288 réponses à ce sujet

[Jenonax]

humes spork wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

The Reapers even look like the great priest of R'yleh............Cthulhu......

The Old Ones did the same thing in the Mythos.........they too made people go mad....

As I've brought up round these parts before, the problem with that is BW made the conscious decision to merely use Lovecraftian themes to introduce the Reapers and establish the trilogy's dramatic question. It, even in the context of ME1 itself, was clearly not intended to be a long-running theme attached to the Reapers. Or, if it was, the writers of ME1 had a very poor understanding of Lovecraftian horror.

Having Sovereign directly engage the protagonists, and act directly in the game's climax, already represented a fundamental break from the thematic tenets of Lovecraftian horror that rendered it narratively unsustainable.

i'm sorry, but you're stuck with it by the time you get to 3.  They decided to stick with the Reaper's being unknowable Gods in 2 (see Reaper IFF mission - even a dead god still dreams).  You can't just go back and retcon two games worth of character development.  You end up with severe problems as your loyal fanbase rightly points out that the motivations don't fit what we already know.

[nitefyre410]

humes spork wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

The Reapers even look like the great priest of R'yleh............Cthulhu......

The Old Ones did the same thing in the Mythos.........they too made people go mad....

As I've brought up round these parts before, the problem with that is BW made the conscious decision to merely use Lovecraftian themes to introduce the Reapers and establish the trilogy's dramatic question. It, even in the context of ME1 itself, was clearly not intended to be a long-running theme attached to the Reapers. Or, if it was, the writers of ME1 had a very poor understanding of Lovecraftian horror.

Having Sovereign directly engage the protagonists, and act directly in the game's climax, already represented a fundamental break from the thematic tenets of Lovecraftian horror that rendered it narratively unsustainable.

 

You have said better than I could have...  thats what I have been saying from the start. So this thing about the Reapers being unbeatable went out the window. They are model after the Lovercraftian horror yes but the  I don't think they were meant to  be that in the end.     I think in the end it was all just  bunch  of very good villian bluster by   Soveriegn and people took it a little to literally. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 03 mai 2012 - 02:51 .

[humes spork]

Jenonax wrote...

i'm sorry, but you're stuck with it by the time you get to 3.

...that's my point. BW had committed themselves to an unsustainable narrative long before ME3 and what we have is the logical consequence which sprung forth from that.

[pistolols]

Jenonax wrote...

I never said it was just Shepard who was succeeding against impossible odds. Shepard could never have done it alone, and he doesn't. Very rarely in literature does a hero do things alone, very rarely is he capable of doing so. United we stand in the Mass Effect Universe. Shepard is the hero because he unites people, because he inspires people, because people are willing to believe they can do the impossible because he stands by their side. To say that he is simply a man in the right place at the right time is simplistic and does Shepard a real disservice. No one else could have united the galaxy, and no one else would have tried.

still.. the Protheans and Cerberus are the ones that deserve the credit for ME1 and ME2. Then in ME3 it ends up being the culmination of every cycle that puts an end to it once and for all. Shepard uniting the galaxy was only meant to give the crucible a chance at success, hackett says this multiple times. I agree it is simplistic in a sense and it does downgrade Shepard as the hero... but it's true. The real reasons for success were elements that were never really in Shepard's or the player's control. He is just the guy going through the motions.

Taboo-XX wrote...

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

Please, go look up Indoctrination. That is all the "beyond comprehension" stuff was ever about. No offense but it's extremely silly to attack the ending of ME3 on the basis of "derp but aren't they supposed to be beyond our comprehension!?!" C'mon now.

Modifié par pistolols, 03 mai 2012 - 02:54 .

[ahandsomeshark]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
There was a bunch of pissed off Firefly fans when FOX canceled the series.

And that "bunch" of pissed off Firefly fans got a freakin movie against all odds, because Joss Wedon cared about the fans and didn't treat them like second rate citizens that failed to understand his immense ego.

Never underestimate the power of a fanbase.

And now Whedon has the avengers franchise, there was actually an article about this today I just finished reading before coming into this thread, about how the geeks have finally banded together.

[ahandsomeshark]

Jenonax wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

The Reapers even look like the great priest of R'yleh............Cthulhu......

The Old Ones did the same thing in the Mythos.........they too made people go mad....

As I've brought up round these parts before, the problem with that is BW made the conscious decision to merely use Lovecraftian themes to introduce the Reapers and establish the trilogy's dramatic question. It, even in the context of ME1 itself, was clearly not intended to be a long-running theme attached to the Reapers. Or, if it was, the writers of ME1 had a very poor understanding of Lovecraftian horror.

Having Sovereign directly engage the protagonists, and act directly in the game's climax, already represented a fundamental break from the thematic tenets of Lovecraftian horror that rendered it narratively unsustainable.

i'm sorry, but you're stuck with it by the time you get to 3.  They decided to stick with the Reaper's being unknowable Gods in 2 (see Reaper IFF mission - even a dead god still dreams).  You can't just go back and retcon two games worth of character development.  You end up with severe problems as your loyal fanbase rightly points out that the motivations don't fit what we already know.

they even stuck with it through 3, remember the conversation on Rannoch.

[Jenonax]

humes spork wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

i'm sorry, but you're stuck with it by the time you get to 3.

...that's my point. BW had committed themselves to an unsustainable narrative long before ME3 and what we have is the logical consequence which sprung forth from that.

 I wasn't really disaggreeing with you.  I write for a living and things like this really annoy me.  you have to work with what you're given, I guess I just think that they should never have explained the Reapers motivations because nothing they could have come up with would have been satisfactory.  Someone at Bioware should have known this and implemented it.

[ahandsomeshark]

Atakuma wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
There was a bunch of pissed off Firefly fans when FOX canceled the series.

And that "bunch" of pissed off Firefly fans got a freakin movie against all odds, because Joss Wedon cared about the fans and didn't treat them like second rate citizens that failed to understand his immense ego.

Never underestimate the power of a fanbase.

It wasn't Joss's choice to have the show end where it did, and the movie was a way of giving the story a proper ending. The two situations are not comparable.

No but an overbearing production company can seriously hamper things.

Then they have to deal with the fans.

That is a seperate issue. Bioware is responsible for the ending, not EA.

Bioware and EA are the same company. Bioware is an EA division operating under a brand name.

[Jenonax]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

The Reapers even look like the great priest of R'yleh............Cthulhu......

The Old Ones did the same thing in the Mythos.........they too made people go mad....

As I've brought up round these parts before, the problem with that is BW made the conscious decision to merely use Lovecraftian themes to introduce the Reapers and establish the trilogy's dramatic question. It, even in the context of ME1 itself, was clearly not intended to be a long-running theme attached to the Reapers. Or, if it was, the writers of ME1 had a very poor understanding of Lovecraftian horror.

Having Sovereign directly engage the protagonists, and act directly in the game's climax, already represented a fundamental break from the thematic tenets of Lovecraftian horror that rendered it narratively unsustainable.

i'm sorry, but you're stuck with it by the time you get to 3.  They decided to stick with the Reaper's being unknowable Gods in 2 (see Reaper IFF mission - even a dead god still dreams).  You can't just go back and retcon two games worth of character development.  You end up with severe problems as your loyal fanbase rightly points out that the motivations don't fit what we already know.

they even stuck with it through 3, remember the conversation on Rannoch.

...ugh.  Forgot about that one.  It boggles the mind what they thought they were doing with the Reapers at the end, it really does.

[pistolols]

Jenonax wrote...

 They decided to stick with the Reaper's being unknowable Gods in 2 (see Reaper IFF mission - even a dead god still dreams). 

THEY WERE INDOCTRINATED.

[nitefyre410]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

The Reapers even look like the great priest of R'yleh............Cthulhu......

The Old Ones did the same thing in the Mythos.........they too made people go mad....

As I've brought up round these parts before, the problem with that is BW made the conscious decision to merely use Lovecraftian themes to introduce the Reapers and establish the trilogy's dramatic question. It, even in the context of ME1 itself, was clearly not intended to be a long-running theme attached to the Reapers. Or, if it was, the writers of ME1 had a very poor understanding of Lovecraftian horror.

Having Sovereign directly engage the protagonists, and act directly in the game's climax, already represented a fundamental break from the thematic tenets of Lovecraftian horror that rendered it narratively unsustainable.

i'm sorry, but you're stuck with it by the time you get to 3.  They decided to stick with the Reaper's being unknowable Gods in 2 (see Reaper IFF mission - even a dead god still dreams).  You can't just go back and retcon two games worth of character development.  You end up with severe problems as your loyal fanbase rightly points out that the motivations don't fit what we already know.

they even stuck with it through 3, remember the conversation on Rannoch.

 

Oh you mean the one  after  Shepard said.." Screw that" and in moment of Pure awesome( last one of the game i might add)  We not only punch Cthulhu but blow it too hell with 50, 000  ships wroth of orbital strike.  

I actually laughed  while it said " you cannot compherend." I was thinking "YEah the said I could not kill you but  you number 3 on my tally.." 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 03 mai 2012 - 03:01 .

[Taboo]

One last time mate..............the old ones in the Mythos did the exact same thing. Indoctrination COMES from Lovecraftian horror.

A Cerberus employee even paraphrases a saying from the Mythos: "Even dead gods can dream".

Learn the lore. Learn the influences.

[humes spork]

Jenonax wrote...

I wasn't really disaggreeing with you.  I write for a living and things like this really annoy me.  you have to work with what you're given, I guess I just think that they should never have explained the Reapers motivations because nothing they could have come up with would have been satisfactory.  Someone at Bioware should have known this and implemented it.

Well, this is going to in the context of what we got come off as extremely snarky, but here it is.

BW had a ready-made outlet for this. Simply characterize the Reapers as entirely fallible megalomaniacs who lack introspection and self-awareness. Stress not that Reapers are Lovecraftian horrors but rather they envision themselves through their level of power as such. ...which is what we got on Rannoch, ironically enough.

The problem with expositing Reaper motivations is the trilogy had built up to that point. Expectations, through systemically unveiling the Reapers over the course of two games, had been raised that something had to be done to exposit Reaper motivations. And, to be honest if that had to be done (which I think it did) I honestly believe their reasons should have been so wholly arbitrary and repulsive to the audience it did nothing but reinforce what little Reapers actually thought of organic life and underscore how little their motivations in the end matter.

...which is ironically enough where I think BW was going with the starchild, but they completely failed in the execution.

In a previous thread I started on this forum, I posited an alternate interpretation that Reapers were self-styled conservators of the galaxy, and that they considered organic civilizations invasive species' to be quarantined and eradicated in the name of maintaining galactic biodiversity, with the harvest serving to replenish Reaper numbers, preserve species' legacy, and shades of trophy-hunting. I think something like that is where BW should have gone, had they exposited Reaper motivations at all.

[Jenonax]

humes spork wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I wasn't really disaggreeing with you.  I write for a living and things like this really annoy me.  you have to work with what you're given, I guess I just think that they should never have explained the Reapers motivations because nothing they could have come up with would have been satisfactory.  Someone at Bioware should have known this and implemented it.

Well, this is going to in the context of what we got come off as extremely snarky, but here it is.

BW had a ready-made outlet for this. Simply characterize the Reapers as entirely fallible megalomaniacs who lack introspection and self-awareness. Stress not that Reapers are Lovecraftian horrors but rather they envision themselves through their level of power as such. ...which is what we got on Rannoch, ironically enough.

The problem with expositing Reaper motivations is the trilogy had built up to that point. Expectations, through systemically unveiling the Reapers over the course of two games, had been raised that something had to be done to exposit Reaper motivations. And, to be honest if that had to be done (which I think it did) I honestly believe their reasons should have been so wholly arbitrary and repulsive to the audience it did nothing but reinforce what little Reapers actually thought of organic life and underscore how little their motivations in the end matter.

...which is ironically enough where I think BW was going with the starchild, but they completely failed in the execution.

In a previous thread I started on this forum, I posited an alternate interpretation that Reapers were self-styled conservators of the galaxy, and that they considered organic civilizations invasive species' to be quarantined and eradicated in the name of maintaining galactic biodiversity, with the harvest serving to replenish Reaper numbers, preserve species' legacy, and shades of trophy-hunting. I think something like that is where BW should have gone, had they exposited Reaper motivations at all.

Its all right, I'm snarky all the time :innocent:

I agree with you.  I never believed they were really gods or mystical cthulu creatures or whatever, I believed they thought they were.

If the explanation to their motives had to be revealed, then I would have gone even more simplistic.  I would have had it as EDI said at the end of 2.  Make it so they were harvesting us in order to aid their reproduction. Its entirely necessary for them and completely repugnant to us.  Simple is almost always the best way to go with these things.

[nitefyre410]

humes spork wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I wasn't really disaggreeing with you.  I write for a living and things like this really annoy me.  you have to work with what you're given, I guess I just think that they should never have explained the Reapers motivations because nothing they could have come up with would have been satisfactory.  Someone at Bioware should have known this and implemented it.

Well, this is going to in the context of what we got come off as extremely snarky, but here it is.

BW had a ready-made outlet for this. Simply characterize the Reapers as entirely fallible megalomaniacs who lack introspection and self-awareness. Stress not that Reapers are Lovecraftian horrors but rather they envision themselves through their level of power as such. ...which is what we got on Rannoch, ironically enough.

The problem with expositing Reaper motivations is the trilogy had built up to that point. Expectations, through systemically unveiling the Reapers over the course of two games, had been raised that something had to be done to exposit Reaper motivations. And, to be honest if that had to be done (which I think it did) I honestly believe their reasons should have been so wholly arbitrary and repulsive to the audience it did nothing but reinforce what little Reapers actually thought of organic life and underscore how little their motivations in the end matter.

...which is ironically enough where I think BW was going with the starchild, but they completely failed in the execution.

In a previous thread I started on this forum, I posited an alternate interpretation that Reapers were self-styled conservators of the galaxy, and that they considered organic civilizations invasive species' to be quarantined and eradicated in the name of maintaining galactic biodiversity, with the harvest serving to replenish Reaper numbers, preserve species' legacy, and shades of trophy-hunting. I think something like that is where BW should have gone, had they exposited Reaper motivations at all.

   

^ This... my thoughts  exactly... a Hyper  Advanced Race that fancies  themselves as  Gods but  they  have not meet anyone  brave(stupid) enough to say... screw that. 
 

The simple straight malice is always be  the best way to go- simple motivations covered up alot of bluster. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 03 mai 2012 - 03:34 .

[frylock23]

It's like they chickened out on the idea that sometimes evil can just be evil and we don't necessarily have to know why it's evil. So, they dropped in the Catalyst and tried to explain why the evil is evil and give it justifiable motivations. That sort of ruined it for me. I was happier when the evil was just evil.

[ahandsomeshark]

nitefyre410 wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No mate it's true. It's not a misconception. Please, go look up Lovecraftian horror..........

The Reapers even look like the great priest of R'yleh............Cthulhu......

The Old Ones did the same thing in the Mythos.........they too made people go mad....

As I've brought up round these parts before, the problem with that is BW made the conscious decision to merely use Lovecraftian themes to introduce the Reapers and establish the trilogy's dramatic question. It, even in the context of ME1 itself, was clearly not intended to be a long-running theme attached to the Reapers. Or, if it was, the writers of ME1 had a very poor understanding of Lovecraftian horror.

Having Sovereign directly engage the protagonists, and act directly in the game's climax, already represented a fundamental break from the thematic tenets of Lovecraftian horror that rendered it narratively unsustainable.

i'm sorry, but you're stuck with it by the time you get to 3.  They decided to stick with the Reaper's being unknowable Gods in 2 (see Reaper IFF mission - even a dead god still dreams).  You can't just go back and retcon two games worth of character development.  You end up with severe problems as your loyal fanbase rightly points out that the motivations don't fit what we already know.

they even stuck with it through 3, remember the conversation on Rannoch.

 

Oh you mean the one  after  Shepard said.." Screw that" and in moment of Pure awesome( last one of the game i might add)  We not only punch Cthulhu but blow it too hell with 50, 000  ships wroth of orbital strike.  

I actually laughed  while it said " you cannot compherend." I was thinking "YEah the said I could not kill you but  you number 3 on my tally.." 

but to me that makes the endings make even less sense. Because Shepard gets from awesome to resignation. 

[pistolols]

Taboo-XX wrote...

One last time mate..............the old ones in the Mythos did the exact same thing. Indoctrination COMES from Lovecraftian horror.

A Cerberus employee even paraphrases a saying from the Mythos: "Even dead gods can dream".

Learn the lore. Learn the influences.

One last time.... the reapers or people indoctrinated by the reapers saying that they are "beyond comprehension" does not actually mean that they are really beyond our comprehension. That is a facet of indoctrination, it is not the truth. They want you to be in awe of them.

You're clearly letting your understanding of other works corrupt your ability to grasp what is happening in Mass Effect. The whole point of the reaper cycle is that they maintain the evolution of the galaxy to a level that is understandable and knowable. Otherwise civilizations would grow beyond their ability to inflict their control and they would be rendered powerless. They are not gods.

This is actually beginning to be quite humorous. One of the notions of the "Indoctrination Theory" is that bioware's intention was to "indoctrinate the player"... and here you are sort of playing right into that by arguing that the ending does not mesh with your awe of the reapers.

"Listen to yourself. You're Indoctrinated!"

Modifié par pistolols, 03 mai 2012 - 04:00 .

[nitefyre410]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

*snip* 


but to me that makes the endings make even less sense. Because Shepard gets from awesome to resignation. 

 

I know thats the most  agrivating thing about the endings... from Rannoch were   Shepard says " Screw that.." 

To  Earth where Shepard just gives in... unless Bioware wants me to  think  that losing to Kei Leng on Thessia broke Shepard's spirit that much....  to which I say.. " dey must be trippin" 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 03 mai 2012 - 04:31 .

[CrutchCricket]

As I was just talking about Lovecraftian themes and the Reapers I will comment here as well.

The Reapers were mecha-Cthulu only up to the point where Sovereign was defeated. That alone killed that comparison right there. The final nail in its coffin was the Collector base where we find out how they reproduce. They might've continued to use certain elements to keep the mystery going, but the "cosmic horror" portion definitively ended there.

So clearly we can understand their nature just fine. What I argue is that they should still be too far beyond us to understand their ultimate purpose. And here ME3 definitely dropped the ball (and ran it over with a semi). Granted it's difficult to keep something mysterious yet still kick its ass. But I maintain that the Reaper's goals and minds should not have been comprehensible by human forms.

You don't need to be a cosmic horror to stump the human chumps. We're pretty damn limited on the grand scale of things.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 03 mai 2012 - 04:08 .

[SpartanCommander]

The way the 3 choices are presented and the fact that I accept those ending with no qualms or even arguing or even the option of refusing them is also insulting. I couldn't even think of a single reason why my character would even pick any of these option.

[knightnblu]

Bravo OP, bravo! Well said and well done. BioWare should be ashamed of itself for many reasons and first among them is the ending of ME3. We deserved better than what we received. For all of those who actually liked the ending, that's great. I'm really happy for you. But I didn't care for it one bit and I paid my money for it just like you did and I was told by BioWare that there would be 16 wildly different endings to ME3. I only received 3 slightly different endings. That's a problem.

Again OP, great post.

[Jenonax]

pistolols wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I never said it was just Shepard who was succeeding against impossible odds. Shepard could never have done it alone, and he doesn't. Very rarely in literature does a hero do things alone, very rarely is he capable of doing so. United we stand in the Mass Effect Universe. Shepard is the hero because he unites people, because he inspires people, because people are willing to believe they can do the impossible because he stands by their side. To say that he is simply a man in the right place at the right time is simplistic and does Shepard a real disservice. No one else could have united the galaxy, and no one else would have tried.

still.. the Protheans and Cerberus are the ones that deserve the credit for ME1 and ME2. Then in ME3 it ends up being the culmination of every cycle that puts an end to it once and for all. Shepard uniting the galaxy was only meant to give the crucible a chance at success, hackett says this multiple times. I agree it is simplistic in a sense and it does downgrade Shepard as the hero... but it's true. The real reasons for success were elements that were never really in Shepard's or the player's control. He is just the guy going through the motions.

The Crucible is a massive Deus Ex Machina.  Its implementation is atrocious and the story behind it is laughable.  Built across the ages?  Give me a break!  You're telling me just as we need it the big Reaper off button just happens to be found on the planet next door to ours in a great big library we've known about for about a hundred years at this point.  Its continued destruction cycle after cycle just downgrades the Reapers even more.  Are you telling me that not one of the Reapers looked at the Crucible and thought, gee, that looks and awful lot like the thing we found the last few cycles building, maybe we should look for the plans for it and destroy them?  They can't be that stupid to just accept that we keep building the same god-damned thing!

If the Crucible was there from the very beginning I might agree with you but it wasn't.  The writers paniced because they couldn't think of a way of legitimately destroying the Reapers so they used the oldest and most reviled plot device, a DEM.  

If Shepard is just a guy going through the motions then why Shepard?  What makes him so special as to follow him through the trilogy?  Why not Tali, or Liara?  Why not Joe Bloggs down the street?  Why not Conrad?  Because he's a hero.  Because only he could do the things he does.  So saying he's just another guy going through motions is to strip him of the title of being the hero and we've wasted out time following him.

[Taboo]

pistolols wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

One last time mate..............the old ones in the Mythos did the exact same thing. Indoctrination COMES from Lovecraftian horror.

A Cerberus employee even paraphrases a saying from the Mythos: "Even dead gods can dream".

Learn the lore. Learn the influences.

One last time.... the reapers or people indoctrinated by the reapers saying that they are "beyond comprehension" does not actually mean that they are really beyond our comprehension. That is a facet of indoctrination, it is not the truth. They want you to be in awe of them.

You're clearly letting your understanding of other works corrupt your ability to grasp what is happening in Mass Effect. The whole point of the reaper cycle is that they maintain the evolution of the galaxy to a level that is understandable and knowable. Otherwise civilizations would grow beyond their ability to inflict their control and they would be rendered powerless. They are not gods.

This is actually beginning to be quite humorous. One of the notions of the "Indoctrination Theory" is that bioware's intention was to "indoctrinate the player"... and here you are sort of playing right into that by arguing that the ending does not mesh with your awe of the reapers.

"Listen to yourself. You're Indoctrinated!"

Yes, but I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

You assume the Bioware had a grand master plan behind all of this. The sudden introduction of a being to justify something is an incredibly lazy narrative technique. Denial takes shape on both sides. I am in awe of the amount of effort both sides to justify an incredibly poorly written ending. I don't give a damn about the motives. I don't care about the Star Child. What I DO care about is your sudden acceptance of something that was not hinted at in the first two games. The Reapers LOOK like Cthuluhu, they are CALLED the "old machines."

You justify a poor narrative technique by claiming it was all a grand plan.

It was not.

[MattFini]

Taboo-XX wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

One last time mate..............the old ones in the Mythos did the exact same thing. Indoctrination COMES from Lovecraftian horror.

A Cerberus employee even paraphrases a saying from the Mythos: "Even dead gods can dream".

Learn the lore. Learn the influences.

One last time.... the reapers or people indoctrinated by the reapers saying that they are "beyond comprehension" does not actually mean that they are really beyond our comprehension. That is a facet of indoctrination, it is not the truth. They want you to be in awe of them.

You're clearly letting your understanding of other works corrupt your ability to grasp what is happening in Mass Effect. The whole point of the reaper cycle is that they maintain the evolution of the galaxy to a level that is understandable and knowable. Otherwise civilizations would grow beyond their ability to inflict their control and they would be rendered powerless. They are not gods.

This is actually beginning to be quite humorous. One of the notions of the "Indoctrination Theory" is that bioware's intention was to "indoctrinate the player"... and here you are sort of playing right into that by arguing that the ending does not mesh with your awe of the reapers.

"Listen to yourself. You're Indoctrinated!"

Yes, but I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

You assume the Bioware had a grand master plan behind all of this. The sudden introduction of a being to justify something is an incredibly lazy narrative technique. Denial takes shape on both sides. I am in awe of the amount of effort both sides to justify an incredibly poorly written ending. I don't give a damn about the motives. I don't care about the Star Child. What I DO care about is your sudden acceptance of something that was not hinted at in the first two games. The Reapers LOOK like Cthuluhu, they are CALLED the "old machines."

You justify a poor narrative technique by claiming it was all a grand plan.

It was not.

A+