1086 réponses à ce sujet

[thepimpto]

I believe UN sanctioned Ethnic Cleansing is a more appropriate allegory. Seeing as the "Catalyst" deems itself judge, jury, and executioner of the known universe, it needs to "cleanse" the galaxy of advanced organic life in order to preserve stability. He's the African Warlord and we're the UN allowing him to do so.

[Fliprot]

So the biggest villain in the game is bad, huh? Interesting.

Modifié par Fliprot, 19 mars 2012 - 03:43 .

[Oakenshield1]

Grinds wrote...

Mother of god....That can only mean Marauder Shields was protecting us from this hateful racism.

Marauder Shields not the final boss we deserved but the final boss we needed. May you rest well friend.

He was the MLK of his day.

[Eivuwan]

Fliprot wrote...

So the biggest villain in the game is bad, huh? Interesting.

read the whole post before commenting please.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Because synthetic life rights has been the topic of the game since ME1?

As for the catalysts role, you couldn't really do anything against it or damn it (and naturally it would take a form of a nonthreatening nature).

[AllergevKev]

I find it hilarious how everything this guy said is completely true.

[Zine2]

Re: Writing by Committee

To be fair, I heard that most of the writers were actually NOT onboard with the ending - but Mac Waters (the lead writer) insisted on it and Casey Hudson backed it up.

I'm looking for more concrete evidence proving this, but it certainly explains the shift in tone better than "writing by committee" - which is that the lead writer rammed down an idea contrary to the premise of the rest of the staff.

[jvara]

Well while I do not completely agree with Zine2's lecture, I do agree partially with him, some guy on another topic said something that was very much the same as it's said here. The endings as they are now have a real clear message, that nobody, at least not in their right mind, would agree with, an it is that difference is bad, if you're not like me then you'll eventually try to kill me, the only way we all can cohexist in the same space is if we are all just the same, just robots, and that goes against everything the ME series has stand for during the previous 3 games (i'm countting ME3 before the ending as one separete game from that after the ending, for obvious reasons), so I partially agree with Zine2's lecture, and in any case, it's an interesting point of view, or so I think.

[Su13perfitz]

Zine2 wrote...

Su13perfitz wrote...
Absolute war which is an actual concept has a place.

No it does not. This is why we call genocide a crime against humanity - the highest and most atrocious crime possible. Total War focuses on the military defeat of a power that refuses to give up, but even though the Allies practiced this in World War 2 they didn't wipe out the entire German, Italian, and Japanese race after the war. Not all Germans were evil and supported the Holocaust. Not all Japanese wanted to kamikaze American warships.

There must always be a recognition that you cannot simply judge people based on nationality, racial lines, or their species. You must judge individual people by the merits of their character. The moment you fail to do so, you are just preaching an ideology of hatred. That is what the Catalyst does, which is why its actions are offensive and unjusfitiable.

Nice taking my quote out of context. Remember I never said Absolute War had a place in current military or political doctrin. What you are failing to understand is every single reaper has killed and/or indoctrinated people. They will also refuse to stop under any circumstances unless forced do so. Remember the reapers are not political faction they are closer to religious fantics.  This means your only option is genocide or mind control which is basically cultural genocide or imprisionment which is not an option you are presented with. Also I never said I agreed with the catalyst. In fact the catalysts premise has so many logical holes in it that I don't know where to start. I would appreciate it if you did not take quotes out of context.

[KittenKilla56]

Off to Fox news!!!! They love this sensationalist stuff. A game promoting genocide infecting the innocent minds of Americas youth??? Those D*mn Canadians shall pay for what they've done!!!

I can hardly wait!

[Zine2]

Fliprot wrote...

So the biggest villain in the game is bad, huh? Interesting.

You missed the bigger point.

You are forced to accept that villain's justification for genocide - despite being patently patterned upon racist ideology - and become part of its next Final Solution.

That is why the game's ending is not simply bad, but offensive.

[deaditegonzo102]

It really IS racist. But I think this was purely an oversight, not intentional at all. Its funny, the Synthesis ending is the one that exposes this the most, where according to the Catalyst you can make lasting peace BY MAKING EVERYONE THE SAME, by erasing all diversity and CREATING A SUPERIOR RACE (OR, if you prefer, a master race), but the Synthesis ending is the one that Bioware, and the misinformed, seemed to get all warm and fuzzy about.

Did Bioware even CONSIDER the implications? And that is a large part of why the ending seems so rushed, like a "placeholder ending", it isnt just the fact that there is no variety in the end cinematic, or the fact that the one cinematic they used seems to be a lower quality than the ones throughout the game, lacking dialogue and such, IT SEEMS LIKE BIOWARE DID NOT THINK OF ANY OF THE RAMIFICATIONS IN EACH CHOICE! How could this slip through? Seriously, how did they miss this blatant reflection of past real world events, and further play it off as if it is the heroic ending?

[Zardoc]

Just a bit of nitpicking, but I don't think that Catalyst kid has killed trillions...more like quintillions.

Modifié par Zardoc, 19 mars 2012 - 03:55 .

[recentio]

Zine2 wrote...

Re: Writing by Committee

To be fair, I heard that most of the writers were actually NOT onboard with the ending - but Mac Waters (the lead writer) insisted on it and Casey Hudson backed it up.

I'm looking for more concrete evidence proving this, but it certainly explains the shift in tone better than "writing by committee" - which is that the lead writer rammed down an idea contrary to the premise of the rest of the staff.

Source for this? I find it highly believable that the brilliant team that wrote the bulk of ME3 might have had at least a voice or two of dissent against that travesty of an ending...

Modifié par recentio, 19 mars 2012 - 03:55 .

[Federally]

I agree with your post OP tho I would replace racist with prejudice. Racist is linked to many things deeply human and many can't relate it to an AI. So prejudice is a more appropriate term as it applies to hating anything for simply being different then you.

Otherwise you're spot on.

[Lunaluxlepus]

[Applauds]

[Zine2]

Nice taking my quote out of context.

Then perhaps you should look at your assumptions. I am not saying that destroying the Reapers is a bad thing.

I am saying that you are forced to work with the Reapers despite them committing multiple acts of genocide, and that you are not allowed to question its premise which is based purely on an ideology of hatred - "Synthetics and Organics will always kill each other". No different from claiming "The Black Man and White Man will always kill each other."

There is nothing in my post that comments on the moral implications of destroying the Reapers. It only questions the moral implications of being forced to work with the Catalyst - who created the Reapers and is therefore guilty of multiple acts of genocide based on a dumb premise.

Comprehend before you comment. Your quotes are taken out of context because you are addressing points that were never made.

[Zine2]

recentio wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Re: Writing by Committee

To be fair, I heard that most of the writers were actually NOT onboard with the ending - but Mac Waters (the lead writer) insisted on it and Casey Hudson backed it up.

I'm looking for more concrete evidence proving this, but it certainly explains the shift in tone better than "writing by committee" - which is that the lead writer rammed down an idea contrary to the premise of the rest of the staff.

Source for this? I find it highly believable that the brilliant team that wrote the bulk of ME3 might have had at least a voice or two of dissent against that travesty of an ending...

It was a poster in another forum. I asked for evidence but they haven't provided it yet either, so I'm throwing it out there and see if anyone else got this info too.

[Dhraconus]

I tend to agree with the OP and I actually think this is a better reason than any as to why Bioware should change the ending.

With the way it sits currently I'm forced to accept Bioware is sending the message (Through it's art/game) that this is acceptable and correct ideology. That is the primary reason I can no longer support them. Not because the ending sucked, but because the ending is offensive and sending a horrible message.

[Su13perfitz]

Zine2 wrote...

Nice taking my quote out of context.

Then perhaps you should look at your assumptions. I am not saying that destroying the Reapers is a bad thing.

I am saying that you are forced to work with the Reapers despite them committing multiple acts of genocide, and that you are not allowed to question its premise which is based purely on an ideology of hatred - "Synthetics and Organics will always kill each other". No different from claiming "The Black Man and White Man will always kill each other."

There is nothing in my post that comments on the moral implications of destroying the Reapers. It only questions the moral implications of being forced to work with the Catalyst - who created the Reapers and is therefore guilty of multiple acts of genocide based on a dumb premise.

Comprehend before you comment. Your quotes are taken out of context because you are addressing points that were never made.

I never said I agreed with the catalysts original premise again you leave out a sentence where I specifically say that there logical flaws in his premise(quarian/geth anyone). I dislike the ending but from a high level point of view their is nothing wrong with working with the catalyst. Should you refuse to work with a murderer even if it will mean more murders? I would work with a murderer but each person should be able to make that decision for themselves. It seems to me that we are arguing circles around each other because we disagree on almost nothing except working the catalyst. My main problem is not working with catalyst but why would I would listen to it? Why would I accept it's premise when it is false? And even if the premise is true that doesn't make it morally correct? That and if he liked green light why not do itself, the thing had 37 million years? I guess maybe I see more shades of grey then you.

Modifié par Su13perfitz, 19 mars 2012 - 04:14 .

[Sifr]

Completely agree, the ending had a ton of unfortunate implications to it, particularly that Shepard in the synthetic ending simply didn't give anyone a choice whether or not they wanted it or not.

I'm also starting to wonder if that Turian from the second game wasn't some kind of prophet?

The synthetic ending with "You Humans are all Racist" would definitely look good on a t-shirt.

[Koolgool]

I agree with the OP, though I don't think Bioware intended it to be racist.

In the previous games, and even earlier in the third game, Mass Effect makes a strong point that just because a being is of another race doesn't mean they're so different. It even starts out at the beginning of Mass Effect that all the humans are suspicious and prejudiced against the alien races, but everyone gets closer together as the game goes on. Mass Effect 2 and 3 focus more on the AI and how Artificial Intelligence has reached a point of true sentience, emotion, and even to the point of suggesting they have a soul. Then, they show us that the Geth and Quarians can get along, and the Geth all along have had no intention of fighting or killing their creators AT ALL. It was always in self defense, even with the ones who sided with the reapers.

This is the main problem I have with the Synthesis ending in particular. Basically what that ending implies is that the only way there can be true peace is if everyone is the same, which goes COMPLETELY against what the rest of the games (and even earlier in Mass Effect 3) have been teaching us. Yet somehow, this is portrayed as being the best ending, and nearly everyone I've heard from who actually liked the ending said this was their prefered ending. It's an incredibly ignorant thing to force us to decide upon.

The best ending in Mass Effect 3 is the fourth choice: letting Marauder Shields kill you before you reach the end, then quitting the game.

That way the galaxy at least stands a fighting chance. If not, it's destroyed, but at least they lowered the reapers' numbers marginally enough to make a difference for the next cycle that decides to make a stand.

Modifié par Koolgool, 19 mars 2012 - 04:13 .

[Zine2]

Su13perfitz wrote...

I guess maybe I see more shades of grey then you.

We as a species have decided that genocide is one of he worst crimes imaginable. It is not comparable to murder. It is comparable to actively collaborating with Hitler - accepting that he is correct that there is a "Jewish problem" - and then working with him to create a new "Final Solution".

I am pointing out that the reason why people (correctly and morally) reject the Catalyst is simple. Its premise was wrong. There is no such thing as a "Jewish Problem". There was nothing that needed to be "solved".

That is why the most popular alternate ending is to shoot the Catalyst in the face.  The idiot created an imaginary problem (Synthetics vs Organics), committed mass genocide in the name of solving that problem, and it now wants you to accept that the imaginary problem is real and needs solving.

By this point, any right-minded individual should realize that the ONLY problem is actually the Catalyst itself.

Modifié par Zine2, 19 mars 2012 - 04:16 .

[granyte]

jaw dropped

hell that preatty much express a hudge part of what i felt was wrong about the ending and why i could not resolve to take the destroy ending

at this point after earing the catalyst said i would just have hoped i could have opened a com channel to every one and said focus the citadel it's the source of the problem

[Su13perfitz]

Zine2 wrote...

Su13perfitz wrote...

I guess maybe I see more shades of grey then you.

We as a species have decided that genocide is one of he worst crimes imaginable. It is not comparable to murder. It is comparable to actively collaborating with Hitler - accepting that he is correct that there is a "Jewish problem" - and then working with him to create a new "Final Solution".

I am pointing out that the reason why people (correctly and morally) reject the Catalyst is simple. Its premise was wrong. There is no such thing as a "Jewish Problem". There was nothing that needed to be "solved".

That is why the most popular alternate ending is to shoot the Catalyst in the face.  The idiot created an imaginary problem, committed mass genocide in the name of solving that problem, and it now wants you to accept that the imaginary problem is real and needs solving.

By this point, any right-minded individual should realize that the ONLY problem is actually the Catalyst.

Oh I would definitely shoot the catalyst in the face you get no argument from me there. Now lets say he is some godchild and we can't ever actually beat him, do you work with them to stop all the murders or not? The catalyst is presented as basically a deity which you can't hope to overcome by force. But if this deity said that it will stop all the genocide if you work with it and conviced you of it's word your damn right I will work with it. What is the point of punishing a person for past wrongs if it only leads to more death and suffering? You are compaing Hitler to a deity figure and there is no comparision. So your option would be to shoot the catalyst and then everyone dies because you can't overcome reapers. The cycle never ends if you don't work with the catalyst. also the game forced you to work with shady people in the past even truly evil people. you work with the quarians who tried to commit genocide what makes them different then the reapers....or you worked with salarians who supported the genophage.

Modifié par Su13perfitz, 19 mars 2012 - 04:25 .