If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer?

Dr. Vanity
N2

Combat Drones are our Friends

Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 93 Likes: 176

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 9, 2017 4:26:23 GMT dmc1001 likes this

Quote

Post by Dr. Vanity on May 9, 2017 4:26:23 GMT

I shall repeat the question because it is a very simple one

>"Simple"

Chief Engineering Officer Aboard the SSV Internet Forums

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 9, 2017 5:53:47 GMT

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 9, 2017 5:53:47 GMT

May 7, 2017 14:39:03 GMT Sifr said:

Really doesn't seem like it.

You are advocating for the use of their technology to provide better lives everyone. Pulled and reverse engineered from the charred husk of their corpses. I am not against using living, walking Reapers to provide technological improvements and provide better lives for everyone. I am well aware of the distinction you were making.

Not really.... not because we don't understand what you're saying, but because it's an exceptionally bad analogy.

When it comes to farming, sometimes farmers have to cull a herd in order to keep them from overpopulating, to stop the spread of disease or to meet food requirements. Even so, despite a single herd being culled, that doesn't wipe out the entire species of animals involved, nor affect the sheep, chickens, pigs or other farm animals. Whereas the Reapers wipe out all species in the galaxy for no other reason than they might create synthetic life that could destroy them.

This disproportionate response also fails to take into account the myriad of other solutions they could have employed. Why not make their presence known as the watchdogs who enforce the ban on synthetics, keeping species in line by showing that anyone who breaks this rule will be deemed a legitimate target? We saw from the Geth revolt that the rest of the galaxy quickly implemented strict AI bans, so why wouldn't the Reapers serve as even more of an effective deterrent to force species to follow the rules?

Or rather than culling entire species once they're on the verge of creating synthetics, why not set back their technological development by bombing them back into their respective Stone Ages? The Krogan did this to themselves after they nuked themselves in a series of wars, slowing their development down until the Salarians showed up to reintroduce them to advanced technology once more.

The Catalyst is implied to have tried other solutions prior to establishing the Cycle of Harvests, but why couldn't it have take a few seconds more to explain to Shepard why some of the other solutions failed? Or if the writers had the Catalyst even admit that the Harvest is an inherently flawed solution, but was the deemed the best option out of a series of even worst ones that it tried to employ? Would definitely have solved the issue of it's flawed logic and insistence that the Cycle is necessary, when it really isn't.

Your still not looking at it from the right perspective to understand what I mean. I doubt I possess the eloquence necessary to convey the concept I'm trying to explain. Or possibly you simply do not want to see it that way. I'm going to lean more towards my own personal lack of eloquence necessary to convey the concept.

It necessitates looking at the world from a perspective different from your own. A much grander and larger scale then we are use to. In the grand scheme of the universe humanity and all our past, present and future achievements mean nothing. Next to nothing. Less then nothing. A random genetic mutation that will exist for a time then one day fade away and the next genetic mutation will arise. Each cycle as pointless and meaningless as the next repeated hundreds if not thousands of times on planets all across the universe. Entirety of recorded human history is nothing but a second in the eye of the infinite universe. We measure our life time in decades. Lucky to reach 100 years old. Even with the Krogan or Asari living for 1,000 years is still nothing.

That is the view point the Reapers have. Each individual species is treated as pointless because they are pointless in the grand scheme of everything. The only thing they care about the only thing they try to keep going is the concept of organic life. Because the concept is the only thing that will be infinite. That was the point of the Rancher example. The only thing they care about is the herd. AKA the concept of organic life. They don't care about the individual cows. AKA individual races. And they cull the herd as they see necessary to keep the herd healthy and alive.

Leviathan already attempted to prevent races from creating synthetic life and having it rebel and potentially kill off the race that created it. That is a solution that has already proven to be ineffective. That was why the Catalyst was created in the first place. The Reapers could do no better a job then Leviathan before them. How do you bomb an entire planet back to the stone age? You would have to destroy every flash drive and omni tool in existence to do so. When the Krogan bombed themselves back to the stone age it was when they were just discovering atomic capabilities. Which if they developed along similar technological lines as us would be about 1940's tech. Which is way way way behind the technology level required to create synthetic life. You would basically have to wipe out the entire race to bomb them that far back to prevent them from recovering in a couple decades. Even if it took them 1,000 years to recover that time is still nothing. And with each successive bombing back to the stone age they would look for new and innovative ways to avoid the loss. Pulling a Vault Tech and creating bunkers a few miles below the surface of the planet and hoarding knowledge and tech to avoid the above ground apocalypse. If even one of those bunkers survive the attack then all their efforts will have been for nothing.

While I would have loved for them to go into more detail with the line about them trying other solutions to be fair nothing they said would have changed your mind. They could have gone into details about that and players who cry foul over this would still cry foul. This is a sort of Catch-22 situation. They should have gone into more detail over the other solutions but doing so wouldn't have changed the naysayer's opinion anyways. Rendering the extra detail as pointless to bother with. And calling the harvest cycle pointless is a lot like saying the use of antibiotics to cure bacterial infections was pointless because over time bacterial strains have developed resistance to antibiotics. It worked but over time it started to fail due to the adaption of organic life to the cycle. Which in this case is the increased difficulty in harvesting since the Protheans were able to delay the next harvest for decades if not hundreds of years. And the ability for organic life to leave behind more and more hints to help fight the Reapers more effectively.

You say the cycle isn't necessary but the time frame of the trilogy lasts maybe a decade at best. And the rest is pure I think rationality with very little long term research to back it up. If you were to randomly pick a decade of human history and look at it and extrapolated we should still be slave owners. The Catholic Church should be rulers of the world. Britian should be the undisputed rules of the ocean with their fleets of ships. The United States would still be a British Colony. Humans should still be living in caves hunting mammoths with spears and grunting to each other.

Since the situation isn't the same, then your point isn't really applicable.

And kindly stop accusing people who don't agree with you as being "simplistic".

When you say that we shouldn't benefit from something because other people suffered for it? Yet intentionally or unintentionally benefits from someone suffering. Then declares they are not the same so there is no connection. Maybe I shouldn't use the term simplistic because the term hypocritical is the correct one to use in that situation. You say the use of the Reapers shouldn't happen because they are created from the suffering of others. Yet you still happily use your I pad even though it was created using the suffering other other. All the while declaring they are not the same to validate one suffering as bad and the other suffering as acceptable.

I'm not calling you simplistic because you disagree with me. I'm saying that because you are using a very simplified argument which ignores all the nuances and reality of the world to fit what you want to say. STG can spy, sabotage and kill anyone they deem a threat be they innocent or other wise. Specters can use their broad authority and little over site to shoot first and ask questions never and kill tons of innocent lives. Suffering is created yet the galaxy arguably benefits from their actions by keeping the peace. Even if it causes some needless innocent lives being lost. The Turian government killed and waged a small war with Humanity due to their actions of opening Relays without knowing what is on the other side. Death and destruction was all around on both sides but the action of preventing another Rachni War situation and the capability that Humanity was able to show to the larger galaxy as they fought off the Turian Fleet ultimately benefited everyone. The Alliance became a major power house and the galaxy was benefited by Humanity creating Medi-gel. A substance that helped save countless lives.

Isn't that how the Reapers began in the first place?

But if you mean, what if the Reapers let another synthetic race wipe out their creators on even footing, I suppose that would be one way to end the organic-synthetic conflict, since they'd have no reason to be at war since their creators are no longer around.

Would synthetics need to target other forms of organic life in the galaxy however? What would be the point if they didn't pose any threat? The main reason we've seen AI become hostile tends to be in response to people trying to destroy them, or the fear that this will happen if they'd discovered.

If an organic species posed no threat or capacity to harm them, wouldn't that put them beneath their notice? Even the Heretic Geth didn't waste their time shooting up the Gas Bags on Eden Prime, since they posed zero threat to them, unlike the human colonists.

But not all organic races will remain a non threat. Early cavemen wouldn't have been a threat but by 1940's it would be fairly obvious that we would eventually evolve into a potential threat if left alone long enough. So boom war of the worlds only minus the stupid weakness to the common cold. And that would cause the progression of the galaxy to stagnate. There would be nothing new. Even with the Reaper cycle each race develops differently and is unique to it self not only in physical appearance.

But what reason would they have for needing to kill the synthetic race first? Most AI we've seen want to be left alone to do their own thing, rather than fight with organics. It's only when the organics force a fight, or the AI feel backed into a corner that relations break down.

According to the gambling AI in ME1, it's sole plan was to upload itself into a ship and find the Geth. The only reason it became hostile was because it didn't believe Shepard to keep their word if they offered to let it go. In the same manner, Legion revealed that the Geth (both heretic and true) intended to recuse themselves from galatic affairs entirely to go hang out in their own Dyson Sphere, where they'd not bother anyone. It was only the Quarian's foolish decision to blow it up that forced the Geth consensus to vote on a defensive war.

If the Reapers were to resurrect a fallen species at a primitive level, that would make them no longer a threat to synthetics whatsoever. That'd leave the galaxy with thousands of years of relative peace, before a synthetic race would have to worry about organics even being capable of leaving the planet they were on.

Of course, this might very well end up to another version of the Harvest being employed, where it becomes necessary to wipe out a species once they reached space-flight capability, in order to "reset" them back to square one once more. While still rather abhorrent, that option would be less destructive because it'd limit the destruction to only a single planet for each species, rather than being on a galactic scale. And rather than forcing entire species to become extinct for good, the Reapers merely presiding over their death/rebirth cycle.

(Halo actually toyed with a similar idea as this in it's background lore, revealing that Ancient Humaninty were once a species capable of interstellar travel, but had been regressed both biologically and technologically after they were deemed a threat)

Such as solution still wouldn't make the Reapers "good", but it would limit their destruction and ensure that all species could continue to live on, rather than forced to be pulped down to add to the Reaper fleet / collection of their former victims.

You seem to be jumping to several conclusions here. Just because the Geth come to one conclusion doesn't mean all AI's will come to the same conclusion. One group wanting to be left alone and even considering the concept that all will think like that is like saying that everyone loves Justin Bieber and would never like any other singer. Even among the Geth the split between the Heretics and True Geth shows their views and thoughts are not 100% monolithic. Legion's loyalty mission is set up around the 1.1k Geth inside of it being unable to come to a consensus about how to proceed with the Heretics and their program. And I seem to see this mentality show up a disturbingly high number of times. The thought of the concept of the Geth representing all AI's and even the majority of themselves from now till the heat death of the universe is a lot like saying all humans think and act a like and will always think and act the same way for all eternity.

I already covered how the bomb them back to stone age concept if flawed so I will not repeat it again. And if you remember Halo Lore you know the only reason Humanity wasn't wiped out by the Forerunners was because they managed to convince them that they knew the secret to how to beat the Flood. Because it was only after the war that the Forerunners learned that Humanity's aggressive actions that triggered the Forerunners to go to war with them were due to them combating the Flood Parasite. And the Human leaders were able to convenience Shadow-of-Sundered-Star that they knew the secret combined with his wife's First-Light-Weaves-Living-Song insistence spared humanity and used their technology to regress them to lesser developed forms and banish them to the literal ass end of no where and set up a quarantine area around there. While at the same time transferring the memories of the humans conquered in the war to their new devolved bodies encase the Flood ever returned so they could extract them and learn how to beat the Flood.

Which besides being a confusing cluster fuck full of plot holes and inconsistency. It also took everything Bungie has done to build the Forerunners into and forcibly bent it over a barrel and went to town on it. As well as much of the lore going down in smoke since Bungie lost creative control over it.

So you're saying that you think that Control is preferable, where the Reapers can be used as attack dogs if people don't toe the line? Sounds like you'd be in favour of building a Death Star as well, since you're basically advocating the same point of view as Krennic in Rogue One;

Krennic: We were this close to providing peace and security for the galaxy.
Galen: You're confusing peace for terror.

Reapers and Death Star not exactly the same since Tarkin blew up a city for the lolz. And for the peace was the Empire with their racist standings were any race that wasn't a human was treated badly. Like the time they invaded and enslaved the Wookies working them to death to build the Death Star simply because they were not human. So there are differences subtle as they might be. But some times the subtle difference makes all the difference in the world.

How is this headcanon?

The Catalyst makes it clear that the pulse will fry anything with Reaper technology, which would mean that their databases would most likely not survive in this outcome. However, we don't actually need to use their databases to be able to reverse-engineer any of the technology or weaponry from the wreckage, since the physical remains of the Reaper are still present and available for study. You don't need a database to be able to take things apart to understand how something works.

If you don't know how it operates with each other you can't reverse engineer it. If you didn't know how a car engine worked and you were suddenly handed a car engine how would you figure out that you need electricity for the starter that will turn the crankshaft compressing the very specific air to fuel mixture and firing the spark plugs to kick start the initial explosion that start the whole system up. And that you would need to produce a very specific oil based derivative that burns easily when mixed with air?

Humanity was capable of jumping forward in technology so quickly because they found a fully functioning Prothean Base on Mars. Fully build and working ships allowing them to learn what does what and how to copy it. That is why it is a bit of a grey area because we don't know how fully and completely the wave will effect the Reapers. It could just short out their mind or it could cause massive system wide damage to everything. If the wave burns out their entire engine set up the reverse engineering it would become even more difficult. Take that hypothetical car engine then put it in a major fire and with everything damaged and melted try to figure out how it works would be even more difficult if you didn't already know what was what.

I don't know where you're getting the ridiculous notion that this is "divine judgement" mentality, simply because I suggested that keeping the Reapers around is a betrayal of and spitting on the memory of the fallen who died at their hands. At no point have I suggested that there is a supreme intelligence that serves as the end-all, be-all of moral arbitration in the universe, nor would be in any way displeased by the death-toll that the Reapers have accumulated.

My point was that as human beings, it falls within our basic sense of morality and empathy to view it as the only ethical choice to destroy the Reapers, given the destruction they've caused and the lives they have taken. It doesn't bring back the dead, nor avenge them (if you even believe in an afterlife), but it would give closure and peace of mind to the survivors, who would desperately need it after witnessing much death and destruction.

I mean, think about how life is going to be in the other endings? If you've witnessed a Reaper mowing down people indiscriminately with their laser cannon, you're probably going to suffer from severe PTSD to see one again, regardless of whether it's been reprogrammed to serve you now. And what about all the husks in Synthesis, are they self-aware now? How do you handle seeing robot zombies of your former friends running around?

You complain about my point and then prove it again. What right do we have to be a morality judge? What is morality to start with? Morality is such a vague ill defined concept. What makes our general consensus on what constitutes moral actions the correct one? This is the whole divine justice thing I'm talking about. Because it is working under the assumption that our concept of morality is the one and only true view of morality and thus we must enforce it instantly and without hesitation. The Reapers are operating under their own concept of morality. How is their conclusion less correct then our own?

Yes many will have PTSD attacks from seeing the Reapers. But what about their grandchildren and their grandchildren's grandchildren? Why is it your statement is only based around the view of a couple of years rather then hundreds of years later? The basis of the choices are not and should not be viewed based on what will happen tomorrow or the next day or the next month or even within your life time. But what generations from now will end up as and the lives they will lead. That is why I like Destroy the least because it seems to be nothing but short term gain for long term loss.

But you're forgetting that people aren't born as soldiers. They weren't born with a gun in their hand or as an instrument of destruction. Most people (barring child soldiers or those illegally conscripted) had a choice to join the armed forces, remain so or leave after their term of service is up. Even in country that have a mandatory national service, they don't (normally) force people to remain in the army against their will afterwards.

The difference with a Reaper is that they were specifically constructed to seek and destroy life during the Harvest, armed to the teeth and with the ability to passively mindscrew anyone who spends too long near them, forcing them to become their thrall.

Even if you reprogrammed them, they are still instruments of war and geared for only destruction. Even if we see them rebuilding in the Control and Synthesis ending, what's the point of keeping them around to serve as fancy construction equipment, when we already have stuff like this already?

And besides, we're not talking about whether or not a AI built for war can decide to change it's nature. This is not a case like in the Iron Giant where one of them turned around and declared that "I am not a gun!" At no point have we seen any Reaper question what they do and why they do it.

The Reapers didn't stop the Cycle and Harvest because they decided it was wrong or chose not to do it anymore. Instead they were simply reprogrammed not to, after Shepard had to go into flip their switch from "Evil" to "Good". It wasn't a decision the Reapers arrived at by themselves or as a result of a choice they made.

Hence the difference.

And yet you ignore the fact people develop the capability for destruction almost at birth. The scale of the destruction doesn't negate the fact it is destruction and will only grow in time. A toddler might only knock over a lamp but 15 years later he is building a home made pipe bomb and killing 5 people and injuring several more during a marathon. Or flying a plane into a building causing it to collapse. Or starting a war and killing anyone who fights against you and rounding up people who you don't like and beheading them. Remember that time that Balak tried to slam a massive Asteroid into a planet? An impact that would have killed everyone within a dozen miles of the impact zone. That would cause so much damage it would be entirely possible it would ruin the ecosystem and kill the planet's ability to support complex life forms for hundreds of thousands of years. That is only a couple of steps below what the Reapers can do.

You tell me how a 200lbs armed with sharp sticks and rock humans were capable of taking down a multi ton woolly mammoth and some how say we are not build for combat. We reached the top of the food chain on the planet because we learned how to out kill and avoid being killed by everything else on the planet. Lions and tigers and bears oh my! We have been murdering them for thousands of years. And while we might not have the same indoctrination abilities as the Reapers looking back on history their is a lot of how could this have happened feelings. And not just about wars and such but just laws and rules that were passed. When groups like the KKK and ISIS exist in this day and age I'm not fully prepared to remove the possibility of us having some form indoctrination capability. Because the only other explanation is that we are fucking stupid.

Why would the Reapers question what they do and why they do it. Do you question what you do and why you do it in attempting to fight against the harvest? You ever sit back and think maybe we should all just walk into the Reaper blender because it is for the greater good? If you don't then why would the Reapers respond any differently? This reoccurring theme with a lot of people when talking about this game seem based around the concept that our views and our ideas are the only possible valid ones in existence. It is god level arrogance to assume that simply because we think and act one way everything in existence should think and act in a similar way.

How do you know they were simply reprogrammed? We don't actually know how the Reaper's interact and the social structure of their system. They could easily be like the Rachni with a queen making all the major decisions while each drone has it's own personality and acts in it's own way but always asks how high when the queen says jump. If explorers found a Rachni nest and they started to attack to defend it and the Queen told them to stand down. Were the drones simply reprogrammed? How about a military situation were a General tells all the troops under his command to stop bombing a city and to help rebuild and distribute supplies and rations to the remaining population. Were the soldiers simply reprogrammed? When you use the term simply reprogrammed it is very disingenuous to the actual situation.

And what's to stop the Krogan from rebelling in the Synthesis Ending? Or Humans getting into a tussle with the Geth? Or the Salarians fighting the Turians? Just because they're now all techno-organic does not eliminate the potential for conflict from still occurring?

Organics are perfectly fine with killing each other, as are synthetics it seems, based on the schism between the true Geth and the Heretics. Peace is not so simply as simply making everyone in the galaxy the same "race", because members of the same race kill each other all the friggin' time!

Everyone isn't the same race. Again with the disingenuous statements creating over simplifications to fit what you want to say. Integrating organic life with technology doesn't make everyone the same race. As for what prevents the tussles it is the basis of synthesis that the change improves all live. Moving it beyond the pettiness of the past that lead to such conflicts. Combine that with a heavy dose of my own head canon based on my world views and it does explain it all perfectly to me. Though less perfect to others because they do not share my world view. But still the underlying logic of it is that it moves everyone beyond that. Because all those petty fights we are all better then that. But we always fall behind on what we are capable of.

Yes, I know that humanity exploit a loophole in the Treaty of Farixen by building carriers to make up for the restrictions on Dreadnoughts. You missed the point I was making, that humanity were the ones to introduce the concept of the carrier to the galaxy. It was something that had never been considered by any race prior.

That sort of shows that space-combat in the ME universe hasn't really developed in centuries, because surely someone should have come up with the idea of a carrier and using fighter-craft before humanity showed up? It's not a difficult concept.

I mean, you could theorise that the humanity only came up with them because our planet is mostly covered in water? We needed to develop them as mobile platforms for our aircraft to refuel and land on, whereas the Turians would not want to avoid fighting aerial battles over water (since they can't swim).

This entirely depends on your definition of first ones to introduce the concept of. Because other races have been using their ships to launch fighter ships to assist in combat. The Alliance using a loop hole in the Treaty of Farixen build ships with only the intent to carry star fighters. Rather then use ships that can deploy star fighters and attack like Dreadnoughts or Cruisers. Mirroring a similar set up with Washington Naval Treaty 1922. In which the limit the number of ships nations could have and their size over 10,000 tons and guns over 8 inches. So nations stepped around by building just at the 10k ton rule and using only 8 inch guns but more of them to avoid the number restrictions. And often fudging the official tonnage and gun size. In this case since they can't have a true Dreadnought they build one the same size but instead of a single massive main weapon capable of ripping apart lesser ships they have hundreds of much much smaller weapons in the form of star fighters.

This also ignores the fact that the rest of the galaxy were OK with the restrictions but the Alliance wasn't. Liara has an entire conversation about this in ME 1 about how the rest of the galaxy are worried because of the apparent power hungry nature of humanity. Barely on the galactic scene for a single life time and every bit of power they grab never seems to be enough. Demanding and pushing to have a seat on the Council and action that took a literal genocidal war for the Turians to gain. So less technological stagnation and more no one felt the need for an obvious and massive power grab by exploiting loops holes in treaties to build up a military force arguably on par with other larger and more well established races.

The sheer technical obstacles that needed to be overcome is why stealth technology is suggested not to have been cracked until the Turians/Humans worked together to build the Normandy. Otherwise the technology would be far more widespread before ME1, rather than gradually shown to becoming more common afterwards. This also fits with how throughout ME1 the ship is described as being a "revolutionary" for having a stealth drive, as well as the brand new Tantalus drive core, which allows it to move without using normal thrusters, which would give it's position away.

While stealth is a useful system to have, it's obvious why some in the Alliance feel the Normandy is a boondoggle and was not worth the cost to build. It wouldn't be useful in space battles at all, because the excess build of heat generated in combat would quickly end up outpacing the ship's ability to store it via heatsinks.

As Shepard can point out in the first game, it's only real advantage is to be able to loiter in an system, scout the enemy and perform covert drops. A hit-and-run style attack would only work if you could manage and hide the power increase from bringing the weapons online, but would likely cost you your position after the first shot was fired.

Attempting the "Picard maneuver" by dropping out of FTL onto an enemy is also out of the question, because the game establishes that the stealth drive cannot mask a ship travelling at FTL speeds.

Stealth seems to be far more viable on smaller ships, such as the Kodiak shuttles, Tempest and Normandy. Even if it wouldn't be extremely difficult to try to implement a stealth system on anything larger than a frigate, it'd be pointless to do so as it's better suited for other things.

Jumping to the conclusion that just because it was finally cracked during the Turian/Human team up to mean they needed humanity to crack it simply doesn't make sense. That is like saying without Henry Ford we would never create the assembly line production system that allows faster streamlined production allowing increased output with less work required. That is a lot of hoops to jump though to come to that conclusion.

Yes the Admiral that was more concerted with creating a hundred new star fighters that would be able to engage in direct combat. Which kind of ignores that a stealth ship would be able to scout emeies locations and report them back to the fleet allowing for better attack and defense strategies. Which would fit the Frigate class ships just fine as that is their core job to scout enemy movements because they lack the fire power or armor to truly engage larger ships unless they are in a large group

As we saw in ME2, the technology gathered from Sovereign and the Geth lead to several breakthroughs in the two years between games, such as the reverse-engineered Thanix cannon, the development of new armour and shields, as well as the switchover to thermal clips.

This development was spurred on by the fact that they needed to play catch-up, after having been caught short by a far superior enemy.

Reapers are hardly a fair thing to compare the technological growth of the galaxy to. They are suppose to be hundreds if not thousands of years more advanced. Without the Reapers to draw data from how would they know how to keep metals like iron and tungsten suspended in a molten form. Tungsten BTW has a melting point of 6k F. As for the thermal clips that is one of those eureka moments and they are many across history. Paper or similar concepts to it was created in like 100BC. The printing press wasn't invented until like 1440 AD. Which allowed the reproduction of text on an industrial scale.

Javik states that the Prothean's helped Asari's early development and left them the Beacon with the sole intention of giving them a headstart, so that they could have a better chance tackling the Reapers in the next Cycle.

Javik also views any race that isn't Protheans lesser then him. No matter how you act with him he will always refer to the current races as lower races. So when Javik says things like that I take a big grain of salt due to his personality.

Why shouldn't they?

The reason why Citadel species refuse to travel through dormant Relays is because they don't know where they lead to, as well as what what dangers might lie on the other side? If they built their own network, they could chose where they placed them and in secure locations. Establishing your own, more direct route between point A-B, would cut down on having to go the long way around through several Relays, if there wasn't a direct route in the existing network.

As for the Asari being stagnant as a race, one of the most commonly cited problems about the Asari in the games is that their longevity means they're less inclined to take immediate, decisive action, preferring to adopt a policy of "let's wait and see".

When you can live for over a thousand years, you have the luxury of a lot of time on your hands. Some Asari are willing to spend centuries having fun on their equivalent of a college "gap year", working as mercs or as dancers in seedy bars? If they want to settle down with a family, earn a degree, enter politics, they can easily get around to all that in a century or two? What's the rush, right?

A lack of a sense of urgency is one of the reasons why the Humans and Turians are the first two to respond when the Reapers show up in ME3, because they recognise that it's an immediately concern that cannot be put off, whereas the Asari respond by sitting on their hands.

Why would they need direct access? Relay usage is instantaneous. When you use a relay you arrive hundreds of light years a way that would have taken weeks to travel normally only seconds later. The longest travel time is from the Relay to the planet you are going to or coming from to the Relay. The opening relay issue is specifically for expanding the area they travel and building their own doesn't actually address that because they would have to open existing relays to build new connections there or to even connect a new relay to an older one.

Lets wait and see isn't stagnation it is a pragmatic approach. The ability to play the long game because of their long life span isn't stagnation of the race. Maybe from our perspective because we measure our life in decades while they do it in centuries. 10 generations of humans can pass before 1 generation of asari. But the same could be said about humans to salarians. One generation of humans could see up to 3 generations of salarians born, grow old and die.

Existing on a different time scale isn't close to stagnation. It can appear it to beings that don't exist on the same time scale but it isn't true cultural stagnation.

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 9, 2017 5:55:04 GMT

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 9, 2017 5:55:04 GMT

May 9, 2017 4:26:23 GMT Dr. Vanity said:

I shall repeat the question because it is a very simple one

>"Simple"

Oh please do tell. Because it certainly is a simple question to me. And I'm an idiot.

dmc1001
N7

Biotic Booty

Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,942 Likes: 17,687

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 9, 2017 5:57:50 GMT

Quote

Post by dmc1001 on May 9, 2017 5:57:50 GMT

I think the major problem is that lots of us like to roleplay. That means we develop headcanon and work around that. For example, someone jokingly suggested that SAM was pranking Ryder by saying I had mail when I didn't. It's a little comic strip that's funny. Mild spoilers for MEA.

SPOILER: Click to show

So some of us have decided to adopt this as headcanon, which works particularly well since we know Alec Ryder was trying to teach humor to SAM.

There's no in-game evidence to suggest there's any truth whatsoever to something that is obviously a bug. Yet, we have fun with the headcanon and MAKE IT WORK FOR US.

Dead Reapers are how we win this.
- Admiral Steven Hackett

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 9, 2017 13:02:38 GMT

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 9, 2017 13:02:38 GMT

May 9, 2017 5:57:50 GMT dmc1001 said:

SPOILER: Click to show

So some of us have decided to adopt this as headcanon, which works particularly well since we know Alec Ryder was trying to teach humor to SAM.

There's no in-game evidence to suggest there's any truth whatsoever to something that is obviously a bug. Yet, we have fun with the headcanon and MAKE IT WORK FOR US.

And head canon is nothing more then an opinion. The likes of saying you enjoy rock and roll, long walks on the beach and drinking the blood of my enemies. An opinion that you create that you can accept the rationality for. What Themikefest did was a kin to someone in the USA in a discussion about politics stood up and declared that conservatives abuse and manipulate our election system though gerrymandering stat districts. And while that is a big problem and we need some major laws in place to restrict and reduce it to allow a representative democracy to actually work as it should. Conservatives are not the only one to do so. All groups abuse the heck out of redrawing district lines when they get the chance not just conservatives.

And when I bring up how contradictory it is to complain about one side doing it when all the sides are just as guilty of it you guys get.....well pissy with me. And makes me continually wonder what the logic is inside your minds that your opinions are held under the slightest bit of scrutiny and you flip out over it.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 9, 2017 13:56:08 GMT dmc1001, Dr. Vanity, and 2 more like this

Quote

Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 13:56:08 GMT

May 9, 2017 5:57:50 GMT dmc1001 said:

SPOILER: Click to show

So some of us have decided to adopt this as headcanon, which works particularly well since we know Alec Ryder was trying to teach humor to SAM.

There's no in-game evidence to suggest there's any truth whatsoever to something that is obviously a bug. Yet, we have fun with the headcanon and MAKE IT WORK FOR US.

I agree that a major basis of role playing inside a game designed in such a way that the PC's personality can be changed is head canon. I'm absolutely convinced that the developers/writers intentionally insert lines and construct the situations such that different players can and will interpret what is happening differently from each other... enabling them to use the same line to construct an individual personality for their PC.

It's also one major reason why I'm against Bioware creating an official canon ending to ME3... why I'm in favor of using a long duration of time and a new event (probably catastrophic) to skim over the various results of the different ending choices... including the ending choices made by people using mods. As I said before, Bioware can introduce a keep and have the result of the player stating their ending selection be just a different text entry in the codex or in an archive WITHOUT having to insert a visual reference to it in the game itself. Whenever the ME:A inhabitants return to the Milky Way, any tangible signs of what choice Shepard may have made can have vanished with time (save for perhaps some archival entry). There can still be a lot of visual easter eggs in the game relating to events and personalities that occurred at any time before the ending choice was made. The game can still be rick with the old lore and still just skip over the ME3 ending results.

I really think it's the way that would respect the vast majority of the player base... those who are happy continuing to insert their own head canon (i.e. interpretation of the endings) as opposed to those few vocal ones who keep demanding that their personal preferences for an ending be somehow ratified in stone by Bioware in an official way.

dmc1001
N7

Biotic Booty

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 11, 2017 2:29:27 GMT dragontartare, Guardian, and 2 more like this

Quote

Post by dmc1001 on May 11, 2017 2:29:27 GMT

May 9, 2017 13:02:38 GMT gothpunkboy89 said:

May 9, 2017 5:57:50 GMT dmc1001 said:

SPOILER: Click to show

So some of us have decided to adopt this as headcanon, which works particularly well since we know Alec Ryder was trying to teach humor to SAM.

There's no in-game evidence to suggest there's any truth whatsoever to something that is obviously a bug. Yet, we have fun with the headcanon and MAKE IT WORK FOR US.

No, no one is complaining of how you headcanon anything, or that you have a particular opinion about anything. There are lots of different opinions and headcanon to be found on this board. The problem we run into is that you don't accept our opinions or headcanon as valid. You seek to tear it apart. If you just said "Huh, interesting. In my playthroughs, I come from this perspective and that's why I always choose Synthesis." then no one would care. Absolutely no one would care. Instead, I say "such and such reasons are why I choose Destroy." I even sometimes add in "I know my reasons for wanting Shepard to survive are selfish but I'm okay with it." Then I'll get an extremely long response telling me how I'm wrong and I'm a genocidal murderer for choosing any route but Synthesis. Can you see how it's hard to believe you when you say you don't understand why we get pissy with you?

Dead Reapers are how we win this.
- Admiral Steven Hackett

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 11, 2017 12:48:18 GMT

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 11, 2017 12:48:18 GMT

May 11, 2017 2:29:27 GMT dmc1001 said:

May 9, 2017 13:02:38 GMT gothpunkboy89 said:

You proved my point exactly as I stated. Your opinions get held under the slightest scrutiny and you get pissy. You don't have to accept my opinion as valid but you also can't get upset when I point out the apparent flaws of yours. Particularly when I fully expect people to return the favor on me. This is particularly because I see many a statement directly ignoring in game facts. Twisting them to what they want them to say rather then what is actually said.

ME 3 sets up the Geth to be fully validated in using the Reaper code to upgrade themselves. The only thing to question is if the player supports them in that action for what ever reason. So when someone complains about how the Geth wanted to be more human like and went back on their ideology because that is what they want rather then anything said in game. I speak up. It is also when I ask simple questions like how many lives is an ideology worth. And they do not respond. When I bring up specific in game events that support the game and how it directly justifies the Geth's actions in wanting to use the Reaper code as a means to survive the war. That they aren't doing it simply to become more human like. Players like you get pissy because I scrutinized your opinion.

You are a genocidal murder for choosing destroy. You stop the Reaper genocide with the genocide of EDI and the Geth. Then with nothing in the game to support it people pull out of their rear that some how the Geth weren't fully effected by the galaxy wide beam effect in an attempt to justify in their own head that they didn't really just commit genocide of a race who's only real crime was being different from all other living beings. And in that single instant it proved and validated everything the Reapers have done. And when I point that out the pissy train starts on rolling.

Then there is when players complain about some aspect of the game like lets say for example complaining about the fact there is no proof in the game of the conflict between synthetic and organic life. Thus validating their complaint about the game's ending and the Catalyst. That ignores that there are facts and hints to show the friction that would lead to it. Because the entire point of the Reapers is to intercede decades if not hundreds of years before you reach the technological singularity event that would allow the full war. When those are pointed out but ignored and continued to claim there is nothing to the Catalyst's statements I laugh at them for the same reason I laugh at people who claim there isn't any racism in the USA anymore. Even if you personally don't think so there are plenty of signs that provide enough information and proof to at least validate the logic of someone saying there is. Which is then usually followed up by the logic of all AI's will think and act exactly like the Geth. Because 2 humans who played the same game have clearly come to the 100% same conclusions. So even the concept of the idea that all synthetic life forms would behave forever and all time like the Geth has less basis in reality then the Mass Effect fields allowing the mass of an object to be manipulated. And that P train just keeps on rolling.

I can come to conclusions of why you and others act this way but they aren't the nicest of words. Egotistical, snowflake, triggered, safe space, holier then thou are. And most of those I only reserve for political discussions were they are thrown back in the teeth of people who like to use them against me. One fine person even saying that I'm not allowed to use those words because his side made them up to insult my side. Charming am I right?

Dr. Vanity
N2

Combat Drones are our Friends

Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 93 Likes: 176

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 11, 2017 13:43:59 GMT stephenw32768, dmc1001, and 1 more like this

Quote

Post by Dr. Vanity on May 11, 2017 13:43:59 GMT

Chief Engineering Officer Aboard the SSV Internet Forums

stephenw32768
N3

Quarian Ally

Games: Mass Effect Trilogy
PSN: stephenw32768
Prime Posts: 433
Prime Likes: 679
Posts: 646 Likes: 3,000

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 11, 2017 17:48:24 GMT Obsidian Gryphon, opuspace, and 5 more like this

Quote

Post by stephenw32768 on May 11, 2017 17:48:24 GMT

May 11, 2017 12:48:18 GMT gothpunkboy89 said:

Players like you get pissy because I scrutinized your opinion.

I can speak only for myself, and you weren't addressing me anyway so I beg the forum's forgiveness for speaking out of turn, but... not only do I not come here to have my opinions "scrutinized", but I question the whole notion of "scrutinizing" opinions relating to an entertaining work of fiction. We're not discussing government policy or anything serious here. We're just kicking back and enjoying a friendly conversation about a video game. Well, that's why I'm here anyway.

I'm with dmc1001 . Live and let live. Player #1 favours Destroy for their own reasons; player #2 favours Control; player #3 favours Synthesis; player #4 doesn't like any of them. None of the four do any harm to any of the others. It's all good

Fancy a giggle? I have gameplay videos.

dmc1001
N7

Biotic Booty

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 12, 2017 2:16:36 GMT stephenw32768, dragontartare, and 2 more like this

Quote

Post by dmc1001 on May 12, 2017 2:16:36 GMT

May 11, 2017 17:48:24 GMT stephenw32768 said:

May 11, 2017 12:48:18 GMT gothpunkboy89 said:

Players like you get pissy because I scrutinized your opinion.

Yes, this is exactly it. If we were on a political debate forum, sure, go to town on my opinions and make me put up or shut up. But here when we're talking about a game that is one of my all-time favorites? It makes no sense. It's like "how can I annoy people by not letting them enjoy their gaming?" I just don't get it. Also, I have MEHEM installed, so if I do make peace with the geth and quarians they are able to survive the ending, as does EDI.

Last Edit: May 12, 2017 2:17:03 GMT by dmc1001

Dead Reapers are how we win this.
- Admiral Steven Hackett

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 12, 2017 12:12:00 GMT

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 12, 2017 12:12:00 GMT

May 11, 2017 17:48:24 GMT stephenw32768 said:

May 11, 2017 12:48:18 GMT gothpunkboy89 said:

Players like you get pissy because I scrutinized your opinion.

And yet the concept of the idea of an opinion changing because of a conversation is treated with disgust and contempt. How full of yourself do you have to be to even have the concept of your opinion being changed by interacting with other people to be viewed so negatively?

The fact we are discussing a work of fiction is why we should be able to have these conversations without people getting upset that their opinion is being scrutinized as they make statements like the writing is terrible because the Geth go back against their earlier statement about wanting to build their own future. And when you point out all the events and change of situation. You are treated like the ass hole because you point out things explicitly shown in game that contradicts that stance. FFS people are less defensive and less THIS IS MY OPINION AND YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION IT!!! from people when discussing theology. And religion for many people regardless of what form it takes are a cornerstone of their lives and something that really truly matters. Hell even talking about politics in the USA is more open then this. They might not listen or even vaguely change your mind. But the people who fan boy the hell out of their "team" to the point their "team" can do no wrong in their eyes are generally looked at with contempt and disgust for everyone not so far up their respective political party's anus that they are just a set of wiggling toes.

Yes we all have our opinions about what ending we favor. And the moment we take the time to write them down on a public forum or speak the words out of our mouths we are setting our selves up for people to question our opinions. I live by a very simple code for dealing with anything online or in real live. If I ever bother to open my mouth and express my opinion in public or private I fully expect people to take my opinion, pick it apart and tell me why they think it is wrong or has flaws. Provide supporting arguments for why they find flaws with it and any other examples of why they find it flawed. In return I will counter with my own thoughts and concepts and ideas on why I think my opinion is correct. It is the corner stone of how discussions work.

Instead I see the concept of discussion being look at with contempt, the concept of an idea being changed by someone presenting their opinion and their arguments why they don't agree with someone with disgust.

I see this:

Followed by:

Deleted Deleted Member Posts: 0 Deleted inherit guest@proboards.com 7734 0 Nov 27, 2024 5:35:00 GMT Deleted 0 Nov 27, 2024 5:35:00 GMT January 1970 Deleted	If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 12, 2017 18:00:19 GMT dmc1001 likes this Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 18:00:19 GMT glol

dmc1001
N7

Biotic Booty

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 12, 2017 20:05:15 GMT themikefest, stephenw32768, and 2 more like this

Quote

Post by dmc1001 on May 12, 2017 20:05:15 GMT

I don't know. I grew up in a time when literally no one gave a shit if they said something that hurt your feelings if what they said was true. We didn't have "political correctness" back then and, though I don't think being a dick is the way to go, I'm not an enormous fan of it. It's got its place but can get out of control. "Safe space" also isn't what anyone cares about here. The thing is, people here don't care if YOU buy into an opinion. YOU are actually the one who can't handle it that we largely don't care if you like what we say or believe. The rest of us mostly just don't care much about your opinion. You desperately want us to, and really want to believe you've got these amazing arguments wherein we're all blown away and convinced that you are right and we've all just been so very wrong. Thing is, that hasn't happened. It hasn't happened to me and it hasn't happened for a lot of people. Yet, you continue on trying to tell us we're "just not open" to what what you have to say. That's not it. You've just failed to convince us. That fact that your arguments eventually get so far away from the discussion makes people tune out. People will say "your analogy doesn't work" and then you blame us for it. Then you turn to insults.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know a well thought out, persuasive argument can convince me, or at the very least make me think an opinion I hold is too severe. It's not that I haven't read anything from you that I didn't agree with. I've seen you make some interesting points. You'll make some point about a discussion regarding the geth that you've never had with me and explain how that shows "we" are all so close minded.

The reason I don't pick your opinion apart is because I have no issue with it. If we had a singular game ending and started having disagreements about that, then you could be onto something. Instead, we have a game with 4 major endings and a lot of smaller outcomes and you want to tell us we should all be of one mind how it turns out. That's not how it works. If I were as sensitive as you suggest, I'd be having arguments with themikefest about how Liara isn't so bad, how he should always save Kaidan and how most Renegade moments are abhorrent. Thing is, I don't care, but I'm always fascinated at the choices he makes. Instead of being antagonistic toward him, I've found he's actually an amazing resource to go to if I curious about an outcome because he's pretty much done it all. Similarly, I've really found @robtherobber to be very amusing for his logic behind the Control outcome even though I could never headcanon things the way he does.

We're just here for entertainment. Our own entertainment, that is. I'm not personally here for your entertainment, nor do I think anyone else is. Get back to us all when you learn how to accept that we don't all think like you and some of us never will.

Last Edit: May 12, 2017 20:06:49 GMT by dmc1001

Dead Reapers are how we win this.
- Admiral Steven Hackett

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 12, 2017 21:15:14 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 21:15:14 GMT

You'll make some point about a discussion regarding the geth that you've never had with me and explain how that shows "we" are all so close minded.

Yeah I think the whole geth thing was directed at me. I could be wrong but it was a recent discussion we had, I just didn't think it was a big enough deal to be brought up so much with other people. You're right though, we're just here for entertainment and I like to hear other peoples opinions without having it shoved down my throat. Though as I mentioned earlier on this thread Sifr made a very well put argument that did change my stance on some aspects of the game, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that gained a new perspective here. I'd say that alone shows that we can be open minded. Some people just have a higher persuasion level

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 12, 2017 21:36:24 GMT

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 12, 2017 21:36:24 GMT

May 12, 2017 20:05:15 GMT dmc1001 said:

The point of the video was a commentary on the sheer contradiction people have to the reality of what happened. In the case Dean claiming those people Brock killed were not really dead just asleep. Because he can't handle the reality of what happened. This is particularly true of the ending seeing the great deal of trouble people seem to go though to demonize everything about it. Far beyond any realistic constructive crisis it would have actually gained. With people going out of the way to create mods that completely change the ending for PC anyways because they can't handle the reality of the events that take place because it is to far out of their personal comfort zone.

The safe space video in which South Park shows their great satire skills is in reference to the fact 9 out of 10 discussions break down to someone saying this is their opinion. Which of course it is everyone has one and everyone is allowed one. How ever inevitably after the opinion statement some variation on the this is my opinion and you are not changing it. Treating even the concept of an opinion being changed due to a discussion with someone with an alternative PoV to yourself with disgust and scorn. Which is a part of the satirical take down of the safe space concept of not allowing anyone who disagrees with you or isn't supportive of you to be allowed in your safe space.

You claim that I am the one that cares yet you are the one constantly getting annoyed and pissy at me over my taking apart your logic and telling you in details why I don't agree with it. Particularly since I do not object to you or others doing the same to me in return if it so fancies you. I treat you the exact same way I expect you to treat me. I do not contradict expectant you to take me picking apart your logic and getting upset when you do the same to me. The only time I came close to actually upset was with Cricket and that is just because the hypocritical mod would temp ban me for very petty things stuff then turned around and did the same BS they just temp banned me for. Like seriously he once banned me for using simplistic to describe someone's argument. Then turns around posted like I was a simpleton. If he had not temp banned me I wouldn't have cared.

Yes I am referencing some conversations that we never had but you also choose to stick your oar into the conversations to complain about how much of a bad person I am. So maybe learn what is being talked about before you butt in. I'm not going to take the time to explain everything of a running conversation to you because you had to speak without knowing all the details. But on that it is continuing a theme even if you had not directly been a part of the conversation. Someone makes some complaint or criticism of some aspect of the game. I disagree so we get into the exchange of ideas and interpenetration and them. I even went though all the trouble to make a detailed example of the logistics of the Geth attempting to take on the Reapers without the upgrade. Using every fact and detail the trilogy has stated in regards to how the Geth operate and their dependence on each other for intelligence and how taking on an enemy that can wipe out entire fleets in battle would negatively effect the Geth's collective intelligence and thus their combat ability. For my effort I got in responds and I am paraphrasing this: Shut up this is my opinion. Which is an echo of what you have said many times and others have said many times. Hence the safe space video and the collective you being used. All variations of the same old song and dance of anyone who disagrees to strongly jump right to this is my opinion defense and shuts down anymore discussion. It is a hilarious display of egotism because anyone questioning your opinion is apparently more then your ego can handle. And would explain the fuck out of the over reactions of so many people. The human ego is the most overly inflated and easily bruised aspect of the human mind and the one thing that has led to more poor decisions and over reactions then anything else.

As for my analogies I speak the same way on here as I do on other forums and in the real world. There seems to be an interesting correlation I've found in that people who agree with me seem to understand my analogies when I use them while almost exclusively people who don't agree with me seem to struggle with them. Hence why I discount your claims about my analogies. Thousand and thousands of conversations support my conclusions. The statistical probability that the half dozen of people who happen to not agree with me also happen to be the statistical minority of people who don't understand my analogies are astronomical in scale. Particularly with all my time in retail dealing directly with customers explaining stuff like water chemical composition and behavioral actions of pets and now pools and spas. Direct customer interaction trying to explain to them information and/or concepts they don't know or fully understand and so ask for help explaining and allowing them to understand it better. I am fully aware the way I explain things sometimes will make sense to me but not others. Hence my use of analogies to try to clarify what I mean in my explanation.

As for themikefest and Liara:

For the rest there are aspects of each ending that some will ignore when convenient. Like the fact people are willing to wipe out an entire race of synthetics simply to get to the Reapers. That they will sit back and let trillions of people die because their ego won't allow them to act any other way. That many actions are the very problems the Reapers have with organics in how the relation between organic and AI. And then declare the Reapers are 100% wrong. Particularly egregious when people declare that the galaxy never needed the Reapers to deal with AI's all the while using the very tools the Reapers provided to allow them to deal with them. When you add to the fact that technological development is not a straight path a race could easily develop a conflict similar to Geth vs Quarin before they develop interstellar travel they would be fucked as they would die on the slow voyage from their home system to the next nearest one. Only the Geth would be capable of surviving that travel distance due to their only requirement is a power source and some hardware to upload into. But bringing that up makes me the bad guy.

Sifr
N5

Champion of Kirkwall

Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
Posts: 3,737 Likes: 8,026

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 13, 2017 2:18:03 GMT themikefest, opuspace, and 2 more like this

Quote

Post by Sifr on May 13, 2017 2:18:03 GMT

May 9, 2017 5:53:47 GMT gothpunkboy89 said:

And yet you still fail to provide any reason why the Reapers being active is even necessary, if the technology is still there in Destroy?

Maybe you could try more thought into your argument and less into patting yourself on the back, by assuming that we mere mortals are not able to grasp at the strings to which you're dangling in front of us?

Rather than the more likely explanation, that people don't agree with your argument because it's not really that well put together.

It necessitates looking at the world from a perspective different from your own. A much grander and larger scale then we are use to. In the grand scheme of the universe humanity and all our past, present and future achievements mean nothing. Next to nothing. Less then nothing. A random genetic mutation that will exist for a time then one day fade away and the next genetic mutation will arise. Each cycle as pointless and meaningless as the next repeated hundreds if not thousands of times on planets all across the universe. Entirety of recorded human history is nothing but a second in the eye of the infinite universe. We measure our life time in decades. Lucky to reach 100 years old. Even with the Krogan or Asari living for 1,000 years is still nothing.

That is the view point the Reapers have. Each individual species is treated as pointless because they are pointless in the grand scheme of everything. The only thing they care about the only thing they try to keep going is the concept of organic life. Because the concept is the only thing that will be infinite. That was the point of the Rancher example. The only thing they care about is the herd. AKA the concept of organic life. They don't care about the individual cows. AKA individual races. And they cull the herd as they see necessary to keep the herd healthy and alive.

Which is complete bunk, because the Reapers are actively destroying and stifling the progress of organic (and synthetic) life by their constant Cycle of destruction. They're not solving anything with what they're doing, even if you try to appeal to the argument of them somehow possessing a "superior morality" that justifies their actions.

According to the Leviathan, the Catalyst's core directive was to "preserve life at any cost", a purpose that it has thus far failed to achieve in over a billion years. Not only is the Harvest a flawed solution that doesn't work, but it has lead to life being lost as it perpetuates a Cycle that has and never will work.

It's not operating on superior reasoning... its because they're fundamentally broken machines.

Leviathan already attempted to prevent races from creating synthetic life and having it rebel and potentially kill off the race that created it. That is a solution that has already proven to be ineffective. That was why the Catalyst was created in the first place. The Reapers could do no better a job then Leviathan before them.

To be fair, the Leviathan didn't set the bar very high.

If we can say anything about them, it's that they are extremely lazy. They created the Catalyst to solve a problem for them, didn't really bother to check it's programming before letting it loose, then decided to crawl into the deepest ocean they could find in the hopes that someone else would sort out their mess.

No wonder the Reapers ended up being such a hot mess.

How do you bomb an entire planet back to the stone age? You would have to destroy every flash drive and omni tool in existence to do so. When the Krogan bombed themselves back to the stone age it was when they were just discovering atomic capabilities. Which if they developed along similar technological lines as us would be about 1940's tech. Which is way way way behind the technology level required to create synthetic life. You would basically have to wipe out the entire race to bomb them that far back to prevent them from recovering in a couple decades. Even if it took them 1,000 years to recover that time is still nothing. And with each successive bombing back to the stone age they would look for new and innovative ways to avoid the loss. Pulling a Vault Tech and creating bunkers a few miles below the surface of the planet and hoarding knowledge and tech to avoid the above ground apocalypse. If even one of those bunkers survive the attack then all their efforts will have been for nothing.

I think you're misunderstanding the point slightly, it's not about reducing their technology to that of the actual Stone Age, but more to the point where their society, technology and basic levels of infrastructure would take anything centuries to millennia to recover.

Where the survivors main priority would be basic survival itself and trying to rebuild society from the ground up. So even if advanced technology and groups do survive in bunkers, that doesn't mean that it's going to be a priority compared with food, water and not being killed by other desperate survivors looking for the fancy gear they might have.

Even in this scenario you'd still have Reapers present as immortal machines who'd intervene if necessary. After all, if time is nothing to a Reaper, then what's really the difference between stepping in to hit the reset button every 1000 years and 50,000?

And calling the harvest cycle pointless is a lot like saying the use of antibiotics to cure bacterial infections was pointless because over time bacterial strains have developed resistance to antibiotics. It worked but over time it started to fail due to the adaption of organic life to the cycle. Which in this case is the increased difficulty in harvesting since the Protheans were able to delay the next harvest for decades if not hundreds of years. And the ability for organic life to leave behind more and more hints to help fight the Reapers more effectively.

Except that all the evidence shows that the Harvest is pointless, because it achieves nothing. A billion years of wanton, unending, destruction, with absolutely nothing to show for it save for the ashes of the species wiped out and the craters left behind from the orbital bombardment!

Made worse since the entire Cycle is meant to be part of the Catalyst treating the Milky Way as some grand experiment, failing to understand that the Reapers are actively tampering with and corrupting the results from their interference!

As for your analogy that organic life has "adapted" like antibiotics, that's simply not true based on the evidence.

Not to mention it's a pretty awful analogy (not your first), because unlike antibiotics where resistance to them builds in a person over time, no species is meant to survive into the next Cycle so that they had time to adapt to become better able to handle the Reapers on the next go-around.

The Protheans by themselves cannot be used as evidence that species become "better" able to handle the Reapers over time, as their conquest of the galaxy meant they had everyone working towards a common goal and advancement of their Empire. In comparison, the current Cycle has galactic society far less unified and more prone to falling into disarray, which makes them more easier for the Reapers to divide and conquer.

While the Protheans had formidable technology to use against the Reapers and we're told that the Harvest took centuries to complete, it's worth remembering that the Prothean Empire spanned the entire galaxy and they had a presence on far more worlds than the modern Cycle. It would have taken the Reapers far longer for them to break their defenses and harvest the population of each individual planet.

Javik further mentions that the Reaper's opening move was to shut down all the Relays, leaving their worlds cut off and their fleets isolated and trapped. This allowed the Reapers free reign to move from system to system, exterminating at their own leisure. It's not like they needed to rush the process, there was nowhere the Protheans could run that they wouldn't eventually find them?

Furthermore, the technological advancement of the Protheans and the wealth of data caches that survived to be found by species in the current Cycle, still wasn't enough to put any of the current Cycle on an even footing with them by the time the next Harvest rolled around. Even the Asari's heavy cribbing from the teacher's notes didn't put them anywhere close.

As for the Crucible, the primarily reason that it succeeded in the modern era was primarily down to the Relays not being shut down, which meant that new personnel, technology and resources were on hand to rapidly speed up construction of the device. The Protheans couldn't coordinate such an effort because they were limited to what they hand on hand and could bring via conventional FTL.

As for the Refuse Ending, the game does not make entirely certain whether or not it was the next Cycle who managed to get a headstart due to Liara's time-capsules, only that the Reapers were eventually defeated after the warnings were discovered early enough for it to make a difference.

You say the cycle isn't necessary but the time frame of the trilogy lasts maybe a decade at best. And the rest is pure I think rationality with very little long term research to back it up. If you were to randomly pick a decade of human history and look at it and extrapolated we should still be slave owners. The Catholic Church should be rulers of the world. Britian should be the undisputed rules of the ocean with their fleets of ships. The United States would still be a British Colony. Humans should still be living in caves hunting mammoths with spears and grunting to each other.

None of these examples have anything to do in relation to whether or not the Cycle is necessary.

As for long-term research, has the Catalyst managed to find an adequate solution to it's conundrum for over a billion years? Or has it summed up the definition of insanity, by doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting to find a different answer?

I think we can see from the sheer lack of success that the Catalyst has had in all that time, that the Cycle isn't necessary because it doesn't work.

Once again, a billion yeas of galactic genocide are not the same as the conditions in a sweatshop. Stop trying to equate the two as somehow being precisely the same in terms of suffering, while accusing people of being hypocrites for pointing out the holes in your ridiculous rationale here.

I'm not calling you simplistic because you disagree with me. I'm saying that because you are using a very simplified argument which ignores all the nuances and reality of the world to fit what you want to say. STG can spy, sabotage and kill anyone they deem a threat be they innocent or other wise. Specters can use their broad authority and little over site to shoot first and ask questions never and kill tons of innocent lives. Suffering is created yet the galaxy arguably benefits from their actions by keeping the peace. Even if it causes some needless innocent lives being lost. The Turian government killed and waged a small war with Humanity due to their actions of opening Relays without knowing what is on the other side. Death and destruction was all around on both sides but the action of preventing another Rachni War situation and the capability that Humanity was able to show to the larger galaxy as they fought off the Turian Fleet ultimately benefited everyone. The Alliance became a major power house and the galaxy was benefited by Humanity creating Medi-gel. A substance that helped save countless lives.

And you're extremely simplistic if you believe that just because all chance comes with some people being affected negatively, that in any way justifies the mass slaughter and extinction of countless species, on countless worlds, over countless years.

That is ignoring all nuances and reality of the world of the Mass Effect universe, to suit your view that the Harvest is somehow "necessary".

Whereas the current system hasn't caused the galaxy to stagnate and nothing new, due to each species being wiped out at a certain peak?

Just because the evolution and development of a species remains untouched, doesn't mean that the deck is stacked against them and the game isn't rigged.

Weren't you jumping to conclusions earlier by suggesting that the Protheans are evidence that all species are "adapting" to the Cycle?

If you'd bothered to pay attention, you'd notice that I cited a few more examples of AI in my argument, not solely the Geth. I also wrote a very lengthy post on the previous page that delved into the decision making process and considerations that AI take into account and how it differentiates from organic beings.

As for the Geth, you're forgetting that even though not all individual Geth draw the same conclusions as each other, they ultimately will abide by any conclusion that has been decision based upon their group consensus. However the Geth are capable of changing their minds, should new data or information become available that leads to a chance in consensus.

To use your example, the Geth consensus might conclude they love Bieber... until they heard Daft Punk, which lead their consensus to quickly change.

The issue is complicated somewhat by the Heretic Geth however, who have been altered by a type of "mathematical indoctrination" by the Reapers to force them to always reach a different result than the true Geth. This subtly influences them in ways that leave making decisions that benefit the Reapers. The Heretic Geth also seem to not abide by the decisions made by the true Geth when it comes to reaching a consensus, something that baffles the true Geth who are used to being in harmony with each other.

Part of the reason the Geth sided with the Reapers in ME3 (when they had outright rejected their offers previously) was because the true Geth lost a lot of their number after the Dyson Sphere they were uploading themselves into was destroyed by the Quarians. This meant they had less Geth to draw upon when it came to informing their decision, leaving them open to being swayed by the Heretics.

Even with the Heretics influencing the vote somewhat, it's not surprising why the Geth reached the decision they did. While the Geth are not inherently violent, they are fully prepared to defend themselves in the name of survival. Most of their attempts to reach out to organics has lead to them being shot at, while the Quarians have consistently demonstrated that they will attempt to destroy them if they feel they've got the upper hand.

As I pointed out before, the reason why most synthetics seem to be initially wary or paranoid about organics, is because they have countless examples from the history of the ME universe where organics have attempted to terminate them been shortly after discovering they were self-aware. This doesn't mean that all AI reach this conclusion because they are the "same", nor even will act upon this if they do, but merely that their decision making processes are geared towards using empirical evidence to reach these types of logical deductions.

Strictly speaking, Tarkin blew up a city as an excuse to test how powerful the Death Star was even using a single reactor... which itself was a sensible precaution, because it'd have been foolish to risk cranking the dial to "planet killer" without seeing if the station could handle the lower settings first without blowing itself up.

Which seems to ignore how ME2/3 showed reverse-engineering Reaper technology was entirely achievable.

Cerberus went nuts (literally) playing around with the stuff, Turians and Alliance reverse-engineered weaponry out of it, the Geth exploited Reaper code, Mordin was able to counter Collector tech, Henry Lawson figured out a means to control husks, etc.

Humanity was capable of jumping forward in technology so quickly because they found a fully functioning Prothean Base on Mars. Fully build and working ships allowing them to learn what does what and how to copy it. That is why it is a bit of a grey area because we don't know how fully and completely the wave will effect the Reapers. It could just short out their mind or it could cause massive system wide damage to everything. If the wave burns out their entire engine set up the reverse engineering it would become even more difficult. Take that hypothetical car engine then put it in a major fire and with everything damaged and melted try to figure out how it works would be even more difficult if you didn't already know what was what.

The Reapers intentionally made sure that all species developed along the same lines of technology that they themselves use. The Mass Relays and Citadel all derive from the technology that they left behind, so as a result, everyone's tech works the same on a fundamental level and essentially backwards-compatible.

This is even further backed up by a scientist in MEA, who mentions the difficulty trying to work out the brand new technology in Andromeda, because all the stuff they found in the Prothean ruins on Mars was essentially "plug 'n' play".

It's not advocating "divine morality" to advocate for the Reaper's destruction based on all the destruction that they have wrought.

As for the Reapers, their reasoning is entirely derived from fundamentally flawed programming. They aren't operating according to superior morality, they're broken machines using the same twisted logic as someone might use to claim that they can "prevent" people from committing suicide, by killing them before they can go through with it.

Yes many will have PTSD attacks from seeing the Reapers. But what about their grandchildren and their grandchildren's grandchildren? Why is it your statement is only based around the view of a couple of years rather then hundreds of years later? The basis of the choices are not and should not be viewed based on what will happen tomorrow or the next day or the next month or even within your life time. But what generations from now will end up as and the lives they will lead. That is why I like Destroy the least because it seems to be nothing but short term gain for long term loss.

And once again, you fail to answer why do their descendants need the Reapers active at all?

Furthermore, what long-term loss is there? People will still be able to rebuild and the Reaper technology is still sitting there in the wreckage to be salvaged, it's not like all technology is completely non-functional in the Destroy ending, because we're shown that they they're quickly able to get things operating once more.

So why keep the Reapers at all?

Did any of that rambling have an actual point to it besides "humans suck"?

Still doesn't negate the fact that Reapers are weapons of destruction, built for that sole purpose.

Why would the Reapers question what they do and why they do it. Do you question what you do and why you do it in attempting to fight against the harvest? You ever sit back and think maybe we should all just walk into the Reaper blender because it is for the greater good? If you don't then why would the Reapers respond any differently? This reoccurring theme with a lot of people when talking about this game seem based around the concept that our views and our ideas are the only possible valid ones in existence. It is god level arrogance to assume that simply because we think and act one way everything in existence should think and act in a similar way.

Last time I checked, we don't derive our purpose, function, views and ideals from a broken AI with extremely bad programming...

How do you know they were simply reprogrammed? We don't actually know how the Reaper's interact and the social structure of their system. They could easily be like the Rachni with a queen making all the major decisions while each drone has it's own personality and acts in it's own way but always asks how high when the queen says jump. If explorers found a Rachni nest and they started to attack to defend it and the Queen told them to stand down. Were the drones simply reprogrammed? How about a military situation were a General tells all the troops under his command to stop bombing a city and to help rebuild and distribute supplies and rations to the remaining population. Were the soldiers simply reprogrammed? When you use the term simply reprogrammed it is very disingenuous to the actual situation.

How do I know they were reprogrammed? The Catalyst tells us that the Crucible altered it in a way that allowed for new solutions to be implemented, depending on what Shepard chose, thus suggesting that the Catalyst (and the Reapers by extension) would be reprogrammed according to carry out these new directives.

With Synthesis, the Catalyst had finally achieved it's goal of creating peace between organics and synthetics by making those labels obsolete. As such, the Reapers were no longer required to following the programming that made them carry out the Harvest, thus were reprogrammed and purposed. While with Control, Shepard takes over as the MCP and forces the Reapers to cease the harvest, reprogramming them to serve as their own private army.

As for your accusation that it's "disingenuous" to say they were reprogrammed, the Reapers (even with the organic material that is involved in their construction) still operate as machines and following the core program dictated to them by the Catalyst. That they cease to follow this program and immediately shift into another role following both Control and Synthesis suggests that in both instances, their programming was altered.

Even though both the Catalyst and Rachni Queen control their troops in a similar manner, the difference is that the Rachni cannot be "reprogrammed" because they're not machines following a set of code. Furthermore we're not entirely certain of the level of autonomy that individual Rachni have that's not controlled by the Queen, whereas we see that the Reapers are relatively autonomous, even if they follow the same fundamental directives.

Furthermore, your analogy doesn't exactly work in the instance of comparing it to a General, because unlike the Reapers or Rachni, soldiers can refuse to obey the orders of a General if they consider the action unlawful, or simply due to insubordination. Such things have not been shown to be possible at all for Rachni or Reaper troops.

Y'know, the fact I wrote "race" in quotations should have indicated that I wasn't actually being serious there... methinks you need to learn some basic reading comprehension.

I was more pointing out that in Synthesis, what's to prevent the Reapers from turning against the other species or viewing them as lesser lifeforms, despite all organics now being partially-synthetic? While Synthesis is all good to headcanon as being wishy-washy, hand-holding and rainbows, what's precisely from stopping the same old squabbles from occurring post-Singularity?

It doesn't require any definition on my part, the lore clearly states that humans canonically introduced the concept of Carriers into the ME universe, leading to fighter craft becoming far more viable in space combat as a result.

The Alliance weren't happy with the restrictions since the treaty of Farixen is decidedly unbalanced in terms of the restrictions it forces upon all those who sign in, maintaining the balance of power only in favour of those who have the most ships granted to them (which is the Turians).

After the First Contact War, it's no wonder that the Alliance wasn't exactly thrilled with the idea of having an inferior naval fleet to the Turians and pushed to be allowed to have more Dreadnoughts or a place on the Council, in the hopes that it'd get them onto a more even footing with the Council races.

You can't blame humanity for wanting a seat on the Council either, since who'd want to remain effectively a "second-class citizen" without any real say or influence when it comes to deciding galactic affairs? It's obvious that even the token embassies most species get are really only something to shut them up and coordinate the will of the Council back to their respective governments/homeworlds.

Putting words in my mouth there... I never said that humanity were necessary to crack the technology, I only said that it wasn't until the joint Alliance-Turian effort that the technology was finally able to be figured out. It could have been a Salarian-Elcor team that worked on it for all the difference it would make.

Yes the Admiral that was more concerted with creating a hundred new star fighters that would be able to engage in direct combat. Which kind of ignores that a stealth ship would be able to scout emeies locations and report them back to the fleet allowing for better attack and defense strategies. Which would fit the Frigate class ships just fine as that is their core job to scout enemy movements because they lack the fire power or armor to truly engage larger ships unless they are in a large group.

You do realise you basically just recited everything Shepard pointed out the Admiral and which I already reiterated in the earlier post?

None of which contradicts my point that needing to play catch-up to the Reapers spurred technological development.

So you're simply going to ignore all the times that Javik explains why the Asari were considered their best hope... hence why he's so disappointed with them?

As I already said before, creating your own relays would allow you to bypass or bridge the gaps between two regions of space that are relatively close together, but not directly connected by the network, forcing travellers to hop through several different relays at they go the long way around.

For example, if a relay were to be constructed in 40 Eridani (16 lys from Sol), the Alliance wouldn't need to fly for over a day at conventional FTL speeds in order to reach the system. Of course, saving people from a 24 hour flight is hardly enough reason to actually build a Relay for so short a distance, but the example was mostly meant to showcase why being able to play your own Relays would be rather convenient.

Lets wait and see isn't stagnation it is a pragmatic approach. The ability to play the long game because of their long life span isn't stagnation of the race. Maybe from our perspective because we measure our life in decades while they do it in centuries. 10 generations of humans can pass before 1 generation of asari. But the same could be said about humans to salarians. One generation of humans could see up to 3 generations of salarians born, grow old and die.

Existing on a different time scale isn't close to stagnation. It can appear it to beings that don't exist on the same time scale but it isn't true cultural stagnation.

Except what we see is often not pragmaticism, but indolence.

The Asari preference to "wait and see" is why they lack the drive to do anything as soon as the opportunity occurs, preferring to consider their options carefully before proceeding. Whereas humans are far more inclined to seize opportunities when they present themselves, something that even Liara comments on is actually a benefit of humans having a shorter lifespan.

The reason the Asari seem to be rather stagnant as a race is because their longevity means they don't need to change to meet the challenges that they encounter. Most of the time they can just wait it out and hope that a situation will eventually resolve itself or cease mattering. After all, who needs to be that prudent when you have centuries to get revenge or are able to outlive your enemies?

Last Edit: May 13, 2017 2:27:01 GMT by Sifr

"So... care to explain your particular brand of crazy?" - Snarky Hawke

olimae
N1

Posts: 45 Likes: 80

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 13, 2017 2:58:53 GMT stephenw32768 likes this

Quote

Post by olimae on May 13, 2017 2:58:53 GMT

If there is no MEHEM and choosing from the choices from the game, I would choose Synthesis.
It is the resolve that most of the galaxy would want to reach although in a rather unexpected way.

brfritos
N3

Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 304 Likes: 501

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 14, 2017 7:22:17 GMT stephenw32768 and Guardian like this

Quote

Post by brfritos on May 14, 2017 7:22:17 GMT

Destroy all the way.

I never liked THE WAY the endings of ME3 are presented to the player, not the endings itself.
Destroy is very simple: it's a war and we have to defeat our enemy. Simply.
Sinthesys is the worst in my opinion, is like the ending in war games were the dictatorship and evil wins.
Control is the compromise and somewhat "happy ending": the galaxy is safe, the Reapers are under control, every race survive and let's all drink for it.

I never think I would say that, but Bioware was right when it chose Shepard would not survive. How could she/he survive, after all she/he done?
And you need a dead hero after all in a epic tale.
Sure, there's the ending with the cutscene, but you can only achieve it by special meanings (at least in the normal game, EC throw this out of the window, but it's not a easy achievement even with the DLC).

Also, there's one thing that was stated from the start and a lot of people ignored: this is how war is.
War is brutal, is cruel, a lot of times not just, most of the time don't end in a happy way and you have to make serious compromise to at least finish it without going insane.
Sure, is a game, full of fantasy and imaginary tales. But they choose to portrait some realistic elements of how a war works.
Is it a problem?

Like I said, the problem is how the endings are presented to player, not the endings itself.

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 14, 2017 12:47:15 GMT

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 14, 2017 12:47:15 GMT

May 14, 2017 7:22:17 GMT brfritos said:

You mention the realism elements to how a war works yet destroy is simplified down greatly. If you side with Geth or make peace it becomes a gross oversimplification of the logic behind it to the point of hypocrisy. Stopping genocide with more genocide is simple to you? Kind of reminds me of the logic of those arm chair generals that say if Al Qaeda or ISIS is in any town or city we should just level it with explosives. Because 1 US solider life is apparently worth hundreds of thousands of innocent lives of the people who live in the city.

When you match genocide with genocide you are the evil dictatorship and evil wins.

stephenw32768
N3

Quarian Ally

Games: Mass Effect Trilogy
PSN: stephenw32768
Prime Posts: 433
Prime Likes: 679
Posts: 646 Likes: 3,000

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 14, 2017 13:11:03 GMT

Quote

Post by stephenw32768 on May 14, 2017 13:11:03 GMT

May 14, 2017 7:22:17 GMT brfritos said:

I agree that Destroy and Control are largely as you present them. I'd still call Control a military victory rather than a compromise, personally: it is a situation in which the Reapers have been completely and utterly subjugated.

I personally don't see Synthesis as letting the bad guys win. I personally see it as a third option: neither side "wins"; rather, the war (indeed, the whole notion of "winners" and "losers") is rendered unnecessary by fundamentally changing the parameters of the situation. But that's just my own interpretation, I do not expect anyone to agree (though it's cool if anyone does

)

Fancy a giggle? I have gameplay videos.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 14, 2017 13:50:12 GMT stephenw32768 and Dr. Vanity like this

Quote

Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 13:50:12 GMT

May 14, 2017 13:11:03 GMT stephenw32768 said:

May 14, 2017 7:22:17 GMT brfritos said:

)

I think that's one perfectly valid interpretation of synthesis. There are, of course, other valid interpretations of it... and of the other endings as well. As I've said on another thread, really wouldn't mind if Bioware produce a package of other alternate endings as a DLC to the trilogy... giving people even more options to choose from as to how they would like that series to end.

As an aside (i.e. not in response to your post) - The campaign here, however, has not been about providing more choices to different players, but forcing Bioware to choose a very specific singular ending molded, not in any way the authors of the Trilogy saw it, but in a way that a very vocal gang of fans want it to be... squelching any of the alternatives that exist in the process. I can't support that... it trounces on the concept of having writers write these stories in the first place and instead relegates us to the realm of playing Minecraft and making up our stories in our own heads all the way. It obliterates any of the mods that already exist and it trounces on any fans who happen to have enjoyed the current endings,.. and it is, as I said before, unnecessary. If ME:A is just allowed to move forward without incorporating the Trilogy endings, then any variety of endings for the Trilogy can be produced now as DLC to the Trilogy (a remastered version). Win-Win as I see it... for everyone. The only thing the fans have to do is let go... move on... and allow ME:A to move forward... instead of continually reviving this ridiculous "ending war" that's gone on for the last 5 years.

Last Edit: May 14, 2017 14:00:02 GMT by Deleted

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 17, 2017 3:02:49 GMT brfritos likes this

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 17, 2017 3:02:49 GMT

May 14, 2017 13:50:12 GMT @upupaway95 said:

If ME:A is just allowed to move forward without incorporating the Trilogy endings, then any variety of endings for the Trilogy can be produced now as DLC to the Trilogy (a remastered version). Win-Win as I see it... for everyone. The only thing the fans have to do is let go... move on... and allow ME:A to move forward... instead of continually reviving this ridiculous "ending war" that's gone on for the last 5 years.

To be fair they inserted Andromeda into the universe in the worst way possible. It's every existence actively messes with the original trilogy. And given the ending that the original trilogy gave any attempt to make Andromeda fit was going to be terrible so is it any wonder people try to bring it into the "ending war".

Frankly they should have simply had Andromeda be a hard rest of the ME universe. One in which no Reapers exist and the game world is set up just like it was before we learn about the Reapers in ME 1. The Citadel and Mass Relays were build by the Protheans and they died off some how a long time ago.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 17, 2017 17:09:34 GMT Monica21 likes this

Quote

Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 17:09:34 GMT

May 17, 2017 3:02:49 GMT gothpunkboy89 said:

May 14, 2017 13:50:12 GMT @upupaway95 said:

I really don't think it's as bad a fit as people like to complain about.

gothpunkboy89
N4

Posts: 2,311 Likes: 1,080

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer? May 17, 2017 18:29:06 GMT

Quote

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 17, 2017 18:29:06 GMT

May 13, 2017 2:18:03 GMT Sifr said:

And yet you still fail to provide any reason why the Reapers being active is even necessary, if the technology is still there in Destroy?

Because the Reapers are still living beings. Doesn't it strike you as mildly hypocritical to wipe out an entire group of living beings simply because they cause death and destruction. While at the same time not liking what another group that wipes out entire group of living being simply because they cause death and destruction.

And yet if the progress of organic and synthetic life were to continue the end result would be the death of all organic life in the galaxy and create true stagnation. With it being able to spread across the entire universe with enough time causing the complete loss of organic life across the entire galaxy. There is no morality in their reason or logic. You seem to try to switch to moral argument grounds when their entire stance is logical argument. Organic life will always use technology to improve themselves. That technology will eventually form Synthetic life that will seek to break free of the limitations of organic life and surpass it in every measurable way. That will lead to conflict resulting in wide spread destruction and the death or organic life. So the Reapers have to act to prevent that from happening.

The only moral aspect of the Reapers is the fact they preserve the knowledge of the races harvested in the near immortal bodies of the Reapers to be saved for all eternity. Those races are never truly gone until you choose to pull the trigger and wipe the final bit of them from the face of the galaxy.

This next bit is why I said you need a different perspective to understand. This isn't patting myself on the back because I think I'm so great. I'm not assuming you can't understand anything I'm saying. I am reading your post and seeing you miss what I'm saying by miles in some cases. Or you take even semi complex set ups and simplify them greatly. In this case your statement about a purpose that it has failed to achieve ignores he fact that organic life has continued to exist for billions of years. It is in fact doing it's job well. Your perspective isn't there to see how it is working even if it was a last resort. How it has worked for billions of years with thousands of cycles happening before it started to break down slowly like literally anything. It is call entropy and it happens to everything.

Case in point about over simplification there is no set interpenetration or definition of preserve life at any cost. A billion people can read that and have a billion different views on how it should be done. And while there will be overlaps they will each be different interpretations. To make any claim there is only one true possible way to interpret that is a drastic over simplification. If the Catalyst is a fundamentally broken machine then we humans are fundamentally broken as well. Hell the whole police shooting issue in the USA is based on that basic concept. Police are trained to use lethal force if they feel their lives are in danger. And everyone's interpenetration of what constitutes lives in danger is different leading to some making choices that to them were valid. While to everyone else was the moves of a trigger happy jack ass. If I asked you to make a great movie yours would be drastically different then mine. Are we fundamentally broken?

Why are you breaking this down into such elementary school level argument of there is only one possible way to view this and any other view is wrong?

I think you're misunderstanding the point slightly, it's not about reducing their technology to that of the actual Stone Age, but more to the point where their society, technology and basic levels of infrastructure would take anything centuries to millennia to recover.

Where the survivors main priority would be basic survival itself and trying to rebuild society from the ground up. So even if advanced technology and groups do survive in bunkers, that doesn't mean that it's going to be a priority compared with food, water and not being killed by other desperate survivors looking for the fancy gear they might have.

Even in this scenario you'd still have Reapers present as immortal machines who'd intervene if necessary. After all, if time is nothing to a Reaper, then what's really the difference between stepping in to hit the reset button every 1000 years and 50,000?

Well for one thing the body count would be a big difference. As in your set up would eventually have double if not triple the body count of the harvest cycle. Which is an interesting tidbit in your logic. How do you justify that logic? Because you are essentially saying that waterboarding and hooking up a car battery to someone's genitals is OK but murder is wrong.

As is they would focus on basic survival resources to save but eventually they would expand from there. First it is food and water then it is data bases of technology then it is entire factories to rebuild that technology. Even with just our existing technology now we could drill a cave system couple thousand miles below the surface and set it up to store supplies in. Food, water, computers, cars, etc. With people who know how to build, repair and operate being kept down there as well. Particularly since unlike the harvest cycle that leaves no trace of the Reapers existence the survivors of each attack would be able to let the following generations know about it and pass on information that would allow them to predict when the Reapers would attack and plan for it.

Billions of years and organic life still exists and synthetic life has not wiped it out and you say it achieved nothing to show for it? Perspective.

What tampering and corrupting the results from the interference? When you see the pattern and know what the pattern will do you don't need to see the end result to call it. If you are testing a cure to the Bubonic plague you don't need to watch the mouse die once you see the same pattern show up that means your current cure was as useless as the last 40 attempts. Hell the existence of the Quarian-Geth conflict actually proves it's point. So saying the Reapers interfere with anything is a pretty baseless argument.

I don't get what you are saying about the Protheans. Because it seems to be making the assumption that the Protheans were just a fluke and that normally nothing like that would ever happen. Meaning the Reaper plan was 100% fool proof minus the once in a billion year fluke. Because the Crucible was still build by the Protheans they how ever were never able to utilize it before it was sabotaged by indoctrinated agents. Due to the fact they lacked the Catalyst.

Actually it is 100% relevant because you are using the few years shown in game to validate why the cycle is unnecessary. Using the perspective of I see this therefore the Catalyst is wrong because it's information doesn't conform to my experiences and perspective. Your own reply shows how your perspective dominate your entire conversation is. An unwillingness to consider any view point other then your own.

Why do you assume it is expecting something different to happen?
qi.com/infocloud/playing-cards

The chances that anyone has ever shuffled a pack of cards in the same way twice in the history of the world are infinitesimally small, statistically speaking. The number of possible permutations of 52 cards is ‘52 factorial’ otherwise known as 52! or 52 shriek. This is 52 times 51 times 50 . . . all the way down to one. Here's what that looks like:
80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000.

To give you an idea of how many that is, here is how long it would take to go through every possible permutation of cards. If every star in our galaxy had a trillion planets, each with a trillion people living on them, and each of these people has a trillion packs of cards and somehow they manage to make unique shuffles 1,000 times per second, and they'd been doing that since the Big Bang, they'd only just now be starting to repeat shuffles.

If getting a repeat of a shuffled deck of cards is so statistically small then why would you think fundamental shifts in organic life's social and society structure would come so quickly?

Your logic seems to be following a similar path of why should we continue to fund research into a cure for cancer when they haven't cured it yet. Kind of ignoring all the small achievements that have been made like allowing people with cancer to manage most forms of it and expand their lives years or even decades longer then they would have had without it. Hell without the Reapers the Quarians wouldn't have survived the Morning War. No relays would mean a fundamental shift in how those races colonized and expanded with a much more condense colony set up to allow the quicker transportation of goods and supplies using standard FTL drives. Which means the Quarians would have to survive for week if not months with just the fuel, food, water, etc that they brought with them as they were evacuating the planet. And that is assuming they developed interstellar travel capabilities rather then just interplanetary.

Is suffering not suffering? Are you not benefiting from it? Your right a sweat shop isn't a fair comparison because a sweat shop is worse. The Reapers at least make it a quick suffering. You are alive then in only a few seconds you are gone while sweat shops work you day in and day out till people get so desperate they try to kill themselves. And you benefit because you have to pay 90 dollars less for your new iPhone for you to snap chat with your friends with. And that is just sweat shops not even counting regular jobs were there are millions of people who live pay check to pay check and have to put up with every stupid bullshit thing from their boss or customers if it is retail because if they miss a paycheck they are screwed. So they have no choice but to continue with a dead end job that they hate with their very soul but need to do it because without it they are homeless.

But hey juggle things around in your mind how ever you want. Humanity is great at justifying why one thing is bad but another thing is perfectly OK. Hey it isn't OK for group A to terrorize citizens by slamming a plane into a couple of skyscrapers. But it is OK for Group B to drone a country so much that the locals are pants shittingly afraid of the sky now because at any moment death can rain from above destroying building, causing damage and killing the innocent and non innocent. Hey when group A does it it is terrorism when group B does it is is peace keeping.

What nuances and reality of the world of Mass Effect universe is being ignored? The face the Quarians and Geth got into a fight that left the Quarian race reduced from several billion to a couple hundred thousand? The fact that EDI had to pretend to be a simple VI or risk being destroyed simply for being an AI? How about the fact that peace between Geth and Quarian only happens in game because the Reapers represent such a massive outside threat it over shadows their own conflict? While still requiring Shepard to call them all morons a lot to get them to stop fighting. The fact that entire military forces have become so reliant on technology that a single AI could create mass chaos and destruction if it went rouge? With EDI showing both examples when she took over the Luna training base and killed everyone in it and again later when she spammed terabytes of porn to the Cerberus systems when they tried to initiate it's recall function.

Your entire argument about the harvest being unnecessary is based on the same logic of they haven't cured cancer yet so we should cut all funding to cancer research. There isn't anything in game to actually prove it isn't necessary but plenty of events in game that show it is necessary. Agreeing with/supporting is not the same as thinking something is necessary. You don't have to agree with pulling the plug on grandma. But after a point when nothing can be done to improve her life and you are just prolonging her suffering it becomes necessary to do so to.

Liara was pretty surprised at just how different Javik and the Protheans were to current races. Even admitting that current social structures color possible perceptions of what the Protheans were really like she was very shocked and surprised to find the truth. Galaxy spanning conquers who offered you the choice to join their empire as slaves or be destroyed. Then you take into account slight technological differences like the Beacon Network that connected directly to the nervous system to send mental images and messages. Yea I would say the galaxy hasn't stagnated and each cycle new races show up.

So what part did I jump to conclusions over? The fact that the Protheans managed to hide several scientists on a hidden planet that was over looked during the harvest. Scientists that then altered the signal to the Keepers thus preventing the harvest from starting forcing Sovereign to look for alternative ways to activate the Citadel. Or how about the fact they transferred the files on the Crucible to an abandoned observatory outpost during the Reaper war? Or their intent to genetically modify the Asari in hopes of them developing to the point of joining their Empire. Then as soon as the Reapers attacked leaving a data base there and abandoning all contact with the planet. Those actions having repercussions of delaying the harvest and providing a way for that cycle to possibly stop the Reapers. Events that without them the entire game trilogy would not exist.

What proof do you have the Heretics were altered by a type of mathematical indoctrination? True they build a program to be used against the rest of the Geth but were is your prove they are only Heretics because of that mathematical indoctrination. Why would only a portion of the Geth and ultimately only a minority of them be effected but the rest would remain unaffected. Why would Sovereign settle for a slice of cake rather then having the whole cakes? Particularly since even if it was able to active the Citadel it would still need an army to participate in the harvest and having a well build up Geth army as the initial starting point would be the best option.

What proof do you have that says the Geth reached out to the Reapers because of the Heretics? Particularly since Legion's loyalty mission only has one of two possible out comes. Either you wipe out the Heretic base taking out a large number of them. Which didn't matter in the first place because at full strength they only represented about 20% of all Geth. Or you used the program to rewrite their minds to come to the same conclusion as the Legion aligned Geth.

Before this goes any farther there is some details that need to be talked about here.

Also I suggest you do a play though were Legion dies or is sold because the Geth VI is a lot less friendly. Very skeptical of organic life, can not understand why Legion would allow Shepard to make a choice about the Heretics. Generally very distrusting and an accurate representation of the Geth's view without Reaper interference. Mistrust and skepticism that organic life is anything more then a threat.

And because he could due to the city rebelling against the Empire. So test fire a single reactor because why the hell not. Just like how he blew up Allderann because Dantooine wasn't public enough even though it was the Rebel's base.

Those were also in various stages of working. Again this is pretty much pure head canon territory because we don't actually have a clue about how much damage was done with the destroy wave. It could simply fry the circuts leaving everything in tact or it could fry and destroy everything inside into an unworkable pile of molten metal.

Thanaix Cannons are based on the ME technology they already have but rather then use a slug they would use molten metal instead. Without the ME technology the ability to contain and fire the molten mixture would be impossible to replicate. Geth exploited a code that was being actively used against Legion while it remained conscious able to examine the code that was stored in it's body. Mordin was able to barely counter Collector Tech as the major point of the Suicide mission is walking though a heavy Swarmer area would be death requiring a strong Biotic to keep the barrier up or they would die. Henry found a way to control because of TIM and his own experiments with Reaper tech and the fact that TIM was already indoctrinated in some form and even then it took years with thousands of people being transformed before they found the simple control.

Actually looked that up but it seems to say that in ME:A that the Remnant technology talks different. Which is basically a fancy way of saying different program set up. Much like if you were use to C++ coding and you started working on a new form of coding lets say E++ there wouldn't be a lot of similarities to work on. But I haven't played Andromeda yet for several reasons so the context of the statement and use of it isn't full there for me to understand.

That is exactly what you are using to advocate for their destruction. They caused death so the only way those races that were harvested will be at peace is the destruction of the Reapers. Particularly when 2 our of the 4 endings has the Reapers turning from destruction into assisting the galaxy. Helping it rebuild, develop and grow beyond what it was before they started the harvest.

Or to put it another way the net gain of leaving them alive far out paces the net gain of wiping them out. When combined with the fact those net gains are companies by noticeable shifts in mentalities from we must harvest the advanced races to protect organic life into various degrees of we must protect and help all life now. The only reason to wipe them out is emotional reasons. And how do people justify emotional responds to actions? My using morality as their reasoning. Because their personal morality is the one true morality and anyone who thinks differently is flat out wrong.

Also as I have said before you haven't shown how they are fundamentally flawed. All you have done is say I think. Which is an opinion and everyone will have an opinion but not all opinions are correct. There is a planet sized amount of bullshit in politics and more specifically USA politics that are formed on the basis of this mentality. Health Care debate even bringing up the concept of some form of socialized health care will result in people screaming that it is socialism and that socialism is broken and flawed because Venezuela. Which ignores the specific cases of the actions of the Venezuelan government and the fact there are numerous countries in Europe that have various degrees of socialized health care and they function with less problems then in the USA. But because those systems are not 110% god's definition of perfection combined with the bad choices by the government of Venezuela that is all the I think justification they need to declare any form of socialized medicine a terrible idea that would destroy the USA.

Really your entire reply post could be focused only on the showing how you think the Reapers are flawed since that seems to be the crux of all your points.

Long term loss is rebuilding takes longer. Without Relays systems are isolated and weakened and spread thin military force can and will result in the deaths of thousands of people due to lack of medical supplies, food or water. Piracy of supplies and extortion of money to give those supplies to the highest bidder will be far more rampant. Over all adding a few more points to the total percentage of population loss due to the Reaper Invasion. Then there is the loss the Reapers as unique species not found anywhere else and the data contained within them on countless previous races that would be lost for ever. The Geth another unique race would be wiped from the face of the galaxy.

If the Krogan were to rebel again. Because I assume you cure the genophage regardless of if Wrex or Wreav is in charge and Eve lives or dies. Other wise you would be pretty hypocritical to complain about the Reapers wiping out an entire race because they didn't like the potential choices they will make then turn around and do the same to the Krogan because of the potential choices they might make. Allowing them to be a stand in military force to avoid unnecessary death of non aggressor races. Their lack of need of sleep, fuel or food would make them great anti pirate groups preventing those groups from attacking, killing, raping (lets be honest here that happened in game) and stealing supplies from colonies improving their over all quality of life.

The fact their combined intelligence and computing power makes them the single largest supercomputer ever build ever. Their knowledge light years a head of ours. If they choose to they would be capable of coming up with cures for diseases and illnesses that without them could take hundreds of years to figure out. Even if you wanted to use the logic of we could pull tech scraps out and reverse engineer all that would give is faster computers, more powerful weapons of mass destruction and faster ships. The actual information would be gone and it could be another 200 years of people watching their grandmother and/or grandfather's mental state slowly fall to the ravages of dementia.

That is the reason I don't like destroy. It to me is the pure emotional responds ending that doesn't fix anything. It is emotionally satisfying but at best you return to the status quo in a galaxy with technology so advanced it should be a paradise yet there are still people who live in poverty, murder and rob at will and hate each other because of how they look.

Dear Chairman,

I imagine this investigation of our program is providing you with the kind of attention that politicians crave so much. How very predictable. What has surprised me most about mankind during the Great War is not our ability to adapt to the new arenas of conflict, but instead, our willingness in victory to so quickly return to the old.

- Dr Leonard Church,

Red Vs Blue Reconstruction in reference to the changes humanity went though in the battle against the Covenant for the very existence of their race and the fact after the war everything started to change back to the way it was before. A statement that while before was just a non cannon statement made by a fictional character not officially in the Halo universe but since Halo 3 those words have become very real in the official cannon and I see nothing that would change that logic being applied to a post Destroy ME galaxy.

Did any of that rambling have an actual point to it besides "humans suck"?

Still doesn't negate the fact that Reapers are weapons of destruction, built for that sole purpose.

Yes but it apparently went over your head. You claim the reapers are weapons of destruction build for that sole purpose yet their technology and devices they build and left behind to be found and utilized still provide massive benefits for the races of the galaxy.

It is also showing how much the pot calling the kettle black your logic is. We continue to invent more and more powerful weapons capable of even grander levels of death and destruction. As it stands now we have the capability to destroy our planet rendering it a Fallout style hell hole. By the time we reach the ME universe level of technology it is within every advanced race's power to wipe out all life in the galaxy. The Krogan Rebellion is a classic example of the destructive power those races have. Because during it not only were millions of lives lost but the Krogan using that technology destroyed dozens of garden worlds by dropping asteroids on them. Rendering their ecosystem ruined for thousands of years for it to recover if it ever does. Yet at the same time the Krogan are capable of good and being helpful like their action in the Reaper invasion. Acting has heavy troops to support ground forces like the Turians and Quarians. That Eve and Wrex want to build a better life and not repeat the same mistakes of the past.

And I already covered the hypocrisy of not always curing the geophage yet not liking the Reaper's actions. But how are the Reapers any different then our own history or the Krogan's? Other then they are just better at it then both cases?

Last time I checked, we don't derive our purpose, function, views and ideals from a broken AI with extremely bad programming...

Can't help but notice that isn't actually answering my question. What logic do you have to say our programming isn't just as flawed? What if we are the insane ones and the Reapers are the only sane ones. But because we are so crazy sanity seems crazy to us? The logic behind the formation of Cerberus and it's goals are both stupid and smart at the same time. But how do you know which is the correct one? Is Cerberus filled with a bunch of crazy xenophobic ass holes? Or are they brilliant people doing the unpleasant but necessary job to protect humanity in an unforgiving galaxy?

This is that perspective statement I made before comes into play. You seem unwilling to have or view any perspective but your own and anything that fails to line up with your personal perspective is flawed and broken. Yet there is nothing that actually supports your personal perspective is the correct one other then it is yours. Morality is an abstract concept that has no set definition and is different for everyone. Logic is some times counter intuitive that would seem to give the opposite effect it should have. Case in point most people would be against hunting animals like lions or elephants due to their threatened nature. Yet the act of hunting them legally and the income that can be derived from killing them actually helps them more. It encourages local land owners to set aside more land for those animals to use rather then be used for farming or cattle. It also encourages them to stop poachers from coming in and killing elephants and such. Because doing so is directly effecting their profitability and keeping a large population of elephants on and near their property means they can make more money off them.

The whole concept seems counter intuitive yet for every 1 lion killed two dozen will benifit from it. There are a lot of similarities between that and the Reaper's apparently counter intuitive logic.

How is that re programed? How could the Reapers be simply programmed yet Sovereign, Harbinger and even the Rannoch Destroyer all have unique individual personalities? Why even give personalities if they are only programed for a singular purpose? We actually have a great measure of the autonomy that individual Rachni have not controlled by the Queen. Several side quests in ME 1 involve dealing with Rachni colonies. One was capable of testing and killing most of an Alliance base before Shepard stepped in to help out and wiped out the nest. There was no queen to direct and control yet they were capable of making coordinated attacks. Then you have the entire mission on Noveria were the Rachni were able to engage in probing attacks.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the gross oversimplification of the concept of AI's. Saying they are reprogrammed simply because they changed their behavior is exactly like the General statement. Because at first they were blowing up a town then they surrender then the soldiers were all reprogrammed by the General due to the change in the situation to now help rebuild.

Hell this asinine logic could be applied to a ton of real world events. Hate your job because a coworker is a pain or slacks making you do double the work to compensate for them. They are one day fired or quit so you now no longer need to do double the work and you find you enjoy your job now? Congratulations you have just been reprogrammed because you went from hating your job to enjoying it because the situations changed.

Yet you still chose to use the word race and done so in a way that is hard without the verbal or visual inflection that would give away intent in a face to face conversation. As well as I would like you to be a bit more specific about exactly why you seem to think the Reapers harvest life. Because you seem to be arguing 2 or 3 different specific reasons why. Before it was flawed logic now you seem to be arguing they do it simply because other races are inferior to them. Which contradicts your earlier claim of flawed logic because by every measurable definition the Reapers are superior.

As life has advanced so has the quality of life and the capability for self improvement to a point anyways. Social problems are reduced and lessened as people develop, grown and become more open minded about stuff. The concept of gay marriage or women serving in active combat roles now are or were major issues yet in the ME uinverse no one bats an eye at two guys or two girls kissing and Ash, Laria, Miranda, Jack, Tali,etc are able to stand on the front lines just as easily as any guy. Tali despite being rased by someone very anti Geth to the point of practically abandoning his family in his pursuit of finding a way to wipe them out for his daughter's sake. Is still capable of developing a connection with Legion and seeing the Geth as more then just the bogey man of their past that the Quarians have no choice but to wipe out if they ever want their home planet back. This is a continuation of this trend. Further advancement and enlightenment means those problems are reduced if not removed.

What stops the same old squabbles if the fact everyone is an equal now. Before synthetic life would develop at a pace much faster then organic life. They are the hare to the organic life's tortoise. Post singularity event the scales are equalized no more is it a tortoise vs a hare but a hare vs a hare. If a conflict does break out it wouldn't be a biplane verse an F 14 Tomcat. It would be a Tomcat vs a Super Hornet. Equal battle field so one doesn't have complete superiority over the other.

Again depends on your definition of carrier and use of fighter craft. Concept was there the Alliance simply expanded on it. It also fits the basic set up of Alliance combat which is hit and run. The Alliance military operates in a similar fashion to Calvary charges. In fact if you wanted to you could easily set each race's military doctrine to ye olde times military formations.

That being said you can not blame humanity for wanting a seat on the Council. How ever you can blame them for demanding it so soon. How would your parents react or how would you react if your 20 year old son started demanding they get a say in all major decisions in the house hold? Particularly when your older siblings/children haven't been so forward and demanding over it?

It is a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and suddenly Humanity wants everything changed because it doesn't suit their wants.

Yet you put emphasis on the fact that it had a human group to crack the code. In fact your entire argument is based on the concept of the Turians being stuck in a rut and only the inclusion of Humanity caused them to change out of it. So no I'm not putting new words in your mouth. I'm putting the same words you just said back into your mouth and saying how silly I think they are. Which continues to the next point of the human admiral was so willing to retain the old ways of thinking then consider the new possibilities of the stealth system. Which again negates the emphasis on the human factor being necessary to crack the stealth system code. And you are correct it doesn't negate the necessary requirement to play catch up to the Reapers. How ever it does reduce your stance that the races of the galaxy were stuck in a rut. I mean why would you bother to research the ability to keep several metals in a liquid state and fire them out at high velocity when a 20 kilo slug is capable of destroying ships and impacting planets with the force of a nuclear explosion?

I mean if isn't broken why fix it?

So you're simply going to ignore all the times that Javik explains why the Asari were considered their best hope... hence why he's so disappointed with them?

Like much of the Prothean lore that doesn't really hold up all that much to scrutiny. To start the Protheans started to nurture Asari culture long before the Reapers hit. Their intent to make the Asari a race that would be able to join their empire. Once the Reapers invaded they abandon all their observatory outposts for all lesser races. IE Asari, Human, Salarian, etc.

Nothing about the Prothean's actions with the Asari are set up that they were doing it during the invasion as a hope for the next cycle. In fact Javik's entire back story and the reason he is around is because his group was planning to awaken post harvest and conquer all the lesser races and us the 50,000 years of prep time to turn them into a military force capable of taking on the Reapers. So if the Asari were the Prothean ace in the hole then why did Javik attempt to send himself and thousands of other Protheans into stasis to wait out the harvest and awaken in the next cycle?

How ever as FTL speed increase that over a day would be reduced to maybe 6 hours. The Reapers are capable of FTL speed 3 times faster then what races like Asari or Humanity can achieve. Covering a distance that would have taken a year or two in only 6 months. With that increase in speed it would render the need for so many new smaller Relays to be pointless. Or at least question how important they would be to build beyond learning what is needed to enact repairs or replace if something happened. Like the Ilos Relay being blow away due to a super nova.

Look before you leap is an old saying with a lot of intelligence behind it. Jurassic Park is basically a massive alegory for just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Hell there is a whole speech by Ian Malcolm about just that.

It was the Asari and their wait and see mentality that stepped in to mediate the peace between the Turian and Allinace. They had no idea if the Allinace would be another Rachni or Krogan force that would wage war and cause death and destruction. But they choose the path of wait and see and not let the heated feeling of the Turians wipe out humanity before they could develop to the potential powerful ally they could be.

Announcements

Recent Threads

If Bioware ever decides to choose a canon ending for Mass Effect 3, which one would you prefer?

Post by Dr. Vanity on May 9, 2017 4:26:23 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 9, 2017 5:53:47 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 9, 2017 5:55:04 GMT

Post by dmc1001 on May 9, 2017 5:57:50 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 9, 2017 13:02:38 GMT

Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 13:56:08 GMT

Post by dmc1001 on May 11, 2017 2:29:27 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 11, 2017 12:48:18 GMT

Post by Dr. Vanity on May 11, 2017 13:43:59 GMT

Post by stephenw32768 on May 11, 2017 17:48:24 GMT

Post by dmc1001 on May 12, 2017 2:16:36 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 12, 2017 12:12:00 GMT

Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 18:00:19 GMT

Post by dmc1001 on May 12, 2017 20:05:15 GMT

Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 21:15:14 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 12, 2017 21:36:24 GMT

Post by Sifr on May 13, 2017 2:18:03 GMT

Post by olimae on May 13, 2017 2:58:53 GMT

Post by brfritos on May 14, 2017 7:22:17 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 14, 2017 12:47:15 GMT

Post by stephenw32768 on May 14, 2017 13:11:03 GMT

Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 13:50:12 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 17, 2017 3:02:49 GMT

Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 17:09:34 GMT

Post by gothpunkboy89 on May 17, 2017 18:29:06 GMT