588 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

We have technology to build amphibious vehicles. So why aren't all cars equipped with it? Because it's impractical. Yes, it's THAT simple.

This is technology that has been around for around 2000+ years not a few decades, 2000 years is more than enough time to create a more practical version.

 

Are you intentionally avoiding my questions?

I'm not, if limitations were in place the mandate wouldn't be as simple as "preserve all life at any cost." there's be more to it then that, but "preserve all life at any cost." was all that was given nothing more.
 

I suggest you examine the assumptions behind that assetion.

 

Why should it a this cycle at most 2 years to develop intergalactic travel when the reaper's weren't able to develop it in the billions of years they've existed? This cycle is subject to the same technological limitations as the reaper's if the reaper's can't develop intergalactic travel than neither should this cycle..

 

On what basis could you possibly draw that conclusion? You know literally nothing about the technology. Miniaturization might require the violation of fundamental physical laws (like superposition).

We don't know.

 

If they haven't been able to  come up with a practical means of applying that technology to regular ships then its quite obvious that it won't be able to work on an ark. This technology is going to be applied to a ship not a space station.

 

We're not the writers. Why should we do that?

Its hard for the story to be good if Bioware ends up contradicting their own lore.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Its hard for the story to be good if Bioware ends up contradicting their own lore.

They don't need to. The lore isn't as rigidly or clearly defined as you seem to think it is.

You've built foundationless assumption on foundationless assumption.

Do the Reapers innovate?

Is your interpretation of their mandate the only possible one?

Is it possible that the Catalyst did not fully explain all the complexity of the mandate?

Is it possible that the Catalyst did not fully understand the mandate?

Is it possible that the Catalyst was intentionally deceptive?

In order to hold the position you hold with as much confidence as you claim, you need to have evidence-based answers to those questions, and your answers must be Yes, Yes, No, No, and No, respectively.

Do you have evidence to support those answers?

[Sanunes]

 

Why should it a this cycle at most 2 years to develop intergalactic travel when the reaper's weren't able to develop it in the billions of years they've existed? This cycle is subject to the same technological limitations as the reaper's if the reaper's can't develop intergalactic travel than neither should this cycle..

 

 

We don't know if they ever felt the need to try and develop the technology for the way they approached the Milky Way in Mass Effect 3 isn't the way they normally do it if Mass Effect 1's premise is accurate.  If I remember correctly they normally just appear using the Citadel as a massive relay, but Prothean scientists used their own Mass Relay to get back to the Citadel from Ilos.  Then in the first game you had Sovereign try and fix the Citadel so they could still use it as a Relay.

 

The Reapers aren't as infallible as they think they are or the first Mass Effect game wouldn't have happened so they could have been blinded by arrogance to think the plan they had was the only one they needed and the plans for the Crucible were never fully destroyed either and it lasted across multiple harvests.

[Iakus]

And there's your problem.

What evidence do we have that the Catalyst is trustworthy? Or omniscient? Your position requires both.

We have Leviathan.  A DLC clearly intended to back up the Catalyst's claims.

 

"There was no mistake, it still serves its purpose"

 

 

 

Unless they weren't coded to do that.
 

They were not coded with any limits.  They can go to any extreme to fulfill their goals.  Thus the only barriers they'd have would be physical ones.

 

 

 

Again, that information comes from the Reapers or the Catalyst. They're all constrained by the same core perspective. What if that perspective is limited?
There's no evidence that it is, but there's no evidence it isn't. So holding either opinion is irrational.
 

Actually, that line came from the Leviathan.  Which verifies pretty much everything the Catalyst later says.

 

The problem with the Reapers is not that their perspective is too limited.  If anything, it's that it's too broad.  Looking at their logic as well as their pattern of behavior makes this quite obvious.

 

 

 

No I'm not. You only just noticed that I haven't been talking about probability at all.
I've been discussing possibilities this while time. That's where our ambiguity is, and that's where the new lore could fit.
 

No, you have been saying that even the most implausible of conjecture is wiggle room to justify altering the lore.  I find that incredibly weak writing.  That unless something in expressly, demonstrably, beyond all doubt revealed to be untrue, it is justified in being "possible"  That's the stuff of soap opera plot twists.

 

 

 

How do the space stations do it?

 

Presumably the same way one discharges into a planet:  either through the planet's magnetic field, or through direct contact with the surface.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The writers' intent never matters.

Though I'll concede I've not played Leviathan (nor will I likely ever, given how much I dislike the ME games generally).

But my questions would still apply there. Why do you find that information trustworthy?

Presumably the same way one discharges into a planet: either through the planet's magnetic field, or through direct contact with the surface.

They're not near planets. The quoted passage referred explicitly to space stations that are not near planets.

They can discharge static into empty space. Why couldn't the ark?

[The Hierophant]

I agree with Iakus. In all the billions of years the Catalyst operated in the MW I'd be surprised if it didn't prepare for or take into account the possible existence of  external threats from Andromeda, send over scouts or probes to assess any war potential, or neutralize the threat if possible.

[78stonewobble]

I agree with Iakus. In all the billions of years the Catalyst operated in the MW I'd be surprised if it didn't prepare for or take into account the possible existence of  external threats from Andromeda, send over scouts or probes to assess any war potential, or neutralize the threat if possible.

 

Yeeeeees, offcourse they did that... There are more than 54 galaxies within the local group of galaxies. That's within 3.39 million lightyears. 

 

Now try to estimate the amount of galaxies within atleast 1 billion lightyears times whatever intergalactic ftl is possible. 

 

With such a ginormous fleet of reapers, it does beg the question of why they were reaping in the first place. Since they could easily squash any upstart ai, before they became a threat, within that area. 

[Iakus]

The writers' intent never matters.

Though I'll concede I've not played Leviathan (nor will I likely ever, given how much I dislike the ME games generally).

But my questions would still apply there. Why do you find that information trustworthy?

 

I'd say writer's intent matters because it shows the direction they intend to take the story.

 

Thus the information is trustworthy because the writers want it to be trustworthy.  You can certainly RP it as being untrustworthy, unbelievable, or just plain wrong.  But the writers intend the Catalyst and Leviathan to be accurate info dumps as trustworthy as Vigil in ME1 or EDI in ME2.  Therefore, that's what they are.  No matter how stupid or illogical it is.

 

 

 

They're not near planets. The quoted passage referred explicitly to space stations that are not near planets.

They can discharge static into empty space. Why couldn't the ark?

 

They can't discharge it into empty space.  They need a large structure to discharge into.  Or a magnetic field.  In essence, they need a lightning rod.

[Killroy]

Why couldn't an ark have such structure?

[Iakus]

Why couldn't an ark have such structure?

Pretty sure you can't ground yourself with...yourself.  I mean, the goal here is not to discharge into the ship's hull.

 

besides which, even if you could carry such a structure with you, why isn't everyone?  You'd massively increase the range of your ship.

[DarthLaxian]

If ME:A just tries to sweep the mess that was ME3 ending structure under the rug without a short and sweat gloss over of the who, where and why of ME3's endgame then ignored inconsistencies will eat away at any and all plot forwarding development. First of all Synthesis would preclude all of ME:A as would likely the Refusal option. Then we look at Control and realistically the Reapers would prevent any and all attempts at a organic being exodus. Finally all that's left is Destroy which was the most selected player ending (even if I didn't go that way in my game) and it's the only one that can make any sense furthering the Mass Effect Universe.

 

Why would it? - If the ark leaves before the final fight it doesn't matter (unless we return to the Milky Way)...hell, I'd suggest going with refuse -.- (with the twist of successful refusal, meaning not everybody dies, as that is still total BS - we united a whole damned galaxy against the ****** reapers, something no other cycle managed (no, not even the Protheans!) and in conjunction with us being able to stop the reapers from shutting down the relays (which again: no other cycle ever did before), a victory should have been possible, though costly!), but then again I will be happy if they just admit (even if they don't directly say it, but hint at it by just leaving the Milky Way behind forever) they screwed up and make a really good game again (they haven't done so in a while, as ME3 wasn't great, DA:I wasn't great (aside from a very few scenes!) and DA2 was a disaster).

 

greets LAX

ps: I hope we get to see the important worlds this time, no major planets we are just never really going to like Earth (no, the start of ME3 doesn't count and the final battle was too badly done...it didn't feel like a large fight as we weren't attacking with loads of other soldiers but constantly "on our own" (read: only with our party)), like Palaven (the moon doesn't count -.-) and Surkesh (come on, an STG-Base, really? - I wanted to see a city at least -.-)...hell, even Thessia was done badly -.- (as in: We didn't see much of it -.-)...not to mention the worlds of the other minor races that we've never been to

[AlanC9]

Pretty sure you can't ground yourself with...yourself.
 
besides which, even if you could carry such a structure with you, why isn't everyone?

It's easy to come up with technical reasons why such a system wouldn't be cost-effective. Say, it doesn't scale down well, so the ship has to be gigantic. Remember, MEU FTL techs have to compete with just taking a relay hop someplace. See, for instance, Larry Niven's Known Space series, where the Quantum II Hyperdrive isn't of much practical use to humans at the time the puppeteers develop it.

[Ahriman]

They can't discharge it into empty space.  They need a large structure to discharge into.  Or a magnetic field.  In essence, they need a lightning rod.

You are most likely right, anyway it's already established in the lore that technology of discharge-free FTL travel exists.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd say writer's intent matters because it shows the direction they intend to take the story.

Thus the information is trustworthy because the writers want it to be trustworthy. You can certainly RP it as being untrustworthy, unbelievable, or just plain wrong. But the writers intend the Catalyst and Leviathan to be accurate info dumps as trustworthy as Vigil in ME1 or EDI in ME2. Therefore, that's what they are. No matter how stupid or illogical it is.

But if those details haven't been established in-game, then the writers are free to change them. They don't even need a retcon.

Even if the writers wrote ME3 intending one set of facts, there's no requirement that their prior intent be respected if those facts didn't actually make it into the game.

Accounts of those facts did, but the facts didn't, and those are different things. Bertrand Russell writes well on this subject.

They can't discharge it into empty space. They need a large structure to discharge into. Or a magnetic field. In essence, they need a lightning rod.

It wouldn't be hard for the writers to invent some gibberish about how ships in the intergalactic void can discharge constantly into a cloud of virtual particles, and how that wasn't discovered before because it only works outside galaxies, as the much higher density of matter in galactic space interferes with the relevant quantum mechanism.

Technobabble can explain most things.

And that explanation, which it took me only a few seconds to invent, makes more sense than all the Element Zero stuff. So our standard of credibility in ME is already pretty low.

[Iakus]

It's easy to come up with technical reasons why such a system wouldn't be cost-effective. Say, it doesn't scale down well, so the ship has to be gigantic. Remember, MEU FTL techs have to compete with just taking a relay hop someplace. See, for instance, Larry Niven's Known Space series, where the Quantum II Hyperdrive isn't of much practical use to humans at the time the puppeteers develop it.

It's easy to handwave something away.  Having it make any kind of sense in the context of the setting is a lot harder.  In fact, the example you just gave makes for a good argument why no one would bother researching this tech to begin with, since the relays are already more than they need.

 

You are most likely right, anyway it's already established in the lore that technology of discharge-free FTL travel exists.

 

Only the Reapers.  Even then, the galaxy has to figure out what they do, and ensure a crew could survive in one.

But if those details haven't been established in-game, then the writers are free to change them. They don't even need a retcon.

Even if the writers wrote ME3 intending one set of facts, there's no requirement that their prior intent be respected if those facts didn't actually make it into the game.

Accounts of those facts did, but the facts didn't, and those are different things. Bertrand Russell writes well on this subject.
It wouldn't be hard for the writers to invent some gibberish about how ships in the intergalactic void can discharge constantly into a cloud of virtual particles, and how that wasn't discovered before because it only works outside galaxies, as the much higher density of matter in galactic space interferes with the relevant quantum mechanism.

Technobabble can explain most things.

And that explanation, which it took me only a few seconds to invent, makes more sense than all the Element Zero stuff. So our standard of credibility in ME is already pretty low.

 

Except such a "totally not a retcon" makes Reaper harvest make even less sense than they do now.  Especially if it's achievable at the tech level of the current cycle.  Any race can escape them simply by leaving the galaxy.  Why the hell did the Protheans waste all that time building a bunker on Eden Prime?

 

And gibberish is kinda what I want to avoid.  I don't want another Lazarus Project powered by handwavium.  I want something that's actually consistent with the lore we have that doesn't make past plans and cycles look even more stupid and contrived than they already do.

[themikefest]

 Why the hell did the Protheans waste all that time building a bunker on Eden Prime?

Javik mentions that his empire was smashed to pieces and didn't know what other protheans were doing. Its possible they were building a ship to get to another galaxy without him knowing about it. Those same protheans may not of known that a bunker was built on Eden Prime

[LinksOcarina]

I'd say writer's intent matters because it shows the direction they intend to take the story.

 

Thus the information is trustworthy because the writers want it to be trustworthy.  You can certainly RP it as being untrustworthy, unbelievable, or just plain wrong.  But the writers intend the Catalyst and Leviathan to be accurate info dumps as trustworthy as Vigil in ME1 or EDI in ME2.  Therefore, that's what they are.  No matter how stupid or illogical it is.

 

 

They can't discharge it into empty space.  They need a large structure to discharge into.  Or a magnetic field.  In essence, they need a lightning rod.

 

Writers intent matters to a point. We can take the words of the writers as trustworthy, but it is also depends on how players view it. The Catalyst is a perfect example of that; no one trusted it for some reason when you even say they should here...

[Ahriman]

Only the Reapers.  Even then, the galaxy has to figure out what they do, and ensure a crew could survive in one.

And there is already precedent (a lot of them actually) of figuring out Reaper tech. "Secret research" handwaving is minimal and in ME Universe it's more common than it could be.

[Ahglock]

I am not thinking like a person here. I am thinking like a machine. WIth absolutist if/then logic.

They were told to "preserve organic life at all cost."

At

All

Cost.

If they were told "at all cost, then that means no constraints. A detail the Leviathans learned to their sorrow then the Catalyst mulched them because they were "part of the problem"

Let's assume it's true that they were told to preserve life at all costs. Given their method so far can we assume any logic we can follow. Killing everyone instead of just enslaving or keeping at a low tech level makes no logical sense. We can try to claim machine logic but it fails on that front as well. They IMO were either lying or we're massively illogical.

[Killroy]

Pretty sure you can't ground yourself with...yourself. I mean, the goal here is not to discharge into the ship's hull.
besides which, even if you could carry such a structure with you, why isn't everyone? You'd massively increase the range of your ship.

Why are you only imagining the ark as a small ship? Why wouldn't it be a massive mobile space station? Why can't it be?
If space stations can accommodate such discharge structures why couldn't our ark?

[Former_Fiend]

Wasn't there some talk about there being a Citadel-sized station as the hub in MEA?

[AlanC9]

Writers intent matters to a point. We can take the words of the writers as trustworthy, but it is also depends on how players view it. The Catalyst is a perfect example of that; no one trusted it for some reason when you even say they should here...

I thought only the IT guys went as far as not trusting the Catalyst. Not wanting to trust it was more common, but that isn't at all the same thing.

[Dantriges]

 (with the twist of successful refusal, meaning not everybody dies, as that is still total BS - we united a whole damned galaxy against the ****** reapers, something no other cycle managed (no, not even the Protheans!) and in conjunction with us being able to stop the reapers from shutting down the relays (which again: no other cycle ever did before), a victory should have been possible, though costly!),

 

It´s pretty much impossible. The reapers have a 100 to 1 advantage in capital ships* and probably pretty much the same advantage in destroyers against druisers and frigates combined if you don´t count the quarian fleet. But well, no idea how much the rustbuckets are actually worth in a a fight, the fleet´s ships are mostly civilian transports after all.

 

So unless the Galactic Empire from Star Wars was hiding in the other 99% of the galaxy, nope.

 

*Pure number of ships without the tech advantage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's easy to handwave something away. Having it make any kind of sense in the context of the setting is a lot harder. In fact, the example you just gave makes for a good argument why no one would bother researching this tech to begin with, since the relays are already more than they need.

Academics research all sorts of things that have no known practical application.

This is actually really valuable with mathematics, for example, because when science finds that it suddenly needs exotic math, the math already exists.

Theoretical research should generally precedes need.

Except such a "totally not a retcon" makes Reaper harvest make even less sense than they do now.

It never made sense.

Especially if it's achievable at the tech level of the current cycle. Any race can escape them simply by leaving the galaxy. Why the hell did the Protheans waste all that time building a bunker on Eden Prime?

Because technobabble reasons.

I'm not going to bother writing this out. I pay BioWare to do it for me.

[Drone223]

They don't need to. The lore isn't as rigidly or clearly defined as you seem to think it is.

 

Bioware made up certain aspects of the lore as they went along and that lead to several major narrative problems, so having a rigid lore would help a lot.

 

You've built foundationless assumption on foundationless assumption.

Do the Reapers innovate?

Is your interpretation of their mandate the only possible one?

Is it possible that the Catalyst did not fully explain all the complexity of the mandate?

Is it possible that the Catalyst did not fully understand the mandate?

Is it possible that the Catalyst was intentionally deceptive?

In order to hold the position you hold with as much confidence as you claim, you need to have evidence-based answers to those questions, and your answers must be Yes, Yes, No, No, and No, respectively.

Do you have evidence to support those answers?

 

The leviathan's pretty much tell you what their mandate is and it was a very broad one, they also confirm that the catalysis is going exactly as it was instructed. So it very obvious that the only restrictions that exist are physical ones not programming ones.

 

We don't know if they ever felt the need to try and develop the technology for the way they approached the Milky Way in Mass Effect 3 isn't the way they normally do it if Mass Effect 1's premise is accurate.  If I remember correctly they normally just appear using the Citadel as a massive relay, but Prothean scientists used their own Mass Relay to get back to the Citadel from Ilos.  Then in the first game you had Sovereign try and fix the Citadel so they could still use it as a Relay.

 

The Reapers aren't as infallible as they think they are or the first Mass Effect game wouldn't have happened so they could have been blinded by arrogance to think the plan they had was the only one they needed and the plans for the Crucible were never fully destroyed either and it lasted across multiple harvests.

That just makes the whole thing even more contrived it only makes past cycles look even more stupid, how come they did develop technology capable of intergalactic travel yet this cycle does it at most 2 years and the very least a few months.