So when that turian ship was destroyed before Shepard got to Menae, the turians on the ship weren't killed, but were harvested? Ok. It makes sense now. No one ever dies. They just get harvested. I feel so much better knowing that.
Yeah this one second of blasting heat, when the red beam cut through the hull they felt was the warm glow of friendship. 
Why everyone negates the fact that the reapers are actually trying to SAVE us from self destruction?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why everyone negates the fact that the reapers are actually trying to SAVE us from self destruction?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(1) Because many people think the assertion that synthetics will always kill organics is implausible given the story that came before, and actually, it isn't all that important because you can choose to ignore it. You make a choice about the future, whether or not your reason to do so has anything to do with the Catalyst's assertions.
(2) Because the Reapers don't act like saviours. In fact, *everything* about them screams "evil abomination" into your ears, and nothing "I'm sorry, but this must happen for the sake of organic life".
Which means that yes, you can find a rational rationale under all the BS (as I explained in my Synthesis thread), but it takes some mental acrobatics to get there (unless you're willing to take the antagonist's word for it, but who does that?). As I said elsewhere, the *idea* of the ending scenario is fine, but the execution is horrible.
I also recommend, as a counterpoint with a little more weight, to read this review of ME3, especially the part about the ending. It's pre-EC, but most of the criticism still holds. Especially the part about "under-thought and over-pretentious dialogue" resonates with me - a qualification of what I called simply "bullsh*t".
As I see it, ME3's ending could've been brilliant in the hands of a competent SF writer, but as it is, it's a steaming mess of BS written by people who know nothing of their subject matter and think they can substitute cheap drama and popular misconceptions for their ignorance. The best you can say about it is that the themes they attempted to address with it are still visible, and thus they can be discussed without having to accept the BS. The EC mitigates that impression somewhat, but since it doesn't eliminate the BS, the change isn't significant enough to change my final verdict.
That's true, I forgot : the writers were just guys who didn't know what they were doing. They were only guided by "cool" (never by the meaning of the words). So when they have chosen "reapers" they actually meant "killers" and when they used the word "harvest" it was for "genocide". At the same time, mass Effect 2 didn't talk about "essence of species", it was just for being cool that they used that word, there is no meaning behind it. And Javik talked about space and its memory, it had no purpose and no meaning too.
All of these things are actually linked. If that logic isn't understood, then it's just as if people didn't play Mass Effect but some Call of duty in space. The whole trilogy is about changing our perception, if we didn't do that, we didn't play Mass Effect. If we don't understand the logic of something, then it means that we didn't play/read/watch it.
Still talking about this? Well, a long time ago I did write up something on why I thought the Crucible didn't quite work. You're welcome to read it here if you like. The bottom line was that it was a contraption used solely for narrative purposes thus forgetting it was also a machine with a set of rules governing its operation. Therefore, the endings aren't derived from these rules but from the writers' agenda creating a disconnect. Or something like that. 
I think that people should start to see two sides. For us, yeah, Reapers kill. For Reapers, they don't kill. It's simply our differences in thinking. From the Reaper side, I can understand and see what they mean and why they do what they do, from my own human side I want to scream at them "leave us the f*ck alone, we don't need you to 'ascend' us".
I think that people should start to see two sides. For us, yeah, Reapers kill. For Reapers, they don't kill. It's simply our differences in thinking. From the Reaper side, I can understand and see what they mean and why they do what they do, from my own human side I want to scream at them "leave us the f*ck alone, we don't need you to 'ascend' us".
I could easily make the argument that a forced destructive uploading - and that's the best interpretation of what happens - is a fate worse than death. It's not the point, though. Regardless of what they're actually doing and whether a viewpoint exists from which it can be reasonably interpreted as "saving", the way they go about it, and their appearance and that of their minions, screams "evil abomination". Against that, you have only the assertion of the antagonist. And maybe Legion's in ME2, if you managed to unlock that rare dialogue by speaking with Legion three times before the SM (which necessitates leaving your crew to the Collectors), *and* continuing to play after the SM.
The way they go about it, and their appearance and that of their minions, screams "evil abomination".
Yes, but that's exactly my point. We, as organics feel that way. But put yourself in the shoes of the Reapers (if you can do that, I know many are reluctant to do so) and you get a whole different view on the "killing" process. To them it's a different process than we would describe it, and that, for me at least, is one of the main points that is also mentioned in the game. Organics don't understand the Reapers, they don't understand why they harvest people. To organics, it's just simple killing, but from the Reapers' POV it's something completely different, something positive, something that organics would never ever wish to be because organics perceive it as negative. Organics don't want to be preserved, they don't want to become immortal by being dissolved and pumped through tubes, and certainly not being killed off just because some big machine talks about ascending them.
Just look at this thread. No one here says the Reapers are right in what they do. I don't either. But looking at the whole thing from the Reapers' side, I can understand that for them, what they do is preserving us.
I guess what I want to say is that there's a neutral approach, too, in which we could at least try to understand the Reapers' motivation. Most here take sides, and that's fine, I can understand hating the Reapers and what they do.
To me though they're interesting because I like to see what makes them tick and why they believe what they do to organics is good in their books. But maybe I'm just weird.
That's true, I forgot : the writers were just guys who didn't know what they were doing. They were only guided by "cool" (never by the meaning of the words). So when they have chosen "reapers" they actually meant "killers" and when they used the word "harvest" it was for "genocide".
Yeah, it´s really unheard of, that aggressors commiting atrocities were putting on a positive spin on mass murder, genocide and slavery or had a sweet justification for it in human history.
Yes old chap, our technological and cultural superiority obviously means that we should liberate these filthy savages and show them the light of civilisation, shouldn´t we. It´s really sad that we had to shoot a bunch of them again, but you know spare the rod, spoil the child. its for their own good.
Yes, but that's exactly my point. We, as organics feel that way. But put yourself in the shoes of the Reapers (if you can do that, I know many are reluctant to do so) and you get a whole different view on the "killing" process. To them it's a different process than we would describe it, and that, for me at least, is one of the main points that is also mentioned in the game. Organics don't understand the Reapers, they don't understand why they harvest people. To organics, it's just simple killing, but from the Reapers' POV it's something completely different, something positive, something that organics would never ever wish to be because organics perceive it as negative. Organics don't want to be preserved, they don't want to become immortal by being dissolved and pumped through tubes, and certainly not being killed off just because some big machine talks about ascending them.
Just look at this thread. No one here says the Reapers are right in what they do. I don't either. But looking at the whole thing from the Reapers' side, I can understand that for them, what they do is preserving us.
I guess what I want to say is that there's a neutral approach, too, in which we could at least try to understand the Reapers' motivation. Most here take sides, and that's fine, I can understand hating the Reapers and what they do.
To me though they're interesting because I like to see what makes them tick and why they believe what they do to organics is good in their books. But maybe I'm just weird.
My point wasn't about morals but about aesthetics. Aesthetics in a story, even more so in a visual medium, are used to send messages, and actually can't avoid sending them.
Reaperization is an idea. It's horrible to a normal human but it's about "saving" for the Reapers. Not a problem so far - but consider how that idea is realized in pictures: Reaper minions are gross distortions of the bodies of various species. The Reaperization process isn't clinically neutral, but full of unnecessary suffering, presented in a way that's grossly offensive to our aesthetic sensibilities as well as our moral sensibilities. On the storytelling level, that sends a strong message that you're not supposed to see the Reapers as anything but "evil abominations". You can rationalize your way around that, but the problem of this "abomination aesthetic" remains.
If the Reaperization process were more clinically neutral, the story would send the message that it's open to interpretation, that a more neutral viewpoint may be valid, and that the Reapers' viewpoint is worth taking into consideration even as you do your utmost to stop them. Such a message would naturally lead to different ways to deal with the threat. With the abomination aesthetic, the most natural reponse is annihilation. I appreciate we got the choices that we have, and I've used them, but considering the Reapers' viewpoint is against everything the 2.9 games before the ending screamed into our ears. Personally, I could work with it because I hate being screamed at and I have particular dislike for this abomination aesthetic, so I was motivated to ignore it. But I fully expected the ending to be complete annihilation for the Reapers, because of the way they were presented beyond what they were doing.
Why everyone negates the fact that the reapers are actually trying to SAVE us from self destruction?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because they are saving us from self-destruction by killing us. That's like saying you're saving someone from committing suicide by murdering them and then sticking their organs in a jar.
That's true, I forgot : the writers were just guys who didn't know what they were doing. They were only guided by "cool" (never by the meaning of the words). So when they have chosen "reapers" they actually meant "killers" and when they used the word "harvest" it was for "genocide". At the same time, mass Effect 2 didn't talk about "essence of species", it was just for being cool that they used that word, there is no meaning behind it. And Javik talked about space and its memory, it had no purpose and no meaning too.
All of these things are actually linked. If that logic isn't understood, then it's just as if people didn't play Mass Effect but some Call of duty in space. The whole trilogy is about changing our perception, if we didn't do that, we didn't play Mass Effect. If we don't understand the logic of something, then it means that we didn't play/read/watch it.
You can't lump all the writers together. The writer(s) of ME1 came up with the name "Reapers" and can't be faulted for what inferior writers went on to do with their work. Anyway, I don't understand why you are having such a problem with this. That the Reapers go on to do something with the body doesn't mean they didn't kill the person. When we harvest crops, the plants die. When we "harvest" livestock, they die. Where is the hangup here? Also, remember that not every species is made into a Reaper, yet the Reapers still kill them.
It might be about changing our perception, but they failed horribly. Ieldra has a great post above on a big reason why. I quote it later.
I think that people should start to see two sides. For us, yeah, Reapers kill. For Reapers, they don't kill. It's simply our differences in thinking. From the Reaper side, I can understand and see what they mean and why they do what they do, from my own human side I want to scream at them "leave us the f*ck alone, we don't need you to 'ascend' us".
I have no interest in understanding a horrid monstrosity that is killing everyone.
Just look at this thread. No one here says the Reapers are right in what they do.
Take a closer look. Oddball does this on this page. Others are doing it constantly.
But looking at the whole thing from the Reapers' side, I can understand that for them, what they do is preserving us.
I guess what I want to say is that there's a neutral approach, too, in which we could at least try to understand the Reapers' motivation. Most here take sides, and that's fine, I can understand hating the Reapers and what they do.
To me though they're interesting because I like to see what makes them tick and why they believe what they do to organics is good in their books. But maybe I'm just weird.
What is the value of preserving our organic goop in a metal shell? I fully understand the Reapers' motivation and it's stupid. Their motivation is no justification for what they do.
My point wasn't about morals but about aesthetics. Aesthetics in a story, even more so in a visual medium, are used to send messages, and actually can't avoid sending them.
Reaperization is an idea. It's horrible to a normal human but it's about "saving" for the Reapers. Not a problem so far - but consider how that idea is realized in pictures: Reaper minions are gross distortions of the bodies of various species. The Reaperization process isn't clinically neutral, but full of unnecessary suffering, presented in a way that's grossly offensive to our aesthetic sensibilities as well as our moral sensibilities. On the storytelling level, that sends a strong message that you're not supposed to see the Reapers as anything but "evil abominations". You can rationalize your way around that, but the problem of this "abomination aesthetic" remains.
If the Reaperization process were more clinically neutral, the story would send the message that it's open to interpretation, that a more neutral viewpoint may be valid, and that the Reapers' viewpoint is worth taking into consideration even as you do your utmost to stop them. Such a message would naturally lead to different ways to deal with the threat. With the abomination aesthetic, the most natural reponse is annihilation. I appreciate we got the choices that we have, and I've used them, but considering the Reapers' viewpoint is against everything the 2.9 games before the ending screamed into our ears. Personally, I could work with it because I hate being screamed at and I have particular dislike for this abomination aesthetic, so I was motivated to ignore it. But I fully expected the ending to be complete annihilation for the Reapers, because of the way they were presented beyond what they were doing.
This is one of the smartest posts on this thread and probably this forum. Unfortunately, it's probably lost on many. The people defending the endings largely know nothing about story telling and really don't care.
This makes me think of the opening to Star Wars. You see this massive Star Destroyer chasing this piddly little ship and you immediately know the difference in power between the two sides. Even better, look at Darth Vader's introduction. A tall man in black armor is standing next to shorter stormtroopers wearing white armor in a white hallway. The contrast is extreme and screams "This guy is bad and important."
The organic characters and, more importantly, we the audience, are never given any reason to think being a Reaper is a good thing. Particularly in the West, and even more particularly in the USA, we put an emphasis on the individual. Whatever is "preserved" of a species in making a Reaper, the individuals are lost. They are dead. And of course, all those who are not made into a Reaper are just dead. They are not harvested at all. If they are used, it is to make horrific monsters that serve as Reaper ground troops and will either be the new Collectors or be abandoned to die at the end of the cycle.
That only establishes that the reapers are parasites that use the corpses to replicate themselves.
So do a lot of plant and animal life on this planet.
What separates Reapers into being evil from them?
Why everyone negates the fact that the reapers are actually trying to SAVE us from self destruction?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because they are not trying to save us but organic life in general from being wiped out by synthetic life.
If they were trying to save us then the Reapers first target would have been the Geth. Then they would have hunted down and killed all remaining AI and synthetic life. Then remain like omnipresent beings to ensure no new synthetics are created.
However they kill advanced races, turning them into genetic paste, in order to create a new Reaper. Then they wipe out all knowledge of the threat and hide until they can justify the 'harvest' again.
If they were so determined to save us why did they try to harvest when there was no immediate threat. In the two cycles we have knowledge of (the prothean and our own), the synthetic threat was on the verge of destruction or was not an active threat. Indeed in the latter example the Quarians would have destroyed the Geth without Reaper interference.
Indeed in our own cycle the Reapers bring about the very threat they claim to want to save us from.
So do a lot of plant and animal life on this planet.
What separates Reapers into being evil from them?
Originally I'd have said the difference is that the plants and animals are acting on instinct while the Reapers are intelligent, sapient, and acting out of choice. However, the Catalyst is dumb and just as limited to its programming as an animal is to its instinct. So evil or not is the wrong question. The question is do we oppose them if they come after us. Well if they came after me, I'd kill them. So Destroy is natural.
So do a lot of plant and animal life on this planet.
What separates Reapers into being evil from them?
They are driven by instinct, have no concept of good or evil, they are simply trying to survive.
That doesn't describe the Reapers.
So when that turian ship was destroyed before Shepard got to Menae, the turians on the ship weren't killed, but were harvested?
Of course they were didn't you see the
Never mind.
Why everyone negates the fact that the reapers are actually trying to SAVE us from self destruction?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think anyone was negating this on the last few pages.
Of course the fact that whatever they are trying to 'save' us from is still a speculative threat and that there are other ways to prevent the 'self destruction' -which are positively infinitly better than what the Reapers do- doesn't really help.
I think that people should start to see two sides. For us, yeah, Reapers kill. For Reapers, they don't kill. It's simply our differences in thinking.
Right; but when the Reapers themselves show absolutely zero interest (or maybe they lack the ability) to see things our way, I'm not going to go out of my way to see their way. In fact, when this comes up during the end conversation, we get the totally profound answer --And I quote: "No, you can't"
[...] Whatever is "preserved" of a species in making a Reaper, the individuals are lost. They are dead. And of course, all those who are not made into a Reaper are just dead. They are not harvested at all.
This!
Even if the Legion statement Monica found (Kudos to that, I've never seen that one before!) is true and really means that the reapers are preserving a (shallow copy of) their harvest victims; The original individual is dead. What's even worse -The entire civilisation is dead! There is literally no one and nearly nothing left after the 'preserving' harvest. Only whatever it is that's in a Reapershell, and that is obviously not a continuation of the original civilization. If it were, the Reapers would be different, they would behave different from another.
So do a lot of plant and animal life on this planet.
What separates Reapers into being evil from them?
On that basis? Nothing.
On the basis that the Reapers are self proclaimed saviours of everything and should very well know what it means/ what they are doing to the civilisations and individuals: A whole lot.
Somewhat off-topic, but in regard again to the different viewpoints and the Reaper's arrogance/hybris fitting imo:
To organics, it's just simple killing, but from the Reapers' POV it's something completely different, something positive, something that organics would never ever wish to be because organics perceive it as negative.
I'm not exactly *against* the endings, but I think being able to work with them doesn't mean you should ignore their flaws, and this is a big one. What I find truly astonishing is that the developers were either unaware of this or chose to ignore it.This is one of the smartest posts on this thread and probably this forum. Unfortunately, it's probably lost on many. The people defending the endings largely know nothing about story telling and really don't care.
Actually, Reaper lore is open to the interpretation that individual minds *are* preserved. If you listen to Legion's dialogue in ME2, he says that a Reaper is "billions of organic minds, conjoined within an immortal machine body." Unfortunately, in order to get that dialogue, you need to speak with Legion three times before the SM, which means leaving your crew to the Collectors, *and* speak with him again after the SM. And anyway, I guess for most people this would be a fate *worse* than death.The organic characters and, more importantly, we the audience, are never given any reason to think being a Reaper is a good thing. Particularly in the West, and even more particularly in the USA, we put an emphasis on the individual. Whatever is "preserved" of a species in making a Reaper, the individuals are lost. They are dead. And of course, all those who are not made into a Reaper are just dead. They are not harvested at all. If they are used, it is to make horrific monsters that serve as Reaper ground troops and will either be the new Collectors or be abandoned to die at the end of the cycle.
Aesthetics in a story, even more so in a visual medium, are used to send messages, and actually can't avoid sending them.
Reaperization is an idea. It's horrible to a normal human but it's about "saving" for the Reapers. Not a problem so far - but consider how that idea is realized in pictures: Reaper minions are gross distortions of the bodies of various species. The Reaperization process isn't clinically neutral, but full of unnecessary suffering, presented in a way that's grossly offensive to our aesthetic sensibilities as well as our moral sensibilities. On the storytelling level, that sends a strong message that you're not supposed to see the Reapers as anything but "evil abominations". You can rationalize your way around that, but the problem of this "abomination aesthetic" remains.
If the Reaperization process were more clinically neutral, the story would send the message that it's open to interpretation, that a more neutral viewpoint may be valid, and that the Reapers' viewpoint is worth taking into consideration even as you do your utmost to stop them. Such a message would naturally lead to different ways to deal with the threat. With the abomination aesthetic, the most natural reponse is annihilation. I appreciate we got the choices that we have, and I've used them, but considering the Reapers' viewpoint is against everything the 2.9 games before the ending screamed into our ears. Personally, I could work with it because I hate being screamed at and I have particular dislike for this abomination aesthetic, so I was motivated to ignore it. But I fully expected the ending to be complete annihilation for the Reapers, because of the way they were presented beyond what they were doing.
Of course, I understand your point, but even with sending these messages and pictures, can people not be allowed to take a different look? To look beyond this message aesthetics send? I know the Reapers are doing bad stuff, and create horrible abominations, are ruthless in order to achieve their goals etc., we are made well aware of this after all. But is it wrong to try to see the logic behind them? Why they do what they do?
The aesthetic point after all only matters to us organics again, it evokes a reaction in us, not in the Reapers.
And just because the game screams at us "Reapers are the bad guys! You must hate them!", I like to see both sides. It's a game, and as the player I want to understand as much as possible from both factions.
I have no interest in understanding a horrid monstrosity that is killing everyone.
Oh, I know all too well. Got the message the last time 
Right; but when the Reapers themselves show absolutely zero interest (or maybe they lack the ability) to see things our way, I'm not going to go out of my way to see their way. In fact, when this comes up during the end conversation, we get the totally profound answer --And I quote: "No, you can't"
Even if the Legion statement Monica found (Kudos to that, I've never seen that one before!) is true and really means that the reapers are preserving a (shallow copy of) their harvest victims; The original individual is dead. What's even worse -The entire civilisation is dead! There is literally no one and nearly nothing left after the 'preserving' harvest. Only whatever it is that's in a Reapershell, and that is obviously not a continuation of the original civilization. If it were, the Reapers would be different, they would behave different from another.
As I said, that's fine. I stated that it's in my personal interest to take a look at both sides, everyone can choose that for themselves of course. But it was a post to show there are two different worlds colliding with each other with neither side understanding the other. And it's just a fact the Reapers see their motivations as good, whether you agree with them or not. I could also simply just say, Reapers and organics are both wrong and right, it totally depends on the perspective you put yourself into. And I absolutely agree that they lack the ability to see things from our side. I don't think they're capable of that. Have you read Karpyshyn's novels, Retribution specifically? I took away from it that Reapers are just the way they are, they don't understand that we don't want to be immortal/preserved, so of course they don't see what they do as evil. Their ultimate goal is to preserve knowledge, but they also don't refrain from ruthless actions to achieve it, and they don't even see that what they do is wrong because our morals differ fundamentally.
Yeah, but since the Reapers believe in the Synthetic-Organic conflict*, the outcomes would be:
1. Let the civilisation die (let's just assume Synthetics do in fact destroy all organics in the future), no preservation takes place. The civilisation is lost in the same way as an individual dying from natural causes is lost.
2. Harvest them before the civilisation is lost forever. To them this is of course the better solution. They don't see why we wouldn't want to be turned into goo.
*Of course, if you don't believe in the conflict, that point is moot, but that's what we're presented with in the game from the Catalyst's side.
Of course you can look beyond it. You do it, and I do it, as evidenced by my various threads about this. As for "this only applies to organics", that doesn't apply in this case, since this works on the storytelling level, not in-world, and everyone who plays the game is human and is subject to the message.Of course, I understand your point, but even with sending these messages and pictures, can people not be allowed to take a different look? To look beyond this message aesthetics send? I know the Reapers are doing bad stuff, and create horrible abominations, are ruthless in order to achieve their goals etc., we are made well aware of this after all. But is it wrong to try to see the logic behind them? Why they do what they do?
The aesthetic point after all only matters to us organics again, it evokes a reaction in us, not in the Reapers.
And just because the game screams at us "Reapers are the bad guys! You must hate them!", I like to see both sides. It's a game, and as the player I want to understand as much as possible from both factions.
Actually, Reaper lore is open to the interpretation that individual minds *are* preserved. If you listen to Legion's dialogue in ME2, he says that a Reaper is "billions of organic minds, conjoined within an immortal machine body." Unfortunately, in order to get that dialogue, you need to speak with Legion three times before the SM, which means leaving your crew to the Collectors, *and* speak with him again after the SM. And anyway, I guess for most people this would be a fate *worse* than death.
For the same reason, Reaper lore is open to the interpretation that a Reaper is a valid remnant of its constituent civilization. Again, though, it takes ignoring the abomination aesthetics to get there. The presentation of the Reapers sends the message there's nothing left worth preserving in them, and with no reliable information about what a Reaper is and how it's made to do to others what was done to its constituents (which I've speculated about in my Reaper Mind Control Hypothesis), that message isn't so easy to ignore.
I do remember the line about many minds or voices, but I have a hard time seeing them as true individuals anymore.
As to the Reaper being a valid remnant, that is in no way open to interpretation. It's a killing machine with organic goop in it. That is not people, civilization, architecture, culture, art, sports, values, etc.
2. Harvest them before the civilisation is lost forever. To them this is of course the better solution. They don't see why we wouldn't want to be turned into goo.
The other problem is that we are told or shown what value this has, either for the civilization or even the Reapers themselves.
By "ascending" a species they didn´t preserve it. They destroyed their homes, their art, their culture, their lifestyle, their very bodies, their own ability to shape their future for good or ill and forced them together in one new body. By doing that they reduced them to an unrecognizable minimum. And that´s the generous interpretation. Our surroundings, our social interactions, our very bodies shape what and who we are. The Reapers took that away from the species they ascended without them having any say in the matter, they didn´t preserve much they just put them into a coma at best. it´s like saying an embalmed corpse is the same person as when the guy was alive, just that the Reapers preserved a bit of the mind and blew up the corpses.
It's a philosophical question: if your mind, your emotions and thought processes etc are uploaded into AI hardware to run, is that you in any meaningful way?I do remember the line about many minds or voices, but I have a hard time seeing them as true individuals anymore.
I disagree. If the minds of the constituents still exist in any meaningful way, then their memories also survive and you could theoretically bring the civilization back to life. That's the only way the Catalyst's claim about preservation makes any sense at all. Were it not so, the Catalyst would simply be lying. I grant you, thinking about the details and side effects of this idea of preservation makes your head spin, but at the core it's not an impossible idea.As to the Reaper being a valid remnant, that is in no way open to interpretation. It's a killing machine with organic goop in it. That is not people, civilization, architecture, culture, art, sports, values, etc.
Retour en haut
