What?
err.... it's fairly simple.
Leviathan are the Alpha Predator. They want to protect their positions as Alpha Predator by any means necessary. They create Starjar. Starjar is tasked with wiping out the advanced species via the reapers. Starjar controls evolution to such an extent that no race will evolve far enough to be able to challenge leviathan.
This maintains their positions, as well as providing lots of (harvested) food for squiddy.
The end.
nomnom
Guest_StreetMagic_*
err.... it's fairly simple.
Leviathan are the Alpha Predator. They want to protect their positions as Alpha Predator by any means necessary. They create Starjar. Starjar is tasked with wiping out the advanced species via the reapers. Starjar controls evolution to such an extent that no race will evolve far enough to be able to challenge leviathan.
This maintains their positions, as well as providing lots of (harvested) food for squiddy.
The end.
nomnom
They had no interest in wiping things out. They were controllers and dominators, not destroyers. "Tribute does not flow from a dead race".
Their mentality is similar to Aria in ME2, with Patriarch. "She doesn't destroy what she can use."
err.... it's fairly simple.
Leviathan are the Alpha Predator. They want to protect their positions as Alpha Predator by any means necessary. They create Starjar. Starjar is tasked with wiping out the advanced species via the reapers. Starjar controls evolution to such an extent that no race will evolve far enough to be able to challenge leviathan.
This maintains their positions, as well as providing lots of (harvested) food for squiddy.
The end.
nomnom
Okay 
Just face the facts... the reaper plot was stupid.
That's not a fact, that's an opinion.
I still maintain that the Reapers needed no more explanation than they wanted to kill us. Revealing their origins just cheapened them.
Preferences, but for me it's the other way around. Having them as ultimate big bad makes them more boring imo, but it made them more intriguing for me after the Catalyst was revealed. It was a refreshing concept in a video game.
They had no interest in wiping things out. They were controllers and dominators, not destroyers. "Tribute does not flow from a dead race".
Their mentality is similar to Aria in ME2, with Patriarch. "She doesn't destroy what she can use."
I was thinking that it was a troll post of him/her 
I believe it only says that because the Crucible changed it.
Okay, but that's just speculation. There is nothing in the story to suggest that. How would the Crucible make the Bratalyst sentient? The device was always described as simply a tool to defeat the Reapers, and the people who designed it had no knowledge of the Bratalyst that I recall (which tends to happen when writers toss in a god character at the end on a whim). Plus Bratalyst speaks with a knowledge and understanding of past events as if it had lived through them, not as some being that had just woken up for the first time.
The Reapers are just another group in a realm of life (synthetics/AI) that we have been given the opportunity to make peace with rather than simply enslave or kill off. If EDI and geth are said to be people having "souls" in their own rights, and the option exists to forgive-and-forget their transgressions, why treat the Reapers differently?
Because Edi wasn't trying to destroy all the advanced civilizations in the galaxy and the Geth just wanted the right to exist. There was no making peace with the Reapers, negotiation was not an option. The synthesis option was a forced melding of organic and synthetic life that had nothing to do with brokering peace with the Reapers. That would be like saying the West could make peace with ISIS by releasing some biological agent into the earth's atmosphere that turns everyone including ISIS members into bunny rabbits. The synthesis option was especially horrible from a storytelling persepective in that it was tossed in at the last moment with no context. The destroy and control options were always out there for Shepard and the player to morally deliberate on throughout the trilogy, so it flowed naturally for Shepard to choose between those two at the end. If synthesis was to be a valid third option, it needed to be introduced as a possibility at least by the start of ME3, if only from a hypothetical persepective ("What if we could somehow change the Reapers and ourselves to evolve into something greater?"). Personally, I still wouldn't have cared for that direction, but at least it would have given the ending some basis, so synthesis felt like a real choice that was part of the story, and not some writer's hack.
err.... it's fairly simple.
Leviathan are the Alpha Predator. They want to protect their positions as Alpha Predator by any means necessary. They create Starjar. Starjar is tasked with wiping out the advanced species via the reapers. Starjar controls evolution to such an extent that no race will evolve far enough to be able to challenge leviathan.
This maintains their positions, as well as providing lots of (harvested) food for squiddy.
The end.
I personally don't think that you can compare the Rachni, the Krogan or even the Geth with the Reapers in terms of destructive power. The latters simply play in another league. They steamrolled the whole galaxy within months without even really trying.
You can sign all the treaties you want, no nation/race/organization would accept such powerful beings as a neighbors. It has nothing to do with public opinions which you can manipulate with ease. Strategically, the very idea of someone being so much overpowered that they could dictate the fate of the galaxy the way they see fit, even if they actually don't want to, would be simply unacceptable. Look at what's happening every day in the world.
This kind of gets away from my point though, which was to say, we have been given the option to resolve conflict with synthetic forms of life in multiple ways. So, if from the story perspective (which the person I responded to was invoking), limiting the options to genocide or enslavement of them and having no peace option at all is actually less thematically in-line with the narrative than what we did get.
If we really do care about storytelling, then the option to make peace with them should have existed, even if it did not lead to the desired end.
To me, the end-game decision is far more worthwhile than Rannoch as it relates to the question of organic/synthetic relations. It is easy for the player to tell the quarians they need to suck it up and get along -- the player does not empathize with their hard feelings, nor does the player share the mistrust/fear the quarians harbor for geth. What are geth to a soldier who hunts Reapers? Come game end, you are faced with the Catalyst/Reapers in a similar situation. Hard feelings? Check. Fear and mistrust? Check. Now you are feeling what the quarians felt with the geth. How willing are you to accept the same peace you subjected the quarians to?
Now what if geth were more numerous than all other space-faring species put together? What if unshackled EDI could take on Skynet-caliber power? Would we still happily have the quarians make peace with geth on Rannoch, or still defend and respect EDI's personal freedom? Nobody asks themselves those questions because, when you beat the game and turn off the console, you do not have to. And do not want to, since it might actually lend credence to the Catalyst's position (better to believe what you want than accept the truth of things, clearly).
Just face the facts... the reaper plot was stupid.
Well it was still the main/overarching plot of the trilogy whether people like it or not (and count me in the group that did not particularly like it).
It had to be progressed and concluded within the trilogy however weak and unpopular it may have been.
Just face the facts... the reaper plot was stupid.
I think the whole revelation about the Reapers and the history of the galaxy was just very depressing to a lot of people. It turned out that all of civilization going back to the very beginning was just a bunch of unwitting pawns, cows waiting to be slaughtered. Everyone unknowingly living under the shadow of some tyrannical overlord until the time came for the overloard to clean house. I was okay with the premise in spite of it being far-fetched, as long as they kept it simple and not try to justify their motives. Reapers = Bad, must stop them. Instead, the writers started to take the whole thing too seriously at the end, and started to rationalize via the Bratalyst that the Reapers had the right idea, that there really was a problem to be solved (synthetics will always wipe out organics) but it just needed a different solution. Where they failed is that they never proved their case regarding this problem, other than to have the Reapers and Bratalyst say that this is what always happens. The old, "it's true because we say so" argument. Instead of jumping on board with the Bratalyst's position, the writers should have stayed with the premise that the Reapers were simply insane killing machines with a totally misguided prime directive.
I think the whole revelation about the Reapers and the history of the galaxy was just very depressing to a lot of people. It turned out that all of civilization going back to the very beginning was just a bunch of unwitting pawns, cows waiting to be slaughtered. Everyone unknowingly living under the shadow of some tyrannical overlord until the time came for the overloard to clean house. I was okay with the premise in spite of it being far-fetched, as long as they kept it simple and not try to justify their motives. Reapers = Bad, must stop them. Instead, the writers started to take the whole thing too seriously at the end, and started to rationalize via the Bratalyst that the Reapers had the right idea, that there really was a problem to be solved (synthetics will always wipe out organics) but it just needed a different solution. Where they failed is that they never proved their case regarding this problem, other than to have the Reapers and Bratalyst say that this is what always happens. The old, "it's true because we say so" argument. Instead of jumping on board with the Bratalyst's position, the writers should have stayed with the premise that the Reapers were simply insane killing machines with a totally misguided prime directive.
The foreshadowing of themes throughout the Mass Effect trilogy isn't great, the whole "synthetics vs. organics" deal felt conveniently hacked on rather than something meaningful to the core of the franchise.
If anything the biggest theme to Mass Effect is the illusion of free will - ME1 was about galactic civilization's triumphs being revealed as fraudulent and invented for a purpose yet unknown to you. With ME2 even in death Shepard had no choice but to fight as they were brought back and manipulated by TIM to do his bidding. In ME3 the invasion happens no matter what you did to try and stop it; throughout the game your chain is being pulled by TIM being one step ahead and at the very end the Catalyst forces you to make a choice it has pre-determined.
I think the whole revelation about the Reapers and the history of the galaxy was just very depressing to a lot of people. It turned out that all of civilization going back to the very beginning was just a bunch of unwitting pawns, cows waiting to be slaughtered. Everyone unknowingly living under the shadow of some tyrannical overlord until the time came for the overloard to clean house. I was okay with the premise in spite of it being far-fetched, as long as they kept it simple and not try to justify their motives. Reapers = Bad, must stop them. Instead, the writers started to take the whole thing too seriously at the end, and started to rationalize via the Bratalyst that the Reapers had the right idea, that there really was a problem to be solved (synthetics will always wipe out organics) but it just needed a different solution. Where they failed is that they never proved their case regarding this problem, other than to have the Reapers and Bratalyst say that this is what always happens. The old, "it's true because we say so" argument. Instead of jumping on board with the Bratalyst's position, the writers should have stayed with the premise that the Reapers were simply insane killing machines with a totally misguided prime directive.
Not sure if serious...
And gamers still wonder why the mainstream audience thinks that video games are for kids.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Not sure if serious...
And gamers still wonder why the mainstream audience thinks that video games are for kids.
A lot of people don't care for stuff like this in the mainstream either. The Matrix Trilogy got criticism for its end too. As did BSG. They're loved more for their strong starts. Few people want to see Starbuck or Neo act like it's an episode of Touched By an Angel. They want to see them kicking ass.
Guest_ruul_*
Leviathan was released after the main game and is sort of an add-on to the game. It's not required to see the whole picture.
I'm not suggesting the kid is Harbinger. Rather, Harbinger is controlling what it says.
Pretty much every word coming from the kid is something I've recognized Harbinger say at one point or another.
Seen this before in other sci-fi. Antagonist takes the form of a friend or someone you know. Everything he says is a ploy in order to get Shepard to do what the Reapers want.
Or, maybe everything it said is just what they want Shepard to think. The real Reaper leader could be Harbinger, but using this kid, they could make you believe certain things like the kid was the leader all along (a lie). Reapers do have powerful mind control and suggestive abilities.
There was even an episode from a series which pretty much nails down everything in ME3 ending to a T. Everything that played out is done exactly the same way. It had something to do with mind control.
My two cents.
Not sure if serious...
And gamers still wonder why the mainstream audience thinks that video games are for kids.
You'll have to elaborate a bit more than that. Expecting writers in any medium to properly build plot and context in a meaningful and believable way is not "for kids". If you want to have a story about synthetic life versus organic life, great. then make it about that and tell it convincingly, don't just tack it on in the last ten minutes. You want to have a story that can conclude with synthetic and organic life merging together, great. Build a story and a plot around this concept, don't just introduce it with no explanation in the last ten minutes. You sound a bit like Sovereign, i.e., if you don't get the writers' intent then it must be beyond your understanding like it would a kid's. I'm also not quite sure where the sophistication lies with mainstream audiences, or what even constitutes a mainstream audience. I can poke holes in any episode of Game of Thrones or any novel by Stephen King. Of course if we're really talking mainstream audiences, then I guess we're talking about the opinions of NCIS and Dancing with the Stars viewers, and who cares what they think?
You'll have to elaborate a bit more than that. Expecting writers in any medium to properly build plot and context in a meaningful and believable way is not "for kids". If you want to have a story about synthetic life versus organic life, great. then make it about that and tell it convincingly, don't just tack it on in the last ten minutes. You want to have a story that can conclude with synthetic and organic life merging together, great. Build a story and a plot around this concept, don't just introduce it with no explanation in the last ten minutes. You sound a bit like Sovereign, i.e., if you don't get the writers' intent then it must be beyond your understanding like it would a kid's. I'm also not quite sure where the sophistication lies with mainstream audiences, or what even constitutes a mainstream audience. I can poke holes in any episode of Game of Thrones or any novel by Stephen King. Of course if we're really talking mainstream audiences, then I guess we're talking about the opinions of NCIS and Dancing with the Stars viewers, and who cares what they think?
Synthetic vs organic conflict was not introduced in the last few minutes. It was there since ME1. It just wasn't in-your-face type of content and thus flew by a lot of players.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Synthetic vs organic conflict was not introduced in the last few minutes. It was there since ME1. It just wasn't in-your-face type of content and thus flew by a lot of players.
That I agree with.
I only think the virtues of the Reaper viewpoint were introduced at the end. Not the nature of the conflict itself.
If you want to have a story about synthetic life versus organic life, great. then make it about that and tell it convincingly, don't just tack it on in the last ten minutes.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Well, that was kind of what ME1 was all about. I blame ME2 for being about... what was ME2 about, again?
About the world building... and getting to know more sides to the big issues in the setting. Genophage, Geth, Quarians, Cerberus, and possibly giving us a chance to see different sides of the Council idea (whether you destroy the Ascension or not).
Unless you like running from point A to point B and sticking to a main plot. That works for a movie. Not so much for a series (be it TV or games).
Well, that was kind of what ME1 was all about. I blame ME2 for being about... what was ME2 about, again?
ME1 had the geth, and one AI in an optional side mission, but that was it. The fact that the geth were synthetics was incidental to the fact that they were attacking colonies. In that sense, they might as well have been batarians. Or Blue Sun mercenaries.
ME1 had the geth, and one AI in an optional side mission, but that was it. The fact that the geth were synthetics was incidental to the fact that they were attacking colonies. In that sense, they might as well have been batarians. Or Blue Sun mercenaries.
ME1 also had Rogue VI/AI on Luna.
I also suggest watching this: Link
Retour en haut
