143 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Even here on the BSN, where the lore would matter most, hardly anyone even seems to be aware of this "extremely limiting aspect of mass effect technology," let alone care about it. I only see 2 or 3 of you harping on about it. Do you honestly think the average consumer is going to fire up ME:A, see that an ark ship makes a long journey to the Andromeda galaxy and go "Hey! That ark isn't discharging into an atmosphere! I want my money back!"? Spoiler: It'll never happen.

And if it was so easy to leave the galaxy that we can simply tell the lore to sit down and shut up, the Reapers never would have accomplished a single cycle.

[Iakus]

But the people whining about "breaking the lore" don't actually care about the lore. They just don't want to leave the Milky Way and can't just admit that that's their problem. People fear change, but geeks would rather die than have to experience change. Which is funny because geeks are constantly complaining about "milking franchises" and companies never taking chances.

 

 

Uh, no.  Quite the opposite in fact.  I'd be cheering a way to continue the series and leave ME3 in a shallow grave, as long as it could be done in a lore-friendly way.  Which this is not.  It doesn't make any sense at all beyond "we broke this galaxy.  Gotta find a new one"

[Iakus]

The ability to discharge outside of planetary atmospheres isn't even really the lore obstacle some posters here make it out to be.

 

It already exists in the lore for space stations. 

There are space stations have special discharging  facilities, yes.  Where's a ship going to find one in the middle of dark space?

 

The purpose of this exercise is to not discharge into the hull.

[SlottsMachine]

[AlanC9]

How do those stations get rid of the charge?

[Former_Fiend]

In the same way that Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was connected to Grand Theft Auto III; not at all. They take place in the same universe but there's no real connection via plot.

[Lady Artifice]

Several good analogies can and have been offered. 

 

But seriously, this game is going to take place in the same fictional universe and proceed along the same timeline. It will involve the same mythos. This is enough to make it a Mass Effect game in the most practical sense. 

 

As for the emotional sense, the connection to the trilogy characters, I'm a little surprised that so many people have somehow been holding onto the idea of that returning so long after the ME3 ending. 

[Drone223]

From what is seen so far ME:A is a ME game in name only.

[Former_Fiend]

It has the same organizations, the same species, the same technology, the same laws of physics. It has the same history.

[Han Shot First]

There are space stations have special discharging  facilities, yes.  Where's a ship going to find one in the middle of dark space?

 

The purpose of this exercise is to not discharge into the hull.

 

We know nothing about the discharge facilities other than that they allow space stations to safely discharge without entering a planet's atmosphere.

 

Why couldn't an ark tow one?

 

Of all the reasons to object to the setting moving to Andromeda, the static discharge argument is the weakest. It isn't an obstacle for the writers at all.

[Remix-General Aetius]

game's title is Mass Effect: ANDROMEDA

 

"I've been convinced by the good arguments that ME:A is disconnected from the ME3 endings, and it's not in the Milky Way."

 

what makes you say that?

 

[Samahl na Revas]

I came here thinking you had a good argument like the Devs destroyed ME when they flushed most of the lore and Milky way down the toilet. 

 

:/

 

Let me help you out a little. They are not calling it ME 4 and that says something.

 

 Of course some people will argue that it is because the setting has changed. The counter argument which is an undeniable fact is that there is no other setting to go back to if preserving continuity. It is Mass Effect in the same way that all Call of Duty games are under a franchise.

 

As for the other point of argument which is my use of "most of the lore", there is nothing to debate. How many planets and humanoids were lost when the milkway was destroyed? What of the creatures such as Thresher Maws? Yes, a new setting does provide new creatures but the basis of my statement was not to look at the alternative but rather state what is. In that manner, I have placed my counter arguments in order to insure a lack of blabber posed as something intelligent.  

 

They are not calling it Mass Effect 4.

[Former_Fiend]

I came here thinking you had a good argument like the Devs destroyed ME when they flushed most of the lore and Milky way down the toilet. 

 

:/

 

Let me help you out a little. They are not calling it ME 4 and that says something.

 

 Of course some people will argue that it is because the setting has changed. The counter argument which is an undeniable fact is that there is no other setting to go back to if preserving continuity. It is Mass Effect in the same way that all Call of Duty games are under a franchise.

 

As for the other point of argument which is my use of "most of the lore", there is nothing to debate. How many planets and humanoids were lost when the milkway was destroyed? What of the creatures such as Thresher Maws? Yes, a new setting does provide new creatures but the basis of my statement was not to look at the alternative but rather state what is. In that manner, I have placed my counter arguments in order to insure a lack of blabber posed as something intelligent.  

 

They are not calling it Mass Effect 4.

 

Being part of the same franchise and part of the same series are two different things. It's a new story. A story set in the same world, but a new story, not a continuation of the old one.

[Samahl na Revas]

Being part of the same franchise and part of the same series are two different things. It's a new story. A story set in the same world, but a new story, not a continuation of the old one.

Oh, did I imply otherwise? I did not. Of course it is a different story, reading the title would tell any that much.

 

As for it not being a continuation of the old one, I fear you misunderstand. I used the word continuity; the internet is a fascinating place; definitions are everywhere.

 

For now, Andromeda takes place following the events of the Mass Effect trilogy therefore there is continuity. Perhaps now? Understanding the definition of continuity I pointed out that a new setting is one of many logical situations for the next story to take place. More precisely: "an undeniable fact is that there is no other setting to go back to if preserving continuity"-Learn.

 

Perhaps I erred and the Mass Effect trilogy did not impact the change in setting. Or you have exclusive information that disconnects the Mass Effect trilogy from Andromeda despite a Dev stating: "this game is very much a new adventure, taking place far away from and long after the events of the original trilogy "-Conal Pierse.

 

If I have erred, I apologize. If not, the internet is a fascinating place; definitions are everywhere. 

[Iakus]

We know nothing about the discharge facilities other than that they allow space stations to safely discharge without entering a planet's atmosphere.

 

Why couldn't an ark tow one?

 

Of all the reasons to object to the setting moving to Andromeda, the static discharge argument is the weakest. It isn't an obstacle for the writers at all.

Given the description of how discharging works, it appears that the facilities would be something akin to a large lightning rod.  Assuming could be towed (in which case why doesn't every large ship carry one?) what do you do with the energy then?  

[Killroy]

Given the description of how discharging works, it appears that the facilities would be something akin to a large lightning rod.  Assuming could be towed (in which case why doesn't every large ship carry one?) what do you do with the energy then?  

 

What do space stations do with the energy? Clearly the technology exists in the series.

[LightningSamus]

They make Mass Effect games and the new one is Mass Effect, they could set it during dinosaurs still on earth and still call it Mass Effect because it is their product.

If they wish to change the series then that is their right, you don't get to dictate what developers do with their projects.

If you don't like the game, you still have the option in not buying that game.

[Zekka]

are you saying that a game can only be a mass effect game if it has the same characters?

[Zatche]

And if it was so easy to leave the galaxy that we can simply tell the lore to sit down and shut up, the Reapers never would have accomplished a single cycle.

This assumes the writers would bend lore in order to purposely remove conflict. Why would they do that?

[Iakus]

What do space stations do with the energy? Clearly the technology exists in the series.

Space stations are much bigger than even the largest of ships (even Reapers).  I expect they would have the infrastructure to further transfer the energy to a planet or some other location, or to convert it into something useful.

[Iakus]

This assumes the writers would bend lore in order to purposely remove conflict. Why would they do that?

 Well, that's kinda what's going on here.  Bending the lore to remove conflict.  IN this case, conflict with the endings.

[Drone223]

 Well, that's kinda what's going on here.  Bending the lore to remove conflict.  IN this case, conflict with the endings.

Indeed solving problems caused by poorly implemented space magic by using more poorly implemented space magic isn't going to end well.

[DanishViking]

i would rather call this a spinoff than anything else.

[Killroy]

Space stations are much bigger than even the largest of ships (even Reapers).  I expect they would have the infrastructure to further transfer the energy to a planet or some other location, or to convert it into something useful.

 

That's an assumption. You don't actually know how stations deal with discharge. They could use a technology that turns it into innocuous particles and shoots it harmlessly into space for all you know. Either way, the argument that they're destroying the lore in an egregious manner is dead.