The Shadow Broker, Donovan Hock and The Cerberus any possible connenction with the Andromeda Initiat

People answer to the Arks is pretty much "it's not impossible because it's not impossible".  Not to mention extremely simplistic views of logic, economy, technology, etc. It's a bit similar (although even less logical) of saying it's possible for someone tomorrow to end hunger on Earth because we can produce enough food for everybody. Or that someone will build a ship to go to Alphe Centauri.

And even those who believe the impossible would agree, I suppose, that the Arks are indeed a retcon created because they wanted to continue Mass Effect without being affected by the trilogy. Accepting an in-universe explanation of the AI depends on how much you really want it to make sense, and how coherent and logical you believe the Mass Effect universe to be. If they are neither, then yes, the Arks are possible.

So, you think I believe the Arks are impossible because I dislike ME3's ending? Or want another game in the Milk way? You shouldn't project your experience with other people on me. I'm all for a fresh start, always have been. Going to Andromeda is an interesting decision and I look foward to experience Mass Effect in the next generation.

I believe the Arks are impossible because of my experience and interpretation of the Mass Effect trilogy lore. There are many instances where information the game gives you make clear that the making the travel to Andromeda, let alone build the ships the AI built, are beyond the technology and/or the means of the known galaxy. That's why, for example, universities couldn't finance expeditions to find the MU Relay, it's just too difficult to travel outside the "Relay zones".

What you could question is my absolute lack of faith that behind this AI facade there will be a good and reasonable explanation to why this was possible. I do agree that it's more reasonable to wait, but I'm feel confident it won't be the case.

That's a very classy comment, sir. I approve. 

This is the big question. Time isn't the issue, since stasis pods/cryosleep solves that. 600 FTL years is right on schedule for how long galactic standard FTL travel would take to reach the Heleus Cluster, so we know how they got to it. No one knows, yet, how they solved the discharge issue.

Maybe they periodically exited FTL, extended those crazy arms on the Arks, and blasted the energy into space, like an untargeted weapon? Maybe they found a way to recycle the energy stored in the sinks, rather than be forced to discharge? We have to wait and see what BioWare's writers have come up with in terms of a new scifi tech explanation.

Presumably, it has to be something that could only work for this project, and wouldn't be widely and rapidly applicable. Otherwise, the militaries of the galaxy would've rapidly adopted it, and civilian craft would've followed.

"ah!, Mr/Ms Gunn, a pleasure to meet you", mmm... someone who kick out your partner right after you arrive to the party doesn't look like the type who would throw some creds to the AI initiative...



just saying.


maximusarael020 did Mario get a Singularity on his ass or something afterwards? 

I agree with the feeling behind your post, if not the specifics.

The difference between some of the franchises you list and Mass Effect is that the latter strives for consistency and continuity. Yes they blunder sometimes but overall, they try for one solid and consistent timeline where shit doesn't just happen on a whim. If that's the kind of franchise you start to build then that's what you need to keep going with because that's part of what fans have invested in. No one bats an eye when Zelda or FF or comics go all over the place because that's kind of their thing. But try that in Star Wars (Mickey's nukes aside, although the reaction to them is also an example of what I mean) and see where it gets you. Mass Effect is the same thing.

So to bring it back to Andromeda, yes you do need a level of consistency in the lore and the background motivations for what's happening in the game. And no one's asking that it be airtight either. Well, not exactly. The naysayers will not be quelled unless it is airtight (and probably not even then) but I'm sure you'll find they're a very vocal minority among a very vocal minority. As for myself I merely drew a line on where things start to be problematic.

The shift to Andromeda needs to be a) "mostly possible" to do with the given lore and a bit more technobabble and plausible for why it is happening. B is actually more important to be solidly justified because in a sci-fi you can always fudge the how a little bit but the why still needs to be logical and conclusive. The debate for A is this: it's not possible to get to Andromeda because (FTL limitations, static discharge etc.) vs it is possible because here's how those issues can be solved. The debate for B however is: it doesn't make sense to go to Andromeda when there's still so much of this galaxy left to explore vs it does make sense because [Reapers] or some other independent but compelling motivation. Note also that these debates have been going on for a year and have been mostly ground in speculation, not what Bioware's released. Now that Bioware is releasing information and we'll know the full story when the game drops it could turn out that they followed some of the speculated logic or made their own that is still justified and consistent with explaining this change in setting, both how and why. This is good. It could also turn out that they completely ignore the need to justify it or do so in a way that doesn't work and does break consistency and logic. That's bad.

So we have a hypothetical it can work vs it can't work, and if you argue against the latter than you and I are on the same page. But if we get to it does work or it doesn't and you say the latter is irrelevant, with that I can't agree. Right now we're still on hypothetical as we don't have the full story- so it can still work. We'll see if it does or not.

Also the comic was hilarious!

Actually, a very strong point can be made that they really don't. Or at least are very bad at it.

The Arks are just the biggest and latest inconsistency of them all, but it's one among many. For example, space travel. They way it is described to work and the way it's actually shown is very different. Same thing for space combat. 

Of course, I still find the Mass Effect fantastic, but never because of its consistency. It was always clear to me that that is not of the priorities of the universe. 

And both those battles are widely different that then should look. Reapers are basically dreadnoughts, and they would fight in the same way. For example, their main gun is stated to outrange any from the Milk Way species, yet we don't see the Reapers opening fire in ME3 untill the alliance fleet is very close to them. 

Anyway, I don't have a list. But if you play the trilogy paying attention you'd certainly have one by the end of it. 

Why would they, when they so laughably outclass anything on the field? From what I remember of the battle the Reapers seemed almost lazy in their response. Did one really need to "grab" a ship with its tentacles and then fire into it? No, they were toying with them.

The RL reason is probably Dramatic License/Rule of Cool. I'm not going to argue lore and depiction is airtight. Yes there are gaps. But as the user above said, they don't need to be airtight, a few slips can be accepted. Nor does it negate the point that overall ME is a series with strong continuity and consistence, unlike something like comics where random asspulls happen left and right. Contrary to what some people that just want to shit on the series might think or in fact the last five minutes of the last game.

It wouldn't go well with the differences in the various endings, especially Synthesis. Even not considering the quarians, the krogans have very different outcomes based on the choice made.
And some people would complain about the choices being unified.

I would've been fine with it though.

Then they should admit as much, rather than insisting it's all about "exploration"