55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Stigweird85]

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

[Big G13]

Just finished reading the last several pages. OMG you guys are cracking me up. 'SPIT' .... classic.
@ Blue Liara - not sure about the eyes because I'm still not over the shock of realizing they were talking about Joker's sister.

[MaximizedAction]

bigstig wrote...

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

I haven't seen this here before, but I might've just as well missed it. Doesn't matter.

A civil war requieres groups with different opinions and thus some form of individualism. Sovereign didn't show such, as he was always using the plural when refering to the Reapers.
However, Harbinger and the Rannoch destroyer did use singular forms: Harbinger "Struggle if you wish, your mind will be mine." Destroyer "Harbinger speaks of you".

Now, assuming the authors didn't just dumb down the Reapers by them not using the plural anymore, that hints some form of individualism among them.

So yeah, causing a civil war among the Reapers by maybe freeing them of Harbinger's control could certainly be an idea of ending the war in an unconventional, not dumb, but still very plausible way. It would especially be a way that doesn't fall under the cathegory "By removing the mystery behind the bad guy, you make the whole threat less interesting".

On the other hand, explaining the Reapers' true motivation should happen NOT at the end of the story as it is right now. One could even argue, whether it can be well placed within the final part of the trilogy, at all. I think, there will also remain the problem of the lack of foreshadowing, since I can't remember an instance where a Reaper showed a sign of different opposing opinion against the invasions.

But nonetheless, very interesting, indeed!

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 08 juin 2012 - 01:41 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

bigstig wrote...

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

I am personally not thrilled at the idea.

First of it would not eb indoctrination he controlled them with as Indoctrination causes neural decay within just a few years.

But that is just nitpicking, no the real reasons I dont like it is that it seems a bit...stupid...and convenient.

I mean if that was the case then the cycle could end by accident. Imagine if the Reaper hit by the Klendragon shot ahd been Harbinger. Bamm, cycle over as Reapers turn upon each other.
'
Also Sovereign seemed very much indepedent when we speak to him in ME1, even say it through the "each a nation" line, but off course that might simply be becuase he thinks he is Independent...

All in all I dont want a single big baddy. It is fine with a focus for the anger and hate (Harby) but with the Reapers I want every single one of them to be a threat, not just goons following orders. I dont want a "the king dies, we won" kind of thing i want to tear each of them apart and know that each is answering for the horrors it commited, horrors it commited of its own will not because it was compelled by some overlord.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 08 juin 2012 - 01:38 .

[Ytook]

bigstig wrote...
Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?
Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

Ever since talking to Sovreign in me1 I always presumed that the reapers must have some kind of control placed over them, if each is truly a nation unto themselves then the fact that they act with such a unity of purpose and action would be impossible, try getting that many individuals to act in concert, let alone nations. When Harbinger was introduced in two I thought that that must be it, he's a kind of deified dictator, or that any reapers who dissent are indoctrinated. That's why I thought it would ultimately come down to you taking Harbinger out in some way, and without a leader guiding them and keeping them in line the reapers would be softened up so to speak.

[Rifneno]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Blue Liara wrote...

Just noticed this on my second play through. It might have been talked about before.

In the hospital on the Citadel.

The two Asari talking together discussing the terrible stuff that happened to one of them at the farm.

At the last point of discussion. She is talking about her ordeal. She says

"me the colour in my eyes, do they turn back after"

Might be a clutching at straws. But I think it has something to do with Indoctrination.

Yes Asari eyes turn black when under Reaper control.

Minor nitpick: they turn black when doing, or trying to do, that mindsex thing that asaris do.  Banshees' eyes are black because they're ardat-yakshi and they kill people with it.  In ME1, Liara's eyes went black when Shepard was showing her the cipher (quick, someone make a "mind****" pun!) but Benezia's never did even though she was under Reaper control 99% of the time.
I'm guessing that asari commando is either a pureblood with genetic disposition to be an ardat-yakshi which the Reapers can exploit, she's just too traumatized to realize the Reapers aren't interested in her non-space succubus body, or she just doesn't know how it all works.

[MegumiAzusa]

Rifneno wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Blue Liara wrote...

Just noticed this on my second play through. It might have been talked about before.

In the hospital on the Citadel.

The two Asari talking together discussing the terrible stuff that happened to one of them at the farm.

At the last point of discussion. She is talking about her ordeal. She says

"me the colour in my eyes, do they turn back after"

Might be a clutching at straws. But I think it has something to do with Indoctrination.

Yes Asari eyes turn black when under Reaper control.

Minor nitpick: they turn black when doing, or trying to do, that mindsex thing that asaris do.  Banshees' eyes are black because they're ardat-yakshi and they kill people with it.  In ME1, Liara's eyes went black when Shepard was showing her the cipher (quick, someone make a "mind****" pun!) but Benezia's never did even though she was under Reaper control 99% of the time.
I'm guessing that asari commando is either a pureblood with genetic disposition to be an ardat-yakshi which the Reapers can exploit, she's just too traumatized to realize the Reapers aren't interested in her non-space succubus body, or she just doesn't know how it all works.

They could just added that in ME3, like TIMs room that is suddenly made out of glass and has a ceiling. Saying it could be a different room is the same as guessing Benezia doesn't have black eyes because her mind is twisted so her other self thinks of the Reaper goals are good and it's within her and not control. Banshees are like Husks mindless and need control, as are Rila and Neaira. Though it was stated Neaira is indeed an Ardat-Yakshi too so it could be that only Ardat-Yakshi get black eyes, or that the Reapers just don't control non Ardat-Yakshi.

[Big G13]

bigstig wrote...

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

Took me an hour to find it but there was a discussion about the possibilities of a Reaper civil war between pages 468 - 470 or so.
Edit: just realized that sounded cold. What I ment was, check it out if you want, combine it with your ideas and post it. I find the idea very interesting.

Modifié par Big G13, 08 juin 2012 - 02:35 .

[EpyonX3]

So I was listening to the ME2 soundtrack and realized they reused a section of the Suicide Mission for when Harbinger shows up. I don't remember hearing this part in ME2, is this Harbinger's theme?

https://www.youtube....fzTevMEU#t=1320

[paxxton]

EpyonX3 wrote...

So I was listening to the ME2 soundtrack and realized they reused a section of the Suicide Mission for when Harbinger shows up. I don't remember hearing this part in ME2, is this Harbinger's theme?

https://www.youtube....fzTevMEU#t=1320

It plays when you see the Proto-Reaper for the first time.

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

So I was listening to the ME2 soundtrack and realized they reused a section of the Suicide Mission for when Harbinger shows up. I don't remember hearing this part in ME2, is this Harbinger's theme?

https://www.youtube....fzTevMEU#t=1320

It plays when you see the Proto-Reaper for the first time.

Ahhh now I remember. Makes sense then.

[Rifneno]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

They could just added that in ME3, like TIMs room that is suddenly made out of glass and has a ceiling. Saying it could be a different room is the same as guessing Benezia doesn't have black eyes because her mind is twisted so her other self thinks of the Reaper goals are good and it's within her and not control. Banshees are like Husks mindless and need control, as are Rila and Neaira. Though it was stated Neaira is indeed an Ardat-Yakshi too so it could be that only Ardat-Yakshi get black eyes, or that the Reapers just don't control non Ardat-Yakshi.

No.  Like I said, Liara's eyes turn black when she mindmelds and she's obviously not an AY.  Shiala's eyes also go black when mindmelding to give Shepard the cipher.
The only asari we see controlled are AY (either natural or converted from natural predisposition) and Matriach Benezia.  Rana Thanoptis was indoctrinated as well but we never saw her after she'd lost it.

And actually, I'm not so sure that Reaper's organic slaves are incapable of thought.  We have conflicting evidence.  Likely the case is that some species' are and some aren't.  Brutes definitely think on their own (though clearly, not very well) as the entire point of that crime against nature is to combine the turian's military mind with the krogan's powerful body.  If the Reapers were directly controlling them then the turians' mind would be irrelevant.  Banshees also still possess some semblence of intelligence IMO.  The reason I say that is because they're clearly in a great deal of pain (even the codex mentions it).  Without a mind, pain is meaningless.  That's one of the things that makes husks as dangerous as they are: they're utterly immune to pain.  Again, noted in the codex.  I'm not sure about cannibals, marauders, ect.  Harvesters almost certainly weren't sentient to begin with.  This is actually a topic I find interesting and put some thought into before.

[Stigweird85]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

I am personally not thrilled at the idea.

First of it would not eb indoctrination he controlled them with as Indoctrination causes neural decay within just a few years.

But that is just nitpicking, no the real reasons I dont like it is that it seems a bit...stupid...and convenient.

I mean if that was the case then the cycle could end by accident. Imagine if the Reaper hit by the Klendragon shot ahd been Harbinger. Bamm, cycle over as Reapers turn upon each other.
'

True but then again Harbringer didn't physically reveal himself until long into the battle in Mass Effect 3, he strikes me as the type of General who either (a) Doesn't get his hands dirty at all or ( Only enters the fray when there is 0 chance of retribution.  As far convience, I'll grant you it is but it is no more convenient than discovering plans on Mars for a massive weapon on the eve of the invasion...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

All in all I dont want a single big baddy. It is fine with a focus for the anger and hate (Harby) but with the Reapers I want every single one of them to be a threat, not just goons following orders. I dont want a "the king dies, we won" kind of thing i want to tear each of them apart and know that each is answering for the horrors it commited, horrors it commited of its own will not because it was compelled by some overlord.

That's the problem, it has been stated and discussed that conventional victory isn't possible and looking at the logistics of it it would be near impossible to battle each and every Reaper individually. Also that last part intrigues me, the idea of "only following orders" has some serious moral implications and is a discussion that there is no correct answer for

MaximizedAction wrote...

I haven't seen this here before, but I might've just as well missed it. Doesn't matter.

A civil war requieres groups with different opinions and thus some form of individualism. Sovereign didn't show such, as he was always using the plural when refering to the Reapers.
However, Harbinger and the Rannoch destroyer did use singular forms: Harbinger "Struggle if you wish, your mind will be mine." Destroyer "Harbinger speaks of you".

Now, assuming the authors didn't just dumb down the Reapers by them not using the plural anymore, that hints some form of individualism among them.

So yeah, causing a civil war among the Reapers by maybe freeing them of Harbinger's control could certainly be an idea of ending the war in an unconventional, not dumb, but still very plausible way. It would especially be a way that doesn't fall under the cathegory "By removing the mystery behind the bad guy, you make the whole threat less interesting".

On the other hand, explaining the Reapers' true motivation should happen NOT at the end of the story as it is right now. One could even argue, whether it can be well placed within the final part of the trilogy, at all. I think, there will also remain the problem of the lack of foreshadowing, since I can't remember an instance where a Reaper showed a sign of different opposing opinion against the invasions.

But nonetheless, very interesting, indeed!

You don't need to explain the true motivation or even their origins, we know Reapers exist and have done for Eons, we know that Reapers see themselves as the Pinnacle of evolution. We know Reapers are created from the species of the cycle, nothing new is added other than Harbringer who is assumed to be the oldest Reaper is indeed the oldest Reaper and effectively the general of the troops and holds control over them. 

Reaper individualisation does seem to exist as you have pointed out, but does that really mean anything? For example Kai Ling and TIM are both individuals with their own identity but they both were indoctrinated and acted for the Reapers. Individuality does not automatically mean independence.

[llbountyhunter]

bigstig wrote...

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

I'm leaning more towards no... because, while they are still "individual " they are still connected, and thus there ideas are connected and conflicting ideas would almost never happen, (I recently read the book "redemption ark" which speaks of future humans possibly getting implants and becoming a kind of consensus.... also has  a story similar too mass effect...I  recommend it )

Of course there may still be disagreements like how not all geth agreed to averythimg in me3, but like geth i dont think ther would go to war with each other.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 08 juin 2012 - 02:44 .

[Stigweird85]

Big G13 wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

Took me an hour to find it but there was a discussion about the possibilities of a Reaper civil war between pages 468 - 470 or so.
Edit: just realized that sounded cold. What I ment was, check it out if you want, combine it with your ideas and post it. I find the idea very interesting.

I'll have a look, I've been dipping in and out of the forum so probably missed that. Thanks

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

bigstig wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

All in all I dont want a single big baddy. It is fine with a focus for the anger and hate (Harby) but with the Reapers I want every single one of them to be a threat, not just goons following orders. I dont want a "the king dies, we won" kind of thing i want to tear each of them apart and know that each is answering for the horrors it commited, horrors it commited of its own will not because it was compelled by some overlord.

That's the problem, it has been stated and discussed that conventional victory isn't possible and looking at the logistics of it it would be near impossible to battle each and every Reaper individually. Also that last part intrigues me, the idea of "only following orders" has some serious moral implications and is a discussion that there is no correct answer for

We still have the Crucible.

Now I know that many, myself included think that the Crucible is trap, but would finding some new weakness in that final battle instead of across the rest of the war not be even more convenient than the way we found the Crucible?

Personally I think the Crucible is trap, but in order for a trap like that to be convincing its needs a grain of truth. There is little doubt the Crucible can produce an enormous amount of energy, it is where that energy goes that is the problem.

My guess is we fix the Crucible in some way or maybe even turn it into some giant bomb if all else fails. I dont really know, but just throwing the Crucible aside for some incredibly convenient weakness in the Reapers is...yeah, you know. .

[paxxton]

Mass Effect 2 has the best soundtrack of the 3 games.

Mass Effect 3's is better integrated into the game itself though.

Modifié par paxxton, 08 juin 2012 - 03:01 .

[Sero303]

byne wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

How about a project to get us back on track?

*snip*

This is the DVD insert of Mulholland Drive I mentioned, oh, probably a month ago. On it, ten "clues" are printed that help guide the viewer through the process of unlocking the meaning and symbolism in the film---or, at least, get them following the right path towards their own interpretation. These points aren't explanations of the devices in the film; they are explicit, specific things to keep an eye out for in the process of doing so.

My question to the theorists is: if you were to design an insert like this to pop in the packaging for Mass Effect 3 GOTY Edition that told the viewer specific things to look for in terms of interpreting indoctrination symptoms, what would they be? We can stick to ten, but we could venture to a list a little bit longer than that, if necessary. I think that surface-level, digestible clues are crucial to this idea.

Let me start:

The codex entry for indoctrination mentions "oily shadows". Do you see any oily shadows in the game?

This seems like a fun activity, but to be honest, my answer would be that I wouldnt make an insert like that at all. It would sort of, in my opinion, defeat the point of the "player indoctrination" portion of the ending. 

You werent asked to like it, you were asked to add a point for such a list. Get started!

I'd say:

Anderson represents destroy, TIM represents control, can you think of anyone who represents synthesis?

Maybe with a follow up of:

If you thought of someone like that, are they similar to either Anderson or TIM in some way?

Edit: Ninja'd by Arian! *shakes fist*

How about SAREN represents synthesis?

[llbountyhunter]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

All in all I dont want a single big baddy. It is fine with a focus for the anger and hate (Harby) but with the Reapers I want every single one of them to be a threat, not just goons following orders. I dont want a "the king dies, we won" kind of thing i want to tear each of them apart and know that each is answering for the horrors it commited, horrors it commited of its own will not because it was compelled by some overlord.

That's the problem, it has been stated and discussed that conventional victory isn't possible and looking at the logistics of it it would be near impossible to battle each and every Reaper individually. Also that last part intrigues me, the idea of "only following orders" has some serious moral implications and is a discussion that there is no correct answer for

We still have the Crucible.

Now I know that many, myself included think that the Crucible is trap, but would finding some new weakness in that final battle instead of across the rest of the war not be even more convenient than the way we found the Crucible?

Personally I think the Crucible is trap, but in order for a trap like that to be convincing its needs a grain of truth. There is little doubt the Crucible can produce an enormous amount of energy, it is where that energy goes that is the problem.

My guess is we fix the Crucible in some way or maybe even turn it into some giant bomb if all else fails. I dont really know, but just throwing the Crucible aside for some incredibly convenient weakness in the Reapers is...yeah, you know. .

I dont think he was talking about throwing the crucible aside... just the catalyst, reaperbieber reuces the reapers to nothing more than simple robots doing as their told.

Edit: i think im replying to bigstig here...

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 08 juin 2012 - 03:00 .

[Stigweird85]

llbountyhunter wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

I'm leaning more towards no... because, while they are still "individual " they are still connected, and thus there ideas are connected and conflicting ideas would almost never happen, (I recently read the book "redemption ark" which speaks of future humans possibly getting implants and becoming a kind of consensus.... also has  a story similar too mass effect...I  recommend it )

Of course there may still be disagreements like how not all geth agreed to averythimg in me3, but like geth i dont think ther would go to war with each other.

Again I add this: Individuality does not automatically mean independence. We are all individuals but we are all part of a state/country which may or may not be part of an even greater structure i.e. I live in Scotland, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, The United Kingdom is part of Europe and so on. Someone at the EU makes a decision and that filters down to me. I am still an individual but I am connected to something else.

BTW the consensus idea not that far fetched, we have actually real world evidence of it occuring. For example it was reported that some Sheep in a farm had beaten the cattle grate by lying down and rolling over it, nothing too special in itself but elsewhere another group of Sheep were doing exactly the same thing Link1, Link 2. Also there is anecdotal evidence of Birds discovering how to open Milk bottles at the same time as well

Back on topic if we treat the Reaper ID like Legion, Legion became an individual in the end but he started as a group of Geth each with their own mind and they did differ. Which is why he required Shepard to make the final decision about the heretics in Mass Effect 2. 

[MegumiAzusa]

Rifneno wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

They could just added that in ME3, like TIMs room that is suddenly made out of glass and has a ceiling. Saying it could be a different room is the same as guessing Benezia doesn't have black eyes because her mind is twisted so her other self thinks of the Reaper goals are good and it's within her and not control. Banshees are like Husks mindless and need control, as are Rila and Neaira. Though it was stated Neaira is indeed an Ardat-Yakshi too so it could be that only Ardat-Yakshi get black eyes, or that the Reapers just don't control non Ardat-Yakshi.

No.  Like I said, Liara's eyes turn black when she mindmelds and she's obviously not an AY.  Shiala's eyes also go black when mindmelding to give Shepard the cipher.
The only asari we see controlled are AY (either natural or converted from natural predisposition) and Matriach Benezia.  Rana Thanoptis was indoctrinated as well but we never saw her after she'd lost it.

And actually, I'm not so sure that Reaper's organic slaves are incapable of thought.  We have conflicting evidence.  Likely the case is that some species' are and some aren't.  Brutes definitely think on their own (though clearly, not very well) as the entire point of that crime against nature is to combine the turian's military mind with the krogan's powerful body.  If the Reapers were directly controlling them then the turians' mind would be irrelevant.  Banshees also still possess some semblence of intelligence IMO.  The reason I say that is because they're clearly in a great deal of pain (even the codex mentions it).  Without a mind, pain is meaningless.  That's one of the things that makes husks as dangerous as they are: they're utterly immune to pain.  Again, noted in the codex.  I'm not sure about cannibals, marauders, ect.  Harvesters almost certainly weren't sentient to begin with.  This is actually a topic I find interesting and put some thought into before.

You ignore the fact that the eyes only change for a second when Liara and Shiala are mind with you.

[Stigweird85]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

All in all I dont want a single big baddy. It is fine with a focus for the anger and hate (Harby) but with the Reapers I want every single one of them to be a threat, not just goons following orders. I dont want a "the king dies, we won" kind of thing i want to tear each of them apart and know that each is answering for the horrors it commited, horrors it commited of its own will not because it was compelled by some overlord.

That's the problem, it has been stated and discussed that conventional victory isn't possible and looking at the logistics of it it would be near impossible to battle each and every Reaper individually. Also that last part intrigues me, the idea of "only following orders" has some serious moral implications and is a discussion that there is no correct answer for

We still have the Crucible.

Now I know that many, myself included think that the Crucible is trap, but would finding some new weakness in that final battle instead of across the rest of the war not be even more convenient than the way we found the Crucible?

Personally I think the Crucible is trap, but in order for a trap like that to be convincing its needs a grain of truth. There is little doubt the Crucible can produce an enormous amount of energy, it is where that energy goes that is the problem.

My guess is we fix the Crucible in some way or maybe even turn it into some giant bomb if all else fails. I dont really know, but just throwing the Crucible aside for some incredibly convenient weakness in the Reapers is...yeah, you know. .

I didn't say that the Reapers would shut down if Harbinger was destroyed, simply that if Harbringer has some control over them if he is taken down then perhaps the Reaper armada would become disorganised and perhaps splinter into groups of still dangerious but defeatable enemies.

Also again with the convenient thing, it would be convient but again I point out the Catalyst whether you believe it as a trap or a weaponm, it has never been mentioned before and is only discovered on Mars on the Eve of War with the Repears. I say that is pretty convenient but accept it for the purpose of the story

[llbountyhunter]

bigstig wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Here is something for you to ponder:
Starchild states that the the created will always rebel against the creators:
The Repears may attempt to CREATE a new Reaper in each cycle(as evident from the Proto-Repear in ME2)

Discuss:

Could a Reaper civil war be possible?  Or does this lend itself to the idea that Harbringer is Reaper 001 and actual controls the rest of the Reaper species either via indoctrination or his "assuming direct control" method.  In which case would it mean if you take down Harbringer then you free the remaining Reapers from his control?

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, no doubt it has been mentioned before but if it has been then I haven't seen it and I'm still proud to have come up with it.

I'm leaning more towards no... because, while they are still "individual " they are still connected, and thus there ideas are connected and conflicting ideas would almost never happen, (I recently read the book "redemption ark" which speaks of future humans possibly getting implants and becoming a kind of consensus.... also has  a story similar too mass effect...I  recommend it )

Of course there may still be disagreements like how not all geth agreed to averythimg in me3, but like geth i dont think ther would go to war with each other.

Again I add this: Individuality does not automatically mean independence. We are all individuals but we are all part of a state/country which may or may not be part of an even greater structure i.e. I live in Scotland, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, The United Kingdom is part of Europe and so on. Someone at the EU makes a decision and that filters down to me. I am still an individual but I am connected to something else.

BTW the consensus idea not that far fetched, we have actually real world evidence of it occuring. For example it was reported that some Sheep in a farm had beaten the cattle grate by lying down and rolling over it, nothing too special in itself but elsewhere another group of Sheep were doing exactly the same thing Link1, Link 2. Also there is anecdotal evidence of Birds discovering how to open Milk bottles at the same time as well

Back on topic if we treat the Reaper ID like Legion, Legion became an individual in the end but he started as a group of Geth each with their own mind and they did differ. Which is why he required Shepard to make the final decision about the heretics in Mass Effect 2. 

So your agreeing with wha i said.,...right?

[llbountyhunter]

paxxton wrote...

Mass Effect 2 has the best soundtrack of the 3 games.

Mass Effect 3's is better integrated into the game itself though.

I disagree, i think me3 has they slightly better soundtrack. both extremely good though.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

bigstig wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

All in all I dont want a single big baddy. It is fine with a focus for the anger and hate (Harby) but with the Reapers I want every single one of them to be a threat, not just goons following orders. I dont want a "the king dies, we won" kind of thing i want to tear each of them apart and know that each is answering for the horrors it commited, horrors it commited of its own will not because it was compelled by some overlord.

That's the problem, it has been stated and discussed that conventional victory isn't possible and looking at the logistics of it it would be near impossible to battle each and every Reaper individually. Also that last part intrigues me, the idea of "only following orders" has some serious moral implications and is a discussion that there is no correct answer for

We still have the Crucible.

Now I know that many, myself included think that the Crucible is trap, but would finding some new weakness in that final battle instead of across the rest of the war not be even more convenient than the way we found the Crucible?

Personally I think the Crucible is trap, but in order for a trap like that to be convincing its needs a grain of truth. There is little doubt the Crucible can produce an enormous amount of energy, it is where that energy goes that is the problem.

My guess is we fix the Crucible in some way or maybe even turn it into some giant bomb if all else fails. I dont really know, but just throwing the Crucible aside for some incredibly convenient weakness in the Reapers is...yeah, you know. .

I didn't say that the Reapers would shut down if Harbinger was destroyed, simply that if Harbringer has some control over them if he is taken down then perhaps the Reaper armada would become disorganised and perhaps splinter into groups of still dangerious but defeatable enemies.

Also again with the convenient thing, it would be convient but again I point out the Catalyst whether you believe it as a trap or a weaponm, it has never been mentioned before and is only discovered on Mars on the Eve of War with the Repears. I say that is pretty convenient but accept it for the purpose of the story

I never said the Crucible was not convenient, but Harbinger beeing some sort of control unit for the collective Reaper fleet is in my opinion pushing the convenience factor. If it was the case one would think Harbinger would  have several fail saves built in so taht in case he is destroyed evrything he did does noty fall to pieces.

Like him transferring permanently to another Reaper if destroyed or simply back up signals in certain reaper for keeping the fleet on purpose.

And no we dont know Crucible or the Catalyst does, but that is why i still consider it a more logical way to do it. Even if it is trap, it can be turned to and advantage.