98 réponses à ce sujet

[Skilled Seeker]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

But how does that make us bullies?

Aggression and ethnocentric tendencies, which bullying and explotation both result from.

But what evidence do we have that humanity is any more ethnocentric than the other species?

[Speakeasy13]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

But how does that make us bullies?

Aggression and ethnocentric tendencies, which bullying and explotation both result from.

But what evidence do we have that humanity is any more ethnocentric than the other species?

"You humans are all racists!"

[Skilled Seeker]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

But how does that make us bullies?

Aggression and ethnocentric tendencies, which bullying and explotation both result from.

But what evidence do we have that humanity is any more ethnocentric than the other species?

"You humans are all racists!"

Point taken

[nhsk]

Well, I bet the humans could be genophaged in the end - The alien races have not had any major problems since the Krogan rebellions. That is a rather long time to settle back and become.. ehh fat.

Humans are new, they want to expand, be a part of it all and claim what they can but if they do it to aggressively the other races will wake up sooner or later and either stop us with diplomacy or war.

Depending on which choices your Shepard takes I think it would be a cool move by Bioware to have it end in very different ways for humanity, either neutering us (or worse) after we have helped defeat the Reapers or in a better way reach agreements with us through diplomacy to halt our progression. Hell, if your Shepard is the ultimate paragon you may end up leading the alliance which would give the aliens someone they can trust to lead humanity without tearing every alien interest apart.

[Vegielamb]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

But how does that make us bullies?

Aggression and ethnocentric tendencies, which bullying and explotation both result from.

Compaired to the Batarans, humans are quite tame; there's no massive culture of slavery and alien abuse (hence the reason Cerberus is an underground secret group). Humans only attacked the Turians after they invaded. The entire first contact war was a cosmic banana peel moment with faults on both sides.

Modifié par Vegielamb, 05 mai 2010 - 04:24 .

[Ieldra]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yeah. 30 years from system-bound species, from first contact, to galactic power. The timeline is complete nonsense, the absolute worst world-breaking flaw of the ME universe conception. It also causes a lot of other problems.

300 years, that would have been OK.

And it's so much worse because it's completely unnecessary. They could've said 300 years and there'd have been no problems elsewhere. Of course they' have to change Earth a bit more....

300 years? The United States isn't even 300 years old yet, and humanity went from using cannons to nuclear warheads, puppets and ragdolls to robots, discovering new islands to discovering new stars/asteroids/planets and actually being able to leave the planet, and more.
Technology advances faster and faster, things can happen fast. 300 years for Humanity to colonize several planets and set up a formidible (spelled wrong i bet) military fleet would be pretty poor compared to how far we have advanced in the last 300 years.
I would actually go for 100 years at most, but not 300. I'm also leaving the whole take over the council out of the equation because that was just a lucky fluke with the events of ME1.

You have no idea of the economy of scale involved in interstellar colonization. There are things that can't be so easily changed by technology, unless it was something like ground-based wormholes. And it's not "several" planets, but so many that the Turian councillor in ME1 spoke of "a few dozen" as if that were a pittance. And even if that was bias, it meant that "a few dozen" might be a significant part, but still a part of the total of human colonies.

Think of how many humans must be transported, then the cost of maintaining a fleet of starships capable of intervening at several distant places and keeping piracy in check. It's not the FTL tech as such that is the problem - that could come tomorrow, in 150 years or never. It's the sheer scale of things involved, the increase of human population and resources necessary to catch up to established interstellar empires. *That* takes a lot of time.

Having said that, 100 years would be a stretch, but I'd accept it. One generation, however, is complete nonsense.

[Steel Dancer]

One thing to remember on the tech level front: We had a much greater amount of Prothean technology to study than most of the other races.

Mars Prothean Ruins: amongsst other things there were 6 fully intact Mass Effect spacecraft. A hell of a jump considering how durable the buildings and other tech ( the beacons & Vigil) are.

The Charon Relay: almost certainly locked in ice by the Protheans. Either a self defence measure or to protect an evolving species, it still meant the Sol System was protected against the Reapers galactic "clean up" after the genocide of the Protheans. Unlike the rest of the galaxy.

Which still leads directly to...

Barquiel wrote...

http://tvtropes.org/...umansAreSpecial

The one thing I hate about the ME universe...Bioware used it too much imo.

EDIT: they really should have added about another 30 years or so into the timeline after finding the Mass Relay and before the start of ME1 to get the kind of sheer building base in place we'd need. oh well.

Modifié par Steel Dancer, 05 mai 2010 - 05:38 .

[KalosCast]

Ieldra2 wrote...
You have no idea of the economy of scale involved in interstellar colonization. There are things that can't be so easily changed by technology, unless it was something like ground-based wormholes. And it's not "several" planets, but so many that the Turian councillor in ME1 spoke of "a few dozen" as if that were a pittance. And even if that was bias, it meant that "a few dozen" might be a significant part, but still a part of the total of human colonies.

Think of how many humans must be transported, then the cost of maintaining a fleet of starships capable of intervening at several distant places and keeping piracy in check. It's not the FTL tech as such that is the problem - that could come tomorrow, in 150 years or never. It's the sheer scale of things involved, the increase of human population and resources necessary to catch up to established interstellar empires. *That* takes a lot of time.

Having said that, 100 years would be a stretch, but I'd accept it. One generation, however, is complete nonsense.

Yeah, you'd think that with this small of a timeline, all of the human colonies, except the initial ones, would be really tiny establishments of not more than 500 or so people and the Systems Alliance would have a whole lot of trouble attempting to provide them with adequate protection.

Oh wait, that's totally what happens.

Modifié par KalosCast, 05 mai 2010 - 07:24 .

[IMethos]

To be honest, i never thought about all this until i saw this thread...thanks guys for pointing out the best game of all time is riddled with plot holes and requires stretches of imagination...

[Dean_the_Young]

It's science fiction. You dig down six inches, you always have to suspend disbelief on some level.



30 years for two hundred+ years of tech development seems more like lazy writing than anything malicious, and certainly doesn't qualify as a plot whole. It is, overall, a relatively unimportant detail to the plot's more important point: humans are very new to the galactic scene. That's the important part, and they wanted there to be a living memory of hostility between humanity and first contact.



Personally, I'd have gone with it being along the lines of discovering a (significant) Prothean cache a hundred years ago, giving humanity time to upgrade and expand on its own, but first contact after 70 odd years of exploration still being just 30 years ago. You could possibly explain it as some relay node or another got blasted away, and so humans were temporarily isolated from the rest of the Mass Relay network. That would give more time justification for Humanity catching up close to the galactic standard and standing against the Turians.

[JJames74]

Mankind's power wouldn't have grown so fast if Bioware didn't use human writers. 

[tonnactus]

There was a theorie in the books that the mars ruines were discovered a lot earlier then they were made public.

[Commissar Gash]

tonnactus wrote...

There was a theorie in the books that the mars ruines were discovered a lot earlier then they were made public.

How much earlier 2-3 years ago are more like in 2010:bandit:?

[Chuvvy]

The only thing I find hard to believe is the population. That's a jump of 9 billion in 180 years. We must have been busy. To put it in perspective, a population increase of million a year is 2800 a day that's one born every thirty seconds. And that's assumeing no one died that year.

Modifié par Slidell505, 06 mai 2010 - 12:20 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Actually, that's remarkably low, and begs the question of why. Populations tend to double between every 50 to 90 years, and the current population is closer to seven billion than six. Even by the slow count and rounding down, that's 24 (6 to 12 to 24) billion. Current world doubling time is about 60 years (54 actually), so doubling three times over the course of 180 years would be 6 -1>12 -2>24 -3>48 billion, an increase of .42 billion.

Where did the extra 25 or so billion people go?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 mai 2010 - 12:37 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Possibly, but it's currently something like 77 years in Canada (certainly first world), 56 in Sri Lanka (not first world), and the current average is 54. The ME1/2 lore says that the world still isn't an entirely 1st world place by ME2, so barring some calamity (which would also see an upsurge in birth rates afterwards) we're missing billions.

[Chuvvy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Actually, that's remarkably low, and begs the question of why. Populations tend to double between every 50 to 90 years, and the current population is closer to seven billion than six. Even by the slow count and rounding down, that's 24 (6 to 12 to 24) billion. Current world doubling time is about 60 years (54 actually), so doubling three times over the course of 180 years would be 6 -1>12 -2>24 -3>48 billion, an increase of .42 billion.

Where did the extra 25 or so billion people go?

We assume it will keep up at that rate there are to many veruables for us to keep up with. There was a large increase in child birth at the turn of the century because of the industrial revelotion. And after WW2. Hell we were supposed to hit 10 billion in 2010 but that didn't happen. But if we take out veriables you're right.  And I assume BW didn't expect people to obsess over it.

Modifié par Slidell505, 06 mai 2010 - 12:53 .

[askanec]

We'll all end up like the Drell if we keep reproducing like rabbits. How is 40+ billion people on Earth sustainable?

[Dean_the_Young]

askanec wrote...

We'll all end up like the Drell if we keep reproducing like rabbits. How is 40+ billion people on Earth sustainable?

Terraforming, the opening/thawing of the Siberian/Canadian tundra, sea colonization, desert colonization, factory farming of plants/vegetables, food cloning, arcologies, genetic engineering, asteroid mining, increased recycling scale and scope, evolution of societal norms, etc.

It's not as hard as one might think, though it would certainly be far different from what we know today. There's a lot of empty and inefficient space around today: not just suburbia or old townes, but empty deserts and sea floor that domed colonies could occupy. Factory farming (such as skyscraper farms) and cloning could provide the food, and power itself is nigh-infinite with sources from solar to nuclear. Chemistry/nano-engineering/recylcing could conceivably keep us supplied with material necessities indefinitely.

[Chuvvy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

askanec wrote...

We'll all end up like the Drell if we keep reproducing like rabbits. How is 40+ billion people on Earth sustainable?

Terraforming, the opening/thawing of the Siberian/Canadian tundra, sea colonization, desert colonization, factory farming of plants/vegetables, food cloning, arcologies, genetic engineering, asteroid mining, increased recycling scale and scope, evolution of societal norms, etc.

It's not as hard as one might think, though it would certainly be far different from what we know today. There's a lot of empty and inefficient space around today: not just suburbia or old townes, but empty deserts and sea floor that domed colonies could occupy. Factory farming (such as skyscraper farms) and cloning could provide the food, and power itself is nigh-infinite with sources from solar to nuclear. Chemistry/nano-engineering/recylcing could conceivably keep us supplied with material necessities indefinitely.

Yes it is we'd need to pump a ****load of money into research before we could even attempt anything like that. Atleast the thawing of Siberian and Canadian tundra will be done on it's own. THANKS GLOBAL WARMING!

[Dean_the_Young]

Various amounts of it could be done now without too much technological trouble, it's just expensive/impractical when we have as much space as we do.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Vegielamb wrote...

Until they reveal that humans were "created" by the Protheans and are the closest living relatives to the Protheans (or are direct decendents of surviving Protheans). I see this one coming a mile off.

Yeah, sounds logical enough. Never thought of it but I did call the protheans being alive in some way, so Bioware going that extra step wouldn't surprise me.

[Sharn01]

Its one of the big things about ME that bothered me was how fast humans developed, its doesnt really matter what blueprints for tech we found in ruins, it still takes time to study and translate those findings and then the amount of resources and time it takes to capitolize on it after that has taken place.



Just because you have the tech to build ships and space stations doesnt mean you can snap your fingers and they appear, ventures of that magnitude take time. I work in contstruction, if you really push and put in a ton of overtime you can build a scycraper in a few years, at a certain point adding more manpower doesnt speed up the process because there is only so much room to work. If it takes at best a few years for a scycraper on earth, how long does it take to build several transport ships with new technology and then transport resources to build a space station or colony and build it? 30 year is just not enough time for humans to have done what they have.



A bit off topic but it was mentioned earlier in the thread, why is it when an Asari acts like a douche all Asari are douche bags but if a human does it only pertains to that particular human. Just another example of how because the players of the game are human they see themselves as individuals and humans as speceal, but group all aliens in to specific types. Asari are like this, Turians are like that, and all Krogans are such and such, etc.

[Arawn-Loki]

Humankind's power isn't the most unbelievable aspect of the Mass Effect universe. They explained it pretty well in the codex entries and backstory. 

1. The vast majority of planets in the galaxy are uninhabitable. Some intriscally (gas planets, planets too close to starts, etc), others because they are undergoing a phase unsympathetic to the needs of bipedal sapient life. Terraforming is a time consuming and logistically demanding process that can take decades to centuries.

2. Mass Relays link to points spanning the entire galaxy, but vast spaces between these areas have never been explored and are suspected to harbor unorthodox and dangerous life forms.

3. There are many technologically, advanced sapient life forms in the 'known' galaxy that incorporate to varying degrees of the many flaws of human nature and who are accordingly mutually dangerous to one another if provoked.

4. Prothean technology forms the basis of advanced military and commercial tech in galactic civilization, and its study and incorporation is highly regulated to prevent disturbances in the galactic equilibrium all species depend on for peace and prosperity.

Conclusion: The Citadel Council is formed to mitigate conflicts. The Citadel Council regulates the activation and use of Mass Relays and galactic exploration to prevent episodes like the Rachni Wars. This vastly limits the number of potentially habitable worlds that can be discovered. The Council surveys these worlds and apportions them to species in a complex give-and-take policy which varies according to a species needs and economic and military power. Of the dozens/hundreds/thousands of Council associate species, each might receive only one or two per century. Furthermore, the more they receive, the less they are likely to receive as the centures proceed forward. These worlds must be terraformed, and after that, it would take decades or centuries (aka, generations) to move or grow a resident population. Building infrastructure would further complicate and lengthen the process, and making sure not to colonize what cannot be protected or will be exploited poses an additional obstacle. Lastly, newcomers might enjoy more or less advanced forms of spaceflight, but they can't approach the technological power of socieites that have adapted to Prothean technology. Their ability to study and incorporate this tech is limited by those preexisting societies (Asari, Turians, Salarians) that do not wish for the galactic equilibrium to be disrupted.

Humans weren't subject to either of those rules: they activated every relay they could, found and settled all the habitable worlds they could, and developed all the Prothean-based tech they could, with no regulation and near boundless resources and enthusiasm. Thus, the subordinate position the Council might have otherwise forced on them as new associate species was not appropriate to their economic or military position.

Modifié par Arawn-Loki, 06 mai 2010 - 05:24 .