30 réponses à ce sujet

[lumen11]

When are they actually malicious? Their interest in the destruction of anything with a space ship seems very practical to me.

[Swordfishtrombone]

That they are so malicious throughout the series just goes to show that their "benevolent" reason for existence was a late addition. An ill-thought addition that the series could have done without.

[ASmoothCriminalx]

The Twilight God wrote...

Daiyus wrote...

luchozuca wrote...

Simple, ME1 Reapers were one thing, ME3 Reapers are another thing.
In ME1 each Reaper was an individual being, existing for millions of years, and thus we were not really supposed to entirely understand them or their motivations, while on ME3 they are plot-converted into dumb robots with big laz0rs, merely tools managed by Skynet Starbrat.

In order to maintain my own false illusion (so I can continue to enjoy the games, because I really do love playing them), I just assume that the Starbrat gives orders, individual Reapers can choose to follow or not, however they have no reason not to. Maybe the Leviathan DLC will give us answer to this so I can stop lying to myself.

Starbrat was a Harbinger hallucination like at the end of Arrival. Everything but Destroy is Shepard losing out to indoctrination and suiciding himself. The whole starchild conversation was Harbingers bs to confuse Shepard into commiting suicide.

Pick Destroy.

Bioware went through the effort to clear up all of the loopholes and erroneous plot points via the EC to... ?  (the answer is disprove the Indoctrination Theory and any attempt by the player to believe the ending was anything but genuine)

I'm sorry you don't believe the rubble in the destroy ending looks like anything YOU have noticed on the citadel.. 

[DyneEnigma]

Really? This is such an issue? I thought it was obvious to anyone who has seen any movie/game with a self righteous villain in it.

The Reapers think what they are doing is the only course of action. The way of order. Shepard disrupts that "order" so they become hostile.

Also look at it this way, how many times has Shepard or some other protagonist from a movie/game told the villain that they don't stand a chance etc. Its the same concept.

[Kivaru]

Because when you've been destroying all advanced civilization for millions of years, you'd get tired of trying to explain it to them.



In all seriousness though, it's probably because they have no reason for the enemy to know why, it's their own agenda to harvest them and nothing else.

[lumen11]

The problem is also that it's very hard to maintain the idea of certain entities, who were created by human writers in the first place, as being beyond our comprehension while we inevitable get to know them more and more about them. The only way to do this is by shrouding them in shadows as much as possible. I'm sure this is part of the reason why the starkid explains so very little in the original version of the game.

I rather liked the original ending, but one of the flaws of ME3 is that it left players with the impression that we were supposed to, or for that matter, could understand the Reapers beyond the simple given that they want to control the development of organic life. Anything beyond that - their notion of morality, the extent to which they preserve civilisations, how much they truly understand of the inevitability of life cycles in the galaxy - doesn't really matter, because we can't understand them anyway.

Modifié par lumen11, 12 juillet 2012 - 09:56 .