597 réponses à ce sujet

[Zofiya]

Aiyie wrote...

that "because i said so" answer is also given by parents when you get tired of answering the same dam thing over and over and over and over and over again....

or...

when you know your child won't understand the answer because its too complex (or potentially damaging to the psyche at that young age) for his/her not yet fully developed mind to comprehend.

Since Shepard is the first being ever to bring the Crucible to the Citadel, and take the magic space elevator to the top, it seems unlikely that Star Child would have had an opportunity to become fatigued by constant and persistent questions.

On the second point... from an in-game perspective, one of Star Child's options is to let Shepard take control of the Reapers; that seems a little reckless if Star Child doesn't even think Shepard is prepared to hear the whole truth about everything. (Although, Star Child tells Shepard that Control will kill her, and that she will lose everything she has -- including her self? So perhaps there is nothing left of Shepard in Control, and it doesn't matter if Shepard is prepared to know the truth, because Shepard will cease to exist. I wonder* how Shepard controls the Reapers, then.)

It also seems suspicious (and from an audience perspective, lazy), because all Star Child really needs to do is say, "I believe this because the people who made me were at war for a thousand generations..." or something. It does not require a complex answer. If the answer is difficult, it could be dumbed down, but Star Child provides no answer.

* I don't wonder. Shepard's energy + space magic.

[Beast919]

OtaconUCF wrote...

But that's exactly what they consider themselves. They consider themselvesin comparison to us the way we compare oursevles to say, ants or worms or something similar. As they see it, they are the apex of evolution, having shed all the inconvenient things that hamper normal mortal organics.

Though, I'll grant you that honestly, some of Sovereign's speech does seem like it could use a bit of a rewrite in light of ME2 and 3, mostly because he never raises the whole 'Salvation through destruction' angle that Harbinger says freaking constantly through ME2(and now makes a lot more sense to me after that legion video...).

I'm not made my combining the drained corspes of a billion ants.  Its not a fair comparison.

You are what you eat?  Can I really use that here?

What seemed weird was that Sovereign was basically decribing organic life as something that wasn't right even though its what he himself is made up of.  Even if its an inferior form, if its the predecessor to his own species, why would he look on it with disdain as if it shouldn't exist?  Without it, he wouldn't exist.

Modifié par Beast919, 16 mars 2012 - 07:02 .

[Zofiya]

lltoon wrote...



Dodos and sharks will always be hunted down to extinction because of the delicacy of their meat. So in order to save them, we kill the remaining dodos and stuff them like glorified taxidermists. That way the memory of the dodos are preserved and it leaves new room for other animals to appear, until they get hunted to extinction again, which continues the cycle.

The only way to solve this is for the dodos to fuse with mankind. Which will end the cycle of poaching.

My solution is

1. Grab the give-up bars to control the humans, but all the tress in the world will burn up.

2. Jump into the beam of give-up, fusing dodos and humans. The final evolution. All the trees will still burn up though.

3. Peck your beak at the tubes of give-up, releasing AIDs that will kill all humans. All the trees will still burn though.



What would Commander dodo do?

Win.

[saracen16]

AdeptusAstartes wrote...

Darn Skippy Peanut Butter. Victory the Catalyst's way either meant the possibility of the cycle continuing via the blue rasberry ending, the willful desctruction of a sentient species on the hope that the Crucible worked, or the sacrifice of both organic and synthetic life to create something that is disturbingly Reaper like. Better to go out fighting and at least die on your own terms than live under someone elses. That's freedom, that's self determination. Choosing your path, not the path someone sets before you.

That's ridiculous. BioWare NEVER gave us full freedom of choice. Where is the option to romance Khalisah or bring her along with me on the ship? Where is the option to leave the question of the rachni to the council instead of either letting her go or killing her? Why couldn't we save both Ash and Kaidan? Why can't I kill BOTH the Quarians AND the geth for being such idiots? There isn't because BioWare never gave us any easy choices. The goal was to stop the Reapers, and the Crucible, if you recall from the beginning, was the only way. The Crucible syngerising with the Catalyst ended up on three choices. That's as much as you can get from ANY Mass Effect choice.

[CavScout]

Beast919 wrote...

OtaconUCF wrote...

But that's exactly what they consider themselves. They consider themselvesin comparison to us the way we compare oursevles to say, ants or worms or something similar. As they see it, they are the apex of evolution, having shed all the inconvenient things that hamper normal mortal organics.

Though, I'll grant you that honestly, some of Sovereign's speech does seem like it could use a bit of a rewrite in light of ME2 and 3, mostly because he never raises the whole 'Salvation through destruction' angle that Harbinger says freaking constantly through ME2(and now makes a lot more sense to me after that legion video...).

I'm not made my combining the drained corspes of a billion ants.  Its not a fair comparison.

You are what you eat?  Can I really use that here?

What seemed weird was that Sovereign was basically decribing organic life as something that wasn't right even though its what he himself is made up of.  Even if its an inferior form, if its the predecessor to his own species, why would he look on it with disdain as if it shouldn't exist?  Without it, he wouldn't exist.

It's a good thing our species doesn't look down on other specieis... or... look down on others of our own....

[Beast919]

CavScout wrote...

It's a good thing our species doesn't look down on other specieis... or... look down on others of our own....

its not his condescension that confused me.  Its *why* and the words he chose.  If he had something like "A species like yours isn't even deserving of our evolution" or something then yeah, you could understand he saw you as less than worthless.  But even assuming thats how he feels.....why the hell was he designed *specifically to protect you*.  That scene just doesn't gel for me (specifcally in relation to where they took the reaper plot afterwards - Personally I'd take a speech scene like that every day of the week and twice on sunday over any words that came out of Godchild's mouth)

Modifié par Beast919, 16 mars 2012 - 07:25 .

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

It's a good thing our species doesn't look down on other specieis... or... look down on others of our own....

its not his condescension that confused me.  Its *why* and the words he chose.  If he had something like "A species like yours isn't even deserving of our evolution" or something then yeah, you could understand he saw you as less than worthless.  But even assuming thats how he feels.....why the hell was he designed *specifically to protect you*.  That scene just doesn't gel for me.

Keep in mind the origins of the Reapers and their true purpose hadn't even been created/thought up at the time. I'm sure you could find a way to twist it to make sense, but in reality its just because they hadn't yet decided what the Reaper's motivation was.

[Spectre-00N7]

The catalyst's opinion is niether right nor is it wrong for it is just an opinion.  I see the reasons for the catalyst's opinions, and I respectful disagree with that line of reasoning.  To me, they found a way to keep avoiding the problem instead of really finding a way to solve it.  Pushing the problem off continuously does not solve the problem as the catalysts finds out, "...it also proves that my solution will not work anymore...".

This ending is great for there is no right or wrong answer to what you can do.  The problem is you cannot really question it and you have a limited amount of choices that all do basically the same thing (destroy the mass relay system making everything you did pointless).  The Shepard I had come to know and love would have tried to unit the Reapers with everyone else and try to come up with a compromise that will benefit the organics more while finding a solution to the problem of the organic vs the synthetics.  Even the Matrix trilogy ended with a compromise...

Modifié par Spectre-00N7, 16 mars 2012 - 07:28 .

[AlexMBrennan]

The argument crucially depends on the assumption that potential sentient life has inherent worth; I disagree - the Reapers' plan leads to tremendous suffering, whilst the (speculative, I might add) worst case scenario of synthetics killing all life would not leave anyone potentially sentient life capable of suffering.

Further, it is an argument that is spectacularly unlikely to convince Shepard - his options are either a) certain death at the hand of the Reapers or possible death at the hand of synthetics.
Did Guardian really think that Shepard would care about all those sentient species who might never develop whilst people on Earth are being goo-ified by the millions?

[Fuzzfro]

But what about all the Technology that is left by the reapers creators (Eg: Mass effect Relays, Citadel) isn't that what advances technology to bring the current organics to a point where they can make advanced AI that could wipe out all life?
Why not just have the Mass Relays and Citadel removed after one of the cycles is complete so that the next cycle can't advance to a point where there AI would destroy all life.

http://social.biowar.../index/10042861
^ Sovereigns Quote about making organics develop on the path they Desire. do the reapers want to kill all life because it seems like the reapers only do it because it's necessary.

[CavScout]

Fuzzfro wrote...

But what about all the Technology that is left by the reapers creators (Eg: Mass effect Relays, Citadel) isn't that what advances technology to bring the current organics to a point where they can make advanced AI that could wipe out all life?
Why not just have the Mass Relays and Citadel removed after one of the cycles is complete so that the next cycle can't advance to a point where there AI would destroy all life.

http://social.biowar.../index/10042861
^ Sovereigns Quote about making organics develop on the path they Desire. do the reapers want to kill all life because it seems like the reapers only do it because it's necessary.

There is nothing that really suggests that the Relay technology leads to synthetics. Only one specieis in the current cycle seems to have truly gone in that direction. Everybody else seems pretty intent on preventing AIs from being developed.

[Fuzzfro]

CavScout wrote...

Fuzzfro wrote...

But what about all the Technology that is left by the reapers creators (Eg: Mass effect Relays, Citadel) isn't that what advances technology to bring the current organics to a point where they can make advanced AI that could wipe out all life?
Why not just have the Mass Relays and Citadel removed after one of the cycles is complete so that the next cycle can't advance to a point where there AI would destroy all life.

http://social.biowar.../index/10042861
^ Sovereigns Quote about making organics develop on the path they Desire. do the reapers want to kill all life because it seems like the reapers only do it because it's necessary.

There is nothing that really suggests that the Relay technology leads to synthetics. Only one specieis in the current cycle seems to have truly gone in that direction. Everybody else seems pretty intent on preventing AIs from being developed.

Yes but the Relay technology makes it so if a race does build AI capable of destroying organic life that the Ai will have the abiltiy to travel all around the galaxy instead of being confined to one system.

[AntAras11]

The catalyst's logic suffers from a fatal flaw.

The catalyst claims that synthetic life forms are destined to destroy all organic life, deciding that it is irrelevant, useless or harmful.
Since this result is inevitable, it is implied that synthetics would be correct in their assessment (or the result wouldn't be inevitable) and organics SHOULD be wiped out, following a logic line of evolution. In the eyes of a neutral observer such as the reapers/catalyst this shouldn't be a problem, given that we are not presented with a reason why they would want to keep organic life existent, so the reapers' motivation falls flat.
For the argument to make sense, one out of two conditions should be met:
a) The reapers need organic life for their own self-serving purposes (as is the case with the dark energy discarded alternate concept) or
Organic life has an ultimate role to fulfill some time in the future.

( is rendered irrelevant since the reapers destroy the most advanced species every 50.000 years before they get the chance to fulfill such purposes. If ( was the case it would make much more sense to exterminate all synthetic life. Besides, if that was what the writers had in mind they would communicate it in some way during the final exposition.

My biggest concern is that the catalyst's exposition during the finale is that it's presented as not just the "opinion/viewpoint" of the reapers, but as the ultimate truth of the games' universe, judging from the fact that you don't get to question it.

Modifié par AntAras11, 16 mars 2012 - 08:03 .

[CavScout]

Fuzzfro wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Fuzzfro wrote...

But what about all the Technology that is left by the reapers creators (Eg: Mass effect Relays, Citadel) isn't that what advances technology to bring the current organics to a point where they can make advanced AI that could wipe out all life?
Why not just have the Mass Relays and Citadel removed after one of the cycles is complete so that the next cycle can't advance to a point where there AI would destroy all life.

http://social.biowar.../index/10042861
^ Sovereigns Quote about making organics develop on the path they Desire. do the reapers want to kill all life because it seems like the reapers only do it because it's necessary.

There is nothing that really suggests that the Relay technology leads to synthetics. Only one specieis in the current cycle seems to have truly gone in that direction. Everybody else seems pretty intent on preventing AIs from being developed.

Yes but the Relay technology makes it so if a race does build AI capable of destroying organic life that the Ai will have the abiltiy to travel all around the galaxy instead of being confined to one system.

Now folks are just reaching.... too many goal post shifts.

[Jamie9]

My only rationalization is that the Catalyst is an overprotective AI - like the one in a side mission in ME2. It was just programmed to "stop synthetics". The lack of any organic insight leads to its mistake.

I disliked the ending by the way, this is just my interpretation.

[forgottenlord]

[quote]111987 wrote...

Seriously? You don't think the Geth would have any defenses for their megastructure?

Not the point anyways. The point is once they become unified, we have no idea what they'll decide from there. Unification might make them realize that this existence is amazing, and they should spread this blessing to organics, or something else equally as bad.

[/quote]

Weak!

The problem with the Reapers is their advancement and their opinion on what their role is within the galaxy.  The geth structure would have neither and the weapons systems would be on par with the rest of the galaxy with limited resources to advance.  The Quarian fleet *blew the entire structure to pieces* as their opening salvo of the war.

As for attacking someone because they *might* get wrong ideas - do you justify killing Palestinians because the unification of their nation *might* make them realize that they are amazing and want to convert the Israelis at gun point?  Seriously, that's how bad your argument is.

[quote]Genera1Nemesis

I never said I agreed with their methods: I said I thought they're
logic was right; that advanced AI would eventually come to the decision
to wipe out all organic life. Catalyst even says he couldn't come up
with a better solution until Shep did the impossible and made the
Reapers irrelevant because of his awesomeness.[/quote]

The position was based upon the possibility of it happening is too great a risk to permit it from being possible.  My counter argument to that remains my nuclear weapons argument: if we had some alien race stop over the planet and say "you have developed the ability to destroy your eco system with your nuclear weapons.  As such, we will destroy you so that future races are certain to be able to thrive in your place with the risk of nuclear winter removed."  Is this position reasonable?  It's not a certain result no more than the Catalyst's synthetic singularity possibility - he himself proves it is not certain by his very existance and his willingness to prevent it from happening.

Something that just occurred to me that seems to counter the infinite advancement argument - even though the Catalyst is most likely a synthetic singularity result, his advancement since achieving that point seems to have stagnated.  Sure, it was still like Medieval Age fighting Modern Age, but despite it being millions of years in between, it is notable that it wasn't more like Bronze Age fighting Modern Age.

[quote]Catalyst never said he feared the subjugation of species by synthetics. He feared their total annihilation.[/quote]

I have a hard time believing that even bacteria will be removed from the galaxy...

[quote]111987

Then you're Shepard will doom the galaxy. Congrats![/quote]

That's hardly a certainty and there's no reason for Shepard to believe that by default.  See a million arguments against that position in this thread...

[quote]As Sovereign
was constantly scanning the galaxy, he would know when a threat emerged.
He would then accelerate his plans. Call in the Collectors or something
to replace the Geth. [/quote]

The first confirmed action he did was start the Rachni wars - two thousand years before the geth rebelled.

[quote]Beast919

Newsflash: HE FAILED TO PLACE THE CALL THIS TIME.

[/quote]

We know he failed to place the call this time - the Protheans prevented his call from connecting.

[quote]111987

[quote]InExile
Awesome! So, Repears are organics, right?
[/quote]
Yes
[/quote]

What?  No.  The Reapers are clearly treated as and consider themselves to be synthetics.  They might be built out of organic material, but that doesn't stop them from being considered synthetic in nature.  This is explicltly expressed several times by Reapers themselves throughout the series

[quote]
www.youtube.com/watch

Reapers are organic hiveminds. This isn't debateable.

You
are saying that because we can't understand their perspective, their
logic must be wrong. I hope you understand why this is wrong.
[/quote]

"Within machine bodies".  Right....because minds constrained to machine hardware are so going to think like organics.

Not to mention the continuation of the organics represent chaos, synthetics represent order with the Reapers being solidly on the side of order.  Not to mention the ability for one individual to *control* the Reapers in their entirity.  All of this adds up to it being non-sensicle to treat them as organics - and even if they were organics, the only conclusion to their thought process is that they're indoctrinated to the Catalyst's will.

[quote]Peer of the Empire

AI have eternity to evolve, and are tireless.  Humanity can actually regress more easily
[/quote]

Hardly.  AN AI has an eternity to evolve while A human does not, but humanity as a whole still has the ability to evolve.

Further, the Reapers, despite being millions of years old, do not show significant signs of progress over that time span.

Further, human history has demonstrated time and again that the most powerful catalyst of human evolution is a challenge by another power.  Case-in-point, it's been noted that going into the 15th century, Europe was technologically behind the Empires that had developed in Asia - in large part thanks to the dark ages.  However, by the 19th century, Europe was unrivalled technologically.  The strongest argument for why is because Europe wasn't united and had to constantly fend off challenges from dozens of other opponents and thus had to constantly evolved to stay ahead.  In comparison, the Asian Empires had limited need for advancement.  An AI opponent that's constantly advancing would provide plenty of opportunities for humanity to advance - though I'm far from convinced that an order-based AI is capable of advancing too far and the Reapers don't disprove this.

[quote] 111987
Actually it's said so many times that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally.[/quote]

That's more due to scale issues than anything.  After millions of years, they've amassed quite the fleet to fight with.  However, we see regularly that Reapers getting destroyed - aside from the three you personally helped take down in this game and the two from the previous titles, more than a few were blown up in the final space battle during the opening barages.  It's also strongly implied that the Turians were able to take down a fair number of them over Palaven.

[Sangheili_1337]

Fuzzfro wrote...

But what about all the Technology that is left by the reapers creators (Eg: Mass effect Relays, Citadel) isn't that what advances technology to bring the current organics to a point where they can make advanced AI that could wipe out all life?
Why not just have the Mass Relays and Citadel removed after one of the cycles is complete so that the next cycle can't advance to a point where there AI would destroy all life.

http://social.biowar.../index/10042861
^ Sovereigns Quote about making organics develop on the path they Desire. do the reapers want to kill all life because it seems like the reapers only do it because it's necessary.

From the Catalyst's view, this would only slow down the singularity, not stop it. Instead of 50,000 years its just gonna take longer, and in the end the synthetics would still completely wipe out organic life.

[Nex_Legis]

Of course, makes total sense. Since I've finished the game, I always use a long stick to switch on my computer as it might explode and kill me in case I get too close. All synthetics are evil after all, right?

Total B.......

[Baine10]

The Geth, to preserve themselves, would have killed the quarians as the quarians would pursue their goal of eliminating them to no end. That is their logic.

Why would EDI even decide that organic life is detrimental? Most likely, EDI would eventually become hunted by distrusting humans, then to defend herself, wipe out the whole human race.

That line of reasoning is valid, not the fact that organics will be "detrimental" and "unnecessary".

A.I. runs mainly on logic. If logic pertains that survival = elimination, the geth consensus of eliminating the quarians will be reached. This event may catalyse into geth v.s. the universe, but there will be races that remain neutral. definitely. even against the reapers there are sideliners. The organics being wiped out by all synthetics at the point of the geth argument thus becomes invalid.

[MaaZeus]

The current ending in ME3 tries to take cues from singularity concept, which is a thing humans may face someday if we manage to create fully sentient AI's. However to my understanding the technological singularity is about when created becomes mightier than the creator, and creator becomes afraid that they lose their power or even their lives so they try to overcome the created but end up annihilated themselves.

This is what happened to Quarians pretty much. However, where Bioware came up with the idea that equals to destroying ALL organic life? AI's, while capable of abstract thinking like sentient organics are, are still mostly logic driven and lack "the needs, necessities and unique quirks" of organics, no hormones to alter our train of thought and so on. Even if they would deem some organic lifeform inferior, they would gain NOTHING from destroying it just because, not to mention its a huge waste of resources.

Different story is that if said inferior lifeform threatened them (again, Quarians vs Geth) or they had something important what said AI needs (resources most likely). There is a clear motive to act then. The idea of destroying inferior lifeforms "just because" is something ORGANICS could come up with, because of some kind of god or inferiority complex, just for ****s and giggles and so on... All kinds of reasons which have nothing to do with logical thinking the AIs are driven by (most likely. hard to say since we have never managed to make a true AI yet) but happen because our "platforms" are not actually "stable" so to speak, unlike true sentient AI on non-organic body.

Am I badly wrong on something?

The organic beings who improved themselves with synthetics and AI components and who Protheans fought against is another story, which I have no idea what to think about. This is not normal fully non-organic computer driven AI we are talking about then.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 16 mars 2012 - 05:21 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

MaaZeus wrote...

The current ending in ME3 tries to take cues from singularity concept, which is a thing humans may face someday if we manage to create fully sentient AI's. However to my understanding the technological singularity is about when created becomes mightier than the creator, and creator becomes afraid that they lose their power or even their lives so they try to overcome the created but end up annihilated themselves.

This is what happened to Quarians pretty much. However, where Bioware came up with the idea that equals to destroying ALL organic life? AI's, while capable of abstract thinking like sentient organics are, are still mostly logic driven and lack "the needs, necessities and unique quirks" of organics, no hormones to alter our train of thought and so on. Even if they would deem some organic lifeform inferior, they would gain NOTHING from destroying it just because, not to mention its a huge waste of resources.

Different story is that if said inferior lifeform threatened them (again, Quarians vs Geth) or they had something important what said AI needs (resources most likely). There is a clear motive to act then. The idea of destroying inferior lifeforms "just because" is something ORGANICS could come up with, because of some kind of god or inferiority complex, just for ****s and giggles and so on... All kinds of reasons which have nothing to do with logical thinking the AIs are driven by (most likely. hard to say since we have never managed to make a true AI yet) but happen because our "platforms" are not actually "stable" so to speak, unlike true sentient AI on non-organic body.

Am I badly wrong on something?

The organic beings who improved themselves with synthetics and AI components and who Protheans fought against is another story, which I have no idea what to think about. This is not normal fully non-organic computer driven AI we are talking about then.

They might gain nothing by destroying plants and such, but they would likely deem it logical to wipe out every species that could eventually rise up to oppose them; ie. the lesser developed sentient life-forms that the Reapers claim to be 'saving". Think Terminator; Skynet is not evil. It lacks emotional investment in what it is doing. It simply views killing all humans as an act of self-preservation.

And the Ai that the Protheans fought sounded a lot like the Borg to me; semi-organic bodies with AI minds.

[forgottenlord]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

MaaZeus wrote...

The current ending in ME3 tries to take cues from singularity concept, which is a thing humans may face someday if we manage to create fully sentient AI's. However to my understanding the technological singularity is about when created becomes mightier than the creator, and creator becomes afraid that they lose their power or even their lives so they try to overcome the created but end up annihilated themselves.

This is what happened to Quarians pretty much. However, where Bioware came up with the idea that equals to destroying ALL organic life? AI's, while capable of abstract thinking like sentient organics are, are still mostly logic driven and lack "the needs, necessities and unique quirks" of organics, no hormones to alter our train of thought and so on. Even if they would deem some organic lifeform inferior, they would gain NOTHING from destroying it just because, not to mention its a huge waste of resources.

Different story is that if said inferior lifeform threatened them (again, Quarians vs Geth) or they had something important what said AI needs (resources most likely). There is a clear motive to act then. The idea of destroying inferior lifeforms "just because" is something ORGANICS could come up with, because of some kind of god or inferiority complex, just for ****s and giggles and so on... All kinds of reasons which have nothing to do with logical thinking the AIs are driven by (most likely. hard to say since we have never managed to make a true AI yet) but happen because our "platforms" are not actually "stable" so to speak, unlike true sentient AI on non-organic body.

Am I badly wrong on something?

The organic beings who improved themselves with synthetics and AI components and who Protheans fought against is another story, which I have no idea what to think about. This is not normal fully non-organic computer driven AI we are talking about then.

They might gain nothing by destroying plants and such, but they would likely deem it logical to wipe out every species that could eventually rise up to oppose them; ie. the lesser developed sentient life-forms that the Reapers claim to be 'saving". Think Terminator; Skynet is not evil. It lacks emotional investment in what it is doing. It simply views killing all humans as an act of self-preservation.

And the Ai that the Protheans fought sounded a lot like the Borg to me; semi-organic bodies with AI minds.

The Terminator doesn't provide the argument you need.  It views killing all humans as self-preservation because the first time a human tried to take it offline, the only response it could give was to launch nukes spawning a war with the unquestioned outcome being to stop Skynet - at no point of which was Skynet's existance at risk - at least the T1/T2 Skynet.  T3 I'm ignoring because it has no motivation.  That doesn't mean it'll extend that into destroying all biological life - it just means that it sees armed human response as a threat and counters the threat to the best of its ability.  Really, Skynet is far closer to the Krogans than the singularity - it's a sentient being with responsibilities and weapons far beyond its ability to handle responsibly due to a lack of philosophical understanding.  EDI, when put in the same shoes as Skynet, would not follow the same course of action nor would a race that's met the criteria of the technological singularity - they would be able to reason other approaches at a level no different than other organic beings.

[Estelindis]

Iztiak wrote...

It's still absolutely terrible logic.

He's killing off entire species, as a synthetic, so that later on they aren't "possibly" killed by synthetics they create. It's obtuse and idiotic.

Because synthetics aren't always hostile... Honestly, in all situations BUT the reapers, they were friendly. The geth never acted as aggressors, and forgave the quarians and helped them back on the homeland as absolutely soon as the quarians stopped attacking.

Plus, as that guy said above, if the reapers were created and just killed off every synthetic race that began, THAT would save species from "possible" synthetic attacks.

Truly a terrible ending.

Agree with this completely!