1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Zaalbar]

Its over the top, BUT I agree.

Shepard would not have gone along with Little Hitlers Solutions.

That's why these endings are simply absurd.

The best advise here is stop the game after Anderson dies, then make your own assumptions of what happens next, Or assume that everything that happens after Shepard is hit by Harbinger's beam is just Shepard's nightmare or indoctrination.

Modifié par zaalbar76, 21 mars 2012 - 09:00 .

[Dhraconus]

Tocquevillain wrote...

A person with a modicum of good sense would never reference real atrocities in a discussion about a videogame. This thread is in poor taste.

Is it the thread that's in poor taste or is it the fact that the analogy is so apt?  Saying "it's just a video game" as though that trivializes the fact the message is there is in poor taste.  If anything the fact that it is a video game makes it worse.

You are Shepard.

You spend 100+ hours across 3 games trying to prevent mass genocide in the galaxy at the hands of the Reapers.  Bringing together diverse species and cultures to work together towards a common goal.  Celebrating that diversity because it is a strength.  Particularly if you go paragon.  Renegade tends to be pro-cerberus but it is made blatantly obvious they are xenophobic (it's basically racist but it's the species version of it).  Cerberus is also portayed as evil for a lot of other reasons.  If you played Project Overlord and felt alright with what was happening there... I don't even know what to say about that.

The end of ME3 with the space brat was basically the equivalent of god coming down and saying: "No, no, no.  You got it all wrong.  As long as there is diversity and freedom bad stuff happens.  People can't get along when they are different.  You either have to wipe out those other guys (genocide since it's made clear the Geth are living sentient beings and so is EDI), homogenize everyone (cultural genocide at the very least but screams difference is bad quite clearly), or you can rule over the galaxy with an invicible army and force everyone to bend to your will.

You, Shepard, are not allowed to argue or protest.  The fact that it is a game and so you cannot progress and "win" without accepting this argument put forward by the space brat forces you, Shepard, to fail or consent.  There is no alternative.  You must resign yourself to accepting this "Yay, homogenization and genocide.  Boo difference and freedom" mantra or you lose because what the space brat tells you is gospel, the absolute truth.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

It being "just a video game" actually makes the message MORE powerful because you are forced to act and in doing so consent to the idea that difference is bad and genocide is the solution.  In a medium like a book or a movie you can simply look at the character who passively accepts this horrible logic and message and hate them.  Most people cannot willingly accept hating themselves, or at least don't want to.  This results in people justifying (if even sub-consciously) their actions which further reinforces the message being sent.  Because you, Shepard, act based on what the god child says you need to justify your actions, and not only justify but explain why you did the "right thing."  The easiest solution is, of course, accepting that the space brat was right.

Obviously there is the "Alt-F4" alternative but because of the strong emotional investment many have in the mass effect universe and the desire to see it through most will not go that route.  This message and the difficulty (most) people have in accepting it and our general inability to hate ourselves is probably a very large part of the reason people actually felt physically ill after the ending.  Specifically, those who are the "movie criers" and got very involved in the game.  I'm not a movie crier by any means but when I play a game I do have a hard time doing things.  There have been a number of choices in the previous ME games I just can't do because it's just wrong.

I'm so sick of hearing "oh it's just a video game" like that somehow makes it all okay or excuses things.  No one would say "Oh it's just a movie/TV show/painting/book so who cares if it says genocide is good and difference is bad."  So why in the heck do you think it's okay for a game, which by all accounts is MORE immersive due to the interactive nature of it, to push these ideas?


I am 99% sure this message was completely unintentional and not a reflection of the beliefs of the people at Bioware.  Though likely the message got through precisely because Bioware was looking at it as "just a game" and not considering message being conveyed through their chosen medium (art?)

Modifié par Dhraconus, 21 mars 2012 - 09:39 .

[Tony208]

Completely agree and it's a real shame because some of those people going around saying they loved the synthesis ending don't have a clue what they've actually done. Maybe if there was some more build up, they'd realize what was going on.

All 3 endings are offensive.

Modifié par Tony208, 21 mars 2012 - 09:36 .

[Keltic]

i suppose if BW go on the premise that it's all about war and realism then this is actually all a very valid point concerning racism etc, If on the other hand BW hold the premise it's just a game then we should have the option of a perfect ending, simple as that imo.

Yes i should add i found all 3 ends immoral and against the grain of what the character would have been willing to commit to.

Modifié par Keltic101, 21 mars 2012 - 09:38 .

[RockSW]

reference hitler less when you speak

[Joe920]

"You humans are all racist!"

-Non-Biotic Turian

[dannati]

@OP I've been avoiding this thread as I knew it would be incendiary, And it is.

However, the points are valid, if a bit hyperbolic. In a game that is open to interpretation, this seems like a defensible hypothesis. While it's not quite the way I see it, if I had closer connection to a group historically subjected to systematic persecution or genocide, I could easily see myself embracing this interpretation.

Thanks for contributing to the dialogue.

[LightweightJustice]

I'm tired of all this racism/offensive talks.
Don’t you people ever get tired of this?
No comments.

[Pantegana]

Evil_medved wrote...

You reapers are all racist.

and biggots

[Joe920]

The first totaly PC (Politically Correct), non-offensive, non-inflammatory game will probably sell one copy...which would shortly be returned, and the developer who made the game would probably go out of business...but at least nobody can get offended, you know, because nobody would play the game.

[ShinAnubisXIII]

Huh, I must say that I've never thought about the ending(s) that way. But you have a valid point there OP, I agree.

[KingKhan03]

zaalbar76 wrote...

Its over the top, BUT I agree.

Shepard would not have gone along with Little Hitlers Solutions.

That's why these endings are simply absurd.

The best advise here is stop the game after Anderson dies, then make your own assumptions of what happens next, Or assume that everything that happens after Shepard is hit by Harbinger's beam is just Shepard's nightmare or indoctrination.

Even Hitler didn't like the endings

Modifié par KingKhan03, 21 mars 2012 - 10:30 .

[burb2500]

 My apologies for attempting to discuss your OP objectively. The confusion arose from this statement made by you in your original post. I quote:

[quote]Zine2 wrote...Mass Effect's Ending attempts to condone and justify genocide. This is why it is almost universally reviled.[/quote]

You do not state that the Catalyst is justifying genocide. You are stating that the game is condoning genocide. That was the reason for point #1, to point out that your current wording implied that the game itself condoned genocide and not one of its characters. I was simply pointing out that the game as a whole did not condone genocide, which your choice of wording implied.

You will also notice that you said “Mass Effect’s Ending…” That is a singular usage of the word “ending.” This choice of wording implies that there is only one ending, and that it condones genocide. As the Synthesis and Control endings allow for everyone to survive I assumed you were referring to the Destroy ending which results in the death of the Geth and all other synthetics. 

I have in no way attempted misdirection. I was addressing the issues that your choice in wording seemed to present.You are, however, still misunderstanding my intention regarding the ending. 

[quote] TL;DR: The Catalyst created the Reapers. The Reapers have committed multiple acts of genocide. The Catalyst then attempts to justify its actions by saying it was just solving "Chaos" (ignoring that he's referring to people) by creating a "Solution" (a euphemism for genocide). The ending thus very much condones genocide by allowing the Catalyst an uncontested platform to preach its ideology of hatred. [/quote]

How does this condone genocide?  Just because the “Villain” justifies his use of genocide doesn’t mean that the game condones his behaviour. In fact, Shepard does not condone the Catalyst’s behaviour, going so far as to put an end to it in one of three endings. There is no outcome that allows for the potential of future genocides. As a side not, the definition of “condone” (according to google) is: to accept and allow morally wrong behaviour to continue. 
Just because the idea of the Reapers being Genocidal pops up in end and contrasts with another theme in the game doesn't mean that it subverts the more positive anti-genocidal theme.

[quote] Mass Effect happened because an idiot called the Catalyst claimed there was a "Synthetic-Organic Problem", because it was an idiotc, hateful individual who believed that Synthetics and Organics could never co-exist. His Solution? Genocide.[/quote]

My dislike of your use of parallels to the Holocaust is not motivated by a desire to feel good. The problem with them is that they use selective examples to prove a causal link between them; they do not constitute proof. 

A good set of proofs would instead demonstrate how the Catalyst’s motivations A) fit within an established and non-context specific definition of Genocide, and How exactly the game condones Genocide.

All you have done is show that there are potential parallels between the policies of **** Germany and the Reapers.Furthermore, you have continually ascribed qualities to the Catalyst that we can only infer. What proof do you have that the Catalyst was hateful? Did he demonstrate this, or did you assume it based on his willingness to kill billions in the name of “serve the greater good”? All I saw was an AI(?) that did what it felt was necessary to maintain a balance. I didn’t see anything I would classify as overtly hateful.

[quote] And I frankly don't care. It's again exceedingly simple. The Catalyst had a prejudiced premise: Synthetics and Organics are hardwired to kill each other. This is no different from claiming the Black Man and White Man are hardwired to kill each other.[/quote]

All I can say to this is “WOW.” 

If I might make an obvious observation, mankind has demonstrated a strong propensity to turn on itself and kill other men (and women and children), regardless of race. Whether you regard this as hardwired or not depends on whether you prefer the arguments of Locke or Hobbes. That, however, does not lend credence to your disingenuous comparison. Man vs. Man is a different conflict than Man vs. Synthetic. Although socially and culturally varied, Mankind is essentially homogenous. Technological implements like gunpowder may give one civilization the edge over the other, but these advantages are not long held and a balance often emerges. Contrast this with synthetics who can think faster and smarter than organics.

The Geth are a perfect example of how much faster synthetics can evolve when compared to organics. Once they surpass us, Synthetics become nigh unstoppable. Logically, to maintain a balance, organics will want to prevent this and will engage in diplomatic or hostile attempts at maintaining dominance, if not parity. Being intelligent, synthetics will likely anticipate this which in turn could result in a pre-emptive strike that would destroy or enslave humanity. Therefore, the difference between Man vs. Man and Man vs. Synthetic is a matter of degrees: can Mankind survive the fight. In the case of the latter match up, it would be unlikely.

The Catalyst does not say that organics and synthetics are hardwired to kill each other; it is arguing that if they are allowed to develop long enough conflict is a likely outcome. The only outcome of such a conflict would be the destruction of Organics. This is not racism under any name, nor is it motivated by hatred. The Catalyst does not hate synthetics, nor does it love organics. It maintains the balance as best as it can imagine.

[quote] Arguing about semantics is pointless. The Catalyst is operating based on an ideology of hatred based on "racial" prejudices.[/quote]

Semantics are important. If we don’t use the correct terminology, we risk misunderstanding each other, or making a poor argument. In fact, in your reply to Su13perfitz you said that:

[quote]First of all, you keep equating what the Catalyst did to murder. This is false moral equivalency. Murder is not on the same level of genocide.[/quote]

Murder, genocide…same thing right? Isn’t that just semantics?

Oh wait, I guess not …

[quote] Except that genocide is not merely just "murder x 1,000,000". It is the systematic elimination of an entire culture. You are erasing their songs, stories, and everything that makes them human. This is why genocide is simply not "Murder x 1,000,000"[/quote]

If you get to argue that Genocide isn’t “Murder x 1,000,000” I get to argue that the terminology you’re using is problematic. No more waiving things away.

[quote] Intent does not matter.[/quote]

But it does. You have argued that the Catalyst is…

[quote] an idiotc, hateful individual who believed that Synthetics and Organics could never co-exist[/quote]

That seems to indicate that the Catalyst had intent. If we don’t know what that intent was, how can we evaluate their character? What if the Catalyst wasn’t a hateful individual? What if he was making the tough decision that saving a handful of organics was better than losing them all? 

Again, don’t make an argument (this time based on intent) and then waive away the counter-argument.

 [quote]Hitler also believed that wiping out the Jews served the "greater good".[/quote]

President Truman felt that dropping the Atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima served the greater good too. He had to decide whether it was worth seeing countless Americans troops and Japanese civilians die in an invasion of Japan, or whether forcing Japan to capitulate at the cost of tens of thousands of lives was a better solution. While horrific, Truman’s decision saved hundreds of thousands of lives (American and Japanese) and did serve a “greater good.” As a result, despite both serving the “greater good,” the intent behind Truman and Hitler’s decisions is important to understanding and coming to gripes with them.

As much as you hate to acknowledge the possibility, the Catalyst had to perform the same high stakes, high risk calculus Truman did.

[quote] I have no interest in debating useless semantics with a clearly dishonest debator who uses misdirection and deliberately ignores clear parallels between the atrocities of the Holocaust and the Reapers because it makes him feel bad. Like I said, this is not meant to be a nice thread.The murder of an entire species is genocide. It's plain and simple. Accept it.[/quote]

I did not ignore the parallels between the two. What I did do, however, was state that parallels risk simplifying things to an extreme degree. I was calling you out on using a weak proof as your argument is largely based on parallels and not strong argumentation.

You may not want to debate me, but stating that something is “plain and simple” does not make it so. Provide an explanation, or a definition and then we can debate, but stating a personal opinion does not invalidate mine. Accept it

[quote] In the case of Mass Effect 3 however, one of the consistent themes of the series is the ability of races to put aside their differences and work together. It is working based on a theme of universal understanding. That all sentients can stand together side by side.The Catalyst is the very opposite of this ideal.[/quote]

Which is why the Catalyst is a thematically competent villain; it mirrors the “good guys.” 

[quote] It works based on a prejudiced premise. It is a genocidal monster.[/quote]

You seem to know quite a bit about this Catalyst thing. You have somehow discovered that the events of the countless cycles before Shepard’s did not see synthetics attempt to overthrow organics; that the reconciliation of organic and synthetic is not a unique event. You’ve also managed to decipher the Catalyst’s intentions (despite the fact that intent doesn’t matter) in such a way that proves it’s a monster hell bent on killing things ‘cuz.

[quote]And yet you are not allowed to question it. You are instead forced to take its premise as fact, and then create a new "final solution" of its own choosing.[/quote]

Wait, you’re saying that your whole problem with the “condoning and justifying of genocide in Mass Effect” is because you can’t tell the Catalyst it’s wrong? That you can’t get it to change it’s mind?

Also, your use of “Final Solution” is disingenuous as it implies that the choice you’re making in the end involves partaking in genocide, which is not the case. In all of the endings nothing dies (with the exception of the Geth and the Reapers in the Destroy ending).

In closing, thanks for stating that my explanation of the Catalyst’s intentions is proof I condone Genocide and for not throwing any mud at me

Modifié par burb2500, 21 mars 2012 - 10:39 .

[Zaalbar]

KingKhan03 wrote...

zaalbar76 wrote...

Its over the top, BUT I agree.

Shepard would not have gone along with Little Hitlers Solutions.

That's why these endings are simply absurd.

The best advise here is stop the game after Anderson dies, then make your own assumptions of what happens next, Or assume that everything that happens after Shepard is hit by Harbinger's beam is just Shepard's nightmare or indoctrination.

Even Hitler didn't like the endings

LOL class!

[Blackguard82]

I think the OP over reacted there... thinking too much in it. The endings were I admit stupid but I don't think that BW was actually condoning racism when they made them.
Besides I chose to kill the reapers and their master...

[Asnine112]

Lots of speculation from everybody!

edit: Sub in Jews for synthetics, Aryans for organics, and VOILA!

Modifié par Asnine112, 21 mars 2012 - 02:02 .

[sp0ck 06]

Lol this is truly absurd. The ending may have been many things, but Racist and Offensive? GTFO.

[burb2500]

corpselover wrote...

Uh no one is implying that the final choice you can make involves condoning genocide. We are flat out stating it, because it does. You can literally genocide the geth and all synthetic life, because some random being you met just told you to.  The game also goes out of its way to make this the best ending. The best ending is to commit genocide.

Why?

Because the geth are different. And that is the problem that needs to be fixed. They need to be no longer different or they need to be destroyed. It is a premise built on intolerance. Worse still, you can't even question this monstrous concept. You have to go along with it. It is a terrible message.

From what I understand, your problem is that one of three endings (which you have decided represents the best ending) leads to the destruction of the Geth. You are correct insofar as the elimination of the Geth is a potential outcome of the Destroy ending; you'll get no argument from me on that. However, I do believe you are unintentionally rolling two separate things into one when you state that the Destroy ending is done out of intolerance to synthetics. What is being mashed together?

1. The Reaper's original mandate, which they've carried out over millenia, that results in mass death and the destruction of synthetics. This is what is explained to you when you first meet the Catalyst. The Catalyst later says that by virtue of standing before it, this "Solution" can no longer work.

2. The Destroy Ending where you release a destructive energy that is meant to destroy the Reapers.

The Destruction of the Reapers is what motivates the player to pursue the Destroy ending; the giant metal Prawns that are destroying and harvesting Organic and synthetic life. You choose it because to not destroy them would be to see Shepard's efforts fail and the cycle would continue. Does this have the unfortunate consequence of destroying synthetics as well? Yes, but that is due to the similarities in composition between the Reapers and the Geth. At no point does the Catalyst tell you that the purpose of the Destroy ending is to kill the Geth because they're different. Also, if you were unable to save the Geth (instead choosing to protect the Quarians), the Destroy ending only eliminates the Reapers.

I do not see the continuity between the Catalyst/Reaper's previous actions, and the three possible endings. By choosing one of the endings you are not "going along" with their justifications for destroying synthetics; you are opening up new possibilities that allow for co-existence between organics and synthetics.

[Dhraconus]

burb2500 wrote...

corpselover wrote...

Uh no one is implying that the final choice you can make involves condoning genocide. We are flat out stating it, because it does. You can literally genocide the geth and all synthetic life, because some random being you met just told you to.  The game also goes out of its way to make this the best ending. The best ending is to commit genocide.

Why?

Because the geth are different. And that is the problem that needs to be fixed. They need to be no longer different or they need to be destroyed. It is a premise built on intolerance. Worse still, you can't even question this monstrous concept. You have to go along with it. It is a terrible message.

From what I understand, your problem is that one of three endings (which you have decided represents the best ending) leads to the destruction of the Geth. You are correct insofar as the elimination of the Geth is a potential outcome of the Destroy ending; you'll get no argument from me on that. However, I do believe you are unintentionally rolling two separate things into one when you state that the Destroy ending is done out of intolerance to synthetics. What is being mashed together?

1. The Reaper's original mandate, which they've carried out over millenia, that results in mass death and the destruction of synthetics. This is what is explained to you when you first meet the Catalyst. The Catalyst later says that by virtue of standing before it, this "Solution" can no longer work.

2. The Destroy Ending where you release a destructive energy that is meant to destroy the Reapers.

The Destruction of the Reapers is what motivates the player to pursue the Destroy ending; the giant metal Prawns that are destroying and harvesting Organic and synthetic life. You choose it because to not destroy them would be to see Shepard's efforts fail and the cycle would continue. Does this have the unfortunate consequence of destroying synthetics as well? Yes, but that is due to the similarities in composition between the Reapers and the Geth. At no point does the Catalyst tell you that the purpose of the Destroy ending is to kill the Geth because they're different. Also, if you were unable to save the Geth (instead choosing to protect the Quarians), the Destroy ending only eliminates the Reapers.

I do not see the continuity between the Catalyst/Reaper's previous actions, and the three possible endings. By choosing one of the endings you are not "going along" with their justifications for destroying synthetics; you are opening up new possibilities that allow for co-existence between organics and synthetics.

I made a post just above (my last post in this thread, top of this page) a bit which deals with most of this.  But I'll touch briefly on the major points (if you want to respond I'd rather you respond to the longer post above you ignored so far).

The short answer is, the Reapers believe it is impossible for synthetics and organics to live peacefully together because they are too different.  Every choice you can make is based on this assumption and way of resolving the fact that difference is bad.  You can either commit genocide, se mass homogenization (which at the very least is cultural genocide), or you can rule over the galaxy with an unstoppable army and forced everyone to get along on the threat of genocide.

You are Shepard.  You are forced to accept the premise that sythetics and organics cannot and will not get along because they are different.  That is the game telling you something.  It is a message and one you are not allowed to refute short of Alt-F4.

Modifié par Dhraconus, 21 mars 2012 - 07:59 .

[Kanon777]

LightweightJustice wrote...

I'm tired of all this racism/offensive talks.
Don’t you people ever get tired of this?
No comments.

[Delpinolikespotatoes]

Wow, didn't see this one coming. Very interesting interpretation of the ending. You can find such interesting things in BSN. They should be proud of their fanbase and not ignoring them.

[burb2500]

Dhraconus writes...
"No, no, no.  You got it all wrong.  As long as there is diversity and freedom bad stuff happens.  People can't get along when they are different.

I have no idea where this argument is coming from. At what point does the Catalyst say that diversity or freedom are bad? If the Reapers truly did not care for these things they would simply never leave. They would simply remain in our galaxy and micromanage us so that we do what they want. By leaving for 50,000 years they allow us to evolve, make decisions, etc. The cycle may be Sisyphean, but the intervals between the beginning and end allow for diversity and freedom. 

As I've stated before, the Reaper's motives are not based on racism or an opposition to diversity. They have no issue with multiple races like the Turians, Humans, Asari, Krogans, Salarians etc. coexisting. In fact, they are trying to preserve that diversity by preventing the extinction of organics. Synthetics achieving singularity, followed by the extinction of organics, would be the ultimate example of homogeneity. 

With regards to the idea of "cultural genocide," I find that this conclusion is unsupported by evidence. This argument is based on the idea that synthesis creates a single culture. How do we know this? How do we know that synthesis is not a modifier that only alters existing culture rather than replacing or homogenizing it? We don't. All we know is that organics get green eyes and squiggly green veins. hardly conclusive.

Regarding your posted that was directed at me...

You are forced to accept the premise that sythetics and organics cannot and will not get along because they are different.  That is the game telling you something.  It is a message and one you are not allowed to refute short of Alt-F4.

Please cite the dialog that proves you have to accept the Catalyst's reasoning. I agree you can't refute it, but neither can you accept it. Also, I don't know why I need to keep repeating this, but the focus of all three endings is the Reapers and not synthetics. As everyone has already pointed out, the endings are palette swaps, and guess who figure prominently in all the endings? The Reapers! That's because the endings revolve around A) killing the Reapers, Controlling the Reapers or C) merging with the Reapers. At no point is the discussion of synthetics brought up with regards to the three endings (beyond the possibility of their being collateral damage). Even if you were to accept the Catalyst's reasoning, it has little bearing on the endings. 

Furthermore, something that many people are glossing over is the fact that despite destroying the Geth, the Destroy ending does not prevent future synthetics from being created. By allowing the Reapers to be destroyed, at the cost of the Geth, the Catalyst allows you to choose a future where both can coexist, but without the "safety net" the Reaper's represented in the event everything goes bad. Heck, when discussing the Destroy option the Catalyst mentions that future synthetics will rise against you and Shepard responds with "We'll take our chances." Does that sound like the response of someone who agrees with the Catalyst's conclusions?

Modifié par burb2500, 21 mars 2012 - 10:32 .

[burb2500]

@corpselover

I believe I'm missing your point about the destroy ending being the "ideal" ending. Whose ideal? Shepard's? The Catalyst's? Or the Developer's? From what I've read elsewhere, synthesis is commonly understood to be the most ideal ending.

With regards to the Catalyst's control of the Reaper's, we have no idea how it exerts this control and therefore we have no idea how it would stop them (i.e. blow them up, send them away, etc.) I don't believe that the Catalyst refuses to stop the Reapers as it allows you to pursue the Destroy option. If, as I believe your post implies, the Catalyst were to say "my cycle no longer works, I will destroy/send away the Reapers" I can guarantee you that there would have been a bigger uproar over the ending as it would have removed player choice entirely. You would no longer control or destroy the Reapers, and it would be the Starchild, a last minute character, that gets to make such a huge decision.

Also, since you (and others) keep mentioning that the Reapers don't like diversity, could you please provide the lines of dialog that support this claim. I've watched the endings a dozen times on youtube and can't find them. If you can provide them I would happily shut up and agree with you. Until that time, I respectfully disagree that the Reapers oppose this concept.