I want to start by saying the Catalyst was a completely pointless addition and does, in fact, completely undo much of what we know about the Reapers. Most notably, of course, what we learned in our dialogs with Harbinger. It seems to me that he was added simply because a couple of bafoons couldn't come up with any solid ending options without it. Or, they came up with the options we have and thought they were so good they absolutely had to make them work.
See, much of what we know is thrown out the window by the fact that, now, there is this thing that completely controls them. I seems they added this crap just to allow for the control option. The addition of the catalyst as a self aware and intelligent thing and not just some inanimate object was a drastically bad move in my opinion which then would again make it pointless as the crucible itsel would render it so. The whole last conversation should have been between Shepard and Harbinger. In fact, concerning the catalyst/crucible and the endings, a fan made a thread with some great ideas. Again, just replace the catalyst convo with a Habinger convo. Now, onto the article itself.
The authors explanation of the Reapers' motivation would have been fine. However, it is implied, and perhaps even clearly stated, that the Reapers' motivation is that AI specifically are the danger. Because AI are not organics they don't see a purpose in them and therfore will destroy all organic life. The things wrong with these ideas the Reapers have have been stated over and over and I don't see a need to reiterate them.
I will say, however, taking such drastic actions to prevent a possibility is overreacting and, in fact, crazy. I'll relate it to something we can all relate to in one way or another and this will prove just how crazy it is.
Muslim terrorists are very dangerous and there is a strong possibility the will carry out more attacks that kill many innocent people. With the mindeset of the Reapers we should just wip all Muslims from the face of the planet because there is a posibility that they will kill people. See, like I said, crazy. It is the same mindet of people like Adolf Hitler, and I'm sure we can all agree that he was a maniac. I think the devs saw this and made the Reapers out to be very bad. However, in the end they threw that out the window and said, OK they have a point, you agree and here are your options to deal with it even though they don't deal with it. Yeah I know, pretty dumb isn't it?
Now I would like to specifically discuss section 3.2.
How can control be considered the best possible option? It may be the best of the three but is certainly not the best course of action. The author uses the theory that all life will be destroyed by something worse than the Reapers to justify this. However, one, this is not the case it is something equivalent to the Reapers will destroy all life (
) and two, none of the options actually do anything to prevent such an event from coming to pass, including control. The only way to prevent it is the Reapers harvesting all advanced life. Which again, is a drastic overreaction to a posibility.Here I would also like to comment on a quote of the author. "...it's actually imperative for there to be a "glactic police" such as the Reapers." No, it's not imperative because there are only tow possible techniques for such a group to use to prevent the possible destruction of all life and both are unacceptable. One, harvest all advanced life and two, full time surveillance of every advanced living thing in the galaxy. Both are utterly wrong and the second is impossible. Once again, it is not iperative to overreact to a posibility.
Also, the fact that the author thinks it imperative says to me that he, in Shepards position, would say yes Reapers, please harvest us to prevent something that may or may not happen and we may be able to stop should it come to pass. This to me is a foolish midset. It also appears to be a foolish mindset to most people who finished the game as the lack of an option to tell the Catalyst to go screw is one of the biggest complaints.
I would now like to comment on the authors comment on the synthesis ending. He says. "Either was, it's a symbiotic relationship, not a one-sided assimilation the way that the construction of a Reaper is."
It doesn't matter if it is preferable (is submission not preferable to extinction? No, it isn't. We will fight for our right to live free.) it is still a very bad thing. It destroys people's free will and their right to decide for themselves if synthesis is something they would like. This is made even worse by the fact that it prevents nor provides anything in the context of the story.
Look at it like this, what if today, the world governments forced every human being to get surgery to install a metal skull to prevent head injuries that may or may not happen. It's wrong and it more than likely won't even prevent said injuries. It's the same as synthesis, unquestionably wrong and completely unacceptable.
As for acceptable ending options, if the three in game were the only possible options, synthesis would = renegade, control would = nuetral and destroy (Reapers only) would = paragon. However, the way it should have been, control = nuetral, synthesis = renegade and paragon would be telling the Reapers to go screw and defeat them conventionally. EMS would then play it's part in deciding how successful each choice is.
That is all I feel the need, or desire, to discuss. And this post is long enough as it is.
Retour en haut
