216 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

And not a peep to Shepard from Hackett and Anderson, the Asari, the Salarians, the turians? Even Anderson told Shepard, "I trust you." I guess not! You would think that Anderson would say something to Shepard, like: "The reapers are here - you keep them busy while the Council sends a few thousand people to Andromeda. We'll call you when we get there."

I really don't get it. I'm all in for the reaper's drive technology - it's what makes the travel seem plausible. It's the 'when did they take off' timing that has me been puzzled, befuddled, and bewildered. I just think it would have been more plausible if the jump to Andromeda begins after their control, destroy, synthesis fate. Andromeda is set hundreds of years after Shep's death. I'm not being critical of your suggestion. Can't wait to see how BW will work their way out of what I see is a 'trapped corner', imo.

Oh, I know it seems like a stretch. To make this work, they need to squeeze it between existing canon.

For my part, I suspect Hackett knew. I suspect the Councilors knew. This really only works with them helping out in the final stages at the very least. The rest can be justified by the need for secrecy (The entire endeavor is built on the Reapers never finding out about it). Shepard was kept on a need to know basis to keep them focused on the fight.

I'm guessing they were hoping not to need to use it right up until Thessia fell, that was when they launched the Ark.

[Khrystyn]

I suspect the Councilors knew.

 

Damn politicians. Can't trust them to do anything but be self-serving, and backstabbing the republic. Ashley was right. And so were ME's writers; I glad they got that part of social realities just right. Offing Udina feels really good, but I'd rather have ejected him out of the airlock. See James Bond deal with Hugo Drax - very satisfying.

 

So why will interspecies Councils in Andromeda be any different? I'm NOT looking for a Utopian social structure in Andromeda, but would like to deal with the baddies in a variety of ways - with multiple choices in a dialog wheel. It will sooth my inner sense of just desserts.

[SwobyJ]

I'm playing ME3 again and its just to easy to imagine the Council knows stuff.

 

Its Anderson that seems genuine with Shepard (if not on everything, then at least anything he 'needs to know') and Hackett that insists on the Crucible no matter what (so even if he had other plans for during/after the war, he was dead set on the Crucible happening, period).

 

 

Elites knowing about an ark before others and having tickets for it is a common trope. Even looking at recent games.

[lucky5hot]

And not a peep to Shepard from Hackett and Anderson, the Asari, the Salarians, the turians? Even Anderson told Shepard, "I trust you." I guess not! You would think that Anderson would say something to Shepard, like: "The reapers are here - you keep them busy while the Council sends a few thousand people to Andromeda. We'll call you when we get there."

 

I really don't get it. I'm all in for the reaper's drive technology - it's what makes the travel seem plausible. It's the 'when did they take off' timing that has me been puzzled, befuddled, and bewildered. I just think it would have been more plausible if the jump to Andromeda begins after their control, destroy, synthesis fate. Andromeda is set hundreds of years after Shep's death. I'm not being critical of your suggestion. Can't wait to see how BW will work their way out of what I see is a 'trapped corner', imo.

 

I agree it doesnt make sense that anybody at the high level Shepard had a relationship with would not have told Shepard about the Ark. Shapard and co are risking their lives everyday to save the galaxy... Therefore, you would think Anderson was not involved at all, it was somehow above his paygrade or something.

 

I mean, you COULD argue that telling Shepard would undermine the efforts because its conceding that humanity is giving up on Shepard's efforts, so they didnt tell him/her to keep the morale high...

 

However, there is a problem with this theory. The N7 day trailer had that recording from shepard, and in the background of the recording... the earth was undestroyed. Assuming that this voice over is canon to the story and not some pretend voiceover that never actually happens... Then Shepard actually knew about the Ark.

 

Shepard appears to be giving a message of hope/approval to the Ark as a way of backup to save humanity for the long term. Further, the earth is NOT destroyed in the background, and along with the reasons i cited earlier, it would be very likely the Ark left before ME3 ends.

 

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

 

Therefore, I conclude the Ark will be explained as Shepard knowing about it, there was a quick conversation that happened we were never involved in during the game where somebody explains the Ark project to Shepard and Shepard records a farewall message to them... and thats it. It just doesnt make sense that the N7 day trailer uses Shepard's voice unless Shepard actually salutes a farewell to them.

[Heimdall]

I agree it doesnt make sense that anybody at the high level Shepard had a relationship with would not have told Shepard about the Ark. Shapard and co are risking their lives everyday to save the galaxy... Therefore, you would think Anderson was not involved at all, it was somehow above his paygrade or something.

I mean, you COULD argue that telling Shepard would undermine the efforts because its conceding that humanity is giving up on Shepard's efforts, so they didnt tell him/her to keep the morale high...

However, there is a problem with this theory. The N7 day trailer had that recording from shepard, and in the background of the recording... the earth was undestroyed. Assuming that this voice over is canon to the story and not some pretend voiceover that never actually happens... Then Shepard actually knew about the Ark.

Shepard appears to be giving a message of hope/approval to the Ark as a way of backup to save humanity for the long term. Further, the earth is NOT destroyed in the background, and along with the reasons i cited earlier, it would be very likely the Ark left before ME3 ends.

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

Therefore, I conclude the Ark will be explained as Shepard knowing about it, there was a quick conversation that happened we were never involved in during the game where somebody explains the Ark project to Shepard and Shepard records a farewall message to them... and thats it. It just doesnt make sense that the N7 day trailer uses Shepard's voice unless Shepard actually salutes a farewell to them.

That's assuming the N7 trailer is canon rather than simply being meant to introduce Andromeda and bid farewell to the Milky Way and the old trilogy (Which I personally think is more likely)

[UpUpAway]

I agree it doesnt make sense that anybody at the high level Shepard had a relationship with would not have told Shepard about the Ark. Shapard and co are risking their lives everyday to save the galaxy... Therefore, you would think Anderson was not involved at all, it was somehow above his paygrade or something.

 

I mean, you COULD argue that telling Shepard would undermine the efforts because its conceding that humanity is giving up on Shepard's efforts, so they didnt tell him/her to keep the morale high...

 

However, there is a problem with this theory. The N7 day trailer had that recording from shepard, and in the background of the recording... the earth was undestroyed. Assuming that this voice over is canon to the story and not some pretend voiceover that never actually happens... Then Shepard actually knew about the Ark.

 

Shepard appears to be giving a message of hope/approval to the Ark as a way of backup to save humanity for the long term. Further, the earth is NOT destroyed in the background, and along with the reasons i cited earlier, it would be very likely the Ark left before ME3 ends.

 

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

 

Therefore, I conclude the Ark will be explained as Shepard knowing about it, there was a quick conversation that happened we were never involved in during the game where somebody explains the Ark project to Shepard and Shepard records a farewall message to them... and thats it. It just doesnt make sense that the N7 day trailer uses Shepard's voice unless Shepard actually salutes a farewell to them.

 

I disagree with the notion that Shepard is specifically sending the ARK off on it's voyage in the trailer.  I've been to a lot of graduations where the class valedictorian gave similarly general "go out and make your mark on the world" type speeches.  So, it may merely represent an early career connection between Shepard and the Pathfinder or another individual involved in the ARK project (whether or not that individual even eventually got to leave on the ARK or the project passed through the direction of many generations).  It may also be just a "symbolic nod" to humanity's resilience... and that doesn't mean I'm just ignoring details within the trailer to come to that conclusion either.

 

Nothing in the trailer that I see precludes the ARK specifically being started by humans before ME1... or between events of ME1 and ME3... or even long, long after ME3 ends and the civilizations have been able to restore themselves.  Since when has humanity needed a looming Reaper threat to start to explore beyond the boundaries of their known world or space.  That humans IRL desire to explore the universe and have started projects working towards ever reaching farther and farther out into space should come as no surprise to anyone here... and I don't actually see any Reapers looming on our horizon just yet (although there have been speculations about such events for Millennia).

 

Also, people get overly hung up on they "glowing green eyes" thing if the synthesis ending was selected in ME3 and try to use it as "proof" that the ARK could not have left after ME3.   However, over many generations, maybe just the physical traits of the synthesis disappeared and only the "understanding" between synthetics and organics remained evident... or maybe a subsequent war or separation (a la 12 Tribes Biblical references) created a new "divergence" in the "new DNA."  OR, maybe the "glowing green eyes" thing was more a case of an overzealous artistic symbolism in representing an "understanding" between synthetics and organics anyways.  AT ANY RATE, like it or lump it, with enough TIME and DISTANCE, the events of ME3 can just "fade" and be forgotten.  For some, it will leave a plot hole... but plot holes in such resurrection franchises are more the norm than the exception.

 

The bottom line here is that the information officially released to date is still far too vague to be rendering any judgments that are not purely speculation... and overt and overly specific speculation usually leads to setting oneself up for disappointment in the long run.  For example, the world did not end on December 21, 2012 (so that speculative prediction appears to have been just overzealous "use" of the rather vague information presented in the Mayan calendar).

[Revan Reborn]

Finally a thread with a first post that I enjoyed reading all the way, thanks for the read. It's an interesting theory, I wouldn't be surprised at all, if the ARK project people used Reaper tech to construct the ark. Or it might be a Reaper itself, just a different form. We know they all are supposed to look slightly different from each other (it doesn't show in ME3, because it was rushed and for budget reasons I guess, but it's clearly visible at the ending of ME2). While it might not be a capital ship, it could be a Reaper that just...different, has been unknown for us thus far. Those things on the back of the ark certainly have the resemblence of actual Reaper "legs".

 

Anyways, good theory.

I'd actually really like to highlight this point. While I'm under the impression the ARK is just a retrofitted Sovereign, it's a possibility the ARK was just a derelict reaper that was found and retrofitted with Sovereign's core to be functional again. As you pointed out, reapers come in many difference sizes, shapes, and forms. They all don't look like leviathans. In fact, we know the reapers would have chosen worthy organics to turn into reapers and use their essence to make new forms. The human reaper was a perfect example for this. Unfortunately, that idea seemingly was dropped once Drew was gone and Mac had is own ideas about the direction the reapers would take.

 

Really, BioWare has a lot of room to really explain the ARK however they want. The only thing, in my opinion, that must be true to justify its departure before ME3 is that they would have had to use Sovereign's core. It's the only explanation in the game that would be supported as anything else BioWare would create would just be made up and an outside explanation not supported by any of the games. That's a very important line of reasoning to note, however. Not all reapers look the same and they don't all have the form of a leviathan. Just because the ARK doesn't look like a leviathan does not mean the ARK isn't a reaper itself. Certainly, I think we can all agree it likely is using extensive reaper technology to function.

[UpUpAway]

I'd actually really like to highlight this point. While I'm under the impression the ARK is just a retrofitted Sovereign, it's a possibility the ARK was just a derelict reaper that was found and retrofitted with Sovereign's core to be functional again. As you pointed out, reapers come in many difference sizes, shapes, and forms. They all don't look like leviathans. In fact, we know the reapers would have chosen worthy organics to turn into reapers and use their essence to make new forms. The human reaper was a perfect example for this. Unfortunately, that idea seemingly was dropped once Drew was gone and Mac had is own ideas about the direction the reapers would take.

 

Really, BioWare has a lot of room to really explain the ARK however they want. The only thing, in my opinion, that must be true to justify its departure before ME3 is that they would have had to use Sovereign's core. It's the only explanation in the game that would be supported as anything else BioWare would create would just be made up and an outside explanation not supported by any of the games. That's a very important line of reasoning to note, however. Not all reapers look the same and they don't all have the form of a leviathan. Just because the ARK doesn't look like a leviathan does not mean the ARK isn't a reaper itself. Certainly, I think we can all agree it likely is using extensive reaper technology to function.

 

But, there's nothing that says the explanation can't come from a very real human drive to explore and not from a built in "convenient" technology from within the canon of the previous games.  This beginnings of the ME:A story can be set in any time period after today because we as a species have been driven to develop the technology to explore since our very beginnings.  To make this a "Mass Effect" story, they don't really need to build on the old canon of the the first ME Trillogy... Humanity isn't limited to that... why limit Bioware to that now?  As for making the old canon plausible... the old canon was never really plausible... we all had to make many leaps of faith to get into the Mass Effect Trilogy to start with... what is so unconscionable about making the leap of faith that humanity in all the possible amount of time from today that Bioware might imagine it would take could conceivably discover and create the technology needed to explore our universe on our own?  Why does it have to be Reaper Tech handed to us on a silver platter just because that was how the first ME Trilogy went?

[Revan Reborn]

But, there's nothing that says the explanation can't come from a very real human drive to explore and not from a built in "convenient" technology from within the canon of the previous games.  This beginnings of the ME:A story can be set in any time period after today because we as a species have been driven to develop the technology to explore since our very beginnings.  To make this a "Mass Effect" story, they don't really need to build on the old canon of the the first ME Trillogy... Humanity isn't limited to that... why limit Bioware to that now?  As for making the old canon plausible... the old canon was never really plausible... we all had to make many leaps of faith to get into the Mass Effect Trilogy to start with... what is so unconscionable about making the leap of faith that humanity in all the possible amount of time from today that Bioware might imagine it would take could conceivably discover and create the technology needed to explore our universe on our own?  Why does it have to be Reaper Tech handed to us on a silver platter just because that was how the first ME Trilogy went?

Actually, there is. Humanity, and the rest of the galaxy, literally does not have the capacity to build a drive that supports intergalactic travel. This was the case for the entire trilogy. If the ARK actually does depart from the galaxy pre-ME3, it will have to be some unknown technology that justifies its capacity to go beyond known technological limits. The reapers, and specifically Sovereign, are the obvious and most common sense explanation.

 

Humanity isn't the most technologically advanced species in the galaxy. The asari, turians, and salarians are still ahead of them, which makes it even more ridiculous that humanity would somehow surpass them and play into that erroneous generalization many make about ME1-3 being a depiction of humanity's "superiority." Heck, the reapers made sure that all species developed a specific way by forcing them to use their technology so they could be harvested accordingly.

 

Maybe because this IS Mass Effect? This in no way "limits" BioWare. Rather, it allows them to legitimize this turn and further build upon the foundation they've already made. The issue with your premise is I'm under the impression you assume the ARK was constructed after ME3. I do not believe this is likely for the simple fact, of which many have already stated, that BioWare wants to avoid the endings. No, it doesn't matter how many years into the future BioWare goes. The endings cannot be resolved due too far too many divergent and galaxy-changing consequences that make it unwieldy for BioWare to make a cohesive future. No, BioWare is not going to canonize an ending either.

 

Perhaps because the reapers literally made all of the technology that allowed the galaxy to evolve? Reaper technology is and continues to be far superior to any other technology the races of the Milky Way have ever created. Reaper technology has no rival and it wouldn't make sense that humanity, alone, would devise a technology that can rival or is better than reaper tech just to rationalize going to a new galaxy. That would make a mockery of not only the original trilogy, but the IP as a whole. Whatever people's thoughts may be on the reapers, I seriously doubt BioWare is just going to ignore them when they are an obvious solution for how the ARK was built and how it was able to escape the reaper invasion.

[Heimdall]

But, there's nothing that says the explanation can't come from a very real human drive to explore and not from a built in "convenient" technology from within the canon of the previous games. This beginnings of the ME:A story can be set in any time period after today because we as a species have been driven to develop the technology to explore since our very beginnings. To make this a "Mass Effect" story, they don't really need to build on the old canon of the the first ME Trillogy... Humanity isn't limited to that... why limit Bioware to that now? As for making the old canon plausible... the old canon was never really plausible... we all had to make many leaps of faith to get into the Mass Effect Trilogy to start with... what is so unconscionable about making the leap of faith that humanity in all the possible amount of time from today that Bioware might imagine it would take could conceivably discover and create the technology needed to explore our universe on our own? Why does it have to be Reaper Tech handed to us on a silver platter just because that was how the first ME Trilogy went?

Because humans are nowhere near developing that kind of technology at this time. It would have to be far off in the future, which presents a problem of motivation. The drive to explore is a very shaky explanation for building an intergalactic ark. As was so often said against Ark Theory, less then 1% of the Milky Way is currently explored. The ME universe could go another thousand years putting out thousands of expeditions and still not explore 50% of it. Leaping to Andromeda doesn't really make sense for the expense involved.

Fleeing the Reapers, however, gives a very clear motive for getting as far from the Milky Way as possible. Using a Reaper core or at least deriving the technology from one is the only feasible way to make the trip in this timeframe.

If your argument is that Bioware should just say "F*ck Plausibility", I would answer: "Why? What does that gain them?"

[UpUpAway]

Actually, there is. Humanity, and the rest of the galaxy, literally does not have the capacity to build a drive that supports intergalactic travel. This was the case for the entire trilogy. If the ARK actually does depart from the galaxy pre-ME3, it will have to be some unknown technology that justifies its capacity to go beyond known technological limits. The reapers, and specifically Sovereign, are the obvious and most common sense explanation.

 

 

We don't have it now... but we could have it tomorrow.  That it was A case for the first ME Trilogy is not relevant.  It was a stance expressed first by Nihilus and Anderson... and they don't know everything going on with every human project in the universe.  We made that "leap of faith" to get into a mindset that set the tone for the ME Trilogy... but that doesn't necessarily apply to the entire Mass Effect UNIVERSE.

 

All along whilst some factions believed that humanity was basing all of it's technology progress on the Reapers there could always be "other" scientists driving their own research in other directions not based on Reaper Tech.  While transference and sharing of tech across the globe from an archaeological view is the mainstream explanation for similarities in tech worldwide... this has never been proven to be the only way in which different civilization came up with similar "tech" solutions to drive their civilization forward.  There are sound premises in human history and pre-history that could allow Bioware to draw ME:A towards a "similar tech" without actually adopting "reaper tech."

 

Whose also to say that the lore might not go that the Andromedans approach us... using their tech to advance us along lines not associated or maybe even at odds with the tech the Reapers tried to develop us along? Heck, maybe we're being uplifted to fight the Andromedan equivalent of the Rachni Wars.

 

As I said, without significantly more information... why be SO ADAMANT that this is the ONLY WAY this could be explained... when Mass Effect IS fiction and fiction IS based on IMAGINATION.

[Heimdall]

We don't have it now... but we could have it tomorrow? That is was A case for the first ME Trilogy is not relevant. It was a stance expressed first by Nihilus and Anderson... and they don't know everything going on with every human project in the universe. All along whilst some factions believed that humanity was basing all of it's technology progress on the Reapers there could always be "other" scientists driving their own research in other directions no based on Reaper Tech. While transference and sharing of tech across the globe from an archaeological view is the mainstream explanation for similarities in tech worldwide... this has never been proven to be the only way in which different civilization came up with similar "tech" solutions to drive their civilization forward. There are sound premises in human history and pre-history that could allow Bioware to draw ME:A towards a "similar tech" without actually adopting "reaper tech."

All this aside from the clearly expressed fact that the Citadel species had nothing that could match the Reapers technology and nothing whatsoever to suggest they had any understanding of how they worked... I know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that doesn't mean you can put anything in and it will be consistent with the setting as presented.

Again, what does ignoring the already established intergalactic FTL technology gain us? Or are you just very against any inclusion reapers?

[Khrystyn]

The N7 day trailer had that recording from [THE SHEPARD], and in the background of the recording... the earth was not destroyed. Assuming that this voice over is canon to the story, and not some pretend voice-over that never actually happens... Then Shepard actually knew about the Ark.

 

Thanks. I think we all missed the BW twitter announcement after E3 that earth's pristine condition was all an illusion. The  Shepard trailer, featuring the disembodied ghost of an N7 fairy, was only a clever disillusion designed to fake us out, and set everybody up to participate heavily in the BW Andromeda - General Comments forum. I was duped too.

[Arcian]

Shepard appears to be giving a message of hope/approval to the Ark as a way of backup to save humanity for the long term. Further, the earth is NOT destroyed in the background, and along with the reasons i cited earlier, it would be very likely the Ark left before ME3 ends.

Ooooooooooor it leaves X centuries AFTER ME3 ends, Earth having been rebuilt/restored, Shepard's voiceover being simply a symbolic gesture to the fans.

[Swan Killer]

I'd actually really like to highlight this point. While I'm under the impression the ARK is just a retrofitted Sovereign, it's a possibility the ARK was just a derelict reaper that was found and retrofitted with Sovereign's core to be functional again. As you pointed out, reapers come in many difference sizes, shapes, and forms. They all don't look like leviathans. In fact, we know the reapers would have chosen worthy organics to turn into reapers and use their essence to make new forms. The human reaper was a perfect example for this. Unfortunately, that idea seemingly was dropped once Drew was gone and Mac had is own ideas about the direction the reapers would take.

 

Really, BioWare has a lot of room to really explain the ARK however they want. The only thing, in my opinion, that must be true to justify its departure before ME3 is that they would have had to use Sovereign's core. It's the only explanation in the game that would be supported as anything else BioWare would create would just be made up and an outside explanation not supported by any of the games. That's a very important line of reasoning to note, however. Not all reapers look the same and they don't all have the form of a leviathan. Just because the ARK doesn't look like a leviathan does not mean the ARK isn't a reaper itself. Certainly, I think we can all agree it likely is using extensive reaper technology to function.

 

 

Or another explanation could be, that since Synthesis is supposed to be the "neutral" choice or ending, it's possible that just like the Reapers reconstructed the Citadel and the Mass Relays, they worked with us to build this ARK with synthetic/organic hybrid material and mainly Reaper technology.

Since the massive amounts of already irreversibly indoctrinated Cerberus troops that are left, the Alliance could have decided  to put them out of their misery and give them to the Reapers to "use". Or it's just simply synthetic, like the Citadel or the Mass Relays.

And the reason why we want to go to Andromeda? Maybe the dark energy finally comes into the picture and not even the Reapers are capable to do anything about it, and the only way to stop it to consume the Milky Way galaxy to get a particular source of minerals or material from the Andromeda Galaxy, that would be possibly helpful to stop it. 

Or we can't stop it all, and the Milky Way's inhabitants (including the Reapers) built this ARK to send some settlers to the Andromeda to scout it out, and then the rest of the civiliaztion would follow, before they get consumed by this dark matter.

 

So many theories, speculations, possibilites.

[Revan Reborn]

We don't have it now... but we could have it tomorrow.  That it was A case for the first ME Trilogy is not relevant.  It was a stance expressed first by Nihilus and Anderson... and they don't know everything going on with every human project in the universe.  We made that "leap of faith" to get into a mindset that set the tone for the ME Trilogy... but that doesn't necessarily apply to the entire Mass Effect UNIVERSE.

 

All along whilst some factions believed that humanity was basing all of it's technology progress on the Reapers there could always be "other" scientists driving their own research in other directions not based on Reaper Tech.  While transference and sharing of tech across the globe from an archaeological view is the mainstream explanation for similarities in tech worldwide... this has never been proven to be the only way in which different civilization came up with similar "tech" solutions to drive their civilization forward.  There are sound premises in human history and pre-history that could allow Bioware to draw ME:A towards a "similar tech" without actually adopting "reaper tech."

 

Whose also to say that the lore might not go that the Andromedans approach us... using their tech to advance us along lines not associated or maybe even at odds with the tech the Reapers tried to develop us along? Heck, maybe we're being uplifted to fight the Andromedan equivalent of the Rachni Wars.

 

As I said, without significantly more information... why be SO ADAMANT that this is the ONLY WAY this could be explained... when Mass Effect IS fiction and fiction IS based on IMAGINATION.

You aren't making a very convincing case for your argument. You are teetering back and forth between well BioWare can just "make something up" to humans will get the technology soon because "reasons" and we don't need reapers because you apparently don't like them.

 

Contrary to popular believe, even if Mass Effect is just "fiction," there are rules and a rationale for how BioWare expands the franchise. Any good world builder or storyteller isn't just going throw a bunch of random stuff together for the necessity of convenience. That's sloppy writing. What any quality franchise will do is build upon its base and continue to build based on the themes that made it what it was to start.

 

So far, all you have argued is you don't want Mass Effect to be Mass Effect and you have not provided any justifiable reason why you would be against the use of reaper tech when it obviously makes sense. My only conclusion at this point is you either don't like reapers and want an excuse for them to not be present in any capacity in MEA. Or, you just don't like my opinions and you will voraciously attack any point I make because I somehow infuriate you.

 

You don't have to agree with my theory. I'm not here to convince you. However, to disregard the reapers without any justifiable explanation is silly when it's the obvious route for the galaxy to build the ARK and escape the reapers pre-ME3. There is no other alternative unless BioWare just makes it up, and that wouldn't be nearly as compelling.

[Revan Reborn]

Ooooooooooor it leaves X centuries AFTER ME3 ends, Earth having been rebuilt/restored, Shepard's voiceover being simply a symbolic gesture to the fans.

Even if the N7 teaser was just a "symbolic gesure to the fans," there isn't a lot of credible evidence for why the ARK would leave "centuries AFTER ME3 ends." Think about it for a second. What motivation would the galaxy have to leave the galaxy when only 1% of the Milky Way was explored? Why not explore the rest of the galaxy first? Even in real human history, exploration doesn't just happen "because." Exploration happens because there is a motivation, an incentive, a reason to do it. Whether it was to find gold, resources, spices, or the fountain of youth. Whether it was the space race to beat the Soviet Union and show the United States was the greatest nation on Earth. Whether it's because of civil war is brewing and refugees and forced to flee their country and go to a new home for their safety. The point is, humans don't go anywhere without a reason. Going to another galaxy? You need a pretty convincing reason to leave.

 

In other words, the reapers are the obvious reason to leave the Milky Way. Which is why it's unlikely the ARK departs centuries after ME3, not to mention the issues with the ME3 endings. Without BioWare outright stating the truth, it seems rather obvious the ARK (for MANY reasons) departs pre-ME3. Feel free to go back through the thread and find out why.

 

Or another explanation could be, that since Synthesis is supposed to be the "neutral" choice or ending, it's possible that just like the Reapers reconstructed the Citadel and the Mass Relays, they worked with us to build this ARK with synthetic/organic hybrid material and mainly Reaper technology.

Since the massive amounts of already irreversibly indoctrinated Cerberus troops that are left, the Alliance could have decided  to put them out of their misery and give them to the Reapers to "use". Or it's just simply synthetic, like the Citadel or the Mass Relays.

And the reason why we want to go to Andromeda? Maybe the dark energy finally comes into the picture and not even the Reapers are capable to do anything about it, and the only way to stop it to consume the Milky Way galaxy to get a particular source of minerals or material from the Andromeda Galaxy, that would be possibly helpful to stop it. 

Or we can't stop it all, and the Milky Way's inhabitants (including the Reapers) built this ARK to send some settlers to the Andromeda to scout it out, and then the rest of the civiliaztion would follow, before they get consumed by this dark matter.

 

So many theories, speculations, possibilites.

My only criticism of this theory is the idea that the ARK departs after ME3. I don't believe that to be the case and I don't see a lot of validity in that explanation. Not to mention, BioWare wants to avoid ME3's ending for a variety of reasons. I'm more or less 100% sure the ARK departs the Milky Way pre-ME3. Thus, I find this alternate theory highly unlikely.

[shodiswe]

It also resembles the collector ship from ME2 somewhat.... It could be Protean, maybe the Proteans began building it out in space somewhere but failed to complete it when their infrastructure failed and they ran out of resources and the Reapers keept pushing at them.

 

Then one of the Councils Agents or Spectres tracked it down in the Aftermath of ME1, In the Citadel DLC it becomes clear that the Council never doubted the Reapers existance, they just wanted to avoid panic by admitting their existance.

 

Meaning they keept working for the survival of the galaxy behind the scenes, even i it was a mostly impossible task since the Reapers couldn't be defeated conventionaly due to tech and the vast amount of Reapers.

 

I think it's council built, it's the entity with the most resources available, Asari-Turian-Salaraian-Human the wealthiest and most advanced civilisations of the Galaxy.

 

Some suggest it might be human alliance built given that the trailer shows Earth, but I'm thinking that's got nothing to do with it. It might have been built in Human space though even if it was council backed.

Maybe it utilised some Collector tech salvaged from beyond the Omega relay after Cerberus had had their first pick of the place, clearly Cerberus didn't have the time to pick the palce clean they just took the most valuable artifact they could find. Which is why you either get the brain/computer or the Reactor/heart. The place was huge though and probably had quite a bit of salvage.

Especially if you didn't blow it up. (Which is problematic from a story perspective)

[themikefest]

If the ship left centuries after ME3, would that mean humanity somehow survived and rebuilt Earth after refuse was chosen? I don't see that happening.

 

I say the ship leaves before the events of ME3 until someone at BioWare says differently. Or when I play the game to know when the ship leaves

[UpUpAway]

All this aside from the clearly expressed fact that the Citadel species had nothing that could match the Reapers technology and nothing whatsoever to suggest they had any understanding of how they worked... I know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that doesn't mean you can put anything in and it will be consistent with the setting as presented.

Again, what does ignoring the already established intergalactic FTL technology gain us? Or are you just very against any inclusion reapers?

 

It potentially frees us to enjoy a great story written by a company that has done a pretty good job writing other good stories (including the ME Trilogy that we all loved so much that we're still here discussing today).

 

My question continues to be "Why limit Bioware to this forced fictional reality that THEY created in a different story than ME:A will be?  What do WE gain by being so adamant that they have to reconcile every canon detail presented in the first games?

 

My first post in this thread indicated that I could possibly accept the ARK being made from reaper tech.  The existence of reaper tech at all is a fiction, so I can extend my mind to accept another fiction in that direction or in any other direction Bioware might want to construct.  I'm going to enjoy the game regardless.  I'm really just wondering what other people are going to gain by setting themselves up for "disappointment" IF Bioware doesn't reconcile ME:A to ME3 in the precise way they want to see it done?

 

So, I answered your question... can you answer mine?

[Sartoz]

There has been a lot of discussion recently about how it is "impossible," based on the lore, to have intergalactic travel.

 

________

Big Snip

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Yet, astronomers have observed that distant galaxies move away from the centre of the Big Bang at what seems to be speeds faster that light (ie: from red shift measurements).

 

Basic Intro to the BB, in layman's language here:

source: http://vbang.org/     

 

Use the Find in your browser and search "receding faster than" ....  no quotes.

[Heimdall]

It potentially frees us to enjoy a great story written by a company that has done a pretty good job writing other good stories (including the ME Trilogy that we all loved so much that we're still here discussing today).

My question continues to be "Why limit Bioware to this forced fictional reality that THEY created in a different story than ME:A will be? What do WE gain by being so adamant that they have to reconcile every canon detail presented in the first games?

My first post in this thread indicated that I could possibly accept the ARK being made from reaper tech. The existence of reaper tech at all is a fiction, so I can extend my mind to accept another fiction in that direction or in any other direction Bioware might want to construct. I'm going to enjoy the game regardless. I'm really just wondering what other people are going to gain by setting themselves up for "disappointment" IF Bioware doesn't reconcile ME:A to ME3 in the precise way they want to see it done?

So, I answered your question... can you answer mine?

"Limit Bioware to this forced fictional reality"?

Do me a favor, never work in fiction. A setting being fictional doesn't mean anything goes. A good setting is one that is internally consistent and maintains a consistent logic. Violating that logic degrades the integrity and believability of the setting. This is perhaps the most basic rule for fiction writing.

Nobody is limiting Bioware except Bioware, assuming they have any interest in respecting the setting they've created (And considering how attached the consumers are too it, they will).

What we're doing here is discussing a way in which Bioware could make the intergalactic jump within the fiction they have already established. Yes, they could introduce something new, but we can't talk about something we don't know about why would they? Why would they violate the cohesiveness of their setting when they don't have to?

[Wonder Woman]

I'm certain the Ark is female. Just pray it's not feminist.

[UpUpAway]

"Limit Bioware to this forced fictional reality"?

Do me a favor, never work in fiction. A setting being fictional doesn't mean anything goes. A good setting is one that is internally consistent and maintains a consistent logic. Violating that logic degrades the integrity and believability of the setting. This is perhaps the most basic rule for fiction writing.

Nobody is limiting Bioware except Bioware, assuming they have any interest in respecting the setting they've created (And considering how attached the consumers are too it, they will).

What we're doing here is discussing a way in which Bioware could make the intergalactic jump within the fiction they have already established. Yes, they could introduce something new, but we can't talk about something we don't know about why would they? Why would they violate the cohesiveness of their setting when they don't have to?

 

Do you presume then to "limit" the Greeks philosophers to a "setting that is internally consistent and maintains a consistent logic."  Or how about presuming to reconcile the entire works of Jules Verne with each other first and then insist that they can also be reconciled with the scientific capabilities of the times in which each book was written?  Where would you put a book like "Gulliver's Travels" in this set.

 

At any rate, I don't care whether or not you do or don't and I don't care if you don't want me writing fiction either.  Neither of us is in a postion to write ME:A for Bioware.  What I asked is for you to explain what you stand to gain personally by having this very restrictive view of what ME:A is going to have to be to satisfy you.  What I stand to gain is that I'm likely to be more easily satisfied and, heaven forbid, might actually enjoy playing this game once it comes out.  Again, what do you stand to gain?

 

As for your last paragraph... what I see happening here is a group of people who have already made up their minds as to the "ONLY WAY" this can be reconciled and are just shooting down every other possibility that has been even remotely suggested so far.

[Heimdall]

Do you presume then to "limit" the Greeks philosophers to a "setting that is internally consistent and maintains a consistent logic." Or how about presuming to reconcile the entire works of Jules Verne with each other first and then insist that they can also be reconciled with the scientific capabilities of the times in which each book was written? Where would you put a book like "Gulliver's Travels" in this set.

At any rate, I don't care whether or not you do or don't and I don't care if you don't want me writing fiction either... What I asked is for you to explain what you stand to gain personally by having this very restrictive view of what ME:A is going to have to be to satisfy you. What I stand to gain is that I'm likely to be more easily satisfied and, heaven forbid, might actually enjoy playing this game once it comes out? Again, what do you stand to gain?

...Each of the Greek philosophers was internally consistent with their own philosophy. If the works of Jules Verne were not written as part of the same universe, there's no reason they would need to be consistent with one another, nor would they need to be reconciliable with the science of the times as long as the logic is consistent within the work itself.

What kind of stawman are you trying to build?

You're talking about unconnected works of fiction, why would they need to be consistent with one another? The issue at hand is "internal consistency", a work of fiction being consistent with itself and its own fictional universe. Mass Effect Andromeda is still part of the Mass Effect trilogy universe and this should be consistent with what has previously been shown where relevant.

Where have I ever said that it "must" be this one way? Or are you saying that we shouldn't brainstorm ideas as to what the best way forward would be? Or that we shouldn't speculate about what we think most likely? Or that we shouldn't have any preference for how Bioware should handle this issue? That's ridiculous, any explanation is not as good as any other. I personally prefer an explanation that is consistent with the previously established fiction and connects with previously established lore, but that doesn't mean I'm preparing myself to hate all alternatives.