232 réponses à ce sujet

[Sparse]

Guglio08 wrote...
It is intentionally flawed logic. The Reapers are the antagonist. Their reasons for existing are incomprehensible and thus our limited understanding of them doesn't make sense. Villains always have twisted mentalities.

But their twisted mentalities are usually given a proper explanation.

I mean we don't need to know that Harbinger wasn't hugged enough as a child, but we do need to know a few whys and hows.

Modifié par Sparse, 19 mars 2012 - 10:24 .

[Myskal1981]

The Reapers are weighing actual organic life against possible future organic life. It would be much easier to act as a vanguard and protect the organics as soon as they see they are about to create synthetics that might kill everything.
They are working on unproven assumptions IMO, because if they encountered already a cycle in which synthetics kill all organic life, than there would be no organic life for the next cycle. Unless you assume the Reapers have several galaxies they continously harvest.

[Edje Edgar]

Just because it's logical doesn't make it right. YES, we can end the chaos in the Middle- East by killing everyone that lives there. Just because it works, doesn't make it right.

Spacehitler gives Shephard three horrible immoral choices and Shephard just goes "herp derp okay!". Instead of his usual, how about I take option 4, where I give you the finger...

[likta_]

Iwillbeback wrote...

likta_ wrote...

@Ajensis

1.) It never happened before because there IS life in the galaxy, and there is no malevolent synthetic species hell bend on killing everything except for the reapers, which have no desire to kill off all life.

Life could of been extinct in the sense there were no clear organics that were capable advancing to something greater and then after time it started up again and the cycle began soon after.

The reasoning of the reapers is then? When life will always find a way and synthetics can not kill everything? 

[CavScout]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

But that circular logic...

I don't think you know what that means.... in fact, most folks who claim "circular logic" are actually using it themselves to "prove" their point.

[saracen16]

The OP said it best: we can not hope to comprehend their logic, but we've been given enough as to know what their raison d'etre is.

[Iwillbeback]

likta_ wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

likta_ wrote...

@Ajensis

1.) It never happened before because there IS life in the galaxy, and there is no malevolent synthetic species hell bend on killing everything except for the reapers, which have no desire to kill off all life.

Life could of been extinct in the sense there were no clear organics that were capable advancing to something greater and then after time it started up again and the cycle began soon after.

The reasoning of the reapers is then? When life will always find a way and synthetics can not kill everything? 

We don't have a lot to work with but I guess it is for preservation of the species in Reaper form.

[Wizard of thay]

My issue with the endings are may (great game thought) but with regards this issue.

1) Is the destruction of almost all organic life the best way to solve the problem? the reaper have the ability to control all the geth...why not just destroy all the synthetics or hell just shut them down...

2) Why preserve the civilisations in this format? all of the things that make organic life and the chaos it brings great and destroyed whe the civilisation becomes a reaper. a reaper is systematic organised
and displays none of the key concepts of life ethat we would hold dear...love faith hope, creativity, art, music. whilst the reapers are unfeeling machines, the Starchild and creator of the reapers appears not to be and sees some worth in these values in order to be saved.

3) The reapers created the mass relay and the citadel in order to control the development of technological evolution along their lines. so why not have failsafes other than the almost complete destruction of organincs. and by influencing organics along a certain technological path are they not contributing to their tech (which they influenced) verse organics?

Modifié par Wizard of thay, 19 mars 2012 - 10:32 .

[count_4]

likta_ wrote...
Why would they believe that synthetics will inevitably wipe out all organic life? It never happened before.

'Nuff said.

[Ajensis]

likta_ wrote...



Why would they kill of entire
civilisations even before they created synthetics that could kill them
instead of killing the synthetics if they MAY rise up? Is that really
the easiest and most practical solution?

See my post above yours for an answer to that

Tregon wrote...

Ajensis wrote...
(...)

Except that requires two things which MUST be true...
1) Synthetic life must want to destroy ALL life.
2) Synthetic life must be able to DO that.

You need motivation and ability both, one or another does not work.
Geth for example lack motivation, and when we look at might of Citadel species, they lack power as well.
Ragtag
fleet of Quarians in ME3 were pressing Geth hard. Add in Turian and/or
other Citadel species fleets and Geth are kicked down hard.

And those two things could very well become true without any kind of imposed order. It doesn't seem likely in 2184 (?) A.D., but you can't say it won't be possible in 7.502 A.D.
It's unlikely, but it's possible. That's all the incentive the Catalyst needs for them to have created the Reapers.

Baronesa wrote...

Ajensis wrote...

likta_ (again): I don't think the Reapers consider organic life more worth than synthetic. They merely carry out the function they were created for. They're tools - horrible and terrifying tools, but tools nonetheless. And to them, they are the pinnacle of evolution - our evolution. It makes sense, at least to me

I have a big problem with that argument, Evolution is an unguided process, with no end goal... so that argument, given by the reapers is nonsensical.

Alright, so maybe "pinnacle of evolution" isn't spot-on. We could argue choices of words all day, but I honestly don't see the point by and large, the Reapers perform their Cycle with a distinct purpose, regardless of what one of them said at that one time.

[Claym0re]

".. focused on big picture. Big picture made of little pictures. Too many variables."

[likta_]

Iwillbeback wrote...

likta_ wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

likta_ wrote...

@Ajensis

1.) It never happened before because there IS life in the galaxy, and there is no malevolent synthetic species hell bend on killing everything except for the reapers, which have no desire to kill off all life.

Life could of been extinct in the sense there were no clear organics that were capable advancing to something greater and then after time it started up again and the cycle began soon after.

The reasoning of the reapers is then? When life will always find a way and synthetics can not kill everything? 

We don't have a lot to work with but I guess it is for preservation of the species in Reaper form.

Thats mainly consolation for the lack of, you know, a future.

[Shezo]

I'm kinda more bothered with their means, they way how they achieve their goal, rather their logic and goal.

What do we have ?
Some advanced AI using Reapers to destroy civilizations in order to save other organic life from synthetics that this said civilizations may create.
Ok, so the goal is to save all organic life.
And means to do it is destruction of advanced civilization.
So far, it's kinda ok, stupid, but ok.

But let's look at means, at the way how they destroying civilized life.
They literally reaping all life, using harvester ships that act like real slaughter houses, they use terror tactics by unleashing husks and other monstrosities. deploy concentration camps , terrorizing population etc.
In short, they unleash real hell and horror on us.

Yet they do it so save life.

It doesn't compute, really.
When goals and means (tools) differ _this_ much, something is really wrong, someone is lying or not telling all the truth.
You can't, literally can't do this horrors for so long in the name of greater good.

It's either this AI is so super stupid by doing so.
Or it's malevolent lying tyrant.

[Xandax]

It makes 'sense' if we ignore Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2.

[Vergil_dgk]

Ajensis wrote...

Let me start off by saying that I wasn't satisfied by the ending at all. There are plot holes and inconsistencies, yes. However, I think it's important we direct our attention to what didn't make sense, and the purpose of the Reapers isn't one of them. I'll try and keep it brief:

Scenario 1: "Order"

This is the state of the galaxy in the Mass Effect universe until the ending of the 3rd game, and how it's been for at least hundreds of thousands of years (and much more if we choose to believe the Catalyst).
In short, organic life evolves everywhere in the galaxy at different paces. When the Cycle has come to an end, the Reapers set out to perform their routinely task of wiping out all sentient life. They do this in order to preserve life - this is not a contradiction. Remember, they do not kill anything that's alive, only those who have attained too much wisdom and resourcefulness. Allow me to be the Devil's advocate for a second in hopes of elaborating my point:

Scenario 2: "Chaos"

The Catalyst explains that they believe that at a certain point, organics will have the skills and knowledge to create something too dangerous. It doesn't matter what you believe and that you proved the Catalyst wrong in a case or two - they're not human, so we can't necessarily apply our logic. The argument still stands: without the Reapers, organics may gain too much knowledge and create something they cannot control. Imagine the Geth conflict prior to its resolution, except galaxywide. Probable? I don't personally think so. But possible? Yes, anything is possible. It is this possibility that the Reapers guard us against.
What the Catalyst is protecting us against (however horrible the method) is the possibility that a synthetic race will overcome the ones that created them. If that happens on a larger scale, what are the odds that they'll allow new life to rise up and evolve without interference? Again, this is way out in the vague world of hypothetics, but we're not dealing with a human race - the mere 0,1 % chance of this scenario could mean a world of difference to a different race than humans (and possibly even to some humans). So what the Reapers are meant to prevent is having a synthetic race dominate the known galaxy by ensuring that organic life could never rebel against them.

The difference is that the Reapers allow organic life to exist, whereas our future creations might not. Life gets to evolve for 50.000 years, to live and love and experience and create and ponder. An ancient civilization merely thought it necessary to 'reset' life at specific intervals to make sure life wouldn't endanger itself. This is what we're fighting against. If we get a different ending without the Mass Relays blowing up, destroying the Reapers is basically throwing our future into a great Unknown where anything can happen. But, being human, I would of course never adhere to the logic of the Catalyst but now I'm digressing, sorry.


The popular Xzibit picture with "Yo dawg, I heard you don't wanna be
killed by synthetics, etc." does not point out a plothole. We've got
other things that we're better off addressing.

Keep up the civil behaviour and thoughtful criticism!

PS: feel free to let me know if someone made a thread about this as well. I searched through a dozen pages, but there's just so many threads in this forum (and not all of them descriptive in their titles ).

...or the reapers could just wait until such a creation actually arose, then zoom in and destroy it with their god-like powers, then tell sentients to stop creating that kind of stuff or be wiped out - and then zoom out again. Fighting war after war with a whole galaxy of advanced civilizations seems like kind of a high-risk strategy for a bunch of super-advanced machines/whatevers to pursue. I'm sorry, but the argument for the reaper solution is still terribly contrived and wafer thin. You can say it's not a plot hole, but it's still really far-fetched and unneccessary. The argument that reapers harvest advanced civilizations to improve themselves is simpler and far more sensible - and things should have been left there, imo. What we have now seems like a desperate reach for a surprising twist where none was needed.

[Federally]

Really from a literary sense suddenly changing the motives of the Reapers in the last five minutes was a poor decision. Whether you can justify partial genocide to prevent possible total genocide or not the introduction of this new information so late was a bad decision.

The Reapers were a threatening, mysterious and downright scary antagonist in ME1 when they were an unknown force lurking in the background. In ME2 their motivation was revealed, they killed organics not for fun but for procreation. Not only were you gonna die, but you were gonna get turned into a monster and used to kill your family/friends. That's worse then plain old dead. So why at the end of act 3 do we need to change their motivation? Even worse change it to something easily turned into a joke. It's just bad writing

[Baronesa]

Federally wrote...

Really from a literary sense suddenly changing the motives of the Reapers in the last five minutes was a poor decision. Whether you can justify partial genocide to prevent possible total genocide or not the introduction of this new information so late was a bad decision.

The Reapers were a threatening, mysterious and downright scary antagonist in ME1 when they were an unknown force lurking in the background. In ME2 their motivation was revealed, they killed organics not for fun but for procreation. Not only were you gonna die, but you were gonna get turned into a monster and used to kill your family/friends. That's worse then plain old dead. So why at the end of act 3 do we need to change their motivation? Even worse change it to something easily turned into a joke. It's just bad writing

This, this so much of THIS

[Lyrandori]

The Reapers function with the ideology of the preemptive war. They remind me of the Craftworld Eldar in the Warhammer 40,000 universe, they are the kind of aliens whom strike a colony to prevent a potential future threat to materialize there (even if the colony has nothing to do with that probable future). They have Farseers (able to perceive the future to some extent, and act upon their understanding of their visions) that will order such preemptive strikes each time they THINK that a POSSIBLE threat COULD one day aim them.

It's like someone saying "Well yeah I decided to burn my neighbor's house because I know that it is possible that one day a colony of ants will establish itself there and could then move on to my own house." In other words whatever "explainable" reasons the Reapers have only rest on probabilities that might never happen, or might one day happen. So... I might as well just stop going out because it could be possible that one day I fall down the stairs and break my neck, yep so I'll call my boss and tell him I stop working because something could happen to me one day. Makes total sense.

Modifié par Lyrandori, 19 mars 2012 - 10:48 .

[Peranor]

Yeah, this one time I also thought that the endings made sense. But then I remembered that I was on a LSD trip.

[likta_]

Ah the Eldar comparision is not very good. Because Eldar know pretty much immediately to what the future will shift to when they intervene, and it saved their butts countless times.

[Thor23]

Using the Geth conflict in the OP is a bad example, since it's the Quarians who are actively attacking the Geth, not the other way around. That aside, you've come to most of the same conclusions I came to. I've outlined my thoughts here.

[Ajensis]

Myskal1981 wrote...





The Reapers are weighing actual
organic life against possible future organic life. It would be much
easier to act as a vanguard and protect the organics as soon as they see
they are about to create synthetics that might kill everything.


They
are working on unproven assumptions IMO, because if they encountered
already a cycle in which synthetics kill all organic life, than there
would be no organic life for the next cycle. Unless you assume the
Reapers have several galaxies they continously harvest.

As I replied to someone else: for them to protect us constantly would require their presence in known galaxy space. There are too many variables in this case. Organics might actually create armies of synthetics to kill the Reapers, so their presence wouldn't make anything easier.

And yes, I agree that they working on an unproven assumption (this is in response to likta_ as well), but most intelligent life would still work to prevent a catastrophe before it happens.

Edje Edgar wrote...



Just because it's logical
doesn't make it right. YES, we can end the chaos in the Middle- East by
killing everyone that lives there. Just because it works, doesn't make
it right.

(...)

I agree entirely. This isn't about how morally correct it is to kill trillions of people for some sinister purpose. I hope you didn't actually think I thought the Reapers were doing something good they're not. They're evil. Or rather, their actions are evil - to us. They aren't to them. But that's a different topic.

Wizard of thay wrote...

My issue with the endings are may (great game thought) but with regards this issue.

1)
Is the destruction of almost all organic life the best way to solve the
problem? the reaper have the ability to control all the geth...why not
just destroy all the synthetics or hell just shut them down...

2)
Why preserve the civilisations in this format? all of the things that
make organic life and the chaos it brings great and destroyed whe the
civilisation becomes a reaper. a reaper is systematic organised
and
displays none of the key concepts of life ethat we would hold
dear...love faith hope, creativity, art, music. whilst the reapers are
unfeeling machines, the Starchild and creator of the reapers appears not
to be and sees some worth in these values in order to be saved.

3) The
reapers created the mass relay and the citadel in order to control the
development of technological evolution along their lines. so why not
have failsafes other than the almost complete destruction of organincs.
and by influencing organics along a certain technological path are they
not contributing to their tech (which they influenced) verse organics?

1) I can't say why they chose to do it this way. It was probably deemed the safest method because there's no room for any slip-ups. How could the creators of the Reapers possibly prepare for any possible synthetic structure in the future? Remember, the Reapers were built to last (and seemingly did last for millions of years, no small feat). Could they have done this if they allowed room for unforeseen developments? The total extinction was likely decided because it was most likely to work no matter how organic life and its creations would evolve.

2) I can't account for how an alien species values these things. From what we can gather, they placed more emphasis on the continued existence of life than the art this life arbitrarily creates during its time. Is it right to wipe out all sentient life? Not to us. That's the whole point of the game - we want to preserve our current civilization, even if it means that eons down the line we'll endanger our existence by creating something that might get out of hand.

3) Again, I cannot speak on another species behalf. Maybe it was considered sacrilege to influence life too much. Maybe they argued for decades and only barely decided to put up the Mass Relays because it was a necessity to their higher purpose: preserving life. There could be so many reasons. And there's no hint in the games that the existence of Mass Relays and the Citadel aided the different species in creating synthetic life

Xandax wrote...

It makes 'sense' if we ignore Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2.

It's difficult having a discussion if you don't at least vaguely give me a clue as to what you mean

[AlexXIV]

The worst thing organics ever created were Reapers themselves. They even managed to supress organic evolution for billions of years because of a flaw in their AI script. The game would only make sense if the AI could learn from their mistakes instead of Shepard learning from them. They are wrong, simple as that. And the options Shepard gets are illogical, as it is illogical to give Shepard options to begin with. If Shep is to decide how the future of the galaxy is supposed to look like, why not give him/her free choice instead of 3 options which all are equally bad. Not to mention why let the galaxy explode without as much as a warning? Was time running short? Just shut down the Reapers, tell the fleets to return home and THEN blow up the relays if they have to be blown up. There is simply too much stupid in the ending plot.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 19 mars 2012 - 10:57 .

[Vergil_dgk]

Federally wrote...

Really from a literary sense suddenly changing the motives of the Reapers in the last five minutes was a poor decision. Whether you can justify partial genocide to prevent possible total genocide or not the introduction of this new information so late was a bad decision.

The Reapers were a threatening, mysterious and downright scary antagonist in ME1 when they were an unknown force lurking in the background. In ME2 their motivation was revealed, they killed organics not for fun but for procreation. Not only were you gonna die, but you were gonna get turned into a monster and used to kill your family/friends. That's worse then plain old dead. So why at the end of act 3 do we need to change their motivation? Even worse change it to something easily turned into a joke. It's just bad writing

Agreed. The above is the real problem with the ending: it's not the logical conclusion to the story. It isn't foreshadowed and it feels like it was tacked on in a confused attempt to add a twist. But plot-twists should happen with at least a third of the game to go - not at the death.

[Lionel Ou]

Ajensis wrote...
Scenario 2: "Chaos"

The Catalyst explains that they believe that at a certain point, organics will have the skills and knowledge to create something too dangerous. It doesn't matter what you believe and that you proved the Catalyst wrong in a case or two - they're not human, so we can't necessarily apply our logic. The argument still stands: without the Reapers, organics may gain too much knowledge and create something they cannot control. Imagine the Geth conflict prior to its resolution, except galaxywide. Probable? I don't personally think so. But possible? Yes, anything is possible. It is this possibility that the Reapers guard us against.

If not human logic, then what other logic can I use?
May, yes. That is why the AI can't stand organics evolving in their own way. It seemingly hates the chaos that comes with undisturbed evolution.

What the Catalyst is protecting us against (however horrible the method) is the possibility that a synthetic race will overcome the ones that created them. If that happens on a larger scale, what are the odds that they'll allow new life to rise up and evolve without interference? Again, this is way out in the vague world of hypothetics, but we're not dealing with a human race - the mere 0,1 % chance of this scenario could mean a world of difference to a different race than humans (and possibly even to some humans). So what the Reapers are meant to prevent is having a synthetic race dominate the known galaxy by ensuring that organic life could never rebel against them.

So they would be just like the reapers then? They repress organics ability to evolve beyond a certain point. They try to force us to evolve along certain paths. They try to dominate the galaxy, to hinder any organics to evolve to a level where they can threaten the reapers.

The difference is that the Reapers allow organic life to exist, whereas our future creations might not. Life gets to evolve for 50.000 years, to live and love and experience and create and ponder. An ancient civilization merely thought it necessary to 'reset' life at specific intervals to make sure life wouldn't endanger itself. This is what we're fighting against. If we get a different ending without the Mass Relays blowing up, destroying the Reapers is basically throwing our future into a great Unknown where anything can happen. But, being human, I would of course never adhere to the logic of the Catalyst but now I'm digressing, sorry.

Life gets to evolve for 50k years, according to how the reapers want them to. They force us into predetermined paths to stifle our evolution. They are the synthetics they claim to protect us from, using their already established dominance to hinder anything that can threaten them. Every 50k years they swoop in and use the advanced races as some form of pan-galactic sperm to propagate their own species of synthetics  / synthetic-organic hybrids.

The popular Xzibit picture with "Yo dawg, I heard you don't wanna be
killed by synthetics, etc." does not point out a plothole. We've got
other things that we're better off addressing.

It points out a massive hole in what the catalyst claims to be doing. A hole I cannot argue against in the ending. I cannot do anything but choose to believe what he says, no matter how idiotic his reasoning.

Modifié par Lionel Ou, 19 mars 2012 - 11:02 .