80 réponses à ce sujet

[GDK]

 I just really don't understand where this whole idea comes from. I understand the concept, but why did anyone think that this made sense AT ALL? 

In my mind, one of the pillars of the Mass Effect universe is the exploring a galaxy filled with exciting and ever-expanding technology. Now we are told that this technology is not only bad, but the reason for the Reapers, the true "evil" of the universe, and THE UNDERLYING IDEA BEHIND THE ENTIRE SERIES? 

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. It's not Mass Effect. Heck, the name of the game is this technology! 

This was never a part of the other games. It's just NOT THERE. It doesn't work. You just won't get me to accept that:

-Advancement in tech is the true evil of the universe
-The singularity is the point of the reapers, and the underlying theme of the series
-That this has been a "theme" throughout the other two games
-That this absolves the Reapers in a way (them trying to save us from this by killing us)

I just don't see where this crazy idea came from. Your thoughts?

[granyte]

some writer : Man i have no idea how to end this.
some other writer: meh just open wikipedia at the dumb theorie page it will work

[RazorrX]

Short answer - during a trip to the head.

They pulled it out of their butts for ME3. It was originally based on the Dark Matter buildup - which was a take off on the Inhibitors from Alastair Reynolds books (starting with Revelation Space)

[Hayes1987]

I don't even know what your talking about. Explain?

[Dark Specie]

GDK wrote...
This was never a part of the other games. It's just NOT THERE. -Advancement in tech is the true evil of the

Oh, I don't know. We DO see some synthetics/organics conflict in the ME universe, though I'm not sure if you could say that there's enough of it to call it the "underlying theme" of the ME series indeed...

[Dreogan]

To be fair, this has been in the game ever since the original Mass Effect in some way or another. We had the moon mission in ME1, if you recall-- military AI gone crazy. Their original intention might have been dark matter, but they did pick a fairly decent second-best choice.

Really though, the Reapers were better when we just couldn't comprehend them. This is a classic example of defining something that should not be defined.

Modifié par Dreogan, 03 mars 2012 - 06:26 .

[GDK]

Hayes1987 wrote...

I don't even know what your talking about. Explain?

Apparently the reason the Reapers were created is to cleanse the galaxy to stop something called a "Tech Singularity." This is the idea that AI will become so advanced that it surpasses organic intellect in an explosion of knowledge and the universe will never be the same after it.

Basically: Technology is evil. This is the reason the Reapers kill everyone, and the reason the relays "must" be destroyed. 

Stupid.

[MythicLegands]

Mac Walters.

Bioware just got lazy

[DeinonSlayer]

Yeah. So, they hunt us from extinction to save us from extinction.

Never mind that they only preserve a single race in Reaper form with each cycle. The rest are just dead.

[GDK]

Dreogan wrote...

To be fair, this has been in the game ever since the original Mass Effect in some way or another. We had the moon mission in ME1, if you recall-- military AI gone crazy. Their original intention might have been dark matter, but they did pick a fairly decent second-best choice.

Really though, the Reapers were better when we just couldn't comprehend them. This is a classic example of defining something that should not be defined.

See, I'm not saying there is no mention of AI being out of control in the games. Geth, moon AI, Overlord DLC, etc.

But when you thing about Mass Effect, do you really think of corrupt AI?

I see the hero's journey, exploring and uniting a vast and amazing galaxy filled with exotic creatures and technology to stop an overwhelming evil, and the relationships you make with the people you care about. 

I just see it as an 11th hour attepmt to "symbolize" a beautiful journey that could have been done in infinately better ways.

[Taleroth]

Quite frankly, if AI is so dangerous, maybe they shouldn't be taking 50,000 year naps. You'd think that super dreadnoughts could make for anti-AI task force. But noooo.

[AlphaJarmel]

RazorrX wrote...

Short answer - during a trip to the head.

They pulled it out of their butts for ME3. It was originally based on the Dark Matter buildup - which was a take off on the Inhibitors from Alastair Reynolds books (starting with Revelation Space)

Which I think would have been much better for the trilogy as a whole.  I bet you Drew K. came up with that and Walters changed it.

[Nathan Redgrave]

"Technology is evil" is missing the point, though. The idea that organic species would eventually get to a point where their own technology overcomes them is a worry worth considering (it encompasses everything from Skynet to nuclear apocalypse), but you have to ask yourself whether the danger the Reapers are intended to avert is even worth all the death and misery the Reapers bring about in the first place.

Is the tech singularity the evil, or is it the fear of the tech singularity the evil? That question ties into the very conflict revolving around A.I.s like EDI and the geth that's been built up since the beginning.

[casedawgz]

Its not really the VILLAIN. It's the misguided motivation of the villains. You can call the tech singularity the villain all you want but to me its just the crappy way in which the real villains rationalize their campaign of destruction. I'm going to blow up the Reapers and I'm not going to feel a whit of remorse about it.

[Nathan Redgrave]

casedawgz wrote...

Its not really the VILLAIN. It's the misguided motivation of the villains. You can call the tech singularity the villain all you want but to me its just the crappy way in which the real villains rationalize their campaign of destruction. I'm going to blow up the Reapers and I'm not going to feel a whit of remorse about it.

I'd rather enslave them and use them as permanent guardians to ensure that the organic races of the galaxy never reach the point where they wind up killing each other for any reason; an ANTI-GENOCIDE Reaper fleet.

Much more tasty the irony is that way.

[Eterna]

Well, it's better than just "Reapers are bad guys, hate zhem and kill zhem!"

I think it adds a interesting new dimension to them. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 03 mars 2012 - 06:34 .

[casedawgz]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Its not really the VILLAIN. It's the misguided motivation of the villains. You can call the tech singularity the villain all you want but to me its just the crappy way in which the real villains rationalize their campaign of destruction. I'm going to blow up the Reapers and I'm not going to feel a whit of remorse about it.

I'd rather enslave them and use them as permanent guardians to ensure that the organic races of the galaxy never reach the point where they wind up killing each other for any reason; an ANTI-GENOCIDE Reaper fleet.

Much more tasty the irony is that way.

My renegade has a long history of making paragon choices at the very end because he wants an explosion. "Lol, irradiate the collector base? After all that work? Gonna blow it up, sorry."

[Taleroth]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

"Technology is evil" is missing the point, though. The idea that organic species would eventually get to a point where their own technology overcomes them is a worry worth considering (it encompasses everything from Skynet to nuclear apocalypse), but you have to ask yourself whether the danger the Reapers are intended to avert is even worth all the death and misery the Reapers bring about in the first place.

Is the tech singularity the evil, or is it the fear of the tech singularity the evil? That question ties into the very conflict revolving around A.I.s like EDI and the geth that's been built up since the beginning.

Technology overcoming people doesn't even strike me as a worry. Non-intelligent technology is a tool. Intelligent technology a non-biological line of evolution.

Saying AI is evil strikes me like Floriensis saying Sapiens is evil. What is so tragic about the loss of Floriensis?

Probably should just destroy everyone that can use tools. Hey, herd animals have advantages, better get rid of them too. Don't even get me started on filthy creatures with complex nervous systems and brains. Sentience is cheating. On further thought, multicellular is just asking for it.

Hell, let's just get rid of carbon altogether. It's too uppity with the other elements.

Modifié par Taleroth, 03 mars 2012 - 06:55 .

[GDK]

casedawgz wrote...

Its not really the VILLAIN. It's the misguided motivation of the villains. You can call the tech singularity the villain all you want but to me its just the crappy way in which the real villains rationalize their campaign of destruction. I'm going to blow up the Reapers and I'm not going to feel a whit of remorse about it.

I don't see it as the villain either. But the fact that the game makes it the motivation of the Reapers, and then forces you to "stop the singularity" by sending the galaxy into a dark age is forcing us to swallow a concept that came out of nowhere.

And @ Nathan Redgrave: Like I said. I see the references to AI, but you can not logically make the case that the dangers of AI surpassing us was the envisioned plotpoint for the Mass Effect universe as it was originally conceived.

Modifié par GDK, 03 mars 2012 - 06:42 .

[Dark Specie]

Taleroth wrote...

Quite frankly, if AI is so dangerous, maybe they shouldn't be taking 50,000 year naps. You'd think that super dreadnoughts could make for anti-AI task force. But noooo.

One of my ideas for "rewritting/redoing" the Mass Effect trilogy is to make it so that the Reapers exist, but only attack the galaxy IF the technological singularity has occured and synthetic beings are on the verge of wiping out all sentient races in the galaxy

[LauRoman]

Have you played the games? I'm not exactly sure that the singularity is the true evil, as we haven't played through the whole trilogy yet. So it is not exactly fair to say the "tech singularity" is the absolute evil since noone else since the reapers has achieved it and so there's no way to prove it. There is even dissension among the Geth which are the closest "current" civilisation to the Reapers.

Advancement in tech is not the true evil. Two very big movie franchises and a remake of an 80s TV show were based on the same idea and the big bad there was defeated by an alliance between human(oid)s and parts of the very tech collossus they were fighting (see the Matrix, most Terminator movies and BSG). My opinion is that the biggest evil in the game is the idea that "the end justifies the means" It is what the Geth, the Reapers, Saren, the Illusive Man and Sheppard were faced with.

The name of the game is not technology it is make-believe technology because most/all mass effect technology is based aroud the idea of a quantifiable mass/Gravity Force which is probably the biggest hurdle current actual scientist have to pass, if they ever will.

I also think that the Reapers were originally supposed to be a "sheppard" (pun intended) of new galactic civilisations. They were supposed to help new races come of age and somwhere down the line they lost their way. This is mostly a baseless theory except for a few similarities the Trilogy has with an old 90s scif-fi series i'm a big fan of.

[BellaStrega]

GDK wrote...

See, I'm not saying there is no mention of AI being out of control in the games. Geth, moon AI, Overlord DLC, etc.

But when you thing about Mass Effect, do you really think of corrupt AI?

Actually, yes. It was a central theme in the first game. The idea that true AI would lead to conflict was there all along. In ME2, some of Shepard's reactions to EDI could charitably described as "freaked out." Joker's distrust and fear was not strictly meant for comic relief.. For that matter, Sovereign told you that the technology was left behind to guide civilizations along the routes that the Reapers had laid down for them. If you already knew about the idea of technological singularity, the game already proposed such an event as apocalyptic.

I see the hero's journey, exploring and uniting a vast and amazing galaxy filled with exotic creatures and technology to stop an overwhelming evil, and the relationships you make with the people you care about. 

I just see it as an 11th hour attepmt to "symbolize" a beautiful journey that could have been done in infinately better ways.

There's no point in trying to theorize about what the designers were thinking when they came up with these ideas. Odds are you'll probably be wrong.

[Icinix]

They originally were trying to use a dark energy / entropy style of ending by the look of it, but it looks like that was changed for two reasons.

1) They needed to somehow canonise how the universe could look after the ME3 trilogy / to bring everything to a clean slate so to speak.

2) They somehow needed to make Earth a focal point in the story - unfortunately it means some aspects don't make sense and happen just for the sake of making Earth the focal point of the end game.

Yeah - its kind of silly and with a team of experienced writers it is surprising they went with it - but it could have been a lot worse.

[Taleroth]

Tech singularity has nothing to do with earth. Dark energy or just leaving that out wouldn't have changed the bit at all.

[thepaladin1]

Dark Specie wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Quite frankly, if AI is so dangerous, maybe they shouldn't be taking 50,000 year naps. You'd think that super dreadnoughts could make for anti-AI task force. But noooo.

One of my ideas for "rewritting/redoing" the Mass Effect trilogy is to make it so that the Reapers exist, but only attack the galaxy IF the technological singularity has occured and synthetic beings are on the verge of wiping out all sentient races in the galaxy

At that point I think it would be to late. How would the reapers beat something like that? They are not indestructable.