1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Wowlock]

Although I wouldn't go this far to explain the ending , I guess Bioware set themselves up for these kind of opinions.

I mean they said they wanted the to be discussed and open to interpitation and well, they say it is ''artful''...

Well by the looks of the underlying themes of the ending , this post has many points for that.

Again, I wouldn't go this deep with the theory but Bioware asked for what people can bring out from the ending and even this theory sounds more logical than the one in game.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

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

Starkid is secretly testing to see if you're worthy or not by offering you endings to reject. If you reject he knows you deserve the right to kill the Reapers exclusively.

Or the ending has a bad divisive streak when the whole game was otherwise about unity and counter to the message of the end. Yeah.

[DieHigh2012]

SandTrout wrote...

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

Yep

[Lethys1]

Zine2 wrote...

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."

This assumes first that Shepard isn't indoctrinated, which is the ending that makes by far the most sense.  

Second, it assumes that we as the galaxy would be able to beat the Reapers without the Crucible.  Obviously if the AI controls the Crucible then he is going to be the one calling the shots.  And you get the "FU" choice in the destroy option, so you aren't forced to work with the genocidal AI under all circumstances.

And you should be given the option to because that's what would have happened.  The game shouldn't push you towards any one of the options, you should make the decision on your own and understand the consequences.

You don't have a choice because without the Crucible the Reapers would win.  The "weakness" you refer to takes down one Reaper if you time it perfectly and use the entire Quarian fleet to shoot at it.  That's ONE reaper.

And if the Reapers wouldn't win without the Crucible, then the entire game premise is flawed.  And the resources you waste on the Crucible certainly negate finding a split second weakness that requires intense coordination to take advantage of.

Modifié par Lethys1, 16 mars 2012 - 06:58 .

[Dark Penitant]

Sashimi_taco wrote...

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.  

Yeah. Bodily Sovereignty anyone?

[deathscythe517]

Just going to chime in again that I still think this is as valid a reason to hate the endings as any and that I still think all the conspiracy theories about the endings are just going to provide Bioware an easy out. :/ Make of that what you will.

[Sc2mashimaro]

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.

I think you're misunderstanding. The OP is not saying "this ending needs to be politically correct" or "racists shouldn't exist in stories". It's a rhetorical change from the rest of the game which, before, had characters that supported racist ideologies, but Shepard had the ability to oppose their ideology. At the end of Mass Effect 3, you're not allowed to oppsose the star-child's ideological claims and the star-child is not presented as the villain, but rather as a god-figure. So, if Shepard is not indoctrinated (changing the star-child from god status to demon status) then the game's rhetoric at the ending shifts to support intolerance by not allowing you to oppose the star-child's intolerant ideological angle. THAT is what the OP is saying.

Modifié par Sc2mashimaro, 16 mars 2012 - 06:59 .

[NightHawkIL]

Lethys1 wrote...

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.

Choosing the destroy ending ends the life of the geth, who you have learned are a fully sentient race. So by choosing that you are valuing other races above the one. It's either you side with the genocidal kid, or you become genocidal yourself. There is no ethical option.

[Lazarus Cricket]

wouldn't organics and synthetics actually have less reasons to fight each other than organics vs organics?

they won't fight each other over garden worlds, synthetics are more resilient to variations in enviroments so they'd have an easier time in territory we wouldn't go into, so we might not even come in contact all that often.

Would synthetics be more logical and less prone to emotions like greed, rage, jealousy, hatred, etc. that would make them less warlike. Maybe they be more solitary, less prone to fighting by proximity as you can't have problem with someone who keeps to themselves.

man, space kid is racist and stupid. The more I think about this post I keep finding even more wrong with the ending, good job OP I think you hit gold.

Modifié par Lazarus Cricket, 16 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[locsphere]

Put the Hitler Conspiracies down... Walk away from the edge... We can all go home tonight and forget about this!

[Zine2]

Lethys1 wrote...

This assumes first that Shepard isn't indoctrinated, which is the ending that makes by far the most sense.  

Actually, as I said, everything I have said does NOT contradict an indoctrination ending.

From a narrative perspective, it actually enhances it. Shepard is not merely rejecting indoctrination - but he/she is rejecting the idea that Synthetics and Organics are fated to fight one another. That genocide is a justifiable answer to a "Chaos" problem.

This is not meant to define the ending; but explain why so many are repulsed by it - by demonstrating that the Catalyst was a genocidal monster working on a racially (or species-centric, or xenophobic, whatever) premise. The exact terms matter not: What's important is that only a truly sick and twisted individual would think that you should just a sentient being based on whether they are "Synthetic" or "Organic" and you should have a choice to reject this entirely.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 mars 2012 - 07:04 .

[Lethys1]

NightHawkIL wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

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.

Choosing the destroy ending ends the life of the geth, who you have learned are a fully sentient race. So by choosing that you are valuing other races above the one. It's either you side with the genocidal kid, or you become genocidal yourself. There is no ethical option.

No, it's either you let these huge machines get away with war crimes under the guise of your controlling them, you make a decision on behalf of everyone to genetically alter them so they're half biological half machine, or you, ensure the survival of at least some portion of the galaxy.

The other two allow for the reapers to come back.

Imposing your will on the galaxy is not good, neither is pretending like the Reapers are controlled by you because we don't know what will happen as a result of those choices.  The threat of galactic genocide still exists with both choices.  The only one that ensures the survival of anybody at all is the destroy option.  It's unfortunate for the geth and EDI but the reaper threat needs to be dealt with finality to ensure everyone, geth along with organics, aren't wiped out in the future.

[Troffeltjie]

 www.delta4.icom43.net/images/fullsize/spot_the_racist.jpg

This is all I have to say.

Thank you, come again.

[Avina]

Actually, as I said, everything I have said does NOT contradict an indoctrination ending. 

From a narrative perspective, it actually enhances it. Shepard is not merely rejecting indoctrination - but he/she is rejecting the idea that Synthetics and Organics are fated to fight one another. That genocide is a justifiable answer to a "Chaos" problem. 

This is not meant to define the ending; but explain why so many are repulsed by it - by demonstrating that the Catalyst was a genocidal monster working on a racially (or species-centric, or xenophobic, whatever) premise. The exact terms matter not: What's important is that only a truly sick and twisted individual would think that you should just a sentient being based on whether they are "Synthetic" or "Organic" and you should have a choice to reject this entirely.

I agree completely. It's a brilliant post and for once one that isn't just people spewing bullcrap all over the forum.

I say Bravo.

Modifié par Avina, 16 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[Kiara]

I don't buy starchild's argument at all..

All synthetics will eventually kill there creators.. So. HE creates a bunch of huge Synthetics to destroy them instead? What is the point?

His point is invalid anyway since it is very possible to resolve the fighting.. Shepard proves it with peace between the Quarians and the Geth. So really starchild doesn't need to exist.. Man I wish Shep could have directed the reapers to kill StarChild instead.. problem solved

By his own logic all Synthetics will eventually kill their creators after all lol

[NightHawkIL]

Lethys1 wrote...

NightHawkIL wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

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.

Choosing the destroy ending ends the life of the geth, who you have learned are a fully sentient race. So by choosing that you are valuing other races above the one. It's either you side with the genocidal kid, or you become genocidal yourself. There is no ethical option.

No, it's either you let these huge machines get away with war crimes under the guise of your controlling them, you make a decision on behalf of everyone to genetically alter them so they're half biological half machine, or you, ensure the survival of at least some portion of the galaxy.

The other two allow for the reapers to come back.

Imposing your will on the galaxy is not good, neither is pretending like the Reapers are controlled by you because we don't know what will happen as a result of those choices.  The threat of galactic genocide still exists with both choices.  The only one that ensures the survival of anybody at all is the destroy option.  It's unfortunate for the geth and EDI but the reaper threat needs to be dealt with finality to ensure everyone, geth along with organics, aren't wiped out in the future.

You don't think that's racist? That's exactly what the reapers did themselves - killed so that some could survive. 

[Zine2]

Troffeltjie wrote...

 www.delta4.icom43.net/images/fullsize/spot_the_racist.jpg

This is all I have to say.

Thank you, come again.

Cool, I should make one showing a Synthetic Life Form, and an Organic LIfe Form.

On top of it, it will say:

"The Catalyst Orders you: CHOOSE A SIDE"

<Picture of Synthetic> <PIcture of an Organic>

And underneath it reads:

"If you chose any one side, then you are a racist. Because Synthetics and Organics are both sentient beings worthy of respect. If you think the Catalyst is right - and that they are fated to destroy one another - then all you're doing is to subscrbe to an ideology of hatred".

Thanks for the nice idea.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 mars 2012 - 07:08 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

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.

The fundamental problem is not that one option causes genocide. Shepard has to make genocidal choices all game long. The problem is rhetorical - meaning you need to examine the game as a piece of communication. What is the game telling you overtly? What is it leaving out? What does the dialogue or lack of dialogue mean? Is the speaker presented as a positive or negative figure? Having the choice to act in an immoral fashion is not the problem, the problem is that, rhetorically, it can be argued that the game presents the god-child as "good" and the god-child's rhetoric is collectivist/racist against synthetics (as species are used as analogs to race in the game, this is an acceptable jump). Additionally, it presents the options for ending the Reaper threat as "good and necessary" to end the "threat of synthetic life". I'm not saying the OP is right, but they make a strong case that the rhetoric presented in the end game is unintentionally racist in its ideology. Not that the writers are racist, or the devs, or the player, or Com. Shepard - just the rhetoric of the ending. It also contrasts sharply with the rest of the game's rhetoric, which makes it all the more jarring.

[recentio]

Lethys1 wrote...

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.

I think the offense, which I felt deeply when I played the ending, is that the player has no option to disagree on principle. Instead, in an interactive story where we had always been able to determine the morality of our Shepard, suddenly morality is determined for us. "Sythetics are inherently evil." is presented as an irrefutable truth (despite having been refuted multiple time in the game itself!) rather than an idea that our Shepard can agree or disagree with. No, we can only play along like good little shallow-thinking sheep.

[CavScout]

OP Goodwin's himself....

[Slash1667]

Lethys1 wrote...

NightHawkIL wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

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.

Choosing the destroy ending ends the life of the geth, who you have learned are a fully sentient race. So by choosing that you are valuing other races above the one. It's either you side with the genocidal kid, or you become genocidal yourself. There is no ethical option.

No, it's either you let these huge machines get away with war crimes under the guise of your controlling them, you make a decision on behalf of everyone to genetically alter them so they're half biological half machine, or you, ensure the survival of at least some portion of the galaxy.

The other two allow for the reapers to come back.

Imposing your will on the galaxy is not good, neither is pretending like the Reapers are controlled by you because we don't know what will happen as a result of those choices.  The threat of galactic genocide still exists with both choices.  The only one that ensures the survival of anybody at all is the destroy option.  It's unfortunate for the geth and EDI but the reaper threat needs to be dealt with finality to ensure everyone, geth along with organics, aren't wiped out in the future.

But if you make the decission to destroy the Reapers and it also destroys the Geth and EDI aren't you the one commiting genocide then?

[Lethys1]

NightHawkIL wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

NightHawkIL wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

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.

Choosing the destroy ending ends the life of the geth, who you have learned are a fully sentient race. So by choosing that you are valuing other races above the one. It's either you side with the genocidal kid, or you become genocidal yourself. There is no ethical option.

No, it's either you let these huge machines get away with war crimes under the guise of your controlling them, you make a decision on behalf of everyone to genetically alter them so they're half biological half machine, or you, ensure the survival of at least some portion of the galaxy.

The other two allow for the reapers to come back.

Imposing your will on the galaxy is not good, neither is pretending like the Reapers are controlled by you because we don't know what will happen as a result of those choices.  The threat of galactic genocide still exists with both choices.  The only one that ensures the survival of anybody at all is the destroy option.  It's unfortunate for the geth and EDI but the reaper threat needs to be dealt with finality to ensure everyone, geth along with organics, aren't wiped out in the future.

You don't think that's racist? That's exactly what the reapers did themselves - killed so that some could survive. 

Unfortunately there's no other options.  You aren't allowed to say, no, I don't like these options.  Is it racist?  No, I'm not the one who chose that all other synthetics need to be wiped out.  I'm looking at the options, realize that galactic genocide is a very real possibility with the other two but not the destroy option.

Are the options themselves racist?  Maybe, but they're being given to you by an entity who is racist in the Catalyst.

Additionally, the synthetics can be rebuilt, organic life is unique.  Killing organics entirely doesn't allow for them to be recreated exactly the way they were ever again, versus we can make new geth.

So either we allow for the option of everyone, synthetic or not to be killed, or we kill a group that can be entirely remade.  Of the three the latter is the clear best one.

[Lethys1]

recentio wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

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.

I think the offense, which I felt deeply when I played the ending, is that the player has no option to disagree on principle. Instead, in an interactive story where we had always been able to determine the morality of our Shepard, suddenly morality is determined for us. "Sythetics are inherently evil." is presented as an irrefutable truth (despite having been refuted multiple time in the game itself!) rather than an idea that our Shepard can agree or disagree with. No, we can only play along like good little shallow-thinking sheep.

But you need the Crucible or the Reapers just win.  That's the way the story played out.  You needed the Crucible.  So here the Crucible is finally, except it's still in the enemy's control.  Is that necessarily a good thing from the perspective of someone who wants to make their own choice?

No.

But if you say, ignore the AI or just kill yourself or walk away, you're damning every living being forever until the next cycle.

[HooblaDGN]

I most certainly got racist undertones out of that ending, and I think that was intentional. There's got to be more going on here. Though if there is it should already be in the game I paid $60 for.