There's no way of knowing if something pre-dates the Reapers actually, technically.
Just like there's no way of knowing if they didn't leave something behind, the universe being quite vast and all that. The possibilities are basically limitless.
Also Hitchcock is trash.
So the real MacGuffin in Mass Effect was the fact that Normandy was on a "shakedown run".
Not really. The Normandy shakedown run was for the Beacon, whose nature was important to its function in the plot.
Not all stories have MacGuffins. The closest ME1 has is probably the Cypher- which functions as a black box plot device of vagueness which has one use and one use only to decipher the Beacon by mumbo-jumbo, and then never matters again (even though it should matter quite alot). The Cypher could have been any interchangeable macguffin and made as much sense, which is why it's closer to being the macguffin.
MacGuffins usually qualify when 'what' the MacGuffin is isn't what's important to the story. The archetype is the locked briefcase- what's inside the briefcase doesn't matter, as long as people come into conflict over it. If you can go the story without actually saying what's in the briefcase, or could trade it out easily for the same effect, it's probably a macguffin.
In ME, the most common macguffins were 'data.' What sort of data is almost always pure technobabble of situational context, but having the 'data' was important. The cure data in Mordin's loyalty mission, for example- it's a macguffin because the story didn't really care what was inside it or even if it existed. It could have been useful- it could have been junk data. The conflict would have been the same.
The Cypher was pretty crucial, I thought.. And never exactly ceases to be.
I suppose quest order matters too.
Is that how it's really spelled btw? 
Shepard knew they were 2 kilometer long space Cthulhu sleeping out in dark space? I admit, I missed that part.
Someone. Does t matter? The galaxy got by for thousands of years without knowing.
Somewhere. Again, for thousands of years that question didn't matter.
Gotta start somewhere.
You would not know them, and there is no time to explain.
On a more serious not, the answer is the same as "who built the relays"
However they choose to explain in this continuity
See krogan explanation
In the current continuity. But then, Batman's parents were killed by different people in different continuities
To your first point, Shepard knew that the Reapers were a race of genocidal machines. That's what the Reapers are in ME.
Anyway, you misunderstand. The point here isn't that we can't just change the lore enough to accomodate it all. It's that once we do this, we've got ME:A level changes to the setting.
There's no difference between this type of reboot and ME:A's soft reboot.
There's no difference between this type of reboot and ME:A's soft reboot.
I tend to agree. I would go further and say that there is also no real difference between the soft reboot of ME:A, and a canonization of one of the endings either.
Both ignore player choices in a different way. And the Milky way is unexplored mostly, so we are not about "choices and consequences" either way.
Meh.
I say go ahead and do a reboot. That way we'll know if it does well or not. I wouldn't announce it until 6 months before release like Bethesda did with Fallout 4. excellent
I say go ahead and do a reboot. That way we'll know if it does well or not. I wouldn't announce it until 6 months before release like Bethesda did with Fallout 4. excellent
What's with the "excellent" all the time?...
Anyway, personally I'd rather a completely new story, just seems more interesting than a somewhat altered version of the same story.
What's with the "excellent" all the time?...
Why?
Anyway, personally I'd rather a completely new story, just seems more interesting than a somewhat altered version of the same story.
That's fine. For me, I wouldn't have anything against a reboot.
I tend to agree. I would go further and say that there is also no real difference between the soft reboot of ME:A, and a canonization of one of the endings either.
Both ignore player choices in a different way. And the Milky way is unexplored mostly, so we are not about "choices and consequences" either way.
I think he's wondering if you're doing a Mr. Burns riff.
As for doing a reboot to see if it works, I don't think Bio gets two shots at this. A failed reboot just ends the IP for a decade or so, at which point it gets revived as some sort of low budget indie project. This would probably be just fine for some of us.
I don't think this can be done as low budget.
Hmm.. I can't think of a good story scenario at least. I could see it with DA easier, I guess.... because I'm familiar with dungeon crawlers.
I tend to agree. I would go further and say that there is also no real difference between the soft reboot of ME:A, and a canonization of one of the endings either.
Both ignore player choices in a different way. And the Milky way is unexplored mostly, so we are not about "choices and consequences" either way.
Meh.
The "problem" with canonization (if you're the kind of person who would have a problem with canonization) is that BioWare would be favoring one choice over another rather than simply ignoring the issue entirely. A soft reboot offers the illusion that our choices still mattered.
I tend to agree. I would go further and say that there is also no real difference between the soft reboot of ME:A, and a canonization of one of the endings either.
Both ignore player choices in a different way. And the Milky way is unexplored mostly, so we are not about "choices and consequences" either way.
Meh.
I think it has more to do with how people are going to react to the game instead of how the sequel interacts with the first three games. I am pretty sure they estimated which approach that would cause the least amount of negativity towards the game.
I guess I'm in the minority. This provokes more negative feelings to me, than a reboot would.
But a sequel... probably the worst of options.
Also Hitchcock is trash.
No wonder why I disagree with Guinevere on stories...
She hates Hitchcock.
These games in general could use the intrigue.
I don't think this can be done as low budget.
Today, sure. In ten years, who knows what a cheap game will look like.
True.. Although I'm sure labor costs or time on quality 3D, cinematics, and big action won't change. It's a specific skillset...and it's not cheap, and it's not well automated.
Well, that depends on the definition of a "real" difference. ME:A can still happen in the same universe where any particular Shepard lived. In a canonized-ending universe, that isn't true.
I don't have a dog in that fight, myself. I've been advocating using canonized endings since DA:O, which made me realize that you could have significant choices or choices that carried over, but not both.
I'm fine with a canonized endings, but I doubt people would like my preferred ending (either Control ending, and a universe over which the shadow of the genocidal death machines looms large constantly, held back only by the magnanimity of an insane AI now modeled on the potentially unstable Cmdr. Shepard)
True.. Although I'm sure labor costs or time on quality 3D, cinematics, and big action won't change. It's a specific skillset...and it's not cheap, and it's not well automated.
I'm not sure we could get a middle market with the technology of today easily. The "indie" studios that are making games like the late 90s early 2000s are actually the size of those studios, with high end dev talent.
The "problem" with canonization (if you're the kind of person who would have a problem with canonization) is that BioWare would be favoring one choice over another rather than simply ignoring the issue entirely. A soft reboot offers the illusion that our choices still mattered.
Arguably, they did that already with Synthesis. It certainly felt like the choice we were pushed towards the most, the "author's choice".
And if that choice somehow altered the world into something completely new and weird with organics becoming half-cyborgs?
I wouldn't even mention how idiotic and nonsensical it was if I got to play in this cool new world.
But I could live with any of the other choices as well, I dislike all of them more because they are a part of a nonsensical whole
rather than because of their individual shortcomings.
I'm fine with a canonized endings, but I doubt people would like my preferred ending (either Control ending, and a universe over which the shadow of the genocidal death machines looms large constantly, held back only by the magnanimity of an insane AI now modeled on the potentially unstable Cmdr. Shepard)
I would take Control over Synthesis at least. It only changes one thing. And actually gives an interesting enemy. Whether they're Renegade or Paragon doesn't matter. They're bastards.
Maybe Kasumi should be the hero of that story. 
I prefer Destroy playthrough wise though.
I don't see why the choices from ME3's ending need to be carried over into Andromeda anyways. The next game features a new protagonist. Any actions that happen will be because of the new guy. Not because of Shepard.
There's no way of knowing if something pre-dates the Reapers actually, technically.
The Leviathans predate the Reapers. Maybe not the specific Leviathans that are seen in-game, but as a species, they are older.
I don't see why the choices from ME3 need to be carried over into Andromeda anyways. The next game features a new protagonist, so any actions, good or bad, will be because of the new guy's choices, not because of Shepard's.
What a silly response. The new game having a new protagonist doesn't invalidate what Shepard does in ME3. The state of the different species present in MEA could be radically different depending on what Shepard does in 3 (the quarians, rachni, and geth can all outright go extinct if you so choose). Dragon Age also has new protagonists with every game, but you can still import saves between each game there because your choices affect the world at large, and continuity shows that.
Retour en haut