Why do you think The Reapers did it?

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Yo Dawg i heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics, so i made some synthetics to kill you every 50k years, so you won't be killed by synthetics.

Soo... Before we got to know this, what do you think was The Reapers reason to do it.

Mine is thad they did it to survive. They needed technology (or something (giant plothole)) like we need food to survive, and then they goes on sleeping for 50k years. They at us like we look at cattle. I believed this because of the use of words like harvest and cycle.

BECAUSE. THEY. COULD.

There was literally no doubt in my mind that the entire reason the Reapers were eradicating life every 50k years was because they did not want any other race to advance far enough to be able to defeat and replace them.

The nations that composed the Reapers had virtually (no robot pun intended) ascended to godhood. The only problem being that they chose to be malevolant gods. So, they didn't want any of the "mortals" trying to usurp their seat of power.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

That would have been a perfectly acceptable reason for doing what they did in my opinion.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand /thread

I guess based on the 'Reaper Embryo' from the end of ME2 they could also have made the 'harvest as a form of reproduction' angle work, but tbh I was never left unsatisfied by Sovereigns explanation of the Reapers, vague as it was, in ME1.

Thinking about it when I think of all the best villains in media I struggle to think of any who's motivations can't be summed up in a simple sentence, if they even have clear motivations at all. The interesting part is most often how they try and achieve their ends, rather than why. Would Scar from The Lion King have been a better villain if Disney had tried to make him all complex and sympathetic, rather than just Mufasa's jealous little brother? No, because the story's not about him. That, I think, was the crucial misstep in ME3. The Reapers were fine when they were just the classic ambiguous threat that must be overcome, while Saren and The Illusive Man did all the heavy lifting in regards to motivations, because at the end of the day, it was Shepard's story, not theirs.

 

[Innegativeion]

No they DO get the distinction, they just want to ignore it for hate fuel.

[sarcasm] Clearly it has nothing to do with grand number of people who successfully brokered peace between the galaxy's most powerful synthetic race and the galaxy's loudest synthetic-haters,

the very handy alternative of just destroying synthetics rather than killing the organics they were supposedly built to protect,

the fact that without any explanation of the nature of its existence, many interpret the starchild as an AI since only VIs have been holographic like in the series thus far barring transmissions,

EDI's existence,

the purpose presented by the starchild is FAR less complicated than the reapers suggested, though as it seems no one thinks it makes any sense, maybe they were right after all.

[/sarcasm]

 

[MomoElektra]

The Reapers harvested all life in the galaxy every 50,000 years to add new races thought patterns into their own collective because there was an almost uncontrollable build-up of dark energy in the galaxy that was threatening to cause all the suns to detonate thus destroying all habitable worlds in the galaxy and the original Reaper race couldn't find a solution on their own.

This right here is the original plot found in the original leaked scripts, this is the REAL, original, reason Bioware had though of for why the Reapers did what they did.

Maybe they abandoned it because it, well, actually and obviously justifies genocide and that thought wouldn't sit too well with too many people?

 

[Phlakes]

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.

 

[Zeraki]

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".

 

[IrritatingSquirrel]

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 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.

 

[Innegativeion]

Because the reason in the game makes perfect sense, from a machine logic perspective

I would love to see what concrete evidence helped you arrive at this conclusion and subsequent assertion.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

The Reapers harvested all life in the galaxy every 50,000 years to add new races thought patterns into their own collective because there was an almost uncontrollable build-up of dark energy in the galaxy that was threatening to cause all the suns to detonate thus destroying all habitable worlds in the galaxy and the original Reaper race couldn't find a solution on their own.

This right here is the original plot found in the original leaked scripts, this is the REAL, original, reason Bioware had though of for why the Reapers did what they did.

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.

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.

 

[josemlopes]

Yo Dawg i heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics, so i made some synthetics to kill you every 50k years, so you won't be killed by synthetics.

Bit of a technicality here: the logic is that the Reapers only harvest the most advanced civilisations so that the primitive ones have a chance to evolve.

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.

 

[IrritatingSquirrel]

Because the reason in the game makes perfect sense, from a machine logic perspective

I would love to see what concrete evidence helped you arrive at this conclusion and subsequent assertion.

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)

 

[Phlakes]

Because the reason in the game makes perfect sense, from a machine logic perspective

I would love to see what concrete evidence helped you arrive at this conclusion and subsequent assertion.

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.

Yo Dawg i heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics, so i made some synthetics to kill you every 50k years, so you won't be killed by synthetics.

Bit of a technicality here: the logic is that the Reapers only harvest the most advanced civilisations so that the primitive ones have a chance to evolve.

Yeah, but evolve to what? To an advanced civilisation to then be wiped by the Reapers?

Yes, so then the next primitive organics can develop. That's why it's called a cycle. Because it's a cycle.

 

[Innegativeion]

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.

Well, I'll say it again, because if I can think of it surely the FUCKING REAPERS should have thought of it;

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.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

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.

SNIP

Well, I'll say it again, because if I can think of it surely the FUCKING REAPERS should have thought of it;

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.

Riiiiiiiight.
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.

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

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

 

[SajuukKhar]

Well, I'll say it again, because if I can think of it surely the FUCKING REAPERS should have thought of it;

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.

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.

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.

 

[darkfox85]

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.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

It's not to defend organics from synthetics per se, it's to prevent the eradicaton of ALL life by a galactic Skynet incident by getting rid of spacefaring species capable of building AI. No one seems to get that distinction. To the Stargazer, the sum total of all life is more important than the few species capable of oppressing synthetics.

I got the distinction perfectly, but it doesn't stop it from being stupid.

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.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I got the distinction perfectly, but it doesn't stop it from being stupid.

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.

Maybe not EVERY synthetic race, but there will be one eventually.

Peace can be made, but peace cannot last.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Well, I'll say it again, because if I can think of it surely the FUCKING REAPERS should have thought of it;

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.

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.

Furthermore just destroying synthetics leaving organics at a technological level were they could make AI again exponentially increases the rate at which AI would be made making 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.

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.

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.

 

[SajuukKhar]

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.

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.

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.