI Shepard.
The endings are too different to just smoosh them into one mess of a setting. This is just a fact.

[Wulfram]

I think it should be about 2.5 million years in the future

[Chardonney]

I hope the they leave during ME3. Then the endings don't need to addressed, either. Leaving long time after ME3 isn't the only option.

[Killroy]

I hope the they leave during ME3. Then the endings don't need to addressed, either. Leaving long time after ME3 isn't the only option.

They could leave during the events of ME3 and end up in the Andromeda galaxy millions of years later if they travel through a wormhole. Hell, they could have hyper-evolved Milky Way races in the Andromeda galaxy before the ark even arrives if they went that route. That could explain the funky looking Krogan we saw last year.

[Andrew Lucas]

If they won't simplify the endings, like what happens with most of our choices, seems plausible that we start during the events of ME3, and then the years passes, and for some reason, we won't hear anything from the Milky Way, lost contact. I honestly have no idea how Bioware is doing it.

[Former_Fiend]

A few centuries wouldn't make every living thing in the galaxy being cyberorganic feel the same as the Reapers being controlled by AI Shepard.
The endings are too different to just smoosh them into one mess of a setting. This is just a fact.

 

This, pretty much.

 

Doesn't matter how long after the events of ME3 the game takes place. Unless you have some new enemy come in that completely wipes out the Reapers under Cat-Shep's control, or completely wipes out the friendly reapers and manages to reverse synthesis, then we're still going to be dealing with the fallout of ME3's ending. 

 

The only way around that is having the expedition to Andromeda leave before the ending. It can still take place long, long after the orig trig ends as it can take a long time to travel between galaxies, but the initial launch has to take place prior to that.

[Jay P]

As cool as the Ark theory is in concept, I really don't want this brand new title in an entirely new setting, with all new characters, races and more to be tied to the events of 3.

Personally, I really want Andromeda to take place at least a few centuries after the events of the trilogy, which would be history at that time. The outcome of the Reaper war (one of the three endings) wouldn't have to be clarified (because regardless of the outcome, centuries on it'll just be daily life for the galaxy), allowing BioWare to go back to the Milky Way at will in future installments, rather than leaving the galaxy a mess that they won't clean up.

Of course though, it's just my opinion and I'm sure many will disagree, but personally I hope Andromeda is entirely unrelated to the events of 3.

I want a clean break.

No Shepard.

No reapers.

No cerebus.

No former companions (or at least none that appeared in ME3).

No call backs.

No returning to the Milky Way.

No reference to any of the endings in ME3.

New Galaxy.

New protagonist.

New enemies.

[Linkenski]

I think it will be set 200 years or so after the events of the trilogy.

[Cyonan]

They aren't sending us to an entirely new galaxy just so they can tie everything back into the original trilogy.

 

The point of it all is to get away from the events surrounding Shep because it would get too messy to account for every single variation of choice the player was allowed to make.

[Sidney]

It won't matter if it is 5 days for 5 centuries after ME3 because they will be so physically isolated from the Milky Way the previous series will have no effect on what is happening.

I suspect that there will be some space magic-y reason this is a one way trip (the drive only has enough fuel or whatever) and/or there is no communication back with the MW so the Reapers don't find out there are escapees.

There will be a clean break with the old series. The only connections will be races and technology.

[Broganisity]

I think it should take place in the year 2525. . .if man is still alive, anyways.

------------

In all seriousness though, if it weren't for the idiocy of the Refusal Ending, I'd make it canon if we ever return to the Milky Way (thus see more new races and either warn them, go to war with them, or both!). . .or make Shepard's death at the Suicide Mission Canon, and replace the effort on the Crucible Project with that of the Ark Project. . .or whatever gets us to Andromeda.

But, in the end, I'd say never returning is the safest bet.

[Former_Fiend]

If it were me, I'd make a full paragon, high EMS refusal ending canon. That preserves the most of the Milky Way to escape with the ARK project, but raises the steaks of the new trilogy. Any other ending and the ARK project failing isn't that huge of a deal. Sure, thousands(presumably) of people will die and that'll be sad, but with a canon refusal ending, if the ARK project fails, then the last hope of galactic civilization dies with it.

 

For the record, I say this as someone who believes that a high EMS refusal ending is the best ending(from a thematic standpoint) for the original trilogy when looked at as a single, complete story. We win, though the victory was hardfought and didn't come without sacrifice. The Reapers are destroyed forever, but we can rebuild. There's the uncertainty of another synthetic rebellion at some point in the future, but over all the ending is optimistic in our ability to rebuild and move forward with self determination. All things considered, I think it's the best wrap up.

 

But since the franchise as a whole isn't wrapped up and is moving forward, I'd go refusal.

[Killroy]

If it were me, I'd make a full paragon, high EMS refusal ending canon. That preserves the most of the Milky Way to escape with the ARK project, but raises the steaks of the new trilogy. Any other ending and the ARK project failing isn't that huge of a deal. Sure, thousands(presumably) of people will die and that'll be sad, but with a canon refusal ending, if the ARK project fails, then the last hope of galactic civilization dies with it.
 
For the record, I say this as someone who believes that a high EMS refusal ending is the best ending(from a thematic standpoint) for the original trilogy when looked at as a single, complete story. We win, though the victory was hardfought and didn't come without sacrifice. The Reapers are destroyed forever, but we can rebuild. There's the uncertainty of another synthetic rebellion at some point in the future, but over all the ending is optimistic in our ability to rebuild and move forward with self determination. All things considered, I think it's the best wrap up.
 
But since the franchise as a whole isn't wrapped up and is moving forward, I'd go refusal.

...you know that refusal and destroy aren't the same, right?

[Salarian Master Race]

great, you woke him up again

[Former_Fiend]

...you know that refusal and destroy aren't the same, right?

 

Yeah, Refusal is us losing because Shepard refused to play the Catalyst's game. That's fine, that's a respectable decision given the information s/he had at the time that any of this could be a trap, or a simple unwillingness to deliberately commit genocide in the case of the destroy ending.

 

My point being that while I believe high EMS Destroy is the best wrap up for the trilogy, that opinion is based on the idea of the trilogy standing on it's own and nothing coming after it. With the knowledge that there's going to be at least one more game set afterwards, and working under the assumption that the expedition to Andromeda is a contingency plan against the reapers, I think Refusal works best going forward into the Andromeda galaxy.

 

Any of the other endings, even low EMS destroy where the krogan are extinct, potentially both the geth and the quarians are extinct, and the relays are beat all to hell, you still have civilization in the Milky Way. It's fractured and it's going to take a lot longer to rebuild, and it's going to be crippled for centuries, but it's there. In High EMS Destroy it's back on it's feet in a couple decades. In control and synthesis, if the ending slides are to be believed, it's goddamn thriving with the Reapers acting either as our invincible guardians or our helpful, willing allies.

 

My point being that all of the endings kind of lower the stakes for Andromeda if we're going to escape the Reapers. If we fail in Andromeda and all get wiped out by the Khet or the Remnant or whoever, then, yeah, that's sad all those people died, but life goes on in the Milky Way, presumably never knowing. Which has a kind of tragedy to it, I suppose, but isn't a kind I like or find particularly enthralling.

 

And if we succeed, same thing. Great, we've established a new civilization, made new alliances and defeated new enemies, but life is going on in the Milky Way, not knowing and not caring. At least one assumes they don't know because if they do, then that opens up the question about why, in the control and synthesis endings, they don't send the Reapers after us - presumably, so long as we aren't going via actual reaper tech, the Reapers could beat us there. So if there was anyone in the Milky Way who knew about the ARK project, they'd presumably send someone after us once we beat the Reapers to let us know "it's ok, guys, we won, you can come back!" and we can declare all this Khet and Remnant nonsense not our problem.

 

So, yeah, to repeat, in my opinion, Destroy is the best ending for the trilogy on it's own, but Refusal is the best ending for the trilogy going forward into Andromeda.

 

Again, just one man's opinion.

[Killroy]

You kept calling destroy refusal, dude.

[Former_Fiend]

...So I did.

 

Been a little sleep deprived lately, taking care of my nephew. Seems that's starting to catch up with me.

[SetecAstronomy]

 

And if we succeed, same thing. Great, we've established a new civilization, made new alliances and defeated new enemies, but life is going on in the Milky Way, not knowing and not caring. At least one assumes they don't know because if they do, then that opens up the question about why, in the control and synthesis endings, they don't send the Reapers after us - presumably, so long as we aren't going via actual reaper tech, the Reapers could beat us there. So if there was anyone in the Milky Way who knew about the ARK project, they'd presumably send someone after us once we beat the Reapers to let us know "it's ok, guys, we won, you can come back!" and we can declare all this Khet and Remnant nonsense not our problem.

 

So, yeah, to repeat, in my opinion, Destroy is the best ending for the trilogy on it's own, but Refusal is the best ending for the trilogy going forward into Andromeda.

 

Again, just one man's opinion.

 It's late, so apologies if I misunderstood your post, but wouldn't that work both ways? Refusal is the only ending whereby the Reapers continue as they have always been. If their complete harvesting goes as it has in previous cycles, surely they would learn of The Andromeda Mission from indoctrinated Milky Wayers left behind. Which means that, however unlikely we would see it, there would always be the potential of Reapers showing up in Andromeda Galaxy in the future. Every other ending besides Refusal ensures that Reapers will not be an issue going forward, IMO.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I think it should take place in the year 2525. . .if man is still alive, anyways.

Of course man is still alive in 2525. That's when the Covenant start waging war against them. 

[Battlebloodmage]

Meh, just make Destroy ending canon and call it a day. One of my pet peeves of JRPG, pretend to give choices but canonize an ending in the next game. 

[Killroy]

Meh, just make Destroy ending canon and call it a day. One of my pet peeves of JRPG, pretend to give choices but canonize an ending in the next game.

So you want them to do the thing you don't like?

[Battlebloodmage]

So you want them to do the thing you don't like?

What?

[J. Finley]

I don't think you have anything to worry about, if the whole point of Andromeda is to establish a presence in the new galaxy there wouldn't be a reason to return to the Milky Way.

[shodiswe]

As cool as the Ark theory is in concept, I really don't want this brand new title in an entirely new setting, with all new characters, races and more to be tied to the events of 3.
 
Personally, I really want Andromeda to take place at least a few centuries after the events of the trilogy, which would be history at that time. The outcome of the Reaper war (one of the three endings) wouldn't have to be clarified (because regardless of the outcome, centuries on it'll just be daily life for the galaxy), allowing BioWare to go back to the Milky Way at will in future installments, rather than leaving the galaxy a mess that they won't clean up. 
 
Of course though, it's just my opinion and I'm sure many will disagree, but personally I hope Andromeda is entirely unrelated to the events of 3.

By that logic they can still go back in later installments. The timing of Andromeda seems unimporant if that's all it's about. Just put the later installments in the far future where everyone is cyberneticly enhanced, be it Synthesis or no.