Still doesn't answer the question of how long it took those civilizations to be advanced enough to be harvested without the relays
It kind of does: the Catalyst used the same machines it used against the Leviathans against the other races, and only started the cycle once it had the infrastructure in place.
It wouldn't have 'planned' the harvests out on the basis of being advanced until it was ready.
Sure it does, he probably just didn't let them advance far enough to be harvested. If he could take on the Leviathans full strength using drones, he probably wouldn't have any trouble with archaic sentients. Keep them broken long enough to get your relays/network active (assuming the Reapers were responsible for building those), exterminate every current species available, then put the cycle in place.
Edit: To be clear, unless you're asking how long (in general) sentient species would develop without either the Catalyst or Leviathans influencing them?
That is what I'm asking. How long were those cycles before the 50 000 year cycle was put in place. I don't care if the thing had drones watching over the species or not. Those species still had to advanced far enough to be harvested before the relays being built
Why are you assuming that the reapers may not of built the relays? Was Leviathan misleading/lying Shepard when it said that the intelligence directed the reapers to build the relays?
It kind of does: the Catalyst used the same machines it used against the Leviathans against the other races, and only started the cycle once it had the infrastructure in place.
It wouldn't have 'planned' the harvests out on the basis of being advanced until it was ready.
If it kinda does, then tell me how long those cycles were before the relays were built?
If it kinda does, then tell me how long those cycles were before the relays were built?
None- because they weren't Cycles. The Catalyst wouldn't have been having the Reapers/machines hide in the dark space, waiting for species to come up and dominate the galaxy before harvesting them. There would have been no 50,000 work break for the Reapers/machines, or trap, or hiding their presence.
It would have been strategic suppression- ensuring nothing interfere with the infrastructure of the relays (if needed)- for the duration it took to build them, at which point the survivors (if there were any left) would be wiped clean in preparation for the first deliberate cycle. The choice of killing/not killing a civilization during that period would be a matter of prioritizing the threats to the Catalyst, not on a basis of 'well, it's time for their harvesting.'
Without the prothean scientsts to alter the signal, this cycle would've been harvested like all previous civilizations
If we pretend ME3 never happened, from start too finish there is so much more that could have been done with this. In ME1 Vigil at least heavily implied that a large reason for the Reapers success was not there overwhelming power but the basic strategy of the surprise assault and gaining control of the master relay which allowed them to isolate galactic forces and deal with them systematically.
ME3 starts and they make their numbers and strength such that the plan was largely irrelevant, they can just show up without there big plan and wipe everyone out with pretty much no issues. Yeah its more effective, less losses etc. but it could easily have been such that their strength was not so disgustingly overwhelming that no one ever had a chance. Maybe a few cycles got close to stopping them which is why they developed this whole relay plan. Of course it would have been better if they just didn't show up in the first scene but instead the first 3/4th the game was gathering forces, creating allies, heck maybe investigating dormant relays and trying to gain new allies, gathering resources, basic 80s training montage but this time with science and aliens. Or if ME2 was about that, but hey you can't have everything.
None- because they weren't Cycles. The Catalyst wouldn't have been having the Reapers/machines hide in the dark space, waiting for species to come up and dominate the galaxy before harvesting them. There would have been no 50,000 work break for the Reapers/machines, or trap, or hiding their presence.
It still doesn't answer how long it took those species to get advanced enough to be harvested before the relays were built. Leviathan did say that the intelligence directed the reapers to build the relays, so there must of been a cycle of some sort. Unless it built more than one reaper instead of just Harbinger when harvesting Leviathan and used those to build the relays.
It would have been strategic suppression- ensuring nothing interfere with the infrastructure of the relays (if needed)- for the duration it took to build them, at which point the survivors (if there were any left) would be wiped clean in preparation for the first deliberate cycle. The choice of killing/not killing a civilization during that period would be a matter of prioritizing the threats to the Catalyst, not on a basis of 'well, it's time for their harvesting.'
Until Bioware reveals information about the specifics before the relays were built, everything is just speculation
It still doesn't answer how long it took those species to get advanced enough to be harvested before the relays were built. Leviathan did say that the intelligence directed the reapers to build the relays, so there must of been a cycle of some sort. Unless it built more than one reaper instead of just Harbinger when harvesting Leviathan and used those to build the relays.
They aren't going to be harvested on the basis of being advanced enough- that's the timing of the relay trap, which doesn't exist before the relays.
The time before the relays doesn't imply, or require, a cycle. Not only is building multiple Reapers in the first harvest more than possible, but it's not even necessary- the Catalyst has all the machines and tools it used to harvest and create the first Reapers in the first place.
A cycle of harvests is no more necessary to build the relays than it is to overthrow and harvest the Leviathans- the Catalyst has other tools.
Until Bioware reveals information about the specifics before the relays were built, everything is just speculation
But there is speculation that makes sense within the context of what we know, and what we don't.
There is nothing to suggest the Catalyst systemically harvested species on the basis of advancement- or any other sort of 'cycle'- before the relay trap cycle was possible with relays. It's neither implicit, or needed, or advantageous.
The system they used is why we know the Reapers weren't very good at it- because if the Reapers were competent at systemic genocide and harvesting, they wouldn't rely on the relay method at all.
Call it bad writing, or convoluted AI insanity, but there's no inherent advantage of the Relay strategy that wouldn't have been vastly improved by simply slapping a probe in every solar system in the galaxy and reaping civilizations at, or before, space flight. The reasons not to are ideological, not effectiveness.
I know it doesn't make sense, I agree with you on that point. I'm just talking in context of the story, that the Relay method seemed to be working very well for them if they've been successful for as long as they have.
The time before the relays doesn't imply, or require, a cycle.
Leviathan says it direct the reapers to build the relays to speed time between cycles for greatest efficency. If there was nothing to imply, or require a cycle, why would Leviathan make that comment? Is it misleading/lying to Shepard?
Not only is building multiple Reapers in the first harvest more than possible, but it's not even necessary- the Catalyst has all the machines and tools it used to harvest and create the first Reapers in the first place.
Why wouldn't it use those machines to do the harvest and keep the reapers out of harms way when a harvest starts?
But there is speculation that makes sense within the context of what we know, and what we don't.
There is nothing to suggest how long the cycles, as what Leviathan calls them, were or how many there were before the relays were built
There is nothing to suggest the Catalyst systemically harvested species on the basis of advancement- or any other sort of 'cycle'- before the relay trap cycle was possible with relays.
Maybe not advancement, but the thing still built a reaper each cycle according to Leviathan and that happens after each cycle
This presumes that a 13 year old kid is a relevant reason to assume baggage that was already moved past a decade earlier, rather than tell the kid 'Please enjoy the Shepard Trilogy, the start of the franchise which will give you what you want.'
Personally, I suspect not- by that time, according to this scenario, Mass Effect will have established itself outside of the Milky Way long enough that it won't have any need to return- it can move on to another if it can't stay in Andromedea.
First of all, the kid is 16.
Secondly, telling a customer that you won't make them the game they want because they can go play a 13 year old game instead (one who's profit margins are basically zero at this point) is a somewhat suboptimal business strategy.
Thirdly, I can't believe people think a series that invests so heavily in the the not-so-distant-future vibe (N7=Special forces, Systems Alliance = United Nations, etc.) will never make another game in or around Earth again.
Leviathan says it direct the reapers to build the relays to speed time between cycles for greatest efficency. If there was nothing to imply, or require a cycle, why would Leviathan make that comment? Is it misleading/lying to Shepard?
No- you're just confusing chicken and egg.
The relays trap makes managing the rise of civilizations 'efficient.' It doesn't mean there was a cycle beforehand- not in the sense that the Leviathan and Catalyst refer to as such.
Why wouldn't it use those machines to do the harvest and keep the reapers out of harms way when a harvest starts?
Same reason we fight Sovereign- because the Catalyst doesn't care enough about the preservation of Reapers once ascended to keep them out of danger.
There is nothing to suggest how long the cycles, as what Leviathan calls them, were or how many there were before the relays were built
There isn't any indication that there were Cycles as the Reaper Harvest Cycle implies. We don't even have any reason to believe that the relay network took more than a single cycle to create.
Maybe not advancement, but the thing still built a reaper each cycle according to Leviathan and that happens after each cycle
Dreadnaught. The Reapers build a Dreadnaught each cycle. The lesser Reaper vessels get a lot more.
And Reaper procreation- as inefficient as it is- doesn't really challenge or imply anything about lengths or duration or even presence of the earliest cycles.
No- you're just confusing chicken and egg.
The relays trap makes managing the rise of civilizations 'efficient.' It doesn't mean there was a cycle beforehand- not in the sense that the Leviathan and Catalyst refer to as such.
I will stick with what Leviathan says in the dlc. There were cycles before the relays were built.
First of all, the kid is 16.
And? Still ignorant.
Secondly, telling a customer that you won't make them the game they want because they can go play a 13 year old game instead (one who's profit margins are basically zero at this point) is a somewhat suboptimal business strategy.
If we're interested in honesty, then the child is simply wrong and ignorant- and (politely) referring the child to the already existing merchandise is a good idea simply to correct the misconception.
If we're interested in business strategy, returning to a settled issue that has long since been moved past, simply because of kid's request, is an even more suboptimal business strategy. Referring the child to an existing game, however, would be an optimal strategy because the child is new revenue for an already existing product, no additional cost to the developers. Whereas creating a massive new game returning to earth is not untapped revenue... because this child was already buying the not-at-earth Mass Effect games, and isn't credibly going to stop buying them or lead a consumer revolt after Bioware spends a decade of a franchise not-at-Earth.
Thirdly, I can't believe people think a series that invests so heavily in the the not-so-distant-future vibe (N7=Special forces, Systems Alliance = United Nations, etc.) will never make another game in or around Earth again.
That's a pity- but fortunately, your belief is not required.
The reasons why not to return to Earth are the same reasons to leave the Milky Way- which, by your own scenario, stood longer than the Mass Effect trilogy even existed in the Milky Way. Games after ME3 struggle to cope with the endings without 'invalidating' anyone's route, games set during or even before the Shepard trilogy are tied in by canonical constraings and questions/issues of wanting to tie in Shepard's trilogy. (Think of the people who've complained about the Ark theory- now try and convince that brand of logic about the super-important spinoff plot.)
You can certainly make games- spin offs and spin offs- but the trade-offs have apparently indicated that Bioware doesn't want to stick around Earth.
Whereas the elements you raise aren't tied to, or require, the Earth: N7 will be N7 in Andromedea, fictional international talk-shops will exist, and none of them depended on any significant role for Earth in the original trilogy's narrative.
Mass Effect was never a particularly strong 'near future' political set-up after ME1- ME2 ditched the politics angle for daddy issues, and ME3 had the Reaper War. Human politics (like the UN) were largely irrelevant, and the inter-species analogues can still exist.
I will stick with what Leviathan says in the dlc. There were cycles before the relays were built.
What the Leviathan says is not in question. Your interpretation of what the Leviathan means is.
What the Leviathan says is not in question. Your interpretation of what the Leviathan means is.
Speak for yourself. You're saying no cycles before the relays were built and it clearly says there were by saying the relays were built to speed the time between cycles for greatest efficiency
Speak for yourself.
That would be what I'm doing, yes.
You're saying no cycles before the relays were built and it clearly says there were by saying the relays were built to speed the time between cycles for greatest efficiency
I'm saying that there were no cycles in the sense of the cycles that you were using. Not that there was no harvest- but that the harvests weren't cyclical in nature, or at least not in the sense of the 'Cycles' that's used to the whole Citadel trap system in which the Reapers hide their presence, wait for a civilization to reach a certain development point, and then off them.
That's what the Catalyst and Leviathans refer to when they talk about the Cycles- the cycles of extinction of galactic civilizations. But those cycles were built upon the mass relay network- and the first Harvest and the early period were, by necessity, different from what followed.
In other words: Catalyst genocided and harvested species. It wasn't the Cycle system or metrics they used later, but (by necessity) more haphazard and still in development. The Catalyst created the Relays to make things more efficient and quicker- he product of that is what is refered to pretty much every time anyone talks about galactic cycles.
There's a difference when it comes to retconning stories in comic series, TV series, movie series, etc., because in those media, we are viewers. In video games, we are participants. We make the choices. They can choose to trivialize our choices, but that can really happen when the main result isn't earth-shattering. The ending results of Mass Effect 3 changed the Milky Way.
If Shepard chooses to destroy the Reapers, the Crucible's energy severely damages the Citadel and mass relays, but they are eventually rebuilt. If Shepard chooses to merge synthetic and organic life, the Citadel and mass relays are severely damaged, but rebuilt with the help of the Reapers. As the five wards were left largely intact in these two cases, it is possible that some of the Citadel's inhabitants managed to survive on them and were rescued.[1] If Shepard chooses to control the Reapers, the Citadel remains intact but the relays are damaged. Shepard, now in control of the Reapers, directs them to rebuild the relays.
In control, Shepard is keeping a watchful eye over the galaxy. In synthesis and control, the reapers are still around. In synthesis they are not hostile. In control they are not hostile, but could become hostile. In destroy they do not exist. How do you reconcile all of this? It can't be reconciled without completely ignoring the ending... unless the galaxy reaches synthesis on its own eventually.... say in 10,000 years - we have to give time for the destroy ending to catch up.
Now imagine that NWN was based on Bioware's IP instead of the Forgotten Realms. Would they let decisions some other devs made back then restrict the stories they could tell today?
Also, the Milky Way isn't analogous to Athkatla. It's the Galaxy we currently live in. The one that contains the Earth.
Imagine this: it's 2025, and a kid who was 3 years old when ME3 came out asks, "Hey Bioware, I love all your Mass Effect games, but how come you haven't set any in the Milky Way? I'd love to see Earth and the Solar System and stuff." Do you imagine the devs will respond, "Well we made a game 13 years ago with a controversial ending, so we will never make a Mass Effect game in the Milky Way again. Sorry kid, no Earth for you."
Of course not. Instead, if the Mass Effect IP survives long enough, Bioware will want to return to the Milky Way. And when that happens, they will pick the ending that saddles them with the least amount of baggage from 2012: Destroy.
By then the servers will have long since sunsetted, and it's doubtful we'll even be able to validate our old games, let alone play them anymore.
They can just pretend the trilogy never happened. Something they should have done over a decade earlier.
And? Still ignorant.
If we're interested in honesty, then the child is simply wrong and ignorant- and (politely) referring the child to the already existing merchandise is a good idea simply to correct the misconception.
If we're interested in business strategy, returning to a settled issue that has long since been moved past, simply because of kid's request, is an even more suboptimal business strategy. Referring the child to an existing game, however, would be an optimal strategy because the child is new revenue for an already existing product, no additional cost to the developers. Whereas creating a massive new game returning to earth is not untapped revenue... because this child was already buying the not-at-earth Mass Effect games, and isn't credibly going to stop buying them or lead a consumer revolt after Bioware spends a decade of a franchise not-at-Earth.
That's a pity- but fortunately, your belief is not required.
The reasons why not to return to Earth are the same reasons to leave the Milky Way- which, by your own scenario, stood longer than the Mass Effect trilogy even existed in the Milky Way. Games after ME3 struggle to cope with the endings without 'invalidating' anyone's route, games set during or even before the Shepard trilogy are tied in by canonical constraings and questions/issues of wanting to tie in Shepard's trilogy. (Think of the people who've complained about the Ark theory- now try and convince that brand of logic about the super-important spinoff plot.)
You can certainly make games- spin offs and spin offs- but the trade-offs have apparently indicated that Bioware doesn't want to stick around Earth.
Whereas the elements you raise aren't tied to, or require, the Earth: N7 will be N7 in Andromedea, fictional international talk-shops will exist, and none of them depended on any significant role for Earth in the original trilogy's narrative.
Mass Effect was never a particularly strong 'near future' political set-up after ME1- ME2 ditched the politics angle for daddy issues, and ME3 had the Reaper War. Human politics (like the UN) were largely irrelevant, and the inter-species analogues can still exist.
Sigh! You are dramatically overestimating the salience of today's players' dissatisfaction with endings 10 years from now. In 2025, it is far more likely that Bioware will want to hook a whole new generation of fans with adventures set in and around Earth, than it is that they'll still be afraid of some old fogy's dissatisfaction with a 13 year old game.
By then the servers will have long since sunsetted, and it's doubtful we'll even be able to validate our old games, let alone play them anymore.
They can just pretend the trilogy never happened. Something they should have done over a decade earlier.
This I agree with.
Sigh! You are dramatically overestimating the salience of today's players' dissatisfaction with endings 10 years from now. In 2025, it is far more likely that Bioware will want to hook a whole new generation of fans with adventures set in and around Earth, than it is that they'll still be afraid of some old fogy's dissatisfaction with a 13 year old game.
Why? What would be so appealing about bringing the series back to Earth?
That's not true. There are unlimited choices, many of them good ones, when you have control of the storytelling.
Sigh! You are dramatically overestimating the salience of today's players' dissatisfaction with endings 10 years from now. In 2025, it is far more likely that Bioware will want to hook a whole new generation of fans with adventures set in and around Earth, than it is that they'll still be afraid of some old fogy's dissatisfaction with a 13 year old game.
By then the servers will have long since sunsetted, and it's doubtful we'll even be able to validate our old games, let alone play them anymore.
They can just pretend the trilogy never happened. Something they should have done over a decade earlier.
Nah they've been doing their thing for millions of years, I think it's safe to say they've gotten very good at it over time. The only reason they were stopped is because The Catalyst allowed it. Their entire system is built to draw out advanced civilizations with things such as the Relays and the Citadel. So if there is other intelligent life out there during the events of ME3, they're probably not as advanced as we are. The Reapers have been using the Relay Method since the beginning. So it's safe to assume there aren't other spacefaring civilizations that get overlooked during a Harvest.
But in practice the Reapers are very bad at the Harvests. The Protheans stymied their plans for our cycle, tons of them survived the Reapers, and they put a bunch of warning beacons all over the galaxy to help future cycles prepare. They didn't lock down the relay network when the Harvest began, allowing people to freely move about the galaxy and gather resources/support. They allied themselves with the very synthetic threat they were supposed to be "saving" us from. They didn't lay siege to the Citadel at all, which allowed us to maintain a central government from which to organize resistance. Hell, the Catalyst could have just turned off the life support systems on the Citadel and dealt a crushing blow to our cycle.
The Reapers are bad at what they do. And they're straight up stupid. If their goal is to preserve life in the face of synthetic threats, why do they wipe out intelligent races instead of synthetic threats?
So yes, saying "But the Reapers would have..." is a terrible argument to make, no matter what.
But in practice the Reapers are very bad at the Harvests. The Protheans stymied their plans for our cycle, tons of them survived the Reapers, and they put a bunch of warning beacons all over the galaxy to help future cycles prepare. They didn't lock down the relay network when the Harvest began, allowing people to freely move about the galaxy and gather resources/support. They allied themselves with the very synthetic threat they were supposed to be "saving" us from. They didn't lay siege to the Citadel at all, which allowed us to maintain a central government from which to organize resistance. Hell, the Catalyst could have just turned off the life support systems on the Citadel and dealt a crushing blow to our cycle.
The Reapers are bad at what they do. And they're straight up stupid. If their goal is to preserve life in the face of synthetic threats, why do they wipe out intelligent races instead of synthetic threats?
So yes, saying "But the Reapers would have..." is a terrible argument to make, no matter what.
Again, I'm speaking in context of the story. Yes you can pick things apart and point out how the Reapers are stupid. You're preaching to the choir here. But the writers didn't portray the Reapers as being stupid. They were shown to be highly intelligent, powerful and absolutely thorough with the harvests. Sure some Protheans survived, but not enough. They succeed in wiping them out, just as they did with all the other cycles. So yea, I believe in the context of the story, if there were other highly advanced space faring civilizations out there, the Reapers would've taken notice.
All that being said, pretty much everything you said about the Reapers is true, they are dumb and the writing was sloppy.
Retour en haut