Nothing sure about it.
Many people enjoy the stories told in the Mass Effect universe.
Sure, ME3's ending was difficult.
The writers wrote themselves into to it,
they can write themselves out of it again suitably for a new game/trilogy.
"Don't worry guys, we can still ride this dingy to shore!"
-The captain of the Titanic
Meh, I've edited my post so many times I feel like I should be able to edit War & Peace. Jeezus.
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 (personcan't interface (or sometimes even know) that person A is watching. That's fine, you can argue and ****** and moan and word lawyer and you want. You are stating that the reaper can't have direct access to us without us having direct access to it.
Direct contact. You need to stick to the term being discussed. Direct access is a different term with a different meaning.
Direct contact is contact without a middleman. And yes, that means the Reaper can't be in direct contact to us unless we are also in direct contact with the Reaper. That's how the laws of physics work, and there has been no indication they work differently in the Mass Effect universe (despite BioWare's many attempts to violate them).
You could argue that electronic or virtual communication is a form of direct contact, for example calling a person without first having to go through intervening channels such as a secretary, or a face-to-face Skype call over the internet, but technically these aren't forms of direct contact either even though we may call them such. A phone is a middleman, if you take it away contact becomes impossible. The internet, too, Skype calls not only require mics and webcams (if they're also face-to-face), they require the Skype program and an internet connection, all forms of middlemen required to enable the contact. Real direct contact requires physical touch, and that's only possible face-to-face in the same room. If we're going to be totally accurate, even two world leaders sitting next to each other aren't technically in direct contact with each other unless they shake hands, since air is an intervening medium without which speech would be impossible.
In the case of the Reaper Brain, direct contact involves physical touch with the actual brain. In the case of indoctrination, direct contact involves physical touch with the indoctrination field, since a field is a physical thing that interacts with our atoms.
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.
By definition it is the drone being in direct contact with the bomb, not the people controlling the drone. The drone is a middleman for the bomb technicians, and direct contact doesn't involve a middleman as per the definition. I've already covered the reasons why above, so I'm not going to waste my time repeating it.
I feel this semantic back and forth has run its course. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
In your opinion. What you're talking about is direct physical contact. When the president sends his secretary of state to meet with people, is he in direct contact? No. But he'll tell you he (or the country) is. When our president meets with another head of state or prime minister, is he in direct physical contact? Yes.
It's the same thing with a drone. Think of any police case where video evidence was used possible... "Were you there?" "No, but..." "Well, harumph... No more questions your honor." "But I can see his face clearly on the video!" "Yes, but you weren't there. You weren't in direct contact with him."
/facepalm
Without being able to study a Reaper, replicating their tech borders on impossible given their billion year headstart.
That's why using Collector tech is an easier to grasp concept for me. Collector tech is on par with Reaper tech since it essentially is Reaper tech, but unlike actual Reapers the technology of the Collectors does not show any signs of being capable of indoctrination. So you have tech with all the strengths of Reaper tech with none of the faults.
I feel this semantic back and forth has run its course. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
And semantics do matter. The way that you're proposing them, as if they don't kind'a offends me.
That's why using Collector tech is an easier to grasp concept for me. Collector tech is on par with Reaper tech since it essentially is Reaper tech, but unlike actual Reapers the technology of the Collectors does not show any signs of being capable of indoctrination. So you have tech with all the strengths of Reaper tech with none of the faults.
Sure, but the whole idea of appropriating either Reaper or Collector tech to solve every single insurmountable technological problem is pure laziness. Not to mention the necessary justifications how that technology was appropriated in the first place.
In your opinion.
My opinion? I provided actual facts to back up my claim. You're the one pushing an opinion.
What you're talking about is direct physical contact.
That's what direct contact is, from a physics standpoint. But I also provided examples of non-physical forms of direct contact. Sending a drone to do work on your behalf is not one of them.
When the president sends his secretary of state to meet with people, is he in direct contact? No. But he'll tell you he (or the country) is.
People, including Presidents, don't usually use the term "direct contact" unless they are referring to a two-way contact between individuals, regardless of whether it is physical or virtual. A country can be in contact with another country in a myriad of ways, but the only reasonable scenario in which to use "direct contact" when discussing countries is if the two countries borders are actually overlapping. And even then, it just sounds weird.
When our president meets with another head of state or prime minister, is he in direct physical contact? Yes.
Some other obvious statement you need to get off your chest?
It's the same thing with a drone. Think of any police case where video evidence was used possible... "Were you there?" "No, but..." "Well, harumph... No more questions your honor." "But I can see his face clearly on the video!" "Yes, but you weren't there. You weren't in direct contact with him."
What's are you even trying to prove with this repeat strawman argument? It has literally nothing to do with the subject. There is no law in any country on this planet that states you must have direct contact, either physical or virtual, with a perpetrator of a crime while they were carrying out the criminal activity in order to charge them with it. As long as there is admissible evidence linking the crime to the suspect, it can be used in a court of law to prove them guilty, even if the only one person who has seen the suspect carry out the crime is the suspect.
And semantics do matter. The way that you're proposing them, as if they don't kind'a offends me.
On the contrary, all I've been doing is argument for the importance of semantics. If BioWare meant what you and Heimdall are claiming the text means, they would've phrased it differently. Even so, you've even had ample opportunity to back up this claim with proof, but you haven't done so.
ME3 lore also suggests
FTL travel is limited in both range and acceleration
Not really at all. You could go from one relay to another over VAST distance and in almost negligible game time.
That was with a Mass relay which is totally different from Just FTL travel time and speed. As far as we know there are no Mass relays linking Andromeda with our galaxy. Which makes FTL travel to Andromeda take centuries even with Reaper FTL.
So Fermi says, "where are they?". And it is actually a pretty legit question to ask. But this is especially legit with regards to Mass Effect and Andromeda, because we have a rough estimate that a handful of intelligent civilizations, on average, develop in the Milky Way every 50,000 years. Additionally, in Mass Effect we know for certain that FTL travel is possible, which makes the spread of interstellar civilizations that much more probable even without a relay network.
When we consider the context you are definitely correct. Mass Effect has established that intelligent life is very common. Additionally, the existence of Mass Effect technology increases the likelihood that - without an intervention - a Type III civilization could develop in Andromeda. However, if intelligent life is common, then interstellar war is probably also very common. Maybe the more advanced civilizations have a tendency to destroy or destabilize each other at regular intervals, making a Type III civilization impossible to achieve - then again, we can argue that highly advanced civilizations wouldn't engage in such destructive behavior - they would probably try to cooperate and eventually evolve into a Type III civilization together.
Retour en haut