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.
Their motives are absolutely nothing like Skynet. Like, at all. Actually the reaper's motives are the polar opposite of skynet. The reaper motive is specifically to PREVENT there being a skynet on a galactic scale.
Their motives are absolutely nothing like Skynet. Like, at all. Actually the reaper's motives are the polar opposite of skynet. The reaper motive is specifically to PREVENT there being a skynet on a galactic scale.
The reapers will prevent a galactic skynet even if they kill you in the process!
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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?
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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?
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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?
17. Regardless. Lets just agree to disagree.
1. Because there is no evidence presented ingame, that the reapers reap the entire universe. Assuming that... would be headcanon.
2. Because it is plausible, that, as you say future technology and space magic, can detect the minute original electrical currents and chemical states of a dead brain and body and possibly fix it or replace enough that you end up with a more or less precise copy or even original. Ie. a perfect copy of shep would be shep. Whereas a shep having his tonsils taken out through normal surgery would not be shep anymore, unless we ignore irrelevant differences.
Whereas it is implausible for the reapers to preserve organics or prevent genocidal ai from taking over the milkyway or the universe, by only reaping the milkyway and reaping the universe is by orders of magnitude more ressource and raw material intensive.
It's like comparing lifting a rock or even mount everest, to playing basketball with the earth as the ball.
3. I agree it's a real ending, but similar to how a "real" dinner, can give you food poisoning too, existance does not equal quality. In any case I have not made stuff up out of nothing. My issues are the logical extrapolations from their story.
4. There is nothing made up there. As I said... logical extrapolations from the story and the universe that bioware has created.
The reapers did not intervene immediately after the geth creation and thus minor organic / AI conflict is irrelevant to them.
The reapers do contain, and claim to preserve, organic sapients.
The implication that an AI could wipe out all organic life, as given to us by the catalyst, logically suggests that an AI could wipe out all organic life.
An AI powerfull enough to wipe out all organic life, would necessarily be more powerfull than the reapers, since the logically minimal intefering way to prevent this would have the reapers just prevent the AI from doing this. That this was not the way chosen implies, that it is impossible for the reapers to intervene at this point and must thus do it before an AI attains that much power.
Well the sg esque ascension part WAS made up... However it is still true, that for 2 billion years no sapient organic life have been allowed to reach is full potential.
5. Yes, the headcanon that space is big. How very rude of me, to not ignore common knowledge, to buy into the premise of the ending. This is why, it's stupid and not just stupid, but extraordinarily stupid... And the point of it, would be to have people writing scifi, open an astronomy book, before they write anything in the future, rather than having us, the audience either ignore said book or just plain simply get drunk as hell before we can buy into their premises.
6. Well it is a problem for the story, when I, and I'm not that smart, seems helluva lot more intelligent than the supposedly 2 billion year old hyperintelligent artificial intelligences. In any case it really shows, that it's simply humans writing the story.
7. There is little to no headcannon in the perfectly reasonably suggestion that reapers are made of stuff and it costs energy for them to live and move around and that these ressources could have been better used. Especially so, if they reap the entire universe, which is the only way they can fullfill their basic reason for existance, as given to us, by the game.
8. Have I said any of that? In this case, it is like not only could the eagle's have flown the ring to mordor, but the local smithy in the shire could also have melted the ring directly. That is the amount of contradiction.
9. It has evidence of limited conflict between AI and sapient organics, which isn't enough for regular reaper intervention (all known examples of AI/organic sapient conflict). There is no, zero and zilch evidence of an AI having wiped out all organic life permanently. And yes it does claim that peace is impossible, directly, when the catalyst says "there will allways be conflict between organic and synthetic life" or something to that effect. You are being emotionally nitpicky, by focusing on a single line that says peace can be momentarily obtained, but will not last, which is the same as saying "there will be conflict" period.
10. The catalysts statement was absolute and flat out wrong and directly contradicted by the game itself. No if's or but's there... The catalyst means to say, that there might be conflict. Well whup ti doo... As you, yourself imply, conflict isn't new, there has been plenty of conflict between ie. organics, even before any reaper intervention, nor do the reapers intervene in limited ai / sapient conflict.
What's naive here... Is thinking the reapers can prevent a truely bloody conflict of an AI wanting to conquer the universe and kill all organics and thus the reapers and the catalyst have no reason for existance. Actually the only way, I can see, to prevent that, is to let a friendly AI evolve to utilize as much of the universe as possible, while leaving room for organic life.
11. What can I say, my fine line for suspension of disbelief is somewhat below ignoring 99.999999999 percent of everything. Let's put it at... 78 percent of everything I can safely ignore, just because it matches my username.
12. The catalyst never told us it wasn't suffering from mental retardation either. Would you presume that? All we know, is that what he says, makes no sense, if you've opened an astronomy book and have an average intelligence (ok, slightly above then). That is not an inordinate level of scrutiny.
13. I'll try to simplify it:
If something, that isn't supposed to make sense, doesn't make sense. It is not selfcontradictory and thus, I would call it, makes sense.
If something, that is supposed to make sense, doesn't make sense. It is selfcontradictory and thus, I would call it, not making sense.
14. What we got, IS self contradicted in the trilogy. The reapers main reason existence to prevent any AI from wiping out all organic life, as explicitly stated by the catalyst. That is impossible for the reapers to do, as they are depicted in the trilogy.
They simply cannot fullfill their purpose, by only reaping the milkyway and nowhere is it stated, that they exist all over the universe. More over, should they exist all over the universe, their existance would be nearly as harmfull as a universe wide AI wanting to wipe out all life. Note: there is also no evidence that an AI, could wipe out all life, nor would care to.
The purpose of reproduction, on the other hand, is easily fullfilled and easily identified with.
I cannot illustrate how silly the premise we have is. We have evidence for monkeys evolving (ourselves), so it is atleast plausible that other monkeys could evolve and threaten us. We have no evidence that rocks, could surpass us, so lets fight rocks... In tibet!... Tibetan rocks are mankinds nemesis from now on. What you say? There are rocks in the andes? ... Nah, those are fine... It's the tibetan rocks, we have to worry about.
Is it overly nitpicky to say the above is a silly concept for a story? Yet, it's allmost the same concept as the catalyst plus reapers, skipping a few steps.
15: As I've said before. Something that doesn't make sense, but isn't supposed to make sense. Is perfectly acceptable. Something that is supposed to make sense, better well make sense. Otherwise, you are doing it wrong.
16. *lol* "anti ending agenda", well that is within your right to ascribe that to me. I prefer the term "Quality Endings R Us Proponent", or QERUP's (Cherups, get it? because I've gotten a little chubby recently).
As I've said... This isn't headcanon... this is all the logical repercussions of exactly what we've been given. I would be entering headcanon territory, if I was pondering, why the catalyst is lying to us, about the reapings being necessary at any point.
These are just the logical reasons of why this is a bad ending IMHO. I have other issues with it's quality too, like emotional engagement, emotional spectrum and ie. the lack of awesome different ending cgi.
Make no mistake. I like mass effect 3 and the series alot and I highly recommend it to people. It's not perfect, but it does some things very very good. Enough things, that it outweigh the ending, by far.
But if I think some parts of a game are bad, I'm gonna say it. I'm not gonna twist myself around to like it. I will give my oppinion openly, bluntly even, in the hope, that in the future, I will get either something most people agree are of a better quality or that atleast something that I enjoy more.
17. That we definately do 
it's ok, life would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.
And now I'll go suspend a helluva lot of disbelief and rewatch some star trek the next generation Oh lord have MRSA...
1. Assuming one way or another is headcanon. The only thing that isn't headcanon is acknowledging that we don't know and not making assumptions.
2. Anything can be plausible if you suspend belief enough. [Cough] Religion [/cough]
I find the whole "Shepard resurrection" and the circumstances around it to be asking for a bigger suspension of belief then the cycle of synthetics. At least it was more deeply explained then just "credits and resources, oh my!" Like I said earlier if you over-analyze every little detail and place it under such scrutiny you can criticize pretty much any part of the trilogy. I put forth that the only reason the ending is being targeted so much is because people were just unhappy with it and want excuses to complain about.
3. You know, I've avoided saying this earlier but I have to vent it. It is such a huge pet-peeve of mine when people use the term 'logical' as if it actually validates their argument or position, as if to suggest anything contrary to what they say is 'illogical' or 'wrong'. It comes across as just so very presumptuous to me.
I also never said the synthesis ending had quality. Only that its real. I brought it up to elaborate on a point that you were making stuff up about the reapers motives just to complain about them. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you should pretend they're something they aren't - especially when its just to complain about it some more. Honestly when you change the story around just to complain about it one could even argue that this suggests you HAD to change it to find someone to complain about because you have nothing to say against the 'real' one.
Which I think we can both agree isn't true - I'd wager everyone would agree theres some things in the real ending worth complaining about. You should complain about the real issues, not the headcanon you worked up to paint it into an even more negative picture. No amount of touting "its only logical!" makes it any less headcanon.
4. Everything you said in the related comment* was fanfiction/headcanon. None of it was true. Calling it logical doesn't make it true, it doesn't make it lore. Its still headcanon that you came up with and are using as a bases to complain about it, even though it isn't real and isn't the story in the game.
*citation
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.
You present this as if it was true. Nothing about what you said is real or true, this is an objective fact. You've changed the real story and plot and then criticize it for being beneath your standards, despite the fact the very thing you're criticizing is a creation of your own mind and not representative of the real story.
Everything you said here is headcanon fanfiction, period. The lore tells a very different story and because you don't like what it tells you changed it to further fuel your hate for it.
5. I wasn't saying its headcanon to say space is big. What was headcanon is how far the reaper's influence goes. We don't really know one way or another. A big plot point of the next Mass Effect might reveal to us that the reapers span all the known universe and we only liberated one galaxy from them. You don't know - I don't know. It is is never revealed to us one way or another. To assume that they harvest only the milky way galaxy is headcanon. To assume that they harvest other galaxies is headcanon. We don't know the specific details. Complain that we don't know, you shouldn't just assume its such and such and complain about it based off your assumption.
6. Or you just arrogantly assume that it never tried your brilliant idea and that it'd all work out if it did. Are you really so content and set on hating the ending that you cannot fathom the possibility that the intelligence tried your idea and it just failed to work in any satisfying way? You should complain that we don't know all the different methods it tried, not complain that it didn't try them at all - which is just an assumption (headcanon).
7. You're taking me out of context here - #7 had nothing to do with the energy and resources. Careful, approaching strawman arguments here. When I was referring to #7 not making sense I was referring to your original #7 of "organics taste like tasty bacon to the reapers". To you, that makes more sense. To me it doesn't. You're the only who speaks in absolutes. As if your headcanon makes complete sense and anyone who disagrees is just failing to understand it. I see it as absolutely ludicrous and silly.
I will also like to note that you should know this since you're the one who actually numbered my original refute in the first place. My original had no numbers, you added them when you quoted to me to make replying more convenient, and what you deemed as 'number 7' was me telling you that I don't think reapers turning humans to goo because they taste like bacon makes any sense to me. It had absolutely nothing to do with energy or resources.
8. Have you said any of what? I didn't say you said anything. I was only pointing out that you shouldn't necessarily take everything the reapers say as being absolutely, 100% literal at all times. Doing so opens up more problems then its worth and, I'd argue, goes against common-sense. I used examples of this such as the reapers having no beginning and no end. Sovereign says this line to us in the first game. Obviously it wasn't 100% accurate but did you actually believe it ever was? I'd wager you didn't.
Infact I would wager no one LITERALLY thought the reapers had no beginning and no end. It was just egotistical boasting. Exaggeration or simplification, however you want to view it. I know I never expected the reapers to LITERALLY have no beginning and no end. Though hey, maybe I'm the odd one here for not taking it like literal gospel truth.
9. The evidence is given to the player as form of observational statements made by multi-billion year old species. They say the cycle is there, thus it is. You don't need to over-analyze every detail, its just a fictional video game for our entertainment. If we could survive for millions of years we would probably see it too. Since we're not immortal we have to accept that they have a better perspective on this. Who better to tell us of a pattern then a species that has been observing life for billions of years?
It says there will always be conflict. It is such a broad statement that it cannot be anything but true. Like I said in number 8, problems only arrise when you're being completely too literal about things to an uncommon degree - some things are colloquial... yay I get to use a word I haven't used in years...
I'm the one being emotionally nitpicky? Cute. I'll add fuel to your claims, which I've no doubt you actually believe, and end this here then.
But from the point of view of a marine, which Shepard was, "I only need to know one thing.... how to destroy them."
That was the theme through the entire story. You can argue semantics about "No, it was stopping the reapers." However, the arguments between Shepard and The Illusive Man were about destroying them and controlling them. Not understanding them. Samara spoke of this with the Justicar Code.
The reapers were ravaging the galaxy and needed to be destroyed. Their motives were irrelevant. It was a fight for survival.
The Council already had a ban in place on AI research after the Geth war. The Crucible took care of the Geth. Hubris is the only reason anyone would want to create a super intelligence. Hubris is the reason the Intelligence existed, and the Leviathans, their thralls, and every cycle afterward paid for it.
I seriously doubt that they exist in any other galaxy. The galaxies are too far apart. I don't think Karpyshyn extrapolated the story that far.
And even with synthesis, soon new star systems will produce a system where organic life exists. What will happen if it evolves in about 6 billion years and encounters the hyper advanced synthesis? Will it be stomped out? I think it's pretty irrelevant in story terms, but whatever.
But from the point of view of a marine, which Shepard was, "I only need to know one thing.... how to destroy them."
That was the theme through the entire story. You can argue semantics about "No, it was stopping the reapers." However, the arguments between Shepard and The Illusive Man were about destroying them and controlling them. Not understanding them. Samara spoke of this with the Justicar Code.
Its left ambiguous enough to incorporate headcanons. I've played Shepard's that were genuinely interested in understanding them - thus why he keeps asking about them whenever the chance comes up instead of just running straight to the destroy option. I've also played a Shepard who sees the possiblity of building a better future by taking control and using them to fulfill his vision. I've also played a Shepard who doesn't give a **** and only wants to destroy them, plain and simple.
I'd also say that I disagree with "just destroy, nothing else" being the theme in the entire story. Not to say it can't be there, but it overlooks that you can also spend a fair amount of time talking about this stuff. The very fact that you can inquire about the reaper's history in the game shows Shepard /can/ show an interest in them outside of "just tell me how to destroy them".
Coincidentally, I dont recall actually saying that the conversations with the Illusive Man were about understanding them. I'm not really sure where this "it wasn't about understand them" argument comes from, honestly. Did I ever say that it was? In regards to Shepard's arguments with TIM I was only pointing out that the stance Shepard takes isn't always inherently against the concept of control. I don't remember anything about saying it was over understanding them.
The reapers were ravaging the galaxy and needed to be destroyed. Their motives were irrelevant. It was a fight for survival.
I don't disagree with you. Though I'd wager a LOT of people do. If the motives were really so irrelevant people wouldn't make topics like this, would they? Honestly if all people cared about is destroying them then they should be happy with the destroy ending. They're destroyed. Yet we hear complaints being tossed out about the reaper motives all the time. Clearly, the motives are very relevant to a lot of people if they can't get over it and just be happy with the fact that they're destroyed.
The Council already had a ban in place on AI research after the Geth war. The Crucible took care of the Geth. Hubris is the only reason anyone would want to create a super intelligence. Hubris is the reason the Intelligence existed, and the Leviathans, their thralls, and every cycle afterward paid for it.
I don't disagree. Though I will point out that the ban isn't perfect - look at EDI and EVA. There was also that AI on the citadel in the first game. The mission Anderson had in the first novel, if I recall correctly, involved investigating an illegal AI project. The council's influence only goes so far.
I seriously doubt that they exist in any other galaxy. The galaxies are too far apart. I don't think Karpyshyn extrapolated the story that far.
I wasn't saying that the reapers definitely exist in other galaxies. Merely pointing out that we don't actually know one way or another. Karpyshyn wouldn't had needed to plan on it originally. They could still incorporate it into the story if they felt like it. It wouldn't be contradicted by per-established lore because they never actually specified it one way or another. At this point its pure speculation and headcanon to assume either way.
And even with synthesis, soon new star systems will produce a system where organic life exists. What will happen if it evolves in about 6 billion years and encounters the hyper advanced synthesis? Will it be stomped out? I think it's pretty irrelevant in story terms, but whatever.
Who knows. Furthermore why should really care, outside the reaper's themselves. Or maybe the leviathans. 6 billion years is a long time. You'll be dead. I'll be dead. We'll all be dead. For me personally you'd have a hard job of convincing me to care about my choice based off the repercussions it'll have BILLIONS of years into the future. I have my limits to how far I'm willing to give a damn. After a certain point I have to expect the galaxy to just fix its own damn problems. I'm not a god, I can't make peace last for all eternity.
Well, not in the synthesis ending anyway. Control is a different matter, lol.
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
Too late. ME2 revealed why they harvest: to multiply. If one's theory is that the Reapers are simply Saturday morning cartoon villains out for world domination, it does not adequately explain why they make more of themselves. One might readily explain it away as "ensuring their dominance," however, that does not really work since the Reapers already have strength and numbers on their side to dominate the galaxy, and leaving the galaxy for dark-space at all becomes counterproductive to their goal, much less leaving for long enough to let space-faring organic civilization grow.
At least the explanation "Starbrat" offered us explains why go through the trouble of harvesting and returning to dark-space rather than simply steamrolling the galaxy and never leaving at all. Seems to me that "sense" is not really what people take issue with about the ending, since often their own versions would not make any!
My thinking on the Reapers motivation is that they hate everyone because no one can see them for the beautiful creatures they are, and so decide to obliterate everyone in hopes the next cycle will see them as beautiful.
I just got through beating the series for the first time (chose synthesis) and believe that the Reapers motivations are pretty straightforward. In a word, preservation. They don't actually kill organics/synthetics they absorb them and then add all the knowledge, culture, history, technology etc. within themselves; however, this is only the first part of the explanation of "what" they do, the next part is understanding the "why."
The "why" is clearly stated in game. In the begining you had the very first life forms evolve within the galaxy, keep in mind their would be billions or trillions of different species evolving at various points of time at varying degrees of advancment. Eventually one of the organics would develop an AI as stated in game. No matter what happens conflict/chaos would occur.
To put it in perspective let's say an organic race made an AI and every thing was lovey dovey for about a million years, then things go to hell in a handbasket. Organics kill Synthetics or vice versa, now another million years pass and one of two things occur. One, the Organics build another AI starting the cycle over again. Two, Synthetics encouter new Organic life which inevitably leads to more conflict. Now let's say this core conflict (Organics Vs. Synthetics) replays itself over and over for hundreds of millions of years.
Well over time both factions see their entire exsistence erased repeatedly and eventually one of the factions creates the Reapers in order to halt the eradication of their exsistence. Afterwhich, begins the Reaper's "cycle." When Organics create AI, the Reapers come in and perserve both the Organics and Synthetics exsitences' within themselves. Granted, this is just my own interpretaion on the Reapers motivations.
I just got through beating the series for the first time (chose synthesis) and believe that the Reapers motivations are pretty straightforward. In a word, preservation. They don't actually kill organics/synthetics they absorb them and then add all the knowledge, culture, history, technology etc. within themselves; however, this is only the first part of the explanation of "what" they do, the next part is understanding the "why."
The "why" is clearly stated in game. In the begining you had the very first life forms evolve within the galaxy, keep in mind their would be billions or trillions of different species evolving at various points of time at varying degrees of advancment. Eventually one of the organics would develop an AI as stated in game. No matter what happens conflict/chaos would occur.
To put it in perspective let's say an organic race made an AI and every thing was lovey dovey for about a million years, then things go to hell in a handbasket. Organics kill Synthetics or vice versa, now another million years pass and one of two things occur. One, the Organics build another AI starting the cycle over again. Two, Synthetics encouter new Organic life which inevitably leads to more conflict. Now let's say this core conflict (Organics Vs. Synthetics) replays itself over and over for hundreds of millions of years.
Well over time both factions see their entire exsistence erased repeatedly and eventually one of the factions creates the Reapers in order to halt the eradication of their exsistence. Afterwhich, begins the Reaper's "cycle." When Organics create AI, the Reapers come in and perserve both the Organics and Synthetics exsitences' within themselves. Granted, this is just my own interpretaion on the Reapers motivations.
What you call your 'interpretation' I call "what is directly and explicitly explained to us in the lore".
Not dissing you or anything, just pointing out that essentially everything you just said is actually true lore-fact and not just your assumption or vision.
It's nice to see some people paid attention to the story though. Kudos, mate.
Now, let the "thats stoopid bioware sucks i hate starbrat makes no sense im logical" arguments swarm in. 
I'll never like the explanation. Shepard debunked their logic by uniting the Geth with the Quarians. By having a functional crew member that's an AI and friend. By being partially synthetic (all the implants, cybernetics etc) herself and still humane. Checkmate Reapers. Go home.
But... no. The game never acknowledges the truth.
I just wonder at folks that believe it all makes sense.
(and yes, those of you that are more intellectual than I am... I'm sure you get it and all, but nothing I've ever read has convinced me that the AI isn't full of sheep plop.)
But... no. The game never acknowledges the truth.
(and yes, those of you that are more intellectual than I am... I'm sure you get it and all, but nothing I've ever read has convinced me that the AI isn't full of sheep plop.)
You'll never be convinced because you have the truth, not the game. 
But... no. The game never acknowledges the truth.
Actually it kinda does. It says "the peace won't last". So yes, the game does acknowledge this. It is the player who refuses to budge.
Having a temporary peace (possibly, if you make them stop killing each other) between the quarians and geth for a few WEEKS does NOT, in any way shape or form, take away from the lorefacts nor does it contradict them. The reapers and Leviathan have been alive for billions of years. Billions of years. BILLIONS. OF. YEARS. Just think about that for a moment. The Earth itself is less than five billions years old, its possible these Leviathans are older than the earth. They are ancient and immortal. They have been watching the organic cycle for years upon years upon years. Longer than our species even existed in the galaxy they have been watching organics.
In these eons of observing the galaxy they noticed a pattern that consistently persists. Organics create machines which in turn rebel against the organics and war pursues. It happens so often with such predictability that they created the Intelligence to find a solution.
We have proof of this pattern that we can observe ourselves, even. The entire first game had synthetic vs organic. Second game did too. So did the third, we just ended a war between synthetic and organic. Javik tells us of all the synthetic vs organic conflicts they discovered in their cycle. The prothean VI tells you of a pattern that exists. So you have the game's themselves, Javik, the prothean VI, the reapers, the starbrat, AND Leviathan - all telling you the same thing.
BUT WAIT! OMG! GETH AND QUARIANS ARE HUGGING FOR THE PAST WEEK! End story, this clearly trumps and disproves the BILLION year old perspective of observation. No. No it does not.
Billions of years. Just think about that. You're throwing billions of years of observation out of the window because of Shepard's severely, drastically and absolutely LIMITED, MINOR experience that has lasted for as /astonishing/ few weeks.
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
I'll never like the explanation. Shepard debunked their logic by uniting the Geth with the Quarians. By having a functional crew member that's an AI and friend. By being partially synthetic (all the implants, cybernetics etc) herself and still humane. Checkmate Reapers. Go home.
But... no. The game never acknowledges the truth.
I just wonder at folks that believe it all makes sense.
(and yes, those of you that are more intellectual than I am... I'm sure you get it and all, but nothing I've ever read has convinced me that the AI isn't full of sheep plop.)
I agree the whole logic of the catalyst is **** and its a damm shame that shepard can't tell him to go to hell and show that he actually made peace between synthetics and organics, Legion and EDI don't need to be "alive" they already were real people if you made the right choices
I can't believe people actually buy Caspers logic thank god for headcanon that I don't have to put up with this
in my opinion the Catalyst is trying to indoctrinate Shepard (not the IT everything is real) thats the only thing that makes sense especially since Shepard is suddenly so friendly with the supposed Reaper boss who appears in the form of the child
this way the reaper stay menacing foes and don't turn into ****** in the last minutes (remember Sovereign and Harbinger? yeah right those guys were actually trying to safe us thats why they looked at organics with disgust)
sure there are plotholes with this but thats nothing compared to Starchilds logic and existence
I agree the whole logic of the catalyst is **** and its a damm shame that shepard can't tell him to go to hell and show that he actually made peace between synthetics and organics, Legion and EDI don't need to be "alive" they already were real people if you made the right choices
Them being 'real people' is rather subjective. Using that logic the reapers are 'real people' too.
Also you can tell him to go to hell, essentially. Shoot him in the face, see what happens. There's an ending for you to refuse him out right.
I can't believe people actually buy Caspers logic thank god for headcanon that I don't have to put up with this
I can't believe people actually cannot understand its logic, thus proving the reapers right about it being a "thing you cannot comprehend". I found the "you cannot comprehend it" line to be rather insulting - then you realize that a large portion of the fanbase DON'T comprehend it. It's humbling, really. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with to explain why people don't understand it is not that they CAN'T understand it but that they're just overly emotional and don't WANT to understand it.
in my opinion the Catalyst is trying to indoctrinate Shepard (not the IT everything is real) thats the only thing that makes sense especially since Shepard is suddenly so friendly with the supposed Reaper boss who appears in the form of the child
That isn't even the way known reaper indoctrination works. As for Shepard being 'so friendly' - based off of what, exactly? Because you have a discussion with it? You mean like we did with Saren, Sovereign, Harbinger and the reaper on rannoch? Nothing new here. You can argue that Shepard is rather tame even as a renegade but give the guy a break, look at the condition he's in. I'm surprised he's even standing.
this way the reaper stay menacing foes and don't turn into ****** in the last minutes (remember Sovereign and Harbinger? yeah right those guys were actually trying to safe us thats why they looked at organics with disgust)
This is ONLY true of Sovereign and not at all true of Harbinger. Harbinger made it very clear that he was our salvation. They were going to make us ascend. Harbinger has always fit right into the starbrat's logic. So no, sir, this is not introduced at the last minutes. Anyone who feels that way failed to pay attention to second game and DEFINITELY failed to pay attention to the lore and codex of the 3rd game.
Humbly may I recommend that you read the wiki on Reapers? I'm sure you believe you know all there is to know about the reapers and could recite it from heart but please just consider taking five or ten minutes out of your day and giving it a read.
sure there are plotholes with this but thats nothing compared to Starchilds logic and existence
Even when being objective I cannot see the plotholes in starchilds logic. Infact it seems to me that it takes being NOT objective to see plotholes specifically in the logic.
I do find its existence to be a plothole, though. There is headcanon one can do to explain it, I've heard a few good explanations here and there but ultimately, based solely off what the lore tells us I see him as a plothole for merely existing.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet.
It is the best fitting explanation for the reapers 'till now!
Even when being objective I cannot see the plotholes in starchilds logic. Infact it seems to me that it takes being NOT objective to see plotholes specifically in the logic.
I do find its existence to be a plothole, though. There is headcanon one can do to explain it, I've heard a few good explanations here and there but ultimately, based solely off what the lore tells us I see him as a plothole for merely existing.
If you don't mind my asking - how do you mean? I felt Leviathan gave a fairly good explanation for what the Catalyst was. It *does* leave open the question of how much independence individual Reapers have, but that's the only problem that I can see...
Even when being objective I cannot see the plotholes in starchilds logic. Infact it seems to me that it takes being NOT objective to see plotholes specifically in the logic.
I do find its existence to be a plothole, though. There is headcanon one can do to explain it, I've heard a few good explanations here and there but ultimately, based solely off what the lore tells us I see him as a plothole for merely existing.
I don't think there's a problem with the, err... problem of organics vs AI (although I do question why the ending even involved such a topic). The problem comes with everything it says after that, especially when it delves into enacting the solutions.
You should all read this: http://forum.bioware...-leviathan-dlc/
I know that's a big wall of text, but it's worth the time.
I don't especially believe it's difficult to understand the Reaper's arguments. The problem [as to why this isn't accepted] is that the series does NOT IMHO do a good job of having the players arrive at the same conclusion. Now that would have been the tragedy to realize the cycle MUST continue even though it dooms everything you've been fighting against since the beginning.
I'm not proposing that for an ending but it would have been a kick right in the daddy bags.
If you don't mind my asking - how do you mean? I felt Leviathan gave a fairly good explanation for what the Catalyst was. It *does* leave open the question of how much independence individual Reapers have, but that's the only problem that I can see...
I agree with that. The catalyst, by itself, is not hard for me to accept. Its only when placed into the context of the Mass Effect lore that I find it troubling. For two reasons in-particular.
1. "We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness."
All of the lore up until the catalyst stayed true to this. Infact I'd go as far as to say we see the proof of the statement in our interactions with the multiple reapers and in the codex lore. Everything fits... until the catalyst.
The Catalyst is the collective intelligence of all reapers. The intelligence of all the reapers is given this one individual form. This, imo, takes away from their independence. How are they each independent if they're all conjoined into one gestalt consciousness? To make matters worst this intelligence specifically states that it CONTROLS the reapers and as we can see in the control ending so can Shepard. They are not independent, they are not free of all weakness. The catalyst turns the reapers into nothing more than tools, machines that follow the whims of their AI overlord.
2. The catalyst refers to the citadel as its home, it is a part of him. This, imo, contradicts the entire purpose of the first game. If the collective intelligence of all reapers was on the Citadel, if it was indeed PART of the citadel, then why did they need Saren to open the relay? Shouldn't the catalyst be able to do it, since its part of the citadel? Why do the reapers need the citadel to have all the data on the council races? The catalyst should have full access to the servers and files hosted on the citadel since its all a part of him. Why do they need to take control of it to control the relays if their boss lives there?
I agree that the leviathan's explanation of the catalyst was decent. My problem with it is not that the catalyst doesn't make sense but rather it doesn't fit in the lore. Now, I do believe there could had been ways to make something like the catalyst work.
For starters, don't have it live on the citadel. It can still appear there at the end as a hologram - while we're at it make it look like a reaper and not the child haunting Shepard's dreams.
Instead of having the catalyst be this individual that controls all the reapers and uses them as tools, make it a tool for the reapers to represent them. Similar to Legion to the geth - Legion we view as an individual to communicate to the geth but Legion is not really an individual, there is no individual, only geth. The catalyst could had just been a tool, a representative on behalf of the reapers. The catalyst, by its own admission, was designed to act as moderator to conciliate interactions between synthetic and organic. It could still be the one that first created the reapers, that doesn't mean it must be the one who controls them. The reaper construct could be its ultimate solution to making peace between synthetic and organic - by making them one.
Do those two things and, imo, the catalyst could fit. As it stands however it doesn't fit at all and instead contradicts the lore.
I don't think there's a problem with the, err... problem of organics vs AI (although I do question why the ending even involved such a topic). The problem comes with everything it says after that, especially when it delves into enacting the solutions.
Well, to be fair, the organic vs synthetic theme has been a consistent theme present throughout the entire trilogy. Even more so than the 'dark energy' ending that was originally planned. The solution, i.e., reapers are reasonably valid from it's perspective. It wishes to preserve organics and it will achieve this with the reapers. Memories and experiences are all genetic markers that can stored on hardware. We've seen this in the lore for a while now. Each reaper is essentially a billion organic minds all linked together. Is it really so hard to understand why the catalyst would view this as preservation and thus a solution? You don't have to agree with someones perspective to understand it.
I don't especially believe it's difficult to understand the Reaper's arguments. The problem [as to why this isn't accepted] is that the series does NOT IMHO do a good job of having the players arrive at the same conclusion. Now that would have been the tragedy to realize the cycle MUST continue even though it dooms everything you've been fighting against since the beginning.
I'm not proposing that for an ending but it would have been a kick right in the daddy bags.
I agree completely. In fact I believe one of the biggest flaws the ending was is that it relies too heavily on the player being acutely aware of the lore. It doesn't refresh the players memory of what precisely the reapers are or what they're doing. Not everyone remembers the little details or read the codex. It certainly doesn't help that the player's character, Shepard, is completely oblivious to all this. He rarely even seems to acknowledge the reapers as being more than just machines. So its not too surprising, I suppose, to see people having such misconceptions . They kept Shepard blind and thus player followed suit.
Well, okay, to be fair they do kinda refresh you on what the reaper's are doing. I believe the issue in this, however, is that Shepard acts so confused by it as if its the first time hearing it. While as the player, if they've been following along, realized that this was a harvest and not just "kill everyone, kill everyone, rawr rawr rawr" since the second game. Its easier for the player to be confused by something when the character they're playing apparently has no idea wtf is going on. By making Shepard confused it makes the player confused.
As it stands, imo, the reapers motivation and logic plays out more like a puzzle. All the pieces are there throughout the trilogy and when you find them all and put them together it forms a full picture that helps you see things clearly. However this is reliant on you, the player, to actually remember these things. The story itself should had brought it all together for you, hold your hand. Don't just place the pieces there and expect you to remember them, bring them back up at the last moment and place them together. They expect the player to remember all the details to properly see the ending in context, instead players just see the ending as the last five minutes.
If people actually understood the ending they likely wouldn't hate it as much. Or, better yet, they'd actually criticize it or hate it for the right reasons instead of making up stuff to complain about that isn't even true (yo dawg meme).
The reapers will prevent a galactic skynet even if they kill you in the process!
Reaper motivation?
AM from "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"
Well, to be fair, the organic vs synthetic theme has been a consistent theme present throughout the entire trilogy. Even more so than the 'dark energy' ending that was originally planned. The solution, i.e., reapers are reasonably valid from it's perspective. It wishes to preserve organics and it will achieve this with the reapers. Memories and experiences are all genetic markers that can stored on hardware. We've seen this in the lore for a while now. Each reaper is essentially a billion organic minds all linked together. Is it really so hard to understand why the catalyst would view this as preservation and thus a solution? You don't have to agree with someones perspective to understand it.
I don't think that's really the case. Yes, there are organics and they fight synthetics but I don't think that's thematically what the conflict is about. Zombie stories aren't thematically about people vs zombies even thought that's a recurring conflict, the zombies usually represent something else like consumerism, self destructive nature, human hubris, etc. Synthetics in the ME series increasingly became stand ins for racial issues. They were just another rubber headed alien... only with metal instead of rubber. Furthermore, anything that could be gleamed was concluded with Rannoch.
The end was dealing with an issue that the story had no where near enough depth or intelligence to support. This is really evident when you look at the Catalyst's language. It uses such vague and generic vocabulary that you can use it's argument to talk about almost any kind of conflict you want. I find it telling that no where in the ending sequence we can talk about the past experiences in dealing with synthetics.
As for the solutions I understand that the Catalyst has some different perspective on preservation (although I do wonder how it got such a view when programmed by the Leviathans or why it would store everything in the relatively fragile body of a Reaper). It's the other stuff:
Like why does it offer up Destroy and Control when Synthesis is available? For Destroy it explicitly states that it isn't a solution to the O vs S conflict, it only offers it because the Crucible can enact it. Control is similar as what Shepalyst will do is an unknown. Why doesn't it explore non-Crucible options like just leaving, that's seemingly more sensible than Destroy from the Catalyst's perspective. Why can't Shepard just tell the Catalyst to order a universal self destruct sequence or fly into the sun? It's just as valid as Destroy only with less collateral damage which if anything makes it better for everyone. The only way anything the Catalyst does makes sense is if by 'change the variables' the Crucible rewrote part of the Catalyst's code in such a way that it had to use the Crucible and only the Crucible (which doesn't make much sense either).
Even if Shepard doesn't choose Synthesis or an option you can keep the Crucible, reverse engineer it, and use it to enact Synthesis later. If Shepard jumping into the beam isn't 'forcing' it then surely chucking any other organic in there isn't either. Heck, just order a husk to grab someone in storage and chuck them into the beam.
Why is the Catalyst even letting Shepard choose anyway? The common defense I hear is that the organics proved something but that isn't the case. The Catalyst still believes that the O vs S conflict is alive and will still inevitably end the same way (the only reason Shepard is up there is because the Catalyst made some simple mistakes, next time just turn off the beam). The Reaper solution is still better than Control and Destroy, and still seems to work just as fine as it did before (species are preserved and organic life goes on). If the Catalyst didn't want the Crucible to be used it could have left Shepard down the elevator or if the elevator came up on it's own free will just not talk to him (I doubt Shepard would just start shooting tubes or get anywhere near surging energy). It really diminishes that the Catalyst experimented all these eons when it's just as susceptible to SpaceJesus's aura as everyone else is.
Retour en haut
