216 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

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.

We offered what we think is the best option to reconcile the lore and why. It follows that we see problems with these alternatives that make them inferior, so we explain why we think there are problems with those possibilities or at least why we prefer our idea.

[UpUpAway]

We offered what we think is the best option to reconcile the lore and why. It follows that we see problems with these alternatives that make them inferior, so we explain why we think there are problems with those possibilities or at least why we prefer our idea.

 

I might buy that if the language being used around here was more in line with "I prefer this scenario..." rather than "your scenario is impossible."  You still haven't said what you gain, though.

[lucky5hot]

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?...

 

In other words, the reapers are the obvious reason to leave the Milky Way...

 

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.

 

This is my line of thought entirely. One of the most crucial points is that I just cant see Bioware 'avoiding' the canon ending of ME3 without having a narrative reason for avoiding the subject. It would be ENTIRELY frustrating and game breaking story wise, and we know how much bioware pride themselves on excellent story telling. This effectively makes it an impossible outcome in my mind.

 

Therefore, the only way the Ark leaves after ME3 is that it has to be WAY off into the future, which I could get into again... but in summary I dont think this will be the case.

 

Also, you brought up something interesting I've never touched on which is; why they are exploring another galaxy rather than just more of the Milky Way [Possible answer: because the reapers are only known to be in Milky Way]. This circumstantially ties in with the reaper threat not being resolved. I wouldnt say this is 100% conclusive logic, because correlation doesnt imply causation. It could just be a 'monumental exploration milestone', like sailing the oceans to find new land... but, when considered in the context of the reapers and no canon ending, its a pretty strong case.

 

----

 

So then, assuming the Ark leaves before ME3 ends, I dont necessarily agree that it needs to use extensive reaper technology, IE, Sovereign, the only available reaper for the right amount of time.

 

The only apparent technology lacking is the FTL drive capable of doing inter-galaxy travel. I mean, if you agree that the concept art we see that looks like the Citadel is actually inside a view of the ARK, the ship looks a lot more reminiscent of Citadel tech than reaper tech.

 

I'll play devil's advocate, imagine they actually did retrofit Sovereign. There was no city inside Sovereign, they would have to do the biggest retrofit in history and essentially rebuild everything on the inside other than a few core systems, because Sovereign is really juts a massive computational machine with weapons, not a city to house humans. Then the outside was apparently largely redesigned too.

 

It just makes very little sense to use it as a shell if its modified so heavily and when no technology is really needed from it other than FTL. They might as well have just built it themselves, ergo, Occams Razer, they probably did.

 

The only reason we have to assume it has reaper tech other than the FTL is the shape really. Certainly to me the design to me shows more evidence of borrowing Citadel tech than reaper.

 

A side note regarding design aesthetics, if you ask me, when Bioware originally designed the citadel, they took ideas from some interesting innovators from the 60's, 70's about how we could structure a utopian society for optimal efficiency. One such guy who was doing this is Jaques Fresco. You can see his really cool concepts here http://www.thevenusproject.com/ The idea behind this was you had central services in the middle, then society build around it in concentric circles. This lead to the optimal efficient in design, as every person has the least amount of travel time to reach the center, and the center can optimally delivery services to the things around it. It creates the simplest/fastest build time too.

 

So in summary, everything about the Ark, looks Citadel to me, not Reaper. All they needed was to get the FTL technology when it rained down as Debris, at the same time Cerberus and the Turians grabbed their pieces, (maybe some reactor tech too), and then design the ship almost entirely around the citadel, not Sovereign. This the comes into play as the council have been studying the Citadel for centuries before ME1, and during ME2/3 they build the ark sending a multi-race contingency to another galaxy once the reaper threat is established as real.

[lucky5hot]

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).

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with a part of your sentiment here, specifically. 

 

> Since when has humanity needed a looming Reaper threat to start to explore beyond the boundaries of their known world or space.

 

The only reason people like me are harking on about this is a bunch of circumstantial evidence around it. For instance, the FTL technology used it the game relies on being able to discharge at a mass effect relay. I'm not sure what backup technology is available, but by conventional travel at 100% of the speed of light would take 2.54 million years to reach andromeda.

 

Lets assume in the game they have something better, you would assume at least 50,000 to 500,000 years with some sort of inferior FTL technology. So the idea that it happens before the game, and that people are put into stasis, or perhaps that people just live on the ship for tens of thousands of generations of life, it just seems outside the realms of what would be likely for a sequel to mass effect.

 

Some other reasons that a huge journey without new FTL seem out of place; screenshot of citadel like living quarters seem like they arnt cryo-frozen on the Ark, they are living there, we know that there is that N7 antagonist versus our protagonist and that seems odd in this scenario.

 

So, what we have here is a requirement for advanced technology to actually make the journey. Not to mention, in addition to the reapers providing the capability to leave, (because they are the only ones who have a Mass Effect drive able to go indefinitely rather than just for hours at a time), they also provide the threat/incentive to leave. Its just these two things together that make a very strong case that the reapers were involved. 

 

Following this logic of the FTL technology being reaper derived, this makes it technologically unlikely it happen before ME1, and unlikely from a canonical sense it happens after ME3 - thus the theory of inbetween.

 

We have strong evidence that there is a precursor race called "The Remnant" in Andromeda who will feature heavily in the new trilogy. Its not outside the realm of possibility that we find some sort of tech from them, or some other way to achieve the FTL requirements to make the trip... but if you ask me, somehow, someway, the journey is made in that 570 year window using the known reaper FTL technology. Its just the best fit solution in my mind.

 

> 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.

 

I was just throwing it out there, I'm totally uncertain on this. Actually I watched it again after reading your reply and nothing about the speech seems directly targeted towards this particular Ark journey. I will say its strange that she recorded some arbitrary message about the need to explore for 'curiosity and fear', for no particular purpose, surely there was some purpose for this.

 

However, I've decided that I'm going to put that down as Bioware wanting to have a farewell from Shepard rather than having some sort of meaning for the next episode in the series.

[Heimdall]

I might buy that if the language being used around here was more in line with "I prefer this scenario..." rather than "your scenario is impossible." You still haven't said what you gain, though.

The satisfaction of putting together a theory that lines up with canon and fills current gaps in knowledge? Speculation is fun.

[Revan Reborn]

<snip>

The only way BioWare would really be able to have the ARK depart post-ME3 is for the game to take place thousands of years, if not longer. We'd essentially have to "reboot" the Milky Way with new species and justify why others could be missing based on player choices in ME3. It really doesn't matter how far BioWare goes into the future, they'd still have to explain the differences based on the future the player could have created. They'd essentially be rebooting Mass Effect anyway if they were to just go that far into the future. It's much easier just avoiding ME3 entirely.

 

I have to disagree with this point. There would be absolutely zero incentive to go to Andromeda if the reapers were no longer an existential threat. With only 1% of the Milky Way discovered, it would be far more practical and cheaper to just explore the 99% of the galaxy we haven't seen if it's simply for the sake of exploration. The only reason the galaxy would take such drastic measures for a centuries long voyage to another galaxy is out of desperation and nothing else. The strongest argument for the ARK's departure is the reapers. It would be highly unlikely the species of the Milky Way would leave the galaxy otherwise as there wouldn't be a huge incentive or benefit for them to do so. Not to mention, do you have any idea how expensive and monumental building the ARK is? Much like the Crucible, it's likely such a state-of-the-art craft was made due to desperate times and necessity.

 

"Citadel tech" is reaper tech, so I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make. Also, we do not know whether or not Sovereign could "house humans" or a "city." We barely ever saw the inside of a reaper. It certainly seemed massive when Saren was inside Sovereign and we saw the derelict reaper in ME2 which seemed to be quite large and hosted what seemed to be a large crew of humans. Assuming the ARK is a comparable size to that of the Citadel, then obviously Sovereign would have only been the core and the starting point. This would justify why a collector ship or the Citadel's design would have helped inform how to further expand Sovereign. Of course, there's also the possibility the ARK is merely a derelict reaper form we had never seen and Sovereign's core is just being used to power it.

 

Lastly, it's worth noting for the last time the Citadel is reaper tech. I'm not sure why you are trying so hard to suggest they are two different entities. They are one in the same. Exterior design is irrelevant as obviously many reaper forms are based off the leviathans.

[lucky5hot]

The only way BioWare would really be able to have the ARK depart post-ME3 is for the game to take place thousands of years, if not longer... they'd still have to explain the differences based on the future the player could have created. 

 

Agree here, a lot of people are adament its post ME3 but I just dont understand the logic from what I've read. There is a massive difference with 2000 years into the future today (so 4000 AD), compared with knowledge retention from say 0AD to 2000AD. The difference now is we have technology that literally records everything. At the very least, everybody can read and write, so even with the destroy ending of ME, we still had books and would start again with everything recorded.

 

I'm not sure what year the ME series happened but even if it went forward 10,000 years, from 2000AD, (12000AD), i still dont think people would have forgotten something like the reaper threat and what happened, due to the difference in knowledge storage from stone age and the technological era. So to me this theory of it happening afterwards is impossible from a narrative perspective.

 

I have to disagree with this point. There would be absolutely zero incentive to go to Andromeda if the reapers were no longer an existential threat. With only 1% of the Milky Way discovered, it would be far more practical and cheaper to just explore the 99% of the galaxy we haven't seen if it's simply for the sake of exploration. The only reason the galaxy would take such drastic measures for a centuries long voyage to another galaxy is out of desperation and nothing else. The strongest argument for the ARK's departure is the reapers. 

 

I agreed with this point in my reply, but stopped short of saying it was 'impossible'. Shepard's speech talked about human endeavors inspired from our curiosity as explorers. Why did we sail across an ocean when there was nothing known on the other side? Why did we go to space simply for the feat of doing it? Its not impossible, its just impractical and incredibly risky. Also, given the wider context, the reapers are just much more likely an explanation.

 

Also, there could be some really out there reasoning for it other than just exploration. For instance, if they went with the 'element zero is going to destroy the universe thing', Drew Karpyshyn's original concept, perhaps we could detect Element Zero use in Andromeda that is highly destructive and going to accelerate the end of the universe and we need to go there to stop it. Again, if you read my reply i agreed it was extremely likely reaper related, just not impossible.

 

"Citadel tech" is reaper tech, so I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make. Also, we do not know whether or not Sovereign could "house humans" or a "city." We barely ever saw the inside of a reaper. It certainly seemed massive when Saren was inside Sovereign and we saw the derelict reaper in ME2 which seemed to be quite large and hosted what seemed to be a large crew of humans. Assuming the ARK is a comparable size to that of the Citadel, then obviously Sovereign would have only been the core and the starting point. This would justify why a collector ship or the Citadel's design would have helped inform how to further expand Sovereign. Of course, there's also the possibility the ARK is merely a derelict reaper form we had never seen and Sovereign's core is just being used to power it.

 

Lastly, it's worth noting for the last time the Citadel is reaper tech. I'm not sure why you are trying so hard to suggest they are two different entities. They are one in the same. Exterior design is irrelevant as obviously many reaper forms are based off the leviathans.

 

Good point, since you are agreeing with the possibility of Citadel tech I probably just read your theories wrong, conflating them with the title of this thread. It seemed like they were constantly concluding that it was an entirely retrofitted Sovereign as the contention as opposed to just using the one piece of tech we needed from Sovereign and the Citadel tech.

 

Not that it matters much either way... just as this thread is about theories I thought the distinction was worth considering.

 

All I was saying is that after the destruction of Sovereign, it seems like all we needed to do is grab the FTL tech for infinite FTL distance then make a ship ourselves. Nothing else much from Sovereign is required. 

 

I agree with Citadel = Reapers but it goes further than that. Everything in the Milky Way is based on Reaper tech, the timeline was "reach space travel", first race visits the citadel, reverse engineers Mass Effect drives, continue reverse engineering Citadel tech.

 

What I meant by considering the Citadel was almost a rhetoric in the sense, "What do we need to build that Ark OTHER than FTL? Is there anything?". also, a second question, "Would it be easier to model our Ark based on a reaper or build it from scratch using the tech we already have from the Citadel?". I made the case for the latter as opposed to being modeled on or actually built from a reaper.

[AlleyD]

I have been working on a fan fiction narrative that investgates how a multi species ARK could be justified. I don't worry about the technology- BioWare's consistant rule in ME is that miracle technological uplifts happen through a combination trope "Technological Uplift through import of Alien Phlebetonium" . BioWare also follow on with this rule by leaving these uplifts speculative/unexplained in lore. These are not minor plot points; BioWare use these rules in their essential plot movers. In ME1 you have the Prothean Cypher, in ME2 there was the Lazarus Project, Reaper tech IFF and in ME3 the Crucible.

 

The Brand name itself derives from an off screen "Technological Uplift through import of Alien Phlebetonium"  miracle. Humans gained a practical mastery of Mass Effect technologies derived from an Alien civilization far more advanced than ourselves in a matter of months in 2148/49

 

So tech wise, a sudden introduction of an intergalactic ARK that is derived from Reaper tech is justified in the rules applied throughout the franchise history.

 

The problem though is WHO, not how. ME3 showed that the Alliance high command were unprepared to even address the issue of the Reapers' existence, let alone have worked on a potential ARK type project to act as a last gasp escape. After the Reaper Invasion, virtually all Human colonies were under seige and unable to transfer personnel and resources. Then, you have the central plot of ME3 and the construction of the Crucible.

 

Then, you have the other Council races. All were shown to be as unprepared as the Alliance for the Reapers' Invasion and faced the same situation after the invasion and feature in the plot of ME3's Crucible project. There is also the further negative applied because all the species chose to look after their own interests first. The Asari and Salarians especially reluctant to commit to a multi-species project.

 

I use the commercial world for my ARK construction project. The human face being Eldfell Ashland, the Asari face being Serrice Industires and the Illium Council of Matriarchs, the Turian/Volus corporate entitiy is Elkoss Combine and the Salarian faction is yet un-named. These corporate entities were employed to investigate Reaper Tech derived from Sovereign in 2183 and the Prothean enclaves found on Ilos and Eden Prime. During this reverse engineering/archeological investigation; these civilian contractors chose to co-operate in an ARK project.

 

The construction was justified as being a major expansion into the Numean Abyss by Elfdell Ashland Energy and that the ARK was being built to service the EEZO trade and act as a strategic hub. Most recruitment was done in house from existing employees of these corporations, but also advertised as a generational colonization effort across the species.

[UpUpAway]

The satisfaction of putting together a theory that lines up with canon and fills current gaps in knowledge? Speculation is fun.

 

Fair enough... I just hope that people here are able to "let go" of their pet theory IF Bioware opts to write it a different way... because I suspect that might suck the fun out of such adamant speculation.  So, I'll leave you all to discuss the "ONLY WAY" Bioware can resolve this since the assessment seems to be that there is "ABSOLUTELY ZERO" incentive for humanity to eventually want to travel to the Andromeda Galaxy until they explore every inch of the Milky Way.  One further question though... why would we have desired to go to Mars even before we got to the Moon?

 

http://history.nasa.gov/marschro.htm

[Heimdall]

Fair enough... I just hope that people here are able to "let go" of their pet theory IF Bioware opts to write it a different way... because I suspect that might suck the fun out of such adamant speculation. So, I'll leave you all to discuss the "ONLY WAY" Bioware can resolve this since the assessment seems to be that there is "ABSOLUTELY ZERO" incentive for humanity to eventually want to travel to the Andromeda Galaxy until they explore every inch of the Milky Way. One further question though... why would we have desired to go to Mars even before we got to the Moon?

http://history.nasa.gov/marschro.htm

If Bioware opts to write a different way, I will compare it to my idea and I might be annoyed if I think my idea holds up better. I'm not gonna cry about it.

Not having time to read the link: maybe because Mars is bigger and more like Earth than the moon? Also more feasible than traveling to any other planet in our solar system.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 No, worse. It was created by China.

[Revan Reborn]

<snip>

No disagreements there. I will be shocked if the ARK departs afters the events of ME3. It just doesn't seem very likely nor does it make any sense from a narrative perspective.

 

I can answer your questions. "We," as in the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, British, and French were looking for shortcuts to India. Spices were a heavily sought after commodity and use of the Silk Road was impractical and not efficient. Much exploration that occurred, at least by Europe initially, was to find a shortcut to India for these spices. It was on complete accident that the Western Hemisphere was discovered, and then a whole new battle for colonialization between European nations occurred to carve up the land.

 

As for why the United States went to space? Simple. The Russians beat us to the punch with Sputnik. They got to space first and it shook the United States' credibility around the world. Thus, we made it our number one mission to get to the moon to outdo the Russians, which we did. The entire Cold War and competition with proving why Democracy was superior to Communism is why the arms race and space race occurred. We didn't do it merely we were "curious" about outer space. While that sentiment may be true to a limited degree, any exploration that occurred on this planet or in space by humans was always for practical reasons.

 

The Dark Energy theory was just that, a theory. It was scrapped in favor of Mac Walters' organics versus synthetics once Drew Karpyshyn left to work on SWTOR in BioWare Austin. Considering Drew has absolutely nothing to do with MEA, I seriously doubt they'll be recycling a theory that he never thoroughly explored or completed. With that scenario likely off the table, the only actual explanation grounded in the games would be the reapers being an incentive to leave the Milky Way.

 

I meant to suggest that the ARK likely started with the remains of Sovereign, but the Council expanded it far beyond just Sovereign's remains. We actually aren't even entirely sure the galaxy would be capable of building another Citadel-like structure. The Council races haven't even explored all of the Citadel and they showed in ME1-3 they don't even know how the structure, itself, even works. What we do know is that the Citadel's technology, just like reaper tech in general, is far beyond the understanding of the MW races. At best they were able to somewhat learn and replicate it, or as posited by somebody else, the ARK is just a derelict reaper with a form we haven't seen. Or, more than likely, the ARK is a combination of Sovereign, the Citadel, a collector ship, and whatever else the MW races could scrounge together to make it function.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

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 hope not. They're already butchered my Shepard enough. I don't want them to do so even more by having Shepard being okay with this mission if it is launched before the Reaper War. 

 

I still think that the people Shepard was saying farewell to are not the new characters, but us the players. 

[UpUpAway]

If Bioware opts to write a different way, I will compare it to my idea and I might be annoyed if I think my idea holds up better. I'm not gonna cry about it.

Not having time to read the link: maybe because Mars is bigger and more like Earth than the moon? Also more feasible than traveling to any other planet in our solar system.

 

The question was somewhat rhetorical.  The point of putting up the link that the "target" for the Russian probes attempted starting in 1960 was Mars... so humans obviously are motivated to explore farther afield even though they have not explored everything closer by.  We humans don't always select the cheapest and most practical thing when it comes to being motivated.  We haven't made it to Mars yet... yet we've sent the Voyager probes out beyond Mars?  Humans reach beyond and not always in a predictable order or pattern... we are, after all, human.  I have no problem with speculating that humans could have had any number of reasons for wanting to explore the Andromeda galaxy before completely exploring the Milky Way.  Similarly, I have no problem speculating that the Reapers don't have to be the sole source of advanced technology in either the entire Milky Way Galaxy or the Andromeda Galaxy.  As I mentioned, one thing I might speculate on is whether the technology to get to Andromeda might have come from some species within that Galaxy... e.g. they might have "kidnapped" humans and other species and put them on an ARC (Andromedan Recon Craft) to take them back with them to the Andromeda Galaxy.  (Against, I'm just positing alternative speculations here... to avoid getting locked into the "absolutist" type thinking that seems to permeate this particular "discussion" thread.)  As I stated in my first post, it could use Reaper Tech, I just don't believe that it is Sovereign and I don't think Reaper Tech is the only thing it could use either.  In addition, I believe the ARK could have left the galaxy between ME2 and ME3, but I don't believe that's the only time that it could have left the galaxy.

 

Inserting absolute assertions into discussion about something that is, by your own admission, speculation does really nothing to strengthen the discussion and does not "prove" the theory under speculation (IMHO).

[Heimdall]

The question was somewhat rhetorical.  The point of putting up the link that the "target" for the Russian probes attempted starting in 1960 was Mars... so humans obviously are motivated to explore farther afield even though they have not explored everything closer by.  We humans don't always select the cheapest and most practical thing when it comes to being motivated.  We haven't made it to Mars yet... yet we've sent the Voyager probes out beyond Mars?  Humans reach beyond and not always in a predictable order or pattern... we are, after all, human.  I have no problem with speculating that humans could have had any number of reasons for wanting to explore the Andromeda galaxy before completely exploring the Milky Way.  Similarly, I have no problem speculating that the Reapers don't have to be the sole source of advanced technology in either the entire Milky Way Galaxy or the Andromeda Galaxy.  As I mentioned, one thing I might speculate on is whether the technology to get to Andromeda might have come from some species within that Galaxy... e.g. they might have "kidnapped" humans and other species and put them on an ARC (Andromedan Recon Craft) to take them back with them to the Andromeda Galaxy.  (Against, I'm just positing alternative speculations here... to avoid getting locked into the "absolutist" type thinking that seems to permeate this particular "discussion" thread.)

 

Inserting absolute assertions into discussion about something that is, by your own admission, speculation does really nothing to strengthen the discussion and does not "prove" the theory under speculation (IMHO).

Speculation is a worthy exercise unto itself.  It does not "strengthen" the discussion in the sense that it gets us knew information, but it isn't worthless.

 

But we're also here to critique theories and argue for what we believe is more likely.  You can speculate all you like about there being a hitherto unattested source of advanced technology in the Milky Way, but doing so kills discussion because there is nothing to talk about.  "Bioware can just make new stuff up" is literally true, but a total non-starter for discussion.

 

We cannot prove a theory, but we can argue for its likelihood.  I did this while arguing that Ark Theory was likely going to be Bioware's course for the new Mass Effect and you know what?  I was right!  Its that argument over likelihood and interpretation that you seem to be identifying as "absolutist", which is silly.  All of us know we could be wrong (probably)

[UpUpAway]

Speculation is a worthy exercise unto itself.  It does not "strengthen" the discussion in the sense that it gets us knew information, but it isn't worthless.

 

But we're also here to critique theories and argue for what we believe is more likely.  You can speculate all you like about there being a hitherto unattested source of advanced technology in the Milky Way, but doing so kills discussion because there is nothing to talk about.  "Bioware can just make new stuff up" is literally true, but a total non-starter for discussion.

 

We cannot prove a theory, but we can argue for its likelihood.  I did this while arguing that Ark Theory was likely going to be Bioware's course for the new Mass Effect and you know what?  I was right!  Its that argument over likelihood and interpretation that you seem to be identifying as "absolutist", which is silly.  All of us know we could be wrong (probably)

 

Seems like a irony to me... Your theory is worthy of further discussion and speculation is fun and a worthy exercise, but merely introducing my theory "leaves us with nothing left to talk about."  I feel like Johnny on the playground trying to join into a game.  I'm only going to be allowed to join in if I don't bring anything new or different to the table, it seems.

[Revan Reborn]

I hope not. They're already butchered my Shepard enough. I don't want them to do so even more by having Shepard being okay with this mission if it is launched before the Reaper War. 

 

I still think that the people Shepard was saying farewell to are not the new characters, but us the players. 

How would Shepard being okay with this mission "butcher" your character any further? You don't entirely own or control Shepard. It has always been a collaborative ownership between BioWare and the player. BioWare determines the course. We determine the path we take along that course. I wouldn't see Shepard giving this "farewell speech" being outside the scope of what he/she would do.

 

Seems like a irony to me... Your theory is worthy of further discussion and speculation is fun and a worthy exercise, but merely introducing my theory "leaves us with nothing left to talk about."  I feel like Johnny on the playground trying to join into a game.  I'm only going to be allowed to join in if I don't bring anything new or different to the table, it seems.

Except, you aren't "bring[ing] anything new or different to the table." All you are doing is attempting to dispute our theories via a Straw Man argument for no reason other than you don't like them. This thread isn't just "pure speculation." I have used actual sources from BioWare with the information that we know and I have crafted a workable theory within the lore and previous games that is a likely course BioWare could take. It's much more plausible than your "make stuff up" approach which is far more speculative and in no way informs or enhances the discussion.

 

You don't have to agree with the theory. I'm not here to convince you. However, to constantly go on and on about how we are claiming "absolutes" and we will be "disappointed if BioWare doesn't follow our theory" in no way adds to the discussion and makes me wonder what exactly you are trying to achieve. These forums are here for the very purpose of discussing the game and promoting theories. This thread is far more interesting than the dozen hair threads, sex threads, and the regular amount of troll threads we get on a daily basis. Why try and undermine the few threads that actually try to discuss something meaningful about the game?

[UpUpAway]

How would Shepard being okay with this mission "butcher" your character any further? You don't entirely own or control Shepard. It has always been a collaborative ownership between BioWare and the player. BioWare determines the course. We determine the path we take along that course. I wouldn't see Shepard giving this "farewell speech" being outside the scope of what he/she would do.

 

Except, you aren't "bring[ing] anything new or different to the table." All you are doing is attempting to dispute our theories via a Straw Man argument for no reason other than you don't like them. This thread isn't just "pure speculation." I have used actual sources from BioWare with the information that we know and I have crafted a workable theory within the lore and previous games that is a likely course BioWare could take. It's much more plausible than your "make stuff up" approach which is far more speculative and in no way informs or enhances the discussion.

 

You don't have to agree with the theory. I'm not here to convince you. However, to constantly go on and on about how we are claiming "absolutes" and we will be "disappointed if BioWare doesn't follow our theory" in no way adds to the discussion and makes me wonder what exactly you are trying to achieve. These forums are here for the very purpose of discussing the game and promoting theories. This thread is far more interesting than the dozen hair threads, sex threads, and the regular amount of troll threads we get on a daily basis. Why try and undermine the few threads that actually try to discuss something meaningful about the game?

 

BS Revan.  I have never attempted to "dispute" your theory... I stated in my first post that it was possible.  The only thing I stated that "disputes" your theory is that Sovereign was much smaller (based on the images in ME1) than the Citadel.  How is that not based on actual "canon" presented by Bioware? The image you show does look like it might also incorporate the Citadel or be a construction of a similar size as the Citadel; therefore, It is MOST LIKELY not Sovereign itself.

 

I have been proposing ALTERNATIVES to what you are interpreting as ABSOLUTE proof (and have clearly stated that they are alternatives).  That you continually dismiss them is certainly your prerogative, but in failing to even remotely consider them as possibilities, you're not strengthening your "proofs" for your theory at all.  Stating something ABSOLUTELY or ADAMANTLY doesn't, in and of itself, make it better proof.

 

The other thing I have disputed is not your theory but that the trailers can only represent Bioware presenting canon to the public... or is THAT actually what your theory is - rather than the ARK being constructed from a reaper or reaper tech?

 

So, lets for a minute expand on one of the alternatives I've already mentioned... that the technology for the ARK might have come from the Andromedans themselves.  What is there in the games that might foreshadow this possibility.  Well, for one thing, even the Protheans were not sure who started the plans for the Crucible and the Catalyst was not specific about it either.  Inasmuch as you see likenesses to Sovereign in the ARK, I see likenesses to the Citadal with the Crucible in place.  If the imagery of Shepard passing out before being able to activate the Crucible does represent his dying in that moment and the remainder only a poorly constructed nod to the player. (i.e. making them feel like they could actually choose the fate of an entire galaxy - oh, the hubris of it all!)... then what actually happens to the galaxy after Shepard dies is a complete unknown.  Bioware can just write their own fate for the galaxy however they want... and there is no reason why the ARK can't leave the galaxy at any time after the events of ME3.

[Heimdall]

Seems like a irony to me... Your theory is worthy of further discussion and speculation is fun and a worthy exercise, but merely introducing my theory "leaves us with nothing left to talk about." I feel like Johnny on the playground trying to join into a game. I'm only going to be allowed to join in if I don't bring anything new or different to the table, it seems.

Because your theory is that it could be something we have no way of anticipating. If we can't anticipate it, we can't speculate it's likelihood because it's merely the suggestion that it is NOT something previously established.

[UpUpAway]

Because your theory is that it could be something we have no way of anticipating. If we can't anticipate it, we can't speculate it's likelihood because it's merely the suggestion that it is NOT something previously established.

 

Yep, I hear ya... Red Rover Red Rover you can't come over.  Honestly, I don't mind playing in a different sandbox.

[Revan Reborn]

BS Revan.  I have never attempted to "dispute" your theory... I stated in my first post that it was possible.  The only thing I stated that "disputes" your theory is that Sovereign was much smaller (based on the images in ME1) than the Citadel.  How is that not based on actual "canon" presented by Bioware? The image you show does look like it might also incorporate the Citadel or be a construction of a similar size as the Citadel; therefore, It is MOST LIKELY not Sovereign itself.
 
I have been proposing ALTERNATIVES to what you are interpreting as ABSOLUTE proof (and have clearly stated that they are alternatives).  That you continually dismiss them is certainly your prerogative, but in failing to even remotely consider them as possibilities, you're not strengthening your "proofs" for your theory at all.  Stating something ABSOLUTELY or ADAMANTLY doesn't, in and of itself, make it better proof.
 
The other thing I have disputed is not your theory but that the trailers can only represent Bioware presenting canon to the public... or is THAT actually what your theory is - rather than the ARK being constructed from a reaper or reaper tech?
 
So, lets for a minute expand on one of the alternatives I've already mentioned... that the technology for the ARK might have come from the Andromedans themselves.  What is there in the games that might foreshadow this possibility.  Well, for one thing, even the Protheans were not sure who started the plans for the Crucible and the Catalyst was not specific about it either.  Inasmuch as you see likenesses to Sovereign in the ARK, I see likenesses to the Citadal with the Crucible in place.  If the imagery of Shepard passing out before being able to activate the Crucible does represent his dying in that moment and the remainder only a poorly constructed nod to the player. (i.e. making them feel like they could actually choose the fate of an entire galaxy - oh, the hubris of it all!)... then what actually happens to the galaxy after Shepard dies is a complete unknown.  Bioware can just write their own fate for the galaxy however they want... and there is no reason why the ARK can't leave the galaxy at any time after the events of ME3.

For one, we don't know the size of the ARK, so your disputing the use of Sovereign as the core is irrelevant. We do not know if it's the size of the Citadel. Even if it is, I've already posited the idea the Council expanded Sovereign beyond his original size to accommodate more passengers. Again, there is no other plausible explanation presented by the games. Sovereign's core makes the most practical sense for why the ARK is capable of intergalactic travel.

ME3 makes it abundantly clear that the Crucible had been built by MW races through various cycles to defeat the reapers. There is almost a zero percent chance any race from Andromeda started the crucible. Why would they make a weapon to defeat a threat they had probably never faced in a far away galaxy they wouldn't care about? Your own speculation falls flat on its face because it doesn't make sense.

You also clearly did not understand the ending of ME3 either, as was the case with most fans. Shepard was never even on the Citadel at the end of the game. BioWare provided plenty of hints for what actually happened all the way back in ME1.

Uh yeah there is a reason BioWare won't have the ARK depart after ME3. That means they either canonize an ending or completely make the original trilogy irrelevant. Not happening. Don't be angry when you find out the ARK departs before ME3 begins. The writing is on the wall. Recognize it now or be disappointed later.

[UpUpAway]

For one, we don't know the size of the ARK, so your disputing the use of Sovereign as the core is irrelevant. We do not know if it's the size of the Citadel. Even if it is, I've already posited the idea the Council expanded Sovereign beyond his original size to accommodate more passengers. Again, there is no other plausible explanation presented by the games. Sovereign's core makes the most practical sense for why the ARK is capable of intergalactic travel.

ME3 makes it abundantly clear that the Crucible had been built by MW races through various cycles to defeat the reapers. There is almost a zero percent chance any race from Andromeda started the crucible. Why would they make a weapon to defeat a threat they had probably never faced in a far away galaxy they wouldn't care about? Your own speculation falls flat on its face because it doesn't make sense.

You also clearly did not understand the ending of ME3 either, as was the case with most fans. Shepard was never even on the Citadel at the end of the game. BioWare provided plenty of hints for what actually happened all the way back in ME1.

Uh yeah there is a reason BioWare won't have the ARK depart after ME3. That means they either canonize an ending or completely make the original trilogy irrelevant. Not happening. Don't be angry when you find out the ARK departs before ME3 begins. The writing is on the wall. Recognize it now or be disappointed later.

 

Yep - YOU only see it ONE way.  There is far less chance that I'll be disappointed because, as I said, I haven't ever discounted the theory that the ARK contains reaper tech as a possibility.  You, however, are running a much higher risk of being disappointed because you're absolutely adamant that there is only one way for Bioware to resolve this.  You threatening me with "Recognize it now or be disappointed later" is pointless posturing.

 

Case dismissed.

[Ibn_Shisha]

Personally, I was hoping for a Hyperion Templar Treeship.

[Revan Reborn]

Yep - YOU only see it ONE way.  There is far less chance that I'll be disappointed because, as I said, I haven't ever discounted the theory that the ARK contains reaper tech as a possibility.  You, however, are running a much higher risk of being disappointed because you're absolutely adamant that there is only one way for Bioware to resolve this.  You threatening me with "Recognize it now or be disappointed later" is pointless posturing.

 

Case dismissed.

Not at all. I just merely connect the dots when you refuse to. There is a very low chance the ARK departs after ME3. There are numerous reasons why this would be a bad idea and BioWare jumping ship to a new galaxy is a pretty large indicator they want to avoid the implications of the original trilogy. I will be happy with whatever BioWare comes up with as long as it's a great story. I don't really care if I'm completely wrong or 100% right. The point of this thread is to try and piece together what BioWare will likely do based on the previous games and the lore.

[UpUpAway]

Not at all. I just merely connect the dots when you refuse to. There is a very low chance the ARK departs after ME3. There are numerous reasons why this would be a bad idea and BioWare jumping ship to a new galaxy is a pretty large indicator they want to avoid the implications of the original trilogy. I will be happy with whatever BioWare comes up with as long as it's a great story. I don't really care if I'm completely wrong or 100% right. The point of this thread is to try and piece together what BioWare will likely do based on the previous games and the lore.

 

You Revan, are just very selective about the dots you want to connect and ignore any other dots that don't fit into your conclusions.  Reference my response to you on the Moral Dilemma thread about neither Kaidan nor Ashley being a "good friend" who Shepard "had known for a long period of time."... and when someone even suggests that there are alternative ways to interpret the ME Trilogy, you go all in with the "absolutely zero" language.  I'm not "refusing" to connect anything.  The proof of that is right in my first post and the fact that I have not used "absolute" language in any of my posts.  So, cut it out... I know what I said and I know I'm open minded... even about you're theory... as unproven and as materially unsupported as it might be. (note:  MIGHT be).  The proof will come after the game comes out... but apparently you even have some doubts that it ever will make it to release (connecting some dots to your "what is really happening with Bioware" thread).

 

BTW  I consider this last post a bit of a victory in that you're now at least using phrases like "low chance" and "likely"... so, keep working at it, you might learn to be a little more tolerant of the differing POVs of people yet.

 

The previous games clearly showed Sovereign as being very small compared to the size of the Citadel.  Yes, they enlarged Sovereign in the later games, but still showed most reapers being not much larger than even the Normandy SR-2 (a mere frigate) - Ref: final battle scenes in ME3.  As for the size of the Ark, I'm gauging it's size to huge based on the size of the star cluster in the background of the photo you posted above... and the one on the other side of it in the trailer (not captured in your photo).  That it would be much smaller than the Citadel seems "unlikely."... and, as I said, Sovereign in ME1 was much, much smaller than the Citadel (able to perch on the Citadel Tower, in fact).  Yes, they "could have" enlarged theARK and you could suggest that Anderson was lying when he said the Alliance couldn't account for even half of Sovereign... etc. etc.  But it seems to me, that by doing so, you're just ignoring the dots you don't like and "refusing to connect" them into "your theory."  So, even it what people want to believe what you say about my character... it could be also viewed as a case of the "pot calling the kettle black."

 

Now, moving on to the infamous theory that Shep died on the ground and did not make it onto the Citadel itself.  I prefer (note: prefer) to place Shepard on the Citadel for 2 reasons:  1) As I've already stated, the imagery after he passes out before reaching the console is pretty classic of a Christian interpretation of ascension, and the topic of ascension and Christian views of afterlife were broached numerous times throughout the game.  2) The second is that this scenario allows Shep to "wrap up" all the personal relationships developed in the game - including Anderson and TIM.  If he dies on the ground, these two relationships go uncompleted.  It might be more scientifically logical that he could not survive a direct hit from a Reaper's laser, but I think there is sufficient imagery inserted in those final scenes to suggest that the game is no longer presenting a purely scientific case... but rather a spiritual/emotional one.

 

You see, for me, the game was never about "beating the Reapers," but something much "smaller."  It was about the relationships forged along the way and the choices they make in "making friends" and "making enemies."