661 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathan Redgrave]

jamesp81 wrote...

yorkj86 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Really?  I take it you didn't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings then, since they both had happy endings?

It is not, in any way, lazy story telling.  It's no better or worse than using the dystopian trope you seem to be so in love with.  Both have been repeatedly throughout history.

It depends.  In Lord of the Rings, the human rise to power at the end of the series, is made possible because of the sacrifices of Hobbits.  Otherwise, everything would have been obliterated.

It is lazy storytelling, because of the way "Humans Are Special."  The writers are, quite literally, meddling with the galaxy, in order to accelerate humans to the political forefront.

The Hobbits survived the war.  The Shire survived.  Gondor and Rohan survived.  Frodo had some scars from the whole thing as you would expect from anyone who had fought a war.  He lived happily ever after with the Elves, Samwise lived happily ever after with the beautiful Rosy Cotton.

I'm looking for a similar ending to the ME trilogy.  That will not include Earth being destroyed.

Earth wouldn't stop a happy ending from occuring, mind you, it just means that humans are going to be down a lot of Earthborns and up a lot of Colonists and Spacers. Quarians we ain't--we can colonize new worlds.

[Tleining]

@ Whatever
yes, because all those brilliant people live on earth. I never said that loosing those billions of people would be minor or wouldn't have any effect at all. But it wouldn't be the end of the world. Like i said, if earth, the people and industry there would be gone, it would be up to the colonies to rebuild that. If they fail to do that, humanity WILL die. But it's not a direct result of earths destruction.

about those brilliant scientists, like you said, it's not linear. So if you have more Scientists, it doesn't automatically mean that they will increase the output. They also need to be able to work together.
Output is increased by neccessity, rebuilding society after it was destroyed by an ancient species CAN bring out the best in people.

@ jamesp81
right, because the rest of humanity and the galaxy isn't important at all. Let's risk everything just to save earth.
A good Admiral follows orders just like everyone else. And if a Spectre tells them to retreat from earth in Order to save billions more lives elsewhere, they'd better follow that order.

[Whatever42]

yorkj86 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Really?  I take it you didn't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings then, since they both had happy endings?

It is not, in any way, lazy story telling.  It's no better or worse than using the dystopian trope you seem to be so in love with.  Both have been repeatedly throughout history.

It depends.  In Lord of the Rings, the human rise to power at the end of the series, is made possible because of the sacrifices of Hobbits.  Otherwise, everything would have been obliterated.

It is lazy storytelling, because of the way "Humans Are Special."  The writers are, quite literally, meddling with the galaxy, in order to accelerate humans to the political forefront.

Americans burst onto the scene in the 19th and early 20th centuries and became special despite thousands of years of European and Asian history. Those other cultures were either stagnant or consumed by infighting. So there is a perfect real-life example of your "trope".

And your description of LotR is completely off-base. Humans dominated Middle Earth since the beginning of the second age. The elves had been waning for many thousands of years. Humans were starting to wane at the end of the 3rd age because of Sauron's constant corruption and low level warfare.

[jamesp81]

yorkj86 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

yorkj86 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Every story has been done to death. Having humans being all wiped out has been done to death. You have your favorite tropes, other people have theirs.

Laziness makes laziness permissible?  Lack of creativity makes lack of creativity permissible?

You know there are really only about a dozen or so major plots in all of literature?  The backdrop and characters change, but the basic plots remain the same.  Now, if you're such a literary genius that you can add to that even though the last 4000 years of writers have not been able to, then by all means, put in a resume at BioWare and show us all how it's done.

That's not at all what Campbell meant.  Stop it.  The rest of your claims are irrelevant.  Look at how perfectly things are set up for the trope, and you'll see what I mean.

I'm not sure who this Campbell guy is, and I don't much care.  I will put it to you again: if you're so good that you can up with an original plot that 4000 years of human history hasn't thought of yet, then you really need to think about writing professionally.  If you're really that capable, it will put you on a plane of literary genius to exceed even that of men like Shakespeare.

[jamesp81]

Tleining wrote...

@ Whatever
yes, because all those brilliant people live on earth. I never said that loosing those billions of people would be minor or wouldn't have any effect at all. But it wouldn't be the end of the world. Like i said, if earth, the people and industry there would be gone, it would be up to the colonies to rebuild that. If they fail to do that, humanity WILL die. But it's not a direct result of earths destruction.

about those brilliant scientists, like you said, it's not linear. So if you have more Scientists, it doesn't automatically mean that they will increase the output. They also need to be able to work together.
Output is increased by neccessity, rebuilding society after it was destroyed by an ancient species CAN bring out the best in people.

@ jamesp81
right, because the rest of humanity and the galaxy isn't important at all. Let's risk everything just to save earth.
A good Admiral follows orders just like everyone else. And if a Spectre tells them to retreat from earth in Order to save billions more lives elsewhere, they'd better follow that order.

How quaint.  You actually think being in the military means you blindly follow every order given.

I can promise you, no Admiral is going to obey an order issued from a foreign power (Spectre) to abandon his own nation's capital world.  That is never going to happen.  And the Spectre would be wise to not issue such an order.  Goes back to one of the military's maxims: Never issue orders you know won't be obeyed.

In the USA, when soldiers enlist, they take an oath to "Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  This means orders that violate this oath are not to be followed.  I imagine Alliance troops take a similar oath with respect to protecting humanity.

[Whatever42]

Tleining wrote...

@ Whatever
yes, because all those brilliant people live on earth. I never said that loosing those billions of people would be minor or wouldn't have any effect at all. But it wouldn't be the end of the world. Like i said, if earth, the people and industry there would be gone, it would be up to the colonies to rebuild that. If they fail to do that, humanity WILL die. But it's not a direct result of earths destruction.

about those brilliant scientists, like you said, it's not linear. So if you have more Scientists, it doesn't automatically mean that they will increase the output. They also need to be able to work together.
Output is increased by neccessity, rebuilding society after it was destroyed by an ancient species CAN bring out the best in people.

Scientists actually do work really well together. They have journals and everything.

Output is increased by necessity, sure. But 20 or 30 million people who really, really try hard will not produce the output of 11 billion. Not even close. Not even remotely close. No matter how hard they try, their output will be many orders of magnitude less. Again, you really think that mainland United States could be obliterated and Alaska and Hawaii could pick up the slack because they would try really really hard?

[Almostfaceman]

Arcian wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

My approach is to always prevent the worst case scenario. Always. That's how I look at it. I'm not concerned with maximizing benefits but with minimizing bad outcomes. 

1: I sacrifice the Council to reduce the chances of Sovereign winning.
2: I sacrifice the hostages on X571 to ensure that Balak does not escape and continue his terrorism.
3: I kill the rachni queen to ensure that she never threatens Noveria or the rest of the galaxy.
4: I cut down the colonists on Zhu's Hope to ensure they don't ambush us from behind.
5: I leave David with Project Overlord to ensure we have the weapon if we ever need it.
6: I blow up the Heretics so that they can't ever revert to their hostile form (and because I don't trust the True Geth).
7: I saved the Collector base so that we'd have the chance to mitigate the disadvantages we face in the Reaper War.

You say you prevent worst-case scenarios, but all I see is creating more (Balak nonwithstanding).

1: I hope you look forward to the inevitable pan-galactic rebellions in 20-30 years time when the aliens get fed up with human rule and revolt.
2: Giving up easily saved lives and not putting any trust in your Alliance comrades to hunt the sucker down. Nice.
3: Awesome, killing an intelligent being who solemnly promises to not pursue war with the rest of the galaxy if you let her go. Who also sends you a f***ing envoy 2 years later to say, "Hey, thanks again, I really appreciate it, gimme a call when the reapers show up and we'll give you a hand."
4: Ruining a colonial project and giving up human lives for no other reason than that you're too lazy to use the bloody grenades handed to you. How f***ing hard is it to chuck a few grenades, REALLY?
5: Good for you, for underlining a basic principle (prevent worst-case scenarios) and then throwing it out a closed window by presenting Cerberus with the opportunity to do the same thing, all over again, with no f***ing strings attached. Really, dude. You must REALLY like Overlord.
6: Good job destroying potential allies and showing the geth that, yes, organics simply do not care for peaceful solutions with synthetics and want them all dead. I'm sure the millions of lives lost in the ensuing war will thank you for that one, oh yes sir, i do.
7: Good for you, saving a base containing nothing but ethically questionable research and which might not even produce the results you want. Of course, the whole Illusive Man-Greyson story has proven to us that Cerberus is totally justified in everything they do and that they always produce reliable, stable results with no deaths or other horrifying consequences that makes already terrible circumstances worse.

Really, renegades should be called "Renetards" instead.

+1

[lovgreno]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

If Earth is a complete write-off while the rest of the galaxy got through mostly unscathed the best case scenario will have humanity (a hundred million at most) become a client race of the turians. We'd have less pull than the hanar.

Do the Hanar have dreadnoughts?
Do the Hanar have fighter carriers?
Do the Hanar have stealth frigates?
Do the Hanar have E.D.Is?

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's the Turians (and everybody else) that are going to be a client race of the Humans, once the Earthen parasites are annihilated by the Reapers.

I kind of assumed that all those ships was trying to save Earth from the Reapers. It's their job you know. And since the Reapers are seen feasting on Earth in the trailer I also assume that the fleet are likely orbiting Earth in little pieces.

And with most of the economy and people dead, where are you going to get the resources and cannonfodder for your glorious conquest of the galaxy?

But I'm not a writer so I admit this is all speculations.

[Tleining]

@ jamesp81
Humanity isn't earth. It's the people. If saving earth becomes impossible, instead of sending the fleet to their death, why not pull them back in order to save the humans still alive on the colonies?

you can't promise me anything about how the alliance soldiers will act. It's up to Bioware. But i can promise you, that not all humans see earth as their homeworld. There are Admirals that have family on the colonies, and there are humans, who'd rather save their own lives rather than die in a suicide attack.

Look, you have your opinion about that, alright. But that doesn't make it a fact. You can call my opinion "quaint" all you want. If Shepard (that's the spectre i was referring to) orders the fleet to move back, i fully expect the alliance Military to follow that command.

@ Whatever
you mean like how the colonies that became the US picked up the slack from cutting themselves off of the UK and became THE superpower later on?
no, you're right, completely impossible.

first: not all 11 billion people are working. There are children, criminals, homeless, etc.
second: like i said, currently, earth needs to produce for those 11 billion people, if they dissapear, you don't need to produce quite as much, seeing how you don't need to support quite so many people.

about the scientists: okay, really? you base their abliity to work together on their journals? Watch Stargate SG1. Rodney is a scientist, yes? Does he work well with others?

Some scientists CAN work with others, others can't. If you put 30 Scientists in a room, there is no guarantee that they will produce something worthwile, put a child and a ball in a room, you'll be entertained for a while.

Modifié par Tleining, 06 avril 2011 - 03:36 .

[jamesp81]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

My approach is to always prevent the worst case scenario. Always. That's how I look at it. I'm not concerned with maximizing benefits but with minimizing bad outcomes. 

1: I sacrifice the Council to reduce the chances of Sovereign winning.
2: I sacrifice the hostages on X571 to ensure that Balak does not escape and continue his terrorism.
3: I kill the rachni queen to ensure that she never threatens Noveria or the rest of the galaxy.
4: I cut down the colonists on Zhu's Hope to ensure they don't ambush us from behind.
5: I leave David with Project Overlord to ensure we have the weapon if we ever need it.
6: I blow up the Heretics so that they can't ever revert to their hostile form (and because I don't trust the True Geth).
7: I saved the Collector base so that we'd have the chance to mitigate the disadvantages we face in the Reaper War.

You say you prevent worst-case scenarios, but all I see is creating more (Balak nonwithstanding).

1: I hope you look forward to the inevitable pan-galactic rebellions in 20-30 years time when the aliens get fed up with human rule and revolt.
2: Giving up easily saved lives and not putting any trust in your Alliance comrades to hunt the sucker down. Nice.
3: Awesome, killing an intelligent being who solemnly promises to not pursue war with the rest of the galaxy if you let her go. Who also sends you a f***ing envoy 2 years later to say, "Hey, thanks again, I really appreciate it, gimme a call when the reapers show up and we'll give you a hand."
4: Ruining a colonial project and giving up human lives for no other reason than that you're too lazy to use the bloody grenades handed to you. How f***ing hard is it to chuck a few grenades, REALLY?
5: Good for you, for underlining a basic principle (prevent worst-case scenarios) and then throwing it out a closed window by presenting Cerberus with the opportunity to do the same thing, all over again, with no f***ing strings attached. Really, dude. You must REALLY like Overlord.
6: Good job destroying potential allies and showing the geth that, yes, organics simply do not care for peaceful solutions with synthetics and want them all dead. I'm sure the millions of lives lost in the ensuing war will thank you for that one, oh yes sir, i do.
7: Good for you, saving a base containing nothing but ethically questionable research and which might not even produce the results you want. Of course, the whole Illusive Man-Greyson story has proven to us that Cerberus is totally justified in everything they do and that they always produce reliable, stable results with no deaths or other horrifying consequences that makes already terrible circumstances worse.

Really, renegades should be called "Renetards" instead.

+1

I think this is more an issue with the writing.  Using hindsight from other savegames, it does appear to be better to spare the Rachni for example.  Different writing could've helped in some areas, but I can understand how difficult it would be.

I will slightly disagree on #7.  Every time I get to the collector base, I have to think real hard about it.  Reverse engineering your enemy's tech is a quick path to learning their weaknesses.  However, I have yet to keep the collector base because the tech is too unstable, too dangerous.  We see what happens every other time someone plays with Reaper tech.  It ends up in things like out of control plagues, destroyed star systems, etc.  EDI and the Thanix Cannon are about the only things derived from Reaper tech that didn't turn into a complete ****storm.

[Zulu_DFA]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

If Earth is a complete write-off while the rest of the galaxy got through mostly unscathed the best case scenario will have humanity (a hundred million at most) become a client race of the turians. We'd have less pull than the hanar.

Do the Hanar have dreadnoughts?
Do the Hanar have fighter carriers?
Do the Hanar have stealth frigates?
Do the Hanar have E.D.Is?

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's the Turians (and everybody else) that are going to be a client race of the Humans, once the Earthen parasites are annihilated by the Reapers.

You think that the Alliance would go protect its fleet and let Earth burn?  Assume we lose a large number of those.

And how exactly would humanity continue to staff and support this fleet? The colony bumpkins won't have a lot of factories or scientists or trained military personal. And if the Batarians decided to take out a few colonies, they know we won't be able to quickly rebuild and can easily win any war of attrition.

Do you think if the U.S. mainland population got annialated that Hawaii and Alaska could support the U.S. armed forces?

Nope, humanity becomes pets of the Turians.

*Sigh*.
Yes, the colonist "bumpkins" have all there is need for to supply the Alliance Navy.

The scientists are 95% off Earth already.

The "factories", aka robotic plants never need more than a dozen operators to maintain the production sequences around the clock.

And your Alaska analogy does not stand, because the colonies are infinitely richer in easy-to-access resources than the stripmined by that time Earth.

Shor answer: Enslave the geth and bob's your uncle.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 avril 2011 - 03:41 .

[jamesp81]

Tleining wrote...

@ jamesp81
Humanity isn't earth. It's the people. If saving earth becomes impossible, instead of sending the fleet to their death, why not pull them back in order to save the humans still alive on the colonies?

We've been over this. Like it or not, most of humanity's economic, military, and political power still derives from Earth.  Over 95% of the human race still lives on Earth.  Without Earth, at least for now, the colonies could never muster a fleet strong enough to defend themselves from the Batarians or the Terminus systems powers.  It is physically impossible.  Hell, a good number of Earth's colonies are so young that they still use the BARTER SYSTEM for their damned economy.  If Earth is destroyed, humanity's options are to lose a war with the Batarians, or become a client race of one of the Citadel species (most likely the Asari, IMO, due to the proximity of Ilium to the Terminus.  The Attican Traverse colonies are ****ed in this scenario no matter what due to their proximity to the Batarians).  Neither of those actions can be undone.

Earth being destroyed means humanity inhabits a similar niche in society as the Quarians or Krogan.

[Whatever42]

Tleining wrote...

@ Whatever
you mean like how the colonies that became the US picked up the slack from cutting themselves off of the UK and became THE superpower later on?
no, you're right, completely impossible.

first: not all 11 billion people are working. There are children, criminals, homeless, etc.
second: like i said, currently, earth needs to produce for those 11 billion people, if they dissapear, you don't need to produce quite as much, seeing how you don't need to support quite so many people.

about the scientists: okay, really? you base their abliity to work together on their journals? Watch Stargate SG1. Rodney is a scientist, yes? Does he work well with others?

Some scientists CAN work with others, others can't. If you put 30 Scientists in a room, there is no guarantee that they will produce something worthwile, put a child and a ball in a room, you'll be entertained for a while.

The U.S. colonies in 1776 had a population of 2.5 million. Great Britian had a population of 6.5 million. So despite having a population of more than 1/3 of Great Britian and a whole almost uncontested continent to exploit, it took the U.S. over a century to rival Great Britian in power.

With the destruction of Earth, we won't have colonies with 35-40% of Earth's population, we will have colonies with about 0.3% of Earth's population. And we will be in very contested space. 

And Rodney does work with others on Stargate Atlantis. Without the other scientists, he'd be often screwed. But, no, I'm looking at real life scientists. Look at the manhattan project. Or just look at researchers today. One team clones a sheep and a hundred other teams take their research and try to make advancements on it. And they do make advancements on it.

 

[Whatever42]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

*Sigh*.
Yes, the colonist "bumpkins" have all there is need for to supply the Alliance Navy.

The scientists are 95% off Earth already.

The "factories", aka robotic plants never need more than a dozen operators to maintain the production sequences around the clock.

And your Alaska analogy does not stand, because the colonies are infinitely richer in easy-to-access resources than the stripmined by that time Earth.

Shor answer: Enslave the geth and bob's your uncle.

Now you're just making stuff up. So 95% of scientists are off Earth? And I suppose 95% of American scientists are out of the continental U.S. too, right?

And you have no clue how many factories are on or off Earth. You really think that Earth is one big slum and that everyone has relocated all their manufacturing off-Earth? In one generation? Hardly.

And what happens when we fail to enslave the Geth and the paltry number of humans out there on the edge of Council space ****** them off? Our handful of remaining ships are going to save us because we're awesome, right?

[Almostfaceman]

Nyoka wrote...

@Almostfaceman,
I think the problem is history and you think the problem is a set of 'inherent' qualities, even though I, a human, don't have. I mentioned breathing and sweating as examples of truly inherent traits, so you could see the difference, because while you can't help sweating, nor can anybody, I hope you can help not murdering people. Okay, that's a difference we won't solve here. I won't say one more word about it. You have the last word.

I'm not sure why you're fixating on Saphra Deden.  If we must, Saphra Deden is a human.  In that, the asari, salarians, hanar, krogan, etc., all experience human qualities.  They lie, they cheat, they steal, they murder, they hate, they love, they like, they are vain, they are humble, they laugh, they cry, they dance, they mourn - all the things humans do.

But sharing something doesn't mean thinking just alike, which is what I asked. We hear a couple of times aliens explaining what makes humans different
in the game. Liara and the turian councilor (if you save the council) talk about it. So what applies to us doesn't have to apply necessarily to them, too. And the same works for the others, I mean for instance what applies to the turians doesn't apply to the asari or to the krogan, etcetera. But you can talk with them if you'd like to convince them otherwise. I'm just repeating what I heard the aliens saying about us.

All of this comes from the idea that without earth humans will still be safe enough because the council will help us. Some said they won't, because they are just like us (ie, selfish jerks) and we wouldn't do it were we in their position. Now, I don't know what we'd do, but they did help other struggling races, and we are useful to them (this was covered extensively by CGG). We will strive eventually because of what Liara and the turian councilor said about humans. Heck, look at what humans did with some ruins on mars in like half a century.

*Sorry, but that kind of talking always sounds to me like cuckoo, woo-woo stuff.

I think you're confusing what you do as an individual with what our cumulative faults do to us as a whole.

Let's take er, the seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Ok, mankind starts off, let's say two groups have just achieved sentience and they're occupying two different pieces of land.  There is no history between them.  Group 1 has a group of lazy people in it.  Group 2 is not perfect but for the moment they're minding their own business.  Group 1 sees that Group 2 isn't as lazy and they work hard.  Hmmmm, Group 1 is envious and wants what Group 2 has.  Group 1 attacks Group 2 and enslaves them.  Now Group 1 can be lazy, have Group 2 do all the work and Group 1 reaps the benefits.

Now time passes, and Group 2 is guilty of wrath.  The meek are not inheriting the earth here - they're getting peed on by Group 1.  So Group 2 revolts and kills a good chunk of Group 1 and they earn their freedom.  Group 2 doesn't just sit back and go back to work, either.  Group 1 has hurt their pride and thus they kick back into wrath again and attack Group 1 repeatedly, kicking them while their down.

This kind of thing and more has happened throughout history.

Now my point is, if we as humans had overcome, say, laziness, greed, wrath, and pride this conflict would never have happened.  Humans in general just don't play nice.  Look at the news.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 06 avril 2011 - 04:05 .

[Tleining]

@ jamesp81

yeah, that might be how you see it. Fact is, that only some of earths nations contribute to the Alliance. Not all of them. So those 95% don't just support the Alliance.
It's the Alliance that has the fleet. It's the colonies, under the Alliances supervision, who have the ressources that were used to build the fleet.
And your theory is still based on the theory, that the fleet will be destroyed, while the batarians will be unharmed.
Your Theory is worth thinking about, but it's not an undeniable fact.

And no matter what, you can't compare humanity without earth to the homeless/drifting quarians or the infected Krogan who'd rather die than try to rebuild. Even without Earth, humanity will be roughly where the Hanar currently are. Because there are some colonies that are doing rather well.

@ Whatever
yes, it's different, but the same goes for your example of loosing mainland US, having Alaska/Hawaii fend for themselves. The difference is in the potential. The US Colonies had a lot of room to expand, lots of ressources to discover and so on. Compared to current USA, neither Alaska nor Hawaii really offers the potential that the colonies had. In the ME Universe, Earth doesn't have a lot of room left, whatever ressources are left, are spread thin. The Colonies have the potential and ressources, whatever improvements humanity will make in the future will come from those. Not to mention that all scientific achievements have been made offworld, studying prothean artifacts.

Again, continuing life without earth wouldn't be easy, but it is possible.

back to the Scientists: You are jumping from one point to another. Take two scientists, who work well on their own. Now put them in the same room. The chance that they will increase their output is 50/50.
Now let them work on their own, but give them access to the results of each other. Wether they can work with each other or not, they can gain from each others work.
Even without earth, human scientists can work with other scientists. Only they won't be human scientists, but asari, turian, salarian,...

as for Rodney, yes, he's working with others, but he's not working WELL with others. Replace Rodney with someone who can work well with the others, and you could potentially increase their output.

[Almostfaceman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

*Sigh*.
Yes, the colonist "bumpkins" have all there is need for to supply the Alliance Navy.

The scientists are 95% off Earth already.

The "factories", aka robotic plants never need more than a dozen operators to maintain the production sequences around the clock.

And your Alaska analogy does not stand, because the colonies are infinitely richer in easy-to-access resources than the stripmined by that time Earth.

Shor answer: Enslave the geth and bob's your uncle.

Now you're just making stuff up. So 95% of scientists are off Earth? And I suppose 95% of American scientists are out of the continental U.S. too, right?

And you have no clue how many factories are on or off Earth. You really think that Earth is one big slum and that everyone has relocated all their manufacturing off-Earth? In one generation? Hardly.

And what happens when we fail to enslave the Geth and the paltry number of humans out there on the edge of Council space ****** them off? Our handful of remaining ships are going to save us because we're awesome, right?

And now you see why I've been ignoring Zulu for a bit.  He's just making stuff up to keep the argument going in my opinion.

[Zulu_DFA]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

*Sigh*.
Yes, the colonist "bumpkins" have all there is need for to supply the Alliance Navy.

The scientists are 95% off Earth already.

The "factories", aka robotic plants never need more than a dozen operators to maintain the production sequences around the clock.

And your Alaska analogy does not stand, because the colonies are infinitely richer in easy-to-access resources than the stripmined by that time Earth.

Shor answer: Enslave the geth and bob's your uncle.

Now you're just making stuff up. So 95% of scientists are off Earth? And I suppose 95% of American scientists are out of the continental U.S. too, right?

What does the continental U.S. have to do with it? Scientist study things. In  the ME universe most things that need studying are off Earth and off the Solar system. The most valuable research due to all the risks involved is conducted aboard space stations and in remote colonies and outposts, which you have multiple evidence of across the series.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

And you have no clue how many factories are on or off Earth. You really think that Earth is one big slum and that everyone has relocated all their manufacturing off-Earth? In one generation? Hardly.

Most consumer goods for Earth's population are produced on Earth.
Most consumer goods for the colonies' population are produced in the colonies.
Most resources, most importantly Eezo, are produced in the colonies.
Most of the Alliance military power is produced in the colonies.

[jamesp81]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

*Sigh*.
Yes, the colonist "bumpkins" have all there is need for to supply the Alliance Navy.

The scientists are 95% off Earth already.

The "factories", aka robotic plants never need more than a dozen operators to maintain the production sequences around the clock.

And your Alaska analogy does not stand, because the colonies are infinitely richer in easy-to-access resources than the stripmined by that time Earth.

Shor answer: Enslave the geth and bob's your uncle.

Now you're just making stuff up. So 95% of scientists are off Earth? And I suppose 95% of American scientists are out of the continental U.S. too, right?

What does the continental U.S. have to do with it? Scientist study things. In  the ME universe most things that need studying are off Earth and off the Solar system. The most valuable research due to all the risks involved is conducted aboard space stations and in remote colonies and outposts, which you have multiple evidence of across the series.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

And you have no clue how many factories are on or off Earth. You really think that Earth is one big slum and that everyone has relocated all their manufacturing off-Earth? In one generation? Hardly.

Most consumer goods for Earth's population are produced on Earth.
Most consumer goods for the colonies' population are produced in the colonies.
Most resources, most importantly Eezo, are produced in the colonies.
Most of the Alliance military power is produced in the colonies.

The colonies physically cannot provide the manpower needed to staff an Army and a Navy.  They don't have that many people.

Those resources are being developed by Earth-based corporations (several mentions of these are made throughout both games, especially ME1) and operated by people trained on Earth.  The colonies do not have enough people with the right talents to do all this work, and this is after they're trained.  And, by the way, who is training them?  Since most of humanity's knowledge and educational institutions are on earth, losing Earth means losing most of the expertise to do this sort of stuff.

[Tleining]

@ Arcian & Almostfaceman
you know, instead of accusing people of making stuff up, how i about supporting that with actual proof/quotes. If you know that he's wrong, just prove it to him.
Personally, i think 95% is a bit too high, i think it's more like 60-70%. But i haven't seen any official numbers on it. And 95 is stil possible.

[Almostfaceman]

Tleining wrote...

@ Arcian & Almostfaceman
you know, instead of accusing people of making stuff up, how i about supporting that with actual proof/quotes. If you know that he's wrong, just prove it to him.
Personally, i think 95% is a bit too high, i think it's more like 60-70%. But i haven't seen any official numbers on it. And 95 is stil possible.

No offense, but you obviously have not read the bulk of this thread.  And, 95% is a figure so obviously pulled out of nowhere it defies serious consideration.

[Tleining]

@ Almostfaceman
why? We do know, that the Earth is outside of Alliance control, so all the Scientists we see either work for the Alliance (off-earth) or for one of the nations (sometimes on-earth).
We know that many achievements came from the Prothean ruins on mars (off-earth), and that some Prothean artifacts/Data-Discs are being sent to earth for further study.
To me, it makes sense that at least 50% of the Scientists work where the actual material is (off-earth). And those who study the Artifacts in Labs might have those where new artifacts are easily accessible (space stations). Like i said, personally 70% seems more likely, but without a dev-post saying otherwise, 95% is a possiblilty at least.

This whole thread is about theories we came up with (pulled out of nowhere), so i don't really see the problem.