More likely that we're heading back to the Milky Way?

So what exactly doesn't make sense? The explanation in game makes sense with the lore.

Why do you think Bioware’s story telling has been moronic and laughable in the games they make recently?


I would think it is because of the rising of the dead and having a party in the middle of a run to the finish line and other points.

If Bioware does not change the story telling mode or getting new writers there is no salvation for them.

I agree with both of you... it was really the only bad part and it wasn't really all that bad.

Not any worse than some amateur astronomer finding the Asteroid in Armageddon.

Doesn't matter whether you think it is stupid, it's a fact of lore that the solution to an issue is just a matter of resources.
That's official Mass Effect lore; therefore for the Andromeda Initiative to succeed it just requires resources.

Well, it's established that relays operate in pairs. Now, suddenly, they don't? Easy enough to patch this with technobabble if they had bothered to try, though.

Yup. In a real situation like Armageddon we might actually find the asteroid but our governments would spend so much time arguing by the time a plan was devised we'd be toast.

You haven't even defined what "resources" are in this context.

Is it money? Materials? Manpower? Brainpower? Time? All relevant resources in the development of technology. The most relevant here is time: I just don't buy the Illusive Initiative being able to pull Reaper-level starships out of their asses in the span of 9 years, even with the asshole's magical bag of resource holding.



Thanks for making the same argument literally everyone makes when discussing science fiction and they find themselves unable to refute science-based arguments:

"COME ON GUYS, IT'S FICTION, THEY CAN JUST MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG"

As a matter of fact, no, they can't. If a writer states early in the story that a wizard can only throw three fireballs before having to rest, he can't then proceed to show wizards throwing more than three fireballs without resting. That's what's called "internal consistency", to lay down rules and stick to them. No one likes cheaters, not in sports, not in fiction and especially not in science fiction. Internal consistency is very important in fantasy to avoid supernatural elements from being assigned and used frivolously as often happens in, say, comic books, where new superpowers are invented as the plot demands and are then promptly forgotten even in situations where they could have helped, resulting in characters having long lists of dozens or more superpowers when they only use a fraction of them on a daily basis.

In sci-fi, internal consistency is even more important because all good sci-fi draws from real life science, established or speculative, and real-life science doesn't arbitrarily change overnight. This is especially true of technology. See, technology doesn't make wild jumps in efficiency overnight, it improves gradually over a long period of time. Just as an example of where BioWare has done this wrong before - the ME2 heat sinks. People went fucking ballistic over the heat sink change in ME2 because it made no sense that literally every single gun in the entire galaxy would switch to heat sinks in just a matter of two years - I mean, for fucks sake, people today still hunt using 19th century Mosins. They sort of alleviated that later by giving the player access to cooldown-based weapons which implied that cooldown-based weapons were still in circulation, but it was still pretty jarring to have two-bit Terminus raiders running around with state of the art geth-derived heat sinks just two years after the fact. As a real life comparison, the AK-47 was used in limited numbers in WW2 but it took several years for the entire Red Army (and the rest of the world, for that matter) to start using it.

Which brings me to the Arks - they rely on so much new technology pulled almost literally out of nowhere that you just gotta stop and ask yourself where the hell it came from. What's even more egregious is that none of these new technologies show up in ME3, where they would have mattered the most. This is a case of internal inconsistency, and a perfect example of how much BioWare fucked up by going to Andromeda. Just because the game starts inbetween ME2 and ME3 doesn't mean it can ignore ME3 as a source of lore - Andromeda cannot do anything, technology-wise, that ME3 wasn't able to do under the same circumstances.

Just a reminder, remember how everyone thought they were going to die in ME3? It was a massive amount of doom and gloom, and all the political and military leaders basically touted the Crucible as the grand last resort of the galaxy. How convenient that they forgot just a couple of months earlier how Jien Garson and the Illusive Initiative left the Milky Way in giant cryostasis Arks heading for Andromeda. Crucible? Why the fuck would they spend trillions of credits building a giant ball of "Lel, the fuck does this do?" when they could put those trillions of credits towards building giant cryostasis facilities on each homeworld, or to build more Arks and save as many as they can?

There are things spinoffs need to take into account, and Montreal failed big time. Had they set the departure of the Arks for Andromeda some 400-500 years after ME3, none of these issues would have come up.

I don't need to define what 'resources' are; Bioware didn't bother so I don't need to. All I need to know to be lore accurate is that all you need are 'resources' to solve a problem like raising people from the dead, controlling the Reapers or creating the Initiative.

This is only ok in children's storybooks. Suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far and ME2 and subsequent titles pushed it beyond what is acceptable. If something in the story occurs you need to explain it. Otherwise you are committing what is called a "hand wave" and this is never a reasonable solution.

They did the same thing in Dragon Age Inquisition. The question was how Leliana could survive if she was killed in Origins. What was Bioware's answer?

1. MAGIC
2. We can write whatever we want because it's our story.

How is this a problem?

1. If anyone dies or is about to die it can no longer be taken seriously. The viewer can no longer trust the storyteller anymore on anyones death. The storyteller must now make it completely obvious that someone is going to die and never come back for people to actually care anymore.

2. Sense of danger is a meaningless concept because you know that no one will die or if they do die they could simply be brought back.

3. Investment in the story is gone because the plot armor is too strong.

If Bioware wants to make a story where you have to turn your brain off to enjoy it that's fine. But I doubt this is what they want.

It's not sudden at all. it's just that ME3's ending which featured a giant ray gun that could change the DNA of living creatures and turn robots into humans with "human essence" ( :wtf: ) is so obviously bad that people couldn't help but start noticing. It's like when you're a kid and watch cartoons and then one day you hear an inside joke for adults that you actually understand. Then you go through the cartoons again and your mind is blown because of all the other inside jokes you missed.

People that are experts on writing and what not spotted this stuff in the games easily.

Yeah I think that's what you have to do at this point. Whatever happens happens and you just go for the ride.