617 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

I just thought of a hypothetical scenario and wanted to see what people thought about it.

 

We know that exploration and setting up colonies are going to be part of the game, and as far as Ryder and the crew of the Ark Ship are concerned, if they fail their entire species go extinct. 

 

So let's say we go down to a planet to set up a colony. It's the only one in the system that is inhabitable and has resources aplenty. The problem is that it's already populated, and not by small towns or colonies with plenty of room on the planet to share. It has cities, civilization and a reasonably strong military and they want us gone. 

 

We have enough fuel to make one last jump, but we have no idea what will be on the end of that jump. If there is no place to land, refuel and set up a colony we know that us and the whole crew will die, and likely the last of our races as far as we're concerned. 

 

We also have a strong enough military as well as orbital bombardments to establish a strong foothold, and we are strong enough to take them on, at least long enough to get the resources we need to leave the system. 

 

Do we risk extinction in order to play nice, or end up being seen as raiders/invaders in the name of survival?

[Killroy]

What could possibly be gained by making Andromeda "as gruesome as possible?" It would be a drastic change of tone and add nothing to a science fiction franchise like Mass Effect.

[Arcian]

What could possibly be gained by making Andromeda "as gruesome as possible?" It would be a drastic change of tone and add nothing to a science fiction franchise like Mass Effect.

The original trilogy was already plenty gruesome to begin with.

[LemurFromTheId]

There's no debate about the prospect for human survival - no species survives forever, the odds on us making it to a billion years are so statistically improbable it's not even worth debating.

 

Bah. We're by far the most advanced species - in terms of being able to shape our own future - that we know of, so we have absolutely no data from which to make such assumptions. We're already on the verge of colonizing other astronomical bodies and we have no reason to expect any truly catastrophic event within the next few thousand years. Once we have a strong foothold on two or more planets, it becomes extremely unlikely that any single event could wipe out the entire species. If we ever manage to colonize other star systems, that just pretty much seals the deal.

 

Of course the universe itself is not likely to be habitable forever, so I guess your argument is technically correct.

[Killroy]

The original trilogy was already plenty gruesome to begin with.

 

In what way?

[In Exile]

What could possibly be gained by making Andromeda "as gruesome as possible?" It would be a drastic change of tone and add nothing to a science fiction franchise like Mass Effect.

That ship, I think, sailed with ME3.

[Halfdan The Menace]

As much as we like gore-ish content in our beloved franchise, we have to reconsider the "soapie" audience, which is why the developers wouldn't just blindly listen to this part of the community. It has to be equally satisfying both in gameplay and story mode.

[Sidney]

Bah. We're by far the most advanced species - in terms of being able to shape our own future - that we know of, so we have absolutely no data from which to make such assumptions. We're already on the verge of colonizing other astronomical bodies and we have no reason to expect any truly catastrophic event within the next few thousand years. Once we have a strong foothold on two or more planets, it becomes extremely unlikely that any single event could wipe out the entire species. If we ever manage to colonize other star systems, that just pretty much seals the deal.

Of course the universe itself is not likely to be habitable forever, so I guess your argument is technically correct.

There is the question of evolution and rather the species of ****** sapiens sapiens would still be around in 50000 years for example. Something might be but would it be a different from us as we are from ****** heidelbergensis.

Didn't even think it would block h...o...m...o in this context.

[Ahglock]

There is the question of evolution and rather the species of ****** sapiens sapiens would still be around in 50000 years for example. Something might be but would it be a different from us as we are from ****** heidelbergensis.

Didn't even think it would block h...o...m...o in this context.

I don't think most people look at evolution as extinction especially if the existing societies and technology continue. Technically correct vs common usage.

[Heathen Oxman]

What could possibly be gained by making Andromeda "as gruesome as possible?" It would be a drastic change of tone and add nothing to a science fiction franchise like Mass Effect.

 

Yeah, prior to the EC, the way ME ended implied the relays all blew-up, obliterating entire systems, and Shep's crew were stranded on some random planet with little hope of rescue.

 

People HATED it.

 

I don't see why everything has to be grimdark.  Most BW games I've played contained a fair amount of cheesy goodness, and I prefer it that way.

[KaiserShep]

In what way?

 

Butchering Shepard's dancing skills, for one. 

[Shechinah]

...

 

I'm still not sure how much of that was intentional and how much of that was unintentional because there were so many dark implications that could be interpretated from the endings.

 

The endings seemed like they were supposed to be thought provoking and stay with the player but they only became worse the more I thought about them and I do not think they lingered with me for the intended reasons!
 

[Queen Skadi]

It depends on the outcome you want.

 

Point of an RPG is there is not supposed to be right and wrong, you are supposed to make choices that you prefer. 

 

Sometimes the choices we make don't yield the outcomes we want or were expecting, sometimes there is no good option and we are forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, RPGs should not be about having everything happen as the player wants it to but making a choice and dealing with the consequences that result of that choice. 

 

 

[SofaJockey]

Here is the thing:

I have nothing against them mentioning husbands/wifes in any way, but then taking the extra step to really push it forward is annoying, Kaidan is a perfect example that I would like you to keep in mind...

 

I am troubled that you are shoving this type of logic in our face  .

 

BioWare do a pretty decent job.

May I suggest that any perception of things being shoved in faces is your issue, not BioWare's.

[AlanC9]

I'm still not sure how much of that was intentional and how much of that was unintentional because there were so many dark implications that could be interpretated from the endings.

My bet is none of it was intentional. Bio's intent was always that Earth would survive depending on EMS. It's a waste of dev time to animate different sequences if the intent is for the whole planet to be incinerated in a few hours anyway.

Besides, we plainly see the Citadel Relay's explosion not even managing to obliterate the Citadel, let alone Earth.

[Lady Artifice]

I wonder if it's bad that most of my slowly creeping sense of horror at the time revolved more around the fate of the people on the citadel than on earth.

[LemurFromTheId]

There is the question of evolution and rather the species of ****** sapiens sapiens would still be around in 50000 years for example. Something might be but would it be a different from us as we are from ****** heidelbergensis.

Didn't even think it would block h...o...m...o in this context.

 

Tell me, then, at which point do we stop being **** sapiens sapiens and become something else?

 

Then answer, of course, is whenever we decide to start calling ourselves something else. It's an arbitrary definition. We're still the same species, it's just that the species has gone through a long period of gradual change. Hell, you're not even the same person you were a minute ago, several cells have died and/or divided during that time!

 

So yeah, at some point in the future we may consider ourselves to be a different (sub-)species than we are now (especially if we divide into two or more strains that have little or no contact with each other), but would you seriously consider this a case of human species going extinct?

[Sidney]

Tell me, then, at which point do we stop being **** sapiens sapiens and become something else?
 
Then answer, of course, is whenever we decide to start calling ourselves something else. It's an arbitrary definition. We're still the same species, it's just that the species has gone through a long period of gradual change. Hell, you're not even the same person you were a minute ago, several cells have died and/or divided during that time!
 
So yeah, at some point in the future we may consider ourselves to be a different (sub-)species than we are now (especially if we divide into two or more strains that have little or no contact with each other), but would you seriously consider this a case of human species going extinct?

That is exactly what extinction usually is. Most non-extant species blow their porch light not from big cataclysmic events but your rote evolutionary competition. Technically using your argument almost nothing has ever really gone extinct because their are offspring's offspring's offspring still lingering about.

Being full pedantic, the fact that cells live and die within me has zero to do with evolution. evolution is about changes in generations individual organisms (Xmen aside) don't evolve.

[ThomasBlaine]

That is exactly what extinction usually is. Most non-extant species blow their porch light not from big cataclysmic events but your rote evolutionary competition. Technically using your argument almost nothing has ever really gone extinct because their are offspring's offspring's offspring still lingering about.

Being full pedantic, the fact that cells live and die within me has zero to do with evolution. evolution is about changes in generations individual organisms (Xmen aside) don't evolve.

 

Sentience completely changes that equation though. Evolution depends on the exponential spread of advantageous genetic mutations from generation to generation in order to better adapt to the environment, and we've reached the point of being able to compensate for most physical weaknesses of the human body with technology and/or conditioning.

 

This combined with our population numbers and density - which naturally encourage conformity as a desirable trait in reproduction - means that being born different in a theoretically useful way no longer gives you nearly as much of an advantage in surviving or spreading your genes as it sets you apart and makes you an outsider.

 

We obviously won't know how this is going to turn out for some hundreds of thousands of years of steady record keeping, but it's something to think about.

[Dantriges]

I just thought of a hypothetical scenario and wanted to see what people thought about it.

 

We know that exploration and setting up colonies are going to be part of the game, and as far as Ryder and the crew of the Ark Ship are concerned, if they fail their entire species go extinct. 

 

So let's say we go down to a planet to set up a colony. It's the only one in the system that is inhabitable and has resources aplenty. The problem is that it's already populated, and not by small towns or colonies with plenty of room on the planet to share. It has cities, civilization and a reasonably strong military and they want us gone. 

 

We have enough fuel to make one last jump, but we have no idea what will be on the end of that jump. If there is no place to land, refuel and set up a colony we know that us and the whole crew will die, and likely the last of our races as far as we're concerned. 

 

We also have a strong enough military as well as orbital bombardments to establish a strong foothold, and we are strong enough to take them on, at least long enough to get the resources we need to leave the system. 

 

Do we risk extinction in order to play nice, or end up being seen as raiders/invaders in the name of survival?

 

Why bomb the garden world? Fuel is gathered from gas giants. Orbital bombardment is possible if you actually have space superiority or are able to acquire it easily.. You could probably trade astronomcal date their astronomers would die for, cultural stuff or perhaps even minor technical stuff for the right to take a sip. It´s not like you would suck up the planet or even a noticeable part of it. Jump to an uninhabitated system and do some asteroid mining, if you need something else. Ok hard to gather organic stuff on barren planets, OTOH I doubt that we still have to use crude oil to produce plastics.

[Master Warder Z_]

Why bomb the garden world? Fuel is gathered from gas giants. Orbital bombardment is possible if you actually have space superiority or are able to acquire it easily.. You could probably trade astronomcal date their astronomers would die for, cultural stuff or perhaps even minor technical stuff for the right to take a sip. It´s not like you would suck up the planet or even a noticeable part of it. Jump to an uninhabitated system and do some asteroid mining, if you need something else. Ok hard to gather organic stuff on barren planets, OTOH I doubt that we still have to use druce oil to produce plastics.

Migrant Fleet tech implies there are simply resources you cannot craft without proper fabrication and industry. You need a world.

Additional ships, those require hulks made of alloys, ceramics, plastics and etc, electrical components, etc, just expanding the fleet would require shipyards and factories, little lone colonies.

All of this is stuff that by ME3 you are unable to craft without dedicated production, aka you can't just use a omni gel fabricator.

[The Hierophant]

I agree with the op. They should make it as uncomfortable as possible.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

[Chealec]

Bah. We're by far the most advanced species - in terms of being able to shape our own future - that we know of, so we have absolutely no data from which to make such assumptions. We're already on the verge of colonizing other astronomical bodies and we have no reason to expect any truly catastrophic event within the next few thousand years. Once we have a strong foothold on two or more planets, it becomes extremely unlikely that any single event could wipe out the entire species. If we ever manage to colonize other star systems, that just pretty much seals the deal.

 

Of course the universe itself is not likely to be habitable forever, so I guess your argument is technically correct.

 

 

You missed the most important bit (best case scenario) - in a billion years we'll no longer be the same species. Go back through the fossil record and even in the last 50 million years virtually every form of multi-cellular life has evolved into something else; you can probably keep Coelocanths and Nautiliuses; Sharks and Crocodiles haven't changed a huge amount either but they're still different species now as they were then.

 

Go back a billion?

 

So in a billion years time, if we survive, we'll no longer be human - evolution hasn't stopped.

[Chealec]

We certainly have. There are plenty of examples of humans deliberately improving the conditions for both existing and potential animal life, just nowhere near on the same scale or with the same efficiency as we've killed yet, partially due to lack of understanding and tools and partially due to disinterest. Our potential for spreading and spurring on future lifeforms by improving the conditions for them with technology optimized for the purpose is literally infinite though. If we someday decide like you have that any amount of non-sentient life even vaguely approximates the importance of a single human one.

I can't argue with the fact that we have the potential to spur on future lifeforms however I just don't see humans as that special - we're basically clever monkeys - with all the genetic baggage that entails. Protecting other species purely for their own sake isn't something that seems to come naturally - to any species on Earth.

 

The statistical improbability of humans existing in the first place is also beyond debate. We've zero data about the long-term sustainability of species after they reach the point of sentience, much less colonization of space. Evolving "into something else" is obviously a possibility, but I don't see how that changes the facts.
 
One could also argue that your supposed refusal to try and contribute directly to the next generation in fact contributes indirectly to the long-term continuation of the species you so dread. So yeah. Way to take a stand, Alistair. It also doesn't make your continued effort to keep existing yourself while bemoaning the existence of humanity in general appear any less hypocritical.

 

"We've zero data about the long-term sustainability of species after they reach the point of sentience" ... that's a fair point but I don't believe evolution stops with sentience. When I stated "the odds on us making it to a billion years are so statistically improbable it's not even worth debating." I was referring specifically to H0m0 sapiens (stupid profanity filter), I don't believe this particular species of humanity will survive a billion years - no other multi-cellular life on Earth has. Evolving into something else isn't a "possibility" it's a virtual certainty if we're not wiped out first.

 

I have no "dread" for the long term continuation of the species - it doesn't have one, no species does. Chickens share common genetic traits with the Therapod dinosaurs, they may well be descended from them - but you can't say a chicken is a Deinonychus.

 

...and how does the fact that I have no desire for offspring make me hypocritical? I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse.

[Fredward]

In a bid for broader inclusivity Bioware today announced that MEA will only be made available for those suffering from priapism.