Why do you think The Reapers did it?

[The_Blue_Rider]

Something along the lines of

*Harbinger walks into his house*
Harbinger: Honey, Im hooome
*laugh track*
Harbingers wife: Oh darling, dont come into the bedroom, im uh getting dressed
*Harbinger comes in anyway*
Harbinger: Oh you know how i like i-
*There is an organic in bed with Harbingers wife*

Harbinger: ORGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANIIIIIIIIICS!!!

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I think the problem is that the reapers motivation only makes sense to people who are a little pessimistic like me.

They seem kind of defeatest.

capthca: pyrrhic victory

Yeah that's a better word to describe it.

Oh I just remembered! The plot to Plan 9 from Outer Space would have been a good reason.

In that the aliens were afraid it wouldn't be long before humans discovered how to make the solarnite bomb. Apparently in that movie you can blow up sunlight. But that would lead to a chain reaction which blows up the earths sun and the suns of every world sunlight for our solar system reaches. And the chain reaction would go on to every sun until the universe was dead.

Gotta say, the delivery of the aliens motivation in Plan 9, famous for being one of the worst movies of all time, wasn't much better than how they did it in mass effect.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Yeah that's a better word to describe it.

Oh I just remembered! The plot to Plan 9 from Outer Space would have been a good reason.

In that the aliens were afraid it wouldn't be long before humans discovered how to make the solarnite bomb. Apparently in that movie you can blow up sunlight. But that would lead to a chain reaction which blows up the earths sun and the suns of every world sunlight for our solar system reaches. And the chain reaction would go on to every sun until the universe was dead.

Gotta say, the delivery of the aliens motivation in Plan 9, famous for being one of the worst movies of all time, wasn't much better than how they did it in mass effect.

It would have been better if some fuck-tard didn't leak the original script, with the good Dark-energy ending, causing Casey to get all butthurt and change the ending last minute.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Yeah that's a better word to describe it.

Oh I just remembered! The plot to Plan 9 from Outer Space would have been a good reason.

In that the aliens were afraid it wouldn't be long before humans discovered how to make the solarnite bomb. Apparently in that movie you can blow up sunlight. But that would lead to a chain reaction which blows up the earths sun and the suns of every world sunlight for our solar system reaches. And the chain reaction would go on to every sun until the universe was dead.

Gotta say, the delivery of the aliens motivation in Plan 9, famous for being one of the worst movies of all time, wasn't much better than how they did it in mass effect.

It would have been better if some fuck-tard didn't leak the original script, with the good Dark-energy ending, causing Casey to get all butthurt and change the ending last minute.

Well, thats just conjecture really. None of us will ever know why Casey Hudson did what he did because we are just people reading about it on the internet and were never there in the bioware office. All we get is pr and random comments from people who worked there that might be made up.

Did Bioware ever confirm this leaked script was real? Ive heard it mentioned but I must of missed it when it actually happened.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Well, thats just conjecture really. None of us will ever know why Casey Hudson did what he did because we are just people reading about it on the internet and were never there in the bioware office. All we get is pr and random comments from people who worked there that might be made up.

Did Bioware ever confirm this leaked script was real? Ive heard it mentioned but I must of missed it when it actually happened.

After it leaked they said it was from an old build and some stuff had changed.

Funny enough a good chunk of it was in the game almost exactly as described.

I wouldn't be surprised if "had been changed" really meant "we are changing stuff now".

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Well, thats just conjecture really. None of us will ever know why Casey Hudson did what he did because we are just people reading about it on the internet and were never there in the bioware office. All we get is pr and random comments from people who worked there that might be made up.

Did Bioware ever confirm this leaked script was real? Ive heard it mentioned but I must of missed it when it actually happened.

After it leaked they said it was from an old build and some stuff had changed.

Funny enough a good chunk of it was in the game almost exactly as described.

I wouldn't be surprised if "had been changed" really meant "we are changing stuff now".

Huh, Glad I missed it. Probably would have ruined a lot of the game for me from the sounds of things.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Huh, Glad I missed it. Probably would have ruined a lot of the game for me from the sounds of things.

The script also had a re-take omega part to it, something not in the game.

I smell DLC.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Huh, Glad I missed it. Probably would have ruined a lot of the game for me from the sounds of things.

The script also had a re-take omega part to it, something not in the game.

I smell DLC.

Yeah...most likely. I totally expected I would be doing that in the game.

I wonder if the dlc will put peoples war assets high enough that they can get those extra 2 seconds of footage from the red ending without playing multiplayer....

 

[SajuukKhar]

Yeah...most likely. I totally expected I would be doing that in the game.

I wonder if the dlc will put peoples war assets high enough that they can get those extra 2 seconds of footage from the red ending without playing multiplayer....

You can do that already........

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Yeah...most likely. I totally expected I would be doing that in the game.

I wonder if the dlc will put peoples war assets high enough that they can get those extra 2 seconds of footage from the red ending without playing multiplayer....

You can do that already........

Really? I thought it was around 9000 you could get to in actual assets. Which is halved in value by not playing multiplayer to below the 5k mark you need.
I think the topic is being derailed a bit. So Reapers!

 

[MomoElektra]

snip

I find it funny you try to make the point they should just stop but dont even attempt to provide any means in which the Reapers could protect the galaxy without killing everyone.

Let's just stop there because right there is the source of one, big problem: It is not fact that the Reapers protect the galaxy (or organic life) at all. We only have star child's word for it and he is not a reliable person.

So since it is not fact would you kindly stop pretending it is?

 

[dragsaw]

well they are robots so some thing must of built the first reaper and to do things aa robot needs to be programed (kinda like teaching a dog things like siting to eating walking sleeping blinking etc)so some evil guy (evil robot makeing robot?) made the first reaper

 

[SajuukKhar]

Let's just stop there because right there is the source of one, big problem: It is not fact that the Reapers protect the galaxy (or organic life) at all. We only have star child's word for it and he is not a reliable person.

So since it is not fact would you kindly stop pretending it is?

Considering that he is the only source of information, written by the games project director himself, with no reason to lie to Shepard, and who gives him the ability to kill all the reapers......

He doesnt give much to doubt him.

It seems like you want to just turn everything into a conspiracy based on "well he must be lying" when you have no evidence that he is.

 

[MomoElektra]

It seems like you want to just turn everything into a conspiracy based on "well he must be lying" when you have no evidence that he is.

I tend to not believe genocidal mass murderers, yes. Silly me.

It's not as if we have 3 games establishing very clearly that the Reapers are a threat to organic life in the galaxy. We have a lot of evidence that he is lying or shifting the truth.

I find it strange that you believe a character simply because the writers wrote it. Cherry picking. Characters can't lie? Or be wrong? We have the council saying several times that the Reapers are a myth. You certainly don't believe them, do you?

I can only conclude that you accept the star child's/Reapers motivations because you essentially agree with them.

 

[GabeZhul]

Let's see...
In ME1, I thought they were, well, kind of like Chtulhuian eldritch abominations. There was no point in pondering about their reasons, since they operated on a blue and orange morality that was completely removed from human logic. I was okay with that.

Then in ME2, it turned out they were not just killing but "harvesting" organics and turn them into reapers. At first I really didn't understand why they need organic components and why they made a giant terminator out of human goo... which again, kind of baffled me, as I really didn't understand the point behind doing that. I mean, what is the difference between liquefied human and Krogan? At that point it's both just big chunk of liquid lipids and proteins, so what difference it makes what species it came from? X_X
But then again, I was still okay with that. I was like "Sure, so they need organic matter from advanced races (for some weird, incomprehensible reason) in order to procreate, so they wait for advanced races to develop and then swoop in to harvest and make Reapers out of them. It's how they procreate. It kinda makes sense.".

And then came the third game, which confused the hell out of me.
So, at this point, it is revealed that the aforementioned liquefying and procreation goodness was just a means and not a goal, because the goal was to kill all advanced races so that they can't make synthetics that would kill them in the long run...? 0_o?

Okay, I get the idea of cycles. Actually, I think it kind of sort of makes a little sense, and I have a good parallel for that:
On our very own little blue-green planet, forest fires are actually part of the natural cycle, whereas the fire destroys the vegetation so that a new generation of life can take its place. It kind of makes an utilitarian sense to say that, in this context, the Reapers are the fire that wipes the forest clean so that a new ecosystem can bloom in its place until the next fire. It would actually make a lot of philosophical sense if this was the Reapers' motivation, enforcing this cycle so that the young species would have their chance to expand without being overshadowed by the old races and whatnot. It's arguably a flawed logic, since we are talking about sapient species here, so who says they won't be able to solve the issue on their own, but it would still be something that can be accepted for a motivation. HOWEVER!

The problem here is that this is NOT their philosophy. Actually, they don't have any of that at all. I've heard many people say that they use machine-logic, but that's not true. They don't use logic at all! Logic is about taking all available variables into consideration and making the best choice based on those. What the reapers have is a fanatical, unquestioning belief that "All organics will eventually make synthetics that will destroy all organic life", something they have no basis for.
They believe this because, as they said, it "always happens like that"... But here's the thing: we never saw that. Even THEY never saw that! Why? Because they destroy organics BEFORE they could make all-genocidal-synthetics, so they are preventing something that they have no proof for it would even happen! There is no "wheel of life" here, no galactic seasons, they just fanatically believe that this synthetic-apocalypse would happen based on an example we are never given and they refuse to use logic to fix this hole in their motivations. In short, their leader, and AI (who is by definition supposed to be all about cold logic) refuses to use logic. Bad writing or some really stupid, fanatical villains? You decide.

Also, one more thing: There is something I kind of noticed about the Destruction ending that I haven't seen posted yet. That ending says that using the Crucible will destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy including Shepard, which is just stupid. However, what if it only destroys/shorts out Reaper-tech? It would actually make sense, since:
-The Reapers are obviously made of that stuff, so they are destroyed
-The Geth had been modified with Reaper-algorithms at the end of the Rannoch-campaign, so they are destroyed
-EDI was partially based on Reaper-tech, so she is destroyed
-Some of Shepard's implants are based on reaper-tech, so he is killed

Now thinking about it, it's kind of funny how the Reapers uphold the cycle in order to keep organic life being wiped out by advanced synthetics... while the synthetics had only gotten this advance because of Reaper-tech...

 

[SajuukKhar]

I tend to not believe genocidal mass murderers, yes. Silly me.

It's not as if we have 3 games establishing very clearly that the Reapers are a threat to organic life in the galaxy. We have a lot of evidence that he is lying or shifting the truth.

I find it strange that you believe a character simply because the writers wrote it. Cherry picking. Characters can't lie? Or be wrong? We have the council saying several times that the Reapers are a myth. You certainly don't believe them, do you?

I can only conclude that you accept the star child's/Reapers motivations because you essentially agree with them.

Actually I would have
1. Had the Reapers come in every cycle
2. Flat out tell organics "hey bad shit is gonna happen in you make synthetics"
3. Give them the option of being Reaperized and not having to deal wth the limits of organic individuality
4. Let the organics that choose not to be Reaperized live as long as they could until they made a synthetic race that tires to kill everything
5. Kill THAT synthetic race and leave organics with a warning we aren't gonna help you next time.
6. When they eventually do build a race of synthetic death-bots that try to kill everything again, wait till both sides are weakened from the war and kill them both before either has a chance to screw everything p for all the other future races.
.
.
Beyond that there have been NUMEROUS instanced across various tv shows/games/movies were we were told "X thing is trying to harm us" when at the end it turns out they were actually saving everyone asses.

It isn't like it is a uncommon plot device, and the fact that in the first 2 games, and most of the 3d we believed the Reapers were threats doesn't change that said plot device is in play.

Just because you believed something for 2 and a half games doesn't mean the final act of the their game could prove you wrong.
.
.
I can conclude you only want The Catalyst to be wrong to make a conspiracy out of a poorly written ending.

 

[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.

You cite Shepard's actions. In face of the galaxy's actions. EDI does not count, you can't bring her with you for proof and she is the way she is because of Shepard presumably, who has had a profound effect on his entire crew and everyone he meets. In response, The Stargazer would cite the Geth, who you may or may not have made allies with. But even having made the Geth your allies, you have done so far too late, and only for the sole purpose of fighting the Reapers. The Quarians were about to start a war with the Geth regardless of anything you did in 2, so their actions would have led to the "organics never learn, all they want is slaves!" reaction from the Geth, were it not for Shepard's intervention. Even so, Shepard only intervened to stop the Reaapers, and that alliance would have dissolved the moment the Reapers were done with. The Heretics sided with the Reapers because they had given up on organics, and they were getting ready to infect all other Geth with a rewrite virus to make them do the same. You mix the "should be" with the "is" in your argument. The Geth WERE about to repeat the cycle, which is all the proof the Reapers need. Hell, maybe it was the Geth uprising that prompted Sovereign to attempt calling the others. Maybe it is Sovereign observing Synthetic rebellion on a massive scale that prompts it to initiate the cycle. Shepard's case is completely invalid to the Stargazer in face of the testimonial of the Geth and countless prior cycles. Organics are the defendants, the Geth are the plaintiffs, and the judge just so happens to be a Synthetic that has witnessed cycle after cycle of anti-synthetic hate crime. No one is saying Stargazer is unbiased. A former slave is likely to hate all slaveowners, and there's reason enough to conjecture that the cycle started in the same manner with the proto-Reapers and Stargazer being the first AI race successful in wiping out (most) organic life. Perhaps the Reaper cycles are the Stargazer's twisted way of getting redemption. Not that it's in any way right, just that its reasons do seem to make sense from its perspective.

But the thing is, your conversation with the Catalyst doesn't play out like this. It's not some big clash of ideals, with him and Shepard both citing evidence for their case. That, in itself, may have been enough to make the ending worth 2 shits. But no, The Catalyst just outlines what must happen with absolutely no attempt to justify himself beyond 'because I say so', and Shepard just takes him at his word, despite having only just met him and after having gathered 3 years worth of experience that runs completely contrary to what The Catalyst is saying. That's bullshit.

You can't just assume that the Catalyst has all this evidence backing him up that renders everything Shepard has done irrelevant. He may well have, but you can't just assume he does when he never even tries to justify himself. Fact is, for all the proof he could possibly have that makes his 'solution' seem necessary, in the actual game he brings nothing, absolutely nothing, to the table, and therefore his argument is reduced to 'committing mass genocide on the people I'm supposed to be protecting is completely justified because of one eventuality that might happen at some point down the line'. Again, why does Shepard (and by extension the player) have to just lie down and accept this 'logic' as valid, when we have evidence that runs contrary to his claim, and he provides none of his own?

Your argument has a lot of 'maybe' points. 'Maybe' the peace between the Geth and the Quarians is only temporary; but who's to say? Consider: not all of the Quarians wanted war, in fact Civilian Fleet (the largest in the flotilla) were the most strongly opposed to it, and the Geth had never wanted war in the first place. Also, if you do make peace, Tali later says that the Geth even start helping the Quarians re-adapt to Rannoch's climate and rebuild settlements, which would imply that we really are witnessing a lasting peace in the making. 'Maybe' EDI is the exception to the rule, but why? Isn't it equally valid to say that more AI could be peaceful and co-operative with Organics if we stopped just treating them with suspicion as a default? 'Maybe' The Catalyst is influenced by things he has seen in the past, but it counts for fuck all if he doesn't even bother to give you one example. The Catalyst is trying to justify the mass murder of trillions of life forms, based on what? Semantic arguments that he provides no solid basis for. We have to judge him based on what he says, not on what we think his motivations are, and what he says is just wrong.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Your argument has a lot of 'maybe' points. 'Maybe' the peace between the Geth and the Quarians is only temporary; but who's to say? Consider: not all of the Quarians wanted war, in fact Civilian Fleet (the largest in the flotilla) were the most strongly opposed to it, and the Geth had never wanted war in the first place. Also, if you do make peace, Tali later says that the Geth even start helping the Quarians re-adapt to Rannoch's climate and rebuild settlements, which would imply that we really are witnessing a lasting peace in the making.

Really all you have to do is look back on human history to see why said peace is only temporary.

It is literally impossible for organics to have lasting peace so long as anything exists in limited numbers, such as resources, and so long as intolerance at any level exists.

The only way lasting peace could ever be achieved is if they make some "spawn items out of literal nothingness" machine, and somehow erase every single language, race, gender, etc. et.c barrier that exists.

 

[wooty]

I think the reapers wanted to wipe out organics to stop the severe strain on their internet connection due to all the "I hate the Mass Effect 3 ending" threads.

It sometimes makes me want to create my own galactic invasion death fleets.

 

[MomoElektra]

Actually I would have
1. Had the Reapers come in every cycle
2. Flat out tell organics "hey bad shit is gonna happen in you make synthetics"
3. Give them the option of being Reaperized and not having to deal wth the limits of organic individuality
4. Let the organics that choose not to be Reaperized live as long as they could until they made a synthetic race that tires to kill everything
5. Kill THAT synthetic race and leave organics with a warning we aren't gonna help you next time.
6. When they eventually do build a race of synthetic death-bots that try to kill everything again, wait till both sides are weakened from the war and kill them both before either has a chance to screw everything p for all the other future races.
.

So, if you can come up with a better solution than them, why do you consider theirs to be a logical one?
.

Beyond that there have been NUMEROUS instanced across various tv shows/games/movies were we were told "X thing is trying to harm us" when at the end it turns out they were actually saving everyone asses

Name them. And name those that didn't get hell for using that washed up twist ending.

It isn't like it is a uncommon plot device, and the fact that in the first 2 games, and most of the 3d we believed the Reapers were threats doesn't change that said plot device is in play.

Nobody is saying that this plot device isn't in play, in fact, it is the very reason why the whole series now sucks.

Just because you believed something for 2 and a half games doesn't mean the final act of the their game could prove you wrong.

Again, that's something nobody claims. But if I play 3 games the Allies against the Nazis I don't want Hitler telling me in the end how his killing all the Jews in a Holocaust is actually a good thing.

I do not accept that. I do not accept anyone accepting that.

I can conclude you only want The Catalyst to be wrong to make a conspiracy out of a poorly written ending.

Yes, because the alternative is the endorsement of genocide as a solution to problems and I do not, not even in a video game, accept that.