Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My personal take is that. Quite simply the reaper harvest is unneccesary and Bioware wanted to tell you this. Unfortunately, the reapers cannot be disuaded from this: they just aren't built that way and thus cannot think that way. Its like the three laws from I. Robot they're trapped in a circular logic to preserve organic life. Shephard cannot break that, he could have tried; but he would have failed. Even if the reapers think what they're doing is right it clearly is on a cold machine logic that cannot comprehend the complex moral choices made by EDI or the Geth. They see a process of evolution which can only end one way and need to stop it; to restore order to the galaxy. However, by introducing the catalyst they are provided (probably on accident) with a solution. That solution involves merging Shephard with the catalyst and putting his DNA into every org/syn. Remember, ever since ME2 the reapers have acknowledged that Shephard is in some way special and that his influence has allowed many of the resolutions between org/syn. By doing this the reapers get double insurance that they can avoid the risks of a singularity apocalypse. Again, Shephard does not have to agree with this as the renegade dialogue gives you the chance (paragon implies Shephard is tolerant enough to give a fair hearing). So in effect Shephard does convince the reapers to back down, BUT, he has to compromise with them; he can't make the argument which seems so obvious since they would reject it out of cold logic.We thus get an ending which is a tough choice, maybe even unneccesary and is WHY we get destruction/control if we believe synthesis is unneccesary. .

But, and its a big but; Bioware didn't get this fact across very well. It was portrayed not as a dialogue in which Shephard realises he can't win the reapers around but as the starchild dictating to Shephard what must be done. It thus leads to the impression that the reapers are right. Which is not what Bioware ever wanted to convey; it wanted you to make up for yourself by selecting between control (why change whats not broken) and synthesis (you know what. You guys have a point. Lets try trans-humanism). Bioware wanted to avoid putting a philosophy upon you.

Do you, as a player believe in the inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics? Of course the reaper solution is wrong IMO and probably in Biowares as well. Notice that control is in blue for paragon which has always represented the more empathatic choice which stresses free will whilst synthesis is white to represent its moral greyness. However, if you take a mechanical view; trans-humanism really can be put forward as a viable thing and evidence can be provided in ME overall. You may have doubts about the Geth/Quarian or even EDI and perhaps think they aren't representative. Bioware wanted the ending to be open. But they mishandled it.

You've blown my mind Totalwar. I never thought you'd type such a thing but I think I agree. The story isn't neccessarily saying the reapers are right. In the end, when it's all said and done perhaps they are just jerks.

Basically the cycle was flawed?

The cycle just a lot of big talk from the Reapers. Their main goal is to remain the preeminent lifeform in the galaxy/reproduce. Not much different from any other lifeform really.

Basically, EA rushed the ending, some people who did ME1 and ME2 left Bioware, and EA are a bunch of cocks.

Karon wrote:Basically, EA rushed the ending, some people who did ME1 and ME2 left Bioware, and EA are a bunch of cocks.

Pretty much.

To elaborate, ME3 was reportedly 3 months behind schedule when it released, so the ending portion of the game was only worked on by 2 people, though I forget their names - they were the two head honchos for ME3 and didn't consult the rest of the team on it.

So yeah, EA feths everything up again.

Karon wrote:Basically, EA rushed the ending, some people who did ME1 and ME2 left Bioware, and EA are a bunch of cocks.

This statements received the Three Hat rating of Awesomeness.

Personally, I don't quite agree with this assessment. Whether or not you regard the Harvest as necessary depends on whether you hold life as a whole more important than the current version of life.

Following the aforementioned cold machine logic - for this part is true - it is arguably safer to "reset" advanced civilizations before they become a threat to themselves and, by extension, all organic life. The more the various organic species advance, the more impressive is the technology they develop. Impressive, and potentially dangerous. Weapons of mass destruction capable of devastating entire planets have been referenced on numerous occasions throughout the ME franchise, and once civilization has reached a stage where the push of a button can remove a whole planet, an interstellar war quite simply comes with the risk of devastating any and all worlds where life as we know it is capable to develop. Although none of the species of the current Cycle have yet reached this point (though the krogan at least have already started flinging weaponized asteroids through space), there may come the day when an engine is developed that, say, lets stars go supernova. Or an experiment which creates a black hole swallowing the entire galaxy. You get the idea.

It all comes down to a simple question: Are you willing to take responsibility for this risk?

Of course, the character of Shepard is unlikely to hold an objective opinion; he/she is personally affected by the Harvest, has friends and (potentially) a loved one to think about, and carries the hopes of all advanced species of the current Cycle on his/her back. Which is why, in the end, I opted for Destroy. It's the one option closest to the original mission, even if it takes the sacrifice of all synthetics as collateral damage. The choice was both difficult and a no-brainer at the same time. Maybe this is why so many people disliked it - there was no "perfect option", no true happy end. I for one value the ending for this taste of realism, and for the emotions it made me feel.

As for the Catalyst, I also don't see the "solution" has always been there. Which the Catalyst even remarks himself. Shepard's mere presence on the Citadel merely proved that the current solution was flawed, that at some point in time there is a chance that some organic being will find a way to put a stop to the Cycle. Which in turn, again following cold machine logic, means that there's no point in pursueing it any further. After all, the Reapers' purpose is to protect life itself, and if they fail it doesn't matter if they fail now or in a million years.

So this new solution - regardless of which one you pick - isn't an actual solution to the problem, it is just as much a means to achieve the (subjectively) best possible result under the given circumstances as the Harvest was.

Ah, and I also don't see Shepard as that special that his/her DNA is the solution to any and all problems. That's way too much omnipotence for my taste. Shep was special for his/her determination, resourcefulness, charisma. But as a basis for synthesis? Honestly, I think any organic would have done.

Anyways, I think this is what BioWare was going for in the ending: Life as represented by Shepard stepping up and taking the chance rather than allowing itself to get culled again and again just because it's safer. Like a person finally stepping outside the house, knowing that it's dangerous out there - but at the same time unwilling to go back inside and remain a child forever.

Do the Reapers really care if the organics invent a gun that shoots black holes and obliterates each other with it or do they just care because its a threat to them? The reapers are actually quite parasitic. They let the organics do all the inventing and evolving then when they think its enough they swoop in and steal all the technology and biomass. Then they got a fancy black hole shooting gun! Bastards.

The Reapers exist and, as we learn, were created for a singular purpose. Their raison-d'être (sp?) is the protection of organic life - and nothing else. When not actively Harvesting, all they do is hybernate until the next Cycle comes to a close. They seem to lack any other goal, they don't even have any other ambition - all they do is follow a program dictated many millennia ago by those who created them.

I think that in their mind, they are actually servants rather than tyrants, and by eradicating those forms of life who have advanced "too much", they are doing life as a whole a favour. It's why the Reapers and the Collectors talk about helping these species "ascend", and how they "bring salvation through destruction". It's an alien concept at first, but if you put yourself into their metal shoes, it all begins to make sense on some level.

They also don't steal technology; what would they want with it? 90% of the technology used by the targeted populations is based on Reaper tech in the first place ("your society develops along the paths we desire") and far below their standards. What they take is the biomass, which is then apparently used to create new Reapers - in a way storing bits and pieces of the "essence" that made up the last Cycle's advanced species, as if keeping their DNA would be a way to honour their existence long after they have been eradicated.

The Reapers are like automated galactic gardeners. Once the trees grow too high, they are chopped down in order to allow the smaller flowers on the ground to blossom, lest they suffocate due to lack of sunlight and because the soil grows barren.

That said, perhaps it is this limitation - being slaved to a single purpose - which makes the Reapers somewhat grumpy and arrogant. They are obviously intelligent, yet they can do nothing but stick to the program, stamping out advanced civilizations time and time again. And still those pesky organics have the audacity to resist and make the job harder for you!

I wonder what happened that forced the creation of the Reapers, though. Could it be that it was them who were the initial reason for the Cycles to begin with? A synthetic lifeform that began to wipe out all organic life, forcing the survivors to ensure this never repeats itself? Was the Catalyst the last survivor of an ancient race who then opted for "Control" back then, and now allowing Shepard to take his place if he/she wants? Or are they really just a tool created solely for the Harvest? If so, who were the actual synthetics? Is the Catalyst this synthetic lifeform, was he the one who almost destroyed all life, then vowing to make it better and taking vigil in the Citadel? Or is he, too, just a tool, the last remnant of an incredibly old but automated system left behind by a species of which there is nothing left but this?

Of course I could be getting it all wrong - in the end, this is just one interpretation. Though I think it fits to the little bits of Reaper lore we picked up throughout the games.

Why let the organics evolve so far then? They let them get to the point were they can actually kill Reapers. Why not prune them when they first discover space flight or something like that.

Karon wrote:Basically, EA rushed the ending, some people who did ME1 and ME2 left Bioware, and EA are a bunch of cocks.

There really isn't anything more that needs to be said

/thread.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Why let the organics evolve so far then? They let them get to the point were they can actually kill Reapers. Why not prune them when they first discover space flight or something like that.

Technically, that's true. On the other hand, by allowing the organics to find and activate the Relays, they save the Reapers the need to go check them out again and again.

It's like a devious trap, a galactic beacon that is bound to attract the attention of advanced species. And once somebody finds it, the Reapers will know.

That the organics actually had a chance of stopping the Reapers never occurred to them or the Catalyst. Whether or not one or a hundred Reapers die does not matter. All that is important is that the Cycles continue. Fits to the Reapers = servants idea. They are only important as cogs of the great machine, not like individual people.

Lynata wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Why let the organics evolve so far then? They let them get to the point were they can actually kill Reapers. Why not prune them when they first discover space flight or something like that.

Technically, that's true. On the other hand, by allowing the organics to find and activate the Relays, they save the Reapers the need to go check them out again and again.

It's like a devious trap, a galactic beacon that is bound to attract the attention of advanced species. And once somebody finds it, the Reapers will know.

That the organics actually had a chance of stopping the Reapers never occurred to them or the Catalyst. Whether or not one or a hundred Reapers die does not matter. All that is important is that the Cycles continue. Fits to the Reapers = servants idea. They are only important as cogs of the great machine, not like individual people.

Also Sovereigns purpose was to act as a sentinal and call for aid when the cycle was to begin. Presumably with the development of synthetic intelligence or sufficient technology. A low maintenance hands off approach has less associated risk or variables to it than permanent managing. edit oh and the collectors hidden in the middle of the galaxy and experimenting on indoctrination n harvesting techniques.

Having replayed the ending as femshep n doing the control ending I've actually more or less came aorund to the idea of what Bioware tried to do. Shephard does actually talk back n disagree with the Starchild (maybe its just more obvious with Jennifer Hales Athena like voice ). When Shephard goes 'I, I don't know' when asked about synthesis it represents his/her misgivings about it. But I think Bioware did want to give you an element of choice and not push you. Unfortunately there isn't enough dialogue to get that point across and it feels like they force synthesis on you. Its just quite a grey area about if you think theres an inevitable conflict syn/org or if altruism n free will can prevail; largely a matter of personal judgement. You shouldn't take starchilds words as divine truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:Basically the cycle was flawed?

Yes, the reapers/starchild never assumed that org/syn could actually learn to co-exist and develop the desire to do so; with equal tolerence by organics. We see both in the case of EDI n the Geth/Quarians. Plus, have the reapers ever struck you as the compassionate or caring types. Even the Catalyst, their master is extremely cold in admitting that he has slaughtered countless civilizations in the cruelest way imaginable. They're not (entirely) malicious, at least the starchild isn't, but again using the I Robot reference whatever built them or however they came into being locked them into a way of thinking they cannot break.


Also, the reapers were portrayed to think they were infallible. But how often have they either been proved wrong or defeated by Shephard? That in itself suggests that they are themsleves flawed, not all knowing and in many ways quite weak. Indeed, we're told in a sense that reapers are just tools of the skynet AI that is the Starchild his essence existing in them all like the strings of a puppeteer. Strings which Shephard can take up with control and end a madness which began eons ago.

Yes, they think they're infallible but of course they are not. Apparently Shepard's appearance on the Crucible snapped President Reaper out of that notion.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, they think they're infallible but of course they are not. Apparently Shepard's appearance on the Crucible snapped President Reaper out of that notion.

Think I should call it the I.Reaper Theory?

Totalwar1402 wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, they think they're infallible but of course they are not. Apparently Shepard's appearance on the Crucible snapped President Reaper out of that notion.

Think I should call it the I.Reaper Theory?

Sure why not.

Hypothetical for everyone: Let's say in the final scene the giant deathray kills Shepard. How does the Reaper war turn out?

I think they actually retake Earth in that battle. There's signs of them turning it around on Palaven. Is that it though? Are they eventually crushed by the Reapers like every other cycle or do they somehow turn it around and win this time?

Totalwar1402 wrote:Yes, the reapers/starchild never assumed that org/syn could actually learn to co-exist and develop the desire to do so; with equal tolerence by organics.

I think they did - they just were convinced it wouldn't be a lasting situation. And who knows how the ME galaxy will look like in another thousand years? The situation the Catalyst warned Shep about can still come into existence. Depending on which option you chose, Shep merely took the risk in a "we'll see when that day comes" kind of way.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Hypothetical for everyone: Let's say in the final scene the giant deathray kills Shepard. How does the Reaper war turn out?
I think they actually retake Earth in that battle. There's signs of them turning it around on Palaven. Is that it though? Are they eventually crushed by the Reapers like every other cycle or do they somehow turn it around and win this time?

The Harvest would just turn into a war of attrition, imo. The species in this cycle had the big advantage of being less centralized and thus more independent than the protheans' empire, but in the end, they cannot replace their numbers as fast as the Reapers kill them. Their "starships" are much more powerful, and when you're looking at Earth, nearly the entire galaxy committed the majority of its military force to engage just a single Reaper fleet, and was still about to loose. In a way, you can compare it to the rebels attacking the 2nd Death Star in Return of the Jedi. It's an all-or-nothing move, and the one chance they placed their hopes on was the Crucible.
Plus, any and all ground forces on Earth had but a single goal: "Get to the beam. Occupy the Citadel." How many actually made it? Yeah ...

At first, the Reapers would have re-established orbital superiority, then bombing what's left of the ground forces and/or employing their indoctrination devices (think they can work them from orbit? or would they have to land?). Any organic succumbing to indoctrination would become an enemy. Even the victory at Palaven was only achieved by the sacrifice of millions of turians - who will not grow back as quickly as Husks or other Reaper monstrosities. A standard "Harvest" seems to take about a hundred years. Maybe the organics of this Cycle would've held out for a hundred and fifty. But in the end ...

It doesn't look good I'll admit. All I can say is I get the sense more Reapers were killed in the opening month of this war (or however long ME3 is) than any other cycle. The Reapers seem to use some sort of super-math to pick the absolute last second to burst out of the citadel and kill everyone. Shepard's interference at the citadel and the Alpha Relay really seem to mess that up. Just 2 years were added to the invasion time I think but it seemed to be a huge difference.
...everyone's still probably going to die though.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:It doesn't look good I'll admit. All I can say is I get the sense more Reapers were killed in the opening month of this war (or however long ME3 is) than any other cycle. The Reapers seem to use some sort of super-math to pick the absolute last second to burst out of the citadel and kill everyone. Shepard's interference at the citadel and the Alpha Relay really seem to mess that up. Just 2 years were added to the invasion time I think but it seemed to be a huge difference.
...everyone's still probably going to die though.

Yeah ME made it clear that the reapers take over the citadel network, communication and take out the galactic government at a stroke. It'd be like the nids taking Terra at a stroke. Complete wipeout. They then use their fleet en masse to systematically take each world one at a time.

I just finished it, and man I was PO'ed.

I mean seriously? Tali and GARRUS get off the ship? I spent 3 years banging Tali as Shepard, get her a home world! All for nothing!

I went red btw. I got the "Last breath" 100% Readiness and 6547 war assets!

Sad to hear you didn't like it.

It's all a matter of personal preferences!

Lynata wrote:Sad to hear you didn't like it.

It's all a matter of personal preferences!

I didn't "not like it" as an ending, because, it wasn't one. No closure, you don't get to see the consequences of your actions.

It's just a pat on the back all that really irked me hard was my Romance being stranded on a planet with 2 other guys.

Lynata wrote:Sad to hear you didn't like it.

It's all a matter of personal preferences!

No it's not.

The ending is just bad.

Karon wrote:

Lynata wrote:Sad to hear you didn't like it.

It's all a matter of personal preferences!

No it's not.

The ending is just bad.

QFT. it's an awful ending. Plus, the internets already decided on this matter, so this discussion is pointless.

deathholydeath wrote:

Karon wrote:

Lynata wrote:Sad to hear you didn't like it.

It's all a matter of personal preferences!

No it's not.

The ending is just bad.

QFT. it's an awful ending. Plus, the internets already decided on this matter, so this discussion is pointless.

I'm just mad that I have to go find Tali just to see her face. ON CAMERA!

Karon wrote:Basically, EA rushed the ending, some people who did ME1 and ME2 left Bioware, and EA are a bunch of cocks.

^This!


I mean, seriously, the guy that wrote the ending gave an interview where he bitched at how dissapointed he was in the fans before they finished the game. Took opportunity to troll them??? NO NEVER!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alexzandvar wrote:
I'm just mad that I have to go find Tali just to see her face. ON CAMERA!

Actually, you can go to any stock photo site to see her face. (Sadly, this is true!)

Well, I accepted that I'm not buying a Bioware/EA game again for a looooong time.

Karon wrote:

Lynata wrote:Sad to hear you didn't like it.
It's all a matter of personal preferences!

No it's not.
The ending is just bad.

Oh, so it's wrong of me to like it and I should share in the nonsensical rage and rampant misinterpretation. Glad we cleared that up.