588 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

There's also no reason to believe it isn't, which is what matters.

You're (incorrectly) assuming an excluded middle.
Do you have a reason not to believe it, along with any other possible explanation?

You're advancing an extremely rigid position, and you don't have anything like enough evidence to support it.

I'm advancing a position based on ambiguity. The lack of evidence strengthens my position.
If that's so obvious, then let's just assume they did. Problem solved.

The catalyst objective was to "preserve all life" the catalyst included the leviathans were smart enough they would've gave the mandate some specifications so it wouldn't turn on them but they gave it a broad one so it had no limitations of how it can be interpreted.

 

Because the ark also might not work. And it can't take everyone.

 

Wouldn't the smart thing to do is have multiple arks instead since its better two have 2-3 or of them instead of just one.

 

Do you not know what a hedge is? To hedge one's bets?

The ideal solution is that the Reapers are defeated and the vast majority of civilization in the Milky Way escapes unscathed. It would be foolish not to pursue that objective.

But if victory there is far from certain (and it is), it would be similarly foolish not to have contingency plans.

 

Is the ark the only contingency or are their others because the ark is just as risky as the crucible.

 

The Reapers' objective is to destroy all the technologically advanced organic life. If the ark escapes, the Reapers have failed.

 

If you think the Reapers' objective is to harvest the organics, then it doesn't really matter if they succeed. Civilization's goal is to survive the Reapers' attack. The ark can let them succeed even if the Reapers succeed also. The ark prevents the conflict from being a zero-sum game.

In economic terms, this is akin to market disruption.

 

 

No technically reapers succeed in wiping out all space fairing civilizations in the galaxy even if their are survivor for intensive purpose their civilizations have cease to exist. The protheans in Eden Prime and Ilos knew that their civilization was gone when they went into cryo.

 

 

Why do you need an answer for that? Why can't the intergalactic benevolence have motives that are unknown to us?

 

That we don't know an answer doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. Do you disagree? Do you think that information doesn't exist unless we possess it?

 

So we have to accept the fact that their being benevolent for reasons?

 

Nor would I. The fake science alone was laughable from the beginning.

 

I'm not expecting the science to be consistent with real life, but it does need to be consistent with the lore of the series.

[FKA_Servo]

Then Bioware might as well start a new IP there is no point in saving the MW since its going to be ditched forever and thus make the whole trilogy pointless.

 

How on earth do you figure that, exactly? The original trilogy told a specific story with a planned and definite ending. Now, there's going to be a new story in the same fictional universe.

 

Fallout: NV takes place in Nevada. Fallout 4 takes place in Boston. The Mass Effect trilogy takes place in the Milky Way. The next game in the series happens in Andromeda. It's the same thing on a larger scale. We don't know how we're getting there at the moment, but there's no reason to think it's impossible per the in-universe rules. It sounds like you're just being weird about the OT and the Milky Way.

[Drone223]

How on earth do you figure that, exactly? The original trilogy told a specific story with a planned and definite ending. Now, there's going to be a new story in the same fictional universe.

 

Fallout: NV takes place in Nevada. Fallout 4 takes place in Boston. The Mass Effect trilogy takes place in the Milky Way. The next game in the series happens in Andromeda. It's the same thing on a larger scale. We don't know how we're getting there at the moment, but there's no reason to think it's impossible per the in-universe rules. It sounds like you're just being weird about the OT and the Milky Way.

Not a good comparison all the Fallout games take place in a post apocalyptic US and generally are still very familiar. ME:A on the other hand is throwing away a lot of the familiarity of the franchise to the point that its ME in name only. Also the whole idea of expanding the setting by going to another galaxy is completely unnecessary since over 99% of the milky way is unexplored.

[AlanC9]

Except it isn't that different. You've got the same techs, the same gameplay, the same races. Not the same locations, but ME2 locations had almost zero overlap with ME1 locations, and nobody cared.

[FKA_Servo]

Not a good comparison all the Fallout games take place in a post apocalyptic US and generally are still very familiar. ME:A on the other hand is throwing away a lot of the familiarity of the franchise to the point that its ME in name only. Also the whole idea of expanding the setting by going to another galaxy is completely unnecessary since over 99% of the milky way is unexplored.

 

It's a fine comparison. They're different places in the same fictional setting - it's just a matter of scale.

 

As for familiarity - no, I don't buy it. If I'm watching a film with Jedi Knights, lightsabers, and wookies, it's a Star Wars film. Am I throwing a tantrum because it doesn't have Luke and and Chewie? Should they just trash the whole thing and call it because I can't move on from the original trilogy? Seems kinda stupid.

 

If I'm playing a game with biotic fighters and omni-tools and I'm hanging out with asari and turians, guess what? That's a Mass Effect game. Particularly if they retain the aesthetic of the existing games (the teaser suggests they will), that's the heart and soul of the series right there.

 

As for the Milky Way - it's 99% unexplored, and the aftermath of ME3 ensures it's going to stay that way for a long time - a very long time, in some cases. Working with all of the endings is impossible, barring a timeskip that might as well land us in a new galaxy. Forcing one of those inane endings on us would just further alienate the players and fans. Better to just sidestep it. We'll figure out the hows and whys when they see fit to reveal it and judge it then.

[AlanC9]

A lot smaller? Really? Getting an eezo core to run for centuries without discharge or refueling when the current ones can be measured in 2-3 days?

Heck at least the Crucible had a blueprint to crib off of.

I thought we were talking about the costs of the construction, not the tech effort.

As for the science, I think it's not as big a problem as you like to think it is. How fast did humans develop mass effect drives after discovering eezo? It's the same problem.

Actually, assuming the technical problem is going to be solved at all, rather than bypassed, is a bad premise. My bet's always been that it won't be solved; Bio won't want other ships following the ark, for obvious reasons

[Former_Fiend]

Bioware has bad history when it comes to retcons they generally end up being poorly implemented.

 

 

 

See, that might qualify as a reason as to why they shouldn't do it, but that isn't a reason for why they won't do it.

[spinachdiaper]

Frankly the current Head Canon I'm running on this whole ME3 leads to ME:A is that a canon Destroy does save the Milky Way at first but hundreds to thousands of years later the Mass Effect relays start breaking down and essentially turn into super massive black holes so then everybody has to bail on the Milky Way and head to Andromeda.

[Former_Fiend]

Personally I think that if we were to leave post-ME3 endings, then the best way to do it, in my humble opinion, is that the denizens of the Milky Way have all been enthralled by the leviathans and that they're using us as the vanguard of a military invasion of Andromeda to expand their empire beyond the boundaries of the Milky Way.

 

But I don't know if Bioware has the stones to go with a storyline like that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The catalyst objective was to "preserve all life" the catalyst included the leviathans were smart enough they would've gave the mandate some specifications so it wouldn't turn on them but they gave it a broad one so it had no limitations of how it can be interpreted.

If there are no limitations then it means literally anything.

There have to be limitations for words to have useful definitions. Computers need precise definitions in order to run. What precise definition of "all advanced life" do the Reapers use? We know they don't destroy less advanced civilizations. Unless you know the precise mechanism by which they choose what to destroy and what not to destroy, there's no reason for us to claim that the Reapers would or would not be interested in life in other galaxies.

We have zero relevant information on that topic. So why hold opinions?

For the record, none of the questions I've been asking are rhetorical. I've been hoping for answers to all of them, but you're not answering.

Wouldn't the smart thing to do is have multiple arks instead since its better two have 2-3 or of them instead of just one.

How many arks are there?

How do you know?

If there were more arks, would they necessarily know wach others' fates? If MEA is told from the point of view of a civilization that arose from a single ark, they might not know if other arks made it out of the Milky Way. Remember, the information we're provided, even in the codex, might not be told from an omniscient perspective.

The codex can be wrong.

Is the ark the only contingency or are their others because the ark is just as risky as the crucible.

How would I know?

That's my point. We don't know. So we have no basis to complain that the story doesn't work or can't work.

No technically reapers succeed in wiping out all space fairing civilizations in the galaxy even if their are survivor for intensive purpose their civilizations have cease to exist. The protheans in Eden Prime and Ilos knew that their civilization was gone when they went into cryo.

The Protheans who remained in the Milky Way had their civilization destroyed.

How do we know the Protheans didn't build an ark? They might have gotten to Andromeda before us. Andromeda could be populated entirely by civilizations that escaped the Reapers over millions of years.

There's so much we don't know.

So we have to accept the fact that their being benevolent for reasons?

No. You're still assuming an excluded middle. Do you know what that means?

We don't need to accept anything. We just need not to reject things without cause.

Incidentally, the scenario above where Andromeda is populated by Reaper survivors might work as a notive for that benevolent intervention.

But again, you shouldn't need me to present you with a plausible theory. As long as you know that a plausible theory might be possible (even if you have no idea what it is) should be enough for you not to reject the idea outright.

I'm not expecting the science to be consistent with real life, but it does need to be consistent with the lore of the series.

I don't think it was, even from the beginning.

[Drone223]

If there are no limitations then it means literally anything.

There have to be limitations for words to have useful definitions. Computers need precise definitions in order to run. What precise definition of "all advanced life" do the Reapers use? We know they don't destroy less advanced civilizations. Unless you know the precise mechanism by which they choose what to destroy and what not to destroy, there's no reason for us to claim that the Reapers would or would not be interested in life in other galaxies.

We have zero relevant information on that topic. So why hold opinions?

For the record, none of the questions I've been asking are rhetorical. I've been hoping for answers to all of them, but you're not answering.
 

The AI in question saw it creators as part of the problem it was given free reign to make its own solution as it saw fit it at any costs.

 

How many arks are there?

How do you know?

 

If its risky to put all your eggs in one basket with the crucible the same can be said with building a single ark, its just common scene to build multiple ark's to improve your chances of survival.

 

If there were more arks, would they necessarily know wach others' fates? If MEA is told from the point of view of a civilization that arose from a single ark, they might not know if other arks made it out of the Milky Way. Remember, the information we're provided, even in the codex, might not be told from an omniscient perspective.

The codex can be wrong.
How would I know?

They would since it would improve their chances of survival if they combine their resources since the game is being set in Andromeda, its not far fetched to assume they're all going to have the same destination.

 

 

 

That's my point. We don't know. So we have no basis to complain that the story doesn't work or can't work.
The Protheans who remained in the Milky Way had their civilization destroyed.

 

It is something to complain about if its going to contradicting the lore, lack of consistency can easily lead to poor writing.

 

 

How do we know the Protheans didn't build an ark? They might have gotten to Andromeda before us. Andromeda could be populated entirely by civilizations that escaped the Reapers over millions of years.

The prothean tried something similar with Ilos and Eden prime and they failed and the reaper's always harvest species before they can surpass them technologically.

 

Incidentally, the scenario above where Andromeda is populated by Reaper survivors might work as a notive for that benevolent intervention.

There's so much we don't know.

 

See previous comment, most if not all of those civilization were way more advance than the current cycle, technology during the trilogy is not advance enough to make intergalactic travel possible.

 

 

But again, you shouldn't need me to present you with a plausible theory. As long as you know that a plausible theory might be possible (even if you have no idea what it is) should be enough for you not to reject the idea outright.

But Bioware can't hand wave it and expect people to believe it though its a sign of lazy writing.

 

I don't think it was, even from the beginning.

 

 

The lore has been rather consistent since ME1, the parts were it became inconsistent were the Lazarus project and Synthesis its why they are called space magic.

[Iakus]

Except it isn't that different. You've got the same techs, the same gameplay, the same races. Not the same locations, but ME2 locations had almost zero overlap with ME1 locations, and nobody cared.

Yeah, but you can get from Vegas to Boston, even in a post-apocalyptic world.  As seen by the Brotherhood of Steel being in both places and the Enclave being both on the west coast and in DC.

 

The Midwest isn't some expanse of nothingness that would take even a vertibird centuries to cross

[Iakus]

If there are no limitations then it means literally anything.

There have to be limitations for words to have useful definitions. Computers need precise definitions in order to run. What precise definition of "all advanced life" do the Reapers use? We know they don't destroy less advanced civilizations. Unless you know the precise mechanism by which they choose what to destroy and what not to destroy, there's no reason for us to claim that the Reapers would or would not be interested in life in other galaxies.
 

Except we do know the mechanism:  they choose to destroy a civilization when they reach a point where they can build synthetics than can surpass them.  If an organic race is still trying to figure out how this newfangled "fire" thing works, they can be left alone.

 

"No limitations" for the Reapers is simply that, they are not fettered by that limitation.  This is why they were able to mulch their own creators and set up a billion years of genocide in the name of 'preserving" life "at all costs"  it's poorly thought out limitations that caused the Reapers to go to such extreme lengths in solving their "problem"

 

So yeah, I don't think the galaxy was a limitation for the Reapers at all, save dark space being a physical barrier that they may or may not have been able to surmount.

[Pasquale1234]

Except we do know the mechanism:  they choose to destroy a civilization when they reach a point where they can build synthetics than can surpass them.  If an organic race is still trying to figure out how this newfangled "fire" thing works, they can be left alone.

But that isn't the mandate they were given. As you have stated repeatedly:

"To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost"

You seem to accept the notion that the intelligence was limited (or limited itself) to preserving only those civilizations advanced enough to build synthetics, yet you continually reject the idea that they were limited (or self-limited) to the Milky Way.

What is the rationale?

[Iakus]

But that isn't the mandate they were given. As you have stated repeatedly:

"To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost"

You seem to accept the notion that the intelligence was limited (or limited itself) to preserving only those civilizations advanced enough to build synthetics, yet you continually reject the idea that they were limited (or self-limited) to the Milky Way.

What is the rationale?

The rationale is primitive races are not in danger of building synthetics, which will "inevitably" turn on them and start killing everything.  Advanced races are.

[Sanunes]

Yeah, but you can get from Vegas to Boston, even in a post-apocalyptic world.  As seen by the Brotherhood of Steel being in both places and the Enclave being both on the west coast and in DC.

 

The Midwest isn't some expanse of nothingness that would take even a vertibird centuries to cross

 

The problem I have with your argument is the technology to make that travel is not available to everyone and is basically kept a secret from the majority of people living in the Wasteland, the majority of people would have to walk between locations which would take years to accomplish and we don't know how BioWare is planning on making the travel between the Milky Way and Andromeda.

 

The other thing is if we are still on a ship that is developed by the Council Species the setting doesn't seem it would be that much different between the games aside from the Hub worlds not fitting into the same theme as the ship was are on, but all the hubs changed dramatically between the games even if the names stayed the same.

[Iakus]

The problem I have with your argument is the technology to make that travel is not available to everyone and is basically kept a secret from the majority of people living in the Wasteland, the majority of people would have to walk between locations which would take years to accomplish and we don't know how BioWare is planning on making the travel between the Milky Way and Andromeda.

 

The other thing is if we are still on a ship that is developed by the Council Species the setting doesn't seem it would be that much different between the games aside from the Hub worlds not fitting into the same theme as the ship was are on, but all the hubs changed dramatically between the games even if the names stayed the same.

This is true, it would take ordinary people a long time to cross the continent.  It could be done, but without advanced tech it would be a long, dangerous process.

 

But the distance between galaxies has its own problems.  Problems which do not seem surmountable given the known technology of this cycle.  In addition, even if such technology were discovered, it would have to be justified why the Reapers never used it.  Because, hey, the Brother hood and the Enclave used their tech to get to the east coast!

 

Even with all the Council races represented, it will still feel very different.  Like, where are the quarians or the geth?  Either or both species could be dead, after all.  Are there mass relays?  What does N7 mean?  Who do we answer to?  

[Exaltation]

I assume whatever ending it won't have much effect beyond conversations.

Since we are in a different galaxy,we also don't know if the Reapers were aware of life in Andromeda,or maybe programmed only to monitor the Milky Way.

We don't know if Andromeda have a Mass Relay or equivalent to transfer The Crucible's blast effect,also how far the effects of the blast by The Crucible can go.

[Sanunes]

This is true, it would take ordinary people a long time to cross the continent.  It could be done, but without advanced tech it would be a long, dangerous process.

 

But the distance between galaxies has its own problems.  Problems which do not seem surmountable given the known technology of this cycle.  In addition, even if such technology were discovered, it would have to be justified why the Reapers never used it.  Because, hey, the Brother hood and the Enclave used their tech to get to the east coast!

 

Even with all the Council races represented, it will still feel very different.  Like, where are the quarians or the geth?  Either or both species could be dead, after all.  Are there mass relays?  What does N7 mean?  Who do we answer to?  

 

I understand those concerns, but I guess to me its just too early to say it won't feel like a Mass Effect game until we see how BioWare addresses those issues you might have and then declare they should abandon the franchise.  For all we know they are able to replicate what makes a Mass Effect game for the majority of people just like Bethesda was able to capture what felt like a Fallout game for most people.

[Pasquale1234]

The rationale is primitive races are not in danger of building synthetics, which will "inevitably" turn on them and start killing everything.  Advanced races are.

But how did we get from the Leviathan's stated mandate:
"To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost"

(which you use to justify your assertion that the reapers would operate outside the Milky Way)

to preserving only those life forms advanced enough to create synthetics?

[Sylvius the Mad]

The AI in question saw it creators as part of the problem it was given free reign to make its own solution as it saw fit it at any costs.

Their creators were in the same galaxy though. We have no information about howthe Reapers view other galaxies, or even if they're aware of them.

It could be as simple as the means by which they determine position. If they always determine position based on a direction and distance from some reference point within the Milky Way, they mjght not be equipped to count high enough even to comprehend positions in other galaxies.

Why are you so sure that the Reapers' programming can accommodate other galaxies?

If its risky to put all your eggs in one basket with the crucible the same can be said with building a single ark, its just common scene to build multiple ark's to improve your chances of survival.

Assuming we have enough resources to build multiple arks, and that building multiple arks doesn't increase the risk of failure (for whatever reason), yes.

But by making this point, you appear to be agreeing with me.

They would since it would improve their chances of survival if they combine their resources since the game is being set in Andromeda, its not far fetched to assume they're all going to have the same destination.

But why would you assume that? Why assume anything?

The prothean tried something similar with Ilos and Eden prime and they failed...

The stuff we know about failed. What if they tried something else, as well, and it succeeded?

If we're unaware of it, how would we know?

...and the reaper's always harvest species before they can surpass them technologically.

Do they always succeed? The Reapers might think they do (though they might not - they might just be programmed to say that they do), but they could be wrong about that.

Given that the Reapers want to destory advanced civilizations, the only way one might survive is by sneaking away without the Reapers knowing.

So the Reapers says they always destroy afvamved civilizations, but we don't really know if that's true. We don't even know if the Reapers believe it. So why should we?

See previous comment, most if not all of those civilization were way more advance than the current cycle, technology during the trilogy is not advance enough to make intergalactic travel possible.

As far as we know.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But how did we get from the Leviathan's stated mandate:
"To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost"

(which you use to justify your assertion that the reapers would operate outside the Milky Way)

That doesn't work anyway, because we don't know whether the Reapers comprehend other galaxies, or what their definition of life is. And this also assumes that Leviathan is speaking truthfully.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except we do know the mechanism: they choose to destroy a civilization when they reach a point where they can build synthetics than can surpass them.

How do they determine what constitutes a civilization?

I posit that the reason they left behind stuff to direct the developmebt if civilizations was to make it easier for them to determine when their threshold had been met.

Do they even look at other galaxies? How do you know.

"No limitations" for the Reapers is simply that, they are not fettered by that limitation. This is why they were able to mulch their own creators and set up a billion years of genocide in the name of 'preserving" life "at all costs" it's poorly thought out limitations that caused the Reapers to go to such extreme lengths in solving their "problem"

But they're the ones saying it. So "No limitations" only means no limitation that they can understand.

So yeah, I don't think the galaxy was a limitation for the Reapers at all, save dark space being a physical barrier that they may or may not have been able to surmount.

Your phrasing there is interesting.

I also don't think the galaxy was a limitation for the Reapers.

I also don't think the galaxy wasn't a limitation for the Reapers.

What I think you're trying to say is that you do think the galaxy wasn't a limitation, and you (and others) are respinding to me as if I'm saying that I do think the galaxy was a limitation.

But I'm not saying that.

If you can't see the difference between what you said and what you mean, then you're not going to understand the distinction I'm trying to make.

[Drone223]

Their creators were in the same galaxy though. We have no information about howthe Reapers view other galaxies, or even if they're aware of them.

It could be as simple as the means by which they determine position. If they always determine position based on a direction and distance from some reference point within the Milky Way, they mjght not be equipped to count high enough even to comprehend positions in other galaxies.

Why are you so sure that the Reapers' programming can accommodate other galaxies?
 

Because the mandate didn't go into specifics it was just "preserve all life" a certain galaxy was never specified.

 

Assuming we have enough resources to build multiple arks, and that building multiple arks doesn't increase the risk of failure (for whatever reason), yes.

 

You wouldn't put all your eggs in one basket even with a single ark.

 

But by making this point, you appear to be agreeing with me.

 

Not exactly I'm just playing the devils advocate.

 

But why would you assume that? Why assume anything?

 

 

In a survival situation you'd do anything to maximize your chances that includes combining resources its common scenes

 

The stuff we know about failed. What if they tried something else, as well, and it succeeded?

 

 

The Prothean's were caught by surprise and the colonies cut off from each other there is no way they'd be able to pull off such a feat.

 

Do they always succeed? The Reapers might think they do (though they might not - they might just be programmed to say that they do), but they could be wrong about that.

 

Given how the reaper's are still around and that when they start the harvest they have access to all the vital information regarding locations of colonies, resources, military strength etc. I'm inclined to believe they did.

 

Given that the Reapers want to destory advanced civilizations, the only way one might survive is by sneaking away without the Reapers knowing.

 

See above how can they do that when the reaper's know everything about their civilization.

 

 

So the Reapers says they always destroy afvamved civilizations, but we don't really know if that's true. We don't even know if the Reapers believe it. So why should we?

The reaper's generally never leave a stone unturned (Ilos was a special case) and since they have all the information and control of the relay's its unlikely that past civilizations survived the harvest.

 

As far as we know.

 

 

Nope its quite obvious that the technology to travel to other galaxies doesn't exist during the trilogy.

[Iakus]

 
Your phrasing there is interesting.

I also don't think the galaxy was a limitation for the Reapers.

I also don't think the galaxy wasn't a limitation for the Reapers.

What I think you're trying to say is that you do think the galaxy wasn't a limitation, and you (and others) are respinding to me as if I'm saying that I do think the galaxy wasn't a limitation.

But I'm not saying that.

If you can't see the difference between what you said and what you mean, then you're not going to understand the distinction I'm trying to make.

COnsider this:  

 

THeir mandate is to "preserve life at all cost"  SPecifically, keep synthetic life from surpassing their creators and wiping out all organic life.

 

I think we can both agree that this much is the Reaper "mandate".

 

Now consider:  organic life appears to be plentiful in the Milky Way.  There are hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of Sovereign-class Reapers alone.  Organic life springs up again and again.  In this cycle alone there have been about a dozen space-faring civilizations.  Civilizations that the Reapers need to "preserve" lest they crate synthetics that will wipe out all organic life.

 

WIth me so far?

 

Now consider:  THe Milky Way is just one galaxy.  And not even the biggest one.  Andromeda is estimated to be twice as large as the Milky Way.  Given how common organic life is in the Milky Way, It is highly plausible that organic life exists in other galaxies as well.

 

Now if the mandate of the Reapers is to "preserve organic life at any cost" without the limitation to this galaxy, it makes sense that if they were physically capable, they would travel to Andromeda (and other galaxies) to at least find out if organic life existed elsewhere and to "preserve" it if possible.

 

This is not just for the good of other galaxies, but for the good of the Milky Way as well.  If there is organic life in other galaxies, then inevitably, they would produce synthetics that would surpass, them, wipe them out, and then spread to other galaxies, if possible.  In time, they would find the Milky Way and wipe out organic life there as well.

 

 To the Reapers, it is their duty to ensure this mever happens by mulching organics before they get to that point.  THis would require them to travel to any galaxies within their reach if for no other reason than to check for the existence of life, organic or synthetic.

 

Make sense?