ME3 End: Do you agree with the Reapers?
- Thread starter Jfswift
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why should we believe the starchild? What makes it better than the other AIs? If all AI are bound to betray organics as he says, who says he doesn't betray us? Why are we forced to accept a short explanation at the very end of the game without having any option to question his goals?Nimcha said:
You can if you want. I actually appreciate the degree of rationalization that goes into trying to make sense of some of this. I do want it made clear, though, that I think what you and Sajuuk are doing here is a form of fan fiction. And that's not me trying to denigrate it, it's me saying that all of this is speculation and hypotheses, because the game's writers didn't feel it was necessary to include sufficient information/motivation for any of it to make sense without the player/viewer/reader filling in a lot of blanks with their imagination. I ADMIRE your imagination. But I don't think it excuses poor/rushed/sloppy storytelling.Nimcha said:
The 'everything will be bad no matter what' argument is a cowards argument. So no I don't agree.
Welp, it's gonna be bad no matter what we do(cuz we said so) so let's murder everything to save them. That. Doesn't. Make. Sense.
Welp, it's gonna be bad no matter what we do(cuz we said so) so let's murder everything to save them. That. Doesn't. Make. Sense.
I think it would be more poignant and make more sense to just let everybody die and let the next cycle take their chances.Nimcha said:
Well, I'd like to think this is what the writers intended when they said they wanted to ending to create discussion. I try to fill in as many gaps as possible with knowledge from the actual game universe, and for me most of it then makes sense.BloatedGuppy said:
I've dealt with open endings before, and I don't think it's necessarily poor, rushed or sloppy. Though in this instance there are still some things not readily explainable (the Normandy sequence mostly).
Other than that, the biggest reason I don't have a big problem with this ending is that it allows people to continue thinking about the universe they themselves more or less shaped with their Shepard. The universe and story set it in that I created by playing my Shepard is most likely vastly different from yours, even though the biggest difference boils down to one big choice between three options.
I'm saying that the whole explanation of the starchild is flawed. To many informations are withheld and we are forced to suddenly believe an entirely new character. We don't know what consequences our choices have and for all we know we might just have doomed everything we fought for anyways. It's an incomplete ending, based on a flawed character with a paradoxical motive.Nimcha said:
That's... pretty much the point of all the games in the series. If you already knew what consequences your choices would have, what's the point in providing a choice at all? Take the rachni queen. Saving her could possibly doom the entire galaxy to a new rachni invasion. You don't know. That's what makes a choice relevant.lapan said:
In fact, I'd go so far as in saying the Catalyst provides you with a lot more information than the aforementioned rachni queen. The Catalyst explains what happens after each choice.
God, I'm getting annoyed again. You do all that build up, for what? Some fucking Neon Genesis bullshit.
I hear that, but I don't think this was a particularly positive form of speculation, and the fairly high level of community outrage would seem to support that. There are lots of ways to set up compelling cliff hangers or plot points to power speculation without doing what was done. I especially don't want to have to speculate about why characters are suddenly exhibiting bizarre/inexplicable behavior or why people are coming back from the dead. That's speculation I could do without. And I don't want to have to speculate about whether or not the Space Child was an unreliable narrator. If you're going to have an unreliable narrator or a red herring, you really need a reveal at some point.Nimcha said:
No, I know you don't. We're in disagreement about that, but it's okay. People are free to love what they love, and if you love the ending, it's not my place to tell you you're wrong for doing so. I wish I could love the ending. I've loved a lot of controversial endings. This one really burned me, and the more I've debated it, the more I've tried to rationalize it, the more I've combed over what they've given us, the more irritated I've become.Nimcha said:
Do I agree with the villain?Jfswift said:
Not one single bit. The logic the Reapers had of organics and synthetics duking it out to the death is silly to the utmost, because not only does it completely ignore the fact that A)synthetics and organics can work together for a common goal (A point so clear that it actually exists in the game) but B) that all organics fight each other. It's called life. We're hardwired to drive towards our goals, and outdo our potential competitors, which may sometimes lead to conflict. It's unfortunate, but it happens. However, if you've ever looked at history, I can say with pretty good surety that we as a species have never wiped ours selves out. This is because our desire to live is one of those instincts that drive us more than any other. The only way to succeed is to ensure that we don't get ourselves killed, and mutually-assured destruction serves no one's survival instinct. Even synthetic life, considering the electronic nature of them, will have some sort of aversion to being dead in one form or another, so even they would want to prevent their destruction. If organics and sythetics go to war, both sides would sue for peace if the they felt that the war would end in their extinction, so the Reapers have committed mass genocide for eons because their leader is a twit who can't figure out something that any sentience being knows intrinsically.
Honestly, fuck that ending.
Yeah, but if I had to choose between everybody dying and this, I would have killed off everybody. At least it wouldn't have created plot holes and left people with a million questions.Nimcha said:
I the writers wanted speculation from the audience, then they left way too many things open ended for anyone to get much satisfaction.
And to me having the audience speculate what happens after the end of the third chapter in the trilogy is just a lazy cop out. And in this case it's not even a well told or well thought out lazy cop out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey1cCgdgOEw (I can't get the youtube linking to work >.<)
Javik says it really well.
But just because there is a peace between Geth and Quarians right now doesn't mean they won't grow and try to wipe out Organics further down the line. As well as Humanity has also been toying with AI systems, so what if that goes rogue and builds a massive amount of creatures that wipes out anything and everything because humanity decided not to follow Council regulations?
To me, the Reaper's Ideas make completely logical sense, if they had wiped out all synthetics and left all organics left, how long would it take for the organics to rebuild the synthetics all over again? And the entire process was pointless to complete.
Now wiping out the organics what know how to create synthetics removes any knowledge that could recreate synthetics for a large number of years, (Say up to 50,000).
Javik says it really well.
But just because there is a peace between Geth and Quarians right now doesn't mean they won't grow and try to wipe out Organics further down the line. As well as Humanity has also been toying with AI systems, so what if that goes rogue and builds a massive amount of creatures that wipes out anything and everything because humanity decided not to follow Council regulations?
To me, the Reaper's Ideas make completely logical sense, if they had wiped out all synthetics and left all organics left, how long would it take for the organics to rebuild the synthetics all over again? And the entire process was pointless to complete.
Now wiping out the organics what know how to create synthetics removes any knowledge that could recreate synthetics for a large number of years, (Say up to 50,000).
You're ascribing a bizarre motivation to the Reapers here, though. "How long would it take", and "This way they get a 50,000 year break". Are the Reapers just looking to maximize their vacation time? Who cares how long it takes? Just fly around blowing up new synthetic factories on a daily basis if you need to. It's not like the Reapers would realistically be heading back out into Deep Space before getting a call and thinking "Aw man...more synthetics? This sucks! We gotta find a way to get a longer break".tendaji said:
As for Javik, Javik is not presented to us as an objective observer. How is Javik's view of the universe and his particular brand of fatalism any more compelling or truthful than anyone else's?
But they don't know for sure, so basically they are killing trillions and trillions of people on a hunch, doesn't that seem a little silly to you?tendaji said:
SajuukKhar said:
^What they have said, I have always felt that the underlying essence of the Mass Effect universe was always, that as cold, unsympathetic and incomprehensible as the Reapers are to us, they are the necessary evil that preserves the continuity of organic life as a whole. It isn't the most ideal solution, but it is a solution none the less and one that has been in effect for who knows how long.tendaji said:
The phrase "You have more choice than you deserve" I think for me was the line that the catalyst said that really made it hit home just how methodical and unsympathetic the thinking behind it is. The fact that they even allowed us time to enjoy some merit of a civilization before being removed I guess is their way of saying what they never could, "your welcome, enjoy it while it lasts". The conversations with Sovereign and Legion are always the highlights of my playthroughs because they hint at a much darker, colder vision of the cosmos beyond anything organics could understand or accept and to me that is as fascinating as it is terrifying.
Do I agree with the Reapers? Of course not, I think its safe to say that no organic would ever agree with them if they value their soul of their culture, but in the words of Sovereign.....
"Reaper? A label created by the Protheans to give voice to their destruction. In the end, what they chose to call us is irrelevant, we simply are. Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither, and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything. We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it".
Nimcha said:
Alright, something just occurred to me, so I'll ask you guys, as you seem like the likeliest candidates to at least try and make sense of this.SajuukKhar said:
So you're the Reapers. You're an advanced form of Synthetic, or Synthetic/Organic hybrid life. you've decided on this Cycle theory, and you set about laying out the Mass Relays and Citadel as elaborate honey traps so you can direct the growth of organic life to make things easier for yourself when it's harvesting time.
Why on earth would you not prepare them? Indoctrinate them, in a way? You're clearly familiar with the concept. Why not instill in them the idea, the religion, that every 50,000 years they're going to "ascend" or something? Why not make it positive? Why not present yourself as a friend? As a god? As a benevolent force? A protector?
Furthermore, why not make it painless? Why not make yourself appear noble? Why create the most menacing looking vessels imaginable, and then crash around exploding everything with giant lasers, while sending monstrosities bursting through doors to violently savage people? Are you not just maximizing hostility and resistance and making your job unnecessarily difficult, not to mention extraordinarily traumatic for the species you are ostensibly working to protect?