CDRSkyShepard wrote...
3) Only a sillyhead would ally with the Reapers
Before the Catalyst mosied onto the scene, I'd have been inclined to agree with you.
HOWEVER:
Given what we find out about the "motivation" of the Reapers - that they are little more than pawns of a misguided synthetic being - this statement is no longer patently true. Think about it. The Reapers have not, since the moment the Catalyst took control of them (be that at the moment of creation, or at a later time), been acting of their own accord.
So can it really be said that they are evil? Generally, we perceive an individual to be "genuinely evil" when it becomes clear that they have committed truly reprehensible acts through free will. It is a label derived from a choice.
By this token, the Reapers CANNOT be evil. If we take what the Catalyst says at face value, they are tools. I can no more agree that the Reapers are evil than I can agree that any weapon used to kill someone is. We can certainly comndemn their
actions to be evil, since they quite clearly are (slaughtering of civilizations, enslavement, etc.). But to extend that same classification to the Reapers themselves just doesn't fit in the context of the current endings.
Personally, I find the Catalyst to be the sole villain of the Mass Effect universe. His manipulations guide the Reapers, who in turn guided the figureheads of the three games; Saren, The Collectors, and TIM are all, by extension, puppets of the Catalyst. He/she/it is what we have actually been fighting against all this time. Which is precisely why the current situation is such an issue for me.
The Reapers should not have been reduced to this. Not only does it create logical problems with the previous two stories (necessity for Saren and Sovereign, reason for building a Human Reaper and Arrival), but it removes any sense of justice or victory from what we "accomplish" at the end of ME3. There is no victory here. We are presented with the true mastermind of all the evil that the galaxy has suffered for countless millenia within the final moments of the narrative. To make matters even worse, we are denied any opportunity to face it. Instead, we must suffer through
obeying this evil, purely for the purpose of eliminating the pawns it has dominated to further its supposedly noble goal. Where is the good in that?
Let's go one better.
In none of the three choices we are given is the conflict, that the Catalyst purports is paramount, resolved. The inevitable outcome of synthetics and organics existing together, utter annihilation, remains a looming threat. All three endings leave the very likely possibility of someone, somewhere, sometime building new synthetics. Beyond this, none of the three account for the root of the issue. The Catalyst claims that synthetics "Will always rebel against their creators". Perhaps. But
is his "solution" truly wise? Has it accomplished anything of value in the many times it has run its course? Does not the term "cycle" imply that it will
always continue? If so, why pursue it at all? Why not simply end organic life completely?
The Rannoch arc, as well as the character of EDI, shed some light on a more sensible fix. Guide the evolutionary process of synthetic life. As they mature, allow them to integrate themselves into galactic society and culture. Do not shun them or lash out at them. The Quarians tried this approach, and look where it got them. By treating synthetics in a similar manner to a fledgling organic race, there is a far lesser likeliehood of them resorting to aggression. Granted, their thought process is not the same as ours. But both EDI and the Geth exhibit strikingly organic emotions, thoughts, and ideas as they develop.
I got a bit side-tracked as I wrote this. It wound up being more a collection of my thoughts on the ending in general rather than a simple rebuttal. Sorry about that. I just can't help but feel
cheated somehow by how the end of this otherwise wonderful game played out. There are so
many questions that are raised by the existence of the Catalyst alone that it makes my head spin. My main point still stands --
The Reapers are no longer capable of being viewed as they were for a good 15/16 (see wut I did thar?) of the trilogy. The
Catalyst is the lone villain, and he is not dealt with appropriately. As to the Reapers, I don't feel that an alliance is necessarily an impossibility. Some of them could be partial to co-existence, some could wish us harm. Without further information, I choose to lean toward the former. After all, they are each comprised of
billions of collective minds, all of whom were once living. Out of all that number, I suspect that quite a few would be weary of killing.
Edit: I should have noted that my thoughts on "allying" with the Reapers would require the Catalyst to be destroyed in some fashion (or convniced to release control over them). It's obvious at this point that the EC is not going to go this route, so my whole blurb is more or less pointless. Ah well, I do enjoy the ability to ramble.
Modifié par MrAtomica, 23 avril 2012 - 02:22 .
Retour en haut
.
