1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Lanay]

Yeah, I noticed a lot of those themes in disturbing force at the end of ME3. Personally I think it was wholly accidental, but I also think it's a big part of the reason why the ending leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. Genocide, enforced homogenization, or enslavement of your enemies. Those are your choices.

[burb2500]

Since the title of this thread states that the ending is "Offensive" I thought some of you might enjoy this video on the subject of being offended:
http://www.viddler.com/v/18c26af3

[clos]

I clicked on this post expecting to laught. Then, actually seeing it was a wall of text and OP was serious I was going to post TL;DR. However, I actually did read it and I ended up just surprised at its insight.

Bravo OP, I don't think that's ever happened to me before.

[Joe920]

I got it!!!

The Reapers are the Europeans/Spanish, the Star Child is the Pope, and the alien races to be exterminated are any number of North and South American tribes.

It all makes so much sense now!!!

Time to get a life...

[Dreogan]

This thread never fails to deliver. The original post presents such a strong argument it's hard to argue it in the slightest, even if the title makes it look patently absurd.

This is where LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE gets us.
This is not TRIUMPHANT AND UPLIFTING.

[Psychlonus]

Zine2 wrote...

everyone seems to be trying to avoid the Elephant in the room.

No one is trying to avoid the elcor.

[gmboy902]

BioWare never asked you to accept his logic.

They just forced Shepard to.

[Psychlonus]

corpselover wrote...

burb2500 wrote...

@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.

The underlying concept of synthetic vs organic and the reapers logic and assertions are the basis. Synthetics and organics are different (diversity). At points they come in to conflict (intolerance). That means the problem is either diversity or intolerance. I would argue to my death that intolerance is the problem, and that they need to work towards overcoming this intolerance (as literally shown through the peaceful resolution of the geth/quarian conflict). Starchild posits that this is not possible, and instead we need to get rid of one side or the other (or both in the synthesis ending) to stop the conflict. So instead of trying to fix the problem of intolerance we try to fix the problem of diversity. I find that pretty offensive.

If we accept the premise that synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life--advanced or primordial. Then synthetics must be eliminated. The Reaper cycle is, however, not the way to do it. Under the given premise, the AI should've been viewed like a virus that will eventually wipe everyone out. Therefore the reaper mission should've been to simply shut down the relays whenever there was an AI outbreak, i.e. "quarantine", and then start them back up once the outbreak was handled.

[razorblade456]

KustomDeluxe wrote...

That was undoubtedly the most disturbing part the "Synthesis" ending held for me.

I mean, honestly you had:
Destroy and commit genocide on Geth/AI
Control and compromise morals in name of "greater good" (a slippery slope justification at its finest)
Synthesize and, y'know, remove the free-will and individual nature of every species & person/alien-person in the galaxy.
...
...
Yay for genocide and dictatorship I guess?

This!

[judge515]

Not racist....Organ-ist?

[Big Push]

Yeah, it's pretty disturbing. Just another reason why I'm glad Bioware has decided to modify it's original "artistic vision" in some form.

[Impossibru]

razorblade456 wrote...

KustomDeluxe wrote...

That was undoubtedly the most disturbing part the "Synthesis" ending held for me.

I mean, honestly you had:
Destroy and commit genocide on Geth/AI
Control and compromise morals in name of "greater good" (a slippery slope justification at its finest)
Synthesize and, y'know, remove the free-will and individual nature of every species & person/alien-person in the galaxy.
...
...
Yay for genocide and dictatorship I guess?

This!

+1 

[Psychlonus]

corpselover wrote...

Psychlonus wrote...

corpselover wrote...

burb2500 wrote...

@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.

The underlying concept of synthetic vs organic and the reapers logic and assertions are the basis. Synthetics and organics are different (diversity). At points they come in to conflict (intolerance). That means the problem is either diversity or intolerance. I would argue to my death that intolerance is the problem, and that they need to work towards overcoming this intolerance (as literally shown through the peaceful resolution of the geth/quarian conflict). Starchild posits that this is not possible, and instead we need to get rid of one side or the other (or both in the synthesis ending) to stop the conflict. So instead of trying to fix the problem of intolerance we try to fix the problem of diversity. I find that pretty offensive.

If we accept the premise that synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life--advanced or primordial. Then synthetics must be eliminated. The Reaper cycle is, however, not the way to do it. Under the given premise, the AI should've been viewed like a virus that will eventually wipe everyone out. Therefore the reaper mission should've been to simply shut down the relays whenever there was an AI outbreak, i.e. "quarantine", and then start them back up once the outbreak was handled.

We are forced to. There is no option.

We are also forced to accept the premise that AI are self-aware as a matter of exposition. This is what makes it genocide.

[Psychlonus]

^^^

In fact, if ME wanted to put forward the premise that micro-organisms are self-aware, then medical science would be rendered genocide...

[fafnir magnus]

This is the sort of idiotic feedback that undermines the whole point of pushing for a new ending.

[burb2500]

corpselover wrote...

The underlying concept of synthetic vs organic and the reapers logic and assertions are the basis. Synthetics and organics are different (diversity). At points they come in to conflict (intolerance). That means the problem is either diversity or intolerance. I would argue to my death that intolerance is the problem, and that they need to work towards overcoming this intolerance (as literally shown through the peaceful resolution of the geth/quarian conflict). Starchild posits that this is not possible, and instead we need to get rid of one side or the other (or both in the synthesis ending) to stop the conflict. So instead of trying to fix the problem of intolerance we try to fix the problem of diversity. I find that pretty offensive.

I won't lie, that was the most coherent and straightforward argument for the OP that I've read in this thread.
Unfortunately, I still have to disagree; here's why:

As I stated in an earlier post, the evolutionary potential of synthetics is magnitudes greater than that of organics. The speed, intelligence, and power that they can develop in a few short centuries makes synthetics a theoretically superior "race." It is this potential that the Catalyst sees as the problem. In the event of serious conflict between organics and synthetics, it is highly unlikely that the inferior organic could survive. 

In the case of organic vs. organic, the ability to completely wipe out another race is completely possible, but not to wipe out all other races combined. It is this threshold (the point at which one race is unable to fight the combined forces of all other races) that kept the Citadel Council together and it is this threshold that only synthetics have the (theoretical) potential to exceed.

Therefore, as you correctly pointed out, it is not diversity that is the problem, it is the issue of intolerance. However, the cost of this intolerance, if waged between organic and synthetic is the elimination of all organic life, not just a single race (or perhaps two).

Essentially, what the Reapers are doing is making evolution a Sisyphean struggle. You push the boulder uphill so far (i.e. you evolve), but then it rolls back down the hill again and you have to start over (i.e. the Reaper's harvesting). While it may limit the ultimate potential of organics, it is intended as a cap on synthetic evolution that prevents the possibility of all organic life being eliminated in the galaxy.

Also, here's a "justification" for destroying synthetics in every cycle. As we see in ME3, in only 300 years the Geth advance in ways that even the Quarians did not expect. If the Reapers only left a few synthetics (which are admittedly dumb in small groups or when alone), how long would it take them to regain their former level of advancement? Nobody knows, but it would be far quicker than organics (which took tens of thousands of years to even reach space). This prevents synthetics from wiping out the rest of the universe when organic civilizations are still in their infancy.

Modifié par burb2500, 21 mars 2012 - 11:38 .

[Rulycar]

Lanay wrote...

Yeah, I noticed a lot of those themes in disturbing force at the end of ME3. Personally I think it was wholly accidental, but I also think it's a big part of the reason why the ending leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. Genocide, enforced homogenization, or enslavement of your enemies. Those are your choices.

Bad-aftertaste.

Horrible, horrible choices.
I chose control ... they call them "enemies" for a reason.

[burb2500]

Psychlonus wrote...

If we accept the premise that synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life--advanced or primordial. Then synthetics must be eliminated. The Reaper cycle is, however, not the way to do it. Under the given premise, the AI should've been viewed like a virus that will eventually wipe everyone out. Therefore the reaper mission should've been to simply shut down the relays whenever there was an AI outbreak, i.e. "quarantine", and then start them back up once the outbreak was handled.

While this sounds logical, to a degree, it wouldn't work in universe.

1. The Reapers still require Mass relays to move around. For them to deal with a threat means that they have to already be in the system before they turn off the relays. To do this effectively would require a phenomenal response time.

2. Because they require Mass Relays, the Reapers would have to travel through adjacent systems in order to reach the affected system. I guarantee you, someone would notice the fleet of giant 2km long alien ships.

3. The Reaper's hibernate in Dark Space and it took them over 6 months (if not longer) to reach our galaxy. That is not fast enough to deal with an AI threat.

4. To have a fast response time would require the Reapers maintain a presence in our galaxy at all times. Unless the Reaper's decide to take an active role in Turian, Asari etc. societies, people are going to get freaked out by the massive talking ships that keep flying around blowing up their planets. (Which is how things would look if the Reapers purged a system of an AI or synthetic race and didn't explain themselves to the Citadel races).

[Psychlonus]

burb2500 wrote...

Psychlonus wrote...

If we accept the premise that synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life--advanced or primordial. Then synthetics must be eliminated. The Reaper cycle is, however, not the way to do it. Under the given premise, the AI should've been viewed like a virus that will eventually wipe everyone out. Therefore the reaper mission should've been to simply shut down the relays whenever there was an AI outbreak, i.e. "quarantine", and then start them back up once the outbreak was handled.

While this sounds logical, to a degree, it wouldn't work in universe.

1. The Reapers still require Mass relays to move around. For them to deal with a threat means that they have to already be in the system before they turn off the relays. To do this effectively would require a phenomenal response time.

By "shut down" I mean IFF. They would still be usable to reapers. Also, In my scenario the reapers would not be in dark space they would be patrolling the galaxy without secrecy.

[BWGungan]

It was mass murder, not genocide.

Genocide as defined by the United Nations is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group". It can simply also be known as the intent to destroy a group, in part or in whole. Intent must be proven, otherwise the crime cannot be identified as genocide.

Modifié par BWGungan, 21 mars 2012 - 11:55 .