159 réponses à ce sujet

[Enhanced]

iakus wrote...

CDR David Shepard wrote...

iakus wrote...

Well, I'd rather have no explanation than the one we got, so yeah...

I would bet everything that if we didn't get an explaination...you would be complaining about that.

You'd lose.

I was never more than nildly curious about the Reapers' motives.  I accepted from the beginning that they were ancient, alien beings operating on a level I couldn't comprehend.  And I was okay with that.  I actually liked the idea that aliens were...alien...

I fully believed in Vigil's "In the end, what does it matter?  Your survival depends on stopping the Reapers, not in understanding them"

That line doesn't make sense, unless Vigil was specifically talking about Shepard and this cycle's forces not needing to understand the Reapers because the Crucible exists. It is impossible to stop an enemy that is as overwhelmingly powerful as the Reapers without understanding them. 

Modifié par Enhanced, 06 mai 2013 - 04:44 .

[Iakus]

It makes sense because WHY they are attacking is not as important as HOW to stop them.

[Xilizhra]

It makes sense because WHY they are attacking is not as important as HOW to stop them.

Arguably, but I really hate not knowing the why of things, and far prefer the explanation we got over no explanation whatsoever.

[S.A.K]

I posted some theories that could have been used as Reaper motives in this thread if anyone is interested.

[Enhanced]

iakus wrote...

It makes sense because WHY they are attacking is not as important as HOW to stop them.

How would anyone stop an enemy,  who can not be stopped conventionally, without first understanding why they are attacking?

[Jadebaby]

A resounding YES!

[Iakus]

Enhanced wrote...

iakus wrote...

It makes sense because WHY they are attacking is not as important as HOW to stop them.

How would anyone stop an enemy,  who can not be stopped conventionally, without first understanding why they are attacking?

Does the Catalyst's explanation suddenly make a conventional victory possible?

I can understand personally wanting an explanation for your own edification.  But to me it's totally unnecessary, and in this particular case, helped damage the ending

[Vortex13]

What about a 'just because' motivation, similar to the Chaos Gods of WH40K or the Demons of the Fade in Dragon Age?

The motivation for doing what they do is a simple fact of their existance; just like how the Gods of Chaos don't have a long and conveluted explanation about why they twist and corrupt and kill, why not something like that with the Reapers? That seemed to be the way Bioware was going in ME 1.

Many people say that 'evil for the Lolz is a stupid and shallow villian' but is that really what the Chaos Gods and DA demons are? Both are simply manifestations of man's darker desires, and only operate on what they are manifestations of, why not something similar with the Reapers?

What if instead if some long and conveluted motivation the Reapers themselves simply did the cycles because that is what they were made for, no misinterpreted clause in programming, and no grand scheme for saving us by killing us, what if the Reapers themselves didn't even know why they preformed the harvests? Some lost reason from eons ago that the Reapers still followed; similar to the grey goo doomsday senerio.

The nanites don't misinterpret a command, they are programmed to consume and create more of themselves, they simply follow the programming given, likewise the Reapers could have been created to attack the galaxy every 50, 000 years for some forgotten reason and they have been doing it ever since.

[Reorte]

If there had been no explanation there would've been justifiable complaints about that. However that doesn't mean that any explanation, no matter how ridiculous, is better than none. So with the benefit of knowing the explanation then yes, no explanation would've been preferable. However if you don't have one then there's no way of knowing that that's the case...

[Xamufam]

Reorte wrote...

If there had been no explanation there would've been justifiable complaints about that. However that doesn't mean that any explanation, no matter how ridiculous, is better than none. So with the benefit of knowing the explanation then yes, no explanation would've been preferable. However if you don't have one then there's no way of knowing that that's the case...

Bioware had one but abandoned it at the end

"The reapers fear that they will be rivaled by something more powerful than they are (that this cycle will create AI that can topple the reapers). This implies they are merely fearful for their own survival and that is why they purge all life but they convince themselves they are protecting us."


I know they had problems with the bossbattle & scrapped it, but i don't understand why they dropped all of it.
(harbinger would take over the illusive man)

Modifié par Troxa, 06 mai 2013 - 07:13 .

[AlanC9]

Troxa wrote...


Bioware had one but abandoned it at the end

"The reapers fear that they will be rivaled by something more powerful than they are (that this cycle will create AI that can topple the reapers). This implies they are merely fearful for their own survival and that is why they purge all life but they convince themselves they are protecting us."

If that's their problem, why did they institute the cycles in the first place?

[AlanC9]

Vortex13 wrote...

What if instead if some long and conveluted motivation the Reapers themselves simply did the cycles because that is what they were made for, no misinterpreted clause in programming, and no grand scheme for saving us by killing us, what if the Reapers themselves didn't even know why they preformed the harvests? Some lost reason from eons ago that the Reapers still followed; similar to the grey goo doomsday senerio.

The nanites don't misinterpret a command, they are programmed to consume and create more of themselves, they simply follow the programming given, likewise the Reapers could have been created to attack the galaxy every 50, 000 years for some forgotten reason and they have been doing it ever since.

How is this any different from what we got? Both scenarios are bad AI programming leading to the cycles.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 mai 2013 - 08:43 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

A perfectly acceptable explanation, as well as one that is thematically consistent, is that the Reapers are a sort of malfunctioning AI originally born of some species' (Leviathan) attempt to attain immortality via synthetic transcendence. The horrific process birthed the first Reaper, or the first few, or whatever's deemed convenient, and it/they created cycles to "ascend" any other race that proved itself worthy, by whatever qualification seems most fitting. The Catalyst could still be maintained, as well as most of the current scenario, though the theme would shift more towards the victory of all organic/synthetic/non-Reaper-life over the domineering Reapers. It also makes their character a bit more tragic, which is all well and good.

All of that is, however, rather cliche.

[AlexMBrennan]

If that's their problem, why did they institute the cycles in the first place?

They also got scared that the protheans might have gotten too advanced, and the cycle before the protheans, and the cycle before the cycle before the protheans, etc. Just because they are scared of us does not mean that they are scared only of us.

[David7204]

So why would they let life develop at all? Why not just eradicate any life long before they advance into space? Why leave some species alone?

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 08:25 .

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If that's their problem, why did they institute the cycles in the first place?

They also got scared that the protheans might have gotten too advanced, and the cycle before the protheans, and the cycle before the cycle before the protheans, etc. Just because they are scared of us does not mean that they are scared only of us.

Italed for your convenience. Stopping the cycles makes sense, though they'd be a lot safer stopping them earlier. It's letting the cycles happen in the first place that doesn't make sense.

[AlanC9]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

A perfectly acceptable explanation, as well as one that is thematically consistent, is that the Reapers are a sort of malfunctioning AI originally born of some species' (Leviathan) attempt to attain immortality via synthetic transcendence. The horrific process birthed the first Reaper, or the first few, or whatever's deemed convenient, and it/they created cycles to "ascend" any other race that proved itself worthy, by whatever qualification seems most fitting. The Catalyst could still be maintained, as well as most of the current scenario, though the theme would shift more towards the victory of all organic/synthetic/non-Reaper-life over the domineering Reapers. It also makes their character a bit more tragic, which is all well and good.

All of that is, however, rather cliche.

Hey, it's Bioware. If you can't deal with cliches, they probably aren't the devs for you.

I could live with this. It's probably the most conservative alternative I've ever seen; I think about half the dialogue from  the Catalyst scene could have been left intact.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 mai 2013 - 08:47 .

[Jasonite75]

In terms of Reaper motivation, I don't have a problem with understanding their motivations at the end. It's a common writing device, to have something seem incomprehensible at first, and then slowly understand more and more as the plot progresses. My big deal is that none of the three endings as presented are satisfactory, but I don't want to get all into that again.I'll just say I don't buy that synthetics will always be at war with their creators and then rule the galaxy.

I like the Indoctrination Theory idea though, that's a favorite for the ending.

Modifié par Jasonite75, 07 mai 2013 - 05:28 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

What if instead if some long and conveluted motivation the Reapers themselves simply did the cycles because that is what they were made for, no misinterpreted clause in programming, and no grand scheme for saving us by killing us, what if the Reapers themselves didn't even know why they preformed the harvests? Some lost reason from eons ago that the Reapers still followed; similar to the grey goo doomsday senerio.

The nanites don't misinterpret a command, they are programmed to consume and create more of themselves, they simply follow the programming given, likewise the Reapers could have been created to attack the galaxy every 50, 000 years for some forgotten reason and they have been doing it ever since.

How is this any different from what we got? Both scenarios are bad AI programming leading to the cycles.

Because then they really are slaves to the cycle.  Their purpose really is imcomprehensible to everyone, including themselves.  But there is no reason, they simply...are.  They really are a fire: burning simply because that's what they do.

Inscrutable and insane might take you to the same place, but inscutable often carries more weight 

[Goneaviking]

AlanC9 wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If that's their problem, why did they institute the cycles in the first place?

They also got scared that the protheans might have gotten too advanced, and the cycle before the protheans, and the cycle before the cycle before the protheans, etc. Just because they are scared of us does not mean that they are scared only of us.

Italed for your convenience. Stopping the cycles makes sense, though they'd be a lot safer stopping them earlier. It's letting the cycles happen in the first place that doesn't make sense.

It's either do it at regular intervals, or do nothing but patrol looking for someone to exterminate.

Just because we don't see the reapers do anything but genocide us doesn't mean that's all they do. I like my headcanon that they have a whole society out there somewhere and they just pop back for mating season and mix in a little hunting to keep things interesting.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Because then they really are slaves to the cycle.  Their purpose really is imcomprehensible to everyone, including themselves.  But there is no reason, they simply...are.  They really are a fire: burning simply because that's what they do.

I don't think "inscrutable " and "nonsensical" are quite the same thing. 

This actually makes the Reapers even more pathetic than they ended up. I don't have a problem with that myself, though.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 mai 2013 - 10:58 .

[Vortex13]

 

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

What if instead if some long and conveluted motivation the Reapers themselves simply did the cycles because that is what they were made for, no misinterpreted clause in programming, and no grand scheme for saving us by killing us, what if the Reapers themselves didn't even know why they preformed the harvests? Some lost reason from eons ago that the Reapers still followed; similar to the grey goo doomsday senerio. 

The nanites don't misinterpret a command, they are programmed to consume and create more of themselves, they simply follow the programming given, likewise the Reapers could have been created to attack the galaxy every 50, 000 years for some forgotten reason and they have been doing it ever since.

How is this any different from what we got? Both scenarios are bad AI programming leading to the cycles.

Because then they really are slaves to the cycle.  Their purpose really is imcomprehensible to everyone, including themselves.  But there is no reason, they simply...are.  They really are a fire: burning simply because that's what they do.

Inscrutable and insane might take you to the same place, but inscutable often carries more weight 

Exactly. A simple explanation, and one that would have been inline with Soverign and the Catalyst's fire line. The Reapers, from their perspective, have no beginning, and seeing as they are immortal, have no end. "The Cycle must continue" because that is all there is, the directive. There would be no overarching plan to somehow save organic life by killing it, the Reapers, for reasons unknown even to them, where directed to carry out the cycles. 

This would have been better (IMO) then the Leviathian DLC for several reasons:

1. The idea that ANY information, let alone a species, could survive for millions of years of constant Reaper purges, is pretty far fetched, even moreso when said information offers a complete account of what happened and why.

2. The Reapers are portrayed as a more terrifying villian, rather than coming across as an idiotic coding error; granted that could have been what is caused the Reapers to start Reaping, but since all the information about what happened before is gone, we are left with "Speculation for Everyone", rather than (for me) shaking our heads at how stupid the Leviathains were.

3. Less plot holes. If the cycle was the princible goal rather than a means to an end, then the arbritrary 50,000 years between cycles makes sense, that is part of the directive of the cycle.
Finding a way to achieve organic and synthetic peace, wouldn't be the conveluted reason behind the cycles, the cycles would simply be the cycles. Why would the Reapers leave the galaxy if they were supposed to police the chaos of organic life? Plot hole. But if the 50, 000 years are a condition of the directive behind the cycle? No plot hole.

[someguy1231]

To everyone claiming that Mass Effect fans never would have accepted leaving the Reaper's origins/motives unexplained:

-Batman fans are just fine with leaving the Joker's origin unexplained
-Phantom Stranger fans are just fine with leaving his origin unexplained
-Star Trek fans are just fine with leaving the origins of the Borg unexplained
-Star Wars fans are just fine with leaving the mechanics of the Force unexplained (till those damn midichlorians...)
-Doctor Who fans are just fine with leaving the Last Great Time War unvisited and largely mysterious
-And of course, Lovecraft fans are just fine with leaving the Great Old Ones origin/motives unexplained.

Yes, there'll be a few purists who would rage and moan, but poll after poll on this site and others have shown most fans would prefer no origin/motive over one that appears stupid or nonsensical.

[David7204]

Those series haven't established a style of both the player and protagonist investigating and having their questions answered. They're content to let their characters be clueless. Mass Effect has, and isn't.

It wouldn't work.

Modifié par David7204, 07 mai 2013 - 01:56 .

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

Those series haven't established a style of both the player and protagonist investigating and having their questions answered. They're content to let their characters be clueless. Mass Effect has, and isn't.

It wouldn't work.

Yes. It. Would.

Batman calls himself "The World's Greatest Detective", and yet he's never learned the Joker's exact origin, nor have his fans. And they're just fine with that.

Star Trek is all about "seeking out strange new worlds", and yet they still don't know the origins of the Borg. Again, fans are just fine with this.

The Doctor is far from "clueless", and is probably one of the smartest beings in the galaxy. He may know about the Time War, but doesn't mean the fans have to. And it's probably for the better that way, since any attempt to show it would be anti-climactic.

All of the various series I mentioned do not have "clueless" characters. Your reasoning for why it works in those series but not in Mass Effect is completely unfounded.

Besides, the Reapers claimed from the beginning to be "beyond our comprehension", so if they reveal their origin/motive to us, then they'll by definition be comprehensible to us. Bioware was basically putting themselves in a no-win situation when they had the Reapers make that claim, since if they explained it then it would most likely be anti-climactic, and if they didn't then they'd have, well, people like you complaining.