You know what's not up for debate? Using spaces after punctuation. That said, is this a serious question? What would I do if a race of sentient machines came along and said I had to die for the good of future organic races, who would then also have to die for the race of organics that comes after them, and so on, and so on? I'd do what I do with all my Shepards. I destroy them.
Nothing else to say here,I mean...really!
Nothing else to say here,I mean...really!
Ok, before we all go ahead and insult each other, can I ask a question:
Is the matter whether the reapers have some sort of justification for their actions even relevant? It's pretty self evident that they do (why else would they do anything).
Isn't the relevant question rather if that justification, the reaper's cause if you will, is worth the cost? And remember, yes, the reapers may want to preserve organic life as a whole but they themselves have constructed the scenario that they perceive as danger in their own imagination and while they preserve life, they do it at the cost of a future for it, keeping it in stagnation, in a cycle of eternal suffering.
Shepard asks the catalyst this very important question even: "But you're taking away our future. Without future, we have no hope. Without hope... we might as well be a machine... programmed to do what we're told."
Unfortunately the catalyst deflects the question by then talking about the future he has in mind (again, limiting the choices of the organics). It's a shame Shepard never follows up on this line of thought and demands an answer from the catalyst.
If you really agree with the reapers, then you should let them continue the cycle. If not, than the fact that they have a side is not really the pertinent issue.
Ok,imagine that what the reapers tell you is true and organics are really bound to destroy themselves if the reapers don't constantly restart their existence.What would you do?
I would use my 50,000 years of nap time to figure out a way to get rid of those synthetics that would pose a threat to life in the galaxy, instead of slaughtering those that I'm supposed to protect.
Ok, before we all go ahead and insult each other, can I ask a question:
Is the matter whether the reapers have some sort of justification for their actions even relevant? It's pretty self evident that they do (why else would they do anything).
Isn't the relevant question rather if that justification, the reaper's cause if you will, is worth the cost? And remember, yes, the reapers may want to preserve organic life as a whole but they themselves have constructed the scenario that they perceive as danger in their own imagination and while they preserve life, they do it at the cost of a future for it, keeping it in stagnation, in a cycle of eternal suffering.
Shepard asks the catalyst this very important question even: "But you're taking away our future. Without future, we have no hope. Without hope... we might as well be a machine... programmed to do what we're told."
Unfortunately the catalyst deflects the question by then talking about the future he has in mind (again, limiting the choices of the organics). It's a shame Shepard never follows up on this line of thought and demands an answer from the catalyst.
If you really agree with the reapers, then you should let them continue the cycle. If not, than the fact that they have a side is not really the pertinent issue.
The question of the Reapers' motivation is independent from agreeing with them or not. I think there is a consensus that the cycles must end, but why the Reapers are doing this may influence *your* rationale for how you deal with them in the end.
And BTW, I tend to choose the lower option in that conversation.
ICompletelyAgreeThatThere'sNothingLeftToSayBecauseI'mRightAboutManyThingsAndThankYouForRecognizingThat.
I didn't mean you are right, I meant there is no point in debating this with you.
I didn't mean you are right, I meant there is no point in debating this with you.
I agree that there's no point in debating it, because the premise of your question is ridiculous. What would you do?
If you really agree with the reapers, then you should let them continue the cycle. If not, than the fact that they have a side is not really the pertinent issue.
Indeed. An inordinate amount of time has been spent trying to justify or disprove the Catalyst's reasoning behind the cycle. The reasoning doesn't matter when the conclusion is a non-starter. The player is not supposed to agree with the Catalyst's cycle solution, though things become murky when we talk about whether the player is supposed to agree that organic/synthetic conflict is inevitable. This goes back to Ieldra's point about aesthetics. However you approve or disapprove of Synthesis, it's certainly both 1. the Catalyst's preferred solution and 2. the one the game visually and mechanically presents as the best (center with a beam of light, Jesus jump, highest EMS ending unlock besides a Destroy easter egg). Shepard may or may not agree about organic/synthetic conflict, but the game presents that question as the relevant one.
I would use my 50,000 years of nap time to figure out a way to get rid of those synthetics that would pose a threat to life in the galaxy, instead of slaughtering those that I'm supposed to protect.
True, but the problem is that organics will always build synthetics, so if you allow organic civilizations to continue, you'd need a permanent watch rather than an intervention every 50k years, maybe even some kind of AI god to keep those civilizations in line. Better than Reaperization, yes, but this scenario has its own set of problems.
True, but the problem is that organics will always build synthetics, so if you allow organic civilizations to continue, you'd need a permanent watch rather than an intervention every 50k years, maybe even some kind of AI god to keep those civilizations in line. Better than Reaperization, yes, but this scenario has its own set of problems.
Isn't that what started all of this though? The Catalyst ended up twisting its purpose to "destroy organics" when that wasn't the intention. So how do you create an AI god that won't twist its purpose?
I agree that there's no point in debating it, because the premise of your question is ridiculous. What would you do?
The premise of my question is the premise of the ending itself.Last time I chose to destroy them but I am not sure this is the right solution(if there is one).
Did you manage to experience a catharsis or you still rely on what you've read or what you are told?
I don't see why I should talk to you. You might have some weird definition of any word and get mad at me for using the actual dictionary definition instead of yours.
The premise of my question is the premise of the ending itself.Last time I chose to destroy them but I am not sure this is the right solution(if there is one).
Okay then. I'm working from the premise that when something is trying to kill you and your entire species, you don't just let it happen. You do everything you can to get rid of that something, and for me, that means Destroy. Your solution seems to be to choose Refuse and let the cycle repeat, because that's what's going to happen anyway, and I don't agree that that's the necessary end of sentient organic life.
The question of the Reapers' motivation is independent from agreeing with them or not. I think there is a consensus that the cycles must end, but why the Reapers are doing this may influence *your* rationale for how you deal with them in the end.
And BTW, I tend to choose the lower option in that conversation.
You are right, it's about more than just letting the cycle continue or not. But I think ultimately how you deal with them is up to your opinion about their motives more than about you realizing that they have motives.
When fraggle, oddball or angol_fear say that they get the reaper's view of things, I wonder what their concluded implication of that is supposed to be. Would they be ok with the reapers continuing the cycle? If not, what does it matter? They would still have to at the very least oppose the reapers methods and then I'd have to ask what the last page was all about. We'd all be in the same boat again with the only question remaining whether or not one accepts their premise.
If you agree with their premise, synthesis or control may seem like the right choice, if you don't, destroy is the one to go with. If you take the entire matter to a very abstract, very philosophical disagreement, then refuse is your option. In either case, it is your opinion on the reaper's motives that makes the difference, not the motive itself.
True, but the problem is that organics will always build synthetics, so if you allow organic civilizations to continue, you'd need a permanent watch rather than an intervention every 50k years, maybe even some kind of AI god to keep those civilizations in line. Better than Reaperization, yes, but this scenario has its own set of problems.
Herein already lies the problem for me. This reason is already theoretical, imaginary even. The reapers have no proof of this future which they declare inevitable (they cannot have the proof because organics still exist). Therefore, I have to reject the premise before even considering whether or not the cost is justified.
For this reason alone, the justification for the horrible things I have to commit during any ending choice is in my opinion standing on very shaky ground.
This has nothing to do with the fact the reapers believe in their premise but it has everything to do with the question whether or not I believe in it.
Modifié par MrFob, 18 mars 2016 - 06:53 .
I don't see why I should talk to you. You might have some weird definition of any word and get mad at me for using the actual dictionary definition instead of yours.
I should not interfere with your gradual understanding what common things in life are.Something may go wrong.
Not that catharsis is a common thing though,but still...
True, but the problem is that organics will always build synthetics, so if you allow organic civilizations to continue, you'd need a permanent watch rather than an intervention every 50k years, maybe even some kind of AI god to keep those civilizations in line. Better than Reaperization, yes, but this scenario has its own set of problems.
I agree. Supposing the synthetic threat were real, I don't think that the 50,000 years long cycles are a good idea, either. Even with the standard modus operandi we know from the game, how do they know for sure that some civilisations won't develop faster? One cycle they might wake up too late. Keeping watch indeed sounds like a better idea.
I see what you mean with keeping the civilisations in line and I agree that it's a much better concept than what we've got. On the other hand, I can't say I like the idea of such meddling. It's like you said, it definitely has its downsides.
I think ultimately how you deal with them is up to your opinion about their motives.
If you agree with their premise, synthesis or control may seem like the right choice, if you don't, destroy is the one to go with. If you take the entire matter to a very abstract, very philosophical disagreement, then refuse is your option. In either case, it is your opinion on the reaper's motives that makes the difference, not the motive itself.
Destroy is not necessarily what you'd go with if you don't agree with the Reapers. In such a case, you're still choosing based on what you believe to be the best end-result for the galaxy.
Wasn't keeping watch Sovereign's job? I don't think that there's anything that rules out 50 000 years just being a typical cycle length rather than a ticking clock.I agree. Supposing the synthetic threat were real, I don't think that the 50,000 years long cycles are a good idea, either. Even with the standard modus operandi we know from the game, how do they know for sure that some civilisations won't develop faster? One cycle they might wake up too late. Keeping watch indeed sounds like a better idea.
Destroy is not necessarily what you'd go with if you don't agree with the Reapers. In such a case, you're still choosing based on what you believe to be the best end-result for the galaxy.
This is true, sorry I neglected that. But it doesn't really enter into the question I had. I edited my above post to make it a little clearer what I was getting at (think I was a bit vague before).
I should not interfere with your gradual understanding what common things in life are.Something may go wrong.
Not that catharsis is a common thing though,but still...
Says the 32-year-old who is just now realizing that he doesn't know everything...
Ok, before we all go ahead and insult each other, can I ask a question:
Is the matter whether the reapers have some sort of justification for their actions even relevant? It's pretty self evident that they do (why else would they do anything).
Isn't the relevant question rather if that justification, the reaper's cause if you will, is worth the cost? And remember, yes, the reapers may want to preserve organic life as a whole but they themselves have constructed the scenario that they perceive as danger in their own imagination and while they preserve life, they do it at the cost of a future for it, keeping it in stagnation, in a cycle of eternal suffering.
Shepard asks the catalyst this very important question even: "But you're taking away our future. Without future, we have no hope. Without hope... we might as well be a machine... programmed to do what we're told."
Unfortunately the catalyst deflects the question by then talking about the future he has in mind (again, limiting the choices of the organics). It's a shame Shepard never follows up on this line of thought and demands an answer from the catalyst.
If you really agree with the reapers, then you should let them continue the cycle. If not, than the fact that they have a side is not really the pertinent issue.
Reapers never started the cycle of conflict between organic and synthetics. They were created in responds to the repeat conflict and loss of life and civilizations. The AI makes it pretty clear the Reapers were created as a last way to solve the problem. It even admits it is not a perfect solution.
You ever play with a calculator just for fun? Adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing over and over again until it overloads the calculator and it goes Error? And the only way to clear it is to hit the clear memory button on the calculator or turn it off and back on again. Wiping the active memory. To put it in the simplest terms that is what the AI does with the Reapers because organics and synthetic conflict follows this logic. Regardless of what numbers or what order you add or multiply it still comes out to the error screen. And then there is only one way to solve or prevent the problem for a short time anyways. Wiping everything out and starting over.
Blaming the Reapers for keeping the cycle going is like blaming atomic weaponry for all the conflict in the world. It was created in responds to a problem. Namely WW2. It did not create the conflict it was simply created in responds to it in an attempt to solve the conflict. If they were all removed tomorrow it wouldn't stop conflict from happening in the world. Because they are not what creates conflict.
Shepard's quote you stated was more of an eye roller to me then any deep importance because it ignores the society that is build in the game. There is suffering everywhere in the ME universe even during ME1 and ME2. You don't even need to take any Reaper related actions into account. The universe they created clearly shows there are people out there who's biggest hope is getting their next meal. That they hope they aren't thrown in prison or killed in Omega's case for sleeping or wondering into the wrong area. Who barely get by day to day needing to give their hard earned credits to a gang to keep them safe from another gang. And go to bed at night hoping that they keep their promise. It isn't an inspiring line at all. It is far more groan worthy then anything. When the best some people can hope for is to not die of some illness/bullet/stab wound in the gutter that statement is idiotic.
There's conflict between organics so it seems pretty obvious that there will be conflict between organics and synthetics.
The basis behind the claims that this conflict is terminal seems highly flawed.
The means of addressing it is highly bigoted and prejudicial on top of being violent wasteful mess that defeats its preservation aims in all but the most basic sense.
True, but you need a hook for evaluating the Reapers' motivations for yourself. 100% guesswork isn't very satisfying. So I maintain that it's good that the story provided a movitation. Whether you believe that, or even whether you think it makes any sense at all, that's a different question.If you agree with their premise, synthesis or control may seem like the right choice, if you don't, destroy is the one to go with. If you take the entire matter to a very abstract, very philosophical disagreement, then refuse is your option. In either case, it is your opinion on the reaper's motives that makes the difference, not the motive itself.
That's not quite true. If you'd need total proof in order to implement prevention measures, you'd never try to prevent any extinction event at all. In reality, this would be matter of estimated probability of the event vs. the cost of the prevention measures. Here, the question is rather can you suspend your disbelief if this is presented in the a story as an assertion without a book of data and a computer full of simulations? The scenario doesn't fail because it's implausible. It fails because the story that came before let us have good relations with synthetics and even prevent an all-out war between an organic and a synthetic species, if you can call it that with synthetics. Of course neither are those proof it won't happen, but you can't have such proof unless you let an eternity pass, and those parts of the story are narratively significant.Herein already lies the problem for me. This reason is already theoretical, imaginary even. The reapers have no proof of this future which they declare inevitable (they cannot have the proof because organics still exist). Therefore, I have to reject the premise before even considering whether or not the cost is justified.
For this reason alone, the justification for the horrible things I have to commit during any ending choice is in my opinion standing on very shaky ground.
This has nothing to do with the fact the reapers believe in their premise but it has everything to do with the question whether or not I believe in it.
Did you manage to experience a catharsis or you still rely on what you've read or what you are told?
If I relied on what I was told, I'd think ME3's ending was brilliant 
Blaming the Reapers for keeping the cycle going is like blaming atomic weaponry for all the conflict in the world. It was created in responds to a problem. Namely WW2. It did not create the conflict it was simply created in responds to it in an attempt to solve the conflict. If they were all removed tomorrow it wouldn't stop conflict from happening in the world. Because they are not what creates conflict.
Retour en haut