529 réponses à ce sujet

[Gwydden]

That the pathfinders are in cryo until arrival in Andromeda complicates a scenario where they leave during ME3 but before the endings. Now you need to account for whether the krogan on board have the genophage or not, because they would be first-generation genophage-free krogan. Before we had hypothesized that Bio could homogenize the genophage by explaining that over hundreds of years of getting to Andromeda the krogan adapted past the genophage like they had previously done until the modified genophage was dispersed, but that's no longer possible.

 

It's simply easier, given we know the Council actually believed Shepard, to posit that the project was initiated after ME1 and disembarked before ME3.

It seems likely the Ark leaves before even ME3. Earth doesn't seem to be on fire in the trailer.

[fizzypop]

It could mean they left a few hundred years later though, after which time Shepard's decisions will likely no longer be relevant to the main story. Really, it could go either way.

 

That would not make any sense though. 1. If you choose green you will not revert to a completely organic being for no reason. So you would always be part synthetic and this would definitely come up. 2. Control would still have the reapers around just not in a harmful form. I mean you don't just forget that these massive machines that tried to kill you exist and now help you.

Not mentioning those two as huge outcomes would totally ****** people off. Destroy would be the only outcome that could be easily ignored and explained via a history lesson. I really just don't see any way around this except it happens before ME3 endings. If it happened after they would be forced to at least acknowledge the endings in some way. That just seems like a lot of work for a game that's trying to NOT carry over much from the series.

[CronoDragoon]

It seems likely the Ark leaves before even ME3. Earth doesn't seem to be on fire in the trailer.

 

Yeah, besides what I said there's that shot of Earth, along with Mac's comments that went (paraphrased) "we wanted to avoid taking Shepard's big decisions into account, so you can guess the timeline for their departure based on that."

[Zu Long]

Liara discovers the blueprints on Mars.

 

There isn't reason to believe Hackett had them because they came from a different project.  That is not supported in the game whatsoever.  Liara discovered the blueprints, the Crucible project completely decodes them and improves them.

 

I never said Hacket got the plans anywhere else. I said that it was possible that building the Arks left humanity with infrastructure that influenced how the final design of the Crucible ended up looking, which is why they look a little similar. You admit that the Crucible project made changes and improvements to the design and gave the project its final form. I'm not sure what the argument is.

[CronoDragoon]

I never said Hacket got the plans anywhere else. I said that it was possible that building the Arks left humanity with infrastructure that influenced how the final design of the Crucible ended up looking, which is why they look a little similar. You admit that the Crucible project made changes and improvements to the design and gave the project its final form. I'm not sure what the argument is.

 

My argument would be that since the galaxy had no clue the Crucible was supposed to dock with the Citadel until the very end of the game, there seems to be an awful lot of coincidence in this theory.

[capn233]

I never said Hacket got the plans anywhere else. I said that it was possible that building the Arks left humanity with infrastructure that influenced how the final design of the Crucible ended up looking, which is why they look a little similar. You admit that the Crucible project made changes and improvements to the design and gave the project its final form. I'm not sure what the argument is.

 

The argument is that the Ark cannot simultaneously be based on the Crucible blueprints and be started before the blueprints were discovered.  The Arks would need to have been launched before the Crucible project started construction in order to actually grant any construction infrastructure to the Crucible.

 

It is plausible that they are co-developed, or at the least the Ark design is piggybacked off Crucible work.  But the Crucible design largely comes from the archive.  Improvements are essentially the result of Shepard fetch quests.

[UpUpAway]

The argument is that the Ark cannot simultaneously be based on the Crucible blueprints and be started before the blueprints were discovered.  The Arks would need to have been launched before the Crucible project started construction in order to actually grant any construction infrastructure to the Crucible.

 

It is plausible that they are co-developed, or at the least the Ark design is piggybacked off Crucible work.  But the Crucible design largely comes from the archive.  Improvements are essentially the result of Shepard fetch quests.

 

However, the source of the Crucible blueprints is a Prothean Archive... and a Prothean Archive also exists on Ilos... an Archive that is suspiciously and summarily dismissed by Anderson when he tells Shepard that the VI on Ilos just shut down immediately after Shepard talked with it.  We know that the Protheans never actually completed the Crucible, but that doesn't preclude them adapting some of the power technology for other purposes... such as building "Prothean aerostat colonies" (and the wrecks of "downed" ones of these exist on Agetoton (a planet int he same system as Ilos).

[Zu Long]

The argument is that the Ark cannot simultaneously be based on the Crucible blueprints and be started before the blueprints were discovered.  The Arks would need to have been launched before the Crucible project started construction in order to actually grant any construction infrastructure to the Crucible.

 

It is plausible that they are co-developed, or at the least the Ark design is piggybacked off Crucible work.  But the Crucible design largely comes from the archive.  Improvements are essentially the result of Shepard fetch quests.

 

You're thinking of it the wrong way around. In my theory, the Ark ships weren't based on the Crucible- the Crucible resembles the Arks because the Alliance had to use the preexisting Ark infrastructure to build the Crucible components into a ship.

 

The shape the improvements take (in-game) is entirely determined by Alliance builders. The Crucible components come from the archive, designing them into an actual ship was the work of Alliance Engineers. It wouldn't be surprising that the Crucible therefore resembles other Alliance ships.

[MelThorn]

Ideally, I do want them to include some kind of leftover effects of your Shepard's "decision", such as green eyes for Synthesis, or reapers just... hanging around the Milky Way for those who chose Control. But then again, I get the sense that they don't want to have to explain to newcomers to the franchise "why everyone's eyes are green and why they're part machine and stuff", or what those giant synthetic squids are doing floating around in space... as well as what those giant squids are in the first place. They want to hook those little newcomers with new content, and Shepard's journey is very long. Explaining his "choice" would also mean explaining the entire trilogy, as well as explaining who Shepard even is... and at that point, you might as well just play the trilogy (though really, you should). My guess is that they're either going to come up with an explanation of why those choices aren't affecting the new game (a very meticulously-crafted reason, like "Lol the effects faded over time... or... something")-- or, of course, Andromeda happens before the end of the trilogy takes place...

 

Or it's a completely remastered version of Mass Effect where Shepard's journey never existed, and they make humorous winks and nods to the original trilogy to make sure devoted fans don't crap themselves with rage entirely (and I will say this now, if that is the case... that strategy will not work with me, as I'm sure it won't for many others. My pants will be filled with the crap of anger).

 

If the original trilogy does factor into it, and they're in their (Ark?) leaving for Andromeda when Shepard jumps into that green beam of death, then they won't be affected by the synthetic/organic amalgamation, because the Crucible probably has some kind of signal that only affects The Milky Way (because relays), and that'd be a convenient explanation that I'd have no way of confirming but would totally buy if they explained it hard enough... and when it comes to lore, everything is pretty much up in the air with the series (or any sci-fi series) in general. You could say "giant sharks are attacking" (or giant squids, lol) and make it sound 100% plausible with sci-fi if you put enough tech jargon in there. I totally believed the reapers could exist, because they explained it well. It didn't make sense, but I bought it anyway.

 

I also get the idea here that they want to forget that any of those conclusions even happened, and having a constant reminder of them is something they don't want. The endings were so notorious for being "the worst ever" that people who haven't even played Mass Effect know about them. Wasn't EA nominated as "worst company in America" after those endings happened? Yeah, people are kind of over it by now, but I'm willing to bet they still feel the sting. I'm sure they want to sweep Mass Effect 3's conclusion under the rug and say "no need to look under there." That's probably what I would do, too.

 

Personally, I'd no longer really look forward to Andromeda if it was a remaster. I might still buy it... but I'd be far less enthusiastic. They say that there is no canon ending, that Andromeda isn't a "Sequel", and that they believe in the player's ending choice. And if they don't want to include leftover remains of those endings at all to prevent confusion for the Mass Effect newbies... there's really only two explanations of what might happen.

 

And I hate that I convinced myself of that possibility.

[Zu Long]

My argument would be that since the galaxy had no clue the Crucible was supposed to dock with the Citadel until the very end of the game, there seems to be an awful lot of coincidence in this theory.

 

They don't look all THAT similar though.

 

 

They're KINDA similar. Kinda. All I'm saying is that similarity isn't a very big coincidence if you assume the Crucible was built with Ark infrastructure.

[MelThorn]

On a related note, Mac Walters said this in an interview with Polygon.com that I just read.

 

Here's a link to the article:

http://www.polygon.c...preview-e3-2016

 

"We're not getting into specifics right now, but you can imagine how long it would take to — even with the best technology, travel to a new galaxy — so you can imagine this is taking place quite a distance in the future," Walters said. "But there are strong ties to the original trilogy that players will recognize. "

"We'll be re-explaining [the series' technology and concepts] in this game, but other than that, this is very much a standalone game that then takes place in a completely new galaxy."

[Kabooooom]

On a related note, Mac Walters said this in an interview with Polygon.com that I just read.

Here's a link to the article:
http://www.polygon.c...preview-e3-2016

"We're not getting into specifics right now, but you can imagine how long it would take to — even with the best technology, travel to a new galaxy — so you can imagine this is taking place quite a distance in the future," Walters said. "But there are strong ties to the original trilogy that players will recognize. "
"We'll be re-explaining [the series' technology and concepts] in this game, but other than that, this is very much a standalone game that then takes place in a completely new galaxy."

He also said "the endings of ME3 won't matter at all" and "from that you can probably infer when the colonists leave the Milky Way, to a certain extent".

In other words - BEFORE the endings of ME3. They leave before, they get to Andromeda centuries later.

[MelThorn]

He also said "the endings of ME3 won't matter at all" and "from that you can probably infer when the colonists leave the Milky Way, to a certain extent".

In other words - BEFORE the endings of ME3. They leave before, they get to Andromeda centuries later.

 

I apologize. I was understanding that the game, when mentioned that it "takes place hundreds of years after the trilogy" that Andromeda will begin hundreds of years after the trilogy, but of course, for all we know, the game begins with them in Andromeda-- in that they've already traveled there, and it took them hundreds of years to get there, thus the length of time.

I keep assuming that when they say things like "Andromeda will take place hundreds of years in the future" they mean when they begin building the technology to even take them to Andromeda in the first place.

 

If it does end up being that they leave before ME3's endings, I'm more than okay with that. It makes the most sense.

[azarhal]

They don't look all THAT similar though.
...

 

 

They're KINDA similar. Kinda. All I'm saying is that similarity isn't a very big coincidence if you assume the Crucible was built with Ark infrastructure.

 

You know, I think that's just a the engine core drive. The Normandy SR2 core drive was a sphere as well...and it need to be oversized for the long trip in this case.

[Kabooooom]

I apologize. I was understanding that the game, when mentioned that it "takes place hundreds of years after the trilogy" that Andromeda will begin hundreds of years after the trilogy, but of course, for all we know, the game begins with them in Andromeda-- in that they've already traveled there, and it took them hundreds of years to get there, thus the length of time.
I keep assuming that when they say things like "Andromeda will take place hundreds of years in the future" they mean when they begin building the technology to even take them to Andromeda in the first place.

If it does end up being that they leave before ME3's endings, I'm more than okay with that. It makes the most sense.

It's also supported by other strong evidence too. In Andromeda, despite the graphical upgrade they are definitely using the current galactic standard of technology. Besides the guns shown in the trailer which are the same models as those in ME3, we are using the M-40 Mako. In the games we used the M-35 Mako and M-44 Hammerhead.

So to me, that rules out a departure hundreds of years later and all evidence, including pretty much dev confirmation, points to a departure sometime before the end of the war.

[DextroDNA]

You know, I think that's just a the engine core drive. The Normandy SR2 core drive was a sphere as well...and it need to be oversized for the long trip in this case.

I mean, the Crucible is basically just a huge battery so it could make sense to use it as a power source for the ark ships.

[Urizen]

99% of the MW is uncharted there are numerous stories that can be told without Shepard.

 

In prequels or sidequels true, but not in sequels, especially if the whole reason to travel to andromeda is to avoid the me3 endings altogether.

[Shermos]

I don't think we can assume confirmation from the devs one way or the other just yet. The language is too ambiguous, and the messages contradictory. The trailers we've seen so far are also ambiguous.

 

It makes A LOT more sense both logically and plot/lore wise for the Ark ships to leave after ME3, and it could be done without needing to touch the endings or major decisions to any great degree. The game can start just before the ships leave with the past being hardly mentioned. It still would leave a sour taste in my mouth though, and I would hope Bioware could return to the Milky way in a later game. The two settings could be linked as someone said a couple of pages ago.

 

It does however seem more likely the writers would opt for the ships to be sent off at some point prior to the end of the ME3, retcons and plot holes be damned in their minds. In that case, people are going to be just as pinged off as they would be if a canon ending was chosen, or the ending consequences broadly converged with the franchise continuing in the Milky way. Why not just bite the bullet and expand on the setting people know and love?

 

I remember seeing a Tweet years ago which mentioned arguments between the writers over the direction the the next Mass Effect game should take. And since then, a lot of people who worked on the franchise have left Bioware. My theory is that most of them weren't happy with the chosen direction for the exact same reasons a lot of people are calling BS here. 

 

I'm going to do a TotalBiscuit and encourage people not to preorder. Don't set yourselves up for disappointment.

[UpUpAway]

I don't think we can assume confirmation from the devs one way or the other just yet. The language is too ambiguous, and the messages contradictory. The trailers we've seen so far are also ambiguous.

 

It makes A LOT more sense both logically and plot/lore wise for the Ark ships to leave after ME3, and it could be done without needing to touch the endings or major decisions to any great degree. The game can start just before the ships leave with the past being hardly mentioned. It still would leave a sour taste in my mouth though, and I would hope Bioware could return to the Milky way in a later game. The two settings could be linked as someone said a couple of pages ago.

 

It does however seem more likely the writers would opt for the ships to be sent off at some point prior to the end of the ME3, retcons and plot holes be damned in their minds. In that case, people are going to be just as pinged off as they would be if a canon ending was chosen, or the ending consequences broadly converged with the franchise continuing in the Milky way. Why not just bite the bullet and expand on the setting people know and love?

 

I remember seeing a Tweet years ago which mentioned arguments between the writers over the direction the the next Mass Effect game should take. And since then, a lot of people who worked on the franchise have left Bioware. My theory is that most of them weren't happy with the chosen direction for the exact same reasons a lot of people are calling BS here. 

 

I'm going to do a TotalBiscuit and encourage people not to preorder. Don't set yourselves up for disappointment.

 

I'm going to ask "Why keep it?"  If what you want to do is advance the story hundreds of years into the future... you basically have to leave the Milky Way, since the Relays allow instantaneous travel around the entire Milky Way; and not journey would take that long.  With that sort of access to it and the billions and billions of people from the various council and subsidiary races using that relay system, it would be illogical to think that very much completely new, raw exploration would exist,  In addition, the look of many of the planets was set in ME1 - which was pretty darned barren and repetitive... and they would have to "break" with the lore of those planets to "spice up" the setting at all.

 

Bioware have stated already that ME:A is about leaving behind everything that is familiar and heading off into the completely unknown.  That's the "pioneer" feeling they are trying to capture.  It's a different story than ME1-3; and the completely new setting alone advances that story.  People here are already going through some of the feelings that will allow us to empathize with what our PC might be feeling.

[Shermos]

That argument doesn't wash with me. As has been said many times, we know from the lore that 99% of the MW remained unexplored by the end of ME3. Shifting galaxies has nothing to the do with exploration. That's just marketing department bs. It's about avoiding dealing with the endings.

[UpUpAway]

That argument doesn't wash with me. As has been said many times, we know from the lore that 99% of the MW remained unexplored by the end of ME3. Shifting galaxies has nothing to the do with exploration. That's just marketing department bs. It's about avoiding dealing with the endings.

 

You're intentionally missing my point.  If Bioware wants US (the player) to feel like we're leaving EVERYTHING behind, risking EVERYTHING to go into a complete unknown... They have to make the old "familiar" galaxy completely unaccessible to us.  When Columbus left Spain for the "New World," he had no idea and no way of knowing for sure that he wouldn't just fall off the edge of a flat world.  He HAD TO HAVE blind faith.

 

Not wanting to leave behind what is familiar is part of the "experience."  Back in the 1600s, when my ancestors set sail to North America, leaving behind awful circumstances, there were still many people who advised them not to leave lest they "be disappointed."  My ancestors had literally no idea what they were headed towards and absolutely no way back if it didn't work out (because they exhausted all their resources just getting here).  It's a different experience than refugees today, who may not be able to return to their homes, but they do have some knowledge of the parts of the world they are setting out to.

 

People here are still stuck on trying to force Bioware to tell them the story they want them to (mostly their still asking for a do over of the ME3 endings)... instead of allowing Bioware some room to tell the new story that Bioware wants to tell.  iMO, that's why they are being so adamant about keeping a "familiar" galaxy when they should have no emotional attachment whatsoever to the 99% unexplored part of it anyways.  It's either that or they just want to undermine sales over some grudge... over endings, over staff that have left, over EA taking them over, etc.

[SofaJockey]

The case for a 'start of ME3' departure.

This has likely been covered somewhere in the last 18 pages, sorry if I didn't read every post, but this is the logic I'm following:

 

1. The council (in whatever form) were well aware of the 'Reaper' threat, as evidenced by the Citadel archive. This gives the council years to prepare contingency plans, to be activated in the event of an attack. [Image from Citadel DLC]

 

2. At the start of ME3 Hackett has time for the fleet to be mobilized and arrive at Earth, due to the 'something massive' on long range scanners. Time enough to call the Ark fleet to Earth and perhaps to other locations for crew pick up. There are plenty of ships massing around Earth. [Image from ME3 Intro]

 

 

3. The embarkation of the ark crew takes place without challenge, without Reapers in the sky and without burning cities on the ground. [E3 2016 trailer]

 

 

4. As a comparison here is a real-life image of the US Eastern seaboard from space: [Ref: image]

 

 

5. Finally, the shot of the crew shuttles heading up to the Ark fleet clearly shows an orbital fleet in place behind the shuttles, as could be seen during a period of mobilization.

 

[Shermos]

You're intentionally missing my point.  If Bioware wants US (the player) to feel like we're leaving EVERYTHING behind, risking EVERYTHING to go into a complete unknown... They have to make the old "familiar" galaxy completely unaccessible to us.  When Columbus left Spain for the "New World," he had no idea and no way of knowing for sure that he wouldn't just fall off the edge of a flat world.  He HAD TO HAVE blind faith.

 

Not wanting to leave behind what is familiar is part of the "experience."  Back in the 1600s, when my ancestors set sail to North America, leaving behind awful circumstances, there were still many people who advised them not to leave lest they "be disappointed."  My ancestors had literally no idea what they were headed towards and absolutely no way back if it didn't work out (because they exhausted all their resources just getting here).  It's a different experience than refugees today, who may not be able to return to their homes, but they do have some knowledge of the parts of the world they are setting out to.

 

People here are still stuck on trying to force Bioware to tell them the story they want them to (mostly their still asking for a do over of the ME3 endings)... instead of allowing Bioware some room to tell the new story that Bioware wants to tell.  iMO, that's why they are being so adamant about keeping a "familiar" galaxy when they should have no emotional attachment whatsoever to the 99% unexplored part of it anyways.  It's either that or they just want to undermine sales over some grudge... over endings, over staff that have left, over EA taking them over, etc.

 

This is an even weaker argument. Settlers departing for the new world were never totally isolated from Europe. Contact with the old world was common, and people often traveled between them. A better analogy to the ME universe would be settlers departing to a newly discovered region of the Milky Way, filled with races no one has ever seen before. You can't escape the fact the vast majority of the galaxy was unexplored. 

 

The decision to travel to Andromeda has nothing to do with creative choice either. It's about writing incompetence, and not wanting to anger too many fans with the possible result of a post ME3 MW game. It's a cop-out, and a cop-out which looks like will backfire due to the large retcons and hand waves which will be required to make it work.

[AlanC9]

What 's the prediction of a backfire based on? You not liking it?

[Shermos]

Read this thread and others on the board. I'm by far not the only one who has a problem with it.