... and did it actually highlight the weight of choices in ME1 accurately?... No, it didn't. Nowhere in ME1 was the player asked to choose absolutely between helping one colony over another. The player had all the time in the world to do all the missions and side missions available in the game. Quite frankly, the Distress Call trailer is misleading.
The express wording of your question was: "Why would BioWare create a trailer setting up MEA if it isn't canonically accurate?" My assessment is: I don't know expressly why they would... but they have created trailers that are not accurate before and are probably not above doing it again.
Now let's analyze that trailer a little bit... You posit that the ARK was most likely built by the Council, yet that trailer could suggest that humans built it on their own: "We are travelers... constantly moving forward... and looking back... alone and as one."
None of the images to the point of showing us the ARK shows anything that isn't human. If it's human, might it have left the Sol system at any time before the events of ME1... even long before?... arriving in the Andromeda system long after the events of ME3.
Perhaps the Council built a separate ARK that also shows up in the Andromeda galaxy (just positing an alternative suggestion here). Maybe the Krogan built their own ARK. So maybe we arrive there alone... hook up with whatever species we find there... and ultimately explore it "as one."
Another detail - the lift off emissions right at the beginning reverse... time warp possible???
Can you at least accept that not seeing the details the same way as you do does not necessarily equate to not seeing possible details in the trailer?
In fairness, ME1 was not the game BioWare originally planned it to be. It was going to be far more ambitious, but many ideas were cut and features were slimmed down to technical limitations as well as time constraints and budgetary concerns. This was pre-EA, so BioWare ended up over promising on something they could not deliver. I agree Distress Call is very misleading, but there are a multitude of reasons for why that ultimately was the case.
Without a doubt humanity is involved in the ARK's development. The trailer certainly makes that abundantly clear. It also plays off on humanity's real life urge to explore and to go to new places never seen before. While that's certainly a theme, I wouldn't say that automatically invalidates any of the other Council races being involved.
The obvious next question is how would humanity even have that kind of technology for intergalactic space travel when nobody else does? This is why it seems highly unlikely this was a human project by itself. I also believe the likelihood of there being more than one ARK is relatively slim. Especially with more than half of Sovereign being "unaccounted for," I would not be surprised if the Council only had enough resources to create one ARK. Especially if Sovereign's core is powering the ARK, which would make sense, there's no way any species would be able to replicate that power source.
Are you referring to what appears to be a NASA shuttle launch early on? I'm not sure that's indicative of anything in particular.
You misunderstand my stance. I'm not suggesting your interpretation isn't possible. I was merely addressing that mine could also be possible and there were a number of reasons I believed this to be the case. Clearly, only BioWare knows the unadulterated truth behind the teaser trailer's meaning.
Okay, what I said:
The first line of your response:
I merely suggested that the trailer details should not be assumed as binding canon. I never said it was an impossibility that at least some details could be accurate. You responded that Bioware never releases a trailer that was not canon. You said that I was wrong, to continue to argue otherwise because you didn't explicitly use the phrase "you're wrong" is to descend into pedantry.
You did not "posit a possibility". You said that Bioware wouldn't release a trailer that wasn't canonically accurate and then backtracked when examples were provided that contradicted that statement. You may believe I am "foolish" for considering the possibility that the trailer is intended as a nostalgic farewell to the Milky Way and the old trilogy rather than a strict portrayal of canon events, but you're the only one treating an expression of doubt as an assertion of impossibility.
You do realize that whether it's the Alliance or the Council, it really doesn't matter for the point I was making about this recording being at least two years old? Of course, if the Alliance isn't behind it we're left with the question of why it would be leaving from Earth to start with, it also raises the question of why they would be playing a recording of Shepard (Accused of war crimes or suspected of association with Cerberus at the time of departure). And why a speech specifically about humanity? I'll grant you that we don't know the precise dimensions of the Ark, but from the interior concept art we can assume its too large to escape notice right above the human homeworld and at the very least much closer to earth than Luna. Why would the Ark be departing from Earth at all?
When did I ever backtrack about trailers being canonically accurate? What I did suggest is that you have to distinguish the trailers by what they are trying to convey. The Distress Call wasn't about canon or the story, but rather about choices and their impact in ME1. ME2's trailer is clearly about the story and plot and it's canonically accurate. The MEA E3 2015 trailer clearly was about gameplay to give us a sense of what we would be doing. I believe the N7 Day teaser is more in line with the ME2 trailer providing a narrative and giving us a sense of how MEA's events begin.
There could be all sorts of reasons. Perhaps the ARK was traveling around the Milky Way to gather various species. Perhaps a large portion of its construction was being completed on Earth. We just simply do not know enough. Who's to say anyone outside of the higher ups in the Alliance are aware of Shepard's war crimes? I was never given the indication anyone, let alone all of humanity, was aware of what Shepard may have committed. If anything, it would make sense that the Alliance would want to keep these events as quiet as possible to avoid scandal and the potential revocation of Shepard's spectre status. Military trials are typically never public displays and I doubt this is any different for the Mass Effect universe.
I know for a fact that the person you replied to loves Mass Effect. I too, love Mass Effect. I too think the reapers were one of the worst ideas ever. Well, they were the MEU's version of The Blight; the version of the dark lord's orcs marching over the world and destroying everything. And only the chosen one, in this case The Shepard, can stop them. This has been done way too many times. I'm bored.
You can do a story without "the chosen." Of course the problem with that is the DA2 problem where it isn't the big power trip for the player.
Tell me another story about The Shepard.
In fairness, Mass Effect released two years before Dragon Age Origins did. If anything, the latter copied the former. If you are now referring to the Lord of the Rings, well that's entirely a separate story. I don't really see any comparisons between the two as the reapers were relatively unknown and largely a myth. I'd say they share more in common with the Dark Lords of the Sith, conducting their plans from the shadows and only striking at the very last moment for the killing blow.
I didn't believe anything was wrong with DAII's story. I actually loved that game's story. My problem was the gameplay was terrible, and I believe that's why most didn't like it. I actually loved my Hawke and was glad he made a return in DAI (even if he was using the wrong weapon...).
Without a doubt, Shepard was the biggest Mary Sue to ever live. I don't believe they'll be making that mistake again, even though it was kind of fun the first time around.
Retour en haut
I personally don't really have much of an opinion on whether or not the ARK has to have been made prior to ME3. I'm hoping, really, to start ME:A as just a new adventure. If Bioware wants to try to connect it to the ME Trilogy, that's their option. If they get criticized for plot holes as a result, that's their consequence. The trailer, IMO, can be both "fan service" (i.e. trying to encourage us to let go of Shepard and explore something new) and still hint at some specifics. 
