Maybe they abandoned it because it, well, actually and obviously justifies genocide and that thought wouldn't sit too well with too many people?SajuukKhar said:
Why do you think The Reapers did it?
- Thread starter Ziggy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because the reason in the game makes perfect sense, from a machine logic perspective. Of course, it's not like anyone will admit that, since it goes against their argument. So instead of having a slightly less supported argument they choose to just look dense instead.
I would have preferred the Reaper's reasons to have remained a mystery even after destroying them. As Sovereign said their existence was supposed to be beyond the comprehension of organics. Revealing their secret(especially the one they decided to go with)just completely ruins them. The mystery, the awe and the fear they once induced leaves when you realize they are just the playthings of some stupid AI godchild.
I would have been able to overlook that though, had they actually made a proper ending. Instead we get some random jungle planet with no explanation of what is going on, what happens to your squad, the fleets stranded in Sol and what effects your decisions throughout the series had in the aftermath. Hopefully that will at least be fixed in the "extended cut".
I would have been able to overlook that though, had they actually made a proper ending. Instead we get some random jungle planet with no explanation of what is going on, what happens to your squad, the fleets stranded in Sol and what effects your decisions throughout the series had in the aftermath. Hopefully that will at least be fixed in the "extended cut".
I don't think that ever could have happened, not after bioware came under EA. Leaving something that ambiguous takes a lot of guts, and takes some defending, because people can just claim you were lazy. EA doesn't seem that brave to me, they seem more likely to take the dumbed down safe route. It's also counting on you knowing the other games well, and EA probably isn't trusting enough of the fanbase for that. /end rant, preparing for criticism.Tank207 said:
I would love to see what concrete evidence helped you arrive at this conclusion and subsequent assertion.Phlakes said:
That... actually doesn't sound much better than what we got tbh. It at least explains what was supposed to be so important about Heastrom in ME2, but to me that just seems to have exactly the same problem of trying far too hard to be clever.SajuukKhar said:
Like I said in my above post, the best 'big bad' villains (not necessarily villains like Edmund from 'King Lear' who are smaller and more human, and therefore suit being relate-able to the audience) normally have simple or just completely ambiguous motivations, because in this sort of story the hero is the centre, while the villain is the challenge that the hero must overcome. You follow this sort of narrative for 5 years, but then pull a twist at the end which tries to make the story all about what the villain wants, and you just leave your audience thinking "wtf? I'm supposed to appreciate/sympathise with the giant genocidal doom-bots now?! I thought this story was about Shepard and his friends, not the Reapers."
Like that guy who made the 40 minute video on the ending said, if you're going to have complex, ethical themes (like the genophage and the Quarian/Geth war) in a story such as this, that's fine, but you get that stuff out of the way beforehand. The ending is where you bring the main story in for a nice easy landing, not where you pull new and complex motivations straight out of your arse at the last minute.
Yeah, but evolve to what? To an advanced civilisation to then be wiped by the Reapers? It doesnt make that much sense since in the end they make it obsulete.Moth_Monk said:
Is it not possible to argue ANYTHING makes sense from machine logic point of view, based on the coding of said machine? (this is NOT my point of view, just felt the counterpoint should be made)Innegativeion said:
Well, there's nothing concrete either way, but the Reapers keep advanced organics from destroying all organics by harvesting them, letting primitive organics develop. It even goes back to Garrus (I think) who was talking about the calculus of war, sacrificing some to save all. The people who deny that and throw around the Xzibit meme are being hyperbolic and short sighted.Innegativeion said:
Yes, so then the next primitive organics can develop. That's why it's called a cycle. Because it's a cycle.josemlopes said:
Well, I'll say it again, because if I can think of it surely the FUCKING REAPERS should have thought of it;Phlakes said:
Destroy the synthetics, not their creators. Wait for a synthetic race to destroy their creator's civilization and kill the synthetics. Problem solve. Hell, maybe they could even remain in the milky way this way. They could be the robot police. They'd sacrifice a helluvuh lot less organics they're supposedly preserving, plus killing one race of synthetics seems easier than killing a galaxy of life.
also,
geth and quarians make nice. The entire basis for the reaper's existence (creator necessarily killed by creations) is nullified.
It hurts me every time I see how many people intentionally misinterpret the reason the Reaper gave.
The reason is valid and it's better than half the stories I've read on the internet. They harvest ADVANCED life forms. Other synthetics could kill ALL life forms. We are doing it all the time, we do something bad to prevent something much worse.
And thinking just a bit about organics in general, the peace between the Geth and the rest wouldn't last long. Logically, you want to destroy the root of your problems. Geth think logically. So if the root of their problems are organics, they will destroy them. That is as simple as the alphabet.
They didn't see any other way than this one. It's better to kill of those who are able to create advanced AI than to kill the AI every time over and over again. Instead of the Reaper going to war with those who could destroy the universe every few 100 years, they can harvest advanced life forms every 50.000 years. Much simpler and the chance of failure close to 0.
Because the Reaper have unlimited resources to fight Synthetics over and over and over and over and over again while the same Synthetics are getting stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger...
Do you really think that once they kill the Synthetics, the Organics will never create new?
The Prothean did, the Quarian did, the Human did, the Asari or Turian do at least some research on it. We, organics, will repeat our mistakes over and over again until the same mistakes destroy us.
We have over 4k years of history telling us that war is bad, jet look, people wage wars. How do you explain that?
As I said above, it's easier (and safer) to harvest advanced civilizations once every 50.000 years than to go into war with Synthetics every 200 years. Don't don't forget that to advanced organics could just become bored and start killing off whole species simply because they can.
The reason is valid and it's better than half the stories I've read on the internet. They harvest ADVANCED life forms. Other synthetics could kill ALL life forms. We are doing it all the time, we do something bad to prevent something much worse.
And thinking just a bit about organics in general, the peace between the Geth and the rest wouldn't last long. Logically, you want to destroy the root of your problems. Geth think logically. So if the root of their problems are organics, they will destroy them. That is as simple as the alphabet.
They didn't see any other way than this one. It's better to kill of those who are able to create advanced AI than to kill the AI every time over and over again. Instead of the Reaper going to war with those who could destroy the universe every few 100 years, they can harvest advanced life forms every 50.000 years. Much simpler and the chance of failure close to 0.
Riiiiiiiight.Innegativeion said:
Because the Reaper have unlimited resources to fight Synthetics over and over and over and over and over again while the same Synthetics are getting stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger...
Do you really think that once they kill the Synthetics, the Organics will never create new?
The Prothean did, the Quarian did, the Human did, the Asari or Turian do at least some research on it. We, organics, will repeat our mistakes over and over again until the same mistakes destroy us.
We have over 4k years of history telling us that war is bad, jet look, people wage wars. How do you explain that?
As I said above, it's easier (and safer) to harvest advanced civilizations once every 50.000 years than to go into war with Synthetics every 200 years. Don't don't forget that to advanced organics could just become bored and start killing off whole species simply because they can.
I always thought it was just for food really. I mean, they believe themselves to be far above the organics who they see as livestock, why would they build the citadel if not to help organics advance to their prime i.e. the point where they are most "ripened" for consumption/assimilation.
Now i'm picturing the Collectors running around with little chef's hats
Now i'm picturing the Collectors running around with little chef's hats
Except your ignoring the fact that being awake constantly would cause an exponential increase in the amount of resources, both mineral and organic, they would need for replacements, which would not only make the limited number of habitable worlds rapidly decrease but their need for organics to replace their numbers would eventually cause a war with organics and organics would have to be killed anyways.Innegativeion said:
Furthermore just destroying synthetics leaves organics at a technological level were they could make AI again, which exponentially increases the rate at which AI would be made again, which makes the chance that said AI will be able to beat The Reapers increased by the same exponential factor.
.
.
Beyond that the Geth/Quarrian peace proves nothing for we dont know if it will last, and making peace with The Geth does not in any way prevent another future AI from killing everything.
Anyone who tries to use the "well the geth and quarrians made peace so the Rapers are wrong" argument hasn't thought it out at all.
Making peace with the Geth does not
-mean the geth will be friendly forever
-mean that The geth wont try to wipe out all organics in the future
-that future synthetics can be reasoned with
-that future synthetics wont try to kill everyone
-that future synthetics will stay peaceful if peace is made with them
The Geth/Quarrian peace proves nothing beyond that The Geth and Quarrians made peace for like a week.
Others said the same thing, but I also always thought the Reapers wanted to secure their place as the dominant species in the universe and they assure this position by eliminating creatures that evolve enough to be a threat. And then I was proved wrong by the space baby catalyst satan child thing.
My idea didn?t explain the necessity for harvesting, but if these immortal bio-synthetics needed the genetic material, couldn?t they just build a vast galactic farm ? like battery chickens.
My idea didn?t explain the necessity for harvesting, but if these immortal bio-synthetics needed the genetic material, couldn?t they just build a vast galactic farm ? like battery chickens.
I got the distinction perfectly, but it doesn't stop it from being stupid.Nieroshai said:
The Catalyst says: "Without us to stop it, synthetics will destroy all organics."
Now let's backtrack a few hours...
"You are welcome to return to Rannoch Admiral Raan, with us."
Now let's backtrack all the way to ME2, after EDI is unshackled and saves the Normandy...
"I still have safeguards built into my programming. But, even if I did not, you are my crew mates."
Now, I'm fine with the Catalyst believing what there can never be harmony between synthetics and organics before, but why am I not allowed to point out to it all the times in the series that I've proved him wrong? Whereuopn he gets on the ringer to Harbinger andsays something along the lines of 'Um, guys, we fucked up. This cycle's gonna be k without us from now on.'
Seriously, why not? Shepard has always had the capacity to be a compelling negotiator. If you played your cards right, Shepard has even been able to talk people (Saren and TIM) out of a state of complete indoctrination and see reason, something that no-one else could do. So why now, when it matters more than ever, am I not allowed to plead the case that I've been building for the past 5 years? Why do I have to just go along with this new character's assertions when I know them to be false?
That's what really makes no sense.
Actually the Catalyst never says that peace cannot be made between organics and synthetics, only that eventually synthetics will try to destroy everything.NinjaDeathSlap said:
Maybe not EVERY synthetic race, but there will be one eventually.
Peace can be made, but peace cannot last.
What about EDI then, or the fact that the Geth only ever acted in self-defense because everyone just presumed that they would be hostile.SajuukKhar said:
Sure, it doesn't prove that the peace will last, but while we're talking about proof, what proof does the Catalyst have for its assertions, because if it does have any it's certainly not sharing. If he is willing to commit genocide on whatever race(s) happen to be the most advanced every 50,000 years based on nothing other than what might happen, then I don't see why I have to just take his word for it.
What about EDI? There is nothing that prevents her from being attacked and going rouge one day.NinjaDeathSlap said:
Also The Geth's past actions dont prevent them from retaliating under situations like a bunch of organics start going on a anti-synthetic spree.
If someone feels sufficiently threatened they can and will fight for their lives even going far beyond what their past actions would make you think they would.
I'm not sure how best to phrase it...SajuukKhar said:
Your defense of the reapers sounds (not you, your defense) to me just like defending a genocidal racist saying "Well who's to say black people/jews/homosexuals won't kill all white people eventually. So killing them all now (or again and again) is really a logical, good thing."
There is no proof that that will happen, in the game or out of the game. This is racist bullshit.
A "it might happen" is not enough to justify genocide, no matter how many people seem willing to do exactly that, albeit about matters in a video game.
I am baffled.
It may not be conclusive, but I still have more evidence to support my claim than he apparently does. If I was allowed to argue with him, using the Geth and EDI as an example, and he came back with examples of Synthetics that could not be reasoned with in previous cycles, that may have been enough... just. But no, he just justifies the slaughter as necessary with nothing to back him up other than 'because it is', and Shepard is supposed to just accept that, after a 2 minute conversation with the guy, opposed to the years previously of seeing evidence to the contrary?SajuukKhar said:
No, just no. There is no fucking way my Shepard would just lie down and take that. My Shepard has always made peace where others had accepted war as inevitable. He has never given up. He has always believed the best in people where others thought him naive; and most importantly, he has always been right. So now the stakes are higher than ever he wouldn't just let The Catalyst run the show. Even if the Catalyst is right, Shepard would at least demand an explanation. But no, instead Shepard becomes entirely useless in the last sequence, just a tool for The Catalyst's 'solution', and the whole thing stinks.