751 réponses à ce sujet

[Mathias]

Setting Mass Effect 4 in another galaxy was the most logical direction to take the series, from both a business and artistic standpoint. However I'm still seeing threads and comments popping up with people upset that it's not in the Milky Way, or theory crafting how it could take place in the Milky Way.

 

You have to understand the incredibly awkward position the new team has been put in. Mass Effect 3's ending was written in such a way that they really left no room for a sequel, unless an ending is canonized. As much as I'm sure some of us would be happy for them to just say "Screw it" and canonize Destroy, the reality is that canonizing any ending would be a huge PR mistake and cause another controversy. 

 

Do you really think that is how the new team wants to start things off? They're not gonna say "Okay we canonized Destroy, the game takes place 10 years later." And then proceed to bury their heads in the sand. Especially after they've flat out stated many times that there is no canon ending. After Bioware's history of being caught lying and feeding misinformation, mainly during ME3's production, this is something I imagine they'd like to keep their word on.

 

There is no possible way to handwave the three endings in a respectable manner either. It doesn't matter how far ahead you set the game. The three choices are galaxy wide, culturally/biologically impacting decisions. It's an unfortunate truth that the Milky Way Galaxy, no matter how much we love it, is completely changed. It's future only exists in our heads. It's unreasonable to suggest the new team should've canonized an ending or try to handwave/retcon all three. They'd be asking for trouble. Even just addressing the endings in any form would bring up bad feelings again.

 

Setting the new game in another galaxy gives them the most freedom to craft whatever brand new story they want, without having to be chained to the Shepard Trilogy. I know it sucks we'll never see Omega, The Citadel or any of the familiar locations of the Milky Way again. But blame that on the older team's decision to end ME3 the way they did, not the new team for trying to take lemons and make lemonade. 

 

I have my own concerns about ME:A, but setting place in another galaxy isn't one of them, and it shouldn't be for you either.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

No, they had plenty of other choices. They just decided not to use them and took the easy way out, throwing away the lore and practically everything else as they did so in most cases. Plus a lot of the team that worked on ME1-3, including the main people, are still on it. They just moved to a new studio. 

[Mcfly616]

They had all the choice in the world. Plenty of  logical ways they could've continued using the Milky Way setting and avoided the endings entirely. 

 

 

Irrelevant since they've decided on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Moving along.

[cap and gown]

I don't know if there was no other way to escape the endings without canonization. It certainly might be possible to homogenize them all (except refuse) into one result given sufficient time, the main thing being that the Reapers would go away, either because they were destroyed or because they just left (control, synthesis). Nevertheless, I will accept that we are now in a new galaxy, provided that they: 1) explain how we got there and 2) why went went there at all. Those are my concerns.

 

Going to a new galaxy does provide a foundation for a new sense of exploration. Mike Gamble has already mentioned that with the relay network already in place there really were not frontiers in the Milky Way. In Andromeda, with no relay network, we will pushing out into the unknown rather than just jumping to some point where someone has already been before. There will be an edge to know space with everything out beyond as potentially harboring monsters.

 

As long as they set things up so there is no more galaxy-wide, survival of all life everywhere plot lines, and no more "this decision by the protagonist will change everything in the galaxy forever" decisions (i.e. geth vs quarians, genophage, rachni), I will be content to restart the franchise in a new setting.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Going to a new galaxy does provide a foundation for a new sense of exploration. Mike Gamble has already mentioned that with the relay network already in place there really were not frontiers in the Milky Way. In Andromeda, with no relay network, we will pushing out into the unknown rather than just jumping to some point where someone has already been before. There will be an edge to know space with everything out beyond as potentially harboring monsters.

It was Mac Walters that said that, not Mike Gamble.

I still think that reasoning is ridiculous. Our cycle has only explored 1% of our galaxy after being spacefaring for thousands of years even with the Mass Relays. There is still plenty of space available to tell any story they want to.

[AlanC9]

They had all the choice in the world. Plenty of  logical ways they could've continued using the Milky Way setting and avoided the endings entirely. 

Were any of them any good?

[Undead Han]

It was Mac Walters that said that, not Mike Gamble.

I still think that reasoning is ridiculous. Our cycle has only explored 1% of our galaxy after being spacefaring for thousands of years even with the Mass Relays. There is still plenty of space available to tell any story they want to.

 

While I'm interested in the Andromeda setting, I agree that the statement that Andromeda allows for more exploration is an odd one. As you've pointed out only 1% of the Milky Way was explored according to the game's lore. Shepard at most only visited a couple hundred planets in the series as well, which is a completely insignificant number when compared to the total amount of planets in the Milky Way. The Milky Way contains between 200 and 400 billion stars, most of which are likely to have orbiting planets. Bioware could spend a century creating games set in the Milky Way and never come close to having its protagonists visit every star system in the galaxy.

[Killroy]

They had all the choice in the world. Plenty of  logical ways they could've continued using the Milky Way setting and avoided the endings entirely. 
 
 
Irrelevant since they've decided on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Moving along.

The Milky Way is the entire franchise? Really?

[KaiserShep]

They had all the choice in the world. Plenty of  logical ways they could've continued using the Milky Way setting and avoided the endings entirely. 

 

Sure, provided that they're content to never set any game in the future from the trilogy's timeline. Obviously they weren't. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

While I'm interested in the Andromeda setting, I agree that the statement that Andromeda allows for more exploration is an odd one. As you've pointed out only 1% of the Milky Way was explored according to the game's lore. Shepard at most only visited a couple hundred planets in the series as well, which is a completely insignificant number when compared to the total amount of planets in the Milky Way. The Milky Way contains between 200 and 400 billion stars, most of which are likely to have orbiting planets. Bioware could spend a century creating games set in the Milky Way and never come close to having its protagonists visit every star system in the galaxy.

Yeah. Astronomers predict there are approximately 11 billion planets capable of sustaining life orbiting stars like Sol, 22 billion orbiting Red Dwarfs, and exponentially more moons capable orbiting Jovial planets. And that's just the ones that can sustain life by themselves. There are scores more planets and moons and small astronomical bodies out there.

[ModernAcademic]

If people are rational, they'll realise it's a natural tendency of any company to just move on and keep working to make each new product better than the last.

 

We won't see Shepard, the Citadel or Omega again? Great. That means Bioware is working hard to create something new and improved that brings the ME trilogy to its knees.

[Ahglock]

Were any of them any good?

 

Is this objectively good?

 

I'm fine with Andromeda but there have been plenty of ideas tossed around that would have made it possible to stay in the milky way.  And outside personal preference I haven't seen any solid reason why they are actually worse. 

 

My personal preference is to go to another galaxy but I don't see it as the only true option they could have gone with.

[10K]

I sort of agree that this was their only option. Staying in the Milky Way EAware would have to deal with the endings in some way, and given that they don't want to work with a canon ending, moving to another galaxy is just an easy way to get away from the ending controversy. Could you image BSN if everyone realizes their decisions weren't taken into account in making Andromeda if it were based in the Milky Way? It was bad back in 2012 when a lot of players choices weren't taken into account in ME3. So I'd imagine it would be the same if Andromeda took place in the Milky Way.    

[themikefest]

I don't agree with them having the next game in Andromeda, but I accept it. It gives them time away from the Milky Way to have a story separate from the previous 3 games and the Milky Way

 

I've posted a few times in the past that I believe the next game will be in the Milky Way and that Shepard will make a return. But that's me

[Bakgrind]

I'm not too concerned about the series taking place in another galaxy and in fact it makes good sense when all the species will be desperate to save themselves ,but in doing so  you can just bet that some where down the line  they are just going to come back to the milky way galaxy and "Take Earth Back" for reals next time.

[Drone223]

They had plenty of choices to stay in the milky way, but instead they took the easy way out and aren't willing to own up to their mistakes and pretend that they can do no wrong.

[dreamgazer]

Nah, they just chose to go to another galaxy because they want to, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

[Drone223]

Nah, they just chose to go to another galaxy because they want to, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

If there was no outcry with the endings Bioware would've most likely stayed in the milky way.

[dreamgazer]

If there was no outcry with the endings Bioware would've most likely stayed in the milky way.

Maybe so, maybe no. Can't really back that up. Ending or not, the idea of exploring a new galaxy has its own distinct appeal.

[Drone223]

Maybe so, maybe no. Can't really back that up. Ending or not,

Its quite obvious that the endings and the fact Bioware wants to pretend the whole ending fiasco never happened in the first place is the reason why the next title is set in anther galaxy.

 

the idea of exploring a new galaxy has its own distinct appeal.

 

Exploring another galaxy is just unnecessary though considering the vast majority of milky way is still unexplored.

[Il Divo]

They had plenty of choices to stay in the milky way, but instead they took the easy way out and aren't willing to own up to their mistakes and pretend that they can do no wrong.

 

Unless Bioware plans on rewriting the ME3 endings (again), there is no owning up to their mistakes. The last thing we need is ME4 trying to account for ME3's endings, while trying to tell its own distinct narrative.

[Il Divo]

While I'm interested in the Andromeda setting, I agree that the statement that Andromeda allows for more exploration is an odd one. As you've pointed out only 1% of the Milky Way was explored according to the game's lore. Shepard at most only visited a couple hundred planets in the series as well, which is a completely insignificant number when compared to the total amount of planets in the Milky Way. The Milky Way contains between 200 and 400 billion stars, most of which are likely to have orbiting planets. Bioware could spend a century creating games set in the Milky Way and never come close to having its protagonists visit every star system in the galaxy.

 

That doesn't really work if you want any contact with any kind of civilization though.

 

Sure, ME:A is probably going to focus on exploration, but that doesn't mean we're not going to interact with any hub worlds or other civilizations in any capacity. Given that context, unless we're canonizing an ending, staying in the Milky Way is impossible. ​
 

[Drone223]

Unless Bioware plans on rewriting the ME3 endings (again), there is no owning up to their mistakes. The last thing we need is ME4 trying to account for ME3's endings, while trying to tell its own distinct narrative.

If Bioware won't own up to its mistakes then they've really learned nothing from them.

[dreamgazer]

Its quite obvious that the endings and the fact Bioware wants to pretend the whole ending fiasco never happened in the first place is the reason why the next title is set in anther galaxy.

Exploring another galaxy is just unnecessary though considering the vast majority of milky way is still unexplored.

Who cares? It's another galaxy.

The stakes wouldn't ever get any higher than the Reapers in the Milky Way, anyway. Possibilities are endless in Andromeda, though.

[Il Divo]

If Bioware won't own up to its mistakes then they've really learned nothing from them.

 

What does this even mean? What does setting the game in the Milky Way have to do with any fan complaints regarding ME3's ending? How does it show Bioware "learned" anything?