Talk:Leviathan of Dis

Sovereign?

Does anyone else here think that the 'Leviathan of Dis' could possibly be Sovereign? Its date of discovery does seem to coincide with the discovery of Sovereign alluded to in Ascension.

See Sovereign's talk page for more speculation on this. --Tullis 01:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to think that it was a reaper that some race got a peice of. Or another race that was hit with genocide Allurade Dendra 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sovereign is synthetic- it has no genes, therefore how was it genetically engineered? Genes are an organic thing. The Leviathan was more likely a powerful, living entity created by some sort of advanced ancient race. It was probably genetically engineered in order to make it massive and to make it controlable. It beats me how they would control it: perhaps it contained synthetic implants, or maybe this ancient race had Biotic mind control. But I think the reason the Batarians are trying to hide it is obvious: they plan to bring it 'back to life' and find a way to control it, and then use it as a weapon against the Citadel races.--Grandmaster Chen 19:27, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was simply because they're jerks who like to steal other people's toys. : ) --Tullis 19:23, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be another Reaper/organic hybrid. Would that fall under the category of "genetic engineering?" Nosferatu13X 02:18, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Taking sapient life-forms, turning them into goo, and then injecting them into a machine doesn't really equate to manipulating the genes of a life-form during development to produce a creature that meets a specified set of requirements. One is a living being that was tailor-made to be a certian way (for a great example, look at Miranda Lawson, who was herself genetically engineered), and the other is a machine that has been injected with organic compounds in the form of liquefied sapient beings. SpartHawg948 20:55, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

So something genetically engineered was already organic, but altered in some way? Nosferatu13X 05:38, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Basically. Taking the basic elements of organic life (DNA, genes, whatnot) and manipulating (or engineering) them to fill a set of specifications you have would be genetic engineering. On the other hand, injecting liquified humans into a machine (ie the Reaper) is basically the same (differences of scale aside) as me putting bio-diesel in my truck. Sure, the fuel itself is derived from organic material, and may even have been living at some point. That in no way makes my truck genetically engineered. SpartHawg948 07:09, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

But if your truck was designed to take the genetic information of hte fuel you put into the car and apply that to its own appearence, and then takes the minds of the creatures the fuel was once made of and turns them into a vast supermind, i am guessing that would be genetic somewhat, of course the idea that the proto reaper was taking the minds aswell as the bodies is theoretical, but it seems likely. ralok 20:50, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

No, it still wouldn't be genetically engineered. As I pointed out, something genetically engineered is something that was purpose built (using the basic elements of life) to fulfill a certain set of specifications. Just injecting organic material into a machine doesn't make it in any way genetically engineered, no matter how the organic material interacts with the machine. It just makes it a machine-organic hybrid. SpartHawg948 20:54, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think it fits the definition of the words genetic and engineering (but not in that combination), but i guess you are technically correct aswell, but i would also like to point out the idea of it being a genetically engineered starship is basically an assumption, nobody had time enough with it (except maybe the batarians) to determine this definitively. And this is part of the reason i am not so sure the leviathan is a reaper, reapers look mechanical (they arent totally mechanical but they look the part) and they looked at this thing and said, y'know this thing is probably genetic engineered. But all of this doesnt change one fact, and that fact is that if you had a truck that absorbed fossil fuels and turned into whatever the source of the fuel was, that it would be awesome, i think i just came up with my nextt short story idea DINOSAUR CAR. ralok 03:06, March 19, 2010 (UTC) Edit: i guess what i mean is that, the sapient lifeform is genetically processed, and then the material is engineered, but i would consider it genetic engineering, but thruthfully that is a stretch. ralok 03:14, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the Leviathan of Dis is a Reaper, but it doesn't have to be Sovereign. Like I just said in a post on the BioWare forums:
"Well, there still is the Leviathan of Dis, which I always assumed to be Sovereign considering it disappearing in 2163 and the first book, Revelation, where Saren got across information about Sovereign taking place in 2165. The timeline shows that Edan Had'dah from Revelation, which I haven't read yet, discovered "a mysterious artifact orbiting an unnamed planet near the Perseus Veil" in 2162, though. We know his artifact turned out to be Sovereign, but that also means 'Dis' isn't Sovereign. Could the fabled Leviathan have been salvaged by the Alliance?"

'Salvaged' by the Alliance meaning it is the Reaper we see on Keiji's greybox in the Kasumi DLC, which could implicate the Alliance. There still is the possibility of it being Sovereign, but that would mean the timeline screwed up somewhere. If it disappearing in 2163 derived from simply extracting 20 ("'It "disappeared" after a visit to the system by a batarian dreadnought twenty years ago.") from 2183, then it might as well be 2162. What still grinds my gears at this point is that 'Dis' was found inside a crater and was referred to as a "corpse", whereas Sovereign was found inside the Perseus Veil. At this point I can barely track who's who... 85.147.165.48 12:21, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of splitting hairs over what "geneically engineered" means:

Firstly, the "genetically engineered" description was given by the Batarians. If it was indeed a Reaper then they would not have fully understood what they were looking at and therefore splitting hairs about what does or does not constitute "genetically engineered" is kind of pointless.

Secondly, the process of constructing a Reaper is still genetic engineering as it involves the process of merging the individual DNA of millions of lifeforms into a single being; you are directly manipulating the genetic structure of living creatures. In essence, it is simply an extremely advanced version of the process but it is still the engineering of genes.

The process is described in rather crude terms in ME2 simply because it's not fully understood but there is likely some form of additional engineering applied in order to sync the genetic material with synthetic parts to create a Reaper. Therefore, I would argue that describing a Reaper as a "genetically engineered warship" is perfectly correct.--57.66.108.130 10:53, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

This is a great easter egg!

This is a reference to the Sci-Fi channel show "Farscape," in which the main characters traveled in a sentient starship that belonged to a race called the Leviathans. Please do not delete this page. ~~Ncatrix

Unlikely, Leviathan is often used to describe massive ships. You took a shot in the dark, fail. 209.243.43.88 06:01, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to call it a failure. I can see the possibility here. I mean, you talk about how Leviathan is "often used to describe massive ships", but how many of those times are the ships being described also genetically engineered, like the Leviathans from Farscape (which are part organic, part machine) and the Leviathan of Dis? Don't be so quick to dismiss someone else's opinion when your response doesn't even attempt to counter their main point. SpartHawg948 06:26, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

In ME2 it is stated that Reapers are partially organic, so cybernetic rather than synthetic. Also, when listening to the logs left by the Cerberus team investigating the dead reaper from which the IFF is extracted, you can here people describing it as a the corpse of living creature. This makes me think the Leviathan was another dead Reaper that got shot down or a failed Reaper that was never completed (it EDI suggests the Reapers tried to make a Prothean based Reaper but failed).

Good thinking, person-who-didn't-sign-their-post! Maybe it was the remnants of the Prothean-Reaper? We never knew why it failed... Wonder if there's something to that. As I've said elsewhere in the site, I don't think we're done learning about the Protheans yet. And it sounds like the Batarians took this thing...which makes me think they might have a role to play, Reaper-tech-wise, in ME3...wonder which side they will be on. I can somehow imagine them managing to activate this thing and getting indoctrinated by it...then fighting for the Reapers... :P JakeARoonie 03:45, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely - The geology of the crater suggests that the Leviathan of Dis had crashed and formed the crater approximately one billion years ago, but the Reapers would only have attempted to build a Prothean-Reaper after the most recent conquest in the Long Cycle, which occurred 50,000 years ago. It is extremely unlikely that Protheans even existed as sentients at the time the Leviathan crashed, which makes it effectively impossible that the Leviathan of Dis is the remains of the Prothean-Reaper, no matter how you interpret the notion that the Leviathan was bio-engineered.

True, but it's possible that the Prothean-Reaper wasn't the first failure. There's been no real information on just how long the Reapers have been going through these cycles, so there may have been many failures. --175.38.241.123 11:44, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I was thinking that batarins would be the main enemy in ME3. LolPaladin cross 20:37, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe pawns of the main enemy, but I think it's safe to say that the Reapers will be the main enemy in ME3. It is the final game in the trilogy, after all, and the events of the first and second game pretty well set it up, especially the very end of the second game. On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest a confrontation with the batarians in ME3. Again, I could maybe see them as tools of the main enemies, but the 'main enemy in ME3'? I wouldn't bet on it. SpartHawg948 22:28, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

I meant main enemy as in the one we face the most, you know like geth/collecters were the main enemy in the previous sagas. I highly doubt we will spend all of ME3 battling "mini-reapers." Paladin cross 19:10, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about 'mini-reapers'? As I stated above, the implication, based on the end scene in ME2, as well as dialogue (such as comments suggesting the the quarian Migrant Flotilla will likely be needed to combat the Reapers) is that the Reapers themselves will be the main enemy of ME3. Again, it's the final fame of the trilogy, and the conflict has to come to a head at some point, with comments from both games suggesting a direct confrontation with the Reapers. There will likely be pawns of the Reapers involved, although I'm not sure if the batarians would be these pawns or not. As it's too early to say with any degree of certainty, we'll just have to wait and see. SpartHawg948 19:59, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

They could serve as secondary antagonists and a second enemy set (like the mercs you see in ME1 and ME2) - the events of Arrival would have given the batarian government more than enough of an excuse to declare war. So you'd encounter them, maybe have a few sidequests around the subject, but they wouldn't be the main villains. --175.38.241.123 11:44, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Mini reapers were mentioned on the Bioware forums somewhere...Paladin cross 22:24, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that explains why I was perplexed. I never visit the BioWare forums, and generally get confused when an outside element I am unaware of is introduced into a conversation in response to something I said. SpartHawg948 01:59, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

There was even a picture done in paint of the Commander shooting a Mini-Reaper about the size of an umbrella Cockatoo, quite funny I might add. Paladin cross 19:12, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

It's also funny that it actually turns out their will be smaller Reapers in ME3. Probably not Cockatoo small, but smaller than the average Reapers.--Direct Control 00:44, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to continue to speculate what it is, then take to the appropriate place, i.e. the forums or a blog post as this is not what a talk page is for. Lancer1289 00:46, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Leviathan is the construct of a species that was trying to develop an 'ace in the hole' against the Reapers. I'm sure this thing, when active, would have been one hell of a ship. Maybe it'll even have a role in ME3. Hopefully the Batarians have made some progress with it.

Please see my previous comment about where a conversation like this belongs. Lancer1289 17:05, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Extended Cut

Apparently there is dialogue in the Extended Cut that indicates the Leviathan is not actually dead. Future DLC, maybe? --Kevin W.^{•Talk to me} 04:20, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I posted this without realizing it was already being discussed on the EC's talk page. --Kevin W.^{•Talk to me} 05:19, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 DLC

It is rumored that Leviathan of Dis will be part of the next Story driven DLC of Mass Effect 3

We're well aware of the rumored Leviathan DLC (see the comment above your own). BioWare is supposed to give us more details in the coming week and we'll see whether or not it's related to the Leviathan of Dis. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:19, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of Leviathan

Yeah, hi, just have to say: a Leviathan is NOT a gargantuan thing, even if the dictionary can fool you into thinking that. A Leviathan is a gargantuan marine thing, like they said, such as a Whale or a huge ship. As Sci-Fi spaceships use naval terms, that is why it is called a Leviathan. Had it been a giant thing it would have been a Behemoth. Just wanted to clear that up.

Add another trivia about the meaning of Dis

I just want to inform that the word "Dis" was the alternative name for Pluto, the Greek god of the Underworld. Here is the interesting fact, Pluto was the earlier name for Hades (who was also the Greek god of the Underworld).

I'm just want to ask that should we add another trivia about the meaning of the word "Dis" in the article, that's all. Razer666L (talk) 09:03, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

And what has this to do with anything? Hades/Pluto is Greco-Roman, Leviathan is Hebrew. The 'Dis' refers only to the system where it was first 'discovered', so if it is even noteworthy, it belongs there. Phylarion (talk) 12:57, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

And even then it ins't trivia since it is just name trivia. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:02, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

The age of the Leviathan of Dis?

In the planetary description of Jartar the age of the Leviathan of Dis is mentioned to be a billion years old. However when we get to the Mass Effect 3 Downloadable Content Leviathan the intercepted batarian communications reveal the age of the Leviathan of Dis to be several million years old. So which of these is actually to be believed? They're both pretty contradictory. By three orders of magnitudes no less.