Mass Effect 3

[Saquist]

PsychoPere wrote:

---

Yeah, a link to the VGA trailer was already posted.

As for the "contradictions," again, you're seeing "contradictions" in a story that isn't even finished yet.

That's fine.
But the contradictions still exist. If the Third Game bridges those contradictions later...that's fine but for now they are still directly opposed concepts.

You must know that because while you put the bunny ears on the word contradiction you didn't explain how Hanukkah Solo's information can possibly be resolved since we know Sovereign had no BIOLOGY in it according to the Council that identified it as truly Geth to support their incredulity.

There are many problems between ME1 and 2 that start with the story attempting to explain why the Council didn't believe the Reapers existed that I suspect will never be resolved.

1. They said Sovereign was all Geth Tech but the Geth but in ME2 a Reaper is partly biological.

2.They say Vigil lacked the power to activate but they can power other prothean devices such as at the Prothean Ruins Liara was found at.

3. Why wasn't the conversation recorded with Vigil such as Tali did in ME1 with a tech tool?

4. Sovereign being a Geth doesn't explain how he used the Relay Monument to bypass Citadel defenses, nor how he had direct control of the Citadel even though the Station personnel could not. The Geth had never been on the Citadel. How could they known about the Monument?

5. What about the mind control Indoctrination that Krahae's Men were subjected to? There were survivors, the doctor and Salarian Shepard let go (if you did it) That wasn't a Geth Technology. There were bodies..evidence to this...the Matriarch and others...

It's hard to believe with all this evidence both the Human Council and the Alien Council dismissed the attack on the Citadel as Geth. They should be able to verify that the Citadel is nothing more than Massive mass relay two years later. I think if you're looking for an explanation for all this in the third game, you'll be disappointed. ME2 was simple in constructed...a shooter but it wasn't the well designed story line of ME1. And it seems unlikely they can pull it all together in a seamless single construct that makes sense for the end game.

They had that opportunity in the Downloadable content.
I think the only way to look at the saga now after the second game is like how we look at much of trek. Inharmonious but a good product nonetheless.

[TheGodBen]

Saquist wrote:

---

He said Organic life is nothing but a mutation....Nothing but.
That means it's all unintentional unless they manipulate it.

You're taking an insane, genocidal machine on its word.

If you were to ask a creationist to describe the evolutionary process then they would likely use words like "mutation" and "accident" too because they're either ignorant about how the process actually works, or they willingly distort the truth to support their preferred philosophy. The Reapers are the same, they have a philosophy that drives them to do whatever it is they're doing, and they're willing to distort the truth of how organic life actually works to excuse their evil agenda.

Why not..their not antithesis to each other they mean different things. One means length of time the other means change.

Well, unless you think that a fleet of giant machines flew out of the singularity that existed "before" the big bang, they're not eternal. If they formed naturally over the billions of years that followed... well, so did we, just by a different method. They could be eternal if they originate from outside our universe, but there's no evidence to suggest that.

Saquist wrote:

---

That's great you guys agree with each other. But that doesn't explain the contradiction of GOD machines that have always existed that view the organic as inferior and yet need organic material to exist.

Most humans consider our species to be special somehow and that animals animals are inferior, but most of us eat meat. Hell, even vegetarians have no qualms with eating plants, and there's not many people that are going to tell you we're inferior to a head of lettuce.

And once again, the Reapers aren't gods, they're just machines with a god complex. The only beings that worship them are a group of Geth that were infected with a rounding error.

IF that was true they would have found that in Sovereign, but they didn't and said it was merely Geth Tech. Are we watching the same game and reading the same quotes because I'm seeing full contradictions across the board. (or close to it)

The three main council races have a vested interest in pretending that the Reapers aren't real; to stop the rise of humanity. They fear us, especially the Turians, and they don't want us gaining more influence by leading a crusade against the ultimate enemy. Whether the Council believes their own lies or not remains to be seen.

[Saquist]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

You're taking an insane, genocidal machine on its word.

But that's humanism. Just because he doesn't share the importance of human centric thinking doesn't mean he's being dishonest.

If you were to ask a creationist to describe the evolutionary process then they would likely use words like "mutation" and "accident" too because they're either ignorant about how the process actually works, or they willingly distort the truth to support their preferred philosophy. The Reapers are the same, they have a philosophy that drives them to do whatever it is they're doing, and they're willing to distort the truth of how organic life actually works to excuse their evil agenda.

Evolution doesn't know how evolution works. This is theory. We're talking about machines that according to the story would know. There really no sense in taking this into an evolution vs creation is there?

Well, unless you think that a fleet of giant machines flew out of the singularity that existed "before" the big bang, they're not eternal. If they formed naturally over the billions of years that followed... well, so did we, just by a different method. They could be eternal if they originate from outside our universe, but there's no evidence to suggest that.

If you believe in the Big Bang which apparently even if they did it had no effect on them. That's why I called them "God Machines."

Most humans consider our species to be special somehow and that animals animals are inferior, but most of us eat meat. Hell, even vegetarians have no qualms with eating plants, and there's not many people that are going to tell you we're inferior to a head of lettuce.

That's an awful analogy! You can't possibly think this is a proper response to the primary contradiction?

And once again, the Reapers aren't gods, they're just machines with a god complex. The only beings that worship them are a group of Geth that were infected with a rounding error.

I'm just going by what was said and nothing else, dude. Always existed and claim to always will.

The three main council races have a vested interest in pretending that the Reapers aren't real; to stop the rise of humanity. They fear us, especially the Turians, and they don't want us gaining more influence by leading a crusade against the ultimate enemy. Whether the Council believes their own lies or not remains to be seen.

We weren't told that they were wrong... Shepard never questions the evidence. He never fought them on the points...so as far as the story is concerned there is no problem with the councils verdict.

It's as though the only difference is a point of view. But you explanation doesn't even answer why the human council is just as ignorant of the evidence...

I understand you guys like this game but I'm really shocked how you're willing to just close your eyes and ears here to these plot problems as though pointing out these logistical problems are going to spoil your enjoyment....com'on at least if you're going to attempt to explain it lets not ignore the Human council has no reason to distrust Shepard.

[-Brett-]

The shuttle ride to nowhere was a legitimate plot problem.

Taking Sovereign literally when it says it's kind have no origin and deriving plot issues from that is stretching.

[TheGodBen]

Saquist wrote:

---

But that's humanism. Just because he doesn't share the importance of human centric thinking doesn't mean he's being dishonest.

It doesn't mean it's being honest either, and considering that it's trying to kill my entire species because it "demands it" I have no reason to trust it at all.

Evolution doesn't know how evolution works. This is theory. We're talking about machines that according to the story would know. There really no sense in taking this into an evolution vs creation is there?

I'm not planning to, unless you want to defend the supposed merits of creationism. My point was that any idiot can abuse reality to support their philosophy, it happens in the real world all the time, so why should I trust Sovereign when it could be doing exactly the same thing?

You can't just accept what Sovereign says at face value, it is a villain, they're not well known for telling the truth.

If you believe in the Big Bang which apparently even if they did it had no effect on them. That's why I called them "God Machines."

Except the Reapers would have been infinitely bigger than the universe itself. Not to mention that the Reapers, like all physical objects, are composed of atoms, and atoms didn't exist at the beginning of the universe.

Of course, it is possible that the consciousness of the Reapers existed from the beginning and that their ships are just physical constructs that came later, but that goes into a realm of science that I'm not willing to delve into without hallucinogens on hand.

That's an awful analogy! You can't possibly think this is a proper response to the primary contradiction?

I do, but only because I disregard the notion that the Reapers are gods or eternal. I just consider them to be a different form of life, albeit a very condescending one. (Which is actually the same way I'd view any so-called gods that ending up being real.)

I'm just going by what was said and nothing else, dude. Always existed and claim to always will.

I walked past a guy in town a couple of weeks ago that claimed I was going to burn for eternity in a fiery pit. Doesn't mean he's right. I'm almost certain that he's not.

We weren't told that they were wrong... Shepard never questions the evidence. He never fought them on the points...so as far as the story is concerned there is no problem with the councils verdict.

No, it just means that Shepard knows it's pointless to confront the Council once they've made their mind up about something. If Shepard being proved right continually in the first game isn't enough to convince the Council, what hope would he have now? It doesn't mean that there's no evidence that the Reapers are real, just that the Council are going to deny it for as long as they can get away with it.

It's as though the only difference is a point of view. But you explanation doesn't even answer why the human council is just as ignorant of the evidence...

I think it's perfectly explained by Udina in ME1 when he sided with the Council in grounding the Normandy so as not to risk the influence humanity had gained. Even if Anderson is chosen to join the Council, one man cannot overcome the bureaucracy inherent in the system.

I understand you guys like this game but I'm really shocked how you're willing to just close your eyes and ears here to these plot problems as though pointing out these logistical problems are going to spoil your enjoyment....com'on at least if you're going to attempt to explain it lets not ignore the Human council has no reason to distrust Shepard.

There are problems with ME2, I'm perfectly willing to admit that. The narrative structure wasn't as good as in the first game, it was a little absurd how each character had a personal errand they wanted you to go on, the human Reaper looked silly... but overall, I felt it was a better game. I don't see the contradictions you mention as I do not believe they exist, at least not in the way you explain them.

[Saquist]

-Brett- wrote:

---

The shuttle ride to nowhere was a legitimate plot problem.

Taking Sovereign literally when it says it's kind have no origin and deriving plot issues from that is stretching.

You mean you don't believe him on the basis of incredulity.
...that's not enough...at least not for me. I'm searching for a more reasonable explanation.

TheGodBen wrote:

---

It doesn't mean it's being honest either, and considering that it's trying to kill my entire species because it "demands it" I have no reason to trust it at all.

It's testimony. To invalidate it you must have opposing testimony or evidence to the contrary. Incredulity is the most thinnest vapor-less reason for disbelief. I'm sorry I see no other choice given the evidence to take him at his word.

I'm not planning to, unless you want to defend the supposed merits of creationism. My point was that any idiot can abuse reality to support their philosophy, it happens in the real world all the time, so why should I trust Sovereign when it could be doing exactly the same thing?

I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.
Do you have any real reason other than your dislike of Sovereign's behavior to find his statements false?

You can't just accept what Sovereign says at face value, it is a villain, they're not well known for telling the truth.

As an objective observer I have no choice.
Untill he says something contradictory to previous statements are what I know is true in the game...I must take it at face value. That's the nature of a unbiased judgment.

Except the Reapers would have been infinitely bigger than the universe itself. Not to mention that the Reapers, like all physical objects, are composed of atoms, and atoms didn't exist at the beginning of the universe.

How do you know this?
How do you know that their form hasn't evolved or that they they've changed themselves to enter our universe? They maybe Avatars.

Of course, it is possible that the consciousness of the Reapers existed from the beginning and that their ships are just physical constructs that came later,

ah so you do understand what I'm saying.

I do, but only because I disregard the notion that the Reapers are gods or eternal. I just consider them to be a different form of life, albeit a very condescending one. (Which is actually the same way I'd view any so-called gods that ending up being real.)

I understand but this just took the form of a belief and how am I supposed to compare a belief to testimony of Sovereign as anything more than an opposing opinion?

I walked past a guy in town a couple of weeks ago that claimed I was going to burn for eternity in a fiery pit. Doesn't mean he's right. I'm almost certain that he's not.

That's just as much a confidence statement as his proclamation.

No, it just means that Shepard knows it's pointless to confront the Council once they've made their mind up about something. If Shepard being proved right continually in the first game isn't enough to convince the Council, what hope would he have now? It doesn't mean that there's no evidence that the Reapers are real, just that the Council are going to deny it for as long as they can get away with it.

...eh...that' not a direct inference and the syllogism would have a hard time standing up to logic. Like my statement it's merely a possible meaning.

Without the contradiction by Shepard it's an acquiescence to the facts they've given. He may not think it's worth contradicting but there is no basis now to say the council's objections are false.

I think it's perfectly explained by Udina in ME1 when he sided with the Council in grounding the Normandy so as not to risk the influence humanity had gained. Even if Anderson is chosen to join the Council, one man cannot overcome the bureaucracy inherent in the system.

Ugh...that's far from perfect as explanations go. You had to regress all they way back to ME1 to explain a completely independent decision in ME2 of a clear and present danger that isn't acted upon.

You see you're looking at a New Yorker Suit jacket that's full of lose threads and saying" That looks good." when I rather see shoddy workmanship and bad tailoring. This isn't air tight.

There are problems with ME2, I'm perfectly willing to admit that. The narrative structure wasn't as good as in the first game, it was a little absurd how each character had a personal errand they wanted you to go on, the human Reaper looked silly... but overall, I felt it was a better game. I don't see the contradictions you mention as I do not believe they exist, at least not in the way you explain them.

Hmmm....you don't believe...they exist.

Oh, well. I laid it out as objectively as I could. There were some interesting theories but the mesh isn't perfect. The first game will be a classic for what seems to be a perfectly composed plot, reveals and twist. I think it's too bad that the Second Game couldn't at least hold the continuity. On it's own ME2 is an good game made better by the downloadable content but it's barely a match for the perfection of the first game because of these contradictions and like you said these character quest that were nothing more than high artillery errands. But still worth the play and many many ways.

[Reverend]

Saquist wrote:

---

That's how I looked at it too after this game but...logically it doesn't make any sense for machines to be Reaping flesh if they are eternal, view as inferrior and they have always had existed. Everything about their actions is contradictory after ME2.

But they weren't using flesh, they were using a paste of raw genetic material. Essentially, genetic material is just the organic way of carrying information. So with that in mind, it seams far more likely that they were after the information contained in human DNA and as much of it as possible.

The Reapers didn't have Stealth or Cloak.

Really? A ship that large creeping around and nobody spotted it on sensors until they actually saw the thing land on Eden Prime? I'd call that pretty damn stealthy. As for a cloaking system; that's a bit of a straw man argument as the only one we know about is the one used by infiltrators (i.e. people) not ships.

The Reapers didn't have Asari abilities
The Reapers didn't have Normandy's powerful Turian canon that broke the back of a vessel that was 20 times larger and powerful.

You mean this thing? It's based on Sovereign's weapon. You know, the one that cut Alliance cruisers in half like they were made of paper?
As for having "Asari abilities"; for one thing, biotic abilities are the result of a body exposed to element zero and have little nodules of the stuff throughout it's nervous system. What it basically mean is the body becomes a mass effect field generator, like the ones that power shields, fire projectiles and propel ships. So yes, Reapers DO have "Asari abilities."

[TheGodBen]

Saquist wrote:

---

It's testimony. To invalidate it you must have opposing testimony or evidence to the contrary.

Or you can call into question the character of the witness and expose any biases they may have. For example, if OJ Simpson were to testify for a friend of his that is accused of murdering his wife, the jury are going to have a hard time taking him seriously.

The Reapers have an agenda, and their agenda is mass genocide. I have a very hard time accepting Sovereign's account as being impartial considering that fact.

I'm sorry I see no other choice given the evidence to take him at his word.

Given the evidence, I see absolutely no reason to take him at his word and I fail to understand why any person would.

I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.

I don't know why, I always make perfect sense. Just look at my sig.

As an objective observer I have no choice.

Okay, I'm about to Godwin the thread, but here goes:

If an alien arrived on Earth in 1944, with almost no understanding of human societies, and found themselves in a Nazi concentration camp where they were told that they had to be killed for the purity of the German race, should that alien accept the testimony of the Nazis as being the objective truth?

You should never take information from a single source as being objective truth, especially when that information comes from the villain in a piece of fiction.

How do you know this?

Because that's what all the evidence and mathematical models derived from peer review suggest at present. The models could be faulty and we are almost certainly lacking important evidence that will alter the theory over time, but it would take major new evidence to disprove some sort of big bang event as being the origin of the universe's current form.

How do you know that their form hasn't evolved or that they they've changed themselves to enter our universe? They maybe Avatars.

They certainly could be, but I don't remember any suggestion or evidence in ME1 that pointed to an extra-dimensional origin for the Reapers. And if they do come from outside our universe, what use would our technology be to them?

I understand but this just took the form of a belief and how am I supposed to compare a belief to testimony of Sovereign as anything more than an opposing opinion?

No, belief is when you trust a person or an idea with no evidence backing it up. Not trusting someone because they don't have any supporting evidence is not belief.

That's just as much a confidence statement as his proclamation.

Not exactly because I said I'm almost certain, I always leave open some room for doubt. However, given the lack of evidence to support his proclamation, I feel relatively safe in disregarding his claim, and I feel the same way about the Reapers.

Without the contradiction by Shepard it's an acquiescence to the facts they've given. He may not think it's worth contradicting but there is no basis now to say the council's objections are false.

Certainly, the Council's claims could be true, and they could have reached their judgement that Sovereign was a Geth ship based on the evidence available to them. But given the incompetence of the Council as displayed in the first game, and their willingness to disregard Shepard's claims even though he kept being proven correct, I believe there is precedent for my point of view.

You see you're looking at a New Yorker Suit jacket that's full of lose threads and saying" That looks good." when I rather see shoddy workmanship and bad tailoring. This isn't air tight.

And you remind me of that priest in Father Ted that kept on breaking things to "prove" the shoddy workmanship.

"They're cowboys, Ted!"

[Saquist]

TheGodBen wrote:

---

Or you can call into question the character of the witness and expose any biases they may have.

That's true.
Yet it's not equivalent to testimony. It's discrediting the witness and it often doesn't lead to reasonable doubt in favor of convictions.

Okay, I'm about to Godwin the thread, but here goes:

If an alien arrived on Earth in 1944, with almost no understanding of human societies, and found themselves in a Nazi concentration camp where they were told that they had to be killed for the purity of the German race, should that alien accept the testimony of the Nazis as being the objective truth?

1-Nazi Germany would have the considerable burden of proving their race was pure to being with.

2-The only way one could threaten the perceived purity is to mate with a German. Which the mere act of existing does not quantify in of it's self.

Since these assertions are false the testimony is not only discredited but countered by reason and logic.

They certainly could be, but I don't remember any suggestion or evidence in ME1 that pointed to an extra-dimensional origin for the Reapers. And if they do come from outside our universe, what use would our technology be to them?

I do not know.
There is not enough information to make a more accurate speculation.

No, belief is when you trust a person or an idea with no evidence backing it up. Not trusting someone because they don't have any supporting evidence is not belief.

I'm afraid belief describes a state of mind that is irrelevant to having evidence or not, according to the definition. Any cognitive content held as true. You're speaking of a philosophy.

Reverend wrote:

---

But they weren't using flesh, they were using a paste of raw genetic material. Essentially, genetic material is just the organic way of carrying information. So with that in mind, it seams far more likely that they were after the information contained in human DNA and as much of it as possible.

I'm not sure of the difference between using flesh and using genetic material you're trying to make but I've seen some BIOWARE information that says these human form reapers are indeed the heart of real Reapers and that every Reaper has reaped species inside.

That means there is a fundamental change between Sovereign and the other Reapers. Even the Second Reaper found at the edge of the Gas Giant under the study of Cerberus didn't reveal anything organic.

I hope for the sake of the story that you're right that their extracting information as absurd as that is. (So many better ways to do it) Because there is no way to keep that genetic material viable for 50,000 years let alone Billions of years.

Really? A ship that large creeping around and nobody spotted it on sensors until they actually saw the thing land on Eden Prime? I'd call that pretty damn stealthy. As for a cloaking system; that's a bit of a straw man argument as the only one we know about is the one used by infiltrators (i.e. people) not ships.

I'm sure it's "stealth" as far as being discreet but the Turian Fleet had no problems tracking it's approach to the Citadel.
And no it's not a Strawman to exemplify a technology which combat forces have shown to use which the Sovereign/Saren form did not use while yet using many other forms of tech.

You mean this thing? It's based on Sovereign's weapon. You know, the one that cut Alliance cruisers in half like they were made of paper?

Big ship destroy small ship: Sure it has the power.
Small ship destroy big ship: Now that's special.

If Fire power wasn't a factor then the only use for the Geth is Canon Fodder but clearly Sovereign couldn't handle the offensive requirements for destroying a whole fleet. His armament was at least limited in number. But there was no rapid fire from Sovereign. It's likely he wasn't a true offensive weapon at all. Perhaps he merely had Offensive weaponry.

As for having "Asari abilities"; for one thing, biotic abilities are the result of a body exposed to element zero and have little nodules of the stuff throughout it's nervous system. What it basically mean is the body becomes a mass effect field generator, like the ones that power shields, fire projectiles and propel ships. So yes, Reapers DO have "Asari abilities."

According to the wiki, biotics of other races are produced by exposure to element zero. The Asari biotics have a natural ability independent of element zero to manipulate dark energy. This is done by eezo nodules and while technology might be able to create the same effects on ships we mostly haven't seen it but technology certainly hasn't produced the same effects on a human level without that element zero exposure. (not that we've seen)

For instance the Heretic Geth had no such ability
Yet the Collectors did.

They seemed to have drawn a strict line between biology and technology.

[Skywalker]

Asari biotics are not developed independent of exposure to element zero. That's impossible in the Mass Effect setting. It's more likely that Thessia, the asari homeworld, has element zero in its planetary makeup (in addition to the standard stuff like iron, nickel, etc.), exposing all life on Thessia--including the asari--to element zero and thus giving them biotic abilities. That means asari probably even have a little element zero in their own bodies, similar to how humans have iron in theirs.

[TheGodBen]

Saquist wrote:

---

That's true.
Yet it's not equivalent to testimony. It's discrediting the witness and it often doesn't lead to reasonable doubt in favor of convictions.

It does discredit the testimony if you can show that the one testifying is biased in some way. If you put a self-declared Nazi on the stand and ask them to describe Jewish people, it wont be flattering, and you can't say that it is an objective truth.

Sovereign has a bias against organic life, it's trying to kill us, so why should I trust it to tell the truth about us?

1-Nazi Germany would have the considerable burden of proving their race was pure to being with.

Exactly! That's my point. Sovereign can claim that the Reapers are god-like and that organic life is an accident as much as it wants, but if it doesn't provide evidence for it's claims then why would you believe it?

I'm afraid belief describes a state of mind that is irrelevant to having evidence or not, according to the definition. Any cognitive content held as true. You're speaking of a philosophy.

Well okay, I wont get into the philosphical distinction between belief and knowledge as that's beside the point, and it was my mistake in swerving off the path like that.

However, the point was that you believe Sovereign is telling the truth and I believe it is not. Without evidence to support either of our positions, you can't claim that your position is more valid than my position, and vice versa. At least, that was the way things used to be, ME2 has now provided some evidence that the Reapers have their origins in organic life, which suggests that Sovereign wasn't telling the whole truth in ME1.

If you want to continue to believe Sovereign and claim that ME2 contradicts ME1, there's nothing I can do to stop you, but I hope that you can see now why I don't see any contradictions as I didn't believe Sovereign's claims in the first place.

[Saquist]

Hanukkah Solo wrote:

---

Asari biotics are not developed independent of exposure to element zero. That's impossible in the Mass Effect setting. It's more likely that Thessia, the asari homeworld, has element zero in its planetary makeup (in addition to the standard stuff like iron, nickel, etc.), exposing all life on Thessia--including the asari--to element zero and thus giving them biotic abilities. That means asari probably even have a little element zero in their own bodies, similar to how humans have iron in theirs.

Even though the focus seems to be element zero, manipulation of dark energy is the ability that is natural to the asari.

It doesn't discount your theory...but there maybe more than one way to reach that ability to manipulate dark energy than just element zero exposure.

TheGodBen wrote:

---

Exactly! That's my point. Sovereign can claim that the Reapers are god-like and that organic life is an accident as much as it wants, but if it doesn't provide evidence for it's claims then why would you believe it?

You miss my point. My fault perhaps. We knew even back then that there was no such thing as a pure race. That was a philosophy not a truth. We knew it as a false statement. We don't know if Sovereign's assertion are false, there is no common frame of reference from which to make that conclusion indirectly. What is needed is the direct opposition of fact and or self contradiction.

However, the point was that you believe Sovereign is telling the truth and I believe it is not. Without evidence to support either of our positions, you can't claim that your position is more valid than my position, and vice versa. At least, that was the way things used to be, ME2 has now provided some evidence that the Reapers have their origins in organic life, which suggests that Sovereign wasn't telling the whole truth in ME1.

That's not exactly accurate. I don't believe anything concerning the veracity of Sovereign's statements. As an objective observer I merely can't make the assertion that he is lying without cause. In other words I can't slander him. A judge can't baselessly decide who's telling the truth or whose lying. Testimony is treated as strongly as evidence but it can be overturned by evidence. It may present evidence in a different light or perspective. But evidence can definitely overrule testimony outright (if it's the right evidence)

1-On the one had we have witnesses (The Council) who say that the Sovereign Reaper was mere Geth tech. ME2. Further the debris field itself (of Sovereign) before the entire Fleet is reasonable proof of no biological components.

2-The second Reaper discovered by politically independent sources (Cerberus Research) discover no biological components. ME2

3-On the other hand Sovereign claims flesh is inferior decays an dies but they are eternal.

4-Shepard and EDI Identitfy (method unknown) that the Skeleton Machine is a Reaper and liquefied remains of humans are being used to fill it. (purpose unknown)

Sources 1-3 are consistent with one another.
Source 4 Contradicts sources 1-3

The evidence of both Reaper ships supports Sovereign's testimony that organic flesh is inferior and temporary. Source 4 is an exceedingly large plot hole in ME2 whether or not it's resolved in ME3.

[Skywalker]

Saquist wrote:

---

Even though the focus seems to be element zero, manipulation of dark energy is the ability that is natural to the asari.

It doesn't discount your theory...but there maybe more than one way to reach that ability to manipulate dark energy than just element zero exposure.

If the asari were able to manipulate dark energy through a manner differently than how humans, turians, krogan, etc., do it, then it would have been mentioned in the Codex somewhere. Until we hear otherwise, the only way possible for an organic species to actively manipulate dark energy is through physical exposure to element zero. There is zero evidence for the asari being able to use biotics in any other way.

[Saquist]

Hanukkah Solo wrote:

---

If the asari were able to manipulate dark energy through a manner differently than how humans, turians, krogan, etc., do it, then it would have been mentioned in the Codex somewhere. Until we hear otherwise, the only way possible for an organic species to actively manipulate dark energy is through physical exposure to element zero. There is zero evidence for the asari being able to use biotics in any other way.

They do say it.
They say it's natural...no exposure is mentioned in the codex.
That's different from how the other races, turian, humans and krogan gain the ability.

[Skywalker]

Right. Because humans, turians, and krogans don't have any element zero on their world, they didn't develop the ability naturally, and have to be exposed in-utero to gain it. Since there isn't any other known way of gaining biotics (yet), we have to assume the asari's homeworld has element zero in it, probably its core, to explain how they developed it naturally. There might be a different explanation in ME3, but until then, that's the best guess any of us can make.

Then again, we won't really know just how inconsistent the story of the Reapers may or may not be until ME3, either, so arguing about either case is kind of pointless at this stage.