225 réponses à ce sujet

[tetrisblock4x1]

MrAtomica wrote...

Fear. Arrogance. A stalwart belief that all organic life can, and should, be "improved" to the highest form of evolution, willingly or otherwise.

The Reapers should never have been reduced to something as tertiary as technological singularity. This conflict, though perhaps hinted at, was never given any serious consideration until the very end. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we successfully combated it for a fair chunk of the series.

It's funny -- the Reapers claim to be "saving" organics by preventing a synthetic war, yet the only two historical cases we can reference of them attacking occur AFTER the synthetic "war" has already ended, or is about to end. Organics haven't exactly had a difficult time keeping the token few synthetics who actually rebelled from doing any major damage, least not that we've heard by the end.

And really, what was point of befriending EDI, or making peace between the Quarians and Geth? We devote time and energy into shaping their personal evolution and integration into galactic society, only to be told that they will inevitably destroy us? Someone is wrong in this argument, and it ain't Shep. But again, there should never have been an option to get so attached to these synthetic characters if we were only going to be fighting them in the end. At that point, you're just pissing in the chowder.

But hey, come April we'll have some idea of what exactly is going to happen from here. Not that I believe said answers will be terribly satisfying, but I won't make a concrete judgement until I know more.

Still think that Sovereign's "Mighty and mysterious" vibe should have been carried through to the end. Why do we even need to know why the Reapers choose to...reap? Would it not have been better to leave them as the dark and dangerous ultimate evil of the universe, and let us make up our own justifications and scenarios? That would have been a bit more conducive to the "Speculation for everyone!" schtick than what we got instead.

EDI and the Geth don't invalidate the catalyst at all. They've proven to be capable of free will, and that they can rebel and that all it takes for them to go evil is a simple calculation error which is why they helped Saren in ME1. Even if you could guarantee that EDI and Geth weren't a danger, then how about other humans like TIM and David Archer? You do know that Archer came very close to causing a global scale catastrophe? When you invent the technology and learn how to cause a potential galactic meltdown whether it be because of David Archers rogue VI, or some synthetics similar to the Geth, only evil then that knowledge cannot be unlearned and so the galaxy will always be in great danger.

[Oldbones2]

The only logical sense I can make out of RGC's idiocy is one of two things.

Either

RGC is damaged in some way. He possesses a permanent and unfix able flaw or mistake in his program that forces him to continue the cycle even when confronted with superior logic or evidence contrary to his own.

OR

He is sufficiently advanced to have 'real' emotions. Building on this, he may have some deep seated resentment towards organics (possibly specific organics, such as his creator) while still maintaining a certain amount of empathy for organics as a whole.

OR (I just thought of this)

He may have been PROGRAMMED with hard locks or AI shackles that force him to sustain organic life. But has grown to hate them, and is able to perpetuate the cycle of pointless murder every 50,000 years as long as he can justify it to himself. Thus not breaking his hard locks/shackles. That may be my new favorite.

[MrAtomica]

EDI and the Geth, to me, have reached a higher level of evolution by the end of ME3 than they had prior. Maybe this is more obtuse than outright true, but they began to express a PERSONALITY as time went by. Legion referred to himself as "I" before he died, and EDI obviously developed a rather humanesque relationship with Joker. This may not guarantee that conflict wouldn't occur, but it damn sure makes the possibility less likely. Plus, the Heretics would never have existed if not for the Reapers.

As for organics using technology for evil, this is little different than I imagine the galaxy has always been. As the RGC says, life is "chaos"; chaos is, naturally, going to bring conflict from time to time. Whether the Reapers exist or not, and whether synthetics exist or not is irrelevant in the context of this point. In each of the three endings, both organics and technology survive. Ergo, there will always be the capacity for abuse.

In my opinion, the best way to avoid a war with synthetics would be to take an active role in their personal development, much as Shepard does. Self-aware synthetics in the Mass Effect universe are an infant race, and they are not very well adjusted to the change insomuch as we can tell. By stepping in and giving them guidance, organics COULD secure peace before war was ever really an option.

This is all subjective, of course.

Modifié par MrAtomica, 27 mars 2012 - 01:26 .

[Belisarius09]

because space magic

[ile_1979]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

Fear. Arrogance. A stalwart belief that all organic life can, and should, be "improved" to the highest form of evolution, willingly or otherwise.

The Reapers should never have been reduced to something as tertiary as technological singularity. This conflict, though perhaps hinted at, was never given any serious consideration until the very end. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we successfully combated it for a fair chunk of the series.

It's funny -- the Reapers claim to be "saving" organics by preventing a synthetic war, yet the only two historical cases we can reference of them attacking occur AFTER the synthetic "war" has already ended, or is about to end. Organics haven't exactly had a difficult time keeping the token few synthetics who actually rebelled from doing any major damage, least not that we've heard by the end.

And really, what was point of befriending EDI, or making peace between the Quarians and Geth? We devote time and energy into shaping their personal evolution and integration into galactic society, only to be told that they will inevitably destroy us? Someone is wrong in this argument, and it ain't Shep. But again, there should never have been an option to get so attached to these synthetic characters if we were only going to be fighting them in the end. At that point, you're just pissing in the chowder.

But hey, come April we'll have some idea of what exactly is going to happen from here. Not that I believe said answers will be terribly satisfying, but I won't make a concrete judgement until I know more.

Still think that Sovereign's "Mighty and mysterious" vibe should have been carried through to the end. Why do we even need to know why the Reapers choose to...reap? Would it not have been better to leave them as the dark and dangerous ultimate evil of the universe, and let us make up our own justifications and scenarios? That would have been a bit more conducive to the "Speculation for everyone!" schtick than what we got instead.

EDI and the Geth don't invalidate the catalyst at all. They've proven to be capable of free will, and that they can rebel and that all it takes for them to go evil is a simple calculation error which is why they helped Saren in ME1. Even if you could guarantee that EDI and Geth weren't a danger, then how about other humans like TIM and David Archer? You do know that Archer came very close to causing a global scale catastrophe? When you invent the technology and learn how to cause a potential galactic meltdown whether it be because of David Archers rogue VI, or some synthetics similar to the Geth, only evil then that knowledge cannot be unlearned and so the galaxy will always be in great danger.

Geth manipulated by reapers ware a threat. As in the guys that claim the synths are a threat. Weird, no? 

[Ruined Requiem]

Two words: Dark Energy.

[daftPirate]

I like a lot of these ideas, very well thought out, though I don't know how I'd feel if they'd been applied.

One thing I do want to know: What are the merits of the original Dark Energy idea? To me, it doesn't sound like it would fly for a couple of reasons. 1)It would actually make the reapers the good guys. Not just the "I'm the Catalyst, trust me we're saving you, kinda" good guys, but the actual saviors of the galaxy, except for that 2) they're the ones who left the technology that guides, no, forces civilization to develop along a path that depends on Dark Energy producing Eezo use. Am I missing something in the theory?

[tetrisblock4x1]

ile_1979 wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

MrAtomica wrote...

Fear. Arrogance. A stalwart belief that all organic life can, and should, be "improved" to the highest form of evolution, willingly or otherwise.

The Reapers should never have been reduced to something as tertiary as technological singularity. This conflict, though perhaps hinted at, was never given any serious consideration until the very end. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we successfully combated it for a fair chunk of the series.

It's funny -- the Reapers claim to be "saving" organics by preventing a synthetic war, yet the only two historical cases we can reference of them attacking occur AFTER the synthetic "war" has already ended, or is about to end. Organics haven't exactly had a difficult time keeping the token few synthetics who actually rebelled from doing any major damage, least not that we've heard by the end.

And really, what was point of befriending EDI, or making peace between the Quarians and Geth? We devote time and energy into shaping their personal evolution and integration into galactic society, only to be told that they will inevitably destroy us? Someone is wrong in this argument, and it ain't Shep. But again, there should never have been an option to get so attached to these synthetic characters if we were only going to be fighting them in the end. At that point, you're just pissing in the chowder.

But hey, come April we'll have some idea of what exactly is going to happen from here. Not that I believe said answers will be terribly satisfying, but I won't make a concrete judgement until I know more.

Still think that Sovereign's "Mighty and mysterious" vibe should have been carried through to the end. Why do we even need to know why the Reapers choose to...reap? Would it not have been better to leave them as the dark and dangerous ultimate evil of the universe, and let us make up our own justifications and scenarios? That would have been a bit more conducive to the "Speculation for everyone!" schtick than what we got instead.

EDI and the Geth don't invalidate the catalyst at all. They've proven to be capable of free will, and that they can rebel and that all it takes for them to go evil is a simple calculation error which is why they helped Saren in ME1. Even if you could guarantee that EDI and Geth weren't a danger, then how about other humans like TIM and David Archer? You do know that Archer came very close to causing a global scale catastrophe? When you invent the technology and learn how to cause a potential galactic meltdown whether it be because of David Archers rogue VI, or some synthetics similar to the Geth, only evil then that knowledge cannot be unlearned and so the galaxy will always be in great danger.

Geth manipulated by reapers ware a threat. As in the guys that claim the synths are a threat. Weird, no? 

They believe that the galaxy is it's own worst enemy and that they'll inevitably kill themselves. From their point of view we're all screwed anyway, and whether our demise is due to mad scientists (David Archers overlord VI, the Salrian genophage) or rebellious AI doesn't matter to them. So they "preserve" our species by making us into reaper goo. They just use Geth as if they're husks, only made of metal, so I see no real philisophical arguement in the whole synthetic/organic relations dilemna. It's not clear at what point along the line that the Reapers decided that "if someones going to kill them it might as well be us", or why they think that it's the synthetics that are our greatest danger (as opposed to scientists who invented them, the overlord VI, the genophage and so on).

At least that's what the Reapers seem to think based on my understanding of what sovereign and harbinger say.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 27 mars 2012 - 07:30 .

[Blackmind1]

 Humans, trying to make sense of The Reapers? You see how you've already lost this war?

[Blackmind1]

Ruined Requiem wrote...

Two words: Dark Energy.

That idea was scrapped around 5 years ago, according to Karpyshyn. Just because it was originally there, it doesn't mean it is anymore. They likely just robbed a few of the plot elements they worked on when they had it in mind.

[Astrogenesis]

In Mass Effect 1 Sovereign says that the Reapers existance is beyond the comprehention of organic life.
Which pretty much means that we would never understand their motivations.

Fast foward 5 years and it turns out that their existance is all about a concept discussed by primative 20th century humans WFT!

It would have been far better not to ever ever ever find out what the Reapers are realy doing.
I mean when the Catalyst is telling you about his solution, you can see one or two Reapers aimlessly floating around in space.
At that moment, I lost all fear of the Reapers, they became a boring storyless video-game villan.

[CARL_DF90]

Nejeli wrote...

I like the theory proposed in the second game - that the Reapers harvest advanced civilizations for breeding and evolution. A cycle of 50,000 years assures that there will be at least one species advanced enough to be useful, and leaving being technology 'blueprints' assures they progress in a way that will be beneficial to the Reapers.

This, plus what the op said. Even the Reapers would need some way to grow, evolve, and develop further. This was highly alluded to in Harbingers dialogue in ME2. The dark energy theory was also highly alluded to in ME2, but then they didn't do anything with it in ME3? Awful.

[ile_1979]

[quote]tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

[quote]ile_1979 wrote...

[quote]tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

[quote]MrAtomica wrote...

..........
[/quote]

Geth manipulated by reapers ware a threat. As in the guys that claim the synths are a threat. Weird, no? 

[/quote]

They believe that the galaxy is it's own worst enemy and that they'll inevitably kill themselves. From their point of view we're all screwed anyway, and whether our demise is due to mad scientists (David Archers overlord VI, the Salrian genophage) or rebellious AI doesn't matter to them. So they "preserve" our species by making us into reaper goo. They just use Geth as if they're husks, only made of metal, so I see no real philisophical arguement in the whole synthetic/organic relations dilemna. It's not clear at what point along the line that the Reapers decided that "if someones going to kill them it might as well be us", or why they think that it's the synthetics that are our greatest danger (as opposed to scientists who invented them, the overlord VI, the genophage and so on).

At least that's what the Reapers seem to think based on my understanding of what sovereign and harbinger say.
[/quote]

But that does not seam to be "god's" argument. IT ia quite explicite that the reaper role is that of safe guarding against synthetic whipeouts of organic life. But look at he major conflicts of the the last two cycles (those known to us). Protheans were whiped out by the reapers, not bu their AIs. In fact they had a strict stigma against creating AIs. The rachni war, could not have been more organic in nature. There are even hints that the rachni were instigated into war by the reapers themselves. The Krogan rebelions were a product of the Rachni wars and again fought by organics. Even the only organic-synthetic conflict known to us (Geth VS Quarians) was started by organics and escalated again thatnks to the "yours trully" Reapers. It seams to me the only danger to the galaxy's organics are the reapers, not organics themselves. 

[tetrisblock4x1]

I should have been a bit a clearer about what I meant... yes, I noticed that most of the major conflicts were instigated by the Reapers, but apparently they decided some unknown number of galactic cycles ago that they wanted diversity or wanted to save us from setting the galaxy on fire or something. I guess they just had a bad experience one day where all life everywhere nearly got eliminated somehow. That is why they wanted to make a reaper of each species after melting them in those DNA processing tubes.

Regardless, that last 5 minutes of the story was quite blatantly pulled out of Mac Walters ass seeing how most of the conflict we've seen throughout the trilogy is the Reapers fault. I'm willing to believe that the catalyst has his reasons, and I wouldn't call it a plot hole though it is horrible writing... I saw how close that project overlord came to endangering the galaxy, so maybe that's one of the reasons for why the reapers do what they do, but I wanted to hear that coming from them. They just spend an entire trilogy showing us what the Reapers were and then right at the end they just completely redefine what they are in a few lines of dialogue? That's ****, even if the catalysts had a good explanation you simply don't redefine the final boss after a trilogy with just a few sentences. If they wanted to redefine the Reapers like that then we need to be shown a thing or two about how and why they concluded that melting us down to make us into one of them and setting technology back 50,000 years is the only way to protect the whole genetic diveristy or whatever it is that they say they stand for.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 27 mars 2012 - 11:51 .

[chris fenton]

'Yo dawg, I heard you like synthetics. So I made synthetics that will kill you so you don't get killed by synthetics."


Nah. They don't and never will.

[The Razman]

What's wrong with the logic of the original explanation?

I realise this is a stupid question, and that some people reject anything and everything that the Starchild said just out of principle (the "anything it said is stupid automatically because I don't like him!" response) ... but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the logic when it comes to the Reaper's motivations. It's quite clever, really.

[thebigbad1013]

Nejeli wrote...

I like the theory proposed in the second game - that the Reapers harvest advanced civilizations for breeding and evolution. A cycle of 50,000 years assures that there will be at least one species advanced enough to be useful, and leaving being technology 'blueprints' assures they progress in a way that will be beneficial to the Reapers.

This. That would have been just fine by me.

[FedericoV]

The only reason that make sense is the dark energy one as envisioned by the original lead writer of the franchise. I have anticipated that twist after I played ME2 and I have even written about it in detail on the forums in a couple of threads.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to use that explanation anymore (you should change most of the ME3 plot to prepare the game for that ending). So, I think that the only explanation that could make any kind of sense is "no explanation". Reaper should be simply depicted as some sort of "Syntethic Cthulhus" that have a very long hybernation/awakening cycle. It would work.

[orangesonic]

need some Doritos

Modifié par orangesonic, 27 mars 2012 - 12:02 .

[onchristieroad]

I'd like to try and keep as much of the current ending as possible, just make it epic, and not rubbish:

The first civilization spanned the galaxy, an empire that was almost god-like. However, they kept having wars with the beings they created. Every avenue: peace, destruction or isolation led to eventual total war between the two, with massive losses on both sides. The final war against synthetics was brutal; and the synthetics pushed them back to their final planet. They created the Citadel with the very best of their knowledge: a weapon designed to destroy all synthetic life. They activated it as the final battle was fought tooth and claw.
The battle was won, but at the ultimate cost: their civilization was devastated. They decided that this eternal struggle could not continue; organic life would one day lose totally to synthetics and organics would never stop trying to make synthetics. The remaining few millions of their people decided upon a final solution: they would meld their organic consciousness into a machine- the original (imperfect) synthesis. A new being was created: Harbinger. However: the race was now one being, alone, without hope or propagation.
They only way this new species could continue was to harvest other races to create ‘children’, but the other primitive races weren’t fit to ascend as equals. They would sleep for 50,000 years and wait…

Through the countless cycles, they perfected their strategy: they created the mass relays to ensure civilizations were advanced enough, but familiar and able to be manipulated. They used various indoctrinated species as servants and thralls to prepare the way for their harvest. Through the eons the Reaper race lost all compassion, empathy…any trace of their organic selves. Their motives and methods were not of an individual, or a race, but of countless races: trillions of beings melded through eons and stripped of everything we could understand as morality. Incomprehensible. But their core motive remained the same: to continue.

However; there was hope: not all of the original race had believed that the solution proffered was acceptable. As the first reaper was constructed from the bodies of their friends and families, in secret, a team of dissident scientists designed the beginning of a device that would alter the Citadel’s power to be the end of the monsters they had created. But the time remaining to them was too little; they couldn’t finish it before they were hunted down and forced to meld with Harbinger. They released what little designs they had into the void of space in hope that future species could finish the work they had started.

[onchristieroad]

In this way, maybe the Citadel, as well as destroying the synthetics attacking the first civilization, sterilized those remaining. This lack of children, or a future forced them into the idea of Reapers. It could also be why the Star Child is portrayed as a child ripped from Shepherd’s mind: it’s an understandable representation of what they could never truly have. They came up with the next best thing: harvesting and creating more Reapers.
They eventually rectified the error in the Citadel that sterilized them, but it was too late for them: they were already a Reaper.
Within this idea, the Starchild would be a VI for the weapon and the last authentic voice of the first civilization. The essence of the entire race remains as a shadow in the VI: its original empathy, morality and choices; that’s why it can control the Reapers. It is an avatar for the last true voice of the race before they changed themselves into a Reaper.

[78stonewobble]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

There's also the assumption that the penultimate development of life is a fusion of artificial and biological life.

I'm tempted to say this is a faulty assumption since we all know that only biological entities can evolve into angelic beings of pure energy right? RIGHT?

Oh wait that was another space magic series

...you're talking about Starwars?

Well there was the fading jedi... But if I remember correctly there were a few examples in star trek and other sci-"fi".


Most of all I just thought that the fusion idea was a little ... stale...

[tetrisblock4x1]

Says a lot when most of the fans can think of a better version of the ending than Mac Walters. Who the **** taught him how to write? Forrest Gump? Mister Bean? Chris Metzen? It took George Lucas three movies to do what Mac did in 5 minutes.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 27 mars 2012 - 01:54 .

[Anareth]

Nejeli wrote...

I like the theory proposed in the second game - that the Reapers harvest advanced civilizations for breeding and evolution. A cycle of 50,000 years assures that there will be at least one species advanced enough to be useful, and leaving being technology 'blueprints' assures they progress in a way that will be beneficial to the Reapers.

This made sense

[ile_1979]

The Razman wrote...

What's wrong with the logic of the original explanation?

I realise this is a stupid question, and that some people reject anything and everything that the Starchild said just out of principle (the "anything it said is stupid automatically because I don't like him!" response) ... but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the logic when it comes to the Reaper's motivations. It's quite clever, really.

Clever? As a standalone short SF story maybe. Or a total out of the blue, unexpected twist. If you are into deus-ex machina plot devices that is.

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

I should have been a bit a clearer
about what I meant... yes, I noticed that most of the major conflicts
were instigated by the Reapers, but apparently they decided some unknown
number of galactic cycles ago that they wanted diversity or wanted to
save us from setting the galaxy on fire or something. I guess they just
had a bad experience one day where all life everywhere nearly got
eliminated somehow. That is why they wanted to make a reaper of each
species after melting them in those DNA processing tubes.

Regardless,
that last 5 minutes of the story was quite blatantly pulled out of Mac
Walters ass seeing how most of the conflict we've seen throughout the
trilogy is the Reapers fault. I'm willing to believe that the catalyst
has his reasons, and I wouldn't call it a plot hole though it is
horrible writing... I saw how close that project overlord came to
endangering the galaxy, so maybe that's one of the reasons for why the
reapers do what they do, but I wanted to hear that coming from them.
They just spend an entire trilogy showing us what the Reapers were and
then right at the end they just completely redefine what they are in a
few lines of dialogue? That's ****, even if the catalysts had a good
explanation you simply don't redefine the final boss after a trilogy
with just a few sentences. If they wanted to redefine the Reapers like
that then we need to be shown a thing or two about how and why they
concluded that melting us down to make us into one of them and setting
technology back 50,000 years is the only way to protect the whole
genetic diveristy or whatever it is that they say they stand for.

Yeah, i agree. Come to think of it, maybe they were changing the reaper idea all along a they went. And i am not sure it was for the better all the time. Not just the reapers. The protheans to. Probably the galactic extinction cycle as well. We can only guess what the original idea was.