7 réponses à ce sujet

[TuringPoint]

The theme of a galactic cyclical process beyond our understanding, beyond the doing of the Reapers only came up in a few scenes, but it really intrigued me.  I am hoping in ME4, we see something more along those lines - the nature of the greater cycle.  I also see this as a way for the universe to have a greater future.  The themes you could cover would be infinite, and contemporary.  Motivations, conspiracy, limitations of resources.

I believe the programming to end the cycle, to have a balanced perspective led them to do what might be seen as protecting both synthetic AND organic evolution, although it's not explained in those terms.  They are descended from their organic master's in how much they think of themselves.  The Catalyst consolidates the evolution of both into Reaper form, and effectively declares war on anything that contradicts that goal.  

In some basic way I can see how synthetic evolution is the reason for the Reaper's cycle.  Regardless of the semantic inconsistencies, that part makes sense to me - it's just that some of the other themes weren't developed to their fullest.  It was quite clear that synthetics vs. organics wasn't the primary theme, but it was more dominant than the existence of dark matter in one of the suns of formerly Quarian space.  More interesting and less arbitrary, at least.

Still, it would make a lot of sense for that one plot in ME2 to be developed further.  It would make sense that the resources of space travel would be finite, for one thing, or that it would have some limitation that would cause a larger downfall of civilization.  This could even be a part of the reason for the Reaper cycle; that there was already something of a cycle of extinction, and so harvesting furthered the development of synthetics/organics.

Finally, back to the creators of the Catalyst.  They could be a tremendous loose end.  The have presumably survived billions of years.  Perhaps they are more humble than they once were, but they don't seem to be.  Having them as an ally seems ominous.  They might not be as evil and murderous as their synthetic progeny, but they're quite machiavellian, self-interested, and powerful.  I wouldn't be surprised if they had been doing something like a cycle before the Reapers got the idea.  Probably not as systematically, but still.

Then again, they may be weakened to the point that they can't grow significantly more powerful.  They would continue to be a force to be reckoned with, but more a force of nature with organically motivated goals.

I do hope they develop the themes of mass effect further than they were able to.  No reason to think they will, but I can hope.

Modifié par Alocormin, 25 janvier 2014 - 08:24 .

[TuringPoint]

Semantic, and a simplistic way of saying something more complex. There is a war, but it isn't war for the sake of more war or resources.  It isn't war for the reasons organics use war, or for that matter, not even for the reasons synthetics use war.  It's not a crusade or a grab for power.  They are in service to their programming, the Harvest.

They are killing, slaughtering even, anything that stands in the way of their goal. They are using organic life itself in horrific ways, in ways that are designed to be horrific and demoralizing.

It may be only out of "necessity" that it became this way, but there it is.  It is war, even if only one side sees it that way.  The fundamental goal of the Reapers, to harvest, is at odds with the interests of individual organic beings.  What else is war?

Modifié par Alocormin, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:49 .

[TuringPoint]

Still semantic. I was just describing why they slaughtered people, war or not.  Updated the statement to say "effectively".

If they had truly kind intentions towards anything that stood in their way, they wouldn't be executing their goals in such a way.  Whether you call that war or not.

It's still war for the people they're harvesting.  Therefore, it is war.

Modifié par Alocormin, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:06 .

[AlanC9]

Alocormin wrote...

It's still war for the people they're harvesting.  Therefore, it is war.

Why privilege the victims' definition of the activity over the Reapers' definition?

[TuringPoint]

Yeah, I think we're agreed on the Reapers.

I don't privilege the Reaper's definition because I don't worship Ayn Rand. Thanks.