The fact is, Destroy is the ONLY ending which removes the Reaper threat once and for all. As I said - as long as they exist, they remain a threat.
Here's my head-canon questions:
How can you be sure that the Reaper threat is removed once and for all? That they are really destroyed? They looked like they were just disabled. They didn't explode or anything, they just fell to the ground.
What if someone like TIM, who wanted to control them, finds a way to reactivate them? Can the Crucible be rebuilt to send out the Destroy beam again?
1. Who in their right mind would want to reactivate the Reapers? Only and Indoctrinated agent would, or a moron would.
2. If they are disabled, then this is everyone's chance to hit the Reapers with everything the galaxy has. Will it kill them all, maybe not, but you beat a good portion of Reapers would die before they come back online.
Synthesis is the ideal solution. The ideal solution to everything, no matter if the issue is even related to genes. It makes everyone accept our Reaper friends, you can't hold a grudge against those cute faces for long anyway, especially since I assume they apologized geniuely. It even makes Krogan with Wreav in charge peaceful. And all that without manipulating our minds one single bit.
How can you be sure that the Reaper threat is removed once and for all? That they are really destroyed? They looked like they were just disabled. They didn't explode or anything, they just fell to the ground.
What if someone like TIM, who wanted to control them, finds a way to reactivate them? Can the Crucible be rebuilt to send out the Destroy beam again?
A fair question, given the Derelict Reaper mission in ME2. To answer it for you, there's plenty of ways to dispose of the deactivated Reapers. The vast majority would be hanging in space/orbit. These can be towed into the gravity well of the nearest star by unmanned drones.
The ones on the ground can be remotely disassembled and melted down by mechs/drones. The quicker, the better. That would be my Shepard's advice to my superiors and the Council, anyway. Whether they act on it is a different matter of course.
The fact is, Destroy is the ONLY ending which removes the Reaper threat once and for all. As I said - as long as they exist, they remain a threat.
Here's my head-canon questions:
How can you be sure that the Reaper threat is removed once and for all? That they are really destroyed? They looked like they were just disabled. They didn't explode or anything, they just fell to the ground.
What if someone like TIM, who wanted to control them, finds a way to reactivate them? Can the Crucible be rebuilt to send out the Destroy beam again?
Because you don't do that in storytelling. You don't let the big bad guys die in an epic cutscene just to say "well they didn't actually die, someone just switched them on again LOL". It's rather on the contrary: Normal destroyed Reapers, like the derilict one we visit, can still indoctrinate. The Reapers in the Destroy ending seem to be hit where it hurts, and that's their critical hardware.
Conjecture/deduction: While the cuttlefish shells weren't annihilated, the actual Reaper stuff inside them was, just as the husks and other minions were turned to dust.
Incorrect. The aggressors are ourselves, specifically organic life creating synthetic life which in all past cycles has created some form of conflict. The Reapers act aggressively against the galaxy's own aggression.
Riddle me this one thing Batman. Aside from glowstick boys word, and the obvious unification of Geth and organic fleets outside, and EDI on the Normandy, what evidence do we have that any of that synthetic vs organics always ending in apocalyptic death argument is even true?
There are at best off the top of my head I can recall a few instances of war but nothing really on the galactic wipeout scale that wasn't reaper related.
Even the Citadel ban on AI was due to the Quarian/Geth conflict which was seemingly instigated by Quarian aggression at the time. And despite even that, the Geth did not wipe them out when they could have.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not being argumentative. I'm just saying that we have no reason to believe the fake dead Jedi. There's zero reason to put any stock in anything that he says at all. Its essentially fighting a long bloody war and then getting right to the one thing that can bring you victory and having one of you're enemy supreme commander glowy pop up and say, "Hey, we were only trying to help. After all, this was all your fault for making these things that will try and kill you. So I made these things to turn you into liquid goo to stop them from killing you."
That in a nutshell is what pretty much happened, and that just sounds insane.
In truth, I would not be surprised if all three ending choices were just one big red herring for something else story related down the road (and no I'm not necessarily referring to IT but that is just one possibility out of many). Ya know, like that whole code thing in the early ME3 promotions (Seriously, what was that?) turned out to be. For all we know control indoctrinates Shepard, synthesis does what it says but with a darker twist than is revealed, and maybe destroy simply disables the crucible by blowing up an important power conduit, which is why you wake up at end. In each case maybe Shep is just having that whole "life flashing before his eyes" thing and seeing what he wants to rather than what's actually happening.
It may be what it appears to be or maybe BioWare is a lot more creative and crafty than many people think (one can hope) and are playing out a long-term scenario that spans past Shepard's original trilogy.
Meh, I've already given this too much thought and that was just over the last few minutes. Silly brain. lol
In any case, until we figure out whatever the deal is with this in future Mass Effect games, I'll just have to stand by this quote from the famous Samuel L' Jackson:
To follow up on Untold's very interesting point, is it not highlighted that the Reapers are actually directly responsible for many of the conflicts that have arisen between organics and Synthetics? The Geth Heretics, for one. I believe Javik mentions another.
And then of course there's the Rachnii, and the fate of the Protheans (what did the Reapers "preserve" of them, exactly?)
For a species that claims to want to prevent chaos, they appear to be doing a bang-up job of causing it.
Within the confines of the game, we have no explicit evidence that a synthetic/organic conflict is truly inevitable - other, of course, than that conflict created by the Reapers themselves.
Might be wrong here, but the Catalyst controlled the Reapers. So Reapers-Catalyst= Unknown. Could be willing to integrate into society, share knowledge, who knows. Like the Batarians, who became much more agreeable once the Hegenomy was destroyed in the beginning of ME3.
chris2365 wrote... Might be wrong here, but the Catalyst controlled the Reapers. So Reapers-Catalyst= Unknown. Could be willing to integrate into society, share knowledge, who knows. Like the Batarians, who became much more agreable once the Hegenomy was destroyed in the beginning of ME3.
Or they could be aggressive, expansionist or empirical. They could seek galactic domination, like the race they were based on. And if so, what could possibly stop them?
And of course we know how they are created. What if they decide to expand their numbers?
Are you willing to risk the wholesale extinction of species on a hope that the Reapers entire nature may change from what we currently know it to be?
Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 20 février 2013 - 12:14 .
To follow up on Untold's very interesting point, is it not highlighted that the Reapers are actually directly responsible for many of the conflicts that have arisen between organics and Synthetics? The Geth Heretics, for one. I believe Javik mentions another.
Yes, the Reapers apparently had a hand in what happened with the zha and zha'til as well. This is what they do. They stir up sh*t between organics and synthetics, and then come in to clean up. Their justification? Saving organics from synthetics. It's absurdity layered upon absurdity.
chris2365 wrote... Might be wrong here, but the Catalyst controlled the Reapers. So Reapers-Catalyst= Unknown. Could be willing to integrate into society, share knowledge, who knows. Like the Batarians, who became much more agreable once the Hegenomy was destroyed in the beginning of ME3.
Or they could be aggressive, expansionist or empirical. They could seek galactic domination, like the race they were based on. And if so, what could possibly stop them?
And of course we know how they are created. What if they decide to expand their numbers?
Are you willing to risk the wholesale extinction of species on a hope that their entire nature may change from what we currently know it to be?
You know what's also awesome? Synthesis makes them practically invincible. If the Reapers ever decide to conquer the galaxy post-synthesis (and as you said they are based on Leviathans, so that's not too off) what could we do? If we use the crucible again, we wipe out ourselves as well.
Argolas wrote... You know what's also awesome? Synthesis makes them practically invincible. If the Reapers ever decide to conquer the galaxy post-synthesis (and as you said they are based on Leviathans, so that's not too off) what could we do? If we use the crucible again, we wipe out ourselves as well.
Absolutely. If the Reapers decided to take advantage of their undeniable power and presence as an apex race, impose authority and expand their numbers, what could we do? We wouldn't be able to build a starship, let alone a new Crucible. We would have no alternative but to welcome our new cuttlefish overlords, and provide a steady and regular stream of living sacrfices.
To follow up on Untold's very interesting point, is it not highlighted that the Reapers are actually directly responsible for many of the conflicts that have arisen between organics and Synthetics? The Geth Heretics, for one. I believe Javik mentions another.
Yes, the Reapers apparently had a hand in what happened with the zha and zha'til as well. This is what they do. They stir up sh*t between organics and synthetics, and then come in to clean up. Their justification? Saving organics from synthetics. It's absurdity layered upon absurdity.
Basically, they set your house on fire (without you knowing it was them), then show up to "save" you from the fire, claiming they're just there to help. They also claim your house catching fire was inevitable, even though there's never been a house fire they didn't cause.
Modifié par BleedingUranium, 20 février 2013 - 12:38 .
Wow, so no consideration given to the cost of the Geth race or EDI?
Pretty sure their logic would go something like: the options are irrelevant. If you do not destroy them, there is a greater than 90% chance they will eventually turn on you. Do not hesistate. They do not share your compassion or remorse. If their logic dictates it in the future they will restart the cycle and kill us all.
But still, all the pro-Destroyers have is righteous vengeance? Jeez.
[EDITED]
Wow, so no consideration given to the cost of the Geth race or EDI?
Pretty sure their logic would go something like: the options are irrelevant; if you do not destroy them, there is a greater than 90% chance they will turn on you and kill us all anyway.
But still, all the pro-Destroyers have is righteous vengeance? Jeez.
I considered them, the Geth have always been my favourite race, but I'd sacrifice everyone if it means the Reapers die. Doesn't mean I'd enjoy it.
Modifié par BleedingUranium, 20 février 2013 - 12:53 .
To follow up on Untold's very interesting point, is it not highlighted that the Reapers are actually directly responsible for many of the conflicts that have arisen between organics and Synthetics? The Geth Heretics, for one. I believe Javik mentions another.
Yes, the Reapers apparently had a hand in what happened with the zha and zha'til as well. This is what they do. They stir up sh*t between organics and synthetics, and then come in to clean up. Their justification? Saving organics from synthetics. It's absurdity layered upon absurdity.
Basically, they set your house on fire (without you knowing it was them), then show up to "save" you from the fire, claiming they're just there to help. They also claim your house catching fire was inevitable, even though there's never been a house fire they didn't cause.
And then when you have them by the proverbial balls, they say "You know, these fires are just going to keep happening without us around. You don't want that, do you? You should consider merging everybody with us. Just go over there and kill yourself and then everyone will merge with us and it will be really great."
And then the pod people say "Oh gosh you are right, Mister Friendly Reaper. Thank you for distracting me from my problem and giving me a different one to worry about. I feel better. I shall go kill myself now. Also, my favorite color is green."
You know, it doesn't even matter if Bioware at some point down the road tells us in no uncertain terms that Synthesis was truly meant to be a unqualified good ending. Because if that's the case, then they bollocksed up the ending of their story so badly that I (and I suspect many others) will never be able to regard it with anything but derision.
Wow, so no consideration given to the cost of the Geth race or EDI?
Pretty sure their logic would go something like: the options are irrelevant. If you do not destroy them, there is a greater than 90% chance they will turn on you. Do not hesistate. They do not share your compassion or remorse. If their logic dictates it in the future they will restart the cycle and kill us all.
But still, all the pro-Destroyers have is righteous vengeance? Jeez. [EDITED]
Just speaking for myself here as a pro-destroyer (as in I don't have one Shepard who wouldn't pick Destroy).
Of course I considered the Geth and EDI. EDI was my friend, I didn't want her to die, I didn't want anyone to die. But this is a war, people die, Shepard has the fate of the entire Galaxy on his shoulders and EDI is just one person. I cannot sacrifice the galaxy to save one person. She was willing to die if it meant stopping the Reapers. So just like the decision on Virmire, where I didn't like having to leave Ash behind, I made a decision. And like Virmire it doesn't mean I liked doing it.
As for the Geth again, it was a horrible decision, I spent three games trying to broker peace. It was bloody difficult and the sense of achievement afterwards was incredible. So to see them all die, for Legion's sacrifice to have ultimately meant nothing was awful. But there are dozens of other species who deserve life too.
I didn't go for destroy out of righteous vengeance I did it because I wasn't metagaming. I had no idea what the hell synthesis was, how it worked, or just what the consequences of it were. Control too, was such an anomaly and the only guarantee it would work came from the villain. My ultimate goal was still in my power to achieve. So why would I make any other choice, as horrible as the consequences were? Because I firmly believe the consequences of the other three endings are much worse.
Wow, so no consideration given to the cost of the Geth race or EDI?
Pretty sure their logic would go something like: the options are irrelevant. If you do not destroy them, there is a greater than 90% chance they will eventually turn on you. Do not hesistate. They do not share your compassion or remorse. If their logic dictates it in the future they will restart the cycle and kill us all.
But still, all the pro-Destroyers have is righteous vengeance? Jeez. [EDITED]
Destroying them sucked yes, but in a way that was something I feel was somewhat foreshadowed.
I picked destroy. I also picked control and synthesis. Just because I choose one this time, doesn't mean I don't find appeal on the other ones. Kelly's sister started a dog shelter, but she love cats too.
I find amusing how it looks that people only choose one ending and stick to it, thinking it's the only "right" ending.
I find it amusing that some people turn off their critical thinking and call it open mindedness.
Because if someone doesn't see things how you see they are clearly not seeing right. You can't just have your opinion without dismissing differing ones? Not good enough that way?
Retour en haut
