Perhaps.
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote himself out of the death of Sherlock Holmes,
it wouldn't be the first time some jaw dropping writing was required to leave a painted-in corner...
Personally I'll cope with any stretched lore
if we can enjoy some more games in the Mass Effect universe.
Problem is, stretch the lore too much and what you end up with is unrecognizable. Might as well completely rename it.
I just seem to remember having to disable to fields to retrieve them, or something. Like I said, it was awhile ago.
Yeah well of course you have to disable them, wouldn't be a very good containment field otherwise.
Maybe, but the impression I got was that they had no idea if it was even working.
I don't think they would bother setting it up without an assurance of its effectiveness. The psych checks are most likely just safety precautions, "just in case".
"Direct" has some wiggle room actually.
Actually, no, it absolutely doesn't.
di·rect (dĭ-rĕkt′, dī-)
v. di·rect·ed, di·rect·ing, di·rects
v.tr.
1.
a. To manage or regulate the business or affairs of; be in charge of: direct a government agency.
b. To supervise or oversee (an activity or process): direct the building of a new road. See Synonyms at conduct.
2.
a. To give guidance and instruction to (actors or musicians, for example) in the rehearsal and performance of a work.
b. To supervise the performance of: direct a play.
3. To give an order to; command: directed the student to answer.
4. To show or indicate the way for: directed us to the airport.
5.
a. To cause to move in a certain direction or toward a certain object; turn or point: directed the light toward the end of the hall.
b. To concentrate or focus (one's sight or attention, for example) on a particular object or activity. See Synonyms at aim.
6.
a. To indicate the intended recipient on (a letter, for example).
b. To address or adapt (remarks, for example) to a specific person, audience, or purpose.
v.intr.
1. To give commands or directions.
2. To conduct a performance or rehearsal.
n. Law
See direct examination.
adj.
1. Proceeding without interruption in a straight course or line; not deviating or swerving: a direct route.
2. Straightforward and candid; not devious or ambiguous: a direct response.
3. Having no intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate: direct contact; direct sunlight.
4. Effected by action of the voters, rather than through elected representatives or delegates: direct elections.
5. Being of unbroken descent; lineal: a direct descendant of the monarch.
6. Consisting of the exact words of the writer or speaker: a direct quotation; direct speech.
7. Lacking compromising or mitigating elements; absolute: direct opposites.
8. Mathematics Varying in the same manner as another quantity, especially increasing if another quantity increases or decreasing if it decreases.
9. Astronomy Designating west-to-east motion of a planet in the same direction as the sun's apparent annual movement with respect to the stars.
10. Sports Being a direct free kick.
adv.
Straight; directly.
Like I said, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the term "direct contact".
A drone would be an intervening agent.
It doesn't have to mean they were handling it with their bare hands.
No, they probably wore gloves. And besides, they don't actually have to physically touch the tech to be in danger of indoctrination. You don't even have to be in the same room. As long as you're within the effective range of the emitter, you're in direct contact with indoctrination and it's going to do its best to **** you up.
Comparison? You are in direct contact with Earth's magnetic field right now. You can't physically feel it with any of your senses (except possibly your sight), but its permeating your whole body at all times as long as you stay inside it. The moment you leave, you're no longer in direct contact with it.
The intent is clear that they are going to great pains to minimize how much contact the engineers have with it.
You could do mental gymnastics all day and night if you like, it's still not going to change the fact that the Crucible engineers were handling the proto-Reaper Brain in a manner that placed them in direct contact either with the physical brain, or the indoctrination signal it was emitting, and that this direct contact exposed them to the risk of indoctrination.
Actually, no, it absolutely doesn't.
Like I said, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the term "direct contact".
A drone would be an intervening agent.
Actually, no it doesn't. It does, but it doesn't. It does when dealing with another species. To have direct contact with them is to send a representative of your species. It doesn't in the sense that it's not breathing. You can send a drone in with a camera and still be in direct contact because you control everything that the drone does.
You can quote the dictionary all day long, and I can toss in bomb scares and terrorist threats (where they've had to use a drone) at you all day long. We're both correct.
This is a commonly presented, but wholly ridiculous objection to the Fermi paradox because it actually ignores one of the fundamental aspects of the argument that the paradox makes - that with the time scales involved, it would only take ONE successful civilization to spread across the entire galaxy - which, thanks to exponential population growth, could be accomplished in as low as 50 million years at sub-relativistic velocities. That's astounding. While yea, it is a long time, it is literally a blink of an eye on the cosmic scale. Even if you were being conservative and said 500 million years, that is still a cosmic heartbeat.Another common explanation to the Fermi paradox (or where are they?) is that technological advancement will eventually reach a fulcrum point, at which time any advanced civilization will most likely destroy itself. Mass extinction. We're talking nuclear wars, AGI development (kind of like Skynet or the Geth), destruction of the environment etc. The claim is that with technological advancement we're inevitably planting the seeds of our own destruction and that this is a cyclical phenomenon - civilizations rise and fall in such a short timespan (on a cosmic scale) that the galaxy will - from the vantage point of any advanced civilization that still exists - seem mostly empty (of advanced lifeforms) at any given time.
Andromeda is twice as big and roughly comparable in age, there is every reason to suspect that number would be the same or larger.
Not really. Andromeda is approximately 9.006 billion years old, while the Milky Way is approximately 13.21 billion years old. That's a difference of 4.201 billion years, or slightly less that the age of the Earth which is approximately 4.543 billions years. That's a substantial difference, since the universe itself is only approximately 13.7 billions years old, so the Milky Way is as old as about a third of the universe's lifespan more than Andromeda.
I agree with the rest of your post. Just wanted to discuss space. 
So yeah, they need to explain the absence of a super advanced civilization in Andromeda or they break their own lore. That's the truth.
While I hope the Reapers are forever gone as villains, I also hope that Andromeda establishes them as having previously been active in the entire Local Group. It would provide an explanation at least as to why the colonists aren't running into any Type 3 Civilizations.
While I hope the Reapers are forever gone as villains, I also hope that Andromeda establishes them as having previously been active in the entire Local Group. It would provide an explanation at least as to why the colonists aren't running into any Type 3 Civilizations.
Plus it can give us some of the iconic things of Mass Effect, like the Mass Relays.
I have to admit that I don't care that much for lore, logic and such... They would have to come with something beyond silly to ruin the game for me... I think I could even have been cool with the synthetics vs organic thing if it didn't feel so last-minute and if it hadn't contribute to a terribly disappointing and anticlimatic ending...
That said I wholeheartedly agree in that they should just retcon the endings.. I think's it's true, we have no reliable statistics, but I'd venture to say that most people either don't care about them or hate them, personally I have no attachment at all to them, and it's defintiely true that it wouln't be the first time they do something like that... Maybe not in scale, but still.. Bad enough to lose shepard, but also loosing the milky way 
I'm sure I'm going to like ME:A, but it might as well have being part of a brand new IP
An engineer studying a piece of inanimate Reaper is not in direct contact with the inanimate piece if he sends his assistant to handle it. The assistant is not a representative of the engineer sent on a diplomatic mission to establish or maintain relations between the engineer and the inanimate piece of Reaper. Neither is the inanimate piece of Reaper a diplomatic representative of the Reapers. It's a chunk of metal emitting brain radiation that's risky to be in direct contact with.Actually, no it doesn't. It does, but it doesn't. It does when dealing with another species. To have direct contact with them is to send a representative of your species. It doesn't in the sense that it's not breathing. You can send a drone in with a camera and still be in direct contact because you control everything that the drone does.
But I have provided actual evidence that I am right, you're just saying you're right.You can quote the dictionary all day long, and I can toss in bomb scares and terrorist threats (where they've had to use a drone) at you all day long. We're both correct.
I know, but I still considered that "comparable in age". Andromeda, like the Milky Way, has stars that are far older than the sun and undoubtedly worlds (especially those around red dwarfs) far older than Earth. Earth is really a late comer of sorts. I dont think the four billion year age difference really affects things much in terms of the Fermi paradox. The universe is just too old for it to matter.Not really. Andromeda is approximately 9.006 billion years old, while the Milky Way is approximately 13.21 billion years old. That's a difference of 4.201 billion years, or slightly less that the age of the Earth which is approximately 4.543 billions years. That's a substantial difference, since the universe itself is only approximately 13.7 billions years old, so the Milky Way is as old as about a third of the universe's lifespan more than Andromeda.
I agree with the rest of your post. Just wanted to discuss space.
Yeah well of course you have to disable them, wouldn't be a very good containment field otherwise.
I don't think they would bother setting it up without an assurance of its effectiveness. The psych checks are most likely just safety precautions, "just in case".
Actually, no, it absolutely doesn't.
Like I said, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the term "direct contact".
A drone would be an intervening agent.
No, they probably wore gloves. And besides, they don't actually have to physically touch the tech to be in danger of indoctrination. You don't even have to be in the same room. As long as you're within the effective range of the emitter, you're in direct contact with indoctrination and it's going to do its best to **** you up.
Comparison? You are in direct contact with Earth's magnetic field right now. You can't physically feel it with any of your senses (except possibly your sight), but its permeating your whole body at all times as long as you stay inside it. The moment you leave, you're no longer in direct contact with it.
You could do mental gymnastics all day and night if you like, it's still not going to change the fact that the Crucible engineers were handling the proto-Reaper Brain in a manner that placed them in direct contact either with the physical brain, or the indoctrination signal it was emitting, and that this direct contact exposed them to the risk of indoctrination.
No, they clearly indicate that they are avoiding having much contact with it. That they are drone assisted directly contradicts your assertion of "direct contact" meaning they are constantly exposed to it and in range of the signal (I don't think they know what the range of the signal is to start with, so that's part of the risk)
No, they clearly indicate that they are avoiding having much contact with it.
No, they don't "clearly" indicate that at all.
The Illusive Man salvaged the most valuable part of the human proto-Reaper under construction by the Collectors: its central processor. This "brain" has been reactivated for use as a computational device, crunching unheard amounts of data in nanoseconds. The Crucible's engineers are dissecting the processor, working in strictly supervised, drone-assisted shifts. While direct contact with Reapers is dangerous, the engineers feel the risk is worth the potential discovery of vulnerabilities in Reaper construction.
What part of this "clearly" indicates they are avoiding contact with the brain?
If they wanted to indicate "clearly" that the engineers are working on the brain from a safe distance using drones, they would phrase it like this:
The Illusive Man salvaged the most valuable part of the human proto-Reaper under construction by the Collectors: its central processor. This "brain" has been reactivated for use as a computational device, crunching unheard amounts of data in nanoseconds. The Crucible's engineers are remotely dissecting the processor through the use of operator-controlled drones. The drones, unaffected by indoctrination, allow the engineers to probe the brain for potential discoveries of vulnerabilities in Reaper construction without exposing themselves to the risk of indoctrination.
That they are drone assisted directly contradicts your assertion of "direct contact"
No it doesn't. Drone-assisted literally means what it says, that the engineers are assisted by drones while working on the brain. If the drones are doing the work, they're not assisting. At this point you are trying way too hard to change the meaning of words to fit your preferred conclusion.
meaning they are constantly exposed to it and in range of the signal (I don't think they know what the range of the signal is to start with, so that's part of the risk)
Deducing the range of an indoctrination field is quite easy since its immediate symptoms are pretty well-documented by this point. Engineers are smart, they wouldn't risk working on something this dangerous if they didn't know its limits.
While I hope the Reapers are forever gone as villains, I also hope that Andromeda establishes them as having previously been active in the entire Local Group. It would provide an explanation at least as to why the colonists aren't running into any Type 3 Civilizations.
Maybe we do run into them in the game or in the next game after 
Maybe we do run into them in the game or in the next game after
Hopefully they're friendly.
Otherwise, we'll make great pets.
Hopefully they're friendly.
Otherwise, we'll make great pets.
Personally I want the Andromeda civilizations to be more advanced than the Milky Ways
Hopefully they're friendly.
Otherwise, we'll make great pets.
A type 3 Civilization is an overkill. Even a strong type 2 is enough to to be a huge threat to the milkies.
A type 3 Civilization is an overkill. Even a strong type 2 is enough to to be a huge threat to the milkies.
A malevolent type 3 would be terrifying. They'd make the Reapers look like child's play. On the other hand they'd be impossible for the Milky Way colonists to defeat.
If the devs ever have the protagonist of a Mass Effect game make contact with a Type 3 Civilization, I think they'd either have to be friendly or entirely disinterested in the affairs of 'lesser' civilizations. They'd be practically god-like in comparison to the Milky Way civilization.
Maybe they got to Andromeda like the aliens and humans in Arthur C. Clarkes Rama-Series? The Ark-Ship just flies by, explorers, refugees or who ever managed to catch up with the ship hopped on or docked with their ships and traveled to Andromeda without ever knowing how the ship worked.
An engineer studying a piece of inanimate Reaper is not in direct contact with the inanimate piece if he sends his assistant to handle it. The assistant is not a representative of the engineer sent on a diplomatic mission to establish or maintain relations between the engineer and the inanimate piece of Reaper. Neither is the inanimate piece of Reaper a diplomatic representative of the Reapers. It's a chunk of metal emitting brain radiation that's risky to be in direct contact with.
But I have provided actual evidence that I am right, you're just saying you're right.
No, what you've done is taken out a dictionary and are becoming a word lawyer.
"IT DOESN'T SAY IT! THEREFORE, IT DOESN'T EXIST! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!" all while covering your ears.
Direct is kind'a funny thing. "How do you know?" "Because I saw him on video." "Were you there?!" "No, but ..." "No more questions your honor."
In your mind's eye, that's how it should work, right?
No, what you've done is taken out a dictionary and are becoming a word lawyer.
"IT DOESN'T SAY IT! THEREFORE, IT DOESN'T EXIST! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!" all while covering your ears.
Direct is kind'a funny thing. "How do you know?" "Because I saw him on video." "Were you there?!" "No, but ..." "No more questions your honor."
In your mind's eye, that's how it should work, right?
Breaking out the strawman like you did just now usually means one's run out of real arguments. As far as dictionaries go, when the meaning of a word is being debated - as was the case here - the dictionary is right. If the dictionary had said otherwise, I would have conceded. I'm not interested in appearing right, I'm interested in being right, and if that means I have to admit to being wrong when presented with compelling evidence, I'd concede. Better to concede an argument that doesn't hold up than win one on falsehoods. That counts the other way around, too - I respect someone who can step back and say "Hey, I was wrong" when proven wrong, but not someone who runs with a faulty argument that's been proven faulty and tries harder and harder to justify it with progressively less compelling evidence before finally breaking out strawman arguments to win, as if that is worth anything on the internet.
As far as my arguments go, I always do my research before I click the post button, and I never click it unless I can trust my argument will hold up to scrutiny. I make mistakes, absolutely, and I'll be the first to admit it. In this particular case, however, I saw no error in my argument or my research, and neither you or Heimdall have provided compelling evidence to the contrary. In fact, all you've given me are far-fetched interpretations of the meaning of the words "direct contact", and for what? The real issue isn't what "direct contact" means, the real issue is that BioWare isn't treating their work with any dignity.
This bickering began because Heimdall misremembered what the War Asset blurb said and didn't want to concede that it didn't mention the remote controlling of drones at a safe distance to avoid indoctrination. I'll even go ahead and admit that using drones to study a dead Reaper is actually a perfectly legit way to study a Reaper according to the lore of the Mass Effect universe, but unfortunately that isn't what the blurb is stating. I wish it did, because that would mean BioWare is taking indoctrination seriously as a plot device instead of treating it like Fallout treats radiation - something that jumps up and down between being a minor inconvenience and a life-threatening, unavoidable danger based on what the plot requires.
This bickering began because Heimdall misremembered what the War Asset blurb said and didn't want to concede that it didn't mention the remote controlling of drones at a safe distance to avoid indoctrination. I'll even go ahead and admit that using drones to study a dead Reaper is actually a perfectly legit way to study a Reaper according to the lore of the Mass Effect universe, but unfortunately that isn't what the blurb is stating. I wish it did, because that would mean BioWare is taking indoctrination seriously as a plot device instead of treating it like Fallout treats radiation - something that jumps up and down between being a minor inconvenience and a life-threatening, unavoidable danger based on what the plot requires.
I misremembered nothing. The blurb says they study it using drones. The problem is that you are insisting on a more strict definition of "direct" than the context suggests. I find it more likely that "direct" merely refers to the fact that they are studying part of a Reaper rather than something derivative like Collector technology or a device.
It's flawed because it doesn't have Jojo.
I misremembered nothing.
Allow me to refresh your memory.
I've never heard of any form of indoctrination shielding. What I do remember was a reference to studying the human reaper remains from a distance using drones to avoid exposure.
That's not what the blurb says. It does not mention a distance, it does not mention avoidance and it does not mention exposure. It mentions drone-assistance, it mentions direct contact and it mentions risk. You misremembered, simple as that.
The blurb says they study it using drones.
"Drone-assisted" is a very specific choice of words which means, very literally, that the drones are used to assist the subject - in this case the engineers - in carrying out their action - in this case the studying of the Reaper remains. Ergo, the engineers are doing the studying with the assistance of drones, exposing themselves to the risk mentioned in the blurb, which we can safely and easily deduce to be indoctrination - unless you also want to suggest the Reaper brain is armed with conventional weaponry, a suggestion which has zero basis in the blurb. It is very basic reading comprehension we're dealing with here.
The problem is that you are insisting on a more strict definition of "direct" than the context suggests.
The problem is that the context suggests the exact definition of "direct contact" that I quoted earlier because that is literally the only definition that exists for that specific term. For some reason, you don't want it to have that definition.
I find it more likely that "direct" merely refers to the fact that they are studying part of a Reaper rather than something derivative like Collector technology or a device.
Finding something likely means you are not certain about your conclusion. If you are not certain about your conclusion, then you are making an assessment without sufficient evidence to state it as fact. In this case, sufficient evidence would be a dictionary definition of "direct contact" which supports your thesis that such contact can take place through a liaison, and not through physical contact with the object, without any intermediaries or intervening agent to carry out the action by proxy.
Find me such a definition and I will concede that you are right about drones being able to make direct, physical contact with the Reaper brain on behalf of the engineers. You will, however, have to concede that you misremembered the part about avoiding exposure, because the part which weighs the risk of direct contact versus the value of possible insights into Reaper vulnerabilities cannot be interpreted as anything but the engineers exposing themselves to risk through direct contact with the source of the risk, indoctrination. We do know indoctrination works at range, so no physical contact is necessary for there to be direct contact with the tech for the effect to take place.
Now, I would like to leave this word lawyer career you've forced upon me and focus on helping BioWare understand what they're doing wrong and what they need to do to make things right again.
It's flawed because it doesn't have Jojo.
Breaking out the strawman like you did just now usually means one's run out of real arguments. As far as dictionaries go, when the meaning of a word is being debated - as was the case here - the dictionary is right. If the dictionary had said otherwise, I would have conceded. I'm not interested in appearing right, I'm interested in being right, and if that means I have to admit to being wrong when presented with compelling evidence, I'd concede. Better to concede an argument that doesn't hold up than win one on falsehoods. That counts the other way around, too - I respect someone who can step back and say "Hey, I was wrong" when proven wrong, but not someone who runs with a faulty argument that's been proven faulty and tries harder and harder to justify it with progressively less compelling evidence before finally breaking out strawman arguments to win, as if that is worth anything on the internet.
As far as my arguments go, I always do my research before I click the post button, and I never click it unless I can trust my argument will hold up to scrutiny. I make mistakes, absolutely, and I'll be the first to admit it. In this particular case, however, I saw no error in my argument or my research, and neither you or Heimdall have provided compelling evidence to the contrary. In fact, all you've given me are far-fetched interpretations of the meaning of the words "direct contact", and for what? The real issue isn't what "direct contact" means, the real issue is that BioWare isn't treating their work with any dignity.
This bickering began because Heimdall misremembered what the War Asset blurb said and didn't want to concede that it didn't mention the remote controlling of drones at a safe distance to avoid indoctrination. I'll even go ahead and admit that using drones to study a dead Reaper is actually a perfectly legit way to study a Reaper according to the lore of the Mass Effect universe, but unfortunately that isn't what the blurb is stating. I wish it did, because that would mean BioWare is taking indoctrination seriously as a plot device instead of treating it like Fallout treats radiation - something that jumps up and down between being a minor inconvenience and a life-threatening, unavoidable danger based on what the plot requires.
Well, that's funny because direct can go two ways.
A person can be directly interfacing with something on a video but the person in the video (person 
can't interface (or sometimes even know) that person A is watching. That's fine, you can argue and ****** and moan and word lawyer all you want. You are stating that the reaper can't have direct access to us without us having direct access to it.
Well, I'm telling you.. That's not the case. Think of any bomb threat. Think of any terrorist threat. What do they do? They send in a drone. The drone has cameras and audio receivers. I mean, hell, some of the more advanced ones have pressure receivers in their fingers. So there's 3 of the 5 senses. It is direct access, but removing the direct access of the bomb (or the reaper) has to us.
.
Retour en haut