inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 3, 2019 17:00:02 GMT
Oh come on. This isn't like a race of peoples or a proper civilization where its military is set against you. It wouldn't be the equivalent of, say, annihilating a whole country, where many of its inhabitants are not active combatants and, even if they believe you are the enemy, do not really have the capacity to act on it. Every single reaper is actively hostile. They are an entirely monolithic faction, and none are simply "believers" in any doctrine. Each and every one is either vaporizing swaths of people, or hauling away captives to convert them into augmented thralls, so they too can vaporize swaths of people, and haul them away to make more. They're obviously a clear and present existential threat, and killing each and every one would indeed be self defense. There's no such thing as a reaper civilian or a reaper that's just standing on a soap box going "We are the superiors! Go forth and harvest!" It is still not an act of self-defense. Even legitimate actions taken during war are NOT acts of self-defense. They are acts of war.
Again, before taking the action, you a clearly given alternatives that avoid annihilating all the reapers. The reapers are an archive and hence have value that is worth not destroying if possible... and IT IS possible to not destroy them and end the war. You can cry about synthesis forcing a change on everyone, but the same cannot be said about control. If the Reapers are not a "race of peoples" but rather machines controlled by their programming, the solution is to fix their programming rather than destroy all of the machines utterly and the data they contain... data that has value.
The distinction between "self-defense" and "acts of war" seems like a needless nitpick, given the circumstances. In an extreme scenario where it's a simple matter of staving off extinction, I don't think it really carries the same weight. As for the data archive, that's only a meaningful factor if the Catalyst specifically states it. Up until this point, we're never given the idea that the reapers have information that they can even share, or if it's even possible to get information out of them. In all the times I've explored the dialogue, and even did the dialogue prior to the Extended Cut, I don't recall the Catalyst ever offering up that the reapers can share knowledge with the rest of the galaxy. I've only ever seen this idea put out in the Synthesis slides, but that requires foreknowledge to count in the actual decision-making. How much value does data have when we don't know what that data entails, or if it even exists?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 17:07:38 GMT
It is still not an act of self-defense. Even legitimate actions taken during war are NOT acts of self-defense. They are acts of war.
Again, before taking the action, you a clearly given alternatives that avoid annihilating all the reapers. The reapers are an archive and hence have value that is worth not destroying if possible... and IT IS possible to not destroy them and end the war. You can cry about synthesis forcing a change on everyone, but the same cannot be said about control. If the Reapers are not a "race of peoples" but rather machines controlled by their programming, the solution is to fix their programming rather than destroy all of the machines utterly and the data they contain... data that has value.
The distinction between "self-defense" and "acts of war" seems like a needless nitpick, given the circumstances. In an extreme scenario where it's a simple matter of staving off extinction, I don't think it really carries the same weight. As for the data archive, that's only a meaningful factor if the Catalyst specifically states it. Up until this point, we're never given the idea that the reapers have information that they can even share, or if it's even possible to get information out of them. In all the times I've explored the dialogue, and even did the dialogue prior to the Extended Cut, I don't recall the Catalyst ever offering up that the reapers can share knowledge with the rest of the galaxy. I've only ever seen this idea put out in the Synthesis slides, but that requires foreknowledge to count in the actual decision-making. How much value does data have when we don't know what that data entails, or if it even exists? We've never known whether all the archaeology we've done from way back would yield useful data, yet we have whole systems in place now to preserve and protect ruins, museums, and archives that strongly state it is wrong to destroy them during acts of war. We (i.e. humanity) says it has value. I agree that the idea was only introduced into Mass Effect in ME3. I disagree that it only came to light during the EC because the Synthesis Ending existed before the EC... and it has always clearly stated that organics experience benefits from synthetics... "can you imagine your life without them?" is not restricted to a post EC idea. If you resolve the geth/quarian war peacefully, the Quarians benefit... and that idea is not post-EC. Why would assume that the geth have abilities and knowledge that can benefit organics and the Reapers do not?
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 3, 2019 17:10:21 GMT
The thing says it controls the reapers. It put them in harm's way.
Don't have clue how they became derelict? The one in ME2 was hit by a weapon that TIM mentions. The one the batarians found appears to be the work of Leviathan. Sovereign was destroyed in ME1.
Again, do you know the circumstances behind it being hit by an assumed weapon (TIM's theory and he clearly states that he doesn't know for sure). Same for the one the Batarians found shown by the fact that you yourself have used the term "appears to be..." Sovereign was destroyed in ME1... and I clearly stated that leaving one sentinel behind was crap... ME1's crap (supporting my position that the entire Mass Effect story was flawed from the get go - which is not a popular stance here). The popular stance here is that ME1 is perfect and only after Chris L'Etoile left did it decline. Over the course of the trilogy, including expansions, we watch 4 total reapers get destroyed: Sovereign, the destroyers on both Tuchanka and Rannoch, and then the capital ship over Despoina after meeting the Leviathan. I sure hope that last one didn't have billions of years worth of cookbooks on it.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 3, 2019 17:15:17 GMT
The distinction between "self-defense" and "acts of war" seems like a needless nitpick, given the circumstances. In an extreme scenario where it's a simple matter of staving off extinction, I don't think it really carries the same weight. As for the data archive, that's only a meaningful factor if the Catalyst specifically states it. Up until this point, we're never given the idea that the reapers have information that they can even share, or if it's even possible to get information out of them. In all the times I've explored the dialogue, and even did the dialogue prior to the Extended Cut, I don't recall the Catalyst ever offering up that the reapers can share knowledge with the rest of the galaxy. I've only ever seen this idea put out in the Synthesis slides, but that requires foreknowledge to count in the actual decision-making. How much value does data have when we don't know what that data entails, or if it even exists? We've never known whether all the archaeology we've done from way back would yield useful data, yet we have whole systems in place now to preserve and protect ruins, museums, and archives that strongly state it is wrong to destroy them during acts of war. We (i.e. humanity) says it has value. I agree that the idea was only introduced into Mass Effect in ME3. I disagree that it only came to light during the EC because the Synthesis Ending existed before the EC... and it has always clearly stated that organics experience benefits from synthetics... "can you imagine your life without them?" is not restricted to a post EC idea. If you resolve the geth/quarian war peacefully, the Quarians benefit... and that idea is not post-EC. Why would assume that the geth have abilities and knowledge that can benefit organics and the Reapers do not? There's a lot wrong with this comparison. Data we gather from archaeological digs, artifacts and the like is not really the same as assumed knowledge contained within something that's actively trying to kill us. Like, if the pyramids of Egypt were massive death machines that were stomping around zapping the population, we'd worry about any inherent data we can gather after we blow them up. Just the same, there's no reason to believe that there's nothing of value to gather from the reaper husks after they're neutralized anyway. Sure bet that the technology that held the reapers together can still be reverse engineered even after choosing Destroy. Only this time, the reapers lack the capacity to ration out this information, or resist on a whim.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Sept 28, 2024 3:55:52 GMT
25,463
themikefest
15,348
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Dec 3, 2019 17:40:34 GMT
I sure hope that last one didn't have billions of years worth of cookbooks on it. If it did, don't tell Mr. Rupert Gardner, the greatest cook in the universe. He would be in tears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 17:59:29 GMT
We've never known whether all the archaeology we've done from way back would yield useful data, yet we have whole systems in place now to preserve and protect ruins, museums, and archives that strongly state it is wrong to destroy them during acts of war. We (i.e. humanity) says it has value. I agree that the idea was only introduced into Mass Effect in ME3. I disagree that it only came to light during the EC because the Synthesis Ending existed before the EC... and it has always clearly stated that organics experience benefits from synthetics... "can you imagine your life without them?" is not restricted to a post EC idea. If you resolve the geth/quarian war peacefully, the Quarians benefit... and that idea is not post-EC. Why would assume that the geth have abilities and knowledge that can benefit organics and the Reapers do not? There's a lot wrong with this comparison. Data we gather from archaeological digs, artifacts and the like is not really the same as assumed knowledge contained within something that's actively trying to kill us. Like, if the pyramids of Egypt were massive death machines that were stomping around zapping the population, we'd worry about any inherent data we can gather after we blow them up. Just the same, there's no reason to believe that there's nothing of value to gather from the reaper husks after they're neutralized anyway. Sure bet that the technology that held the reapers together can still be reverse engineered even after choosing Destroy. Only this time, the reapers lack the capacity to ration out this information, or resist on a whim. Yet it's studying a Reaper Husk that enables Shepard to go through the Omega 4 relay... but it doesn't unlock all the mysteries of what the Reapers are... let alone how each Reaper is different in an off itself. It doesn't answer any of the massive questions about them that Sovereign says we simply cannot understand. Regardless of whether or not Shepard gives the base to TIM, the study of the Reaper does not yield the answers even to what their weaknesses are to defeat them. If that were the case, the study of Sovereign would have yielded the information needed to prevent them from ever starting the harvest.
Again, there is obviously something of value to be shared by a living Reaper. Just because it's TIM who sees it, doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. Why would you assume that Sovereign, who clearly states he possesses knowledge of an existence we don't yet understand had no knowledge of value to share? The thing is can he be convinced to share it? ME3 shows us that the Reapers can be so "convinced" through the control ending. The only flaw in TIM's line of attack is that he, in the process, became instead controlled by them. Shepard isn't under that same control. Vendetta verifies that because he does not detect an indoctrinated presence until Kai Leng shows up on Thessia. The Catalyst merely confirms it further.
The end result given to us in the game itself speaks for itself... The cost is one life - Shepard. The post-EC slides for Control show nothing evil going on regardless of whether Shepard is Renegade or Paragon. The speech that Shepard gives when paragon is that of a hero.
Destruction is destruction regardless of which "side" uses it. In destroying the Reapers utterly, the organics become no better than the Reapers themselves. So, what happens when they create another synthetic species... do they ultimately destroy all of them as well whenever in the future that "species' becomes "uppity" and attacks or rebels? What about the next and the one after that? If the organics of this cycle are prepared to utterly destroy all the history of the galaxy in one feel swoop in the name of "self-defense" what's stopping them from becoming the next species of "Reaper" to everything new that comes into being in the future... allowing it to evolve until they perceive it as a threat and then annihilating it utterly?
Oppenheimer - "Now I am become death."
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 3, 2019 19:19:27 GMT
There's a lot wrong with this comparison. Data we gather from archaeological digs, artifacts and the like is not really the same as assumed knowledge contained within something that's actively trying to kill us. Like, if the pyramids of Egypt were massive death machines that were stomping around zapping the population, we'd worry about any inherent data we can gather after we blow them up. Just the same, there's no reason to believe that there's nothing of value to gather from the reaper husks after they're neutralized anyway. Sure bet that the technology that held the reapers together can still be reverse engineered even after choosing Destroy. Only this time, the reapers lack the capacity to ration out this information, or resist on a whim. Yet it's studying a Reaper Husk that enables Shepard to go through the Omega 4 relay... but it doesn't unlock all the mysteries of what the Reapers are... let alone how each Reaper is different in an off itself. It doesn't answer any of the massive questions about them that Sovereign says we simply cannot understand. Regardless of whether or not Shepard gives the base to TIM, the study of the Reaper does not yield the answers even to what their weaknesses are to defeat them. If that were the case, the study of Sovereign would have yielded the information needed to prevent them from ever starting the harvest.
Again, there is obviously something of value to be shared by a living Reaper. Just because it's TIM who sees it, doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. Why would you assume that Sovereign, who clearly states he possesses knowledge of an existence we don't yet understand had no knowledge of value to share? The thing is can he be convinced to share it? ME3 shows us that the Reapers can be so "convinced" through the control ending. The only flaw in TIM's line of attack is that he, in the process, became instead controlled by them. Shepard isn't under that same control. Vendetta verifies that because he does not detect an indoctrinated presence until Kai Leng shows up on Thessia. The Catalyst merely confirms it further.
The end result given to us in the game itself speaks for itself... The cost is one life - Shepard. The post-EC slides for Control show nothing evil going on regardless of whether Shepard is Renegade or Paragon. The speech that Shepard gives when paragon is that of a hero.
Destruction is destruction regardless of which "side" uses it. In destroying the Reapers utterly, the organics become no better than the Reapers themselves. So, what happens when they create another synthetic species... do they ultimately destroy all of them as well whenever in the future that "species' becomes "uppity" and attacks or rebels? What about the next and the one after that? If the organics of this cycle are prepared to utterly destroy all the history of the galaxy in one feel swoop in the name of "self-defense" what's stopping them from becoming the next species of "Reaper" to everything new that comes into being in the future... allowing it to evolve until they perceive it as a threat and then annihilating it utterly?
Oppenheimer - "Now I am become death."
Studying the derelict in-depth would be a doomed venture anyway, since prolonged exposure proved to be fatal to everyone who studied it prior. I can't really take villainous bluster from ancient space monsters as evidence that there's much that can be done with their "knowledge", whatever that may be. Essentially, Sovereign and Harbinger do little more than shit talk than provide promise that anything of value can be gotten beyond watching them keel over and die. If we're going to go by end results, however, all that can really be taken away from this is that all options are basically valid. But really, I don't weigh the value of each decision on the outcome we see in slides. I can only go by what the narrative succeeds or fails in selling me. I have to be convinced into believing that this cycle will be exactly like all the rest, and eventually galactic civilization will die by machines, and that it's actually impossible for civilization, even through any future hardships, to ultimately keep on trucking. I have no reason to believe it's impossible, and the narrative fails to convince me otherwise. After all, it got this far, and got this close to defeating the reapers, thanks to an increasing weakness in the reapers' hold on the development of organics, as proven by this Crucible that eluded them for ages. Basically, I have to buy into the infallibility of the Catalyst, and toss aside any possibility of it being wrong. Question is, why would I ever do such a thing? The idea of being no "better" than the reapers seems as much an appeal to emotion as the idea of picking Destroy itself. I mean, this isn't something that the galaxy would be collectively responsible for anyway. That would fall solely on Shepard. How much would (or should) Shepard even care about being any better than the reapers. At least in the end, Shepard's still prettier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 23:05:48 GMT
Yet it's studying a Reaper Husk that enables Shepard to go through the Omega 4 relay... but it doesn't unlock all the mysteries of what the Reapers are... let alone how each Reaper is different in an off itself. It doesn't answer any of the massive questions about them that Sovereign says we simply cannot understand. Regardless of whether or not Shepard gives the base to TIM, the study of the Reaper does not yield the answers even to what their weaknesses are to defeat them. If that were the case, the study of Sovereign would have yielded the information needed to prevent them from ever starting the harvest.
Again, there is obviously something of value to be shared by a living Reaper. Just because it's TIM who sees it, doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. Why would you assume that Sovereign, who clearly states he possesses knowledge of an existence we don't yet understand had no knowledge of value to share? The thing is can he be convinced to share it? ME3 shows us that the Reapers can be so "convinced" through the control ending. The only flaw in TIM's line of attack is that he, in the process, became instead controlled by them. Shepard isn't under that same control. Vendetta verifies that because he does not detect an indoctrinated presence until Kai Leng shows up on Thessia. The Catalyst merely confirms it further.
The end result given to us in the game itself speaks for itself... The cost is one life - Shepard. The post-EC slides for Control show nothing evil going on regardless of whether Shepard is Renegade or Paragon. The speech that Shepard gives when paragon is that of a hero.
Destruction is destruction regardless of which "side" uses it. In destroying the Reapers utterly, the organics become no better than the Reapers themselves. So, what happens when they create another synthetic species... do they ultimately destroy all of them as well whenever in the future that "species' becomes "uppity" and attacks or rebels? What about the next and the one after that? If the organics of this cycle are prepared to utterly destroy all the history of the galaxy in one feel swoop in the name of "self-defense" what's stopping them from becoming the next species of "Reaper" to everything new that comes into being in the future... allowing it to evolve until they perceive it as a threat and then annihilating it utterly?
Oppenheimer - "Now I am become death."
Studying the derelict in-depth would be a doomed venture anyway, since prolonged exposure proved to be fatal to everyone who studied it prior. I can't really take villainous bluster from ancient space monsters as evidence that there's much that can be done with their "knowledge", whatever that may be. Essentially, Sovereign and Harbinger do little more than shit talk than provide promise that anything of value can be gotten beyond watching them keel over and die. If we're going to go by end results, however, all that can really be taken away from this is that all options are basically valid. But really, I don't weigh the value of each decision on the outcome we see in slides. I can only go by what the narrative succeeds or fails in selling me. I have to be convinced into believing that this cycle will be exactly like all the rest, and eventually galactic civilization will die by machines, and that it's actually impossible for civilization, even through any future hardships, to ultimately keep on trucking. I have no reason to believe it's impossible, and the narrative fails to convince me otherwise. After all, it got this far, and got this close to defeating the reapers, thanks to an increasing weakness in the reapers' hold on the development of organics, as proven by this Crucible that eluded them for ages. Basically, I have to buy into the infallibility of the Catalyst, and toss aside any possibility of it being wrong. Question is, why would I ever do such a thing? The idea of being no "better" than the reapers seems as much an appeal to emotion as the idea of picking Destroy itself. I mean, this isn't something that the galaxy would be collectively responsible for anyway. That would fall solely on Shepard. How much would (or should) Shepard even care about being any better than the reapers. At least in the end, Shepard's still prettier. ... and yet you're willing to blame all the Reapers for the Catalyst's actions (who admits to controlling them, particularly when Leviathan corroberates that claim earlier in the sequence of events).
Is total annihilation of an enemy when there are other viable options to achieve peace a valid option in war? It hasn't been an acceptable practice historically here on earth. Hitler believed the Jews were a threat to the German people because he believed they were completely undermining Germany's economy and their Arian purity (a threat to their very genetics as a race). Russia and Europe perceived Germany's expansion as a threat to them... a land grab threatening their very existence as nations.
Both sides in a war generally perceive the other as a threat of some kind... that's why they go to war. That still doesn't make the "final solution" an acceptable one. It was still unacceptable for Hitler to pursue the annihilation of the Jewish people and it would have been unacceptable for the Allies to pursue the annhilation of the German people. It was wrong at the end of WWI to impose such heavy restriction on the German people and, in part, it gave rise to Hitler and WWII.
An acceptable way to end wars is to either by finding a way to achieve a treaty or by forcing a surrender... not by completely annihilating the enemy. I don't see why it should all of sudden become an acceptable option in science fiction... let alone be allowed to become the sole canon ending to ME3. Particularly when the game clearly offers two other viable alternatives towards achieving peace. I'm fine with it standing as one possible choice and people who want to choose it still can... but I don't want to be forced into choosing it or forced to say Shepard chose it in order to continue on in the Milky Way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 23:13:48 GMT
There is no surrender, because Vigil from ME1 told us as much.
|
|
inherit
265
0
Sept 22, 2024 10:44:40 GMT
11,985
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,916
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Dec 3, 2019 23:15:41 GMT
Studying the derelict in-depth would be a doomed venture anyway, since prolonged exposure proved to be fatal to everyone who studied it prior. I can't really take villainous bluster from ancient space monsters as evidence that there's much that can be done with their "knowledge", whatever that may be. Essentially, Sovereign and Harbinger do little more than shit talk than provide promise that anything of value can be gotten beyond watching them keel over and die. If we're going to go by end results, however, all that can really be taken away from this is that all options are basically valid. But really, I don't weigh the value of each decision on the outcome we see in slides. I can only go by what the narrative succeeds or fails in selling me. I have to be convinced into believing that this cycle will be exactly like all the rest, and eventually galactic civilization will die by machines, and that it's actually impossible for civilization, even through any future hardships, to ultimately keep on trucking. I have no reason to believe it's impossible, and the narrative fails to convince me otherwise. After all, it got this far, and got this close to defeating the reapers, thanks to an increasing weakness in the reapers' hold on the development of organics, as proven by this Crucible that eluded them for ages. Basically, I have to buy into the infallibility of the Catalyst, and toss aside any possibility of it being wrong. Question is, why would I ever do such a thing? The idea of being no "better" than the reapers seems as much an appeal to emotion as the idea of picking Destroy itself. I mean, this isn't something that the galaxy would be collectively responsible for anyway. That would fall solely on Shepard. How much would (or should) Shepard even care about being any better than the reapers. At least in the end, Shepard's still prettier. ... and yet you're willing to blame all the Reapers for the Catalyst's actions (who admits to controlling them, particularly when Leviathan corroberates that claim earlier in the sequence of events).
Is total annihilation of an enemy when there are other viable options to achieve peace a valid option in war? It hasn't been an acceptable practice historically here on earth. Hitler believed the Jews were a threat to the German people because he believed they were completely undermining Germany's economy and their Arian purity (a threat to their very genetics as a race). Russia and Europe perceived Germany's expansion as a threat to them... a land grab threatening their very existence as nations.
Both sides in a war generally perceive the other as a threat of some kind... that's why they go to war. That still doesn't make the "final solution" an acceptable one. It was still unacceptable for Hitler to pursue the annihilation of the Jewish people and it would have been unacceptable for the Allies to pursue the annhilation of the German people. It was wrong at the end of WWI to impose such heavy restriction on the German people and, in part, it gave rise to Hitler and WWII.
An acceptable way to end wars is to either by finding a way to achieve a treaty or by forcing a surrender... not by completely annihilating the enemy. I don't see why it should all of sudden become an acceptable option in science fiction... let alone be allowed to become the sole canon ending to ME3. Particularly when the game clearly offers two other viable alternatives towards achieving peace. I'm fine with it standing as one possible choice and people who want to choose it still can... but I don't want to be forced into choosing it or forced to say Shepard chose it in order to continue on in the Milky Way.
Some awkward mental gymnastics right there. The reapers wouldn't surrender. They never considered defeat as option neither.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 21,081 Likes: 49,910
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,910
Iakus
21,081
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 3, 2019 23:51:34 GMT
The idea of being no "better" than the reapers seems as much an appeal to emotion as the idea of picking Destroy itself. I mean, this isn't something that the galaxy would be collectively responsible for anyway. That would fall solely on Shepard. How much would (or should) Shepard even care about being any better than the reapers. At least in the end, Shepard's still prettier. If the "hero" is no better than the "villain" then why should I give a sh*t who wins? Might as well let Saren win in ME1.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 4, 2019 0:26:36 GMT
The idea of being no "better" than the reapers seems as much an appeal to emotion as the idea of picking Destroy itself. I mean, this isn't something that the galaxy would be collectively responsible for anyway. That would fall solely on Shepard. How much would (or should) Shepard even care about being any better than the reapers. At least in the end, Shepard's still prettier. If the "hero" is no better than the "villain" then why should I give a sh*t who wins? Might as well let Saren win in ME1. I guess at least this is something I find interesting. I mean, it is a war after all. Of course, I find the idea extremely laughable. If Shepard’s on the same level of the reapers, the Mad Prophet is actually Jehovah’s Witness.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 4, 2019 0:28:54 GMT
Studying the derelict in-depth would be a doomed venture anyway, since prolonged exposure proved to be fatal to everyone who studied it prior. I can't really take villainous bluster from ancient space monsters as evidence that there's much that can be done with their "knowledge", whatever that may be. Essentially, Sovereign and Harbinger do little more than shit talk than provide promise that anything of value can be gotten beyond watching them keel over and die. If we're going to go by end results, however, all that can really be taken away from this is that all options are basically valid. But really, I don't weigh the value of each decision on the outcome we see in slides. I can only go by what the narrative succeeds or fails in selling me. I have to be convinced into believing that this cycle will be exactly like all the rest, and eventually galactic civilization will die by machines, and that it's actually impossible for civilization, even through any future hardships, to ultimately keep on trucking. I have no reason to believe it's impossible, and the narrative fails to convince me otherwise. After all, it got this far, and got this close to defeating the reapers, thanks to an increasing weakness in the reapers' hold on the development of organics, as proven by this Crucible that eluded them for ages. Basically, I have to buy into the infallibility of the Catalyst, and toss aside any possibility of it being wrong. Question is, why would I ever do such a thing? The idea of being no "better" than the reapers seems as much an appeal to emotion as the idea of picking Destroy itself. I mean, this isn't something that the galaxy would be collectively responsible for anyway. That would fall solely on Shepard. How much would (or should) Shepard even care about being any better than the reapers. At least in the end, Shepard's still prettier. ... and yet you're willing to blame all the Reapers for the Catalyst's actions (who admits to controlling them, particularly when Leviathan corroberates that claim earlier in the sequence of events).
Is total annihilation of an enemy when there are other viable options to achieve peace a valid option in war? It hasn't been an acceptable practice historically here on earth. Hitler believed the Jews were a threat to the German people because he believed they were completely undermining Germany's economy and their Arian purity (a threat to their very genetics as a race). Russia and Europe perceived Germany's expansion as a threat to them... a land grab threatening their very existence as nations.
Both sides in a war generally perceive the other as a threat of some kind... that's why they go to war. That still doesn't make the "final solution" an acceptable one. It was still unacceptable for Hitler to pursue the annihilation of the Jewish people and it would have been unacceptable for the Allies to pursue the annhilation of the German people. It was wrong at the end of WWI to impose such heavy restriction on the German people and, in part, it gave rise to Hitler and WWII.
An acceptable way to end wars is to either by finding a way to achieve a treaty or by forcing a surrender... not by completely annihilating the enemy. I don't see why it should all of sudden become an acceptable option in science fiction... let alone be allowed to become the sole canon ending to ME3. Particularly when the game clearly offers two other viable alternatives towards achieving peace. I'm fine with it standing as one possible choice and people who want to choose it still can... but I don't want to be forced into choosing it or forced to say Shepard chose it in order to continue on in the Milky Way.
There’s no use in picking and choosing who to blame. I regard the reapers the same way I would regard a hornet’s nest that’s latched on to my house. I kill it all with fire and be done with it. And I sure as hell wouldnt die to save any of them.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Sept 16, 2024 15:46:24 GMT
9,324
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,875
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Dec 4, 2019 3:19:59 GMT
If the "hero" is no better than the "villain" then why should I give a sh*t who wins? Might as well let Saren win in ME1. I guess at least this is something I find interesting. I mean, it is a war after all. Of course, I find the idea extremely laughable. If Shepard’s on the same level of the reapers, the Mad Prophet is actually Jehovah’s Witness. I agree that they're not on the same level. A Destroy Shepard is worse than the Reapers. They don't have the required moral agency to be judged for their actions, since they were conditioned and controlled from their creation. But Shepard has free will, and can be judged for how he uses it. Edit: I'm not really signing on with Iakus' point, though. I don't think the situation in ME actually has a villain for Shepard to be worse than, in any meaningful sense. Nobody wanted to create the insane mess the galaxy found itself in. The Leviathans didn't know what they were doing, the Catalyst is just following its flawed premises to their logical conclusion, and the Reapers can't do otherwise than what they've been told to do.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 4, 2019 3:27:55 GMT
I guess at least this is something I find interesting. I mean, it is a war after all. Of course, I find the idea extremely laughable. If Shepard’s on the same level of the reapers, the Mad Prophet is actually Jehovah’s Witness. I agree that they're not on the same level. A Destroy Shepard is worse than the Reapers. They don't have the required moral agency to be judged for their actions, since they were conditioned and controlled from their creation. But Shepard has free will, and can be judged for how he uses it. You were supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 3:57:49 GMT
It was only a matter of time before the Reapers turned Shepard against his allies.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 21,081 Likes: 49,910
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,910
Iakus
21,081
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 4, 2019 15:49:57 GMT
I guess at least this is something I find interesting. I mean, it is a war after all. Of course, I find the idea extremely laughable. If Shepard’s on the same level of the reapers, the Mad Prophet is actually Jehovah’s Witness. I agree that they're not on the same level. A Destroy Shepard is worse than the Reapers. They don't have the required moral agency to be judged for their actions, since they were conditioned and controlled from their creation. But Shepard has free will, and can be judged for how he uses it. Edit: I'm not really signing on with Iakus' point, though. I don't think the situation in ME actually has a villain for Shepard to be worse than, in any meaningful sense. Nobody wanted to create the insane mess the galaxy found itself in. The Leviathans didn't know what they were doing, the Catalyst is just following its flawed premises to their logical conclusion, and the Reapers can't do otherwise than what they've been told to do. Which overall turns the trilogy into a cr*ppy, nihilistic excuse of a story, where nothing Shepard does really matters.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 4, 2019 15:53:17 GMT
Reapers zapping Batarians or Krogan because they got out of line IS good ending because that is the intent of Renegade control. To protect the peace no matter the cost utilizing the Reapers as peace keepers. That wouldn't be vaugly similar to "I destroy the Reapers but cause millions to die as collateral damage" that Destroy has. There is also the fact that the Relays are damaged if not out right destroyed. Synthesis and Control still leaves the Reapers around to repair them while Destroy would render them inoperable and the Milky Way would have no way to know how to fix them. Which would further fragment the races of the galaxy further making helping war damaged or far flung colonies impossible. And unless they are self sufficient the would slowly die off.
Glossing over all of this is shitty because Destroy is very much a primarily an emotional choice then any pragmatism. This is best highlighted by the countless conversations and reasons people used. Primarily some variation of "They killed billions they deserve to die for their actions." which shows primary motivation for choosing it. And that ties into the old saying of An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. You stop the Reapers but your actions have consequences that causes the death of even more people and shatter the galaxy at large with the ever looming possibility of the cycle starting all over.
If it had that then Destroy would have been the best ending ever. Still not my preferred ending but still would be the best out of the 4 choices due to the stark reality of what the choice would do and that the emotionally satisfying isn't always the best choice. Particularly since Refuse is just you being a super douche canoe that is so self centered you actually make the Inquisition from Warhammer 40k look like caring individuals. Control is more practical as you realize the great potential the Reapers have and how they could be used for so much good to the galaxy. With Synthesis being the optimistic future given you are altering organic life to bridge the gap between organic and synthetic to jump all live to a new level of existence and improving the galaxy with that.
All of this really highlights to me why the ending is irrevocably broken, and why I consider the Milky Way dead narratively. No matter how anyone slices it, BioWare basically decided to scorch the earth and then lay down salt for good measure so nothing could grow again. Things like pragmatism and such just don't really apply to any of the endings. They're all a horribly illogical mess created by people who decided to put their biggest Hack Helmet on. Hyperbole? Sure, but this is why I'm basically all-in with Andromeda over anything Milky Way related. You can be sure that if BioWare decides to chicken out and go back there, they'll retcon the endings so hard EDI might just be a VI on Luna again. Oh no the Milky Way is absolutely rip for more narratives. Some endings provide more then others depending on the kind of game they want to make. Refuse would be a great reboot with entirely new races. Destroy would be a great one were you try to help restore order and rebuild settlements and protect them from the people who are pirates. Synthesis can be a great game for simply exploration or trying the milky way to Andromeda series. And control would be a good game for dealing with the social changes that happened post choice and post war. It is only dead narrative if you don't have any imagination.
Pragmatism exists for 2 out of the 4 endings because they are looking at the potential of what could be rather then self centered or emotional stance of vengeance. It is the same pragmatism that didn't cause the Allies to bomb Germany into dust or nuke Japan into the world's largest radioactive parking lot. It is why soft power exists and why nations will try to exert subtle influences to change cultures rather then try to force said changes at gun point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 16:55:04 GMT
I agree that they're not on the same level. A Destroy Shepard is worse than the Reapers. They don't have the required moral agency to be judged for their actions, since they were conditioned and controlled from their creation. But Shepard has free will, and can be judged for how he uses it. Edit: I'm not really signing on with Iakus' point, though. I don't think the situation in ME actually has a villain for Shepard to be worse than, in any meaningful sense. Nobody wanted to create the insane mess the galaxy found itself in. The Leviathans didn't know what they were doing, the Catalyst is just following its flawed premises to their logical conclusion, and the Reapers can't do otherwise than what they've been told to do. Which overall turns the trilogy into a cr*ppy, nihilistic excuse of a story, where nothing Shepard does really matters. What Shepard does absolutely matters.. It matters to the geth and the quarians if Shepard chooses Destroy. Depending on how Shepard chose to resolve the geth/quarian war, the geth can be wiped out of existence via the Destroy choice and the quarians lose the help they had been getting to that point with resolving their immunity issues. The post-Synthesis speech is all about how much it matters to EDI to be "alive and not alone." It matters to the Reapers themselves, who via Control can become meaningful contributors in helping to rebuild the galaxy instead of remaining the perennial harvesters they were under the rule of the Catalyst.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 17:15:02 GMT
Which overall turns the trilogy into a cr*ppy, nihilistic excuse of a story, where nothing Shepard does really matters. Not sure what this means. The ending doesn't undo any of the choices you made.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Sept 27, 2024 23:23:21 GMT
31,554
Hanako Ikezawa
22,977
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Dec 4, 2019 17:16:56 GMT
Which overall turns the trilogy into a cr*ppy, nihilistic excuse of a story, where nothing Shepard does really matters. Not sure what this means. The ending doesn't undo any of the choices you made. What's strange is this is the same guy who doesn't want choices to transfer over, therefore making the choices not really matter so it's strange he's complaining about that now.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 21,081 Likes: 49,910
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,910
Iakus
21,081
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 4, 2019 17:28:28 GMT
Not sure what this means. The ending doesn't undo any of the choices you made. What's strange is this is the same guy who doesn't want choices to transfer over, therefore making the choices not really matter so it's strange he's complaining about that now. False. Choices should matter, but they should matter in the game they are made in. Not held over to some future game where it just becomes baggage for the writers who have to account for every character who might or might not be dead, romanced, befriended, betrayed, etc.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 21,081 Likes: 49,910
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,910
Iakus
21,081
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 4, 2019 17:34:43 GMT
Which overall turns the trilogy into a cr*ppy, nihilistic excuse of a story, where nothing Shepard does really matters. Not sure what this means. The ending doesn't undo any of the choices you made. It renders them meaningless though. You work to unite the galaxy against the Reapers, and in the end you end up no better than the Reapers, either through genocide, starting your own cycle of destruction of synthetics. Or allowing the Reapers to rule the galaxy, holding all organics in a cage, gilded or not, or determining that organic life isn't worthy of existence, and forcibly "augmenting" them at a genetic level (and doing something similar to all synthetic life) In no outcome is the galaxy free of the Reapers or their legacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 17:43:12 GMT
You were told that two of those outcomes (control and synthesis) are what the Reapers do if you followed the story to any degree. They weren't going to go down without a fight. This is why they paint synthesis and control as the preferred choice, and destroy as a very bad choice for them. It's all about self-preservation as EDI said. And yes, Bioware did state the Reapers could win this war.
As for the destroy ending, the Catalyst does say "The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic".
So not only something purely synthetic like the Geth will be destroyed, but also anything partly synthetic as well. Do you know who is partly synthetic? Shepard and....the Reapers. The Reapers do get destroyed, but Shepard doesn't. This is not a glitch in the writing. This is a clue that the Catalyst wasn't being truthful with you.
However, I suppose you need explicit, no room for doubt, smacked in the face clarification which makes it completely obvious he may be lying or that synthetics weren't destroyed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 8:20:25 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 17:44:24 GMT
Not sure what this means. The ending doesn't undo any of the choices you made. It renders them meaningless though. You work to unite the galaxy against the Reapers, and in the end you end up no better than the Reapers, either through genocide, starting your own cycle of destruction of synthetics. Or allowing the Reapers to rule the galaxy, holding all organics in a cage, gilded or not, or determining that organic life isn't worthy of existence, and forcibly "augmenting" them at a genetic level (and doing something similar to all synthetic life) In no outcome is the galaxy free of the Reapers or their legacy. Sigh... Control is not "allowing the Reapers to rule the galaxy." The Shepard AI only controls the Reapers themselves. The Catalyst already controlled the Reapers anyways. What is changed is the "focus" of that dictatorship. It becomes whatever focus Shepard saw fit... Paragon Shepard clearly intends to allow organics to thrive... to protect them and never forget them. He accomplishes that by changing the Reapers "programming" so that they assist in the rebuilding. Organics are not under Shepard's control... they can do what they want, advance their civilizations however they please... The Shepard AI cannot even make contact with the organics to influence them in any way. Sometime down the road when they've developed better weapons, the organics could absolutely decide to destroy the Reapers and The Shepard AI could not do anything to prevent them... just as the Catalyst could not actually "act."
|
|