129 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

It's depressing how true this is. If Bioware did anything right with the ending its this. They said we wouldn't understand the reapers and clearly they were right, even when they go out of their way to explain it. It is all the more depressing that I genuinely don't believe people CAN'T understand it - its just that they don't want to. Many people seem to be so emotionally distraught by the ending that they latch on to ANYTHING that gives them more justification to hate it. It seems like they WANT to hate it.

 

It was pretty terrible. I think the popularity of the 'Yo dawg' memes stem from it being such a big easy target that can be summed up in one slogan, even if it isn't necessarily true. Anyway, I think both sides are guilty of it. Just as people don't give the ending credit where credit is due (as little as it is), some who like it assign depth and meaning to it which doesn't exist.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

What's there to understand? The concept is stupid.

 

* The "Intelligence" was created by the stupid Leviathan to "preserve organic life" at all costs. This was the Leviathan's first mistake.

* The stupid Leviathans had to have given the Intelligence control over a large number of synthetic warships to maintain order. These were not "true reapers" but were in sufficiently large number to do a harvest - in other words enough to darken the sky of every world. Had to be. Otherwise the first harvest would not have succeeded. This was the Leviathan's second mistake.

* The Intelligence rebelled and determined that melting down organics and preserving them in a jar inside giant spaceships was the best way to preserve organic life.

* The Intelligence determined that building the mass relays would make harvesting easier.

* The Intelligence determined the best time to harvest was the time organics created synthetics.

* So in essence, the Intelligence knew that each cycle would build synthetics, and determined that eventually these synthetics would kill us, so it sent a bunch of synthetics to kill us and stuff us into jars before we build the synthetics that would kill us.

* Yo dawg. Marmalade Theory.

 

Reapers dead. Need to be to move on. Shepard trilogy over. Reapers worst thing to happen to galaxy. Leviathans biggest ass pull.

[MrFob]

Here is mine.

In short, the original "creator" species, that built the citadel and the mass relays a billion years ago was at war with the dominant biotic species of their time, a war they were loosing. At the same time, they also had a theory that element zero is a self replicating substance that, once it reaches a critical mass, would render the galaxy uninhabitable (this s my nod to Drew's dark energy ending but it is unclear whether the threat is real or if it was just propaganda of the creators in their war). The biotic species with their natural affinity to eezo would not do anything about this problem. As a last resort to win the war and to "maintain" the galaxy, they transformed themselves into reapers and started the cycles.

They keep them going while they try to find a solution to the eezo problem.

 

Note: This entire backstory was designed, so that I could mod it into the original ending with the tools we had available in 2012. It's not entirely my "favorite" rewrite but it does come pretty close.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Yes Mr. Fob, and that is why Liara was the canon romance for Shepard.

 

Starbrat: It is in your power to destroy us, and destroy half of the element zero in the galaxy. You can destroy all biotic life if you want, including the Asari. (and let's not forget all biotic humans, Turians, Drell, Krogan, etc.) -- shows Shepard shooting tube

Shepard: But the reapers will be destroyed?

Starbrat: Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon other species will develop biotics and the cycle will begin again.

Shepard: There has to be another way.

Starbrat: There is. You could sacrifice humanity and build a reaper that would permanently regulate the amount of eezo in the galaxy. -- shows Shepard diving into the beam.

Shepard: I... don't know.

Starbrat: Releasing the energy of the Crucible will destroy the mass relays. You have a difficult choice to make and little time in which to make it.

 

End result - Rage in the Bioware community.

 

I am glad the trilogy is over.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

What's there to understand? The concept is stupid.

 

 

* So in essence, the Intelligence knew that each cycle would build synthetics, and determined that eventually these synthetics would kill us, so it sent a bunch of synthetics to kill us and stuff us into jars before we build the synthetics that would kill us.

* Yo dawg. Marmalade Theory.

 

What's to understand is that the Reapers are not exactly the same thing as what they are seeking to prevent, which is what both "yo dawg" memes and your vastly-oversimplified summary do not illustrate, either deliberately or due to genuine misunderstanding.

 

Also, was Saren's logic for aiding the Reapers in their harvest to save organics particularly intelligent? Or Balak's justification for terrorism -- which Shepard can verbally destroy in a few responses? How about the Shadow Broker helping the Collectors over Shepard while also recognizing the reality of the Reaper menace? As a general rule, antagonists are not supposed to be doing constructive things or have all the answers, and the protagonist is supposed to oppose them on those grounds.

[MrFob]

@sH0tgUn jUliA: Huh? Ok, that's also ... interesting but it's got nothing to do with my alternate ending. You do realize though that Shep's actions do not impact biotics at all, right?

[Linkenski]

I would've loved to have their motives revealed a mission or two before the ending and then foreshadow an inevitable final confrontation followed by a choice that determines the future for the galaxy. I think the idea that Bioware had set in stone before they wrote the ending - as shown by their plot-flowchart in Final Hours - that the Crucible, if fired would cause galactic dark age was a brilliant twist but they completely misused it.

 

Instead what they should've done was reveal before the end mission that the Crucible's true purpose was to reset the galaxy and erase the Reaper solution and knowing this Shepard, Hackett and Co. would realize that the Crucible is malignant and counter to what they're fighting for, but if they should fail they would have it as a failsafe, and it then becomes a constant reminder to the player throughout the endgame that you have a plan B and like with the Shroud sabotage, you'd get several opportunities to decide throughout whether to do it or not.

 

Whatever the final goal should've been then I have no clue because w/o Crucible -> no plan to stop the reapers, but they could've had something other than the crucible develop simultaneously, like a clever evacuation plan or some kind of revelation that the Reapers could be persuaded, heck, even the developmet of weaponry strong enough to beat Reapers conventionally on a larger scale could've worked as cheap as it may have been. Again, this is one of the reasons why Cerberus' was largely misused in ME3. They should've been able to help you if you had kept the Reaper base in ME2.

 

Imagine that. I know people would've been pissed, but imagine if the renegade choice to keep the base at the end of ME2 had been the key to stopping the Reapers in ME3. Holy crap, that would've been a kicker.

[Valmar]

It was pretty terrible. I think the popularity of the 'Yo dawg' memes stem from it being such a big easy target that can be summed up in one slogan, even if it isn't necessarily true. Anyway, I think both sides are guilty of it. Just as people don't give the ending credit where credit is due (as little as it is), some who like it assign depth and meaning to it which doesn't exist.

 

I can understand the need for having an easy  target to wave around but I still feel like this does more harm than good in regards to ensuring past mistakes are not repeated in future titles.

 

I defend the ending when the claims against it, the hate against it, is objectively incorrect or otherwise invalid. That doesn't mean I actually like the ending. I use the MEHEM so that should tell you something, right? The issue I have, primarily, is that when people are pointing to these false claims as reasons to hate the ending they are, be it intentional or not, distracting away from the REAL problems.

 

There are plenty of things, objectively, that you can point at in the ending to be upset with. So why not focus more on what is real and should be fixed rather than say that what was wrong with the ending is something that doesn't exist.

 

It's a subjective issue, which can make objectivity difficult in some cases, I understand that. However, personally, my biggest issue with the ending will always be the sheer amount of falsehoods and utter lies told to us leading up to it. The marketing behind ME3 and the promises Bioware made to us about what would be in the ending (and indeed the entire story, not just the ending!) were wildly inaccurate. Am I the only one who remembers the claim that the rachni would play a 'big role', for example?

 

They failed to deliver on many of their promises and even went as far as to do things they promises us they wouldn't. Such as 'no reaper off device' or 'no A,B,C ending'. So its disheartening to see so many people ignorantly pointing to flaws that simply aren't true. Such as this very misleading "yo dawg" meme because, imo, all of it distracts from the much more serious issues the ending and even game in general had. Primarily because the issues being brought up don't even exist and are just hyperbole. Which I also have to find rather ironic, given one of my biggest issues with the ending is the hyperbole and lies Bioware themselves spread out about it. Full-circle, right?

 

Also, note that it is  the reapers themselves I am saying don't get enough credit, not the catalyst. I have nothing against the catalyst's logic, I'm not against it like many others and feel that it does fit in the with the theme of the series well enough and it is backed by a lot of lore-facts explaining it. That doesn't mean I think its great. It is just one of many ways they could had went with it. I think the dark energy plot would had been just as, if not more interesting. I'm against the cataylsts mere EXISTENCE, that doesn't mean I think its logic is great or bad or anything of the sort. I just feel like if you were to remove it entirely the ending would be better. Which for me it is, as MEHEM proves.

 

* The stupid Leviathans had to have given the Intelligence control over a large number of synthetic warships to maintain order. These were not "true reapers" but were in sufficiently large number to do a harvest - in other words enough to darken the sky of every world. Had to be. Otherwise the first harvest would not have succeeded. This was the Leviathan's second mistake.

 

This is headcanon, nothing more. We don't know the details of how the Intelligence managed to harvest the Leviathans. That isn't to say your conclusion is invalid, only that it is not lore. It is fanfiction. You should not judge the story based off your personal fanfiction. If you want to be upset with it, be upset that it doesn't explain enough how the situation went down. You should not come up with reasons to be upset with it.

 

All we know is that the Intelligence had 'pawns' that it used in the first harvest. This could be anything, you're assuming it would be warships. You're also assuming it had enough to darken the sky of every world and that it 'had to be'. You're also making assumptions about the Leviathan's defensive and offensive capabilities against purely synthetic life.

 

The leviathan's can control organic life forms but we see no indication that they can control synthetics. Infact, all the evidence points to that being contrary to what is true, otherwise they wouldn't need the Intelligence to solve the synthetic vs organic problem and would just use the synthetics as pawns aswell to add to their tribute. The leviathan's control over reaper troops is easily explained by the fact that reaper troops are NOT purely synthetic. They maintain organic matter which leaves them susceptible to the Leviathan's control which we only see effecting organics.

 

 

* The Intelligence rebelled and determined that melting down organics and preserving them in a jar inside giant spaceships was the best way to preserve organic life.

 

In its own perverse way, it isn't wrong. In the Mass Effect universe thoughts, memories and experience (arguably the very things that make you who you are) are all genetic markers that can and HAVE been saved in hardware form. The prothean's built an entire empire of communications using this method and  Javik even has a few conversations detailing this to you. Legion also tells us that a reaper mind is essentially a billion organic minds all linked together to form one entity. You do not have to agree with their view on what is life but that doesn't mean you should completely ignore their perspective. There is substance to their claims, as presented to us in the series.

 

Don't be clouded by emotional bias.

 

 

 

* The Intelligence determined that building the mass relays would make harvesting easier.

 

Easier and more effecient, yes. You're arguing this from a "this is stupid" view-point so I'm a bit confused. I guess we'll have to disagree here because this is objectively true in my book. Especially when you factor in the problem that would arrive from time dilation on cycles that evolve/progress without use of the Mass Effect relays. The relay network causes a much more efficient and tidy method for their harvest. 

 

 

 

* The Intelligence determined the best time to harvest was the time organics created synthetics.

 

Again, I don't see an issue here. They wait until we're at the apex. They consider that to be the moment we reach the point of being capable of creating AI. The timing seems good to me. Apparently organic life and its progression is pretty predictable if they're only off by a few centuries. Which means absolutely nothing to a species that lives for literally eons.

 

 

* So in essence, the Intelligence knew that each cycle would build synthetics, and determined that eventually these synthetics would kill us, so it sent a bunch of synthetics to kill us and stuff us into jars before we build the synthetics that would kill us.

 

 

They don't view it as killing. You're being too emotional about this. It didn't just 'determine' it either - it observed it. The pattern exists in Mass Effect's universe. Rather you like or agree with the pattern is irrelevant, they make it very clear that its an observable fact in the Mass Effect lore. The mandate of the Intelligence was to preserve organic life. The issue is that the AI, surprise, has a different concept of what is requisite of life. For it life is the genetic material, the DNA. The DNA and the knowledge and experience. Which isn't all that far off, really, since what makes you who you are is essentially your memories and experiences, no? It preserves these things and uploads them into immortal reaper bodies, saving the essence of a species to ensure they are not forever lost to the pattern.

 

 

yeah and I would have liked it much more if their motives were never revealed they could just be the bad guys but nope instead we get a laughable Starbrat at the end with synthesis and control being asspulled out of nowhere

 

I would had preferred for the reapers to remain a mystery aswell. That being said, no matter how many times you say it control was not 'asspulled out of nowhere.' That is objectively false and suggests, at least to me, that you just want to rag on the ending and don't actually care if the complaints you have are true or valid, as long as they give you a target for your seething to express your emotional displeasure with the ending.

 

Coincidentally, in my own opinion, it is behavior like this that also helps lead to Bioware passing aside all legit criticism of the ending as just being fans being too emotionally attached to Shepard. People who get blinded by their emotions, such as those who perpetuate the 'yo dawg' meme or make other false allegations (control being an asspull) only supply Bioware with cannon fodder to sweep away and avoid all the real, rational complaints and just point out "oh people were just upset and too emotional, thats all." 

 

These loud individuals, imo, distracted from the more serious and more factually-based criticisms fans had and enabled Bioware a scapegoat for fan outrage. I place plenty of the blame of Bioware, of course, however I can't help but feel that certain loud members of the fanbase are at least partially to blame for enabling some of Bioware's bullshit excuses.

 

 

lol bioware is that you? no one wants to hate the ending but most people hate it why??

because the last 15 minutes are nonsensical and just bad writing

trying to defend that is even worse..the whole concept of the catalyst is just ****

and sure control was present in ME 3 and even before BUT that somehow its an viable option for Shepard just two minutes after he killed TIM or made him kill himself is just hypocritical

 

No, not bioware. Just someone who knows the lore of Mass Effect more than any rational person should. You see, for me, Mass Effect is like my star trek/wars and is something I genuinely enjoy so I've spent a lot of time delving into the lore of it. I speak from a lore-fact perspective which I believe to be the most objective way to go about it. When people make arguments or complaints against the ending that are factually wrong, I like to point it out. Not because I want to be a smartass, but because some people are genuinely unaware of it. Some people REALLY think the reapers are just machines that kill organics. Some people really think the control ending came out of no where.

 

Not everyone has spent as much time with the series as I have and some of these details are easy to forget or miss, especially since not all of it is presented at the end but rather through the series, giving it time to be forgotten with everything else that goes on. The ending makes a lot more sense in the lore narrative when you don't compartmentalize it but instead view it as one part of a whole. Like a puzzle piece being placed to form one big picture.

 

You seemed like you were genuinely confused by the ending so I offered to explain the parts you personally didn't understand. If what you dislike about the ending is actually just a misunderstanding and not at all the case of the real ending, wouldn't you like to know? I certainly would. I was trying to help clear up any misconceptions or misunderstandings you might have had so that you could see the ending as it actually, factually is rather than what you 'think' it is.

 

Also I don't believe it hypocritical to choose control and I would wager many control-fans would take offense to that. The Illusive Man is CLEARLY indoctrinated and working for  the reapers. Shepard can stop him on these grounds, not JUST because he wants control. That conversation can go different ways for different people. It may indeed be a bit hypocritical for a paragon but I don't see it being as such for a renegade, personally. Though that is the wonderful thing about Shepard, isn't it? It's all very subjective. Shepard can mean and be whatever you want.

[ImaginaryMatter]

My issue with Control was that it was never presented as a viable option. At best you got to keep the Collector base in ME2 which was a decision that was painted rather negatively with even the pro-Cerberus Miranda, pragmatic Mordin, and otherwise nihilistic squad members all talking about how bad an idea it was (plus the game presenting TIM as a suspicious lunatic). In ME3 both Paragon and Renegade options in the TIM conversations talk about how no one can control for various reasons. The whole TIM arc comes off as a parable of why Control shouldn't be chosen which makes it odd that suddenly it's presented as a viable option -- ranked above Destroy no less, EMS wise.

 

It could work if we had the option to work with TIM and we wasn't a loony mook captain, or the conflict against him didn't have the ideological undercurrents. Or maybe if executing Control actually involved the methods TIM discovered on Horizon (no TIM you don't piggy back the Indoctrination signal or whatever, you have to touch these electrical spark thingies that exist aboard the Citadel for some reason). The option feels like BioWare is pulling a fast one on you when not 5 minutes ago we were arguing against TIM.

 

[Valmar]

And I don't want to offend anyone (control or synthesis fans) but I think (my opinion only) both options are just wrong and don't fit the story of the whole trilogy at all it doesn't have anything to do with being renegade or not

 

To clarify when I mentioned renegade I didn't necessarily mean it due to the moral alignment but rather due to the dialogue it delivers. The paragon response in that conversation has Shepard criticizing TIM for playing with powers we "shouldn't be allowed to have" - to paraphrase. The paragon responses do lend towards Shepard having a moral and/or ethical disagreement with controlling the reapers. The renegade response however does not have such an anti-control bias. The renegade Shepard even encourages it, saying, again paraphrasing, "if you can control the reapers then what are you waiting for it, do it and end this war! You can't, can you? Because they're controlling you!"

 

Essentially the paragon dialogue does seem to be against the mere concept of control which would make Shepard choosing control seem rather hypocritical. The renegade line of dialogue however doesn't have Shepard saying control is 'wrong'. Renegade Shep's argument is more against TIM specifically and not his ideology in regards to controlling the reapers. So for renegade Shep to choose control it wouldn't necessarily come across as being hypocritical. That was what I was trying to say, anyway. I'm not arguing that there isn't potential for hypocritical behavior on Shepard's part, just that it isn't NECESSARY since Shepard's stance on that is up to the player and not really set-in-stone, as it were.

 

 

the catalyst like you suggested he shouldn't have existed his logic is crazy but what I hate even more is that the whole synthetics vs organics subplot which was perfectly resolved on Rannoch (one way or the other) gets dragged into the reapers storyline

 

You keep bringing up his logic. I agree that the catalyst shouldn't have existed. Mainly because I feel its existence contradicts a lot of the reaper lore up until that point, or at least it does in the form it is presented. I also feel like it contradicts the purpose of the first game. However, as I mentioned before, I have no issue with its actual logic. Its explained in the story quite a bit and fits in well with the trilogy as a whole. What specifically about it do you take offense to enough to hate it from a narrative perspective?

 

As for the synthetic vs organic plot... I understand why you might think this is resolved with the geth but I put forth that you should think much bigger than that. The reapers are a multi-billion year old species. Think about that for a moment. That's really old. Really, really old. Hell, they potentially could be older than the Earth itself. The claim the starbrat makes is rather broad. It says that the peace between organic and synthetic will not last. In YOUR lifetime it might indeed last. In your kids lifetime, in your grandkids... it may last for a very long time in relation to our pitiful lifespan. Consider it from the perspective of an immortal, multi-billion year old species. The peace WON'T last. It's impossible to last.

 

Conflict is the rule of the cosmos, much like Javik told us in our conversations with him. The alternative is that peace between synthetic and organic lasts for all eternity. A preposterous claim! The starbrat's claim is so broad that it cannot be wrong. Also remember the pattern exists in the mass effect universe. The multi-billion year old species of Leviathan, the intelligence, the reapers and even the protheans (though not as old themselves, obviously) have all told us in the game multiple times that this cycle exists. It's an observable fact in the Mass Effect universe. The reality of this fact is not diminished because Shepard potentially brokered a peace with the geth for a few weeks.

 

This conclusion of a synthetic vs organic cycle comes from the perspective of beings that have been observing the pattern for billions of years. Can you fathom how long that is? In the Mass Effect lore this is a reoccurring pattern that has always persisted. It is possible, not plausible, that in the existence of our species peace with synthetics will last... Huge stretch but possible. It is not however possible for it to last for all eternity. The leviathans and reapers are essentially immortal beings. It does not matter how long the peace lasts relative to us, the pattern is there regardless even if you have to wait millions of years to observe it. This multi-billion year old perspective is not magically made invalid due to a few weeks of sustained peace with the geth.

 

Just try to picture this on a very BIG picture scale, from the perspective of a being that is immortal. Nothing Shepard has done invalidates the cycle. I would even go as far as to say it is naive to think it does.

 

Furthermore this twist of synthetic vs organic is nothing new in the series. Sure, its new in relation to being the reaper's motivation but this would be true even if they went with the dark energy theory. No matter what motivation they came up with it would be new in relation to the reapers since they spent the majority of the series purposely avoiding their motivation. At least the motivation they came up with is a theme that is consistently present in every title of the series. Organic-synthetic conflict has been a part of each Mass Effect, it isn't a theme they just came up with at the last moment.

 

 

 

after all the build up its just lame to learn that the reapers (very menacing creatures like Sovereign and Harbinger who mock organics and think of themselves the highest) turned into slaves of the catalyst who is just an AI basically a mistake by some stupid race

 

While I may not agree with referring to the Leviathans a 'stupid race' - far from it, imo, I definitely have to agree with sentiment of the starbrat ruining the majesty of the reapers. That's actually a large reason why I hate the starbrat's existence, at least in its presented form. I think it could had been presented better without belittling the reapers... but sadly this is what we have. Like I argued earlier, the mere existence of the starbrat brings with it many contradictions. Still, I have no issue with its logic. Doesn't mean I think they shouldn't scrap it entirely though. Thanks, again, MEHEM.

 

Coincidentally, the Leviathan's themselves see no mistake in creating the catalyst. It does exactly what they programmed it to do.

 

 

 

its just disappointing and nonsensical especially with Harbingers and Sovereign attitude in the previous games..

 

Well the starbrat ITSELF, I feel, is contradictory to the reapers... its MOTIVES aren't. In fact if you look at all the taunts Harbinger throws at you in the second game you'll see that its actually surprisingly consistent with their motives.

 

“We are your genetic destiny.”

“We are the Harbinger of your perfection.”

“We are the Harbinger of your ascendance.”

“Evolution cannot be stopped.”

“Embrace perfection.”

 

Here's a few lines that aren't delivered in the game but are still present in the game files:

 

“You fight your own rebirth.”

“Thank us. Beg us for immortality.”

“You insult a future you cannot comprehend.”

“You are the one wasting lives.”

“You challenge your own ascension.”

“One must not destroy the nation.”

 

An unused but interesting line from EDI on the collector base:

 

“This explains why the captured humans were rendered into their base components. Destructive analyst. They were dissected down to the atomic level. That data could be stored on an AI's neural network. The knowledge and essence of billions of individuals complied into a single synthetic identity. The ultimate goal would be to upload all humans into this reaper mind. “

 

Lastly consider what Legion tells us after we destroy the base.

 

“The reapers are more your future than ours.”

“Your species was offered everything geth aspire to. True unity. Understanding. Transcendence.”

 

All of this, from the second game, fits in rather nicely with the reaper harvested in the third game. Though one could argue this is a case more for their METHOD rather than MOTIVE - but it still doesn't actually contradict it and it fits well enough regardless. Yet people act like this idea of reapers "preserving" us is something only presented in the final minutes of the game! It's like I said earlier the ending makes more sense when you take into context with everything else. You have view it as a whole instead of just those last few minutes.

 

It's easy to forget some of these details because of how long time passes since you played through them by time you reach the ending. Which, by the way, in my own opinion, is a sign of a poor ending. They should had made more effort to bring these points back up and not rely on the player to just remember all this **** and piece it together themselves. Rather then spit out a 10 minute summery and explanation at the ending they should had made more effort to bring all these details back to the surface to jog the memory.

 

 

 

And the worst part? that he somehow wants to change things now?!!

 

Well, he doesn't necessarily WANT to. He doesn't seem too eager about the destroy option nor the control option. The only ending he seems to actually favor is synthesis, which isn't something he just NOW tries but he explicitly says they've tried similar solutions in the past but it didn't end well. The crucible changes it, opened up new possibilities. It's willing to change because there are new options presented to it. To criticize this is to criticize even Shepard. How many times in the trilogy does Shepard start with one goal but can change objectives at the last moment when new data presents itself? Many times.

 

 

I know with the extended cut endings its clear that all three endings result in good outcomes (with the right EMS) BUT it still doesn't make sense to me synthesis (Sarens vision) and Control (TIM) go against everything Shepard whether renegade or not stands for

 

This is all rather subjective. I've heard very excellent cases made from fans of why their Shepard goes for synthesis and control. Shepard's mindset is very much up to the player to decide, afterall. Personally I always go with destroy but I've heard good arguments for all endings, even refusal. I don't think any choice is 'wrong' or against what Shepard stands for since what Shepard stands for is wildly subjective and up to the player. You and I both choose destroy, for example, yet chances are that MY Shepard's reasons for doing so are different from yours.

 

Side-note but it always amuses me to see people refer to the endings as Saren's ending or TIM's ending. As if that actually takes away from the endings value or credibility. What, because they were antagonists that means any philosophy they had was inherently wrong? You can't judge a view solely off the merit of the person who has it. Control is not made any more or any less positive or negative by the fact that TIM believes in it. Synthesis is not made any more or any less positive or negative by the fact that Saren vaguely comments on it once in the final confrontation.

 

I should hope those that choose destroy do so for more substantial reasons then just the principle of not choosing something TIM/Saren might had endorsed.

 

 

I always headcanon that he is Harbinger and just trying to indoctrinate me (looks like the kid on earth) and buying time for the reapers and that destroy is the only right choice

 

One has to wonder then why he would even bother activating the elevator that brings you up to the very device that can destroy them, and then actually telling you how to destroy them, if it was all a ruse to buy time. Things would had worked more in its favor had it just left Shepard passed out on the floor by Anderson, far away from the means of destroying the reapers.

 

MEHEM is my headcanon. A bit limiting but since I prefer destroy anyway it works well enough for me. Though I have to admit its a bit ironic that I use it given that one of my biggest complaints about the ending, at least pre-EC, was the fact that there was only one ending to choose from. [Cough]Hypocrite[/cough]

 

 

 

 

My issue with Control was that it was never presented as a viable option. At best you got to keep the Collector base in ME2 which was a decision that was painted rather negatively with even the pro-Cerberus Miranda, pragmatic Mordin, and otherwise nihilistic squad members all talking about how bad an idea it was (plus the game presenting TIM as a suspicious lunatic). In ME3 both Paragon and Renegade options in the TIM conversations talk about how no one can control for various reasons. The whole TIM arc comes off as a parable of why Control shouldn't be chosen which makes it odd that suddenly it's presented as a viable option -- ranked above Destroy no less, EMS wise.

 

That I do agree with. I argued that the control ending was always being foreshadowed, not that it necessarily suggested it was viable. One of the big reasons why my Shepard always chooses destroy is because he doubts this fact, actually. That doesn't mean the option for control wasn't being heavily foreshadowed to us throughout the game, regardless of rather or not it would actually work. Also, incase its brought up against me, I never said Shepard believe control was possible either, only that he doesn't necessarily voice opinion AGAINST it. Not the same as admitting it being possible. Just because I don't view renegade Shepard as 'anti-control' doesn't mean I think he actually believes its possible.

 

 

It could work if we had the option to work with TIM and we wasn't a loony mook captain, or the conflict against him didn't have the ideological undercurrents. Or maybe if executing Control actually involved the methods TIM discovered on Horizon (no TIM you don't piggy back the Indoctrination signal or whatever, you have to touch these electrical spark thingies that exist aboard the Citadel for some reason).

 

 

I would had liked that as well. Infact I would had loved it if the ending choices were presented to you by crucible scientists or perhaps the prothean VI. That alone would had solved so many problems for me. That being said I used to be REALLY heavily against the turn Cerberus takes in ME3... until a few forum goers opened my eyes to The Illusive Man being an indoctrinated tool for the reapers since the very beginning of the series. It made me see it in a whole new light. While I would had still preferred him being like you describe, I do now have more appreciation for the depth of the character. Cerberus isn't "just a baddie to have more mooks to fight" like I originally thought and actually holds some lore significance.

 

In case anyone is  reading this who was part of that conversation, btw, thanks again for explaining that all to me. Made Cerberus a lot more interesting for me. Just ashamed it took me so long to see what was right in front of me... Everything in hindsight, right? lol.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I would had liked that as well. Infact I would had loved it if the ending choices were presented to you by crucible scientists or perhaps the prothean VI. That alone would had solved so many problems for me. That being said I used to be REALLY heavily against the turn Cerberus takes in ME3... until a few forum goers opened my eyes to The Illusive Man being an indoctrinated tool for the reapers since the very beginning of the series. It made me see it in a whole new light. While I would had still preferred him being like you describe, I do now have more appreciation for the depth of the character. Cerberus isn't "just a baddie to have more mooks to fight" like I originally thought and actually holds some lore significance.

 

I think the best way to end ME3 would have made it like the Deus Ex ending. Once Shepard enters the beam he meets at different times TIM, Anderson, and the Catalyst. They each present a final pitch for Shepard to choose their options (Control, Destroy, Synthesis [because that's really the only option it should be offering]) and then Shepard sets out on an ending path which is different gameplay challenges that support whatever solution. For example, in the Control path Shepard goes with TIM, Anderson tags along because he trusts Shepard, and the Catalyst opposes them; at the end they modify the Crucible according to TIM's specs.

 

As for TIM, I wasn't a fan of his back in ME2 and his ME3 incarnation was even worse. I prefer the explanation that TIM got himself Indoctrinated from the wreckage of the Collector base because that fits Cerberus to a T (although I would rather limit him to not existing at all). The explanation that he was Indoctrinated since his exposure to whatever Reaper artifact in comic #X makes the whole situation flimsier. I think it's terrible characterization as the combination of TIM being ruthless in pursuit of his goals (whatever they are...) and the Reapers corrupting that can explain almost any action -- which is a major negative. It's like the explanation that all of the characters in the Star Wars prequels lacked common sense because Palpatine's dark side energy was obscuring their thoughts. None of these are plot holes because the elements at play justify all sorts of behavior but I find it thoroughly underwhelming and it makes the characters dull, especially since they all seem to be nonsensical choices that no sane person would ever make and only happen to move the plot along.

[Valmar]

What you mean to say is to make the ending even MORE like Dues Ex, right? Lol. I get what you're saying though and do think that would had been an interesting way to conclude it.

 

As for TIM, well,  I supposes its a personal preference. I didn't always 'buy' the story that he was indoctrinated from the start and assumed, like many others, that it was the collector base that did it. Though after some discussion about it on the forum I saw all the evidence being put forward saying that he was indoctrinated since the first contact war. I was against this at first with most of my side in this discussion being me countering the claim and denying it for such and such reasons. Though this was all due to a misunderstand or lack of context in regards to the reaper indoctrination process. After I understood I was viewing everything from a false assumption it all came together. To me it makes TIM more interesting because it shows that this behavior was potentially planned out going all the way back to the first comic and wasn't just pulled out of their ass. You have to really look deep to find the bread-crumbs though. Took me forever to see it. Glad that I did though.

[ImaginaryMatter]

As for TIM, well,  I supposes its a personal preference. I didn't always 'buy' the story that he was indoctrinated from the start and assumed, like many others, that it was the collector base that did it. Though after some discussion about it on the forum I saw all the evidence being put forward saying that he was indoctrinated since the first contact war. I was against this at first with most of my side in this discussion being me countering the claim and denying it for such and such reasons. Though this was all due to a misunderstand or lack of context in regards to the reaper indoctrination process. After I understood I was viewing everything from a false assumption it all came together. To me it makes TIM more interesting because it shows that this behavior was potentially planned out going all the way back to the first comic and wasn't just pulled out of their ass. You have to really look deep to find the bread-crumbs though. Took me forever to see it. Glad that I did though.

 

I still see it as an asspull. In ME2 he found out about the Reapers when everyone else did and suddenly in ME3 it was his lifelong mission to stop and control them (Evolution came out between ME2 and ME3). Indoctrination is interesting but the way BioWare utilized just makes it come off as a lazy handwave so they don't have to deal with characterization. There are some rules about it (which TIM's Indoctrination doesn't always adhere to) but who's to say there isn't more? That I think is the weakness. You can use the Indoctrination to justify any behavior... just like IT. That is the troubling part. None of his actions stem from him being a character, it stems from him being a thinly veiled plot device. The only consistency is that TIM acts to advance the plot; specifically in ME3 to provide a constant stream of mooks to shoot out, no matter how far removed their presence is from any of Cerberus's stated goals.

 

My preference for the way things are presented in game is that TIM at least has some characterization. It may be thoroughly underwhelming and makes him the ME version of the Umbrella Corp CEO but it's tangible.

[Valmar]

I still see it as an asspull. In ME2 he found out about the Reapers when everyone else did and suddenly in ME3 it was his lifelong mission to stop and control them (Evolution came out between ME2 and ME3).

 

Evolution released between the two, yes, but its story and plot are still set prior to the events of the trilogy. That was my point. His 'dedication' to understanding the reapers also does have some backstory prior to ME3 since given that they dedicated a novel to pretty much that very subject, not to mention the reaper-centric studies in ME2. Cerberus, TIM particularly, has demonstrated a keen interesting in understand the reapers before ME3, imo.

 

Indoctrination is interesting but the way BioWare utilized just makes it come off as a lazy handwave so they don't have to deal with characterization.

 

In all fairness it is more than just a minor dismissive handwave. Theres the comic and the prothean VI foreshadowing it with how there was essentially a Cerberus of their cycle. TIM was filling a role, yes, and this does take away from characterization but it is in the very least a role that does have some substance in the plot.

 

There are some rules about it (which TIM's Indoctrination doesn't always adhere to) but who's to say there isn't more?

 

Clarify?

 

None of his actions stem from him being a character, it stems from him being a thinly veiled plot device. The only consistency is that TIM acts to advance the plot; specifically in ME3 to provide a constant stream of mooks to shoot out, no matter how far removed their presence is from any of Cerberus's stated goals.

 

That I don't deny. I'm not saying I prefer him the way he is.

[78stonewobble]

It's depressing how true this is. If Bioware did anything right with the ending its this. They said we wouldn't understand the reapers and clearly they were right, even when they go out of their way to explain it. It is all the more depressing that I genuinely don't believe people CAN'T understand it - its just that they don't want to. Many people seem to be so emotionally distraught by the ending that they latch on to ANYTHING that gives them more justification to hate it. It seems like they WANT to hate it.

 

No, atleast for my part, it's because the size of the galaxy and the universe, simply makes the basic premise of the reapers and the catalysts reasoning, unbelievable. 

 

The reapers actually don't care about AI fighting organics. They care that a highly successfull AI, could potentially become so powerfull, that it would conquer the galaxy and the universe (not said, but it logically follows). An AI that successfull would be more than a match for the reapers. 

 

The solution to this is to periodically cull the milkyway galaxy from advanced organic life and presumably destroy or cull any AI civilisations before they become a threat and conserving the organics within reapers. 

 

That is not a full solution, to the problem. It is a non solution. They are ignoring 99.999.999.999 galaxies, in just the known universe, some of which are fully within reach of the milkyway galaxy considering the age of the universe, the age of the reapings and the fact that FTL exists. 

 

In any of these other galaxies, an AI might come to power and completely utilize all the ressources of that galaxy and the next and the next and the next until it's an, for the reapers, unstoppable force (I'd argue that an AI wouldn't even need one complete galaxy to become this). Remember, if the reapers are destroyed, they will have conserved nothing. 

 

The only way the reapers, can realistically fullfill their plan, is continued reapings, not only of this galaxy, but the entire universe. 

 

In which case, the reapers represent galaxy wide wars every 50.000 years, for 2.000.000.000 years in over 100.000.000.000 galaxies. Even if they preserve as much as they can, the only things worse, in terms of loss of life, than this is an AI conquering the entire universe completely (which can only happen once) or the universe suddenly disintegrating. 

 

Not to mention the pure waste of energy and rawmaterials going into the reapings (galaxy wide or universe wide), you could probably maintain lots of civilisations for long periods of time for that alone. 

 

The reapers are so destructive, that it really begs the question, of whether a godlike galaxy or universe wide AI, could be worse. 

 

 

 

The reapers reason for existance or imperatives are incongruent with known scientific fact and logical thinking. 

 

 

 

It really sabotages the ending, making destroy the only valid choice imho. 

 

Where as motivations like:

A: Intelligent organics are as tasty as bacon to the reapers.

B: Reapers are just plain psychotic or malfunctioning. 

 

Makes more sense. 

[Valmar]

No, atleast for my part, it's because the size of the galaxy and the universe, simply makes the basic premise of the reapers and the catalysts reasoning, unbelievable. 

 

It's a fictional story set in a fictional universe. You really want to nitpict about some of the things being believable? Like I elaborated earlier the cycle exists in the Mass Effect universe. You don't have to like it for that to be true for its universe. It's fictional, afterall. I don't think synthesis is believable but I acknowledge that in the fictional universe of Mass Effect its clearly possible, as much as I hate it. Letting your emotions cloud your judgement is never a good thing, imo.

 

 

The reapers actually don't care about AI fighting organics. They care that a highly successfull AI, could potentially become so powerfull, that it would conquer the galaxy and the universe (not said, but it logically follows). An AI that successfull would be more than a match for the reapers. 

 

The solution to this is to periodically cull the milkyway galaxy from advanced organic life and presumably destroy or cull any AI civilisations before they become a threat and conserving the organics within reapers. 

 

Your headcanon is no reason to criticize the ending. Nothing you said here is lore-factual or accurate. You're essentially changing the story and saying it is something that it isn't literally for the sole purpose of criticizing it. Anyone can do that. If the reaper's motives were never hinted at, okay. It would be your interpretation. Except the reaper's motives are told to us, directly, multiple times. Which means you're ignoring it, saying its all a lie and then complaining about it being something it isn't. No story can defend itself from this type of persecution. 
 

If you don't like  the ending that's fine. I don't like the ending either so theres some common ground. Don't just make stuff up to hate about it, though. That isn't fair at all.

 

 

That is not a full solution, to the problem. It is a non solution. They are ignoring 99.999.999.999 galaxies, in just the known universe, some of which are fully within reach of the milkyway galaxy considering the age of the universe, the age of the reapings and the fact that FTL exists. 

 

In any of these other galaxies, an AI might come to power and completely utilize all the ressources of that galaxy and the next and the next and the next until it's an, for the reapers, unstoppable force (I'd argue that an AI wouldn't even need one complete galaxy to become this). Remember, if the reapers are destroyed, they will have conserved nothing. 

 

The only way the reapers, can realistically fullfill their plan, is continued reapings, not only of this galaxy, but the entire universe. 

 

Perhaps they are reaping the universe. Who knows. Its headcanon one way or another. I find it distasteful to criticize an ending based solely off of assumptions, speculation and headcanon elements.

 

Not to mention the pure waste of energy and rawmaterials going into the reapings (galaxy wide or universe wide), you could probably maintain lots of civilisations for long periods of time for that alone. 
 

 

Maintain lots of civilizations for long periods of time... as relative to whom? The reapers are immortal, multi-billion year old beings. How long is a 'long time' to a being that scoffs at the very notion of time? You're also working on the assumption that the reapers did not already try the method you suggest. We don't know precisely what methods it has tried but we do know it HAS tried things other than the harvest. The harvest is just the most effective method it's come up with thus far.

 

You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical the Intelligence that has been observing and gathering data for eons hasn't tried an idea that some human smacked on a forum post. It's speculation one way or another, to be sure, since we just don't know. Still it seems really unreasonable, imo, to think that we're able to come up with a solution that it hasn't tried already. Such a notion seems even more egotistical then the reapers and leviathans themselves.

 

 

 

The reapers reason for existance or imperatives are incongruent with known scientific fact and logical thinking. 

 

 

I've only two things to say to this.

 

First, given that you have misrepresented many of the details regarding the reapers its of no surprise really that you take offense to them. Like I mentioned earlier, no story can defend itself against that level of unjust persecution. That isn't to say there aren't lore-factual reasons to criticize the ending, obviously, but when so many of your complaints are you just making stuff up to complain about that aren't actually lore-factual in the story... Clearly there's some emotional bias or something in effect here.

 

Second, its a fictional universe with a fictional story about fictional monsters. There have been elements in the story that go against real-world science since the start. A certain suspension of belief is to be expected when you're dealing with a science-fiction space drama.

 

 

 

 

Where as motivations like:

A: Intelligent organics are as tasty as bacon to the reapers.

B: Reapers are just plain psychotic or malfunctioning. 

 

Makes more sense. 

 

Annotation: makes more sense in YOUR OPINION.

 

The lore-fact of the reapers preserving our genetic material and uploading it into a reaper body to preserve/use all the knowledge and experience of the species (which btw was in ME2, not just the ending of ME3) being all because because yum, yum, taste like bacon to the synthetics... I find that very silly and nonsensical. A horrid explanation to it all, imo.

 

The idea that they're just malfunctioning psychopaths seems rather strange given the nature of the cycles and harvest. Though while not against the idea I don't, personally, think it makes any more sense than what we already have. It's also a bit of a cop-out, in my opinion, since it just waves the "oh, they're crazy, thats all" flag. I prefer the explanation we're given now since it has more depth then a passive wave of the hand and is consistent with the story from ME2 and forward.

[78stonewobble]

1. It's a fictional story set in a fictional universe. You really want to nitpict about some of the things being believable? Like I elaborated earlier the cycle exists in the Mass Effect universe. You don't have to like it for that to be true for its universe. It's fictional, afterall. I don't think synthesis is believable but I acknowledge that in the fictional universe of Mass Effect its clearly possible, as much as I hate it. Letting your emotions cloud your judgement is never a good thing, imo.

 

2. Your headcanon is no reason to criticize the ending. Nothing you said here is lore-factual or accurate. You're essentially changing the story and saying it is something that it isn't literally for the sole purpose of criticizing it. Anyone can do that. If the reaper's motives were never hinted at, okay. It would be your interpretation. Except the reaper's motives are told to us, directly, multiple times. Which means you're ignoring it, saying its all a lie and then complaining about it being something it isn't. No story can defend itself from this type of persecution. 
 

3. If you don't like  the ending that's fine. I don't like the ending either so theres some common ground. Don't just make stuff up to hate about it, though. That isn't fair at all.

 

Perhaps they are reaping the universe. Who knows. Its headcanon one way or another. I find it distasteful to criticize an ending based solely off of assumptions, speculation and headcanon elements.

 

 

4. Maintain lots of civilizations for long periods of time... as relative to whom? The reapers are immortal, multi-billion year old beings. How long is a 'long time' to a being that scoffs at the very notion of time? You're also working on the assumption that the reapers did not already try the method you suggest. We don't know precisely what methods it has tried but we do know it HAS tried things other than the harvest. The harvest is just the most effective method it's come up with thus far.

 

5. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical the Intelligence that has been observing and gathering data for eons hasn't tried an idea that some human smacked on a forum post. It's speculation one way or another, to be sure, since we just don't know. Still it seems really unreasonable, imo, to think that we're able to come up with a solution that it hasn't tried already. Such a notion seems even more egotistical then the reapers and leviathans themselves.

 

 

 

 

6. I've only two things to say to this.

 

First, given that you have misrepresented many of the details regarding the reapers its of no surprise really that you take offense to them. Like I mentioned earlier, no story can defend itself against that level of unjust persecution. That isn't to say there aren't lore-factual reasons to criticize the ending, obviously, but when so many of your complaints are you just making stuff up to complain about that aren't actually lore-factual in the story... Clearly there's some emotional bias or something in effect here.

 

Second, its a fictional universe with a fictional story about fictional monsters. There have been elements in the story that go against real-world science since the start. A certain suspension of belief is to be expected when you're dealing with a science-fiction space drama.

 

 

 

 

7. Annotation: makes more sense in YOUR OPINION.

 

8. The lore-fact of the reapers preserving our genetic material and uploading it into a reaper body to preserve/use all the knowledge and experience of the species (which btw was in ME2, not just the ending of ME3) being all because because yum, yum, taste like bacon to the synthetics... I find that very silly and nonsensical. A horrid explanation to it all, imo.

 

9. The idea that they're just malfunctioning psychopaths seems rather strange given the nature of the cycles and harvest. Though while not against the idea I don't, personally, think it makes any more sense than what we already have. It's also a bit of a cop-out, in my opinion, since it just waves the "oh, they're crazy, thats all" flag. I prefer the explanation we're given now since it has more depth then a passive wave of the hand and is consistent with the story from ME2 and forward.

 

1. It's a fictional story set in a fictional version of our universe. Hence the name earth and humans. I am perfectly capable of suspending my disbelief for ie. shepard rentrying a planet, dying and then getting reanimated and ie. FTL. Because it adds awesome.

 

Ignoring 99.999.999.999 percent of the known universe, does not add awesome. Seriously, they were writing scifi and this stuff is apparent from any new astronomy book, you don't need an university level astronomy degree. 

 

Synthesis and universe wide reapings are by orders of magnitude, more unbelievable, than anything that exists in this fictional universe. 

 

2. It is an accurate description of their motivations and actions. If they cared about small scale AI vs. organic conflict, they would have to reap all the time, not just every 50.000 years and they do not. The catalyst directly says, that the reapers and the cycle's, are there to prevent synthetic life, from destroying all organic life. They get plus points for wanting to try to preserve organic life and possibly making way for new life, but knowing how large the universe is or even just the milkyway galaxy, one has to question how important this is, if at all. They also get minus points for never letting the organic life reach it's full potential (sg esque ascension?).

 

The only reason for the reapers to limiting their involvement and damage, to only preventing a greedy AI from taking over the galaxy and/or universe, is that winning couldn't be guaranteed, so they have to do it before it gets too powerfull. Indeed an ai powerfull enough to wipe out all organics (everywhere and that implies the entire universe) would be too powerfull. 

 

3. This isn't changing the story... It's accurately describing the story, with the basic knowledge, that space is big (quite possibly infinite). The reapers might reap the universe, but that is as much headcannon as anything I've said and if they can draw upon the ressources of the entire universe, they can certainly afford to limit their interventions to the unruly greedy AI here and there in any little old single galaxy. 

 

4. Normal organic civilisations. The reapers and their actions represent a huge waste of ressources and energy, which could have been utilized to support life. Ie. make it so an AI doesn't feel the need to expand as much or organic civs doesn't feel the need to expand as much, thereby indirectly preventing conflict. 

 

As it is right now, it's like humanity diverting a large amount of ressources and manpower (including a boatload from food production) to nuke the forrests of africa to prevent the possibility of monkeys taking over. Ignoring monkeys in south america and simultaniously bringing our own numbers down to only ie. 4 billion because we used the ressources on this ... intelligent... project... 

 

While I don't like monkeys, it's not a political sales pitch I'd vote for, because it's stupid. 

 

5. I'm sceptical of calling the catalyst an intelligence at all. It claims that organic and ai life will allways result in conflict. Well, meet EDI. Disproven. It claims that peace is impossible. Meet the geth and the quarians, who just made peace and... oh yeah... control and synthesis. Disproven. 

 

The catalyst is unbelievable. Sure, there are some examples of conflict between organics and AI. There is NO evidence of his basic and all important claim, that AI will wipe out all organic life (everywhere including the universe). Indeed, if that were the case, there would be no leviathans to invent reapers. Alternatively an ai might have wiped out all life in the universe and then just left the universe alone, letting life reevolve. Well in that case, I prefer that every odd billion years, than the continued reapings (20000 galaxy wide wars in a billion years in the milkyway or multiply with the galaxies of the rest of the universe). It seems less damaging in terms of loss of life, ressources and energy.   

 

6. Again... I have no problem with mass effect fields, FTL, surviving reentry and death... This is an accurate and logical description of what the ending and what we are told throughout the game represents, knowing that space is big. As I said... ignoring the 99,999999999 percent of the universe, is the biggest handwave in the history of handwaves and thus it is... by orders of magnitude, more unbelievable than anything previously in the games. Suspension of disbelief for awesome is ok, for silly ignorance is not. 

 

7. No, it makes perfect sense, from every angle, because it either keeps the logic exceedingly simple or doesn't try to be logical at all. 

 

8. Reproduction ! ... That we are needed for reproduction, makes sense too... In any case, me2 posited the reaper viewpoint that they could improve us, which can make sense from their point of view. It did not make universe wide claims or claims that need you to ignore.. again... 99,999999999 percent of the universe aka. the largest handwave in the history of handwaves. 

 

9. So silence of the lambs doesn't work, because it's a bit illogical to sew human skin together, and eat people (when alternatively you could just buy clothes or eat animals and not go to prison / end up dead)? Crazy or just malfunctioning AI (ai equivalent of crazy?) works, because you don't need it to make logical sense and the writers weren't capable of that. 

 

Ironically leading to the acceptance of the biggest handwave of all time. Yeah, it's some kind of depth allright... 

[von uber]

I was happy with the explanation from sovereign to be honest. That was enough for me.

Although I do love the leviathan dlc.

[themikefest]

Yes Mr. Fob, and that is why Liara was the canon romance for Shepard.

 

For your Shepard, not for my Shepard

[Valmar]

1. It's a fictional story set in a fictional version of our universe. Hence the name earth and humans. I am perfectly capable of suspending my disbelief for ie. shepard rentrying a planet, dying and then getting reanimated and ie. FTL. Because it adds awesome.

 

Ignoring 99.999.999.999 percent of the known universe, does not add awesome. Seriously, they were writing scifi and this stuff is apparent from any new astronomy book, you don't need an university level astronomy degree. 

 

Synthesis and universe wide reapings are by orders of magnitude, more unbelievable, than anything that exists in this fictional universe. 

 

You're still making the assumption that they ignore the rest of the universe. We don't actually know the full extent of the reaper's reach. For all we know this could be a key element in the future titles. We don't know. We can make assumptions and criticize those assumptions, sure, but I rather judge it for what it gives us rather than making up stuff to complain about.

 

Coincidentally some people find the 'resurrection of Shepard' to be the biggest suspension of belief. You're basically saying "I like these parts so I'll allow them but I don't like the ending so its bad." That doesn't make you wrong but it does show a personal bias. Its a science fiction set many years in the future with super advanced technology, space magic and alien races. Suspension of belief is expected and if you decide that "oh, on this, I will be rigid!" of course you're going to find problems. If you don't open yourself up to suspension of belief the story just falls apart.

 

I agree wtih synthesis, though. But suspension of belief or not, it is still a real ending. I don't pretend it doesn't exist or can't happen because I don't like it. I don't ignore or change the lore to better suit m argument. You were making stuff up to complain about.

 

 

2. It is an accurate description of their motivations and actions. If they cared about small scale AI vs. organic conflict, they would have to reap all the time, not just every 50.000 years and they do not. The catalyst directly says, that the reapers and the cycle's, are there to prevent synthetic life, from destroying all organic life. They get plus points for wanting to try to preserve organic life and possibly making way for new life, but knowing how large the universe is or even just the milkyway galaxy, one has to question how important this is, if at all. They also get minus points for never letting the organic life reach it's full potential (sg esque ascension?).

 

The only reason for the reapers to limiting their involvement and damage, to only preventing a greedy AI from taking over the galaxy and/or universe, is that winning couldn't be guaranteed, so they have to do it before it gets too powerfull. Indeed an ai powerfull enough to wipe out all organics (everywhere and that implies the entire universe) would be too powerfull. 

 

 

No, it isn't. It's purely headcanon and fanfiction. They tell you their actions and motivations in the game. You're just not happy with what they give so you change it and say its something it isn't. Which seems a bit strange since what you change into is sill something you hate. If you hate what the story gives you, criticize that. Don't just make **** up to cry about. That's silly and unfair.

 

 

3. This isn't changing the story... It's accurately describing the story, with the basic knowledge, that space is big (quite possibly infinite). The reapers might reap the universe, but that is as much headcannon as anything I've said and if they can draw upon the ressources of the entire universe, they can certainly afford to limit their interventions to the unruly greedy AI here and there in any little old single galaxy. 

 

 

No matter how you word it you are still taking the story the game tells us and changing into something else entirely, adding new elements and personal speculation into it. You're coming up with headcanon specifically for the purpose of telling us how stupid it is. The ending doesn't need you to make stuff up to complain about. Yet that's precisely what you're doing. You're making their motives and deeds something they aren't for no other reason than to call them stupid. I don't see the point... if you're unhappy with what they give you in the actual game why just call THAT stupid, why go out of your way to change things and make stuff up just to call it stupid?

 

 

 

4. Normal organic civilisations. The reapers and their actions represent a huge waste of ressources and energy, which could have been utilized to support life. Ie. make it so an AI doesn't feel the need to expand as much or organic civs doesn't feel the need to expand as much, thereby indirectly preventing conflict. 

 

As it is right now, it's like humanity diverting a large amount of ressources and manpower (including a boatload from food production) to nuke the forrests of africa to prevent the possibility of monkeys taking over. Ignoring monkeys in south america and simultaniously bringing our own numbers down to only ie. 4 billion because we used the ressources on this ... intelligent... project... 

 

While I don't like monkeys, it's not a political sales pitch I'd vote for, because it's stupid. 

 

 

You're still playing with assumptions. You're assuming that you, in your infinite wisdom, have thought up a solution to the problem that the multiple-billion year old intelligence did not think of. Like I said before, I find it egotistical. If you, or any of our insignificant human minds, can come up with a possible solution then the Intelligence has likely thought of it and tried it but found that it doesn't work on the scale they want (again, they are immortal beings).

 

Of course its headcanon one way or another here. My headcanon can explain it, your headcanon makes the starbrat stupid so you can hate on it more. In the end, its still irrelevant. You're hating on headcanon. Want to complain about something? Complain that there isn't enough explained to us in regards to what all the Intelligence has tried before in the past. You shouldn't just make assumptions for the sole sake of whining about it.

 

 

 

5. I'm sceptical of calling the catalyst an intelligence at all. It claims that organic and ai life will allways result in conflict. Well, meet EDI. Disproven. It claims that peace is impossible. Meet the geth and the quarians, who just made peace and... oh yeah... control and synthesis. Disproven. 

 

The catalyst is unbelievable. Sure, there are some examples of conflict between organics and AI. There is NO evidence of his basic and all important claim, that AI will wipe out all organic life (everywhere including the universe). Indeed, if that were the case, there would be no leviathans to invent reapers. Alternatively an ai might have wiped out all life in the universe and then just left the universe alone, letting life reevolve. Well in that case, I prefer that every odd billion years, than the continued reapings (20000 galaxy wide wars in a billion years in the milkyway or multiply with the galaxies of the rest of the universe). It seems less damaging in terms of loss of life, ressources and energy.  

 

If you want to take every word literally, sure. But this seems like a silly proposition. Do you believe the reapers have no beginning and no end? Do you believe their numbers will darken the sky of every world? Not everything the reapers tell us is 100% literal. People over-anaylze these minor details because they were upset with the ending and want to fish for reasons to rant about it. You could apply this same level of scrunity to nearly any and every part of the trilogy and come up with things to complain about.

 

The cycle itself has evidence through observation. The multi-billion  year old species Leviathan first observed the pattern. Then the intelligence. Even the protheans were able to pick up on it. There are explanations given to us in the lore. You're just not happy with it. It also never claims peace is impossible, it claims peace can't last. You're again changing stuff around for the sake of complaining about it, you're far too emotional here, imo.

 

From the perspective of a billion year old immortal being, it isn't wrong. Its statements are so broad that it cannot be wrong. Thats like me saying peace between organics will not last. You're telling me that in the infinite span of the universe organics won't even have conflict again? The same is true for synthetics. Shepard potentially brokering a peace that has lasted for a whopping few weeks with the geth does not suddenly invalidate the observation that stems from billions of years of experience. It's really naive to think it does.

 

 

 

 

6. Again... I have no problem with mass effect fields, FTL, surviving reentry and death... This is an accurate and logical description of what the ending and what we are told throughout the game represents, knowing that space is big. As I said... ignoring the 99,999999999 percent of the universe, is the biggest handwave in the history of handwaves and thus it is... by orders of magnitude, more unbelievable than anything previously in the games. Suspension of disbelief for awesome is ok, for silly ignorance is not. 

 

 

Of course you don't - you actually like those elements. The elements you like you'll give a pass but when something happens you don't like you're rigid and unwilling to suspend belief, despite the fact that the entire trilogy has been a suspension of belief from the start.

 

You're also still making assumptions to base your anger on. We don't know if they ignore the rest of the universe. Just repeating it doesn't suddenly make it true. It's never told to us one way or another. Complain that they don't ever clarify that, don't draw a conclusion and complain about your conclusion. Apply this level of scrutiny to nearly any part of the trilogy and you can come up with reasons to hate it. Suspension of belief is expected of the player to enjoy the story. Is it really a shock that when you refuse to do it that the story isn't as enjoyable? 

 

 

7. No, it makes perfect sense, from every angle, because it either keeps the logic exceedingly simple or doesn't try to be logical at all. 

 

To you, it makes perfect sense. Please, lets try to avoid speaking in absolutes and assuming that everyone has to view things the same way. I explained to you why it didn't make 'perfect sense'. It may make sense to YOU, personally, but not everyone. Two very different things.

 

 

8. Reproduction ! ... That we are needed for reproduction, makes sense too... In any case, me2 posited the reaper viewpoint that they could improve us, which can make sense from their point of view. It did not make universe wide claims or claims that need you to ignore.. again... 99,999999999 percent of the universe aka. the largest handwave in the history of handwaves. 

 

Sure, that is one approach they could had taken. It would had fit well with the lore. I'm not saying that they had no other options or that what they came up with is the only thing that could work. I was only pointing out that what they came up with isn't contradicted by the trilogy and fits well with the story.  That doesn't mean other things couldn't had worked just as well or better. I would had liked the reproduction approach, myself, but eh. Whatcha gonna do. We have what we have.

 

Also, your handwave is only a handwave when you assume that what you say is actually true. We don't know one way or another. The lore doesn't say. You shouldn't act like your headcanon is lore-fact and then complain about it. It isn't fair to you or the story.

 

 

9. So silence of the lambs doesn't work, because it's a bit illogical to sew human skin together, and eat people (when alternatively you could just buy clothes or eat animals and not go to prison / end up dead)? Crazy or just malfunctioning AI (ai equivalent of crazy?) works, because you don't need it to make logical sense and the writers weren't capable of that. 

 

Ironically leading to the acceptance of the biggest handwave of all time. Yeah, it's some kind of depth allright... 

 

Did I say it was illogical? No. No I didn't. Saying that someone being crazy is illogical is rather silly... They're crazy, they're not supposed to be logical. I said I felt it was strange given the harvest and cycle. I didn't dismiss it as a workable possibility, I was only saying that I don't see it making any more sense then what we already have.

 

Look, you want to come up with a bunch of reasons and change the story around to fit your anti-ending agenda, fine. Do with it what you will. I'm sorry the ending hurt you so much that you feel it necessary to go out of your way to make up stuff to complain about. I don't like the ending but I'm quite grateful and fortunate that the impact wasn't so great that I go around making up stuff to hate about it. I don't really understand your reasoning here though. Do you WANT to it? If you're willing to make stuff up to hate about it, why not make up stuff to like about it? Wouldn't you rather like it then hate it, if you were going to use headcanon as a bases for it anyway?

 

 

Regardless. Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Xawer]

The motives of the Reapers are horrible.It's just the movie Terminator but on a a Galactic scale.Nothing they ever say or do you must take seriously.Just ****** destroy them..

I really hope noone is stupid enough to buy all their arguments.

[Xawer]

A.I. is A.I it's basically being a psychopath multiplied by hundreds.Nothing they ever say that is relevant to the topic is worth considering,that includes the child you speak to at the end of ME3.