9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Aurora313]

I think I preferred it when I have no idea what the hell they were. Would have loved the options to be presented by a trustworthy party. IE - ANYONE BUT THE CATALYST. Hell, if EDI or another sympathetic synthetic presented Synthesis I'd be a little happier about it - or if we could have had a flash to Legion similar to that of Anderson and TIM's when the Catalyst presents it. But that being said, Bioware isn't about to abandon their star child concept.

Modifié par Aurora313, 30 juillet 2012 - 01:40 .

[Taboo]

The interesting concept behind the Lovecraft theme is that those beings truly are beyond mortal comprehension. Simply looking at Cthulhu can make you go mad.

There is one interesting thing to note though. Lovecraftian horrors can only, and I repeat, only be harmed by forces weaker than they are. They can only be killed by an equal or a being of lesser power.

The Reapers do not have that capability. They are more than capable of being Destroyed by a lesser force with some effort. Looking back on it now, the Reapers are not as frightening as we thought they were by this fact alone.

We couldn't have beaten the Reapers had they kept those overtones. There are just too many.

[BrookerT]

elitehunter34 wrote...

But we do understand their motivations. What Sovereign meant is that they were not comprehendable. The writers changed that by giving them an actual motivation, and it's an absurd one. Killing off advanced organics to stop a hypothetical scenario that is probably not going to happen because all evidence points to that not happening. If anything the Reapers should be killing off all microbial life. That has a much higher chance of killing off all life. If somehow a bacterial infection or virus was lethal to multiple species, it would have a much higher chance of killing all life. It would be insanely hard to pinpoint and it would traverse the entire galaxy in weeks if not detected early enough. The Reapers were built to be unknowable, and that's why giving them a motivation was so absurd. If they simply wanted to stop synthetics from being created why do they wait so long? By not having an actual motivation they would get a free pass from criticism. The Reapers should have stayed as the unknowable gods that they have been built up to be for an entire series. Not the weak tools of an AI that couldn't solve its own problems for a billion years because "organics weren't ready."

Actually with the EC, It seems more like the Catalyst is a misguided "peacekeeper". Before, it was killing of all organic life that had the abilty to make synthetics, so that said synthetics would not kill all organic life regardless of the technological capabilities. Garrus lampshaded it, let a small number die to save countless more. It failed as an explanation beacsue it was presented as a drastic answer to a hypothetical question, with no evidence.

But with the EC, the Catalyst was given the task of acheiving peace between Synthetics and Organics, both equal parties in the conflict. When the Catalyst failed to bring them together peacefully, he effectively forced them to be together. The Catalyst states that the Reapers are a fusion of Synthetic and Organic life, a sort of forced synergy between the two. He states that he does this "before they are forever lost to this conflict". It is horrifc, but a solution nonetheless. Know ee have all the eveidence we need to prove the Catalyst assertions; The Geth-Quarian war, The citadel money stealer, the war Javik describes.

This changes the Catalyst from an Unknowable villain, to a flawed "understandable" antagonist. What he is, Who made him and Why he does what he does are all known to us now. 

Interestingly enough, if the Geth and Quarians both live, that almost can discredit synthesis as an option in some cases. Shepard already proved he is the Catalyst for peace, and such a drastic change can seem unnessecary. Why "force" peace (in a sense) when Shepard has just proved co-operation is possibe given time. But if either the Geth or Quarians die, then, (in my opinion) it makes Synthesis the most viable choice as Shepard has seen the horrors of this conflict between Synthetics and Organics first hand.

[Ieldra]

@Aurora313:
We've had enough clues about what the Reapers were from ME1 and ME2. What we didn't know was their purpose, and I wanted to know their purpose. Without that, no ending of ME3 could ever have been remotely satisfying for me.

I agree about the "starchild". That was a spectacular failure. I would have liked to decipher the options myself with the help of some trusted team members like Legion. Instead we get this figure that comes across to players as "the evil AI god who tries to manipulate us by adopting the form of a human child". I hate vent kid anyway.

@BrookerT:
Yes, that's the most striking narrative inconsistency in ME3: that we can make peace between quarians and the geth and are then treated to the supposed inevitability of the organic/synthetic conflict, even more so since the following symbiosis between the geth and quarians appears like a forerunner to Synthesis. And we can't even bring it up in the Catalyst encounter. I can make sense of it, but that doesn't change the fact that geth/quarian peace sends a message that shouldn't be ignored by the Catalyst.

[Aurora313]

Vent-Kid = why should my Shepard care? It's not the first child he's witnessed dying. Hell, mine actually HAS killed children without flinching. He was a ruthless bastard all the way through his life. Only cleaned up his act after being beaten down at Akuze, and more so in the N training. Wow - lets kill the only child we see for pointless drama! Lets have the option to kill the VS for pointless drama! Lets have nightmares about the fallen (although that I can understand because of PTSD) and constantly shove the kid down your throats for - You guessed it! Pointless drama! (The kid, I cannot forgive. I'm just bummed I can't shoot him without end anymore without triggering the 'refuse' ending.)

[elitehunter34]

BrookerT wrote...
Actually with the EC, It seems more like the Catalyst is a misguided "peacekeeper". Before, it was killing of all organic life that had the abilty to make synthetics, so that said synthetics would not kill all organic life regardless of the technological capabilities. Garrus lampshaded it, let a small number die to save countless more. It failed as an explanation beacsue it was presented as a drastic answer to a hypothetical question, with no evidence.

But with the EC, the Catalyst was given the task of acheiving peace between Synthetics and Organics, both equal parties in the conflict. When the Catalyst failed to bring them together peacefully, he effectively forced them to be together. The Catalyst states that the Reapers are a fusion of Synthetic and Organic life, a sort of forced synergy between the two. He states that he does this "before they are forever lost to this conflict". It is horrifc, but a solution nonetheless. Know ee have all the eveidence we need to prove the Catalyst assertions; The Geth-Quarian war, The citadel money stealer, the war Javik describes.

This changes the Catalyst from an Unknowable villain, to a flawed "understandable" antagonist. What he is, Who made him and Why he does what he does are all known to us now. 

Interestingly enough, if the Geth and Quarians both live, that almost can discredit synthesis as an option in some cases. Shepard already proved he is the Catalyst for peace, and such a drastic change can seem unnessecary. Why "force" peace (in a sense) when Shepard has just proved co-operation is possibe given time. But if either the Geth or Quarians die, then, (in my opinion) it makes Synthesis the most viable choice as Shepard has seen the horrors of this conflict between Synthetics and Organics first hand.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I'm saying.  And no in the EC it didn't change.  The Catalyst uses the Reapers to wipe out advanced organics to prevent them from creating synthetics.  I didn't need or want any leader of the Reapers, at least not in this way.  Presenting the Catalyst as an AI who uses the Reapers as tools severely diminishes their images as unstoppable machines and brings up numerous plot-holes.  The Catalyst just wasn't necessary at all.

[elitehunter34]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The interesting concept behind the Lovecraft theme is that those beings truly are beyond mortal comprehension. Simply looking at Cthulhu can make you go mad.

There is one interesting thing to note though. Lovecraftian horrors can only, and I repeat, only be harmed by forces weaker than they are. They can only be killed by an equal or a being of lesser power.

The Reapers do not have that capability. They are more than capable of being Destroyed by a lesser force with some effort. Looking back on it now, the Reapers are not as frightening as we thought they were by this fact alone.

We couldn't have beaten the Reapers had they kept those overtones. There are just too many.

Well yeah, the Reapers were influenced by Lovecraft, but does that mean they have to be exactly the same as them?

[elitehunter34]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Aurora313:
We've had enough clues about what the Reapers were from ME1 and ME2. What we didn't know was their purpose, and I wanted to know their purpose. Without that, no ending of ME3 could ever have been remotely satisfying for me.

I honestly don't see why they needed a purpose.  Does it really matter?  You can't really give a good motive to something that wants to kill/harvest everyone.  What other motive can you have besides "I can" or "I want to"?  

I want to say this as concisely as I can, but if you're going to have a motive for an enemy, they can't be built up so that a motive wouldn't make sense.  You really can't argue that the Reapers really were not Lovecraftian type monsters: they weren't supposed to be knowable.  Just listen to Sovereign in Mass Effect 1.  Please don't bring up the morality thing, that is pure interpretation, and I highly doubt that was the writers intention.  The Catalyst was invented way, way after the Reapers were created.  

Beyond comprehension is supposed to mean exactly that: our words aren't even enough to describe their existence.  They were on an entirely different realm of existance.  If a writer does that to an atagonist they can really can only do two things.  1.  The writer can mean it and must never explain it.  2.  The writer doesn't mean it so the character must be arrogant and/or insane so you explain their motives.  The Reapers now fill in category 2 when honestly they were built up to be and make a lot more sense as category 1.  The Reapers motive now is just, silly.  It really is.  If they really just want to stop organics from making synthetics why do they wait so long?  Why was the point of the mass relays and the Citadel?  Why do they think Synthesis will work?  There really aren't any good answers that are just handwaves.

The Reapers were just that, an alien, unknowable antagonist.  The meat of the story didn't revolve around that.  It revolved around trying to stop them.  Mass Effect 3 did that, and it did that pretty well.  It wasn't until the last 10 minutes that all of this was thrown on us, and for what?  To make us choose how to solve the Catalyst's problem? The game was about stopping the Reapers, not about solving an invented problem of a mad AI.  It was a lazy and half-thought through way of trying to force some crappy philosophy and a choice on us.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Can someone tell me what happens if Wreav is in charge, Eve is dead and genophage is cured, and ofcourse synthesis selected? I read a post claiming Wreav doesn't go to war. I find that.. illogical. Someone can confirm or deny?

[fiendishchicken]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Aurora313:
We've had enough clues about what the Reapers were from ME1 and ME2. What we didn't know was their purpose, and I wanted to know their purpose. Without that, no ending of ME3 could ever have been remotely satisfying for me.

I honestly don't see why they needed a purpose.  Does it really matter?  You can't really give a good motive to something that wants to kill/harvest everyone.  What other motive can you have besides "I can" or "I want to"?  

I want to say this as concisely as I can, but if you're going to have a motive for an enemy, they can't be built up so that a motive wouldn't make sense.  You really can't argue that the Reapers really were not Lovecraftian type monsters: they weren't supposed to be knowable.  Just listen to Sovereign in Mass Effect 1.  Please don't bring up the morality thing, that is pure interpretation, and I highly doubt that was the writers intention.  The Catalyst was invented way, way after the Reapers were created.  

Beyond comprehension is supposed to mean exactly that: our words aren't even enough to describe their existence.  They were on an entirely different realm of existance.  If a writer does that to an atagonist they can really can only do two things.  1.  The writer can mean it and must never explain it.  2.  The writer doesn't mean it so the character must be arrogant and/or insane so you explain their motives.  The Reapers now fill in category 2 when honestly they were built up to be and make a lot more sense as category 1.  The Reapers motive now is just, silly.  It really is.  If they really just want to stop organics from making synthetics why do they wait so long?  Why was the point of the mass relays and the Citadel?  Why do they think Synthesis will work?  There really aren't any good answers that are just handwaves.

The Reapers were just that, an alien, unknowable antagonist.  The meat of the story didn't revolve around that.  It revolved around trying to stop them.  Mass Effect 3 did that, and it did that pretty well.  It wasn't until the last 10 minutes that all of this was thrown on us, and for what?  To make us choose how to solve the Catalyst's problem? The game was about stopping the Reapers, not about solving an invented problem of a mad AI.  It was a lazy and half-thought through way of trying to force some crappy philosophy and a choice on us.

Exactly. And for something like the Reapers as well, they deserve no less than complete, utter annihilation. They are not the species that they are supposed to represent. They are a twisted perversion of those, and I'm sure that if there ever was a human reaper, the people used to make it would want it destroyed.

[Ieldra]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Aurora313:
We've had enough clues about what the Reapers were from ME1 and ME2. What we didn't know was their purpose, and I wanted to know their purpose. Without that, no ending of ME3 could ever have been remotely satisfying for me.

I honestly don't see why they needed a purpose.  Does it really matter?  You can't really give a good motive to something that wants to kill/harvest everyone.  What other motive can you have besides "I can" or "I want to"?  

I want to say this as concisely as I can, but if you're going to have a motive for an enemy, they can't be built up so that a motive wouldn't make sense.  You really can't argue that the Reapers really were not Lovecraftian type monsters: they weren't supposed to be knowable.  Just listen to Sovereign in Mass Effect 1.  Please don't bring up the morality thing, that is pure interpretation, and I highly doubt that was the writers intention.  The Catalyst was invented way, way after the Reapers were created.

Of course opinions about why the Reapers needed a purpose are subjective. I can tell you my reason in one sentence: I do not care for stories where we're presented with an unknown, and all we can do is destroy it. It's not the kind of story I like. I always prefer deciphering the mysteries.

ME2 started the process of demystifying the Reapers with Legion's information and EDI's speculation. ME3 completed it. It was an ongoing process. The new information was compaptible with what Sovereign told you in ME1, and even the old dark energy plot had the Reapers demystified at the end. The Reapers started out as Lovecraftian horrors, yes, but they were never intended to stay that way.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 juillet 2012 - 01:21 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Exactly. And for something like the Reapers as well, they deserve no less than complete, utter annihilation. They are not the species that they are supposed to represent. They are a twisted perversion of those, and I'm sure that if there ever was a human reaper, the people used to make it would want it destroyed.

So who stopped you from picking destroy? You be happy destroying them, we'll be happy "freeing" them. Our universes don't intersect.

Modifié par pirate1802, 30 juillet 2012 - 01:23 .

[th3warr1or]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Exactly. And for something like the Reapers as well, they deserve no less than complete, utter annihilation. They are not the species that they are supposed to represent. They are a twisted perversion of those, and I'm sure that if there ever was a human reaper, the people used to make it would want it destroyed.

Well said.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Of course opinions about why the Reapers needed a purpose are subjective. I can tell you my reason in one sentence: I do not care for stories where we're presented with an unknown, and all we can do is destroy it. It's not the kind of story I like. I always prefer deciphering the mysteries.

Same here. A story where the main villain/s is/are not explained is.. let's just say I don't like such stories very much. All the games/book I love have demystified, understandable, human and even likable villains. Its a subjective thing ofcourse. My opinion is no more valid that someone else's.

[DirtyPhoenix]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Exactly. And for something like the Reapers as well, they deserve no less than complete, utter annihilation. They are not the species that they are supposed to represent. They are a twisted perversion of those, and I'm sure that if there ever was a human reaper, the people used to make it would want it destroyed.

They are not the species, but they do contain the memories and knowledge of long-gone species. they are like the storehouse, museum of you may.. of those species. With synthesis we have a chance to recover and use all that knowledge. Maybe even recreate them. And that they were perverted is the catalyst's fault not their's. Not sure why they should be punished for someone else's fault.

Its like handing out death sentence to the Frankenstein because he is a perversion and a monster.

[Aurora313]

I just dislike the decay of the Illusive Man. I couldn't read him in ME2, didn't trust him purely on principal, but come 3, he's almost a stereotypical villian.

[Oransel]

Synthesis = Project Overlord = bad

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Oransel wrote...

Synthesis = Project Overlord = bad

But Synthesis =/= Project Overlord.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Oransel wrote...

Synthesis = Project Overlord = bad

[Taboo]

I don't pick Destroy out of a desire for vengeance. I refuse to let my Shepard's motivations be limited to such things.

I do it because I weight the cost against the possibility for a free future for all, outside of my Shepard's influence and of the Reapers.

I still haven't even decided if surviving is really a good thing. I only have one positive in my ending and I know that it's going to be the thing driving my Shepard forward. I would think he very much plans to study the Reapers and try and help everyone rebuild.

Please don't lump me into one category with the others.

[incinerator950]

pirate1802 wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

Exactly. And for something like the Reapers as well, they deserve no less than complete, utter annihilation. They are not the species that they are supposed to represent. They are a twisted perversion of those, and I'm sure that if there ever was a human reaper, the people used to make it would want it destroyed.

So who stopped you from picking destroy? You be happy destroying them, we'll be happy "freeing" them. Our universes don't intersect.

As Catalyst, I have constructed a new Reaper that makes processed, but healthy foods.  Like Cheesecake.  Who knew those slaughterships could be redesigned!

[DirtyPhoenix]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Please don't lump me into one category with the others.

Who did?

[Taboo]

pirate1802 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Please don't lump me into one category with the others.

Who did?

Sorry if I came off that way.

It just sounds that way. I clash with Destroy people all the time.

I'm just glad that Ieldra and I came to an understanding about it.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 30 juillet 2012 - 04:49 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Oh that earlier comment of mine wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the other person who claimed reapers are abominations and absolutely needed to die, regardless the fact that they were merely tools.

It amuses me that people who claim synthesis is immoral because that's one an deciding whats right and what's not, don't hesitate for a second before deciding who is an abomination, and therefore need to die. They also somehow come to decide that those long-gone civilizations would want to die anyway.

Strange.

Again. its aimed not at you, Sorry if it appeared that way. xD

[DirtyPhoenix]

incinerator950 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

Exactly. And for something like the Reapers as well, they deserve no less than complete, utter annihilation. They are not the species that they are supposed to represent. They are a twisted perversion of those, and I'm sure that if there ever was a human reaper, the people used to make it would want it destroyed.

So who stopped you from picking destroy? You be happy destroying them, we'll be happy "freeing" them. Our universes don't intersect.

As Catalyst, I have constructed a new Reaper that makes processed, but healthy foods.  Like Cheesecake.  Who knew those slaughterships could be redesigned!

I wonder what happens to those reapers in synthesis, after they are done rebuilding the galaxy? Maybe they will fly to uncolonized worlds and try to clone themselves back to existance?
All those billions of beings harvested into a reaper, do they maintain their individual inds or are they fused into a single mind? If they remain individuals I can imagine them downloading into mobile platforms.
Gotta find a good headcanon:D

Modifié par pirate1802, 30 juillet 2012 - 05:27 .