588 réponses à ce sujet

[N7Jamaican]

They won't hand wave ME1-3.

[FKA_Servo]

They won't hand wave ME1-3.

 

They should, though.

[N7Jamaican]

They should, though.

 

They won't, because they will alienate the majority of their fanbase.  If they, I'd be totally surprised.  I would be upset, but I'd get over it eventually.

[Ahriman]

Even though the Broker had lost some agents (and lost contact with others), she still seemed to manage to scavenge materials needed for the Crucible. Impact on galactic economy: practically zero.

He also ignores the fact that asari contributed zero credits worth of materials to Crucible until Fall of Thessia, but try to explain that to him.

[DextroDNA]

They should, though.

Why? Fair enough hand-waving the end of ME3 (even if I'm not completely happy with that), but why ignore the events of 1 and 2?

[FKA_Servo]

They won't, because they will alienate the majority of their fanbase.  If they, I'd be totally surprised.  I would be upset, but I'd get over it eventually.

 

I think it's impossible to alienate their fanbase any more than they already have. And, as has been established ad nauseam, there's no way to reconcile the three endings.

 

Besides, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Shepard's story is over, either way. I don't see how a different story, set in a different part of the same fictional universe, with different characters, is something to be upset about. What else are we expecting?

 

Why? Fair enough hand-waving the end of ME3 (even if I'm not completely happy with that), but why ignore the events of 1 and 2?

 

Why shouldn't they? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any way in which the events of ME1 would have any bearing on what might happen (possibly far) in the future, in another galaxy. ME2 was dumb, and it didn't have anything to do with ME1 (or ME3 for that matter).

 

Honestly, ME2 and ME3 just poisoned the well. They negate pretty much everything positive established by ME!. I'm fine with them referencing it as far as "We're escaping the reapers" but otherwise, I don't think there should be any callbacks. It needs an untainted fresh start.

[AlanC9]

Its not ME FTL is accepted as part of how the ME universe operates as long as FTL operates within the laws of the ME universe then its not a problem. If something breaks those laws that's when the problems start.

This is profoundly silly. Since the Reaper drives work, they obviously don't violate the actual physical laws of the MEU. Just the ones that the organics knew about before the Reapers showed up.

This is no different from standard mass effect FTL drives, which violate the physical laws that humans knew about before discovering eezo.

[Killroy]

The crucible is draining a lot of the galaxies resources they can't afford to build and ark along side it since it would have a similar scale.

How the hell do you know? Cerberus was able to create the largest and most well supplied army in the galaxy while an invasion was happening so clearly the Crucible isn't sucking up every resource in the galaxy.
You make all these harebrained assumptions and expect everyone to just go along with them.

[AlanC9]

I think it's impossible to alienate their fanbase any more than they already have.
 

I think that's a bit optimistic. They could find a way.

[Pasquale1234]

Why shouldn't they? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any way in which the events of ME1 would have any bearing on what might happen (possibly far) in the future, in another galaxy. ME2 was dumb, and it didn't have anything to do with ME1 (or ME3 for that matter).

There were a couple of things about ME2 that I liked - the further exposition about the MEU that ME1 introduced. Specifically, visiting Tuchanka and the Quarian fleet. I was really pleased to learn that I was going to get to do those things.
 

Honestly, ME2 and ME3 just poisoned the well. They negate pretty much everything positive established by ME!. I'm fine with them referencing it as far as "We're escaping the reapers" but otherwise, I don't think there should be any callbacks. It needs an untainted fresh start.

There is another aspect that I think most people overlook - and that is the fact that any form of callback to the trilogy could devalue the trilogy.

As it stands, new and old players alike can (re)play the trilogy, and take away their interpretation / headcanon wrt what comes next for the Milky Way. I think most people make the choices presented with a specific outcome in mind. If Bioware were to canonize anything, or even be specific about any particular outcomes, then future (re)plays of the trilogy could be rendered meaningless.

[FKA_Servo]

There were a couple of things about ME2 that I liked - the further exposition about the MEU that ME1 introduced. Specifically, visiting Tuchanka and the Quarian fleet. I was really pleased to learn that I was going to get to do those things.

 

Whenever I say ME2 is dumb, I'm generally referring to Cerberus, The Lazarus project, and the 4(?) irrelevant missions that comprise the continuation of the main storyline. Those are are enough to ruin the overarching narrative for me. Though I also think the suicide mission is hugely overrated. Stuff like what you mention here though - I did enjoy it very much. I did play the game five times - it wasn't until ME3 that the whole series was soured for me. I'm still very much in love with the setting.

 

I hate it as a sequel to ME1, mostly. I like that it's character centric, but I think the cast is way too big (so big that it's awkward to have everyone around), and they don't all get enough development. I think it would have been infinitely better if A) they didn't kill Shepard off in the beginning for no discernible reason and B ) the story was designed in such a way as to let us align ourselves with either the council or Cerberus, and lock various squadmates to a given path. They'd have to rethink everything for that sort of thing to work, of course, and that would have been a much more ambitious game - but such is life.

[Iakus]

Yes, but how is "life" defined in its programming? The Reapers may have been designed, either intentionally or by accident, to only consider the possibility of life within the Milky Way.

We don't know. So why would we assume the answer that makes the next story difficult? And if BioWare never explains it, I suggest that we should assume the answer that makes the next game better.

There is no reason to believe that the Reapers care at all about other galaxies. None at all. So why conclude that they do?

https://www.youtube....etailpage#t=169

 

"To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost"

 

https://www.youtube....etailpage#t=234

 

THe entire nonsense argument of the Catalyst.  WHere do you hear "galaxy"  It's all life., all synthetics, all organics that it's talking about.  There is no such limitation in its programming.  I daresay that this is the problem with it:  that it has no constraints or limitations in its thinking.

 

And heck, even if it did have such a limitation, even if it is limited to "preserve" life in this galaxy, it has to consider outside threats.  Namely organic life in other galaxies, which would build synthetics, which would surpass and kill them, and eventually come to the Milky way and do the same.

 

Why should we assume an explanation that would make the next story difficult?  I'm not.  THe explanation we got already did the job.  I'm looking at the logical extension of what we have already been shown.  If it makes the next story difficult, it's the writers' own fault for delivering just a cr*ppy explanation and then continuing to stand by it like it's a piece of brilliant literature.

 

THe Catalyst's logic is in broad, sweeping generalizations, and at no point is ever limited to "just" this galaxy.  There is no reason to think its interest is in just this galaxy.  It outright states that without the Reapers, synthetics would inevitably destroy all organics.  

[Sanunes]

There were a couple of things about ME2 that I liked - the further exposition about the MEU that ME1 introduced. Specifically, visiting Tuchanka and the Quarian fleet. I was really pleased to learn that I was going to get to do those things.
 

 

The problem I have with referencing those choices is no matter what BioWare does we will get "my choices don't matter", because not enough of the game is locked away based on choices a person makes or does not make.  Then you will have people complaining about how short the game is or how unfair they designed the game to be locked away based on choices in old games.

 

As I said previous BioWare will always be in a no-win situation for they either aren't doing enough or they are doing too much and it won't please everyone. To me that is one of the core issues across all of Mass Effect 3 is that they tried to make everyone happy with having all the living squadmembers return, but they had to add in throw away NPC's to cover those positions if they did die so it left all the interactions with characters that might be dead feeling stale instead of taking a decisive action and just not reusing a bunch of squadmembers.

[Pasquale1234]

"To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost"
 
THe entire nonsense argument of the Catalyst.  WHere do you hear "galaxy"  It's all life., all synthetics, all organics that it's talking about.  There is no such limitation in its programming.  I daresay that this is the problem with it:  that it has no constraints or limitations in its thinking.

What do you suppose happened to the dinosaurs, the mastadons, the humble dodo bird? Or all of the specimens that were killed, rejected, or turned into reaper troops?

Clearly, its interpretation of its mandate did not require it to preserve every specimen of every life-form.

[FKA_Servo]

The problem I have with referencing those choices is no matter what BioWare does we will get "my choices don't matter", because not enough of the game is locked away based on choices a person makes or does not make.  Then you will have people complaining about how short the game is or how unfair they designed the game to be locked away based on choices in old games.

 

As I said previous BioWare will always be in a no-win situation for they either aren't doing enough or they are doing too much and it won't please everyone. To me that is one of the core issues across all of Mass Effect 3 is that they tried to make everyone happy with having all the living squadmembers return, but they had to add in throw away NPC's to cover those positions if they did die so it left all the interactions with characters that might be dead feeling stale instead of taking a decisive action and just not reusing a bunch of squadmembers.

 

I think that Pasquale's point was that the game wasn't uniformly horrible, which I admit is the the impression I was conveying in the message s/he was responding to (even though it's not necessarily something I think either, as I elaborated above), not that they should be invoked in Andromeda. They can clarify if I got that wrong.

 

I don't think those choices need to be referenced, though. I don't think anything from the old trilogy needs to be dug up. Tuchanka and the Migrant Fleet are as irrelevant as anything else in the Milky Way to any krogan, quarians, or geth that are tagging along to Andromeda.

[Amplitudelol]

They wont canonize ending, it would be something like this

 

[Sanunes]

I think that Pasquale's point was that the game wasn't uniformly horrible, which I admit is the the impression I was conveying in the message s/he was responding to (even though it's not necessarily something I think either, as I elaborated above), not that they should be invoked in Andromeda. They can clarify if I got that wrong.

 

I don't think those choices need to be referenced, though. I don't think anything from the old trilogy needs to be dug up. Tuchanka and the Migrant Fleet are as irrelevant as anything else in the Milky Way to any krogan, quarians, or geth that are tagging along to Andromeda.

 

Fair enough, I took it to be more of something they would like to see addressed in the game.  The hazards of the typed conversation for me.

[Iakus]

How the hell do you know? Cerberus was able to create the largest and most well supplied army in the galaxy while an invasion was happening so clearly the Crucible isn't sucking up every resource in the galaxy.
You make all these harebrained assumptions and expect everyone to just go along with them.

Cerberus was silly.  Idiotic even.  It was whatever the writers needed them to be at a moment's notice.  Including an army of zombie storm troopers armed with Reaper tech.  There's a reason why it's said that TIM found the Star Forge and that's the source of his endless "resources"

 

As to the Crucible sicking up resources:  Hackett is "throwing everyone who knows how to use a hammer" at the project.  "THis is going to be the biggest undertaking in human history"  Plus that report on how the economy was going to collapse in a year if the war isn't ended.

[Ahriman]

Cerberus was silly.  Idiotic even.  It was whatever the writers needed them to be at a moment's notice.  Including an army of zombie storm troopers armed with Reaper tech.  There's a reason why it's said that TIM found the Star Forge and that's the source of his endless "resources"

 

As to the Crucible sicking up resources:  Hackett is "throwing everyone who knows how to use a hammer" at the project.  "THis is going to be the biggest undertaking in human history"  Plus that report on how the economy was going to collapse in a year if the war isn't ended.

It was going to collapse anyway because there is also such thing like Reaper War.

[Killroy]

Cerberus was silly.  Idiotic even.  It was whatever the writers needed them to be at a moment's notice.  Including an army of zombie storm troopers armed with Reaper tech.  There's a reason why it's said that TIM found the Star Forge and that's the source of his endless "resources"
 
As to the Crucible sicking up resources:  Hackett is "throwing everyone who knows how to use a hammer" at the project.  "THis is going to be the biggest undertaking in human history"  Plus that report on how the economy was going to collapse in a year if the war isn't ended.

What does any of that have to do with the assertion that there aren't enough resources in the galaxy to build an Ark and the Crucible?

[Pasquale1234]

Whenever I say ME2 is dumb, I'm generally referring to Cerberus, The Lazarus project, and the 4(?) irrelevant missions that comprise the continuation of the main storyline. Those are are enough to ruin the overarching narrative for me. Though I also think the suicide mission is hugely overrated. Stuff like what you mention here though - I did enjoy it very much. I did play the game five times - it wasn't until ME3 that the whole series was soured for me. I'm still very much in love with the setting.
 
I hate it as a sequel to ME1, mostly. I like that it's character centric, but I think the cast is way too big (so big that it's awkward to have everyone around), and they don't all get enough development. I think it would have been infinitely better if A) they didn't kill Shepard off in the beginning for no discernible reason and B ) the story was designed in such a way as to let us align ourselves with either the council or Cerberus, and lock various squadmates to a given path. They'd have to rethink everything for that sort of thing to work, of course, and that would have been a much more ambitious game - but such is life.

Hmm... I'd typed out a response to this, but it doesn't seem to be here.

I pretty much agree with most of your points. There is a lot about ME2 I really dislike, to the point that I don't especially want to play it again. The characters were interesting, but having them spread all over the ship, and sitting through load screen after load screen after load screen to talk with them got really old really fast.

The mechanics were craptastic. No shield or health regen made Shepard cover dependent, the levels were shooting galleries strewn with thermal clips, and don't get me started on the obstruction to role-play presented by the P/R mechanics in that game. Still, there were some bright spots, some of which were previously mentioned.

I really hope the new engine and platforms can do better wrt screen loads. I really miss the simplicity and accessibility of the SR-1.
 

I think that Pasquale's point was that the game wasn't uniformly horrible, which I admit is the the impression I was conveying in the message s/he was responding to (even though it's not necessarily something I think either, as I elaborated above), not that they should be invoked in Andromeda. They can clarify if I got that wrong.

I don't think those choices need to be referenced, though. I don't think anything from the old trilogy needs to be dug up. Tuchanka and the Migrant Fleet are as irrelevant as anything else in the Milky Way to any krogan, quarians, or geth that are tagging along to Andromeda.

Correct.

I'd prefer that ME:A makes no reference whatsoever to the trilogy.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

If there is going to be no connection to the past games, it shouldn't even be called Mass Effect then. The events of the Shepard Trilogy had events and choices that had massive impacts on the galaxy and its people, so it should be reflected. 

[N7Jamaican]

If there is going to be no connection to the past games, it shouldn't even be called Mass Effect then. The events of the Shepard Trilogy had events and choices that had massive impacts on the galaxy and its people, so it should be reflected. 

 

They made connections to Andromeda through the technology and "N7." We do not know what other connections will be, however, I was think it should have been called by another name [At first].  

 

I am fine with Mass Effect Andromeda.  

[Pasquale1234]

If there is going to be no connection to the past games, it shouldn't even be called Mass Effect then. The events of the Shepard Trilogy had events and choices that had massive impacts on the galaxy and its people, so it should be reflected.

I think the title provides a clear separation.

Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 - the entries of a trilogy, and aptly titled.

Also, the devs have been warning us away from calling the next thing ME4 for awhile now.

[FKA_Servo]

I'm at peace with Mass Effect denoting the defining technological phenomenon of the setting. I don't think there's anything specific to the Shepard trilogy wrapped up in the name.