1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Ex-Cerberus]

This is just a silly discussion. There are themes throughout the series dealing with racism and genocide. Even the Collector Base in ME2 is practically the ME version of Auschwitz.

There are a million reasons to hate the ending, but saying it's "racist" is pretty desperate. If you think the idea of wiping out all synthetic life is racist, then thank god there are no synthetics protesting the game.

[Stonesoundjam]

I have a dream, that one day the black man , white man and robot can live together in...

*ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!!*

[KelaSaar]

This is actually something that bothered me the first time I played the ending. The starkid seems to present synthesis as the best option, but all that really boils down to is "enforced homogenity is the only way to stop conflict." That's not really a solution I'm comfortable with. After the other 95% of the trilogy spent so much time emphasizing the importance of diversity and utilizing our differences to work together and become stronger, the idea that this was in any way a good ending was incredibly jarring.

[Lazarus Cricket]

I hated space kid and thought he was evil and wrong but you've articulated that much better than I could have. You make some real good connections and observations here too.
Bravo!

Modifié par Lazarus Cricket, 16 mars 2012 - 06:37 .

[Blinks]

Lethys1 wrote...

This thread is insane.  The OP is just completely wrong, I'm sorry.  The entire point of a villain is to be villainous, and to write off genocide as a topic of discussion because it shouldn't exist will make people forget about it.  It isn't offensive, stop it.


People like the OP are dangerous and have caused the Political Correct chokehold of a society we now live in, where everything is taken far too personally and everything is an attack.

The issue is not so much that the villain was portrayed as genocidal, it was that Shepard as the protagonist was forced to agree with this worldview. The game forces us to accept that the god child is correct and to accept his "solutions" as the only ones. While it may not have been intentional, the endgame conversation implies that reducing individuals to their basic hardware (synthetic vs. organic, in this case) and using this as a valid means of defining them is all right.

If there had been an option to deny the endgame options as they were presented, I think a lot of the problems with the ending would no longer exist. As it is, the game thematically falls apart in those last few minutes.

[Slash1667]

As a History major and Political Science minor, I'm surprised I didn't catch this. The OP should be given MANY kudos for his critical analysis of this. Is it deeper than the writers planned for us to go? Probably. Was this the intent of the writers? I would say no. To date they have left the ending to "open-interpretation" which, while it can be a good thing, isn't always the best thing.
The story SEEMS to have turned Shepard from a MLK Jr type of character fighting for unity and acceptance and said we had to become Hitler, Stalin or a believer in Eugenics.
I do not and any way believe this was the intent but it is definitely one possible, and well thought out, interpretation.

[Sashimi_taco]

Lethys1 wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

This thread is insane.  The OP is just completely wrong, I'm sorry.  The entire point of a villain is to be villainous, and to write off genocide as a topic of discussion because it shouldn't exist will make people forget about it.  It isn't offensive, stop it.


People like the OP are dangerous and have caused the Political Correct chokehold of a society we now live in, where everything is taken far too personally and everything is an attack.

TIL that people who speak up against racist and genocidal themes in popular media are a danger to society. 

I'm sorry, but I think the movie Schindler's List should exist.

That movie depicted genocide as a problem and side effect of racism and intolerance. The game depicted genocide as a solution to racism and intolerance. 


Major difference. 

[Zine2]

Lethys1 wrote...

This thread is insane.  The OP is just completely wrong, I'm sorry.  The entire point of a villain is to be villainous, and to write off genocide as a topic of discussion because it shouldn't exist will make people forget about it.  It isn't offensive, stop it.


People like the OP are dangerous and have caused the Political Correct chokehold of a society we now live in, where everything is taken far too personally and everything is an attack.

Ironic, given that I'm pointing out that the Catalyst is a villain and that all it does in the ending is to justify genocide. I'm not the one saying genocide is kosher. The Catalyst is, and I have shown how it does so - and its eerie parallels with real life acts of genocide. It was not me saying that genocide is a "Solution", paralleling the Holocaust. The Catatalyst did.

Moreover, I find it very amusing you think this is an attempt at "Political Correctness", when - despite all the alternate "interpretations" presented by other posters so far - this is seriously the first thread that analyzes the flaws of the Catalyst's arguments from an ethical and historical perspective.

A lot of people don't like the ending and don't know why. I am demonstrating what I feel is one of the MAIN reasons why they hate the ending: It forces you to work with a genocidal monster, whose premise is based on blatant prejudice and racism. This is why rejecting the Catalyst is the most popular alternate ending.

[WhiteJoker]

Lethys1 wrote...

This thread is insane.  The OP is just completely wrong, I'm sorry.  The entire point of a villain is to be villainous, and to write off genocide as a topic of discussion because it shouldn't exist will make people forget about it.  It isn't offensive, stop it.


People like the OP are dangerous and have caused the Political Correct chokehold of a society we now live in, where everything is taken far too personally and everything is an attack.

People who refuse to discuss the possiblity are just as dangerous.  If you believe him wrong explain and justify, don't just outright deny.  He's given his reasoning in a reasonable (though angry) manner laying out his justification and support.  Do the same.

With regards to the topic itself, I personally agree though it's not racism as it is species-ism largely because the Catalyst offers no support beyond "because they will."

Certainly I realize that the intention from Bioware, given Javik's presence and his details regarding the Prothean Empire, is that organics will likely oppress synthetics when created much like the Quarians.  However that itself is still racist/speciest for the same reasons as it does not allow for the possibility that either side will stop at persecuting the war prior to utter annihilation of one or the other.

On a certain level you can also argue that it's merely hard numbers in that a synthetic species will most likely possess an inherent advantage over an organic species on any number of levels and that's what the Catalyst is referring to; that if left unchecked eventually somebody will create an AI that will decide it needs to xenocide all organic life and when it sets out it's going to win on account of being superior to organics for any number of reasons... however if we're going on that level then you can also say that's it's just as inevitable that organics will kill themselves off by developing any number of sciences which could wipe out the galaxy as a whole and as such it's better off to just glass any planet with organics on it before they reach the FTL tech threshold.  At that point though then we're talking xenophobia related to organics and not synthetics.

You are correct though in that in the end, without clarification, the Catalyst's argument boils down to "synthetics will wipe out organics because they're synthetics" and that is a fundamentally racist/xenophobic answer.

Modifié par WhiteJoker, 16 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[NightHawkIL]

For those of you that missed it, this issue was discussed somewhat on GameFront as the number 2 reason why fans are right to hate the ending: http://www.gamefront...ns-are-right/5/

[Ex-Cerberus]

Wait... are people really serious about this?

lmfao, I thought maybe just MAYBE this was all screwing around.

[111987]

Wouldn't the option you mentioned, not using the Crucible, be just as bad? Because you'd be condemning the galaxy to extinction...it's said multiple times the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally.

So even in that ending, you are indirectly committing genocide. Or, at least allowing it.

[Blinks]

KelaSaar wrote...

This is actually something that bothered me the first time I played the ending. The starkid seems to present synthesis as the best option, but all that really boils down to is "enforced homogenity is the only way to stop conflict." That's not really a solution I'm comfortable with. After the other 95% of the trilogy spent so much time emphasizing the importance of diversity and utilizing our differences to work together and become stronger, the idea that this was in any way a good ending was incredibly jarring.

This is the reason the synthesis option really... horrified me, for lack of a better word. I have a hard time looking at that choice as positive.

[Faded-Myth]

[Zine2]

I'm sorry, but I think the movie Schindler's List should exist.

There is a considerable difference between ME3 and Schindler's List however.

From start to finish, Schindler's List was a work of art meant to explore the depths of evil that people can commit, and how people can fight that evil and save lives. We know that a lot of good and innocent people are going to die. We know that there will be monsters who commit horrible acts. But the film ironically ends on a hopeful note because it depicts one man going against all of this evil to save lives. "He who saves a life, saves the entire world".

It is a true work of art.

But as others have already stated, we don't get this in ME3. Instead, we unite the galaxy... and then have the Brat AI tell us "It is all irrelevant! Synthetics and Organis will kill each other!" without a chance to rebutt.

That makes the ending implicitly on the side of condoning the Catalyst's genocidal acts; not to mention its racist premise.

[TJX2045]

Spectre_Shepard wrote...

i must disagree. the ending sucked, sure. racist? i draw the line.

ending was terrible, but i didn't catch a whiff of intended racism

QFT.  I just saw it as crazy psycho killing machines.  Species endangerment?  Sure.  Racism? Not so much. 

Modifié par TJX2045, 16 mars 2012 - 06:44 .

[Sashimi_taco]

111987 wrote...

Wouldn't the option you mentioned, not using the Crucible, be just as bad? Because you'd be condemning the galaxy to extinction...it's said multiple times the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally.

So even in that ending, you are indirectly committing genocide. Or, at least allowing it.

I would rather fight to the death as a free woman, than live as a slave to the decisions of others.  The genocide of an entire form of life for the sake of my life damns my existance, the forced merge into a synthetic is rape of my body, and control damns us all as slave masters.  

[NightHawkIL]

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Wait... are people really serious about this?

lmfao, I thought maybe just MAYBE this was all screwing around.

It's just something to think about. At least one of the ending options is undeniably racist, in that synthisis literally is meant to do nothing else besides dissolve every single race. I'm just not sure yet if it's really something to be personally offended by being in a game.

[Lethys1]

Zine2 wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

This thread is insane.  The OP is just completely wrong, I'm sorry.  The entire point of a villain is to be villainous, and to write off genocide as a topic of discussion because it shouldn't exist will make people forget about it.  It isn't offensive, stop it.


People like the OP are dangerous and have caused the Political Correct chokehold of a society we now live in, where everything is taken far too personally and everything is an attack.

Ironic, given that I'm pointing out that the Catalyst is a villain and that all it does in the ending is to justify genocide. I'm not the one saying genocide is kosher. The Catalyst is, and I have shown how it does so - and its eerie parallels with real life acts of genocide. It was not me saying that genocide is a "Solution", paralleling the Holocaust. The Catatalyst did.

Moreover, I find it very amusing you think this is an attempt at "Political Correctness", when - despite all the alternate "interpretations" presented by other posters so far - this is seriously the first thread that analyzes the flaws of the Catalyst's arguments from an ethical and historical perspective.

A lot of people don't like the ending and don't know why. I am demonstrating what I feel is one of the MAIN reasons why they hate the ending: It forces you to work with a genocidal monster, whose premise is based on blatant prejudice and racism. This is why rejecting the Catalyst is the most popular alternate ending.

Of course the catalyst tries to justify genocide because it's the one doing it.  And of course you should have the option to go along with it because that's what you would be presented with if you were actually Commander Shepard.  And of course the villain mirrors real life villains, because he's a villain.  

I have been criticizing people for the other two endings the entire time because they were incredibly bad if you paid attention to the first two games.

The Catalyst's arguments being flawed means that the writers don't actually endorse genocide, it means that they're desperately trying to show you he's wrong.  Just like all genocide has been on flawed logic, shouldn't the catalyst's logic as well?

Still, they should give you the option to do as you choose, being put in the situation you're in.

I really don't understand you taking offense because it mirrors real life crimes.

[NightHawkIL]

Ex-Cerberus wrote...
There are themes throughout the series dealing with racism and genocide. Even the Collector Base in ME2 is practically the ME version of Auschwitz. 
 

IMO that actually goes further to prove the OP's point. In the end of ME3 you take the side of the thing responsible for controling the collectors in creating ME2's 'Auschwitz'.

[Lethys1]

NightHawkIL wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...
There are themes throughout the series dealing with racism and genocide. Even the Collector Base in ME2 is practically the ME version of Auschwitz. 
 

IMO that actually goes further to prove the OP's point. In the end of ME3 you take the side of the thing responsible for controling the collectors in creating ME2's 'Auschwitz'.

No you don't.  You just have the option to, which should be presented to you.  The game shouldn't herd you away from the options because they're bad, you should be grown up enough to decide on your own to choose the destroy ending.

[Slash1667]

NightHawkIL wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Wait... are people really serious about this?

lmfao, I thought maybe just MAYBE this was all screwing around.

It's just something to think about. At least one of the ending options is undeniably racist, in that synthisis literally is meant to do nothing else besides dissolve every single race. I'm just not sure yet if it's really something to be personally offended by being in a game.

If this were the intented interetation of the ending, then yes it would be something to be offended by. If, as I believe, it wasn't intented then being offended would be a bit much. I applaud the OP for his analysis whole heartedly but I can believe that this is the interpretation the writers were aiming for.

[Turran]

So a game giving someone a hard choice is racist? Is this really a discussion?
It isn't racist, so the enemy was causing genocide.. What would you like the enemy of the game to do? All your choices stop them in some way. I just don't get it.

[Zine2]

Re: Racism vs Specisim

Use what terms you will, but for me those are minor semantic difference. The key point remains: There is really no reason why a race should kill another race. There is nothing hardwired in Turians to make them want to kill humans.

Therefore, any entity (i.e. the Catalyst) who insist that "Race" or "Species" or "Component Parts" matter is not trying to bring unity. They are sowing discord. This is why the Organic vs Synthetic thing is "racist", or "xenophobic" or whatever. It does nothing to promote galactic unity and goodwill among all sentient life

111987 wrote...

Wouldn't the option you mentioned, not using the Crucible, be just as bad? Because you'd be condemning the galaxy to extinction...it's said multiple times the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally.

So even in that ending, you are indirectly committing genocide. Or, at least allowing it.

Those estimates were made before the battles on Tuchanka and Rannoch that saw the Reapers defeated - and at Rannoch they discovered a key weakness in Reaper armor. Defeat by Reaper is not a certainty.

Moreover, rejecting the Catalyst - regardless of the outcome - nonetheless represents a heroic ideal: Standing up for your principles. You reject the idea that the world must always be divded between Synthetics and Organics. You reject that there cannot be galactic unity and peace and goodwill between all sentients. You reject that any "solution" must come from someone who has committed unspeakable acts of murder upon innocents.

The Galaxy may die, but to quote another fictional hero: "This death... this death is ours. We choose it. We deny you your victory."

[Necrotron]

SandTrout wrote...

Hey, if they wanted the ending to be open to interpretation, this seems perfectly valid to me.

I see what you did there.