889 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

What's that got to do with what I was asking? Where does the EMP analogy come into it? What's the Crucible / Citadel combination doing that can possibly have the effect it does? Just what is it amplifying that can somehow destroy every single Reaper in the galaxy?

I'm glad that at least you see that shooting the pipe was daft.

Simple. Because that s the only way to effect all tech. The crusible is the emp device and the citadel is the amplifier.

Which is still completely missing the point - how does it affect all tech? We know how an EMP works and why it affects some electronics. What is the common property that all technology has (but other things don't) that can be affected by a sufficiently powerful transmission? What could that transmission possibly be - particularly when it seems that it's capable of discriminating between different forms of software (assuming that the geth are actually killed)? The amount of energy required to reach worlds away from the mass relay network would be huge - how come even in high EMS Destroy can that much power not have a catastrophic effect on everything nearby, no matter what it's made of?

Something that big and that powerful, with effects that far-reaching is always going to look incredibly implausible without some pretty solid explanation and we don't have one.

[Mr.House]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Thereaper in me was persented as a egnigma. We know what they are doing, just not why. Any lable you think the reapers are under wasplaced by you not the game or story.

All we know is that we don't agree with their actions. We never know their intent. Itwas never saidthe reaper are good or evil in the series ever. And in the end they are neather. Itthe orignal dark endergy plot they were plan tobe neather as well.

Ok, for the people with long term memory issues let's review what the Reapers have done before ME3 came out:

-Caused the rachni to attack, resulting in untold deaths from that. (Actual casualties from the fighting and then the fallout from uplifting the Krogan needed to fight the rachni.)
-Have turned uncountable numbers of sentient beings into techno-zombies by impaling them on spikes.
-Have turned uncountable numbers of sentient beings into goo to make more of themselves.
-Brainwashed uncountable numbers of sentient beings to do thier will through indoctrination.
-Killed hundreds, if not thousands, during the battle of the Citadel.

Evil with a capital E. You don't look at this list and go "Oh, those silly Reapers! They're just doing thier own thing."

1. That was the leviathens.
2-4.Means toan end to it goal.


I agree that they are all immoral act but that does not say the intent of the reapers. Nothing say they areevil . Just that they are doing immoral acts for some reason.

Say a person is evil is immorl meas I cansay Shepard is evil becasue he destroyed a colony in arriaval.

Uh wrong. It was hinted, but it was never proven, it was a thoery Bryson had. That does not make true, until it's comfirmed the Leviathans did it, it's the Reapers that did it since it has been comfirmed in-game.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Said wave are amplified by a device made to make things go fast then the speed of light. And the crucible-citadel combo effects the entire galexy.

If said wave was going FTL, we wouldn't have seen it when it affected Earth. It's going the speed of light if not slower. When it emits from the relays, same thing. It only goes really fast when trasnmitted from relay to relay.

Since the Normandy wasn't there yet, how did it catch them? Also, where the hell is that planet?! There are no other planets within the Sol system like that.

We been seeing the normady in FTL since ME1. I think we can rule out the bw not being 100% spacifice to detail here.

[3DandBeyond]

Seival wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How is that contriditory if wenever say it's perfect. That only means the people who think we think is perfect who are saying we think it's perfect. The very concept o fit being perfect or bad is flawed as a point.

I meant the ending. For most of the series "The Reapers are bad, sentient machine/organic hybrids" was there. Then suddenly it goes to "The Reapers are your friend and are controlled by this deranged AI who just wants to help."

Contradictory.

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

Brilliant is a misused term here.   Ther'e's nothing brilliant about these endings at all and saying so does not make it so.  What most SF writers that do create even futility or twist endings have behind them that these endings lack, tends to be logic and a sense of coherence and connection still to the the rest of the story.  Twists within stories are not meant to just fall out of nowhere but even when they happen, must be something that the reader will feel makes sense to the rest of what is happening.  There's still a moment when that twist helps to make sense of all that came before.  ME3 does not have that.  So, saying it's somehow brilliant just bears out the point that you're ignoring the major flaws and the totality of the minor flaws. 

The endings create a whole new reason for the fight in the first place, but one that does not resonate as real in this galaxy.  Leviathan is BW's attempt to make it a real problem, but it's not enough and it makes it worse.  You really do need to play the games again.  The problem the catalyst is given to fix is untrue for Shepard.  The things the catalyst does don't fit any sense of logic even if he's just trying to solve that one problem.  The participants in the problem only exist now as reapers-they are the problem.  The machines were created by the Leviathan's thrall races and they kept killing organics and the thralls kept creating killer synthetics.  The catalyst was created to fix this and put the two together-the machine and the Leviathans.  So, all that's left of that problem exist now as reapers.  What brilliant move is this?  Have the thralls stop making killer machines-no need for the catalyst, no reapers.  And if the machines that became reapers were the problem, then the kid controls them and could keep them from killing organics.  Instead, he has them kill more organics.  And he says he destroyed his creators, so don't tell me he has no idea that he's killing people.  Brilliant, I tell you, brilliant.

[dreman9999]

Mr.House wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Thereaper in me was persented as a egnigma. We know what they are doing, just not why. Any lable you think the reapers are under wasplaced by you not the game or story.

All we know is that we don't agree with their actions. We never know their intent. Itwas never saidthe reaper are good or evil in the series ever. And in the end they are neather. Itthe orignal dark endergy plot they were plan tobe neather as well.

Ok, for the people with long term memory issues let's review what the Reapers have done before ME3 came out:

-Caused the rachni to attack, resulting in untold deaths from that. (Actual casualties from the fighting and then the fallout from uplifting the Krogan needed to fight the rachni.)
-Have turned uncountable numbers of sentient beings into techno-zombies by impaling them on spikes.
-Have turned uncountable numbers of sentient beings into goo to make more of themselves.
-Brainwashed uncountable numbers of sentient beings to do thier will through indoctrination.
-Killed hundreds, if not thousands, during the battle of the Citadel.

Evil with a capital E. You don't look at this list and go "Oh, those silly Reapers! They're just doing thier own thing."

1. That was the leviathens.
2-4.Means toan end to it goal.


I agree that they are all immoral act but that does not say the intent of the reapers. Nothing say they areevil . Just that they are doing immoral acts for some reason.

Say a person is evil is immorl meas I cansay Shepard is evil becasue he destroyed a colony in arriaval.

Uh wrong. It was hinted, but it was never proven, it was a thoery Bryson had. That does not make true, until it's comfirmed the Leviathans did it, it's the Reapers that did it since it has been comfirmed in-game.

When has it everbeen comfermed it was the reapers. In this case the glove fits both the reapers hands and the leviathens hands. It was always an assumption that thereapers controled the rachni.

[Ticonderoga117]

Mr.House wrote...
Uh wrong. It was hinted, but it was never proven, it was a thoery Bryson had. That does not make true, until it's comfirmed the Leviathans did it, it's the Reapers that did it since it has been comfirmed in-game.

It also doesn't fit what the Leviathans want. They want the Reapers to go away and to get tribute. Tribute is hard to give when the space bugs eat you.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Seival wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How is that contriditory if wenever say it's perfect. That only means the people who think we think is perfect who are saying we think it's perfect. The very concept o fit being perfect or bad is flawed as a point.

I meant the ending. For most of the series "The Reapers are bad, sentient machine/organic hybrids" was there. Then suddenly it goes to "The Reapers are your friend and are controlled by this deranged AI who just wants to help."

Contradictory.

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

Brilliant is a misused term here.   Ther'e's nothing brilliant about these endings at all and saying so does not make it so.  What most SF writers that do create even futility or twist endings have behind them that these endings lack, tends to be logic and a sense of coherence and connection still to the the rest of the story.  Twists within stories are not meant to just fall out of nowhere but even when they happen, must be something that the reader will feel makes sense to the rest of what is happening.  There's still a moment when that twist helps to make sense of all that came before.  ME3 does not have that.  So, saying it's somehow brilliant just bears out the point that you're ignoring the major flaws and the totality of the minor flaws. 

The endings create a whole new reason for the fight in the first place, but one that does not resonate as real in this galaxy.  Leviathan is BW's attempt to make it a real problem, but it's not enough and it makes it worse.  You really do need to play the games again.  The problem the catalyst is given to fix is untrue for Shepard.  The things the catalyst does don't fit any sense of logic even if he's just trying to solve that one problem.  The participants in the problem only exist now as reapers-they are the problem.  The machines were created by the Leviathan's thrall races and they kept killing organics and the thralls kept creating killer synthetics.  The catalyst was created to fix this and put the two together-the machine and the Leviathans.  So, all that's left of that problem exist now as reapers.  What brilliant move is this?  Have the thralls stop making killer machines-no need for the catalyst, no reapers.  And if the machines that became reapers were the problem, then the kid controls them and could keep them from killing organics.  Instead, he has them kill more organics.  And he says he destroyed his creators, so don't tell me he has no idea that he's killing people.  Brilliant, I tell you, brilliant.

New reason?

The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not make the action moral.That just means the only way to do what's need to be do for the greater good is through an immoral way.

It does make an action moral. Whether an action is moral or not is the sum of its costs, benefits, and alternative possibilities. It makes no sense to look at any of those in isolation. Nothing is 100% right or wrong although I often see ill thought out support or condemnation for something based on the flawed idea that there is a list of right and wrong, end of. For example: It's very wrong to take a knife and cut someone open at random. There's nothing at all immoral about a surgeon doing it to save someone's life, even though the action is exactly the same.

The reaper case is complicated by the fact they are just doing what they are programed to do. The destruction is a means to that end. The are just foced to blindly follow there programing.

Their behaviour throughout the game suggests they are entirely happy and willing with their actions and capable of making their own decisions. If they are slaves then they are willing slaves.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Uh wrong. It was hinted, but it was never proven, it was a thoery Bryson had. That does not make true, until it's comfirmed the Leviathans did it, it's the Reapers that did it since it has been comfirmed in-game.

It also doesn't fit what the Leviathans want. They want the Reapers to go away and to get tribute. Tribute is hard to give when the space bugs eat you.

Unless the gaol is to get to the citadel or hide the leviathens.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Seival wrote...

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's good simply because it's different for the sake of being different? Originality (not that there's all that much here anyway) without quality is still rubbish. Originality and quality is best but I'll take unoriginal and good before original and nonsense.

I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Only for authors who cannot concisely convey what they wish to say.

You think Harry Harrison is "an author who cannot concisely convey what he wish to say"? That's more than just silly. Deathworld, for example, is very short story (you wouldn't need more than 6 hours to read it I think). But it has several brilliant turn of events. Each works just perfectly.

Please, read the Deathworld. Do yourself a big favour

Wait! What!

We're talking specifically about Deathworld? Since when? We've been discussing story telling in generalised terms and with an entire host of authors.

Yet again you've gone for the 'Change the rules of the debate', rather than discuss the merit's of story telling we were just talking about.

How can any discussion resolve itself if you insist on jumping subject matter on a whim?

Use the Force Seiv. Stay On Target!

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That does not make the action moral.That just means the only way to do what's need to be do for the greater good is through an immoral way.

It does make an action moral. Whether an action is moral or not is the sum of its costs, benefits, and alternative possibilities. It makes no sense to look at any of those in isolation. Nothing is 100% right or wrong although I often see ill thought out support or condemnation for something based on the flawed idea that there is a list of right and wrong, end of. For example: It's very wrong to take a knife and cut someone open at random. There's nothing at all immoral about a surgeon doing it to save someone's life, even though the action is exactly the same.

The reaper case is complicated by the fact they are just doing what they are programed to do. The destruction is a means to that end. The are just foced to blindly follow there programing.

Their behaviour throughout the game suggests they are entirely happy and willing with their actions and capable of making their own decisions. If they are slaves then they are willing slaves.

1.Then I guess we can say all the ending in ME3 are morally sound by your logic then.
2. When have they ever showed they were willing?

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

New reason?

The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

And there's also been plenty of organic vs. orgnaic conflict in the series, and it's not as if real life is short of that either. Organic - synthetic conflict was never presented as anything uniquely different and more dangerous than any other conflict.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
We been seeing the normady in FTL since ME1. I think we can rule out the bw not being 100% spacifice to detail here.

Details are kinda a big thing here. The Normandy couldn't have reached the relay before the beam, so it's still in the Sol system so this calls into doubt the planet landing.

Then we have the speed of the wave. EM waves don't go faster suddenly on thier own. So normal speed on Earth, and then FLT chasing the Normandy. No sense.

Then how does the Normandy survive sudden drop out of FTL due to radiation and then not pancake on the dubious planet?

Details matter! Details did matter before, they are needed here!

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
Unless the gaol is to get to the citadel or hide the leviathens.

Well if they wanted to go to the Citadel, there are much easier ways... like when all the space-worthy species are dead and gone.

To hide... you do not control giant space bugs with your mind to HIDE.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.Then I guess we can say all the ending in ME3 are morally sound by your logic then.

We can say that one of them is, since there are no alternatives, at least for Shepard. Doesn't stop them all being unpleasant. Let's not drag this thread into which one that is; there are plenty of other threads that do that.

2. When have they ever showed they were willing?

There's no proof but they've never demonstrated the slightest bit of evidence for acting under duress or questioning their actions. The ones we speak to (Sovereigh, Harbinger, Rannoch Reaper) all sound like they are firmly convinced of their actions and their superiority over everyone else.

[DrGunjah]

dreman9999 wrote...
Well that means they all are still effect tech in some way.

So what's the conclusion? Red deactivates reapers and the normandy. Blue does not deactivate the reapers but the normandy. Do the reapers suddenly stop being "tech" when you choose control? Unlikely.
Obviously you don't have a clue what the red beam does. No one does. That was my point from the start.
Blue and Green suffer from similar inconsistencies.

[Applepie_Svk]

This thread is simply another troll bait, just like OPs signature...

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...


1. That was the leviathens.
2-4.Means toan end to it goal.


I agree that they are all immoral act but that does not say the intent of the reapers. Nothing say they areevil . Just that they are doing immoral acts for some reason.

Say a person is evil is immorl meas I cansay Shepard is evil becasue he destroyed a colony in arriaval.

Actually, you are using one of the other works created by the person that helped give us these endings-apparently someone who wanted this to become a truly futile game with only immoral choices. 

The only thing the Arrival has going for it is that Shepard can at least attempt to warn the Batarians-in the endings, Shepard tries to contact exactly NO ONE.  And in the Arrival, the artifact is clearly dangerous and you either finish the DLC or you get Mission Failure and can't play the rest of ME2 or go on to play ME3.  Alternately, and what I've chosen to do, you can avoid playing the Arrival altogether because it is one of the worst DLCs that the series has.  It was meant to prepare you for the relay destruction and apparently one person's vision of the galaxy being destroyed no matter what you did.  The problem is it is the first case of Shepard being shown as not being in character, because the writer would not let Shepard be so.  And then, they double down on all of this by showing Hackett turning moron and not providing Shepard with cover for these events.  So, did Hackett announce to the galaxy that Shepard purposely sent the asteroid into the relay?  All Hackett had to do was say Shepard tried to stop it but couldn't-provide cover for someone he sent in - especially when Hackett got the info on the reapers from the data Shepard obtained.  That whole thing was idiotic.  It was set up to be an impossible thing-Shepard is knocked out for 2 days and so has no time to spare, can't warn anyone, can't do anything, and the only way out of that DLC is to kill 300K Batarians.  Boneheaded move.  Worst DLC in my opinion and I hated it the first time I played it.

[ghost9191]

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

[3DandBeyond]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

If someone "helped" me to appreciate the kid or the crucible, I'd want them arrested for assault.  The OP loves to use this line lately that he's been helped to understand and appreciate it and says he was part of the HTL movement-patently untrue since most of his threads were in full support of the original endings.  Take all of this with a large, massive grain of salt. 

[Reorte]

3DandBeyond wrote...

If someone "helped" me to appreciate the kid or the crucible, I'd want them arrested for assault.  The OP loves to use this line lately that he's been helped to understand and appreciate it and says he was part of the HTL movement-patently untrue since most of his threads were in full support of the original endings.  Take all of this with a large, massive grain of salt. 

All sounds rather like indoctrination to me

[3DandBeyond]

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

This exactly.

Every single time in the game where there was some conflict between synthetics and organics, it was solved by the participants.  Or, it was prompted, promoted, and maintained by reapers.  To now suggest it's relevant when anyone with 2 brain cells to put together would beg to differ, is laughable.  It means Shepard should be allowed to question this as logic.  In order to stop synthetics from killing organics, it isn't only that the kid sends reapers to do that, but that the reapers and the kid use other synthetics to do that.  The logical response to this would be to tell the kid to stop doing that.

[Raging_Pulse]

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

Not only that, but we learned that only a minor part decided to go with Sovereign. Large majority of the Geth were for peaceful coexistence with organics.

[dreman9999]

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

1.My point refers to the reapers.

2.We knew the eth servedthe reapers from ME1. Not 2.

3. The reapers are part of the organic vs synthetic problem.


And Finally the reapers are just machines doing what they are programed to do. If we brought up rennoch, the havest would still happen any way.