47 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

i) The Arks will be a retcon, right? Anyone can affirm that with 97.34% certainty. That said, it can be done in a better or worse way. This playthrough reminded me that there is some small spaces in the trilogy to fit the enormity of the Arks. Like the STG studying indoctrination and the Shadow Broker knowing about the Reapers before ME1. So maybe the construction of the Arks by gods-know-who began before ME1. That, I reckon, would be better than building multiple vessels capable of travelling between galaxies in 3 years or less.

ii) Although there are many missions in the trilogy that focus on squadmates, I don't think any quite make Shepard feels like a secundary character as much as LotSB. And although that feels jarring in the context of the trilogy, it's a good thing for Andromeda. Making Ryder's companions feel more like proactive individuals with morals and motives that don't necessarily fit the player's will be a good thing.

iii) The way the dossiers and vids helped character and world building was elegant, fun and effective. More of that in Andromeda, please. 

iv) ME2's Liara was handled very well in the mission, but the cabin scene aboard the Normandy was a disaster. It had overly personal tones, made many assumptions about Shepard's view of Liara that are far from reasonable and had limited role-playing choices. The 'be back soon' auto-dialogue was just the worst of it all. Less of that in Andromeda, please.

v-ish) Remember when fans thought the next ME2's DLC would feature the VS with the same care and depth as Liara is LotSB? And after arrival was announced people thought the prisioner would be Ashley or Kaiden? Hue hue. ME does have a tradition of shattering hopes and dreams. None of that in Andromeda, please. 

[Laughing_Man]

The Arks could have been an emergency plan for the case of a general catastrophe, if indeed they were made before the events of ME (which I doubt).

Knowledge about the Reapers is not required.

 

Regarding 4&5, I'm confused, you hated that the game "made assumptions" about Liara, but wanted the same level of depth for the VS?

Sounds to me like your personal LI preference talking, not a general objection regarding RP elements VS. narrative.

 

There are pros and cons for open ended blank slate characters, and pros and cons with narrative story telling.

ME took something of a middle road in this regard, and overall I personally enjoyed this aspect, and thought that Liara's friendship and romance arcs were handled reasonably well.

[SNascimento]

Regarding 4&5, I'm confused, you hated that the game "made assumptions" about Liara, but wanted the same level of depth for the VS?

Sounds to me like your personal LI preference talking, not a general objection regarding RP elements VS. narrative.

 

I don't do romances and I didn't want anything for the VS. Just said a lot of fans expected it.

To clarify, I think the way the handled Liara throughout the DLC was amazing. The cabin scene in the Normandy however (which can be avoided) was badly done.

[Kabooooom]

i) The Arks will be a retcon, right? Anyone can affirm that with 97.34% certainty. That said, it can be done in a better or worse way. This playthrough reminded me that there is some small spaces in the trilogy to fit the enormity of the Arks. Like the STG studying indoctrination and the Shadow Broker knowing about the Reapers before ME1. So maybe the construction of the Arks by gods-know-who began before ME1. That, I reckon, would be better than building multiple vessels capable of travelling between galaxies in 3 years or less.

ii) Although there are many missions in the trilogy that focus on squadmates, I don't think any quite make Shepard feels like a secundary character as much as LotSB. And although that feels jarring in the context of the trilogy, it's a good thing for Andromeda. Making Ryder's companions feel more like proactive individuals with morals and motives that don't necessarily fit the player's will be a good thing.

iii) The way the dossiers and vids helped character and world building was elegant, fun and effective. More of that in Andromeda, please.

iv) ME2's Liara was handled very well in the mission, but the cabin scene aboard the Normandy was a disaster. It had overly personal tones, made many assumptions about Shepard's view of Liara that are far from reasonable and had limited role-playing choices. The 'be back soon' auto-dialogue was just the worst of it all. Less of that in Andromeda, please.

v-ish) Remember when fans thought the next ME2's DLC would feature the VS with the same care and depth as Liara is LotSB? And after arrival was announced people thought the prisioner would be Ashley or Kaiden? Hue hue. ME does have a tradition of shattering hopes and dreams. None of that in Andromeda, please.

I just finished a Shadow Broker play through too, and I found it interesting that Liara not only says he knew of the Reapers, but that he was actively trying to survive them. I think she used the words "looking for a way to survive".

[SNascimento]

I just finished a Shadow Broker play through too, and I found it interesting that Liara not only says he knew of the Reapers, but that he was actively trying to survive them. I think she used the words "looking for a way to survive".

Indeed, which also implies he had no knowledge of any Arks.

[AlanC9]

Or he did, but hadn't come up with a way to get himself on the passenger list yet. Though this would mean that Liara knew of the Arks.

[iM3GTR]

Maybe he was about to read about the arks but then threw his desk at Shepard in rage.

[Vilio1]

I actually enjoyed the humanisation of Shephard in the cabin scene after she/he was turning into a generic action wo/man with little to no emotional depth in ME2. I really liked that Liara literally was concerned about Shepard personally. The ending scene is (arguably) the first one where Shepard shows any kind of human emotional weakness ("I am worried/hopeful/frustrated"). THAT'S what I want: The player character showing her emotions and characteristics, but at the behest of my choices. No emotionless drone (ME2) or forced drama (Earth and the kid in ME3)

[Kabooooom]

Or he did, but hadn't come up with a way to get himself on the passenger list yet. Though this would mean that Liara knew of the Arks.

Yeah, people would probably question why a Yahg was on board, lol.

He could probably disguise himself as a really big female Krogan...

[wolfsite]

Right now nothing can be for certain since a lot of story elements have been left extremely vague to the point that we don't know exactly "when" we left the milky way galaxy which means nothing can really be confirmed or connected to Andromeda from the original trilogy.

 

For example many theorize that the Asari Counselor is referencing the Ark program after the Thessia mission, but so far a lot of the promotional material seems to hint that the Arks left before that happened or even before the Reaper War in ME3 started since there are no Reapers or Military ships in Earth's Orbit in the trailers.

[Mcfly616]

I'm still leaning towards the ark being built after ME1 and before ME3....only because the Council is stubborn as all hell (they wouldn't even openly acknowledge that Sovereign was a Reaper). Imo they may have heard the legends, hell, the asari might've had a good idea due to the prothean vi, but they needed to see it to believe it. And while they wouldn't admit it openly, Sovereign scared the living hell out of them. They kept those fears hidden, just as they hide the efforts they put in motion as a result of said fears. The ark.

[SNascimento]

I actually enjoyed the humanisation of Shephard in the cabin scene after she/he was turning into a generic action wo/man with little to no emotional depth in ME2. I really liked that Liara literally was concerned about Shepard personally. The ending scene is (arguably) the first one where Shepard shows any kind of human emotional weakness ("I am worried/hopeful/frustrated"). THAT'S what I want: The player character showing her emotions and characteristics, but at the behest of my choices. No emotionless drone (ME2) or forced drama (Earth and the kid in ME3)

 
I understand, but where was the options that allows Shepard to not open up with Liara? That humanization came with the cost of considering Liara is Shepard closest friend, confidant or something in those lines. An 'I'm fine [Lie]' option would make a big difference there. 

Of course, you can avoid that scene, but then you would lose a chance to do some interesting roleplaying as well.

[In Exile]

I actually enjoyed the humanisation of Shephard in the cabin scene after she/he was turning into a generic action wo/man with little to no emotional depth in ME2. I really liked that Liara literally was concerned about Shepard personally. The ending scene is (arguably) the first one where Shepard shows any kind of human emotional weakness ("I am worried/hopeful/frustrated"). THAT'S what I want: The player character showing her emotions and characteristics, but at the behest of my choices. No emotionless drone (ME2) or forced drama (Earth and the kid in ME3)

Sure, but the problem with that is that it was pretty limited in terms of your emotional range. I actually think that DAI solved how Bioware could do this and had established a great system. While it had a of flaws I think the DAI reaction wheel is a general achievement.

[simonrana]

Sadly Shepard had auto-fawn reactions to pretty much all the ME1 squaddies in 2 and 3, with the exception of Tali on that first mission.

i just rp every Shepard as having a soft spot for his squad, even the most renegade ones, as the game just doesn't make sense otherwise.

[Han Shot First]

The arks could be a mothballed holdover from the Rachni Wars. The Reaper War wasn't the first time the Council species fought a potentially apocalyptic war, so it wouldn't be far-fetched to have an Andromeda contingency plan and arks in place well before the Reapers turn up.

That said, Bioware isn't exactly known for writing air tight stories that aren't riddled with holes, so we'll probably get something that doesn't make sense if you spend any time thinking about it.

[Spectr61]

LotSB?

[UpUpAway]

The arks could be a mothballed holdover from the Rachni Wars. The Reaper War wasn't the first time the Council species fought a potentially apocalyptic war, so it wouldn't be far-fetched to have an Andromeda contingency plan and arks in place well before the Reapers turn up.

That said, Bioware isn't exactly known for writing air tight stories that aren't riddled with holes, so we'll probably get something that doesn't make sense if you spend any time thinking about it.

 

Interesting thought... maybe ARKCON stands for Asari's Rachni Krogan Contingency.

[UpUpAway]

LotSB?

 

The Lair of the Shadow Broker - ME2 DLC.

[AlanC9]

For example many theorize that the Asari Counselor is referencing the Ark program after the Thessia mission, but so far a lot of the promotional material seems to hint that the Arks left before that happened or even before the Reaper War in ME3 started since there are no Reapers or Military ships in Earth's Orbit in the trailers.

I believe we see at least one Alliance cruiser. It'd be kind of surprising if there weren't any around Earth, though.

[DarthLaxian]

Or he did, but hadn't come up with a way to get himself on the passenger list yet. Though this would mean that Liara knew of the Arks.

 

How could he, even the Salarians (who experimented with Yagh-Uplifting!) would probably KILL HIM ON SIGHT and he'd lose all of his contacts, his network etc. so he'd basically be a lone Yagh in a foreign galaxy among people who would probably kill him if they knew he was there!

[SNascimento]

The arks could be a mothballed holdover from the Rachni Wars. The Reaper War wasn't the first time the Council species fought a potentially apocalyptic war, so it wouldn't be far-fetched to have an Andromeda contingency plan and arks in place well before the Reapers turn up.

I'd say that's extremely far fetched. First because it seems like a drastic and ineffective overreaction and second because the technology needed to build the Arks is not something the galaxy seems to have during the Reapers War, let alone centuries before. The first issue is somewhat solved by the Reapers. The second however I look foward to see how they will answer. 

[Laughing_Man]

I'd say that's extremely far fetched. First because it seems like a drastic and ineffective overreaction and second because the technology needed to build the Arks is not something the galaxy seems to have during the Reapers War, let alone centuries before. The first issue is somewhat solved by the Reapers. The second however I look foward to see how they will answer. 

 

That's not very accurate.

 

All they needed was cryogenic stasis technology, and a solution to the discharge problem.

 

We know that they had the first, and the second might only be a problem if you care about the size and efficiency of your space vessel.

It is plausible to me that assuming space and size are not a problem, there might be solutions out there to deal with FTL discharge.

 

It could be recycling the charge somehow into the power system, or it could be something else, it's not too far fetched.

[SNascimento]

 it's not too far fetched.

Honestly It's been a while since I read the Codex about space travel in Mass Effect so I don't remember it that much. But my view that the galaxy doesn't have the technology has to do with my view that developing a giant vessel capable of doing that travel is another scale of challenge than building the ships we see in the trilogy. So I can't argue this points much. But what about fuel?

Regardless, if we just consider the discharge issue. If we consider that they solved that problem, why wasn't it made common knowledge? That technology would greatly improve ships. Keeping it in secret seems... unproductive. 

Further, the technology is not only about the Ark. The Tempest seems more advanced than the Normandy, so are the "Kodiaks" we see.

Not to mention, do you really think that the best answer to a future war is to built Arks instead of improving your military? It doesn't make any sense. If you have a way to solve the discharge problem, why wouldn't you equip your at least your military crafts with it, for example.
 

[AlanC9]

Let's wait until the size of the Arks is made clear before having that argument.

[Kabooooom]

Honestly It's been a while since I read the Codex about space travel in Mass Effect so I don't remember it that much. But my view that the galaxy doesn't have the technology has to do with my view that developing a giant vessel capable of doing that travel is another scale of challenge than building the ships we see in the trilogy. So I can't argue this points much. But what about fuel?

Regardless, if we just consider the discharge issue. If we consider that they solved that problem, why wasn't it made common knowledge? That technology would greatly improve ships. Keeping it in secret seems... unproductive.

Further, the technology is not only about the Ark. The Tempest seems more advanced than the Normandy, so are the "Kodiaks" we see.

Not to mention, do you really think that the best answer to a future war is to built Arks instead of improving your military? It doesn't make any sense. If you have a way to solve the discharge problem, why wouldn't you equip your at least your military crafts with it, for example.

That's not what Han was saying though. His point was that they could have been built during the Rachni War, not in anticipation of a future war. That war, from the lore description, was nearly as bad as the Reaper War. The Rachni were conquering the Milky Way system by system, pressing on Asari and Salarian space, and they couldn't be stopped. The Citadel species were losing the war, miserably. Every indication was that the Rachni would succeed in galactic conquest, and that meant extinction for the Asari and Salarians (and the Volus and other species that no one really cares about ).

So they got desperate. They uplifted the Krogan, but there was no guarantee that even that would work. So it makes perfect sense that they would have a plan B, and like the Reaper War, if you can't win then the only other choice is to run and hide.

And as others have pointed out, the only problem with the Ark technology is really the fuel. They had cryo, and the Citadel and other large space stations had drive discharge technology already, so presumably this could be implemented on the Arks. The question of "why don't all ships do that then?" isnt answered in the lore. My hypothesis is that it is only practical for large vessels on the size of space stations, and for smaller vessels it is more practical to just use a planet for discharge.