216 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

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."

You never presented any alternative dots... All you have said is BioWare can just "make stuff up," which doesn't provide us with anything to work with. My entire theory is based on evidence BioWare has supported and the games. Your evidence is based on disregarding everything BioWare has done. Do you see where the issue is here? I have no doubts MEA will be released. My only concern is that it might be a disaster at launch similar to Batman Arkham Knight when three of its senior management (and potentially more) have left the studio in the midst of development. That is almost always a bad sign for any studio.

 

You attempts at being condescending as well as trying to "teach" me anything are sad and pointless. I'm more than happy to consider other theories if you actually have a theory. You do not. All you have done is state my theory doesn't work and that BioWare is just going to "make stuff up."

 

What? Reapers are far larger than the Normandy SR1 or SR2. You might want to get your eyes checked. The Normandy is tiny compared to any of the large reapers. Perhaps it's more closer to the size of the smaller reapers, but it's certainly not close to the size of Sovereign.

 

What? I'm not even sure what you are trying to articulate with this point. The size of the ARK is irrelevant. Whether it's the same size of Sovereign or not in no way refutes the point that Sovereign was used to build it. Sovereign is the only practical means by which the ARK is able to travel between galaxies without BioWare "making stuff up," which seems to be your approach for everything.

 

Whoever said Shepard was dead immediately when he was hit by Harbinger's beam? All I stated is he never made it to the Citadel. The problem with your analysis is you assume too much. This has nothing to do with Christianity or the need to finish up relationships with Anderson and TIM. If you remember in the very first mission of ME1, Shepard was able to successfully link with a prothean beacon. At first, he was not able to make sense of these messages and needed the assistance of Liara to interpret then. By the time we get to the end of the game, Shepard is adept and can interpret them on his own. Also, note Eden Prime in ME3 and Javik's explanations of how protheans were able to connect their minds and transmit complex pieces of information.

 

Shepard was never on the Citadel and he wasn't indoctrinated either. What we saw was Shepard subconsciously using his mind, an ability he picked up from the protheans, to fight the reapers. Anderson and TIM were never there, and the game even suggests as much. Why do you think the Citadel has an unknown section that conveniently looks like a collector ship and the Shadow Broker's ship? Shepard is just led conveniently to the place he needs to go? Even you admit the absurdity of Shepard just being lifted up to the Catalyst. Notice when Anderson "dies." Shepard looks down at his left arm to see fresh blood that wasn't there a moment before. This is symbolic of a piece of Shepard's conscious "dying." Anderson and TIM represented major influences on Shepard and potential paths he could take (Destroy or Control). Nothing about the final moments of ME3 is real and they shouldn't be taken literally. Shepard had to use his mind, rather than his body, to determine what future the galaxy would take.

 

While that's a nice sentiment, that's not what I took away from the games. It was about being an underdog and the "new kid in town," having to forge your own path and prove your worth to an already established galaxy of races who saw little potential in you. It was about putting the galaxy first before your own interests and eventually showing the galaxy your worth and why it's much better to be united than it is to be divided. We went from everybody being skeptical of us in ME1 to everyone praising us at the end of ME3 due to the choices we had made along the way. It was about the power determination, will, a trust no matter how bleak success may be.

[UpUpAway]

"You attempts at being condescending as well as trying to "teach" me anything are ... pointless."

 

 

 

On that we can agree... since it's pointless to try to do anything but agree with you, Revan.  You won't see anything else but your own POV and you spend the rest of your time making accusatory remarks and other sorts of insults.  If it puffs up your ego to do so, have at it.  I'm beyond caring.

[Gothfather]

@Gothfather:  Wormholes are like dark matter and dark energy... if you think science has proven any of them beyond "we have nothing else to put in their place to explain certain things" I will suggest you trust in your master science a wee bit too much.

 

If your stance is:  "I don't believe it unless I can see it." (and I don't know if it is - but most science enthusiasts use this painfully fallible stance) You shouldn't be believing in ANY of these things - because nobody has seen them because they're "Science of the Gaps".  (That would include aliens too.)

 

Scientists would like a magical way to get from here to anywhere - so, they invented womeholes and made them sound all sciencey(i.e. used math).

 

NOTE:  Even if wormholes do exist... that means absolutely nothing for transporting biological entities through them. 

 

Believe in them all you wish, but don't pass them off as anything but science fantasy.  (In the same way Star Trek teleporters are utter fantasy) Science fantasy is great - until people start actually believing in the stuff they're watching as fact. 

 

I have no problem with wormholes - Space Federations of aliens - groups of adventurers tooling around space effortlessly - etc.  I have a problem when people think this is actually going to be what any sort of space travel is going to be like.  

 

What is REALLY sad about your response to my post below is you lack a basic grasp in the vocabulary of scientific reasoning so you can't actually debate science. Dark Energy and Dark matter are placement holder yes, we call they dark because we can't observe them directly but you can observe their influence on the universe but Wormholes are not in the same boat as the afore mentioned two. We have actual mathematical equations that show the existence of wormholes as a possibility. The term wormhole is more than just a placeholder name.

 

Actually most people who believe science do NOT hold the position I have to see it to believe it. This is because we are predominately EVIDENCE based, which DOESN'T mean we don't believe things that turn out to be incorrect but rather our belief is dictated by evidence. Theories are possibly true until they are proven false, or incomplete. Scientific theory is fact but as any EVIDENCE based thinker knows it is possible that our understanding is wrong and said Scientific theory will turn out to be false. Nor do we require to "see" something to believe it we simply require EVIDENCE.

 

Wormholes have a REAL mathematical backing to their existence, you try to make maths appear as simply window dressing make things "sciencey," but maths provide REAL information that is used in real life application even things that appear to have ZERO possible real life applications, take imaginary numbers, a number that can't have a physical representation like an integer or a fraction or an irrational number but that is vital for engineering especially electrical engineering. You know that foundational SCIENCE that makes this form of communication possible? So lets not pretend that a hypothesis that has a mathematical backing is nothing more than fantasy dressed up all 'sciencey.' That is a utterly false representation of the situation. 

 

Worm holes have maths that show their existence is possible. It is not hand waving or space magic to take a hypothesis with real maths supporting it and making it science fact in a story set 200 years in the future. This has been the stable of science fiction since the beginning, take a theory and assume it is correct. Take a set of conditions and then tweak them or ignore one or two to allow for science fiction based story.  Do wormholes exist? i don't know but they have a greater mathematical backing than believing in an invisible friend who lives in the sky. Hell we only just discovered the Higgs-Bosen particle this decade and that only existed as a theory with you know MATHS supporting its existence, exactly like wormholes.

 

So yes show us all how much of an intellectual giant you are by dismissing maths as nothing but a means to dress up fantasy to appear "sciencey."

 

Sources:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole wormholes have actual maths supporting them.

 

http://www.toptenz.n...to-be-wrong.php Scientific theories that turned out to be false. Not all reached the position of Scientific theory like the cold fusion that never even got passed peer review but the principle for my position is substantiated none the less. 

[Revan Reborn]

On that we can agree... since it's pointless to try to do anything but agree with you, Revan.  You won't see anything else but your own POV and you spend the rest of your time making accusatory remarks and other sorts of insults.  If it puffs up your ego to do so, have at it.  I'm beyond caring.

 

On the contrary, I'm more than happy to see other perspectives if you are actually adding something to the discussion rather than being dismissive and rude. Your theory of "making stuff up" does little to add to any discussion and I really think your only purpose is to undermine the theory being presented because you just don't like it. Especially when you disregard evidence provided by BioWare because they are "lying to us," I really see no further point in having a discussion with you.

[UpUpAway]

On the contrary, I'm more than happy to see other perspectives if you are actually adding something to the discussion rather than being dismissive and rude. Your theory of "making stuff up" does little to add to any discussion and I really think your only purpose is to undermine the theory being presented because you just don't like it. Especially when you disregard evidence provided by BioWare because they are "lying to us," I really see no further point in having a discussion with you.

 

Whoa there - You're the one who has suggested "we" can launch a false advertising lawsuit (on another thread), not me.  (People can check out the other thread to verify this if they want).  I've quite clearly stated I don't agree with you on that.  I don't think Bioware is lying to us... I don't think they're necessarily telling us what YOU interpret them to be telling us.  Big difference.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Gothfather:  So, you agree with me - but you're too wrapped up in your particular dogma to speak anything but that language.  Not a big deal.  

[Gothfather]

@Gothfather:  So, you agree with me - but you're too wrapped up in your particular dogma to speak anything but that language.  Not a big deal.  

 

Wow really? Just.. really?

 

Being Evidence based isn't a dogma. Your attempts at trying to appear intellectual might work with the uneducated but simple definitions show the utter fallacy of your antics and you don't in anyway appear wise when you don't even know the meaning of the words you use.

 

Dogma = a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

 

incontrovertible = not able to be denied or disputed.

 

I just pointed out that SCIENCE doesn't have incontrovertible truths because the whole point of empirical thought and reasoning is that evidence is king. I even gave a link of examples of how Evidence dictates what is fact and that is diametrically opposed to dogma. But again your lack the BASIC understanding of the vocabulary of reasoned thought and scientific principles makes you unable to discuss them without looking like a fool. And i am sorry but it was foolish to use the term dogma as a response to a post where I clearly showed in that science doesn't have a set of principle that are incontrovertible true because everything in science is up for change IF the EVIDENCE shows otherwise.

 

Religion's foundation is dogma because it's entire principle is 'X is true because GOD said it was true and these truths can not be denied or disputed.' Science takes the exact opposite position with regards to its truths none are viewed as incontrovertible. Any Scientific theory is open to be dropped if it is shown to be false and I gave actual examples of this principle at work.

 

So please lets show everyone what a giant of the mind you are by holding fast to the idea that science is dogma.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Gothfather:  Are you actually emotional about this, or are you just poor at conveying your grounded unemotional responses?

 

Why are you bringing a God into this?  Did I say anything about a God?  Do you even know if I believe in a God?  And if so... which God?  What God?  Who's God? How do you define God?  Is it the one that bored you in Sunday school?  Or the one that didn't give you what you wanted?  Took something away from you?  Or the one who's followers said you were naughty?
 

You should be more concise about your own terminology.

 

Everything you've said about science is - of course - correct.  That you cannot see that you've dogmatized your beliefs about it... is not my fault.

 

Also, may I ask which field of science you're in?

[Gothfather]

@Gothfather:  Are you actually emotional about this, or are you just poor at conveying your grounded unemotional responses?

 

Why are you bringing a God into this?  Did I say anything about a God?  Do you even know if I believe in a God?  And if so... which God?  What God?  Who's God? How do you define God?  Is it the one that bored you in Sunday school?  Or the one that didn't give you what you wanted?  Took something away from you?  Or the one who's followers said you were naughty?
 

You should be more concise about your own terminology.

 

Everything you've said about science is - of course - correct.  That you cannot see that you've dogmatized your beliefs about it... is not my fault.

 

Also, may I ask which field of science you're in?

 

I'm sorry that my arguments are so unassailable but your position isn't tenable.

 

As I am human I will be emotional because humans are emotional beings. You might try to cage that as a failing but it isn't. People are not required to be unemotional about science and to talk about science in some grounded unemotional way. Neil deGrasse Tyson is very emotional about science and he is a better scientific mind then my own. But sure try and change the argument because you can't actually win on the topic at hand which was saying that had waving is required to get to Andromeda or that Wormholes are only fantasy with maths used to make it 'sciencey' which is complete and utter bullsh!t.

 

Why did I use religion and god in a post which was responding to using the term "Dogma?" Oh i don't know maybe to show an example how science is different. Juxtaposition is a very important tool of comparison and communication. So why wouldn't i use it in a discussion about science and dogma and your complete lack of understanding the meanings the vocabulary of reasoned thought? So all those other questions that your tried to troll me with simply show you floundering in this intellectual space. What are you so hyper sensative about religion and god that you you have to attack me for using god in a juxtaposition comparison?  Seems to me showing how science is different and not dogma but religion is dogmatic is the perfect time to use god in a juxtaposition comparison. But why do I get the feeling that evidence and reason just hold little to no value for you?

 

Accusing me of dogmatizing my belief about science shows a complete lack of understanding about being an evidence based reasoner. My beliefs about science are not dogma because for my belief to be dogma it must be incontrovertible. That is the crux of this that you seem to lack understanding of, if we find evidence that shows science is wrong on a fundamental level then I as an EVIDENCE based thinker WILL change my position. But it isn't enough that it MIGHT be false I for me to change my belief i need it to be shown to be false. And if I am willing to be shown something I hold to be true as false then i do not hold a dogmatic belief in it because I do not view it as incontrovertible. 

 

You seem to think if i am passionate about a belief or hold said belief strongly that makes it dogma but that isn't what dogma means, it means holding a belief that can't be denied or disputed. And no true scientific thinker thinks this way because it is all up for dispute with EVIDENCE.

 

You are making the accusation that I am dogmatic but have provided no proof, no evidence and that might work with the uneducated but it doesn't work with the scientifically literate. Show EVIDENCE that I am dogmatic.

 

source: https://youtu.be/oEl9kVl6KPc?t=3m55s Neil getting emotional about how stupid intelligent design is, putting another nail in the coffin of your ever changing positions. Lose in one area change the game, yet you keep making the same mistake over and over.

[The Hierophant]

Have the decency to speak American damnit. What the hell are you people even on about?

[Gothfather]

Have the decency to speak American damnit. What the hell are you people even on about?

 

Science, scientific reasoning, reasoned thought and the vocabulary used to discuss such things, that is what we are on about. Does that illuminate the darkness for you?

[The Hierophant]

Science, scientific reasoning, reasoned thought and the vocabulary used to discuss such things, that is what we are on about. Does that illuminate the darkness for you?

Way above my paygrade. Professional court jester, $15hr m'kay.

[AlleyD]

Mass Effect's consistant tactic to building major plot movers is to use a combination trope of a Technology Uplift that is performed on a sudden introduction of Alien Phlebetonium. This is also known as  a "skyhook" : a source of design complexity that does not build on lower, simpler layers—in simple terms, a miracle. BioWare do not attempt to explain these skyhooks, leaving them speculative and unknowable.

 

There are multiple Skyhooks in the MEU and they are not used in a subtle manner. The first one in the human timeline occurs in 2148/49 with the discovery of the Mars Archive. This is not simply one "miracle" skyhook event, but a combination of several skyhooks, and a totally implausible timeline of 24 months.

• the translation of an advanced Alien technology that is generations removed in our own tech evolution capacity in 2148
• unfreezing an ice moon hundreds of KM in radius,
• the discovery of the Mass Relay and switching it on
•  the reverse engineering of an advanced alien technology capable of traversing the relay and building spaceships that are capable of matching the best of the galaxy in civil engineering and warfare within a decade.

ME1's plot introduction and build a hero kit was also a Skyhook event (The Prothean Cypher) and this actually had some lore building on the Asari component, but nothing about the Prothean root component of the technology. The context of ME1 seemed to be pointing towards investigating the Prothean's and also had a massive new resource for a Skyhook (Reaper Tech)

 

ME2's plot introduction and build a hero kit is another Skyhook event. (Project Lazarus), virtually everything Cerberus achieved in ME2 was a form of major Skyhook, the construction of the Normandy SR2, EDI and the Reaper IFF. The ending of the game introduces another Skyhook:-Collector technology (An advanced hybrid of Reaper Tech and Prothean technologies)

 

ME3's major Skyhook was the Crucible. This is one of the least plausible Skyhooks in a Sci Fi. Some advanced, unknowable device of immense power, but unknown function. Designed and built from schematics produced by multiple species that are totally disconnected in time and space, through an unknown number of tech evolutions and in near total secrecy? Speculation coule be that the Leviathan's had some hand in this and as such another potential skyhook technology is introduced

 

So miracles happen in Mass Effect and I see no reason not to accept that the ARK plot device will be any different. I don't expect that BioWare would write a prologue campaign to build an ARK. I think that would be a fun story and to kill the boredom of having little to discuss in ME:A, I have been doing some speculating around the Technology uplifts in the MEU and writing a fan fiction narrative that plays out in the off screen world of the MEU.

 

The major uplift I am using at the moment is the Prothean tech uplift of humans. There is a strange lore factoid that throughs the Prothean lore out of step with the narrative. Shepard receives a message on Eletania that the Protheans on Mars were studying Cro Magnons. At the time of writing ME1, the Cro Magnon era was believed to be 35,000BC to 10,000BC. (The timeline was extended in 2011 to 41,000BC). 

 

My main character in the narrative is Jonah Ashland, his story starts on Mars in the early 22nd century. He is an astrominer/pioneer for the Ashland Energy corporation and stumbles into the Mars archive in the mid 2120's. The discoveries he made enable him to turn his company into the dominant human faction in space and then build a massive commercial empire that covers every region of space. What enabled that to happen must have been found on the Mars archive, and if the lore data of cro magnons is correct. The Protheans on Mars were working in the Sol system long time after the Reaper invasion.

[lucky5hot]

Mass Effect's consistant tactic to building major plot movers is to use a combination trope of a Technology Uplift that is performed on a sudden introduction of Alien Phlebetonium. This is also known as  a "skyhook" : a source of design complexity that does not build on lower, simpler layers—in simple terms, a miracle. BioWare do not attempt to explain these skyhooks, leaving them speculative and unknowable.

 

There are multiple Skyhooks in the MEU and they are not used in a subtle manner. The first one in the human timeline occurs in 2148/49 with the discovery of the Mars Archive. This is not simply one "miracle" skyhook event, but a combination of several skyhooks, and a totally implausible timeline of 24 months.

• the translation of an advanced Alien technology that is generations removed in our own tech evolution capacity in 2148
• unfreezing an ice moon hundreds of KM in radius,
• the discovery of the Mass Relay and switching it on
•  the reverse engineering of an advanced alien technology capable of traversing the relay and building spaceships that are capable of matching the best of the galaxy in civil engineering and warfare within a decade.

ME1's plot introduction and build a hero kit was also a Skyhook event (The Prothean Cypher) and this actually had some lore building on the Asari component, but nothing about the Prothean root component of the technology. The context of ME1 seemed to be pointing towards investigating the Prothean's and also had a massive new resource for a Skyhook (Reaper Tech)

 

ME2's plot introduction and build a hero kit is another Skyhook event. (Project Lazarus), virtually everything Cerberus achieved in ME2 was a form of major Skyhook, the construction of the Normandy SR2, EDI and the Reaper IFF. The ending of the game introduces another Skyhook:-Collector technology (An advanced hybrid of Reaper Tech and Prothean technologies)

 

ME3's major Skyhook was the Crucible. This is one of the least plausible Skyhooks in a Sci Fi. Some advanced, unknowable device of immense power, but unknown function. Designed and built from schematics produced by multiple species that are totally disconnected in time and space, through an unknown number of tech evolutions and in near total secrecy? Speculation coule be that the Leviathan's had some hand in this and as such another potential skyhook technology is introduced

 

So miracles happen in Mass Effect and I see no reason not to accept that the ARK plot device will be any different. I don't expect that BioWare would write a prologue campaign to build an ARK. I think that would be a fun story and to kill the boredom of having little to discuss in ME:A, I have been doing some speculating around the Technology uplifts in the MEU and writing a fan fiction narrative that plays out in the off screen world of the MEU.

 

The major uplift I am using at the moment is the Prothean tech uplift of humans. There is a strange lore factoid that throughs the Prothean lore out of step with the narrative. Shepard receives a message on Eletania that the Protheans on Mars were studying Cro Magnons. At the time of writing ME1, the Cro Magnon era was believed to be 35,000BC to 10,000BC. (The timeline was extended in 2011 to 41,000BC). 

 

My main character in the narrative is Jonah Ashland, his story starts on Mars in the early 22nd century. He is an astrominer/pioneer for the Ashland Energy corporation and stumbles into the Mars archive in the mid 2120's. The discoveries he made enable him to turn his company into the dominant human faction in space and then build a massive commercial empire that covers every region of space. What enabled that to happen must have been found on the Mars archive, and if the lore data of cro magnons is correct. The Protheans on Mars were working in the Sol system long time after the Reaper invasion.

 

I literally had to Google your references, ("Alien Phlebetonium" and "skyhook"), this was a very interesting post. Its right on the money. Like mentioned in the Urban Dictionary post on Phlebotinum, I think the mark of good writing is how well imagined/realized the Phlebotinum actually are. Some parts are really good, others stood up worse to scrutiny, (but in their defense, I've yet to see a fully imagined fictional world where at least some of the ideas aren't ridiculous).

 

Where I branch off from you a little is that for me ME largely worked backwards around its "Fermi Paradox" and "The Great Filter", psuedo-science/philosophy. 

 

As caught up as I was with layers and layers of what you reference as Skyhook, (which helped to maintain mystery/intrigue), I was personally always driven by the larger plot. In terms of narrative it was the absurdity/meaning from the Reapers wanting to destroy organic life. Although massively sci-fi, the exploration of this kind of clash with absurdity/meaning was a classic literature theme that had me hook line and sinker. During my first playthrough of ME1, I remember being absolutely jaw dropped about how captivating it was.

 

I suppose in a way this overarching plot was always a Phlebetonium because it was never fully explained until the crucible moment in ME3, but for me I always looked at it largely from the point of meaning/absurdity. I was even focusing on this during ME2 which largely distanced itself from the overarching plot. I probably would have been disappointed story wise - had the characters not been so well written and gameplay innovated so much on the original game.

 

When I was entering this thread on the discussion on the "Is the Ark a Reaper - IE. how did they create FTL before ME3 ends", at one point I remember saying something like "they could skin this problem in any one of these ways and it would seem normal". I now realize I was actually talking about their Skyhook and the Phlebetonium. I will laugh if you end up being right and their explanation is random and potentially disappointing. EG. their explanation turns out to be really flimsy like "At the edge of the Sol system we flew into a wormhole".

 

> So miracles happen in Mass Effect and I see no reason not to accept that the ARK plot device will be any different. 

 

Totally agree that they wont have a prologue. But I think we will still have some description of the technology and how we achieved FTL, given how key this was to reaching Andromeda. Also,  given that the sheer distance between planets/stars/galaxies - and that this is our problem in the real world relating to travelling to new worlds - this is a point of interest for gamers and one we will certainly desire an answer for. 

 

I mean to say, I think in terms of Phlebetonium's, they would/should put a comparatively large amount of thought into this one given its significance in both the game and in real life.

 

So, my question; given you are an avid reader of Mass Effect lore, even a writer of some MEU fiction yourself, what would be your best guess as to what would be the most canon/logical way it was achieved?

 

Just rained down a piece of Reaper FTL tech during the end of ME1, a faction never told Shepard about it during the game and built the Ark? Or something more interesting?

[lucky5hot]

You never presented any alternative dots... All you have said is BioWare can just "make stuff up," which doesn't provide us with anything to work with. My entire theory is based on evidence BioWare has supported and the games. 

 

Despite vastly disagreeing with you on potential legal action against Bioware...I definitely like many of your threads including this one. I think there is some value, if not at the very least some interest to be had among fans of the series to speculate about ME:A. Agree with many speculation points of both of you here.

 

 

I have no doubts MEA will be released. My only concern is that it might be a disaster at launch similar to Batman Arkham Knight when three of its senior management (and potentially more) have left the studio in the midst of development. That is almost always a bad sign for any studio.

 

One counter-arguement I would like to pose is that staff leaving Bioware potentially doesnt have too much bearing on the quality of their next game. Consider the following:

 

1) Certainly, people at the top of their field like those who still work at Bioware and those who have left will recieve job offers from head hunters all the time.

 

2) In fact, contrary to your contention, during success is precisely the time a head hunter is most active. The countering forces/arguments are obviously whether they can renegotiate the same wage offered to them at their current employer and whether their currrent employer offers them opportunities to recieve the same accolades. While I can see logic in an argument like 'If you are the best, why move', the thing is, when you are poached you will often more into a more senior/lead role. Therefore, the success of the game which you now have more control over can be further attributed to your own individual contribution. And this may be more rewarding.

 

3) This is a bit waffly so far, let me provide a real example, somebody poached the other way... to EA. Consider a lead writer leaving Naughty Dog (Amy Hennig), directly after The Last of Us, moving to Visceral, now working on the Star Wars game. TLoU was one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time, and she left directly afterwards. We can speculate that she moved from being ONE of the lead writers on TLOU2 to THE lead writer at Visceral. This follows nicely with my point on (2). [Edit - mistake: she was a writer on Uncharted. However, rather than leaving after the game, she actually left during very early writing for Uncharted 4 which seemingly plays more into my point]

 

4) I think this is the most important point I will make. Lets assume you are at the top of your field like these people mentioned, and you constantly get offers for 25%+ maybe even up to 50% more to move, (we are in the hundreds of thousands to 500k+ now). Doesnt it make sense that after getting offers for years, and having all these friends where you currently work, you will leave AFTER your part the project wraps up, rather than during the project where you are actually needed? And that could easily occur within 1 year of game release due to Q&A/localisation and other more menial development activities.

 

What i mean is, perhaps this time period we are currently in is the 'sweet spot' as much as instantly after the game is released is. Especially when we are talking about the biggest AAA games that have the largest quantity of localisation to dozens of languages/multiple platforms/QA.

 

5) Finally, my conclusion, and then a potential counter-argument to what I'm saying. Its easily arguable that the major work has wrapped up for many of these key roles, and now the unit/production managers are just in a 1 year final process towards completion. So from this point, other than a 'crunch', its arguable that much of the key work has already been completed in the past 2-3 years.

 

IE, if you were writing your resume for the next job, you've already got all the good bullet points for what you did in ME:A, the next year COULD be considered partly a filler/waster.

 

Now, the key counter-argument is that leaving a company BEFORE the game releases is bad for PR. It sends a bad signal. Further, while we are playing game theory on the reasons for leaving a company, the obvious alternative [and what seems to be the consensus], is that there could be in-fighting or concerns about the quality of the game that cause the person to leave. Certainly this is a possibility, maybe its even the likely probability, but I wouldnt call it anywhere near certain. 

 

Somebody earns 250k, they are offered 350k and with a more senior role, you really cant say for certain that the reason they moved is because of in-fighting.

 

6) Clarification on (5), regarding people leaving and not immediately announcing moving to a new company as evidence they must have left due to in-fighting. One piece of personal experience I have is that often your work contract will have a specific clause saying you cant go somewhere immediately, you need to have X months before moving on, (it makes the company look better). This is obviously the 'non-compete' or similar clause.

 

So, depending on the circumstance, the head hunter might pay you a $50k signing bonus where you sit around for 3 months as a belated holiday gift, before they actually announce they hired you. To the public, it looks like you left and then looked at your options for 3 months, you even said something vague on Twitter about "considering my options", but this could be a cunning play on words about the fact you've already been given a contractual offer that you can choose to take in the next 3 months.

 

I can assure you this is VERY common. So here we have a 100% legitimate reason for 2/3 of these developers to have left, not gone elsewhere yet, but not necessarily having left because of in-fighting.

 

The proof will be in the pudding, we need to see the release at E3 and most dedicated ME advocates will pretty quickly know if the game is on the right path.

[DarthSliver]

 

 

So, my question; given you are an avid reader of Mass Effect lore, even a writer of some MEU fiction yourself, what would be your best guess as to what would be the most canon/logical way it was achieved?

 

Just rained down a piece of Reaper FTL tech during the end of ME1, a faction never told Shepard about it during the game and built the Ark? Or something more interesting?

 

I know I am not the person you asked but I would say, reading all these theories that have popped up recently for how we get to Andromeda and such and such.  Its quite easy to see that the issue at hand is one that was never solved when ME3 was popular and that is the endings, not a better ending mine you but a "canon ending". Of course it is those endings itself that is causing us to go to Andromeda, at least many people that think like I do that don't like the endings think that way.  Out of the four endings only one ending has the ability to get us to Andromeda, maybe the other two originals have potiential but I like Destroy ending. Destroy Ending leaves us with dead Reapers and a galaxy that would take decades to repair since the Mass Relays and Citiadel are so heavily damaged. In our repairing of these structures, that could alone give us the knowledge we need and add that with the Dead Repears that are being explored and most likely salavaged for scraps. We would get the knowledge I am sure through that alone and fast on the Reaper Mass Core since we had Soveriegn that we been studying a few years back when the Reapers started the mess. Control and Synthesis are just as viable but would probably have the Reapers themselves fixing the Mass Relays and just handing down the information we need for intergalatic space travel, because isn't that what the Reapers do after each successful harvest lol. But with the current theories we have the best canon ending would be Refuse since we are Theorizing that this Ark will leave before the Mass Effect 3 endings. 

 

The lack of canon ending or more or less a singular ending to work from, it is what is truly causing all these theories to happen. Our Ark Theories or how we get to Andromeda, are all based on leaving before the ME3 endings. Even Revan Reborns theory is based on such workings. So I believe the best Canon Ending if all these theories were true about leaving before the ME3 endings, Refuse would be the best canon ending for Bioware. Refuse already states that Shepard and company leave enough information behind for the next cycle to beat the Reapers. Since we are in Andromeda taking a section of the galaxy there for ourselves for whatever reason. Our Ark theories really only justify Refuse Ending. 

 

But the Mars Archieves might hold plans for such a vessel or a theory for how to travel intergalatically. I would imagine that the Protheans after the Reapers Invaded or even before than were looking into the possibility of going to another galaxy. The Reaper Invasion could've prompt some of the Protheans to continue that theory. So I guess I am saying the theory for traveling galaxies were in the Mars Achieve but no solid plans on how to actually do it were left in there because Reaper Invasion on the Protheans. 

[lucky5hot]

...not a better ending mind you, but a "canon ending".

 

This is an interesting point, There was probably a dichotomy of ideas at some time with what was the BEST way for the ark to reach Andromeda, and which way would annoy fans the least.

 

I agree with your summary that it happens outside of the ending of ME3, therefore there is no canon ending to the game, but I still think one of the most interesting pieces of speculation before E3 will be what piece of canon FTL tech they actually used to reach Andromeda.

 

Actually, as a fan of Drew's idea about Big Crunch... I like your idea about refuse, they could potentially even meld together. However, 2 problems here;

 

1) Fans dont want to ever see reapers again. I actually wouldnt mind more Reaper story but realistically the reapers are dead forever to most fans... so no Refuse.

2) One recent scientific factoid is that the recent discovery of Gravitational Waves is in support of the inflation model.

 

This entirely kills two of the models that were gaining popularity IRL that were in potential ME lore; Big Crunch or Big Bounce. So, this sci-fi game concept is no longer potentially supported in potential real science which kind of kills that mystery and intrigue a little for me.

 

Back to the Ark, I now understand from AlleyD it the FTL technology uplift will actually just be arbitrary, "Skyhook / Phlebetonium", but I still think that the writing behind it HAS to nail it. I have faith they will get it right!

 

 

But the Mars Archieves might hold plans for such a vessel or a theory for how to travel intergalatically. I would imagine that the Protheans after the Reapers Invaded or even before than were looking into the possibility of going to another galaxy. The Reaper Invasion could've prompt some of the Protheans to continue that theory. So I guess I am saying the theory for traveling galaxies were in the Mars Achieve but no solid plans on how to actually do it were left in there because Reaper Invasion on the Protheans. 

 

 

So, this was something that AlleyD mentioned too, its interesting. Its a potential, but then you would assume if they gained FTL technology from this, they would have been able to integrate this technology elsewhere in technology used by N7/the Alliance.

 

Actually reading about Mars, made me think of Mars proximity to earth and being in Sol, and it made me realize something that I never brought into previous debates with other people.

 

1) If we take the trailer more literally than figuratively, it means the Ark actually leaves the Sol system as its point of origin. This poses HUGE problems for it leaving before ME3. Namely, I see this as a problem because I believe the screenshot shown of a citadel looking environment is onboard the ship, which indicates the Ark is massive in size. Therefore, it would not have been a secret to anybody in the Sol system.

 

My contention has always been that the Ark did not leave hundreds or thousands of years after ME3, it left before it, because this way ME:A does not need to address any trilogy end 'canon' lore in ME.

 

However, assuming the Ark leaves the Sol system, how on earth would something so big be built around earth but Shepard not know about it. The sheer proximity of the Ark to Earth illustrated in the trailer is massively problematic.

 

Actually, I almost giveup now I'm just going to assume that in the ME:A trailer... the representation of the Ark flying past earth towards Andromeda is figurative/pretend and go with my original theory it left between ME2 and ME3. The skyhooks are hurting my brain.

 

You almost HAVE to believe this really. I mean, there are other problems. If you look at the earth relative to the ship, the ship would have to be incredibly close to Earth, like much closer than the moon is to earth, so well within Sol.

 

But then, if that was the case and the ship is in that relative position in space... Andromeda would basically look like a star on the horizon, not a massively large galaxy. Therefore, the trailer is not anywhere near scientifically canon/correct. So in this case, what CAN we believe... maybe the whole thing is different in ME:A.

[warlorejon]

Maybethe ark stopped at planets topickup colonists for the trip?

[Ahriman]

Maybethe ark stopped at planets topickup colonists for the trip?

To announce it to everyone? Unlike Citadel-sized anchor, evacuation shuttles were all over the galaxy, nobody would be able to trace them all.

[Felps Cross]

Its better to look at the ark as the citadel itself, than an actual reaper. Retroffited, of course, but to see it as a reaper itself, seems like crazy.

[Sir Froggie]

DOPPELGANGER!!

[Vespervin]

You both must now fight to the death. There can be only one.

[Kabooooom]

DOPPELGANGER!!

A time travelling frog shouldn't be surprised to run into doppelgangers of himself.

[tesla21]

@Gothfather:  Are you actually emotional about this, or are you just poor at conveying your grounded unemotional responses?

 

Why are you bringing a God into this?  Did I say anything about a God?  Do you even know if I believe in a God?  And if so... which God?  What God?  Who's God? How do you define God?  Is it the one that bored you in Sunday school?  Or the one that didn't give you what you wanted?  Took something away from you?  Or the one who's followers said you were naughty?
 

You should be more concise about your own terminology.

 

Everything you've said about science is - of course - correct.  That you cannot see that you've dogmatized your beliefs about it... is not my fault.

 

Also, may I ask which field of science you're in?

 

While I have read nothing but two posts of this discussion and I actually want to have nothing to do with it, in that post he just mentioned god as an example to what a dogma is and how it contrasts with sciene. Just the fact that you use it to dismiss his entire post based on literally a SINGLE mention on the word "God", leads me to think you are full ****. 

 

Just a random comment passing by.

[Kabooooom]

But then, if that was the case and the ship is in that relative position in space... Andromeda would basically look like a star on the horizon, not a massively large galaxy.

This is really incorrect actually. Andromeda is huge, roughly three times the diameter of the moon when seen from the surface of Earth, more or less.

http://www.slate.com...in_the_sky.html

Edit: Even I was wrong and underestimated the relative size. It is roughly six times the size of the full moon. My point still stands though, its effing enormous.