You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 12:20:03 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Mass Effect: Future  (Read 1152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DeamonbaneTopic starter

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Mass Effect: Future
« on: November 04, 2015, 01:04:44 AM »

Okay. I'm a little late to the party on this, but I am a huge fan of the Mass Effect game series. I love the storytelling, I love the characters, I love the jokes, the quips, the history and mythology. I've read and played about as much as one can read and play. I heard recently that the fourth game of the franchise has already been announced, and despite the change in the system, I'm like... really excited. They haven't said what or who the story's gonna be about, but I have a couple of theories (Mostly revolving around the trailer's depiction of a Mako and the N7 logo). It's set to come out late next year.

Oh, and there's also a movie in the works.

So... thoughts? What'll the new game be about? Since the producers specifically said that this game would not be starring the famed Commander Shepard and yet they also hinted that it might be a good idea to 'hold on to the save games', I'm guessing that the game happens after the Battle for Earth. The tech looks more advanced, but this might be similar to what happened with the Star Wars prequels.

Also, if you were commanding the helm of a live action Mass Effect adaptation, what would be your choices? Would you go with the games' story line, or jump forward? Or back? Would you cast Commander Shepard as male, or female? Who would you cast in the main roles?

Anything else you'd like to share about your Mass Effect experience? Thoughts, ideas? Would you have done it differently?


Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2015, 04:10:12 PM »
You got no answers? Blasphemy! Assassini, I summon thee! (Spoilers ahead, since this is an Andromeda thread I'll just assume you've played the previous titles)

Mass Effect is one of my favorite trilogies of all time and I just love discussing it (and by discussing it I mean telling Assassini why all his opinions about the game are wrong :p). Here are our regular controversial topics:

  • I hate Mordin.
  • I think the krogan are by far the most mistreated and bullied race in the ME universe.
  • I liked the ending and think 3 is probably the strongest overall game.
  • I let Jack die on my suicide mission. I regret nothing.
  • I killed the Geth.
  • I never activated Grunt.
  • I cured the genophage.
  • I got the best Destroy ending.
  • Citadel is by far the best DLC in the series.
  • Liara best girl, followed closely by Tali. I still banged Miranda though.

Feel free to ask for clarification on any of those points :p

About Andromeda, as far as I can tell, Andromeda is a program created by Shepard and the Alliance during their fight with the Reapers, to serve as a last resort. If they fail and the reapers win, there are still humans somewhere. That means new races, new companions, new politics... new everything! HYPE!

Offline DeamonbaneTopic starter

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2015, 05:49:14 AM »
HYPE!!!!!!

I can understand the Mordin hate, he was pretty useless in 2. Although I liked his version of Gilbert and Sullivan. He does redeem himself in 3, in my opinion.

Krogan are awesome, and yes, they are the most mistreated and bullied race in the galaxy, especially after all they did for the galaxy. Cured the Genophage.

I activated Grunt, he's epic (He He He), and I managed to have everyone survive the suicide mission. I destroyed the Collector base too.

I managed to save the Geth and the Quarians on my second try. Worth it, they both add a huge chunk to your War assets. Got the best destroy ending too, and while I have some issues introduced by the Indoctrination Theory, it felt like the best ending to me, despite everything. BTW, if you haven't looked at the Indoctrination Theory, it's worth a read, in my humble opinion. Puts some things in perspective.

Liara is the best girl and Tali is second best, I agree wholly. I never found Miranda to be that great. Especially since she seems to be the one that Bioware was pushing on you for the Second game, what with her outfit and all.

CITADEL DLC F*CKING ROCKS! It was the only DLC that I really enjoyed. The rest I kinda just tolerated and went through the motions with.

I liked the Ending in Three and while I found the end of 2 to be the stronger of the two (Something about working with your entire team, not just two of them made it for me), I found it to be a satisfactory conclusion to one of the finest RPG series to date if not the finest.

Anyways, if they follow the Theory's line of thinking (I've looked around and people have neither officially confirmed nor denied it) it seems like the war with the Reapers is still on and whoever you take over is part of a guerrilla resistance in fighting against them. Honestly, making the unknown N7 soldier as one of the last humans in existence would be a pretty interesting way to go. Otherwise... hell yeah! I like the openness that the ending left to everything and I can't wait to see what they are gonna do with it!

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2015, 06:45:26 AM »
I like a new galaxy it does raise issues though.

The creators of the reapers have never been intergalactic rulers, which Andromeda tries to imply by giving the game a fresh start. So we can safely assume that the Mass Effect is a bit of an artifact. There will be no mass relays, but there might be Element Zero (ME's unobtainium). So what's travel going to be like because in the immortal words of Douglas Adams.

"Space is big, really, really big..."

So how did humanity cross the inter-spacial distances between galaxies. That's another big deal, because there's a lot of theory that postulates right now that it's not just more empty space, that the area between galaxies is especially dark and starless because that's where Primordial Dark Matter might reside, but let's keep it mundane.

The space between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies is probably larger than the width of each one combined with room for several billion New York City studio apartments and then some. So how the hell did humanity make the crossing.

Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2015, 11:09:26 AM »
I like a new galaxy it does raise issues though.

The creators of the reapers have never been intergalactic rulers, which Andromeda tries to imply by giving the game a fresh start. So we can safely assume that the Mass Effect is a bit of an artifact. There will be no mass relays, but there might be Element Zero (ME's unobtainium). So what's travel going to be like because in the immortal words of Douglas Adams.

"Space is big, really, really big..."

So how did humanity cross the inter-spacial distances between galaxies. That's another big deal, because there's a lot of theory that postulates right now that it's not just more empty space, that the area between galaxies is especially dark and starless because that's where Primordial Dark Matter might reside, but let's keep it mundane.

The space between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies is probably larger than the width of each one combined with room for several billion New York City studio apartments and then some. So how the hell did humanity make the crossing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your first sentence, could you clarify? How does a new galaxy imply that the ancient beings that created the reapers were intergalactic rulers? I think it's pretty clear with Leviathan that they aren't, they're on that galaxy alone and they fucked up by creating the reapers. Even the "dark space" seems to be somewhat closeby.

Also, travel is gonna have to change in the new one, but how did they reach Andromeda is simple. Mass relays work like slingshots. Yes, the way they work in the original trilogy is they slingshot you from one relay to the other, but it's not crazy to think that they could Slingshot you in any given direction of you provide input, even if there's no relay there to receive you. This would require some explaining (as the receiving relay is supposed to serve as stabilizer after the really, really fast trip) but I don't think it's a major issue. It does make the name a little obtuse if mass relays aren't used to travel around Andromeda, which in all logic they shouldn't.

@Deamon: I hate the Indoctrination theory. Seriously. Even if it is plausible, it goes against everything I believe the message and underlying theme of Mass Effect to be (as Assassini so eloquently puts it, "Hoomanity fuck yeah! WOOO!") and I'd be pissed if they gave it any credibility whatsoever.
There have been Bioware devs confirming that there won't be any Reapers in this one though, so at least that you can cross out of the conjecture list ;D

Offline DeamonbaneTopic starter

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2015, 11:48:20 AM »
@Deamon: I hate the Indoctrination theory. Seriously. Even if it is plausible, it goes against everything I believe the message and underlying theme of Mass Effect to be (as Assassini so eloquently puts it, "Hoomanity fuck yeah! WOOO!") and I'd be pissed if they gave it any credibility whatsoever.
First off, with the evidence provided, I think that it ranges past the field of plausibility and enters into a realm of possible fact.

Aside from that, I think that it's the only way that the ending makes any logical sense whatsoever. From an emotional standpoint, it's satisfying, but other than that, looking over the hordes of details in the final 20 minutes of the game, it's either that they had something bigger and more twisted in mind, or that Bioware all of a sudden stopped being able to write in coherent sentences. Being a fan of most of their work up until now, focusing especially on their ability to incorporate a coherent storyline to a playable game, I really, really hope that it isn't the latter. Because if so, they made a whole lot of mistakes and a whole lot of details that they took the time to show in the game to be pointless, and I can't believe that and still be a fan of the games.

As for the underlying theme of the trilogy, I think that this link explains it better than I could. In essence, it shows, in a game that focused, sold itself on being as open-ended regarding choices and the consequences of these choices all of a sudden ending with only 3 choices, all of which go against what Shepard had advocated in the games up to that point," Let's all fight together against this threat so that we can either change everyone against their will and knowledge and force everyone to live in harmony, control the minds of our enemies so that we can become the pinnacle of evolution over everyone else in the galaxy, or commit mass genocide."

I'll take the explanation that Shepard is subconsciously fighting against attempts to indoctrinate him over those, personally. Or just fucking shoot the Catalyst and let the next cycle have a fighting chance thanks to T'Soni.

Or you could go with Hoomanity fuck yeah! WOOOO! Side of things and agree that whoever it was that was in charge of the details in the final release of the last game were utterly high and go with that.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 11:50:21 AM by Deamonbane »

Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2015, 12:27:35 PM »
First of all, you got something mixed up in the first sentence. Something being plausible is stronger than something being possible, and not the other way around. Something may be possible without being plausible, but it may not be plausible without being possible. So the only thing "past the range of plausibility" is certainty. Possibility is before plausibility.

About the endings itself, I don't agree with the dichotomy. It's not "either indoctrination theory or it makes no sense", especially after the Enhanced Edition which filled most of the plot holes. In fact, the endings we got are pretty satisfying from a narrative perspective anyway, with the one caveat being what happened to Assassini, in which you save the Geth and you have no option to tell the Catalyst that you did.

I wrote a detailed couple of posts about the endings in the gaming thread. I'll quote them below:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
About ME.

Yeah I played the Extended Cut, and I thought that might have something to do with it because some of the plot holes people mentioned (like how your crew gets to the normandy after rushing to the beam) weren't plot holes at all to me.

I also think that Leviathan, even though it was the shortest and worse of the DLCs (still good, just not as good as Citadel), makes a huge, fucking tremendous difference in how you react to the Catalyst. I would've thought that was ridiculous if not for Leviathan, because the actual foundation of the conflict and proper explanation of things is there, not during the ending.

Drunk Tali was great, Garrus overall is hilarious, Traynor was pretty funny this game, Joker has his moments, but AIs stole the humour show for me this game. Glyph and EDI had me in tears of laughter so many times I can't even remember most of them. Something about the dry, "I'm a computer I don't really mean this" way they deliver cracks me up.

I think your points about the theme changing are valid, but I also think it was handled properly. It's not like it came out of the blue. They addressed something that worried me (the fact that Shepard apparently had no feelings and reacted in no way to the atrocities he had seen), made him human and, in doing so, elevated his relationship with the crew to a whole other level. They still admire him, he's still Shepard, but he's also human. And in ME 3 he leans on them a whole lot more than in any other game of the series. Which is also fitting, because look at scale: 1 was about fighting ONE reaper. Two was about fighting the Collectors, and again, ONE reaper (two if you count the humanoid thing and Harbinger), and two was a SUICIDE MISSION. And now we're fighting 3000000000000000000 reapers? Look at how much of a big deal it is dealing with Tuchanka, and dealing with the one in Tali's homeworld. That's two. There are THOUSANDS of them. They explicitly say there are more reapers than alliance (and by alliance I mean the alliance of all races, not Alliance) ships. And one ship is infinitely inferior to one reaper, even the normandy. What I'm saying is, I would have thought it pretty weird if they kept the overall tone of "whatever happens, we've got this" as strong as they did in 1 and 2. It's still there - it's one of my favorite things about ME, it never leaves. There's always that hope, that "Ooo-rah friendship and ideals!" feeling. But to ignore the fact that this game had to be darker, grimmer, and less hopeful would have been a bad decision, in my opinion. I actually thought Bioware handled it quite well and, more importantly, quite honestly. No cop-outs. No "yeah fuck Reapers are huge and terrible but now that we're fighting them it's gonna okay". They are bad. They are huge. And they probably can't be beaten without huge losses. We knew that. The whole hope recurring theme is still there: it's the only reason you can beat them in the first place.

And I get the whole thing about

wanting Shepard to survive. I really do. I was tremendously attached to Shepard. But I don't think anyone in their right mind can say that his death, if it happens, isn't fitting. He'd be the first to make that sacrifice. He knew the odds. He knew what was at stake. And he's not fighting for himself. That's the whole defining trait of Shepard, what makes him him. He's fighting for something bigger, something better. And he'll die for it. Yeah it fucking hurts, but it's also fitting, and it's also good storytelling as far as I'm concerned.

The synthesis option provides an option for both organic and synthetics to live, but that's at the cost of Shepard. I'm okay with that.

To be honest, I fully, whole-heartedly understand why you would need that ending to be happy. But ask yourself: would that ending fit? Not only because of what I said above about theme. Would "kill reapers, save synthetics, save Shepard" make sense? The reapers are synthetics. Why not save them? They're not even bad, not ruled by morality, they're a product of the Catalyst, which in turn is a product of organic mismanagement. I honestly don't even think they're true AIs, they're more like geth in a way. I buy the whole "if you kill reapers it's by killing synthetics" thing not because it's the only way, but because it's a way. And I think Bioware did an amazing job of making every one of the 3 choices plausible and believable and come down to your ideals, your moral code.

What I personally would have liked, and the only way the ending would have been better for me, was if you could kill synthetics but let true AIs survive. Those are alive. Those are just as bit as important as organics. If those kill us, it's natural evolution. And I'm not ashamed to say that the fact that EDI was gonna die nearly made me not chose the destroy option. And it hit me fucking hard that EDI was gone, really fucking hard. She even knew. "If it comes down to saving me or saving Jeff, you'll save him. I guess the geth aren't really the only ones who'd rather turn to something familiar".

Now, maybe they could have done better. Maybe they could've written an happy ending and make it believable. Maybe it was feasible. But going from there to "the endings are bad" is a loooong way. I guess what I'm trying to say is maybe there could have been other endings, and I would have also liked an ending like what you mentioned because fuck, I'm human and I want shepard to be alive and everything to be alright, but I do think that the endings that do exist are good, and fitting and well-written. They're not bad because we're missing that other ending. And considering what I said about theme above, I can buy that other ending not being there, as much as I wanted it to.

I do think it sucks you can't save true AIs. The Geth were dead in my playthrough by that point because I'm a softy and I could never, ever, EVER betray Tali (hell if she asked me to jump off a cliff I probably would) and fuck Legion, but man, EDI...  :-\

Oh and for the record I don't know If I have the best ending, or if I could have done something better. I didn't watch the other endings yet. What I got was: Earth saved, reapers + synthetics destroyed, EDI only crewmember dead, Garrus wounded running to the beam but okay, Miranda romanced and alive, geth dead, some relays destroyed, killed the Illusive Man, Anderson died watching the view with me, Shepard lives (he breathes after all the cutscenes are done). Best or not, I was pretty damn happy with it. Even if they don't ever touch Shepard again, the hope is there. He breathed. Even if he died, I would have dealt with it, but hey, maybe he didn't. I'd like to believe he found Miranda and they were both awkwardly normal together.

As a side note, the last time you talk to each crewmember during the operations base sequence... fuck did that hit me hard. Liara especially with the space vision, but also Garrus, Tali, Ashley and Miranda. This is exactly what DA never had for me.

and while Synthesis and Control are cool, here's why I still feel like Destroy is the right option for me.

Control is not worth it for obvious reasons. My Shepard would never sacrifice his ideals for power, even if that power could be used for good. By choosing control, you effectively turn into the Illusive Man, without the indoctrination part. What bothers me the most is how you're doing exactly what you (at least I did) berate the Illusive Man for doing: playing with a power you can't understand, taking chances you can't fully comprehend. You become a reaper to stop the reapers. You become what you're fighting to win a war. Even if you do so to change them, you end up changing Shepard as well. That's the one thing that defines my Shepard: he's true to himself, to his ideals, to his humanity. He would NOT want to "become something greater", he would like to be the best human he can possibly be. That's what he always wanted.

Synthesis is a bit trickier, and I sort of like it. But the basis on which I don't think it is the right choice is that: 1, you're playing God again, and that just doesn't go well with the Shepard I played. He's wise enough not to play God, even with marvelous possibilities presenting themselves if he does. The one thing Shepard is so proud of, so defined by, is his tremendous humanity. To chose that option would be to go against his character, against his humbleness, against what he stands for. 2, I take issue with the idea of changing both beings to create peace. Making synthetics and organics just one race does not seem like the answer to me, it seems like a cop out. Synthetics and organics should be able to live peacefully because they want to, because they need to, and because they've grown enough to do so. Imposing uniformity, besides posing huge evolutionary problems (evolution and variety go hand in hand) also feels like saying "you're all the same now, so stop killing each other. If you were different, that'd be okay, but you know, you aren't." Killing the individuality, what makes each species distinct, what separates organics and synthetics... it just doesn't feel right to me.

And let us not speak of the Rejection ending. That one's just dumb.

All in all, I'm glad I chose destroy. But god damn it do I wish EDI could live. She was by far my favorite companion during 3.

From one of my conversations with Assassini

Man I get how it would bother you if you had the Geth live. I wasn't even sure that was possible. I was trigger happy, didn't wait for paragon / renegade options, first chance I had I stopped legion, because my reasoning was "well Tali's people are alive, Geth might become alive (true AIs) but they're not there yet. I can't risk an entire sentient people for a non-sentient race". It still bothered me somehow that Shepard believed the Catalyst so easily, but I forgave that with a "hmm it's a bit of bad exposition, they wanna give you the options instead of having shepard argue against them". Like fuck, thinking about it, if you saved the Geth, the endings get a whole lot worse because it's literally a case of "you can't do this" and the game not acknowledging that you actually did that a while back in that same game's storyline. I get why you're pissed then.

Anderson didn't hit me very hard because I thought it was one of the sloppiest storylines. Everyone knows Udina is bad. I hated that guy since game 1. I put Anderson as councilor. And now he leaves Udina as councilor when he goes to Earth? Like, what the fuck? Literally anyone would have been a better choice, and Anderson knows that! I didn't even get why he kept him as an assistant except as some "rub it in your face" bullshit that was completely out of character for him. I guess they needed someone to go rogue for the Cerberus attack, but I always felt like it was one of those "it's a video game you don't have 100% control" things in that I would've killed / fired Udina a looong time ago, and so should Anderson. Which sucks, because Mass Effect as a whole is very good at immersion and that was one of the few immersion breaking moments for me (the other being Thane's fight against Kai'Leng. Seriously? The deadliest assassin ever that jumps into a group of soldiers and kills the target with her own weapons can't 1v1 a bionic dude? And Shepard + Crew are 5 steps away just standing there, watching them fight the whole time? Okay then.)

See, my Shepard would never pick Synthesis because it's somewhat the same as control, in that it's an egocentric decision. It's "I have the power, and I'll decide" instead of "I'll give you the tools through which you can survive." I can definitely see the Illusive Man choosing Synthesis as well, and my Shepard would instantly go "fuck no, that's playing God." I get why you chose it and I'm not trying to say it's a bad choice, it just personally seemed like so uncharacteristic for me that I didn't ever consider it a viable choice - the same happened with control. The Catalyst stopped talking and I instantly went "yup, destroy, everything else is dumb."

The goodbyes were really hard. Especially because they definitely felt like foreshadowing, and halfway through I was thinking: "Fuck. I'm gonna die." Liara's vision, Garrus' and EDI's goodbye ("only now have I felt truly alive"), plus Miranda's goodbye through the comm, hit like a fucking truck. And I know the scene you're talking about and fuck, Liara has some sort of Clementine factor to her in that she's a shit ton older than you but you still don't want her to see bad things, you still feel very protective towards her (Miranda feels... tougher somewhat, you still care for her but you know she's gonna go through. I can't really put it into words but yeah, Clementine factor. Liara is innocent and sweet - even though she's not - and nothing bad should ever happen to her.)
[/quote]

Quote
I'll take the explanation that Shepard is subconsciously fighting against attempts to indoctrinate him over those, personally. Or just fucking shoot the Catalyst and let the next cycle have a fighting chance thanks to T'Soni.

And with that you make a decision regarding the lives of other people, you play god, which is exactly what the Illusive Man was trying to do and exactly what is completely out of character for Shepard.

Quote
Or you could go with Hoomanity fuck yeah! WOOOO! Side of things and agree that whoever it was that was in charge of the details in the final release of the last game were utterly high and go with that.

I don't think you have to choose between the clear overarching theme of the series and narrative cohesion. Yes, there were plot holes in the original release. Yes, lies were told (the endings are just different color cutscenes, and we were told they would be vastly different). BUT, for the reasons above about theme and closure, and especially after the final cut edition which solves all plot holes except for one particular dialogue / situation (save Geth and Quarians), you can still disregard indoctrination theory and be happy with the endings you got.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 12:40:19 PM by LuckyOwl »

Offline DeamonbaneTopic starter

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2015, 01:30:31 PM »
I don't mean to nitpick, but what I meant in my first sentence was it going from plausible, which in my mind means 'Okay, it's possible but not very probable' to possible fact meaning that it's validity isn't something that I can ignore. I may have mixed up the meanings, in which case, I'm sorry about that. Moving on to meatier subjects...

You do make a great many very valid points.

Spoilers
I won't carry on with the explanations and details and cutscenes from the games because, again, it's a theory and while it's pretty much possible for me, it's not so possible as to leave me with undying certainty. There are about as many holes that go against it as for it. Why I like it so much when added to the destroy ending (with Shepard's cutscene) isn't the fact that what they provided wasn't a happy enough ending for me. It's not that I want more personal satisfaction than what they provided in the game. For me, what makes it so delightful is in that moment that Shepard takes a breath, a very interesting thought came to me:

The fight goes on. Let's do this. The whole scene before was Shepard's personal choice not to compromise in the face morally easier choices (The Catalyst specifically tries to dissuade Shepard from picking Destroy because 1. He has friends that are AI (EDI, and the Geth if you chose to spare them). 2. He would die as well considering his new makeup is now mostly synthetic.). Shepard shrugs his shoulders and decides to do what he thinks is best anyways. My personal ending is that he then wakes up, jumps up to the Citadel, opens the arms, activates the crucible (which ends up being just a huge fucking gun that can tear through the Reapers. Victory in the end, certainly not without casualties, but the races, together, found a way to wreck the Reapers' shit in a way to even the odds.

Huh, maybe I do like it for the happy ending after all.

It's personal preference. I reread my earlier post and I realize that I came off as a little condescending. Sorry about that, didn't mean to sound like that much of a dick.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
As for the endings, there is a Paragon/Renegade way to save both the Geth and the Quarians, which ends up with them becoming allies and the Geth even helping the Quarians to adapt to their homeworld again. Drunk Tali (EMERGENCY INDUCTION PORT!), Garrus (My name is Garrus Vakarian and this is my new favorite spot on the Citadel), EDI (Still, the Organics do not see *my new platform* as a threat. Not until my day of reckoning), Joker, Glyph are all spectacular. Even Legion has a few heartfelt moments (Hope sustains organics during periods of difficulty. We... admire the concept.). I played the extended cut too, and the crew getting offworld was never a problem for me. And while Leviathan explains a lot about the creation of the Reapers, what it and the Catayst say about the Reapers' purpose go against each other in some very vital ways, indicating that the Catalyst could be a true AI, or more, in which it decided to do something and attempted to find a logical answer for it once it was done. As for it's explanation, being that Synthetics and Organics will always be at war and synthetics will eventually destroy organics, this very point could be hotly contested by what happens previously with the Geth, and closer to heart, with EDI. The Catalyst lies in very obvious attempts to manipulate Shepard (Also in telling him that he will die with the destroy option, even though it is the only one in which he actually survives). It just doesn't make sense for an AI that is trying to come clean with Shepard and present him with all the options. And that's basically why I like the IT, because everything else just doesn't make sense. It's not that they're bad, it's that they don't make sense. Even a horrifyingly bad ending would be easier to accept if it kept with the lore and logic that Bioware managed to keep for the rest of the series. Which was why the try to shoot the Catalyst ending came to mind because it's the only ending that seems to say," Fuck that, none of the above." Not out of any personal choices that Shepard would choose, but because it seems like its the only option that wasn't hand picked by a lying, manipulative AI that chose the form of a child that Shepard obviously feels incredibly guilty over to begin the conversation (Otherwise, why the kid? Wouldn't just about any other form have been more effective for talking with someone who's about to choose the fate of the galaxy?).

Anyways, I'm working on my third playthrough of the series now (Still haven't got everything right, but I'll work that out if in the future I decide for a fourth go). And I was happy with the decisions until I read about the IT. It's just so... possible. So many things pointing to it and not enough pointing away. It's like that conspiracy theory that you know can't be true, but it has just enough fact mixed in to make you feel just a little bit paranoid when you step outside your house.

Hell, when I first read it I was like," Goddammit, why did you have to ruin the whole damn thing for me?"

All that to say, if they said that the Reapers won't be involved in any great degree (They'll probably have some sort of side-quests involving them though, knowing Bioware), then that whole point is moot and the ending of 3 is the ending of the Shepard Saga once and for all.

Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2015, 01:58:24 PM »
I didn't mean to nitpick either, I was just sort of confused. "Possible but not very probable, but still pesky and coherent enough that I can't really get it out of my head" is what you were going for  ;D Don't worry about sounding condescending, we're all grown-ups and all civil. I don't get offended easily and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, plus I know tone isn't easy to get across on the Internet. No hard feelings mate, I also might sound a bit condescending at times when I don't really mean it  :-)

Quote
The fight goes on. Let's do this. The whole scene before was Shepard's personal choice not to compromise in the face morally easier choices (The Catalyst specifically tries to dissuade Shepard from picking Destroy because 1. He has friends that are AI (EDI, and the Geth if you chose to spare them). 2. He would die as well considering his new makeup is now mostly synthetic.). Shepard shrugs his shoulders and decides to do what he thinks is best anyways. My personal ending is that he then wakes up, jumps up to the Citadel, opens the arms, activates the crucible (which ends up being just a huge fucking gun that can tear through the Reapers. Victory in the end, certainly not without casualties, but the races, together, found a way to wreck the Reapers' shit in a way to even the odds.

Huh, maybe I do like it for the happy ending after all.

See, you say that it's not about personal satisfaction, but this is exactly what it sounds to me. It's exactly what I said in my previous post: the bolded part would be fucking awesome, I probably would have screamed for Shepard as he did it. But would it really be an honest way of ending the tale? I honestly think scale is massively underrated in talks about Mass Effect. Once again: 1 was about ONE reaper, 2 was about another reaper. 3 was about an army of them. I honestly think Bioware even gave us a bit of a break in the name of the underlying theme of hope (and I think that break was a good thing, of course) - just thinking about an army of reapers in terms of what was established in previous games is just... an insurmountable obstacle. And while yes, that kind of ending would be satisfying in the moment, I sort of feel like it would not only feel like a cop-out (turns out they're not so terrible after all!) but also devalue what came before and what Shepard accomplished. This way, in my opinion, it feels more meaningful, and it somewhat preserves the sheer force, the sheer notion of the reapers as this insanely overpowered, near lovecraftian horror that we overcome only through unity and through Shepard as the pinnacle of what humans have to offer (by contrast with what reapers, by definition, lack.)

Maybe it's just personal preference, but that's how I felt, for what it's worth.

And specifically about the Catalyst being manipulative: I always thought it was a narrative spark of genious from Bioware. Not only the image of the child, but all the manipulation. I thought it was the perfect expression of how the reapers, in all their might, fundamentally misunderstand what Shepard, and by extension, humanity, is all about. Remember the reapers are an AI: they have a goal (preservation of life) and, in their half-assed way, are doing everything to accomplish it. But the half-assed way comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how organics work, and the inability to recognize that they ARE capable of living in peace with synthetics; the Catalyst's attempts at manipulating Shepard, to me, read as more of that fundamental misunderstanding. He thinks he can seduce him with the control, he thinks he can reason him into synthesis. What he doesn't understand is that Shepard is beyond seduction, beyond cold-hearted reasoning, because he's not representing a man, but something more. You can bribe a man (and you know, it's sort of prophetic in a way that the man that gets bribed is literally called Illusive MAN, just like Shepard is very close to shepperd phonetically) but you can't bribe an ideal, you can't bribe humanity. You can't twist it into fitting your agenda, as the Catalyst wanted. That's what he doesn't get. That's why, in the end, he loses. In my mind, I sort of imagine the Catalyst watching in shock and denial while I chose destroy.

Quote
All that to say, if they said that the Reapers won't be involved in any great degree (They'll probably have some sort of side-quests involving them though, knowing Bioware), then that whole point is moot and the ending of 3 is the ending of the Shepard Saga once and for all.

I'm honestly happy and okay with that  ;D

Offline Assassini

  • Elliquiy's resident gamer
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Scotland (North of the Wall)
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2015, 04:30:29 PM »
Official petition to rename this thread "Official Mass Effect Appreciation Thread".

Also god-damned I've missed out, I'm already many posts behind.

Anyway, I'm just gonna go ahead here and put out some general thoughts, just so I can keep abreast of the thread from now on.

So, first up my choices:

I LIKED Moridin. I not only thought he seemed like a legit smart guy (and that spoke to the scientist within me) but also something of a pragmatist. I also have had it out with Lucky about my support for a lot of what he did, and I think we kind of agreed to disagree.

I activated Grunt as well and I have said to Lucky that he really missed out by not bringing him into the team. He was a cracking companion.

Liara IS best girl. I romanced her through all three games (thank god for the Shadow Broker DLC in ME2).

I ship Tali and Garrus SO FUCKING HARD because I really like Tali and I think Garrus is my favourite character of the whole series.

We can go into other choices if we so desire.

I always played Male Shep, played full Paragon and deliberately made sure to only ever make the best choices. As I saw my Shepard, he was something of the best of humanity, or at least that was how I saw it. He also always went out of his way to do absolutely fucking everything in the Galaxy, so I often would have to repeat playthroughs because I missed a small side-quest or didn't do something quite right and so I didn't get the optimal ending. I also played a Vanguard. At first this was because I wanted 1337 magics as well as guns, but then it also turned into the MOST legit class in the game. So that's good.

I want the Citadel DLC and would be willing to sell my brother to get it. Admittedly I don't get on well with my brother but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also sell my soul.

I chose the Synthesis ending, really because it was the ONLY option I could choose (even following the Extended Cut DLC). I should also say, for my second and "official" playthrough I actually not only obtained every single war asset in the game available to me, but I also spent like 40 hours online in order to push my Galactic Readiness up to 100% (so I had a war score of like 5800). About the endings, my hatred for it is actually well characterised but I'll briefly go through it again here. The Destroy Ending would have resulted in the deaths of all the Geth (whom I reconciled with the Quarians) as well as EDI (who is also a fucking top class character) and that is something my Shep could never have reconciled with. The Control Ending was OBVIOUSLY not acceptable considering how much time I'd spent insisting that it was too much power for one man. The "shoot the ghost child" ending is retarded... Because literally everyone dies. Nice. Well done. So I HAD to choose synthesis, and I felt pretty fucking cheated by it. Not only did Shepard die, but the whole "combination of organic and synthetic" organisms into one being is not only just utterly retarded but I think it would have crippled many of the unique races in the Galaxy. More than that it also removed the chance for closure with the huge-ass fucking squids which just fucked up my planet! All I wanted was a destroy ending (with Shepard drawing breath) that ONLY destroyed Reapers... "Humanity FUCK YEAH!" indeed...

That's why I always picture my ending as anyway.

I quiiiite liked the indoctrination theory actually. I think it made a lot of sense. BUT, as Lucky says, it also just didn't fit with the theme of the whole game series either. Plus, it was so conspiracy-theory-y that I just couldn't deal with it.

Regarding Andromeda: I'm keen as a fucking bean powered by steam on a machine which will make me beam. Mass Effect IS my favourite video game series of all time and I also think Mass Effect 2 is my favourite game of all time (narrowly beating out 3). It's obviously very smart of them to leave the Milky Way considering how vastly different the various endings to ME3 could have been. I mean, I will obviously always insist that my Shep is best Shep, but I believe many others would do the same. Of course, it IS a shame that we will miss out on all the new stuff with our old characters and stuff and I would quite like to go back to the Milky Way at some point, maybe there could be some contrived reason which caused all the Reapers to disappear and hence all the various games could act similarly. I would love it more than anything. But I think it's unlikely. So that makes me hold back somewhat, but I'm still excited.

For a Mass Effect film... Well, it's tough, but I'd definitely cast Shep as male. I have, and always will, picture Shepard as the hero space marine commander. I think a lot of people like FemShep because her voice acting is superb, but I just identify with MaleShep easier. I'm a guy, sue me. Obviously, because it's Hollywood they'd have to portray him as a good guy, and for that reason I think it would make sense if somehow the films also avoided being about Shepard. Because Shepard is not just a vehicle which allows you to see the game, but he IS the player (or that's how I always felt, I always projected onto my Shepard) and so it feels somewhat against the spirit of the series to cast him in a set role. On the other hand, it would NEED to be about the war with the Reapers. It might be cool to have some stuff with the First Contact War (hahah, fucking Turians, THAT'S WHATCHOO GET WHEN YOU MESS WITH THE WARRIOR) and/or the Skyllian Blitz, but in reality there is only one way they could really show off the Universe properly. Also, they'd need to set it in our Galaxy so that they could establish the lore and everything properly. Because it's so massively player dependent I think that Mass Effect might be one series that I would rather did not get made into a film.

Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2015, 04:47:31 PM »
See, we've talked about this before, but your point I actually get. I went into detail above as to why I think synthesis is a bad ending, but the one scenario where destroy doesn't work is if you save the Geth and the Quarians. Although even then I guess you could say that the catalyst doesn't acknowledge that you just saved them and did what he says isn't possible for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post (he's not interested in acknowledging it, only in trying to make you chose a certain ending). And let us just remember that the catalyst is a weapon that comes from the Leviathan period, and they were so oblivious to the true possibility of organic and synthetic harmony as the reapers themselves are, so it sort of makes sense that he spews that bullshit about it being impossible (Shepard not being able to tell him otherwise is a minus point, but not a dealbreaker, as he would probably just shrug it off. He's not interested in having an argument.)
To be honest, I've had this discussion with you plenty of times but I still think you're sort of too emotionally invested to think rationally about it. Which is also very valid and a point of argument in itself (the ending should be not only coherent, but emotionally satisfying). I just think that you're too harsh on the destroy ending. Yes, it would be nice to be able to save true AIs (I even said that'd be my only change) but there's no denying that the destroy ending is actually coherent thematically and narratively as it is. Many people think it wasn't emotionally satisfying, and I think that's valid criticism, but some other stuff isn't. And I thought it was emotionally satisfying as well, but that's sort of subjective so I won't argue that point too much.

Okay we talked a bit in private, and I think Assassini sort of recognizes how it's thematically coherent, but he's just so emotionally bulldozed by it that he can't help but hate it. He'll deny it wholeheartedly, but it's the truth. Trust me. (HAR HAR)
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 04:57:59 PM by LuckyOwl »

Offline DeamonbaneTopic starter

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2015, 05:57:27 PM »
I just completed 3 again, and I can honestly say that despite all conspiracies, the ending still left me with that warm little feeling all over...

Anyways...

Quote
The game takes place in the Andromeda Galaxy, "far away from and long after the events of the original trilogy," and is "very much a new adventure." The player character will be a human who can be either male or female.[2]

Although there will be little to no reference to characters from the original trilogy, a few cameos are expected.[3] Choices made in the original trilogy may be recognized, but will not be the main focus of the game.[4]
From Mass Effect Wiki

So... Andromeda Galaxy. Interesting. Considering that they are still using Makos and the N7 project is still in effect, I'd say that it's less than three generations after the Reaper War (dubbed that?). I'd say that after the war, N7 soldiers are considered heroes (kinda like the new Specters) and so when they need someone to explore a new galaxy, right after the way there has been opened, somehow, who better than the N7s to get their boots on the ground first for exploratory purposes?

Another idea might be that someone, many many years after still has Shepard's N7 armor (relic, heirloom, something like that), and has been banished to the lawless Andromeda Galaxy. Fits the soundtrack, anyways *grins*. Interesting tidbit is that, despite all this, the Devs hinted that it might not be a bad idea to hold onto our save games, so... there's that.

As for a movie, I think that if they try, they won't go for a replay of the games. If they were, then I think a TV series would be the ideal platform. Anyways an interesting plot for the movie would be the First Contact War. It's mentioned but there are very few actual details. Hell, the only battle that is mentioned in the games is the Battle of Shanxi. And the first contact, obviously, which is the reactivation of the Rachni Relay. Seems like an interesting part of the universe that could do with a little light shed on it.

For an adaptation of the games, I think that anybody in Hollywood would go with the traditional. Paragon Male. Although a Female Shepard in Live action would be pretty badass. I doubt that they would try a Renegade Shepard, though. It would be interesting. Again, with a Mission of the Week setup, a big-budget TV series seems to be the best way to portray it.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 05:58:56 PM by Deamonbane »

Offline Assassini

  • Elliquiy's resident gamer
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Scotland (North of the Wall)
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2015, 06:12:04 PM »
I just completed 3 again, and I can honestly say that despite all conspiracies, the ending still left me with that warm little feeling all over...

Anyways...
 From Mass Effect Wiki

So... Andromeda Galaxy. Interesting. Considering that they are still using Makos and the N7 project is still in effect, I'd say that it's less than three generations after the Reaper War (dubbed that?). I'd say that after the war, N7 soldiers are considered heroes (kinda like the new Specters) and so when they need someone to explore a new galaxy, right after the way there has been opened, somehow, who better than the N7s to get their boots on the ground first for exploratory purposes?

Another idea might be that someone, many many years after still has Shepard's N7 armor (relic, heirloom, something like that), and has been banished to the lawless Andromeda Galaxy. Fits the soundtrack, anyways *grins*. Interesting tidbit is that, despite all this, the Devs hinted that it might not be a bad idea to hold onto our save games, so... there's that.

As for a movie, I think that if they try, they won't go for a replay of the games. If they were, then I think a TV series would be the ideal platform. Anyways an interesting plot for the movie would be the First Contact War. It's mentioned but there are very few actual details. Hell, the only battle that is mentioned in the games is the Battle of Shanxi. And the first contact, obviously, which is the reactivation of the Rachni Relay. Seems like an interesting part of the universe that could do with a little light shed on it.

For an adaptation of the games, I think that anybody in Hollywood would go with the traditional. Paragon Male. Although a Female Shepard in Live action would be pretty badass. I doubt that they would try a Renegade Shepard, though. It would be interesting. Again, with a Mission of the Week setup, a big-budget TV series seems to be the best way to portray it.

You seem to have missed out a few pieces of information here Deamon. The primary thing is that the whole reason the new game will be set in the Andromeda Galaxy is because DURING the Reaper War humanity sent out a ship into deep space so that if the Reapers somehow won then humanity would still survive elsewhere. It's basically a sort of Ark type of thing.

From this, I think it's actually more likely to assume there won't be that much contact with the original series AT ALL. In fact, my current bet is that only decisions made in the build up to ME3 will have much of an effect (or decisions made in the first half of ME3). So I reckon there won't be any knowledge on whether or not humanity beat the Reapers and I reckon that the Andromeda Galaxy will be completely cut off from Earth. Or at least, I think that would be a pretty cool set-up and would also allow Bioware a lot of freedom when it comes to the background because it wouldn't be known by any on board the Ark thing that Shepard had absolutely smashed the Reapers. I also suspect that any cameos in this scenario would occur in the form of either flashbacks or perhaps videos/holograms that you could activate and learn about (perhaps a button which allows you to learn about the ancient Earth organisation known as Cerberus, taught by Miranda or something).

I can't say how long after the end of ME3 the game would be. Heck, it might even occur within the same time-range as the ending of ME3 or it could be several years later.

There will definitely be a focus on humanity and there also is probably going to be new races as well, but I reckon it'd be a shame if they did away completely with all the old ones. I know for sure that I'd be unhappy without a blue Asari babe to romance.

Offline DeamonbaneTopic starter

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2015, 06:52:38 PM »
You seem to have missed out a few pieces of information here Deamon. The primary thing is that the whole reason the new game will be set in the Andromeda Galaxy is because DURING the Reaper War humanity sent out a ship into deep space so that if the Reapers somehow won then humanity would still survive elsewhere. It's basically a sort of Ark type of thing.

From this, I think it's actually more likely to assume there won't be that much contact with the original series AT ALL. In fact, my current bet is that only decisions made in the build up to ME3 will have much of an effect (or decisions made in the first half of ME3). So I reckon there won't be any knowledge on whether or not humanity beat the Reapers and I reckon that the Andromeda Galaxy will be completely cut off from Earth. Or at least, I think that would be a pretty cool set-up and would also allow Bioware a lot of freedom when it comes to the background because it wouldn't be known by any on board the Ark thing that Shepard had absolutely smashed the Reapers. I also suspect that any cameos in this scenario would occur in the form of either flashbacks or perhaps videos/holograms that you could activate and learn about (perhaps a button which allows you to learn about the ancient Earth organisation known as Cerberus, taught by Miranda or something).

I can't say how long after the end of ME3 the game would be. Heck, it might even occur within the same time-range as the ending of ME3 or it could be several years later.

There will definitely be a focus on humanity and there also is probably going to be new races as well, but I reckon it'd be a shame if they did away completely with all the old ones. I know for sure that I'd be unhappy without a blue Asari babe to romance.

Huh... I hadn't heard that. Changes quite a bit in the overall scheme of things. Most of what I learned came from Here, and I can't seem to find anywhere else that has any info.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2015, 07:47:09 PM »
The Indoctrination Theory pretty much falls apart in the face of Shepard as Jesus, which is what he is, an obvious Jesus allegory. Jesus is without sin, Shepard Can't be indoctrinated.

Also Owl. No, I said they weren't intergalactic rulers, that a new Galaxy and a desire for a fresh start pretty much cement that the Reapers and their creators never left the galaxy for another.

Also, no Owl, Mass Relays aren't giant singshots despite that being how it appears. It's more like instantaneous transmission between two relays. Some were hub relays and some only went between two points, but there have never been relays that relayed without a relay.

Because they're relays not cannons.

Offline Assassini

  • Elliquiy's resident gamer
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Scotland (North of the Wall)
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2015, 07:52:35 PM »
The Indoctrination Theory pretty much falls apart in the face of Shepard as Jesus, which is what he is, an obvious Jesus allegory. Jesus is without sin, Shepard Can't be indoctrinated.

Also Owl. No, I said they weren't intergalactic rulers, that a new Galaxy and a desire for a fresh start pretty much cement that the Reapers and their creators never left the galaxy for another.

Also, no Owl, Mass Relays aren't giant singshots despite that being how it appears. It's more like instantaneous transmission between two relays. Some were hub relays and some only went between two points, but there have never been relays that relayed without a relay.

Because they're relays not cannons.

Space Jesus? Oh god this is going to be like Superman all over again...

Stupid fucking symbolism... He's a space-marine fighting massive fuck-off squids!

Space Jesus...

Also, yeah, that was how I understood the Relays as well. A method of transport from one to another (hence the name really) and not just a way of shooting them across space.

Offline la dame en noir

  • A resident pansexual woman. That weird black girl. The Cosplayer and the Loud Mouth.
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Location: Georgia
  • Gender: Female
  • "Shepard-Commander" - Legion ME2
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2015, 12:53:57 AM »
I met the Bioware team at Dragon Con this year. They played a huge role in both Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Needless to say I had to try not to cry when I got their autographs. This series is so near and dear my heart and I can't wait for this to come out.

Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2015, 03:57:57 AM »
The Indoctrination Theory pretty much falls apart in the face of Shepard as Jesus, which is what he is, an obvious Jesus allegory. Jesus is without sin, Shepard Can't be indoctrinated.

Also Owl. No, I said they weren't intergalactic rulers, that a new Galaxy and a desire for a fresh start pretty much cement that the Reapers and their creators never left the galaxy for another.

Also, no Owl, Mass Relays aren't giant singshots despite that being how it appears. It's more like instantaneous transmission between two relays. Some were hub relays and some only went between two points, but there have never been relays that relayed without a relay.

Because they're relays not cannons.

From the wiki:

Quote
Mass relays function by creating a virtually mass-free "corridor" of space-time between each other. This can propel a starship across enormous distances that would take centuries to traverse, even at FTL speeds. Before a vessel can travel, the relay must be given the amount of mass to transit by the ship's pilot before it is moved into the approach corridor. When a relay is activated, it aligns itself with the corresponding relay before propelling the ship across space.

So they DO work like cannons, although, like I said, a cannon that needs a set path before firing (that is, it needs another relay). I think it's pretty easier to explain why a relay could be programmed to "shoot" towards a corridor not directed at another relay, instead of trying to come up with a completely new technology. Remember that at the time Andromeda is created, all races are somewhat united under Shepard's banner, so they certainly have the "scientist firepower" to do so.

Because they're relays. Not teleportation devices ;D
« Last Edit: November 17, 2015, 04:01:01 AM by LuckyOwl »

Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2015, 04:15:02 AM »
Huh... I hadn't heard that. Changes quite a bit in the overall scheme of things. Most of what I learned came from Here, and I can't seem to find anywhere else that has any info.

It basically got said with the new trailer (you've seen that, right?) released a week ago.

Some Bioware devs are also pretty active on twitter / reddit and while they haven't 100% confirmed this to be right, they have strongly hinted that it is the case.

@Assassini: I don't know. I'm bitter because I know my favorite race (the Quarians) won't make it through (they lived on the Fleet almost exclusively, unless I find some on their expedition), so I don't see why you should get to have Asaris  >:(

Offline DeamonbaneTopic starter

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2015, 05:08:05 AM »
It basically got said with the new trailer (you've seen that, right?) released a week ago.

Some Bioware devs are also pretty active on twitter / reddit and while they haven't 100% confirmed this to be right, they have strongly hinted that it is the case.

@Assassini: I don't know. I'm bitter because I know my favorite race (the Quarians) won't make it through (they lived on the Fleet almost exclusively, unless I find some on their expedition), so I don't see why you should get to have Asaris  >:(
I have to say, when I first watched it, I got a weird urge to salute at the signing off...

It makes for a very interesting psychological side to the story, I have to say. Not knowing if your team is the last surviving people of their respective species, not knowing if, when the Reapers are finished with the Milky Way, if they'll be coming back.

This thing about the Ancients though seems a little like Bioware following their own well beaten track. Like having a squad and only two of that squad joining you on each mission. And with the game starting out with two companions, one male, one female.

Offline Assassini

  • Elliquiy's resident gamer
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Scotland (North of the Wall)
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2015, 06:19:12 AM »
From the wiki:

So they DO work like cannons, although, like I said, a cannon that needs a set path before firing (that is, it needs another relay). I think it's pretty easier to explain why a relay could be programmed to "shoot" towards a corridor not directed at another relay, instead of trying to come up with a completely new technology. Remember that at the time Andromeda is created, all races are somewhat united under Shepard's banner, so they certainly have the "scientist firepower" to do so.

Because they're relays. Not teleportation devices ;D

Dude, you literally just quoted something which tells you that we are right:

Quote
Mass relays function by creating a virtually mass-free "corridor" of space-time between each other. This can propel a starship across enormous distances that would take centuries to traverse, even at FTL speeds. Before a vessel can travel, the relay must be given the amount of mass to transit by the ship's pilot before it is moved into the approach corridor. When a relay is activated, it aligns itself with the corresponding relay before propelling the ship across space.

Yes you are right in the sense that the Mass Relays act as a slingshot of sorts, but they also do not act by just throwing the ship in any direction. There has to be another Mass Relay at the other end for the Mass Effect drives to work. That's why the Reapers couldn't get to the Milky Way as quickly as normal, because the Citadel Mass Relay was shut to them and they had to travel by normal FTL.

So. I guess we are both right. Although I'm more right. Especially as I never meant to insinuate that it was like teleportation. A lot of the cut-scenes do specifically show the Normandy actually travelling through the relays.

It basically got said with the new trailer (you've seen that, right?) released a week ago.

Some Bioware devs are also pretty active on twitter / reddit and while they haven't 100% confirmed this to be right, they have strongly hinted that it is the case.

@Assassini: I don't know. I'm bitter because I know my favorite race (the Quarians) won't make it through (they lived on the Fleet almost exclusively, unless I find some on their expedition), so I don't see why you should get to have Asaris  >:(

If the whole thing is based around some kind of Ark (as I suspect) I actually see no reason why there WON'T be Quarians. They would want to keep their species alive too after all.

It is true that with all the races working together there will likely have been done advancements in FTL tech. But the main point I think me and Indiku have is that the Relays will no longer feature in the game. Partly because of the way you travel from one to another but also mainly because it's Reaper tech.

I have to say, when I first watched it, I got a weird urge to salute at the signing off...

It makes for a very interesting psychological side to the story, I have to say. Not knowing if your team is the last surviving people of their respective species, not knowing if, when the Reapers are finished with the Milky Way, if they'll be coming back.

This thing about the Ancients though seems a little like Bioware following their own well beaten track. Like having a squad and only two of that squad joining you on each mission. And with the game starting out with two companions, one male, one female.

It's worth mentioning that we have almost certainly seen the last of the Reapers if we are in a new Galaxy. Considering that they only act in the Milky Way (although that would be some twist of it turns out they were all across the Universe) I assume that while nobody will know whether Shepard won or not, they might at least consider themselves safe from Reaping.

Offline DeamonbaneTopic starter

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2015, 07:14:46 AM »
Well, what I meant was from the Explorer's point of view. What they know about where they're going is pretty much nil, as well as what they know about the Reapers. Since you destroy the Catalyst, the self-proclaimed controller of the Reapers, it's pretty obvious that there's not gonna be any in the new game. But the explorers (assuming here) wouldn't know that. And since the bogeyman of their time is the Reapers, there's gonna be an obvious fear of being followed by the Reapers.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2015, 07:47:47 AM »
From the wiki:

So they DO work like cannons, although, like I said, a cannon that needs a set path before firing (that is, it needs another relay). I think it's pretty easier to explain why a relay could be programmed to "shoot" towards a corridor not directed at another relay, instead of trying to come up with a completely new technology. Remember that at the time Andromeda is created, all races are somewhat united under Shepard's banner, so they certainly have the "scientist firepower" to do so.

Because they're relays. Not teleportation devices ;D
Propel doesn't mean shoot, it means to move by way of another force. It doesn't inherently imply ballistic motion. Mass Relays work on that corridor, they create in pairs.

You don't have to have both pairs known to you or mapped, but there has to be a pair. Opening up either end has been shown to open up both. Honestly it looks like a rail gun bu without a pair you can't slow the ship to reach a destination. If you shot your ship by using a mass relay without another it'd just go on forever until it slammed into something with enough force to absorb its energy.

The motion of the ship itself is banal (like a wormhole gate) it's the corridor itself that's the fantastic bit, and they've always required two. So it stand that if the creators and reapers never lived and purged the Milky Way, which is what is heavily implied so far, then how can mankind cross the vast intergalactic distances.


Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2015, 09:05:14 AM »
Propel doesn't mean shoot, it means to move by way of another force. It doesn't inherently imply ballistic motion. Mass Relays work on that corridor, they create in pairs.

You don't have to have both pairs known to you or mapped, but there has to be a pair. Opening up either end has been shown to open up both. Honestly it looks like a rail gun bu without a pair you can't slow the ship to reach a destination. If you shot your ship by using a mass relay without another it'd just go on forever until it slammed into something with enough force to absorb its energy.

The motion of the ship itself is banal (like a wormhole gate) it's the corridor itself that's the fantastic bit, and they've always required two. So it stand that if the creators and reapers never lived and purged the Milky Way, which is what is heavily implied so far, then how can mankind cross the vast intergalactic distances.

I don't get your first point.

pro·pel  (prə-pĕl′)
tr.v. pro·pelled, pro·pel·ling, pro·pels
1. To cause to move forward or onward. See Synonyms at push.
2. To cause to develop or progress: a misunderstanding that propels the story forward.

Ballistic motion? I mean, I know propel doesn't mean shoot, but I also know that shoot can be used as meaning "to swiftly or intensely send or cause something to move forward or onwards" (what cannons do to cannonballs). The analogy isn't really that hard and a linguistic distinction is sort of pointless here because I think everyone could understand the meaning of my words in a common sense state of things. Relays do work like cannons in the sense that both relays and cannons push something forward.

Your point about the corridors is a bit more fertile, I think.

You keep insisting that they've always required two: yup. I've agreed with that. What I'm saying is that because of the way Mass Relays work, it's possible that they simply found a way to make one work without requiring the receiving relay to be there, and that's how they sent the people on Andromeda away on a one-way trip. It's a conjecture. I'll agree that the corridor itself is fantastic and not the shooting, but "the corridor has always been created between two relays, and between two relays alone" doesn't mean "the only way for the corridor the be created is between two relays." It's an inductive argument, not a deductive one, so it's at least a valid conjecture, which was all I was offering.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2015, 09:07:10 AM by LuckyOwl »

Offline LuckyOwl

Re: Mass Effect: Future
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2015, 09:11:56 AM »
Dude, you literally just quoted something which tells you that we are right:

Yes you are right in the sense that the Mass Relays act as a slingshot of sorts, but they also do not act by just throwing the ship in any direction. There has to be another Mass Relay at the other end for the Mass Effect drives to work. That's why the Reapers couldn't get to the Milky Way as quickly as normal, because the Citadel Mass Relay was shut to them and they had to travel by normal FTL.

So. I guess we are both right. Although I'm more right. Especially as I never meant to insinuate that it was like teleportation. A lot of the cut-scenes do specifically show the Normandy actually travelling through the relays.

Oh I agree that relays won't be in the game. I was addressing the issue of "how did the ark reach another galaxy without having a relay there to travel to".

Yeah, they work between two. What I'm saying is that a possible scenario to explain how Andromeda project reached another galaxy is that the collective scientific force of the alliance figured out a way to make relays "shoot you" without having to have the other relay there to create the corridor. It's a conjecture - maybe a weak one (not convinced, but still), but at the very least a valid one. Also, I was mainly arguing the point that Inkidu made that "relays don't work like cannons/slingshots", because that's factually wrong. Yes, they do. They shoot something. They might shoot it through a corridor, but they still shoot it  ;D