397 réponses à ce sujet

[Salty Specula]

[quote]ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

[quote]Salty Specula wrote...

[quote]ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

[quote]Salty Specula wrote...

 I've read the dark energy original idea... That... I don't even...

It makes even LESS sense than the atrocious ending in game now. By converting species into Reapers, it stops dark energy buildup... How? I'm apparently not intelligent enough to fill in the massive leap in logic between those two points.
[/quote]

Well it is never said that every species gets a Reaper. As I understand Drew's original ending, the Reapers are trying to save the universe from Dark Energy. As to how? This contributes to the Reapers's unknowability because we don't understand it and likely couldn't because we haven't even hardly touched the research (with the exception of the geth/quarians).

EDIT: Also, its isn't said that making species into Reapers *is* the cure. I think it is merely hinted that it is a means to furthering a cure--like recruiting more scientists to a study.

[/quote]

Seriously dude, don't even try and justify that. What a horrific piece of sensless garbage that idea is...

[/quote]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about "justifying" or who it was directed at, but this may explain in more depth what you jumped into the middle of.

[quote]ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

[quote]ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

[quote]ReachEtaruN74 wrote...



The conversation between Tali, Shepard, and Kal'Reegar establishes the danger/importance of dark energy.
3:20
Shepard: "What does that dark energy buildup mean? Is it something we should worry about?"
3:26
Tali: "Hopefully it's an isolated, some rare phenomenon. If dark energy can destabilize solar material..."
Tali:
"Probably not something to worry about now, but resources are scarce
enough in the galaxy without stars suddenly going dead."

This is
foreshadowing as it seems to have no direct connection to anything else.
Otherwise it would be pointless banter. Pointless banter doesn't have
galaxy wide implications.

Also it would make sense for the geth
following the Reapers to be researching the data on that star if the
Reapers were looking for a way to stop the buildup of dark energy.
Unfortunately, you don't really get to ever ask the geth following the
Reapers about this as the only opportunity for this would have been in
Mass Effect 3.[/quote]

[/quote]

the reason the dark energy ending fits where the current ending
does not is because it allows for the reapers to maintain their
unknowability and it presents an actual moral dilemma at the conclusion.
On
top of these, it provides the casual RPGer with a sense of
accomplishment and completion while giving the hard core RPGer the sense
of reality that the impending doom of the galaxy provides.

It
maintains the Reaper's unknowability because, if they have been around
for millions of years and haven't been able to solve the problem, it
must at some level be beyond comprehension while the framework (basic
concept) is understandable which allows for the moral dilemma.
The
moral dilemma is that the Reapers may be the only hope for the galaxy's
continued existance but at the cost of countless lives (end justifies
the means--Renegade) or you can destroy the Reapers and hope that the
combined minds of the organic species can solve the problem (lesser of
two evils--paragon).

This is assuming there is not some random "all the relays blow up" falacy.

[/quote]

[quote]ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

The
concept behind the Dark Energy ending is that dark energy will
eventually consume the universe and the reapers are attempting to stop
it and preserve the universe.
The harvesting would serve two purposes.
    
1. Removing the organic life that likely speeds up the buildup of Dark
Energy (probably from the excessive use of the mass relays--on a side
note, this is probably why the reapers spend so much time in dark space
and in hibernation as they have massive mass effect cores)
     2. Finding species that they think can help them in the search for the "cure."
The
geth / quarian struggle actually disproves the theory that is put out
at the end of ME3 as the crux of the big moral dilemma. If synthetics
were destined to inevitably seek out conflict with organics, than
Legion's mission in ME3 where records revealing that the only reason
that the geth were engaged in conflict was because of the creators's
constant attempts at genocide against the geth (and also the
manipulation by sovreign) would be an impossiblity.

[/quote]
[/quote]

I am not saying that what the reapers is doing is good. In fact if you were to read through the rather lengthy forum, you will see that I refer to the option of choosing to let the reapers continue and giving humanity over to them as the clearly renegade option.

So please explain what is being "justified."

[/quote]


That still doesn't even make the remotest bit of sense. The reapers aren't here to 'solve' problems. In case you've forgotten how the 'cycle' works, it goes like this over a 50,000 year span:

1: Reapers invade and harvest or wipe out all advanced organic life.

2: Reapers leave after harvesting the necessary raw materials to facilitate the intergration of any useful harvested technology they need and go back to dark space leaving one behind as their eyes in the galaxy while the rest return to dark space and ENTER A HIBERNATION STATE TO CONVERVE ENERGY UNTIL THE NEXT CYCLE.

Rince and repeat. Read that bolded and underlined part again. And again. Now read it again until you understand it.

The Reapers aren't interested in preserving anything but themselves. They don't give a damn about this 'dark energy' crap. They do this to improve themselves. They don't retreat to dark space so they can try to tackle this problem by forming a comune and putting their programs to work, as is stated several times through out the story, the reapers likely go to dark space so they can shut themselves off without fear of being discovered in their borderline comatose state between cycles, where they would be defenseless against an attack. Dark energy has nothing to do with this at all. 

[Ariq007]

Neither ending is good, but i'd prefer the 'dark energy' one to the "synthetics and organics can't coexist, now make your choice based off THAT perspective". Really?!? I just have to accept that as a fact? Despite what I've seen with the geth and EDI, I just have to accept the reaper world-view that AI will always rebel and destroy, and make my choice from there?

[MDT1]

Ariq007 wrote...

Neither ending is good, but i'd prefer the 'dark energy' one to the "synthetics and organics can't coexist, now make your choice based off THAT perspective". Really?!? I just have to accept that as a fact? Despite what I've seen with the geth and EDI, I just have to accept the reaper world-view that AI will always rebel and destroy, and make my choice from there?

Thats one of my problems too. All the evidence in the game we encounter is, that AI can live well together with organics, it's the organics that caused problems in the first place. I' mean the geth even willingly let the quarians escape and didn't want to attack them once they where save themselves. Same with EDI, it's normal to react violent, when the first thing you experience in life is someone trying to kill you for no reason (from your point of view).

While the dark energy ending wasn't more brilliant or something, it just makes more sense with the series.

Modifié par MDT1, 10 mars 2012 - 12:39 .

[ReachEtaruN74]

Salty Specula wrote...


That still doesn't even make the remotest bit of sense. The reapers aren't here to 'solve' problems. In case you've forgotten how the 'cycle' works, it goes like this over a 50,000 year span:

1: Reapers invade and harvest or wipe out all advanced organic life.

2: Reapers leave after harvesting the necessary raw materials to facilitate the intergration of any useful harvested technology they need and go back to dark space leaving one behind as their eyes in the galaxy while the rest return to dark space and ENTER A HIBERNATION STATE TO CONVERVE ENERGY UNTIL THE NEXT CYCLE.

Rince and repeat. Read that bolded and underlined part again. And again. Now read it again until you understand it.

The Reapers aren't interested in preserving anything but themselves. They don't give a damn about this 'dark energy' crap. They do this to improve themselves. They don't retreat to dark space so they can try to tackle this problem by forming a comune and putting their programs to work, as is stated several times through out the story, the reapers likely go to dark space so they can shut themselves off without fear of being discovered in their borderline comatose state between cycles, where they would be defenseless against an attack. Dark energy has nothing to do with this at all. 

The Reapers interest in solving the Dark Energy threat may have begun as a long sighted attempt to save the universe, but now it's a means of self preservation as they are for intensive purposes immortal. The asari have long life spans and see the universe differently than humans do and likewise the humans see life differently than the salarians do. I don't see how you can say they are interested in nothing but themselves and simultaneously say that the Dark Energy threat has no place in the universe. It would be a particular threat to "immortal" (once again for all intensive purposes) beings. By improving themselves, by "uplifting" species that have unique or special features they empower themselves to survive whether this be Dark Energy or whatever.
In either case, the Reapers fit even less in the current state because the cycle is ultimately not about them but about imposing order on chaos. They are merely tools of the catalyst. (as a side note, the first game shouldn't have even happened because if the keepers "respond only to the citadel" and the citadel is the catalyst which is a sentient being, there is no logical reason why when Sovreign sent out the signal to begin the next cycle the catalyst wouldn't've begun the cycle as it is the station (unless the catalyst has no connection to the outside world without the keepers which is a very, very poor design oversight).

Modifié par ReachEtaruN74, 10 mars 2012 - 12:52 .

[MrDizazta]

Why does the original ending for ME3 sound so much like Gurren Lagann

[fish of doom]

oh dear. i'm now starting to suspect (in combination with some other things mentioned in-game) that at least part of the writing team are transhumanism fanbois who just wanted to shoe-horn as many blatant references as possible (see also all the accusations of ripping off deus-ex: human revolution, a game that is completely based on transhumanist themes).

re: dark energy: the problems i see mentioned with the reaper hybernation time can be hand-waved by stating that it's not actually hibernation, per se, in the animal sense, but rather the process by which they actively get rid of dark energy (stopping most of their physical functions in the process).

[IronHam]

On the SomethingAwful forums, there was a decent discussion about the Reapers' logic as explained at the ending of ME3. I'm going to post it here: http://forums.someth...9#post401385017

It's kind of funny that so many people are disappointed at the Reapers claiming their motivations are unknowable then misunderstand those motivations. According to some far-sighted old species, technological process ultimately and unavoidably culminates in synthetic life, which ultimately and unavoidably culminates in synthetic life surpassing and turning against organic life. Sooner or later, this synthetic life will exterminate organic life, wiping it off the face of the galaxy (this cycle perhaps repeating itself in other galaxies).

In order to preserve organic life as a whole, that is, the existence of organic life, it is therefore necessary to cull any advanced species that is at risk of creating synthetic life. That way, they are stopped before they can endanger all organic life in the galaxy. The Reapers are a tool by which life itself can be preserved from the cycle of its destruction, and they even preserve a few of the most worthy of these past species.

It's not an unreasonable solution. Imagine if some singularly powerful force reasoned that sooner or later mankind is going to destroy all life on earth with nuclear weapons (given a long enough time-scale), so the only solution is to destroy civilizations that advance that far technologically, forcing them to regress to a primitive state?

What changes in the endings is that you prove that just as the Reapers saw it was inevitable that organic life would create the synthetics that would destroy them, Shepard proves that it is inevitable that some organic life will arise which can destroy the Reapers. This means their particular solution to the problem of synthetic life exterminating all organic life is insufficient.

The endings themselves are disasters and the focus on these themes is equally strange considering how it wasn't the driving purpose of the Mass Effect franchise to this point, but at least in terms of clear motivations they make sense. They're probably even right that organic races couldn't understand, considering how often their motivations are misunderstood not to mention how many people would dismiss it all as sci-fi claptrap rather than a real and present danger to organic life.

Uh, we understand the motivations correctly. The point is that they're stupid and make no sense within the context of the game.


It relies on the "all synthetics are evil" stuff which, even not making sense on its own, is demonstrably false within the context of the game itself with the Geth and EDI. Both times, Shepard is able to negotiate and talk with purely synthetic beings and bring about unity and peace.

Likewise, an organic version of it is introduced with the Rachni and Krogans and both time the end result is "Shepard can prove that peace is possible."

Claiming it is inevitable doesn't work when your own game offers proof otherwise and the basic themes of the game are "peace and unity is possible."

Even if you ignored all of that, and you can't, it doesn't make sense for it to be "synthetic vs organic." Again, we have two organic species who could have wiped out all life in the galaxy due to their immense power and speed of breeding. (Rachni and Krogans.) The Reapers being hyper-focused on robots doesn't make sense at all within anything we're shown. At no point is "synthetics will wipe out all life" even remotely brought to the table.

No it doesn't, that's what I mean by misunderstand. It doesn't rely on synthetics being evil any more than nuclear annihilation relies on humans being evil. Sooner or later, the fact that we have the capacity to destroy life on the planet virtually guarantees we will - all probabilities approach one on a long enough time scale. Even if we avoided MAD in the cold war, even if we destroy our bombs and forget nuclear power in the future, sooner or later it will be discovered, so sooner or later it'll happen.

Likewise, sooner or later someone's going to make a synthetic race that'll wipe out organics. Maybe it'll start like the Geth, but with an AI race that becomes aggressive and vicious. Maybe everyone'll cyborg up until the AI implants slowly supplant the organic processes, eventually cutting them out entirely. Given a long enough time-scale, it's an inevitable consequence because it can happen and basically only has to happen once to be irreversible.

If you were given incredible power and asked to solve the problem of humans and nuclear annihilation, how would you do it? Rule humanity directly? That might work, but humanity's resentfulness will probably sooner or later lead to your overthrow. Educate humanity and bring peace? That's great and all, but with enough time you'll get a perfect storm of ignorance that'll undo all your work. Maintain an unprecedented military edge on humanity and use it to wipe out anyone with nuclear capacity in an untraceable manner? Now that sounds like it just might work.

Edit: since you added more, proving peace can exist between one instance of organics and synthetics proves nothing. It's like saying that because the USSR and America didn't blow each other up, no possible future nuclear standoff will ever destroy the earth. What about in a thousand years, when humanity's nations have totally changed and the world is a different place? What will peace now matter to the nuclear war strategists then?

The difference between this happening with synthetics as opposed to organics is that organic life is made for a constant cycle of subjugation and control. Organic life waxes and wanes, it destroys each other and itself. It is an order of life, and time has proven that the strongest races sooner or later fall into decay. Machines don't follow this sort of circle of life approach. A machine order of life can replace organics permanently, scouring them from the galaxy and preventing their return.

I would just keep reading from there since in the end it sort of resolves the reapers logic as we got it in Mass Effect 3. And regarding the incomprehensibility of the reapers' existence, the reapers are probably talking about how specific organic civilizations are driven by survival and wouldn't accept a fate of being killed to not produce synthetic life. They don't have the perspective the reapers had (billions of years pursuing this cycle).

Modifié par IronHam, 10 mars 2012 - 02:17 .

[JasonDaPsycho]

One of the things I believe about writing and antagonist is his / her /its motivations should be different from that of the protagonist, but relatable. The original ending makes way more sense compared to destroying everyone for the sake of it.

[Vapaa]

IronHam wrote...
I would just keep reading from there since in the end it sort of resolves the reapers logic as we got it in Mass Effect 3. And regarding the incomprehensibility of the reapers' existence, the reapers are probably talking about how specific organic civilizations are driven by survival and wouldn't accept a fate of being killed to not produce synthetic life. They don't have the perspective the reapers had (billions of years pursuing this cycle).

Yeah, I agree, the motivations of the Reapers make sense, I don't buy the dark matter thing that came out of nowhere

[fish of doom]

uhhh... the dark matter thing has been built up since ME1... it's how eezo works to create the actual "mass effect".

http://masseffect.wi...iki/Dark_energy

[WeAreLegionWTF]

the dark energy concept at least SEEMS to have been written for the ME universe. Not just battlestar galactica/matrix/deus ex/every generic sci fi mimicry.

people have a problem with the endings because it feels like 95% of the leadup is akin to a finely brushed masters' oil painting, and then the last 5% was done in crayon that doesn't even use the same colors.

[Vapaa]

Yes it is, but it was just an element of the lore, it's only since ME2 that strange **** happen because of dark matter

[Raging Squid]

And the name of the game is "Mass Effect."

I've wondered why the series was named after the hand-waving "barriers, FTL, biotic/space magic" since ME1. It was because it was the point of the entire series.

[Ice Cold J]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Anyone who thinks Dark Energy would have been a good ending, please explain to me where this is referenced as important in the games.

Ever.

Because it isn't.

It's mentioned twice.

It's mentioned as important in Tali's recruitment. Hell, it's the whole reason BEHIND Tali's recruitment mission.

It's mentioned during her loyalty mission.

It's mentioned by Gianna Parisini on Illium.

I believe it's mentioned at least once more.

My point is this. I'd prefer the Dark Energy ending because it makes SLIGHTLY more sense than the ending scenarios we were given in ME3. We destroy the Reapers, or we allow them to continue. Still someewhat morally ambiguious.

What we got was a philosopy master's dissertation on the theories of Heidigger and Hobbes.

If I wanted that, I'd have shelled out the money I spent on the Mass Effect Series on a philosophy course.

[macroberts]

Vapaä wrote...

IronHam wrote...
I would just keep reading from there since in the end it sort of resolves the reapers logic as we got it in Mass Effect 3. And regarding the incomprehensibility of the reapers' existence, the reapers are probably talking about how specific organic civilizations are driven by survival and wouldn't accept a fate of being killed to not produce synthetic life. They don't have the perspective the reapers had (billions of years pursuing this cycle).

Yeah, I agree, the motivations of the Reapers make sense, I don't buy the dark matter thing that came out of nowhere

I concur. The premise itself is entirely plausible. The idea that technology will eventually permeate through all parts of life to eventually overtake organic life itself isn't a far-fetched idea. Essentially what the ME universe is saying is that in order to maintain as high a level of organic life in the galaxy as possible, there needs to be a cull of the most advanced organic life, to prevent these lifeforms from developing synthetic lifeforms that would overtake the organic ones. It's like a bushfire in the outback of Australia. It's a process for renewal, of maintenance.

Seen in this light, the choice that befalls Shepard is to choose between giving organic life a chance to prove it can remain in control by controling the Reapers, or destroying all tech, and start anew. Or, completely embrace the singularity and merge the synthetic with the organic.

But while the plot is well reasoned and all, the problem, and the problem that I've highlighted in previous posts I've made and in the first post that IronHam listed, is that throughout the three games this theme itself is barely mentioned. The connection from fighting the Reapers to the fight being representative of synthetic/organic dichotomy is never fully made at any point of the games. Any possible reference (like Harbinger's "We are your salvation through destruction") is vague and confusing. You spend three games thinking about fighting the Reapers and it turns out it's about the co-existence between synthetics and organics. The very end of the trilogy is just the completely wrong time to put this theme into the series. 

What would have been good is if during the ME3, Shepard comes across something which reveals to him this synthetic/organic relationship cycle, and that the issue we are dealing with is greater than just Reapers. I would have thought the Rannoch Reaper would have been the perfect time to do this. Thus, come that final choice you make, you can gather your thoughts and actually make an informed decision. The game, alas, never made that jump, and the ending creates confusion as a result. 

Dark energy idea is just a bit...... um. From a plot point of view, I'd take this synthetic/organic relationship issue any day.

[Drake_1000]

The dark energy is by far better than the actual ending. But only if your previous choice in the games have a better impact than the War Asset and if we get more than a 2 minutes movie to see what happen after beat the game.

[Dean_the_Young]

Salty Specula wrote...

 I've read the dark energy original idea... That... I don't even...

It makes even LESS sense than the atrocious ending in game now. By converting species into Reapers, it stops dark energy buildup... How? I'm apparently not intelligent enough to fill in the massive leap in logic between those two points.

Think of it as a galactic-scale version of global warming. But replace 'greenhouse gases' with 'dark energy usage' and 'termperture change' with 'stars going supernova.'

According the the e-zero envrionmentalist theory some of us had...


The use of e-zero, in whatever form, gradually builds up on a galactic, not local, scale (ie, it's the galactic-total that matters, not where it's used exactly). As more mass effect cores and biotics and such exist, the more dark energy builds up. If dark energy levels get too high, stars like Haestrom start blowing up: weaker stars first, but the more stars that blow up the more e-zero that gets made, and the more e-zero that gets made the more it gets used...

The thing is/could be, however, is that Dark Energy disipates with time. So rather than the galaxies just destroy themselves, they have an equilibrium. Until organic civilizations discover e-zero, start to make more and use it, and act as a catalyst to their own environmental destruction. By the time a civilization is sufficiently advanced to understand what they are doing (which would be beyond us now: the 'incomprehensible' part of the Reaper motives), they've already at the tipping point of no return.

Plus, it doesn't help that mass effect technology really is a dominant technology: other technologies may (or may not) exist, but people who use the mass effect have better militaries, faster ships, and stronger economies than those who don't. Everyone wants to use mass effect technology, because not doing so is defeat to others. Even if the Reapers didn't leave them the Mass Relays, once people discovered e-zero they'd switch over.



In this context, the Reapers are the galactic gardeners who prune the galaxy in able for it to keep going. They allow life to grow, but end it before they can reach the dark energy tipping point. The Reapers don't even have to be from this galaxy: they could have started from other galaxies that died and tried other methods, failing even if they knew the problem. The 50,000 year mark could be the 'recovery period' for the galaxy to dissipate Dark Energy safely.

'Worthy' species then get preserved as Reapers, and the galaxy reset allows someone else to grow rather than everyone die. Thus, our salvation through destruction, and the pinnacle of evolution because everyone else kills themselves.


Because e-zero tech is a dominant technology that gives everyone an inclination towards mass effect usage, and their own dark energy extinction, the inevitability. The Reaper trap with the Relays, rather than being coutner-productive to their goals, gives order to that otherwise chaotic process by which species find and utilize mass effect technology. The Reapers guide us to where we were already going, in a controlled manner that is 'safer' for the galaxy's continued existence.



Organics, of course, don't understand the science of what they're doing, and don't listen to warnings either because cheating is too attractive. So now the Reapers reap first, because other methods didn't work.



What would have been especially cool about this theory is that it would have opened the door to the Reapers being negotiated with as an alternative sort of ending. If the Crucible had been a device to trigger the galactic extinction in a 'we'll destroy the galaxy with us', thus denying the Reapers of their goal to preserve the galaxy, then there could have been an ending in which Shepard stares down the Reapers, and they blink.

[Tamcia]

Any ending is better than what we have now.

Mystical force from another random Galaxy saving Milky Way is a much better ending.

A goddamn signal for Reaper killswitch is a better ending.

A time warp is a better ending.

I can go on, but I'm too angry about this. It's like - here you can have these choices, except it doesn't matter!!! It's blue/green/orange crucible blast and thats it. WOOOOO a super ending to the series, GOOD JOB!!! /sarcasm

BW can't even imagine how pissed and disappointed I am. ME was one of the few series in all of the games I played that I got so immersed in and loved it so much and seeing the **** ENDING that completely ruined the series. ME MMO? LOL ..... I'd rather watch a rock just sit there.

[ReachEtaruN74]

IronHam wrote...

On the SomethingAwful forums, there was a decent discussion about the Reapers' logic as explained at the ending of ME3. I'm going to post it here: http://forums.someth...9#post401385017

I would just keep reading from there since in the end it sort of resolves the reapers logic as we got it in Mass Effect 3. And regarding the incomprehensibility of the reapers' existence, the reapers are probably talking about how specific organic civilizations are driven by survival and wouldn't accept a fate of being killed to not produce synthetic life. They don't have the perspective the reapers had (billions of years pursuing this cycle).

Something that I'm not sure makes sense within the concepts that were laid out in your quotes is the idea that synthetics must be purely evil. It doesn't seem like a valid point. I mean that the idea that is laid out with the current ending of ME3 is that conflict between synthetic and organic is inevitable and the only possible opion.

The idea follows as such, organics create synthetic life then the synthetic life realizes the self-destructive tendancies of organics or realizes their superiority over organic life. However, what the concept in the current game lays out is that because of these two facts, conflict is inevitable. Not just conflict but disaster and extinction. This doesn't necessarily make synthetics "evil" except by a fallicious understanding of what evil is. However, this is taken in as an assumption following assuming that  conflict is inevitable.

Conflict is not inevitable. Disaster is not inevitable. The fact that the geth from the beginning of their existence (minus the manipulation of Sovreign) have always wanted peace and coexistance with other self aware entities (specifically the creators/quarians) and that (according to the fully paragon route at least) peace was not just possible but attainable goes to show that this concept that conflict is inevitable must in some way be flawed (at least in the Mass Effect universe--this is not to say that given different circumstances that many sci-fi authors have engineered that the outcome stated by the catalyst is not possible, only that it is not inevitable).

Also, part of what made the moral dilemma is that the conflict originates from sythetic life because of their superior knowledge. In the Mass Effect universe, Legion and geth realize these things but still choose  to coexist (except when another's group's belief demands that coexistence is impossible) and it is the organics that because of this misplaced fear in the "inevitability" of synthetic dominance initiate the conflict. It is the organics that initiate the conflict with almost certain inevitability *unless* the misplaced fear of "technological singularity" is thrown aside. Basically, it is only the misplaced belief in technological singularity that brings it to fruition but still in the opposite form of what TS (tech. sing.) demands is inevitable.

Peace is not just possible,  but attainable (at least in the Mass Effect universe based off the actions of the game itself) which goes against the very grain of the concept of technological singularity. Conflict is inevitable but not because synthetics must rise against organics, but because every self-aware entity will attempt to put itself in the safest state possible which will come into conflict with another entity's desire for safety.

The same idea applies to the catalyst. Technological Singularity was a self fulfilling prophecy in the current ending of the game. It only *became* true because the catalyst believed it to be true. If the belief of TS is thrown aside, the ramifications are also thrown aside because it becomes the difficulties of entities coexisting.

It is no different than our modern fears of eugenics. The idea that superiority demands dominance while it sounds logical, is not a guaranteed ending. In fact if it were possible to create people that were superior, it seems more likely to me that the conflict would originate with almost certain inevitability because those who feel inferior *believe* that they will cease to exist because they are inferior and "this must demand their dominance over us." If the belief is cast aside, the chances for peace increase significantly.

I apologize if this post is highly repetitive. I just want to state what I see as a logic flaw within the ME universe in several different ways so that it is easier for a plethora of people to follow my logic--hopefully.

[fish of doom]

the synthetic/organic dichotomy is retarded. by that logic they should exterminate all life everywhere, because organics also kill organics.

[Vapaa]

macroberts wrote...

Seen in this light, the choice that befalls Shepard is to choose between giving organic life a chance to prove it can remain in control by controling the Reapers, or destroying all tech, and start anew. Or, completely embrace the singularity and merge the synthetic with the organic.

I'm not very found of the "destroy" ending, I mean seriously ? destroying all tech all of a sudden, it would be Ravage^10, that can't be right; Qurians will die, Geths will die, Volus will die, all the habitated planets will be left without any form of energy whatsoever. No that's just bad, this ending should have been just destroying the Reapers, not the relays and the tech....oh and leave Shepard alive, seriously, s/he deserve that.

Modifié par Vapaä, 10 mars 2012 - 05:14 .

[Arthorius]

Dark energy makes much more sense to me. After all, the game is named "Mass Effect", not "Synthetic vs Organics". The Mass Effect fields and the dark energy have been at the core of the game from the very beginning. It's not right to see them retconned like that. FFS, what happened to Dholen?

[ReachEtaruN74]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Salty Specula wrote...

 I've read the dark energy original idea... That... I don't even...

It makes even LESS sense than the atrocious ending in game now. By converting species into Reapers, it stops dark energy buildup... How? I'm apparently not intelligent enough to fill in the massive leap in logic between those two points.

Think of it as a galactic-scale version of global warming. But replace 'greenhouse gases' with 'dark energy usage' and 'termperture change' with 'stars going supernova.'

According the the e-zero envrionmentalist theory some of us had...


The use of e-zero, in whatever form, gradually builds up on a galactic, not local, scale (ie, it's the galactic-total that matters, not where it's used exactly). As more mass effect cores and biotics and such exist, the more dark energy builds up. If dark energy levels get too high, stars like Haestrom start blowing up: weaker stars first, but the more stars that blow up the more e-zero that gets made, and the more e-zero that gets made the more it gets used...

The thing is/could be, however, is that Dark Energy disipates with time. So rather than the galaxies just destroy themselves, they have an equilibrium. Until organic civilizations discover e-zero, start to make more and use it, and act as a catalyst to their own environmental destruction. By the time a civilization is sufficiently advanced to understand what they are doing (which would be beyond us now: the 'incomprehensible' part of the Reaper motives), they've already at the tipping point of no return.

Plus, it doesn't help that mass effect technology really is a dominant technology: other technologies may (or may not) exist, but people who use the mass effect have better militaries, faster ships, and stronger economies than those who don't. Everyone wants to use mass effect technology, because not doing so is defeat to others. Even if the Reapers didn't leave them the Mass Relays, once people discovered e-zero they'd switch over.



In this context, the Reapers are the galactic gardeners who prune the galaxy in able for it to keep going. They allow life to grow, but end it before they can reach the dark energy tipping point. The Reapers don't even have to be from this galaxy: they could have started from other galaxies that died and tried other methods, failing even if they knew the problem. The 50,000 year mark could be the 'recovery period' for the galaxy to dissipate Dark Energy safely.

'Worthy' species then get preserved as Reapers, and the galaxy reset allows someone else to grow rather than everyone die. Thus, our salvation through destruction, and the pinnacle of evolution because everyone else kills themselves.


Because e-zero tech is a dominant technology that gives everyone an inclination towards mass effect usage, and their own dark energy extinction, the inevitability. The Reaper trap with the Relays, rather than being coutner-productive to their goals, gives order to that otherwise chaotic process by which species find and utilize mass effect technology. The Reapers guide us to where we were already going, in a controlled manner that is 'safer' for the galaxy's continued existence.



Organics, of course, don't understand the science of what they're doing, and don't listen to warnings either because cheating is too attractive. So now the Reapers reap first, because other methods didn't work.



What would have been especially cool about this theory is that it would have opened the door to the Reapers being negotiated with as an alternative sort of ending. If the Crucible had been a device to trigger the galactic extinction in a 'we'll destroy the galaxy with us', thus denying the Reapers of their goal to preserve the galaxy, then there could have been an ending in which Shepard stares down the Reapers, and they blink.

I would like to complement this by adding a response to the most common objection to this theory.

If the use of eezo causes dark energy buildup, then:

1. Q: Why would the reapers leave us with the most powerful eezo cores in the galaxy?
     A: Because,
            a.) the cycle only sees life capable of using the cores for at most the final ten thousand years of the cycle--it's not as though as soon as the reapers have finished cleaning house the the relays go into high use immediately.
            b.) the careful placement of the mass relays allows the reapers to clean the universe with reletive ease,
            c.) relays are like highways that ultimately use less energy in the process of transporting matter from point a to point b than using the equivalent of city speeds--although it is a massive amount of energy that is used, because it is is a long straight shot, it will ultimately use less energy than the constant output that is required to travel the same long distance.
2. Q. Aren't each of the Reapers in possession of an eezo core that's power is second only to mass relays? Doesn't this contradict this idea right out of the gate?
     A: No, because
           a.) the reapers spend most of their time in hibernation in dark space. they are attempting to minimize the damage done by both spending the majority of time in dark space, in hibernation.
           b.) the reapers left the relays behind to enable minimalistic eezo use when cleaning the universe of what they would view as a nearly "parasitic" organic civilization.

Note that the relays must be a logical end because if the rise of organic civilization is inevitable (which ME states that it is) and that 1.c.) is true, then it is more efficient to leave the relays behind to enable a fast search and destroy than either searching blind or physically travelling to every single galaxy. Also this would enable the Reapers to assess the usefulness of the species to the solving of the Dark Energy problem and uplifting those races through their destruction.

Personally, I have a friend that we discussed this concept before and during ME2, and we thought the collectors were going to be some form of preserving key elements of each species so that if the Dark Energy problem was ever solved, they could re-populate the galaxy with the species they felt necessary to extinguish at the time. Personally, I would have liked the collectors much better if this had been their purpose because it seems easier for the Reapers to just "reproduce" when they are mass harvesting than to sneak around during the cycle collecting what is the equivalent of small change. Plus the collector's work in my friend's and my scenario allows for research to be done on which species would prove the most useful in solving the Dark Energy threat.

Note: a small group of "galactic gardeners" would represent only mild amounts of Dark Energy buildup. It is the rise of an entire civilization and the excessive use of the relays/buildup of DE that is detrimental to the universe.

Note also, that I am not saying that what the reapers is doing (mass genocide) is good or even justified, but merely attempting to understand the basic framework of their motivation and the logic/reasoning behind the various actions. (The reapers's "unknowability" is maintained in that the actual search for the cure and the understanding of the cure to DE has taken the reapers millions of years/cycles must represent the overwhelming complexity of the problem--the unknowability of the potential cure to organic life).

What would be incredibly cool IMO is if in the ME universe, the Reapers were doing this to multiple systems. It would make sense. Why would this galaxy hold life and others wouldn't? Of course they eventually would so they would need their own "gardeners."

[ReachEtaruN74]

Arthorius wrote...

Dark energy makes much more sense to me. After all, the game is named "Mass Effect", not "Synthetic vs Organics". The Mass Effect fields and the dark energy have been at the core of the game from the very beginning. It's not right to see them retconned like that. FFS, what happened to Dholen?

... Your point about the title of the game is incredibly insightful. Very, very true. The title would seem to suggest the overall direction just as much as the small hints in the game.

[Lanpirate]

The Dark Energy Ending would of made much more sense to the game mechanics too. If we had the option to:

(a) Kill the Reapers and put your faith in the races of the galaxy in finding another way to stop the spread with what little time is left

then the whole galactic readiness meter could actually make a real impact to the ending of the game.