263 réponses à ce sujet

[Gigamantis]

Lol...oh boy....you sure you don't want to rethink this one.

I'm sure. I'll illustrate with something simple to help you understand: Shepard hates ice cream. Shepard has to eat an ice cream cone to save Liara's life. Shepard eating ice cream in that situation is not a plot-hole or an inconsistency.

....which is inconsistent with the core themes of the series and reflects reversal of the tone. Hello, anybody home? Seriously...how are you not understanding this point....it's not hard.

The tone is actually pretty dire, so being forced to make immoral decisions isn't a reversal. You're confusing idealism with core themes. Shepard is an idealist and the morality of the universe is idealist when speaking of diversity, but the situation they're in isn't ideal. To handle this situation Shepard had to compromise his beliefs.

That's not inconsistency, that's called facing the protagonist with a horrible situation. It's dramatic, intense and it clearly hurt the players just as much as it would Shepard to make that decision. It was a good ending.

Modifié par Gigamantis, 05 avril 2012 - 03:39 .

[IGSR]

Sm00thCr1m1n4l wrote...

It seems silly that you, Shepard, have solved a century long synthetic/organic conflict, have a friendly AI on your crew, and have never shown any intention of wiping out other synthetics.

The end of Rannoch shows genuine co-operation. There is an entire level devoted to how geth AI is evolving and understanding. Why then doesnt Shepard, when chatting to the ghostbrat, argue that his logic is completely wrong? After countless examples of organic/synthetic co-operation, Shepard just agrees.

Even if you play through 1/2/3 hating on all synthetics, you still have EDI, you still see Legion helping you on the derelict reaper. You even have that silly fetch/defuse quest from me1 where the AI just wants to escape. It just seems really counterintuituve.

It's all taken care of over the course of the ending; no need for Shepard to argue.

Shepard doesn't need to convince the Catalyst that its logic is completely wrong when the Catalyst has already admitted that its solution is no longer tenable.  Moreover, in presenting Shepard's options to him, the Catalyst makes no attempt to hide the Destroy option or prevent Shepard from taking it.  I could see there being a need to argue if the Catalyst only gave Shepard the Control and Synthesis options.  As it is, though, Destroy satisfies the impulse to reject everything about Catalyst.  It comes with a price, sure, a heavy one if you considered some synthetics as friends.  But Shepard accepts this reality.  Perhaps he wants to stamp his feet and hold his breath, but he doesn't.  I, for one, am glad he doesn't.

[Sepharih]

Gigamantis wrote...

Lol...oh boy....you sure you don't want to rethink this one.

I'm sure. I'll illustrate with something simple to help you understand: Shepard hates ice cream. Shepard has to eat an ice cream cone to save Liara's life. Shepard eating ice cream in that situation is not a plot-hole or an inconsistency.

LOL.  Wow, great example. How about this one:
Organics die.  Reapers win.  Cycle continues.  End of story.

That's an absolute possibility within the context of the universe.  That sound consistent with the themes of the story to you?


 

Gigamantis wrote... 
The tone is actually pretty dire, so being forced to make immoral decisions isn't a reversal. You're confusing idealism with core themes. Shepard is an idealist and the morality of the universe is idealist when speaking of diversity, but the situation they're in isn't ideal. To handle this situation Shepard had to compromise his beliefs.

That's not inconsistency, that's called facing the protagonist with a horrible situation. It's dramatic, intense and it clearly hurt the players just as much as it would Shepard to make that decision. It was a good ending.

Yes it is a reversal of the core themes of the series.  You even all but admit that it is a reversal.  You're just arguing that its a good reversal both becasue you liked it and because you don't want to admit that you are wrong.
If shepard is forced into the kind of compromises that the star child is proposing then it is a reversal of his character and the themes of the Paragon arc.

"I'm going to win this war and I'll do it without sacrificing the soul of our species."
-Shepard

Gigamantis wrote...
A) It's pointless.  What does Shepard have to argue with?  The catalyst has a long life witnessing this cycle repeating itself and Shepard himself was involved in a century long war with synthetics.  You really think he's going to offer up a few anecdotes about EDI and the Geth "occasionally" cooperating and change everything? 

Maybe not, but it fits his character more to at least try.  Wouldn't fix the ending, not by a long shot...but at least it might undo some of the damage it does to Shepard's character.

Gigamantis wrote... 
 Shepard was beaten to hell and probably close to bleeding to death.  He could barely crawl his way to the trigger and had a very tough decision to make.  Making a decision and moving before I bleed to death would probably take priority for me in a dire situation like that.  If Shepard does nothing everyone dies.  

Wow...what a great ending for the character.  He changed the face of the galaxy and died based on a knee-jerk decision while suffering from the mental fatigue of extensive bloodloss.
Seriously...the fact that you somehow find this interpretation of the ending satisfying and fullfilling astounds me.

[jumpingkaede]

Gigamantis wrote...

The options you get from the crucible are supposed to be lesser evils when compared to complete annihilation, and the point is to force you to make a tough decision.

It 's a "tough decision" because you have no context for it other than what the Catalyst tells you.

If you think I haven't been paying attention, please point me to all the times in the series we're told that organics and synthetics can never co-exist without synthetics inevitably destroying all organic life in the galaxy.  Because I can't remember that happening... ever.

Gigamantis wrote...

he end of ME3 is about dispair and compromise, because the galaxy is in a hopeless situation.  You not liking that doesn't make it an inconsistency or a plot-hole; it makes it a sad ending.

It's a sad ending for the sake of being sad.  And if you find it consistent with the rest of the trilogy; well, I'll wait for your response to my question above.  Maybe you're right and I've been asleep at the wheel and missed all the evidence that synthetics will destroy all organic life.  In this cycle or any of the previous cycles.

Maybe I missed the part where the Mass Relays had to be destroyed.  Maybe I missed the part where Shepard had to die.  Maybe I missed the part where the Normandy and your squad had to be stranded on an island planet somewhere off in space.

 

Gigamantis wrote...

Again, some anecdotal instances of cooperation and acceptance don't mean the game has to end that way.  It doesn't mean a war isn't inevitable and it doesn't mean synthesis is impossible in the ME universe.  You're drawing finite conclusions from anecdotal evidence which is a major logical fallacy. 

That's how storytelling works.  Why do we conculde that Orcs are bad in LotR?  Because we see Orcs killing humans and led by Sauron.  Are they actually bad?  Were they always bad?  Are they in fact, quite hospital outside of the killing fields with Orc orphanages and charities dedicated to easing the sorrows of the less fortunate in Middle Earth?  

I don't know.  You don't know.  All we have to go on is the anectodal evidence that is presented.  The book and the author says "Orcs are bad".  He can't, or shouldn't, say at the final chapter "j/k Orcs are very nice."  Again, that's how stories are told.  It works the same way in movies, books, whatever.  You can break convention but there's likely a heavy price.

So when the only evidence we have to go on in Mass Effect is that synthetics can get along with organics... it's jarring when the game comes along in the final 5 minutes and says NO THEY CAN'T.  (I suppose Jahvik says something similar, though not quite accurate since the non-transhuman Protheans were winning and/or under Reaper influence but that's also in ME3 only).

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 05 avril 2012 - 04:18 .

[Steve2911]

Wait, you're saying that the megalomaniacle superbeing hell bent on wiping out organic life every 50,000 years is... WRONG?!

Are people seriously saying that the Catalyst is a horrible plot device because its logic can be disproven? Even then, this being is going on millions of years of evidence of organics and synthetics at war with each other, so it's sort of justified that it sees it as inevitable.

[jumpingkaede]

Gigamantis wrote...

That's not inconsistency, that's called facing the protagonist with a horrible situation. It's dramatic, intense and it clearly hurt the players just as much as it would Shepard to make that decision. It was a good ending.

Shepard's decision making didn't hurt me at all, nor many of the posters here according to threads on the subject.

By the time the Catalyst was finished speaking, I no longer cared.  I picked Destroy because I wanted to Destroy the Reapers and too bad Geth but you have to die because the Catalyst says so.  It took me about 10 seconds to go.  I didn't agonize over it or worry about the consequences because who cares when Bioware obviously didn't anymore.

"Pick a color and hope for the best because... whatever."

If that's the emotion that Bioware wanted to evoke with their ending: apathy for the Mass Effect universe... then they surely succeeded.

Now, after the ending I was outraged.  But not because Shepard was forced by the Catalyst into making a decision.  Because Bioware created the Catalyst who put Shepard into the situation.  Because Bioware ended the Mass Effect trilogy on such a sour note.  Because I wasted 5 years and 100s of hours on a series with decisions that I DID agonize over (e.g., rachni, rewriting the Geth, the collector base, VS) and all of it was for nothing.

That's a distinction with a difference.

If Bioware wanted to shatter the wall of interactive storytelling and let the gamer feel the same sense of despair and loss that Shepard did they should've just ended the game with Shepard dying, flashed a movie of Hudson and Walters giving the gamer the finger, both hands, then had the game automatically deduct $500 from the Live!/PSN account.

That would've hurt less.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 05 avril 2012 - 04:25 .

[Gigamantis]

LOL.  Wow, great example. How about this one:
Organics die.  Reapers win.  Cycle continues.  End of story.

That's an absolute possibility within the context of the universe.  That sound consistent with the themes of the story to you?

That could absolutely have happened yes and it would be consistent with the theme of the story.  The protagonist is allowed to lose in any construct of a story.  It's not bad writing in any way.

Yes it is a reversal of the core themes of the series.  You even all but admit that it is a reversal.  You're just arguing that its a good reversal both becasue you liked it and because you don't want to admit that you are wrong.
If shepard is forced into the kind of compromises that the star child is proposing then it is a reversal of his character and the themes of the Paragon arc.

"I'm going to win this war and I'll do it without sacrificing the soul of our species."
-Shepard

If Shepard is forced into compromises then he's just forced into compromises.  That says nothing about his character and everything about the situation he's in.   Being forced into situations where you can't be an idealist happens a lot in reality and is a very appropriate thing to portray in a story like this. 

That quote of Shepard's was a boast, and saying you can do something doesn't mean you actually can. 

That's how storytelling works.
 Why do we conculde that Orcs are bad in LotR?  Because we see Orcs
killing humans and led by Sauron.  Are they actually bad?  Were they
always bad?  Are they in fact, quite hospital outside of the killing
fields with Orc orphanages and charities dedicated to easing the sorrows
of the less fortunate in Middle Earth? 

That's not how storytelling works; you're literally making this up as you go.  Like in reality relationships can and will change in a story.  Orc's being bad in LoTR does not mean they can never become good.  

Even that's irrelevant to your point, though, because for every example of synthetics being reasonable there are examples of them being hostile.  We haven't seen enough evidence in this universe to know if synthetics can stay amiable, but the catalyst had that perspective and told us the answer. 

Modifié par Gigamantis, 05 avril 2012 - 04:28 .

[Sepharih]

Steve2911 wrote...
Are people seriously saying that the Catalyst is a horrible plot device because its logic can be disproven?

No, he's a horrible plot device mostly because he contradicts the themes and events of the narrative in the last five minutes of the game and negates any catharsis that could have been achieved.

Poking holes in his logic is more of a sideshow.

[IGSR]

jumpingkaede wrote...

So when the only evidence we have to go on in Mass Effect is that synthetics can get along with organics

I don't think we've been playing the same games...

[jumpingkaede]

IGSR wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

So when the only evidence we have to go on in Mass Effect is that synthetics can get along with organics

I don't think we've been playing the same games...

No?  Let's see... since the only synthetics we actually encounter are the Geth:

- Peaceful behind the Perseus Veil for 300 years.  Hence everyone's surprise when they attacked.  (ME1).
- Majority of Geth favored peace with organics; minority influenced/tricked by Sovereign.  (ME2).
- Defended/Rebelled when Quarians attempted to shut them down, ceased pursuit as soon as conflict ended when they could've eradicated the Quarians.  (ME3).

- Primary antagonist in ME1.  (ME1).

Oh, yeah.  They're real monsters.

[IGSR]

jumpingkaede wrote...

IGSR wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

So when the only evidence we have to go on in Mass Effect is that synthetics can get along with organics

I don't think we've been playing the same games...

No?  Let's see... since the only synthetics we actually encounter are the Geth:

- Peaceful behind the Perseus Veil for 300 years.  Hence everyone's surprise when they attacked.  (ME1).
- Majority of Geth favored peace with organics; minority influenced/tricked by Sovereign.  (ME2).
- Defended/Rebelled when Quarians attempted to shut them down, ceased pursuit as soon as conflict ended when they could've eradicated the Quarians.  (ME3).

- Primary antagonist in ME1.  (ME1).

Oh, yeah.  They're real monsters.

Heh, I was right.  We didn't play the same games.

[Gigamantis]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

That's not inconsistency, that's called facing the protagonist with a horrible situation. It's dramatic, intense and it clearly hurt the players just as much as it would Shepard to make that decision. It was a good ending.

Shepard's decision making didn't hurt me at all, nor many of the posters here according to threads on the subject.

By the time the Catalyst was finished speaking, I no longer cared.  I picked Destroy because I wanted to Destroy the Reapers and too bad Geth but you have to die because the Catalyst says so.  It took me about 10 seconds to go.  I didn't agonize over it or worry about the consequences because who cares when Bioware obviously didn't anymore.

"Pick a color and hope for the best because... whatever."

If that's the emotion that Bioware wanted to evoke with their ending: apathy for the Mass Effect universe... then they surely succeeded.

Now, after the ending I was outraged.  But not because Shepard was forced by the Catalyst into making a decision.  Because Bioware created the Catalyst who put Shepard into the situation.  Because Bioware ended the Mass Effect trilogy on such a sour note.  Because I wasted 5 years and 100s of hours on a series with decisions that I DID agonize over (e.g., rachni, rewriting the Geth, the collector base, VS) and all of it was for nothing.

That's a distinction with a difference.

If Bioware wanted to shatter the wall of interactive storytelling and let the gamer feel the same sense of despair and loss that Shepard did they should've just ended the game with Shepard dying, flashed a movie of Hudson and Walters giving the gamer the finger, both hands, then had the game automatically deduct $500 from the Live!/PSN account.

That would've hurt less.

You were upset at the options and got EXTREMELY defensive over them.  Not everyone reacts well to a sad ending.  Some people agonize over the decision and some people just decide the game is dead to them and blame the developers for making them feel bad.  Bioware obviiously didn't evoke apathy. 

Your whole post just reeks of hurt feelings over tha hopeless feeling the ending gave you.  That's a strong emotion and the indication of a good ending.  You're just not handling it well. 

[jumpingkaede]

Gigamantis wrote...

That's not how storytelling works; you're literally making this up as you go.  Like in reality relationships can and will change in a story.  Orc's being bad in LoTR does not mean they can never become good.

That's absolutely how storytelling works.  Name your story where the author decides in the final chapter that the ACTUAL rule of the Universe is contrary to everything he's been telling you about.

Orcs could've become good... over the course of the story.  That's a good story.  Orcs suddenly becoming good in the final chapter is a bad story.

Just like a relationship: Your girlfriend becoming bad over the course of the relationship; that makes sense.  Your girlfriend suddenly flipping out after 10 years together and revealing that she's been cheating on you the entire time.  That's unexpected and bad.

Gigamantis wrote...

Even that's irrelevant to your point, though, because for every example of synthetics being reasonable there are examples of them being hostile.  We haven't seen enough evidence in this universe to know if synthetics can stay amiable, but the catalyst had that perspective and told us the answer. 

The Catalyst doesn't have that answer either, but that's a different argument.  

Basically you're asking the gamer to ignore your own experience because the Catalyst has more experience than you.  I agree, that's what Bioware did.  I disagree that it was a good decision.

It's Bioware/Catalyst saying:

"Hey, remember when I told you all along over the previous 90 hours that the Geth actually weren't that bad and you could make peace between them and organics?  And I showed you how the Geth actually favored peace? 

Well forget all of that.  

Actually you can't and that peace is going to go bad and destroy all life in the galaxy.  How do I know that?  I just do.

Trust me.  No, no, you'll just have to trust me.  I know better than you."

It blows my mind that you think that's good storytelling but opinions can differ, I suppose.

[jumpingkaede]

IGSR wrote...

Heh, I was right.  We didn't play the same games.

So show me the other examples.

[jumpingkaede]

Gigamantis wrote...

Your whole post just reeks of hurt feelings over tha hopeless feeling the ending gave you.  That's a strong emotion and the indication of a good ending.  You're just not handling it well. 

/shrug

Are you presuming to know my feelings better than I do?  Are you sure you aren't a troll?  

Because your irrational defense of an obviously broken ending just shows that you're desperate to justify your own investment.  That's a textbook example of cognitive dissonance and rationalization.  You're clearly not handling this well.

See how that works?

In any case, I've never denied being hurt by the ending.  That's why I'm here on the forums hoping Bioware fixes it.  But I hate it because it's bad.  Not because it's sad.  Because the exact same ending minus the Catalyst, but STILL with the destruction of the Mass Relays sits fine with me.  See the fan-remade ending.  That ends the exact same way with the exact same consequences.

Except it doesn't have the Catalyst, which hurt on numerous levels.  One of which is that it's a terrible ripoff of the Matrix: Reloaded and I had joked with my friend prior to ME3 that even Bioware wouldn't be stupid enough to try that ending here.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 05 avril 2012 - 04:41 .

[Samtheman63]

Maybe the star child is right all along. It could take a predetermined amount of time for all synthetics in the history of the galaxy to rebel, or atleast to start thinking they are superior, due to the fact allot of the advanced technology is based on what the reapers leave behind.
Lets say it takes just over 50,000 years, this is why the reapers step in before it happens

[Gigamantis]

That's absolutely how storytelling works. Name your story where the author decides in the final chapter that the ACTUAL rule of the Universe is contrary to everything he's been telling you about.

The author has been giving us mixed signals about AI throughout the entire series. We didn't know. The catalyst was a character with a much broader perspective, who was far more capable of answering the question than we were.

[jumpingkaede]

Gigamantis wrote...

That's absolutely how storytelling works. Name your story where the author decides in the final chapter that the ACTUAL rule of the Universe is contrary to everything he's been telling you about.

The author has been giving us mixed signals about AI throughout the entire series. We didn't know. The catalyst was a character with a much broader perspective, who was far more capable of answering the question than we were.

That's a fair point.  The only problem with that is the examples of AIs we see are mostly good.  Geth + EDI.  Is there an AI somewhere that is bad and we could've looked at and said, you know what?  If we hadn't stopped that thing it could've destroyed us all.

AI on the Citadel: stealing money to make spaceship to meet up with the Geth.
VI on Luna.
AI that's the Geth.
AI that's EDI.
Told that AI is bad because of the Geth (rules against AI).

Am I missing any?  (Honest.)  The signal seemed pretty clear to me: AIs aren't inherently bad; in fact, once reaching true intelligence they're individuals like organics and therefore no longer subject to broad generalizations.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 05 avril 2012 - 04:44 .

[Sepharih]

Gigamantis wrote...

LOL.  Wow, great example. How about this one:
Organics die.  Reapers win.  Cycle continues.  End of story.

That's an absolute possibility within the context of the universe.  That sound consistent with the themes of the story to you?

That could absolutely have happened yes and it would be consistent with the theme of the story.  The protagonist is allowed to lose in any construct of a story.  It's not bad writing in any way.

Lol.  Ok, so, let's just get this make sure we all undestand your logic:

-Frodo falls prey to the ring, is killed by Sauron who takes the ring, and then uses its power to defeat the armies of men and the fellowship and then proceeds to conquer all of middle earth.  The end.  Consistent?
-Luke strikes down the emperor, turning to the darkside.  He then destroys the rebel alliance, blows up endor, and rules for the next few decades with his father as his slave.  Consistent?

Please...I really don't think I need to point out how silly this argument is.  

If Shepard is forced into compromises then he's just forced into compromises.  That says nothing about his character and everything about the situation he's in.   Being forced into situations where you can't be an idealist happens a lot in reality and is a very appropriate thing to portray in a story like this.

No it's not.  This is a science fantasy story about epic heroism.

Gigamantis wrote...

That's absolutely how storytelling works. Name your story where the author decides in the final chapter that the ACTUAL rule of the Universe is contrary to everything he's been telling you about.

The author has been giving us mixed signals about AI throughout the entire series. We didn't know. The catalyst was a character with a much broader perspective, who was far more capable of answering the question than we were. 

ahem:

Sepharih wrote...
Show, don't tell.  If you are going to show the viewer/player that peace between the Organics and synthetics is possible through things like the Geth and EDI, then telling them in the last five minutes of the story that peace is impossible is both a blatant contradiction of the stories themes as well as a massive failure from a narrative perspective.  The divine proclimations of a previously unseen character ring pretty hollow when you've seen evidence to the contrary of what he's saying.

 

Modifié par Sepharih, 05 avril 2012 - 04:45 .

[Steve2911]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Maybe the star child is right all along. It could take a predetermined amount of time for all synthetics in the history of the galaxy to rebel, or atleast to start thinking they are superior, due to the fact allot of the advanced technology is based on what the reapers leave behind.
Lets say it takes just over 50,000 years, this is why the reapers step in before it happens

Exactly this. Why are you people arguing with the logic of someone who witnessed millions of years of cyclical war between organics and synthetics. The example of the Geth doesn't prove anything, except that things MIGHT have turned out differently this time around (which, ultimately, contributes to the reason why things DID turn out differently).

Regardless, I still don't see how it goes against the themes of Mass Effect at all, no one's really explaining that.

[Gigamantis]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Your whole post just reeks of hurt feelings over tha hopeless feeling the ending gave you.  That's a strong emotion and the indication of a good ending.  You're just not handling it well. 

/shrug

Are you presuming to know my feelings better than I do?  Are you sure you aren't a troll?  

Because your irrational defense of an obviously broken ending just shows that you're desperate to justify your own investment.  That's a textbook example of cognitive dissonance and rationalization.  You're clearly not handling this well.

I liked the ending, so I'm definitely not apathetic towards it; hence the fervor in my defending it.  You claim to be apathetic yet were visibly upset by the hopelessness protrayed in the ending.  You've said as much yourself.  

You think these feelings that are causing you to attack on the forums make the ending bad, but that's only because you don't understand what an ending that strives to feel hopeless is supposed to do to you. 

[Sepharih]

Steve2911 wrote...
Regardless, I still don't see how it goes against the themes of Mass Effect at all, no one's really explaining that.

I think i've done a pretty good job.  What point exactly are you confused on?

[jumpingkaede]

Steve2911 wrote...

Exactly this. Why are you people arguing with the logic of someone who witnessed millions of years of cyclical war between organics and synthetics.

He arguably hasn't witnessed any "cyclical wars" except for one.  The war in his cycle.  And that, speculatively, isn't even a war that the organics lost.

Remember that the Reapers prevent war from happening in all the other cycles.  At least, war up to the point where it threatens galactic life.

[jumpingkaede]

Gigamantis wrote...

I liked the ending, so I'm definitely not apathetic towards it; hence the fervor in my defending it.  You claim to be apathetic yet were visibly upset by the hopelessness protrayed in the ending.  You've said as much yourself.

Wha?  Where did I say that?

You mean "hopelessness" in realizing that all my decisions which I agonized about in the prior games didn't matter?  

I guess that's correct.  I'll never agree that it's a good thing though, to tell the gamer that all your decisions matter and then j/k they don't now you feel hopeless like Shepard did.

Gigamantis wrote...

You think these feelings that are causing you to attack on the forums make the ending bad, but that's only because you don't understand what an ending that strives to feel hopeless is supposed to do to you. 

Point me to where I said the hopelessness of the Galaxy is what makes me upset.  Otherwise you're just putting words in my mouth to set up your own argument.  It's poorly and trollishly done.  I wasn't happy with Bioware's decision to end ME that way but, like I actually said, I accepted the fan-cut of the ending.

You know.  That ends with the exact same ending movie?  It just cuts out the Catalyst.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 05 avril 2012 - 04:51 .

[Steve2911]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Steve2911 wrote...

Exactly this. Why are you people arguing with the logic of someone who witnessed millions of years of cyclical war between organics and synthetics.

He arguably hasn't witnessed any "cyclical wars" except for one.  The war in his cycle.  And that, speculatively, isn't even a war that the organics lost.

Remember that the Reapers prevent war from happening in all the other cycles.  At least, war up to the point where it threatens galactic life.

Well that's hard to say unless you know more about the Catalyst itself or where it comes from. Who's to say he didn't go on to see history repeat itself after his cycle, before his 'final solution' even came to be?

I understand the 'show don't tell' argument, I just didn't have a hard time believing that he sees it as inevitable, because of how far back we know the Reapers go. The massive buildup of the Reapers lends credibility to his motives because of how old and powerful they are. When going into this game, my main concern was whether or not the motives of the Reapers would be explained. I believed that they may not be, because of the insistance of Sovereign in ME1 that  their intentions are beyond all human comprehension. Knowing that the Reapers are an 'evil' force, and knowing that someone or something out there had a reason for unleashing them on the galaxy beyond 'we want to be the all powerful superspecies' satisfied me.