347 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

The Crucible also contradicts this idea of "building something original without outside intervention". The builders literally looked at blueprints. Though I guess you could refuse to use it, but I'm sure that BioWare considers that a bad ending. 

 

That falls into the familiar pattern of finding some every "useful" tool and hope it does what the current user wants it to do, but the creator of that tool has very different ideas

 

Liara had some misgivings about the Crucible in that " playing with bomb" conversation in her quarters. However, it seemed the conversation was moot anyway because there was no way they could run a trial testing on the Crucible due to lack of resources and time

 

So, it all comes down to hoping things go your way, and people in the MEU were lucky, very lucky indeed

[KaiserShep]

I don't see the rejection of the reapers themselves as rejecting their technology. If the reapers are dead, mass effect technology is still around. The races of the galaxy have to figure out how to fix everything without the galactic nannies doing it for them.

[Vigilant111]

 
But when you shun certain types of things on account of them being dangerous, you're just perpetrating a vicious cycle:
 
It's dangerous because we don't understand it. We don't understand it because it's dangerous.
 

 
Indoctrination can be prevented. It's there for all to see in Leviathan DLC. Bryson's lab has Reaper-tech and Leviathan orbs. Indoctrination is prevented by keeping them shielded. There's also that Cerberus base where Reaper artifacts are being studied. Again, the Reaper-tech is shielded.
 
Shepard also recovers those tech samples from Cerberus and gives them to Hackett. What do you think the Alliance is doing with them?
 
"Dangerous" and "indomitable" are two different things. Reaper-tech is not the latter.
 

Yet that's all a theme is: the simplified (and possibly wrong) interpretations from the audience.

 

*I* can come up with plenty of examples where the study of Reaper-tech was beneficial, where the good outweighed the cost and was worthwhile overall, but the negative examples tend to be more prominent and in-your-face. As such, lots of people detest those themes also detest those aspects of the story -or- people who support those ideas will see those parts of the story as re-affirmation of what they believe to be true. To avoid this, keeping things more grey, the writers can balance out the bad examples by making the good ones more prominent.

 

They didn't, though. Hence the sentiments.

 

I interpret doomsday's point differently though, it is not so much about branding something as dangerous at the first glance without investigation, the claim was backed by empirical evidence

 

Now, with the reaper artifacts and Leviathan orbs, I assume their sole purpose is to indoctrinate, and we study it, however extensively, no problem at all. I can see the benefit of revealing their mechanics, discovering indoctrination symptoms, helping to diagnose and treat indoctrinated patients. The thing is, information flowing from this research must be closely guarded so unscrupulous individuals cannot reach it and start indoctrinating innocent people

 

There is one more factor to people's aversion to reaper tech: its relative usefulness. Do we really need it? relays, perhaps; implants, maybe; indoctrination, probably not. It is kinda like instead of giving hungry kids food, now we give them a technology which turns their hunger off, genius huh? but is it really necessary?

 

Here is something else I thought of, if Cerberus could construct someone like Randall Ezno, how come the reapers did not do it that way (The Catalyst seemed quite civil)? You know, in a form which more people would accept? Is being grotesque (like a banshee) synonymous of being powerful? Why even indoctrinate? for the resulting corrupted mind is no use for harvest purposes

[Ieldra]

Well, I wouldn't say we are all better off being ignorant, because human beings are always curious about things. An ingrained prudence is the product of past experience, like the Trojan horse
 
Stealing and trading for technologies also prevents a society from being innovative

This is mixing up cause and effect. If you trade or steal a technology, it means you haven't been the first to get it for whatever reason. Lack of innovation may be one reason, but nobody is first in everything and this is more the *effect* of a pre-existing ideology, tradition or habit rather than its cause.

[Ieldra]

*I* can come up with plenty of examples where the study of Reaper-tech was beneficial, where the good outweighed the cost and was worthwhile overall, but the negative examples tend to be more prominent and in-your-face. As such, lots of people detest those themes also detest those aspects of the story -or- people who support those ideas will see those parts of the story as re-affirmation of what they believe to be true. To avoid this, keeping things more grey, the writers can balance out the bad examples by making the good ones more prominent.

They didn't, though. Hence the sentiments.

"Plenty" may be overstating it, but yes, these examples exist. They may have attempted a more grey picture in ME3, but it was too little, too late. The "bad stuff" was and remained narratively dominant. It may also have a been a problem of different people being unaware of the effect their contribution would have on the whole. For instance, the artists who designed the Reaper minions, were they aware how this "abomination aesthetic" contributes to the message that the Reapers are abominations who shouldn't exist? Were they even (made) aware of alternative interpretations?

As I said in my original post(s), I am and remain confused. On one hand, we have Synthesis, which is the ultimate rejection of the "Reaper tech is bad" message, but during almost all of the story that came before the "bad stuff" dominates. It is almost as if those responsible for the main "thrust" of the story wanted to send a certain message, and then recognized some would detest it and make an attempt at an alternative interpretation at the last minute. Well, better late than not at all, but that "main message" is still dominant, which had the (predictable, in hindsight) effect that some people thought Synthesis meant indoctrination.

[Vigilant111]

This is mixing up cause and effect. If you trade or steal a technology, it means you haven't been the first to get it for whatever reason. Lack of innovation may be one reason, but nobody is first in everything and this is more the *effect* of a pre-existing ideology, tradition or habit rather than its cause.

 

Hmm, so you are saying lack of innovation is a cause of reliance on alien technology and not the other way around? I thought innovation was supposed to be a prerequisite for prosperity, and that all civilization thrive to innovate when there are no other alternatives around

 

Or are you saying lack of innovation is an effect of something else besides reliance on alien technology? Again, I will reiterate what I said above, all societies desire positive progress, even those which claim they don't (because they have a different idea of what "progress" means), but even if this is not so, why would they bother to seek and use new technologies? The reasons are usually lack of patience, lack of resources, or simply, being lazy

 

EDIT: After a few moments of reflection, I would like to make my point more clear: it isn't very plausible that a society would allow itself to be subjugated under a dominant power, and so it will always seek to innovate, regardless of respective ethos

 

The following is something else I thought: In the MEU, the protheans constructed a relay with limited capabilities, it seems if the reapers wanted to cause trouble, they would have an advantage because that relay is still their own technology (this situation is similar to Mordin overcoming the sabotage to the shroud); the Crucible is a device requiring a piece of reaper technology for completion and not a stand alone technology from a new source, thus severely undermining its own credibility

[Ieldra]

Here is something else I thought of, if Cerberus could construct someone like Randall Ezno, how come the reapers did not do it that way (The Catalyst seemed quite civil)? You know, in a form which more people would accept? Is being grotesque (like a banshee) synonymous of being powerful? Why even indoctrinate? for the resulting corrupted mind is no use for harvest purposes

I don't think there is any in-world logic to this. I've asked a similar question about Reaperization: why is it (presented) as so overwhelmingly (and needlessly) cruel? A process of destructive uploading could be (presented) much more clinically. Not that people wouldn't be justified in fighting it regardless, since it isn't their choice, but there wouldn't be a predetermined message associating the process and outcome itself with evil (rather than the fact people are forced into it). The need to prevent the galaxy-wide genocide notwithstanding, a more clinical presentation would've avoided the Reapers coming across as "ontologically invalid" and made it much more feasible to make up your own mind about where there they stand as living entities.

[Vigilant111]

I don't think there is any in-world logic to this. I've asked a similar question about Reaperization: why is it (presented) as so overwhelmingly (and needlessly) cruel? A process of destructive uploading could be (presented) much more clinically. Not that people wouldn't be justified in fighting it regardless, since it isn't their choice, but there wouldn't be a predetermined message associating the process and outcome itself with evil (rather than the fact people are forced into it). The need to prevent the galaxy-wide genocide notwithstanding, a more clinical presentation would've avoided the Reapers coming across as "ontologically invalid" and made it much more feasible to make up your own mind about where there they stand as living entities.

 

So would you say that you can "forgive" reapers' expediency in bringing ascension to the MEU? To me, the reapers are portrayed as beings with a right to be arrogant, some kind of anti-heroes almost, especially in the ending, and then from being anti-heroes to becoming prophets... which was quite disorientating. Yes, a more careful implementation would be good, but that chips away morale and resolve against the reapers...

 

As a result of the mishandling of the reapers, the Crucible, in its desperate attempt to salvage the image of reapers, failed for a lot of people, well, what can anyone say?

[Bob from Accounting]

Hoo boy.

 

And how exactly does the Crucible do anything to 'salvage' the 'image' of the Reapers? What 'image' of the Reapers is lost in the first place that needs a restoration?

[KaiserShep]

The reapers had really bad PR from the start. What they really needed was some kind of focus group to help them determine the best way to sell themselves.

[Vigilant111]

Perhaps I should rephrase what I have said: "To establish a new image"

[Bob from Accounting]

What image is that? And how the Crucible establish it?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Perhaps I should rephrase what I have said: "To establish a new image"

 

You don't really need to say anything. David/Bob is going to disagree with you no matter what you say, and he's going to scoff at anything and everything you say, and if it's actually good, he's going to strawman or twist it into something completely different and attack it. I'll save you the time. David here thinks that only Shepard's heroicness should kill the Reapers. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[Ieldra]

Hmm, so you are saying lack of innovation is a cause of reliance on alien technology and not the other way around? I thought innovation was supposed to be a prerequisite for prosperity, and that all civilization thrive to innovate when there are no other alternatives around
 
Or are you saying lack of innovation is an effect of something else besides reliance on alien technology? Again, I will reiterate what I said above, all societies desire positive progress, even those which claim they don't (because they have a different idea of what "progress" means), but even if this is not so, why would they bother to seek and use new technologies? The reasons are usually lack of patience, lack of resources, or simply, being lazy

As long as there are any perceived limitations left, there will be a drive to innovate. The better is the enemy of the good after all. So if there is some alien technology I would expect two things: (1) An otherwise healthy civilization would not continually use it without reverse engineering it and building the stuff themselves, making it theirs for all intents and purposes. (2) Since there are usually limitations left (we have cars and airplanes but still no "Poof! You're there!" technology exists) it will start with the alien tech and innovate from there.

If that doesn't happen, there's something in that civilization's fundamental tradition, ideology or whatever which prevents it.

As for a civilization not being "ready" for something, the only way this means anything is when this civilization doesn't have the infrastructure to support using the new tech. Had some aliens given humans cars and airplanes - or even modern firearms - in the middle ages they would've been of very limited utility. For that reason, the Reapers supply the whole infrastructure which will be found if a civilization stumbles on parts of it.

Now, imagine that a civilization expands to find the technological legacy of another one, including the infrastructure. We had that in the real-world as well after the fall of the Roman Empire. The new civilizations used that legacy but didn't have the knowledge to maintain it, so it declined over time. Thus, the Keepers.

Imagine it had been like that after the Roman Empire fell: self-maintaining Roman roads all over the lands around the Mediterranean. Still, those roads don't go everywhere so there are limitations left, and do you really imagine that nobody would've ever tried to find out how they were built or how the self-maintaining system works? As soon as the chaos settled and the new nations consolidated, somewhere that would've happened, and those who knew would've had an incredible advantage.

[Vigilant111]

You don't really need to say anything. David/Bob is going to disagree with you no matter what you say, and he's going to scoff at anything and everything you say, and if it's actually good, he's going to strawman or twist it into something completely different and attack it. I'll save you the time. David here thinks that only Shepard's heroicness should kill the Reapers. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Hehehe, thanks, I was gonna say something smug to him but thought better of it

[MassivelyEffective0730]

As long as there are any perceived limitations left, there will be a drive to innovate. The better is the enemy of the good after all. So if there is some alien technology I would expect two things: (1) An otherwise healthy civilization would not continually use it without reverse engineering it and building the stuff themselves. (2) Since there are usually limitations left (we have cars and airplanes but still no "Poof! You're there!" technology exists) it will start with the alien tech and innovate from there.

If that doesn't happen, there's something in that civilization's fundamental tradition, ideology or whatever which prevents it.

As for a civilization not being "ready" for something, the only way this means anything is when this civilization doesn't have the infrastructure to support using the new tech. Had some aliens given humans cars and airplanes - or even modern firearms - in the middle ages they would've been of very limited utility. For that reason, the Reapers supply the whole infrastructure which will be found if a civilization stumbles on parts of it.

Now, imagine that a civilization expands to find the technological legacy of another one, including the infrastructure. We had that in the real-world as well after the fall of the Roman Empire. The new civilizations used that legacy but didn't have the knowledge to maintain it, so it declined over time. Thus, the Keepers.

Imagine it had been like that after the Roman Empire fell: self-maintaining Roman roads all over the lands around the Mediterranean. Still, those roads don't go everywhere so there are limitations left, and do you really imagine that nobody would've ever tried to find out how they were built or how the self-maintaining system works? As soon as the chaos settled and the new nations consolidated, somewhere that would've happened, and those who knew would've had an incredible advantage.

 

TARDIS Tech comes into play. Anywhere in the Universe at any time. And it even works in other universes too!

[Ieldra]

I don't know the term. Please explain.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't know the term. Please explain.

 

Doctor Who.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS

[Vigilant111]

As long as there are any perceived limitations left, there will be a drive to innovate. The better is the enemy of the good after all. So if there is some alien technology I would expect two things: (1) An otherwise healthy civilization would not continually use it without reverse engineering it and building the stuff themselves, making it theirs for all intents and purposes. (2) Since there are usually limitations left (we have cars and airplanes but still no "Poof! You're there!" technology exists) it will start with the alien tech and innovate from there.

If that doesn't happen, there's something in that civilization's fundamental tradition, ideology or whatever which prevents it.

As for a civilization not being "ready" for something, the only way this means anything is when this civilization doesn't have the infrastructure to support using the new tech. Had some aliens given humans cars and airplanes - or even modern firearms - in the middle ages they would've been of very limited utility. For that reason, the Reapers supply the whole infrastructure which will be found if a civilization stumbles on parts of it.

Now, imagine that a civilization expands to find the technological legacy of another one, including the infrastructure. We had that in the real-world as well after the fall of the Roman Empire. The new civilizations used that legacy but didn't have the knowledge to maintain it, so it declined over time. Thus, the Keepers.

Imagine it had been like that after the Roman Empire fell: self-maintaining Roman roads all over the lands around the Mediterranean. Still, those roads don't go everywhere so there are limitations left, and do you really imagine that nobody would've ever tried to find out how they were built or how the self-maintaining system works? As soon as the chaos settled and the new nations consolidated, somewhere that would've happened, and those who knew would've had an incredible advantage.

 

(1) This point seems fine to me, though I wouldn't say the technology would be theirs for all intents and purposes, it is just that they understood it well, and with that kind of intellectual prowess, it is likely they will build something that is truly their own, the stuff they found would only need to provide some inspiration for the new technology

 

(2) I am not sure why alien technology is needed to innovate though, the need for efficient space travel alone is enough to propel civilizations, different technologies will spring up, allowing room for collaboration

 

The thing with the mass relays is that they gave people the excuse to not to explore new options, I mean, less work is better than more work. Let's say we now possess an alternative way to travel, something that is very different to reaper technology, then perhaps people would not be stranded in places after the relays are damaged or destroyed, you can even view this as a redundancy measure. Developing one's technology also gives some immunity against enemies, relying on foreign technology runs the risk of exposing one's disposition

 

EDIT: Are you hinting that reaper technology will wither away eventually? Is that even a possibility? from the EC slides reaper technology seems very comprehensive, there is an inference that it monopolizes all aspects of life (or at least capable of doing so) 

[DoomsdayDevice]

but that "main message" is still dominant, which had the (predictable, in hindsight) effect that some people thought Synthesis meant indoctrination.

 

It's not just that, it's also the simple fact that the catalyst's explanation, as well as EDI's epilogue contains every buzz word and buzz phrase we ever learned about the state of existence and the goal of the Reapers. Plus the fact that Harbinger spends an entire game explaining to you how the Reapers are our genetic destiny, how we will 'become as they are', 'embrace perfection', 'relinquish our form to them', etcetera. Not to mention "Struggle if you wish, your mind will be mine."

 

Storing the "essence" of a species (EDI's explanation of the human Reaper), synthesis taking Shepard's "essence"

Organics being "perfected" ("Embrace perfection")

Reaching a "level of existence we cannot even imagine" (EDI echoing Sovereign's words in the epilogue)

Synthesis is the "final evolution of life", Sovereign saying the Reapers are the pinnacle of evolution, Saren saying he is a vision of the future, the evolution of all organic life (organic and machine intertwined, etcetera), the fact that Reapers themselves are a synthesis of organic and machine.

 

That stuff just has all my alarm bells going off. The way I see it, the catalyst isn't even lying when he explains synthesis, it's simply an incredibly euphemistic / sugar coated way of telling us we'll be harvested and ascended to Reaper form. Synthesis achieves what Sovereign stated was the Reapers' purpose: impose order on the chaos of organic evolution, because it is the so called "final evolution". (Even though every sane person knows there is no such thing as a "final evolution of life" because evolution never stops)

 

And then there's Mordin with his beautiful explanation of what happened to the Protheans.

 

Mordin: "Early stages similar to indoctrination. Can guess captured protheans lost intelligence over several cloned generations. Cybernetic augmentation widespread afterward. As protheans failed, Reapers added tech to compensate. Mental capacity almost gone, replaced by overworked sensory input, transfers. Transmitting data to masters. No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul, replaced by tech. Whatever they were, gone forever. Understand now? No art, no culture, closer to husks than slaves, tools for Reapers. Protheans dead, Collectors just final insult."

 

I mean, come on. The writing's on the wall.

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant111:
Where in my post did I hint that alien tech is needed to innovate? We've been doing this for thousands of years? My point was that the presence of alien tech doesn't necessarily have an adverse effect on innovation.

As for your edit: technology is not intrinsically tied to a specific kind of civilization, culture or species. It's just technology. Any technology you've come to understand so well that you've been using it a basis for further development will be yours for all intents and purposes.

@Doomsday Device:
If you're predisposed against that message as I am, there are alternative interpretations. In order to find this interpretation plausible, though, you need to accept that the Reapers are valid remnants of old civilizations, who maintain the cultural/species identity of their source civilizations and only acted as they did because they were controlled by the Catalyst. I've called this the "Reaper mind control" hypothesis, and there is very plausible reasoning behind it.
One of the resulting ideas of Synthesis is that the Reapers can become a part of the galaxy's civilization cluster once the Catalyst doesn't control them anymore. You'll find my extended explanation in the thread On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers.

The problems with the story which came before was that this possibility was only hinted at subtly, particulary in obscure parts of ME2 people rarely see.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I interpret doomsday's point differently though, it is not so much about branding something as dangerous at the first glance without investigation, the claim was backed by empirical evidence

 

It's dangerous, yes. No question. However, it's not, nor ever has been, indomitable. There have been successes coming from using/studying it.

 

So, since it's provably not impossible to use/study Reaper-tech, then efforts toward understanding it should be continued.

 

There is one more factor to people's aversion to reaper tech: its relative usefulness. Do we really need it? relays, perhaps; implants, maybe; indoctrination, probably not. It is kinda like instead of giving hungry kids food, now we give them a technology which turns their hunger off, genius huh? but is it really necessary?

 

I think a discovery made towards ending the Reaper cycles is as useful as anything can get. The Reapers saw Sanctuary as enough of a threat to destroy it when they learned of its existence, and the Catalyst's dialogue indicates he's not high on the Control option at the end of the game (flat-out hates it in Low/Mid EMS).

 

Here is something else I thought of, if Cerberus could construct someone like Randall Ezno, how come the reapers did not do it that way (The Catalyst seemed quite civil)? You know, in a form which more people would accept? Is being grotesque (like a banshee) synonymous of being powerful? Why even indoctrinate? for the resulting corrupted mind is no use for harvest purposes

 

Well, the Catalyst seems to indicate previously attempting it, they just failed to make it work as they intended. I think they gave up on it, with the idea that no organic civilization will ever survive AI to advance far enough to be ready for it, so the cycles continue 'til further notice.

[Obadiah]

I don't think it's that difficult to believe the Catalyst.

 

If you only played ME3, there is only one conversation to be had with the Reapers before the Catalyst, and that is on Rannoch. The Rannoch Reaper doesn't come across nearly as trollish as Harby or Sovereign, so its a bit easier to accept the Catalyst's explanation in that context.

 

If we do take the ME1 and ME2 Reaper conversations into account, Sovereign didn't tell us anything except that it would kill us all, and Harbinger's trolls were quite obviously referring to creating the Reaper in the final ME2 stage, and not Synthesis.

 

The idea that Synthesis is indoctrination because of Harbinger's trolls in ME2 was just never a particularly credible interpretation.