ME3 End: Do you agree with the Reapers?

[MLionheart]

Not really, what gives the Reapers the right to do what they do?
Especially when its shown Synthetics and Organics can co exist (Geth and Quarians)

This.

 

[Conza]

**Spoiler** discussion topic for the antagonist of ME3.

So, knowing now what the Reapers and Catalyst's goals were, do you agree with them? That's it's necessary to wipe out all advanced civilization every 50,000 years?

I don't care for the Reapers myself as their existence seems to be based on a fear, although, still I can understand their mission at least. Without them, who's to say another more powerful organic/inorganic race could take over and/or cause greater problems for everyone in the galaxy?

Yeah, I think the title is a bit of a spoiler alert dude, just saying (I've finished what he were given of ME3).

The Reapers are automons, they all worked for the Catalyst, and his motivation wasn't fear, it was preventing a pointless self destruction of the machines wiping out the organics anyway, so they were just harnessing the energy.

But, no I don't agree with the Catalyst's logic, which is why I'm glad I chose the ending that I wanted (by random chance) which destroyed the reapers.

 

[MarxonSR1]

Well if

A leads to An, An leads to B, B leads to Bn, and Bn leads to 0A

With
A=organics
An=many organics
B=Synthetics
Bn=many synthetics
0A= no organics

Then the most logical response would be to destroy A to prevent B from happening.

Also while they could just destroy B the fact that A remains as it, i.e. at the point that they could make AI, was means the next occurrence of B would be significantly more soon then had they just destroyed A, which would cause a drastic increase in resources needed to fuel what would become an eternal continuous slaughter of B.

It is an exceedingly cold train of though, but a logical one in its reasoning.

This assumes that all synthetics, will eventually try to destroy organics. Why would you imagine all AIs would develop in exactly the same way?

Just as with organics there are millions of factors determining how a conciousness will develop, preferences, prejudices and values all are influenced by millions of different things. Especially as an AI, could in theory adjust it's core programming.

When you there are a sufficient number of variables that affect the outcome in a complex system, the result becomes essentially indistinguishable from randomness. You can pick out patterns in the system, but you can never determine how the pattern is going to be made up. So eventually, once an AI has enough things affecting how it will make a decision, there's no way to predict what the outcome of the decision will be.
Legion talks about how the 'heretics' and the 'true Geth' came to different decisions, but equally correct.

Even if all the AIs ever, came to the conclusion that they didn't 'need' organics, (which is quite a specific conclusion) why would they then conclude that destruction of said organics, was their only option? It's also tremendously short-sighted.

Incidentally, if this 'God-Child' is an AI (which I assume he is), why can't he just share his collective experiences with all future AIs, to show them why they shouldn't kill all organics?

So, no I don't agree with the Reapers.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

I can see their point, to a limited degree. Better to live forever as an immortal collective than have a brief existence that is ultimately doomed to extinction? Perhaps.

Of course, their motives were somewhat clumsily explained in ME3, so using that as a base only, definitely not.

Bioware should never have attached any sort of meaning to their motives. The most they should have done is hinted at something, to keep the Reapers mystique and horror.

It's like if Lovecraft had said at the end of his short story "The Call of Cthulhu" that Cthulhu's reason for rising from the deep was to do his Space-Taxes and take a shit before going back to sleep.

A-yup

Why do you even need to explain something that is, by definition, unknowable?

 

[llew]

must have missed that one but ok, point made

 

[llew]

question, i know the geth wanted peace and all, but at what point (Legion in ME3 does NOT count to this) did the geth state, or even attempt to state, that they want peace? they just sat behind the veil assuming everything would be well and the quarians would leave them be on the quarian home planet

I would say that the Geth's inaction was enough to prove that they desired peace. Hell, the entire period between the Morning War and Sovereign's recruitment of the Heretics was a time of peace between Geth and Quarians, even if the Quarians didn't realize it.

yeah but at the end of the day they only let the quarians live because they didnt know the repurcutions of eliminating them all and for all the quarians knew the geth were building a force large enough to take over the galaxy and were simply biding time (yeah ok, weak excuse, but the quarians excuse for wiping them out was even weaker)

 

[Syzygy23]

question, i know the geth wanted peace and all, but at what point (Legion in ME3 does NOT count to this) did the geth state, or even attempt to state, that they want peace? they just sat behind the veil assuming everything would be well and the quarians would leave them be on the quarian home planet

I would say that the Geth's inaction was enough to prove that they desired peace. Hell, the entire period between the Morning War and Sovereign's recruitment of the Heretics was a time of peace between Geth and Quarians, even if the Quarians didn't realize it.

yeah but at the end of the day they only let the quarians live because they didnt know the repurcutions of eliminating them all and for all the quarians knew the geth were building a force large enough to take over the galaxy and were simply biding time (yeah ok, weak excuse, but the quarians excuse for wiping them out was even weaker)

The quarians were acting like a bunch of retarded children during the whole "War for Rannoch" thing. Didn't they end up almost killing Shepherd (KNOWINGLY, I might add) twice?

 

[Demongeneral109]

What the game actually presented us as the Reapers' motivation was so lackluster and flat, that I don't even deem it worthy of discussing whether or not I agreed with it. It was fucking stupid, and it never should've been there in the first place.

If the explanation had been as simple as "we are the top of the food chain and we harvest organic civilizations to reproduce" that would have made sense, so why they decided to go in that direction is beyond my ability to comprehend.

They spent the first two games saying that the Reaper's goals are incomprehensible.

Most people can't comprehend the Reaper's goals. Bioware went meta.

No, I comprehend that the reaper's goals don't make a lick of sense.

They may not make sense to you, but they do to me. If you factor in that the Reapers as a whole are flawed.

Synthetics kill organics so some god child invented other synthetics to kill organics before organics invent synthetics that kill organics.
Very sensical and well thought out.

You already know it's not as simple as that. This thread has some good discussion about the Reapers motivation. It's more nuanced than that simple sentence. It just seems like you've already made up your mind.

Why should we believe the starchild? What makes it better than the other AIs? If all AI are bound to betray organics as he says, who says he doesn't betray us? Why are we forced to accept a short explanation at the very end of the game without having any option to question his goals?

Something interesting I noticed is that the Starchild says he was changed by the introduction of the Crucible; and if you remember what the Codex said in ME1; AI once their hardware is altered, are fundamentally changed, that instability is one of the key reasons for the AI ban. Perhaps the Reapers were never as the Starchild described, but the crucible altered its memories and motivations, retroactively applying its new logic to its old decisions. The only thing we know for certain then is what he hear from the Reapers directly, which is that their purpose is beyond organic comprehension, that they reproduce by absorbing genetic material, and that at least one of them sees the Reapers as agents of Order.

We find out from Sovereign that the Reapers "impose order on the chaos of organic evolution" And we learn from the Prothean that the battles in each sector of the galaxy repeat through every cycle. So it seems that the starchild is wrong about the Reapers; and that they just sought to create a repeatable, harvest-able cycle of Galactic extinction that served them.

I haven't heard anyone say that yet, so please tell me your thoughts...

 

[VoidWanderer]

*Sigh...*

I understand why the guy that came up with this did, but this is like the Mind Flayers from D&D being the good guys for killing us all.

Remember, Hitler probably thought he was doing the world a favor killing Jews. Doesn't make him a good guy.

 

[SycoMantis91]

I get it, but I think my stance against it, though it's hard for me to even count it as Mass Effect, having just beat the game within the last hour, comes down to some simple things.

You can't help organics by KILLING THEM. Also, how do you avoid chaos by CAUSING UTTER CHAOS?? One more thing... How does creating synthetics to wipe out organics keep synthetics from trying to kill organics? Unless you're only opposed to the fact that they try, and just want to see it done, which obviously isn't the point, but it's the only way that works, and holy shit is it a stretch.

 

[SajuukKhar]

The Quarians were winning against the Geth in ME3, entirely through their own research
(Nothing to do with Shepard or the Reapers), before the Reapers interfered.

Which suggests that eventually (Without any of Mass Effect happening) the Quarians would have annihilated the Geth rather than the other way around....

I never said they couldn't beat the Reapers.

However them beating the Reapers or not doesnt change the fact that some civilization, some time in the fututre, would make syntheics that would try to kill organics.

Also a lot of that research was obtainable because of all the hostile geth the Reapers caused. Without them it would have been significantly slowed, and given how the Quarrian race was dieing out could have meant it would have come to late for them without The reapers incarcerate.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The Quarians were winning against the Geth in ME3, entirely through their own research
(Nothing to do with Shepard or the Reapers), before the Reapers interfered.

Which suggests that eventually (Without any of Mass Effect happening) the Quarians would have annihilated the Geth rather than the other way around....

I never said they couldn't beat the Reapers.

However them beating the Reapers or not doesnt change the fact that some civilization, some time in the fututre, would make syntheics that would try to kill organics.

Also a lot of that research was obtainable because of all the hostile geth the Reapers caused. Without them it would have been significantly slowed, and given how the Quarrian race was dieing out could have meant it would have come to late for them without The reapers incarcerate.

My point was nothing to do with the reapers...it was that the organics (Quarians) would have wiped the Geth out with no help from Shepard or encouragement from the reaper invasion.

and so the starchild is wrong.

 

[dark_mist34]

No. simple answer. To keep you from making synthetics that will kill you, we'll kill you with synthetics.

 

[llew]

question, i know the geth wanted peace and all, but at what point (Legion in ME3 does NOT count to this) did the geth state, or even attempt to state, that they want peace? they just sat behind the veil assuming everything would be well and the quarians would leave them be on the quarian home planet

I would say that the Geth's inaction was enough to prove that they desired peace. Hell, the entire period between the Morning War and Sovereign's recruitment of the Heretics was a time of peace between Geth and Quarians, even if the Quarians didn't realize it.

yeah but at the end of the day they only let the quarians live because they didnt know the repurcutions of eliminating them all and for all the quarians knew the geth were building a force large enough to take over the galaxy and were simply biding time (yeah ok, weak excuse, but the quarians excuse for wiping them out was even weaker)

The quarians were acting like a bunch of retarded children during the whole "War for Rannoch" thing. Didn't they end up almost killing Shepherd (KNOWINGLY, I might add) twice?

yeah, i also recal punching the quarian responsible and telling him to get his ass off my ship

 

[SajuukKhar]

My point was nothing to do with the reapers...it was that the organics (Quarians) would have wiped the Geth out with no help from Shepard or encouragement from the reaper invasion.

and so the starchild is wrong.

The catalyst said synthetics would inevitably destroy organics, not that the geth would.

Being able to beat the geth =/=
-Being able to beat future synthetic races
-That more synthetic races wouldn't be made
-that some race in a future cycle would win against synthetics

Being able to beat the geth only shows that THE GETH could be beat, not synthetics in general.

So no, nothing The Catalyst said has been proven wrong.

 

[Grygor]

My point was nothing to do with the reapers...it was that the organics (Quarians) would have wiped the Geth out with no help from Shepard or encouragement from the reaper invasion.

and so the starchild is wrong.

The catalyst said synthetics would inevitably destroy organics, not that the geth would.

Being able to beat the geth =/=
-Being able to beat future synthetic races
-That more synthetic races wouldn't be made
-that some race in a future cycle would win against synthetics

Being able to beat the geth only shows that THE GETH could be beat, not synthetics in general.

So no, nothing The Catalyst said has been proven wrong.

Or proven right either.

The only possible proof of the Catalyst's assertion is the reapers themselves, and then only if you make certain assumptions about their backstory.

The Catalyst is the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on it. It does not provide any evidence, it merely makes an assertion - and assertion that doesn't fit with the evidence that we DO have, namely that EDI and the Geth do not seem to want to annihilate their creators, even though they have every reason to do so.

The Geth could have continue to pursue the Quarians after they left Rannoch, but they didn't. They could have tracked down and assaulted the Migrant Fleet at any point during the following 290 years, but they didn't.

EDI has ample opportunity to destroy Shepard and the Normandy crew, but she never does, despite the fact that

Spoiler

Shepard is the very person who destroyed her when she first became self-aware as the Luna base VI

.

The way I see it, the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life is merely a rationalization used by the reapers to justify their own omnicidal behavior to themselves.

 

[aadencash]

So I have a very sincere question.

How come the star child lets you make the choice at the end? Because Shepard could choose to destroy the Reapers. And in any ending, the Mass Relays are destroyed so wouldn't all of this go against what the Reapers are trying to achieve?

Also, if the Reapers destroy all advanced organic life, wouldn't that leave synthetics like the Geth to run around and upset the balance of the galaxy?

Finally, how come the Geth did not come to the same conclusions as the Reapers? Granted, maybe they had never calculated the possibility before, but after encountering the Reapers and hearing their side of the story, why did the Geth still fight the Reapers? Moreover, how come the Reapers didn't just tell the TRUTH to the Geth? If the Reaper logic is synthetic logic wouldn't telling the Geth the TRUTH lead the Geth to the same conclusions? The Reapers could have recruited the Geth (if even only for awhile) but instead just oddly brainwashed them or something.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Or proven right either.

The only possible proof of the Catalyst's assertion is the reapers themselves, and then only if you make certain assumptions about their backstory.

The Catalyst is the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on it. It does not provide any evidence, it merely makes an assertion - and assertion that doesn't fit with the evidence that we DO have, namely that EDI and the Geth do not seem to want to annihilate their creators, even though they have every reason to do so.

The Geth could have continue to pursue the Quarians after they left Rannoch, but they didn't. They could have tracked down and assaulted the Migrant Fleet at any point during the following 290 years, but they didn't.

EDI has ample opportunity to destroy Shepard and the Normandy crew, but she never does, despite the fact that

Spoiler

Shepard is the very person who destroyed her when she first became self-aware as the Luna base VI

.

The way I see it, the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life is merely a rationalization used by the reapers to justify their own omnicidal behavior to themselves.

Except you know..... math proves him right.

Also what Shepard destroyed was Hannibal a prototype version of EDI not EDI herself.