876 réponses à ce sujet

[Rasofe]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I love when people bring up the "when fire burns..." line. Considering the Catalyst is making an analogy that makes sense, I'm not so sure what the problem is. Maybe people just wanted the Reapers to just be pure evil machines hell-bent on destruction. That would be so much more original.

It shows that the catalysts modus of thought is incompatible with ours, its perspective on reality completely different. For all intents and purposes, eithe everything we know is false, or everything they know is false.
Either that, or the Catalyst is just a brainless arsonist. More likely someone forgot to write something properly.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I love when people bring up the "when fire burns..." line. Considering the Catalyst is making an analogy that makes sense, I'm not so sure what the problem is. Maybe people just wanted the Reapers to just be pure evil machines hell-bent on destruction. That would be so much more original.

That analogy would imply the Reapers are impersonal about the whole thing. Which doesn't seem to be the case with Sovereign or Harbinger.

[AlanC9]

Harbinger, anyway.

[Argentoid]

Mcfly616 wrote...
 The final choice culminating in harvesting the human race into a Reaper in order to eliminate or stop dark energy OR blowing the Reapers to hell and hoping for the best. (I like that part. It has weight.)

It makes the Reapers look good and Shepard be the jackass (or antagonist) who screwed up their plans every time.

[SDW]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I love when people bring up the "when fire burns..." line. Considering the Catalyst is making an analogy that makes sense, I'm not so sure what the problem is. Maybe people just wanted the Reapers to just be pure evil machines hell-bent on destruction. That would be so much more original.

Not really. It's a false analogy - this lady says it better than I could:
"The Catalyst’s argument can be summarized as follows:
1. Fire does what it was created to do.
2. Fire is not at war/in conflict when it burns.
3. Reapers are doing what they were created to do.
4. Therefore, the Reapers are not at war/in conflict."
(from totbafg.blogspot.ca/2012/11/happy-n7-day.html)
Going by that logic, Skynet's terminators were not at war with the humans either, because they were only doing what they were created for.

[Mcfly616]

Rasofe wrote...

It shows that the catalysts modus of thought is incompatible with ours, its perspective on reality completely different.

precisely. And your point?

For all intents and purposes, eithe everything we know is false, or everything they know is false.
Either that, or the Catalyst is just a brainless arsonist.

for all intents and purposes you're going from one extreme to the other. There's no right or wrong. There's our perspective. And then there's the Reapers. Besides, getting to the end and seeing that everything isn't as you always thought it to be....that's a common trope of the Sci Fi genre.

[Mcfly616]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I love when people bring up the "when fire burns..." line. Considering the Catalyst is making an analogy that makes sense, I'm not so sure what the problem is. Maybe people just wanted the Reapers to just be pure evil machines hell-bent on destruction. That would be so much more original.

That analogy would imply the Reapers are impersonal about the whole thing. Which doesn't seem to be the case with Sovereign or Harbinger.

I'm impersonal about spraying Raid on a bee hive. But if a bee could speak, I might indulge it out of my own arrogance. Silly lesser beings.

[Mcfly616]

Argentoid wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
 The final choice culminating in harvesting the human race into a Reaper in order to eliminate or stop dark energy OR blowing the Reapers to hell and hoping for the best. (I like that part. It has weight.)

It makes the Reapers look good and Shepard be the jackass (or antagonist) who screwed up their plans every time.

not really. It shows he was a protagonist that is only human, fighting for survival against things he doesn't comprehend (nobody does). As I stated in a previous post, having the ending of a story turn reality on its ear for the protagonist, is quite common.

[Mcfly616]

SDW wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I love when people bring up the "when fire burns..." line. Considering the Catalyst is making an analogy that makes sense, I'm not so sure what the problem is. Maybe people just wanted the Reapers to just be pure evil machines hell-bent on destruction. That would be so much more original.

Not really. It's a false analogy - this lady says it better than I could:
"The Catalyst’s argument can be summarized as follows:
1. Fire does what it was created to do.
2. Fire is not at war/in conflict when it burns.
3. Reapers are doing what they were created to do.
4. Therefore, the Reapers are not at war/in conflict."
(from totbafg.blogspot.ca/2012/11/happy-n7-day.html)
Going by that logic, Skynet's terminators were not at war with the humans either, because they were only doing what they were created for.

all your bullet points did was reinforce the Catalysts analogy as a correct one. And Skynet wasn't created to find a solution to the "organic/synthetic" conflict. In fact, Skynet is the exact thing the Reapers are trying to prevent.

[Mcfly616]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I'm increasingly convinced that the technological singularity was a much better choice for the why or reapers.

Just needed to be handled in a not so stupid way.

IDK, technological singularity is stronger as a cyberpunk theme than far-future space opera theme.

and yet, technological singularity was a theme first explored within Sci Fi/Space Opera.....and Cyberpunk is a genre that's just emerged in the last few decades....

[SDW]

But the Catalyst created Reapers for the sole purpose of wiping out organics. How is that not an act of war?
As for the Terminator reference, the Catalyst's analogy fits here, too. He says that if something does what it was created for, it is not at war. Who created it is of no importance.

[AlanC9]

SDW wrote...

But the Catalyst created Reapers for the sole purpose of wiping out organics. How is that not an act of war?.

Are humans at war with corn?

[AlanC9]

Argentoid wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
 The final choice culminating in harvesting the human race into a Reaper in order to eliminate or stop dark energy OR blowing the Reapers to hell and hoping for the best. (I like that part. It has weight.)

It makes the Reapers look good and Shepard be the jackass (or antagonist) who screwed up their plans every time.

That was my favorite thing about it... finding out that Shepard had been the villain all along would have been awesome. And also would have been intensely hated.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...
That was my favorite thing about it... finding out that Shepard had been the villain all along would have been awesome. And also would have been intensely hated.

Villain in what way?  It's all a matter of perspective, A terrorist to one can be a freedom fighter to another.

[SDW]

AlanC9 wrote...
Are humans at war with corn?

Do Reapers eat humans as part of their normal diet?

[LinksOcarina]

AlanC9 wrote...

Right, but at what point in ME2 development? I think Linkenski's probably right that the human-Reaper fight came about late, though. IIRC the original plan was for a much longer time in the Collector base post-reveal, with more details about the human-Reaper. Anyone else remember that?

Fun fact, Mass Effect 2 had the shortest development time out of the three games. So Drew K could have left any time in-between that, and I agree, we don't know. It is also kind of irrelevent in the end too, since i'm not even sure what he wrote for the game, unless he stated it elsewhere in interviews and what not. I think it is vulgar to suggest anything at this point since we don't, and will never, know. 

[LinksOcarina]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
That was my favorite thing about it... finding out that Shepard had been the villain all along would have been awesome. And also would have been intensely hated.

Villain in what way?  It's all a matter of perspective, A terrorist to one can be a freedom fighter to another.

So is the Catalyst a villian or a machine of circumstance? Does that perspective matter?

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 décembre 2013 - 10:06 .

[Liyros]

That would have been cool if Gillian Grayson was the super special biotic that turn the tides with this dark matter plot. Ah well.

[GreatBlueHeron]

Fire burns nonsense. Are reapers AI? If so, are they shackled or unshackled? Have any reapers defected? Are the reapers akin to soldiers of an army who follow command? The catalyst is at war with the galaxy and the reapers do its bidding willingly, unwillingly or unknowingly (if they're nothing more than VIs---doubtful because of the reaper code the geth used to upgrade with on Rannoch). 
Human soldiers in an army are tools, but we never say that soldiers fighting in a war are NOT at war. Fire is not comparable to human soldiers nor is it comparable to AIs. Fire burns where there's fuel---it has no control over its direction. Human soldiers and AI soldiers can control where they move and shoot. It's a bad analogy.

Modifié par GreatBlueHeron, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:40 .

[Vicious]

It was nice because it was a part of ME2 and answered the 'why are humans special' question people have asked since ME1.

As opposed to the, yknow, ME3 ending which came out of left field especially since a big part of the game is synthetics making friends with or helping organics. Starchild says synthetics will inevitably kill you. Shepard can't say, Geth are fighting to save organics. LOOK OUT THE DAMN WINDOW.

So yeah, i'd have preferred a little more space magic if it was referenced earlier in the series and the final goal of the Reapers wasn't made to look stupid in the same game it was presented.

Modifié par Vicious, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:49 .

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
That was my favorite thing about it... finding out that Shepard had been the villain all along would have been awesome. And also would have been intensely hated.

Villain in what way?  It's all a matter of perspective, A terrorist to one can be a freedom fighter to another.

Villain in the going-to-destroy-the-universe way.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 décembre 2013 - 12:02 .

[KaiserShep]

I can only imagine the intense hate that would've come along with such an ending. As much as I enjoy watching certain fandoms writhe in pain, I don't think it'd be worth it this time lol.

[AlanC9]

GreatBlueHeron wrote...

Fire burns nonsense. Are reapers AI? If so, are they shackled or unshackled? Have any reapers defected? Are the reapers akin to soldiers of an army who follow command? The catalyst is at war with the galaxy and the reapers do its bidding willingly, unwillingly or unknowingly (if they're nothing more than VIs---doubtful because of the reaper code the geth used to upgrade with on Rannoch). 
Human soldiers in an army are tools, but we never say that soldiers fighting in a war are NOT at war. Fire is not comparable to human soldiers nor is it comparable to AIs. Fire burns where there's fuel---it has no control over its direction. Human soldiers and AI soldiers can control where they move and shoot. It's a bad analogy.

Can Reapers control what they think? Or are they just indoctrinated from their creation? The cycles don't serve Reaper interests, unless they really want to sleep away 99% of their lives because reasons.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 décembre 2013 - 12:01 .

[GreatBlueHeron]

AlanC9 wrote...

GreatBlueHeron wrote...

Fire burns nonsense. Are reapers AI? If so, are they shackled or unshackled? Have any reapers defected? Are the reapers akin to soldiers of an army who follow command? The catalyst is at war with the galaxy and the reapers do its bidding willingly, unwillingly or unknowingly (if they're nothing more than VIs---doubtful because of the reaper code the geth used to upgrade with on Rannoch). 
Human soldiers in an army are tools, but we never say that soldiers fighting in a war are NOT at war. Fire is not comparable to human soldiers nor is it comparable to AIs. Fire burns where there's fuel---it has no control over its direction. Human soldiers and AI soldiers can control where they move and shoot. It's a bad analogy.

Can Reapers control what they think? Or are they just indoctrinated from their creation? The cycles don't serve Reaper interests, unless they really want to sleep away 99% of their lives because reasons.

Human soldiers are indoctrinated into ideals and serve the interests of leaders of a nation.  They are told when to eat, sleep, expel waste and fight.  Their lives are not theirs to control, and should they deviate, they are corrected, imprisoned or destroyed.  Regardless of all this, when they fight, we say they are at war.  

[AlanC9]

Right. What the soldiers think they're doing doesn't matter. Same for the Reapers.

But the Catalyst isn't at war with organics any more than humans are at war with cows.