1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Embermage13]

I think it might be important to qualify that there's intentional and unintentional consequences of any script. While I find the mass-murdering malformed logic of the malevolent tyke to be a serious mistake, I do not think that Bioware's writers actively supported or promoted any such ideology. The problem is that the choice to cut out all of the interaction with the pint-sized totalitarian means that we cannot question, resist, or otherwise deny his reasoning. This does not feel like a wise or comfortable choice. I respect and request that the ability to go along with the AI/VI/Thingummy-bob remain in the game, but I also request that the ability to not go along with that choice exist alongside the current choice.

Yes, it's a game. Yes, I get that there is a difference in scale and a small reality gap between games and the rest of our lives. Does that give games a free pass to explore issues? Sure. Have we? Yep. I think my Shepard did, anyway. Did the set of options he was presented with at the end of the game remain consistent with his expressed views and actions from the rest of the game?

No. Therefore, the list of choices is incomplete and flawed.

[Lanay]

cchudoba002 wrote...

Wow...the only reason I entered this thread was to get ready to lol and flame you...but those are some excellent points. I never really thought of it that way. That's pretty messed up...someone should write a major news organization and point this out. Preferably one of the ones who isn't so far in EA's pockets that they can remain objective. See if people still consider it art.

Unfortunately, many people will post without bothering to read the content, a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that anyone calling 'racism' is going too far and being alarmist.  I'm glad you didn't.

[TheBandit554]

*on the floor* ROFLMAOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Storin]

Teacher50 wrote...

burb2500 wrote...

corpselover wrote...

Call it genocide or not, you are intentionally wiping out an entire race that is not even in conflict with you.

This is something that I (and others) have tried to grapple with in this thread (with some difficulty). The problem that I saw with using this word is that in our society it is such a highly politicized word with lots of different meanings associated with it's use. Another problem is that the purpose of using this word, in place of others, is generally to denote an intent (or agenda) on the part of the aggressor. i.e. killing others on the basis of creed, ethnicity, gender etc. It becomes less approriate when you want to describe the wanton killing of a large number of people that is not motivated by an ideology. In these cases the terms "Annihilation" "Extermination" or "Slaughter" become more appropriate.

An example of this difference can be drawn from a comparison of the number of Jewish people killed during WWII and the number of Russians killed during this same time frame. The Holocaust claimed 6 million+, but the Germans killed nearly 4 times that many Russians (24 million). Only the former is commonly regarded as a genocide because it was done to fulfill a particular ideology; the latter was the result of (comparatively) ideology free warfare. 

Because the term "Genocide" originated within the context of the Holocaust, it has consequently become associated with the deaths of a large number of people, and I think this is a source of common confusion in this thread: the deaths of large numbers of people do not always represent a Genocide. A genocide could be as small as 100 people, or as large a 10 trillion; the important part is what the intent of the aggressor was. If everyone submitted to the Reapers, there would be little to no death (if you don't count being liquified as dying). The fact that so many die is because they engage the Reapers in combat. In my interpretation, the deaths of Organics is not genocide becuase they attack the Reapers and because the Reapers actions are not consistent with the term; genocide does involve the induction of the victims into their ranks (which is what "Ascension" is). 

I would have to agree though that the elimination of synthetic life forms does adhere closer to the definition of genocide, although a person's stance on this issue likely hinges on their stance with regards to the issue of pre-emptive strikes.

Can of worms...

It could then be argued that ascension is forced  and opens the question of slavery. Beings of other races had already been enslaved.

Well, um, yeah. That's part of the problem. Every ending is morally repugnant and raises the question of what the writers are trying to tell you.

[Zine2]

It still amuses me that people are still attempting to confuse the situation by outright acts of misdirection - like arguing what the word genocide means and thinking that it's relevant to the discussion at all.

Genocide is genocide. When the Reapers wiped out the Protheans, that was not "Ascension". That was genocide. When Hitler started the Holocaust, that was genocide.

It's that incredibly simple. No amount of playing word games will change that. This thread is about saying blunt, honest truths - not about hiding behind words like how the Catalyst uses the word "Solution" to disguise the fact it is committing genocide.

Again, all of what I have said in the OP are simple facts. Those parallels with the Holocaust will exist no matter what happens. This is a fundamental problem with the ending. It does not undermine the "Change the ending movement". It shows that there is an actual moral reason why people are angry at the ending - it attempts to preach an ideology of hatred and prejudice that has no place in the modern age.

[burb2500]

Dear Mr. Zine2,

You may have started the thread, but please do not attempt to tell us what we should or should not talk about. We will continue or discussions irregardless of you and your black/white thinking and reductive arguments.

Best regards,

Burb2500

[burb2500]

Teacher50 wrote...


Can of worms...

It could then be argued that ascension is forced  and opens the question of slavery. Beings of other races had already been enslaved.

I agree, the discussion of enslavement would be appliciable, and I think highly relevant to a series that has emphasized choice and freewill; both within its story and through its game mechanics. Rather than look at the endings in terms of killing people (genocide), we could think in terms of do we have the right to decide the fate of others (even if we think their decisions are wrong). The fact that our ability to choose the ending has the inverse consequence of denying other's a similar freedom of choice is an interesting one.

Thanks for bringing this up Teacher50. 

[blamblooblinds]

I support this thread. I didn't have such explicit thoughts such as these, but the ending certainly did leave a bad taste in my mouth. (Of course that could have just been due to a breakdown of logic)

[Elite Midget]

I... Would go that far.

[Zine2]

burb2500 wrote...

Dear Mr. Zine2,

You may have started the thread, but please do not attempt to tell us what we should or should not talk about. We will continue or discussions irregardless of you and your black/white thinking and reductive arguments.

Best regards,

Burb2500

Oh stop your whining. Again, your attempts at misdirection are a waste of time. Your attempts to play semantic word games are also a waste of time.

These are simple facts. That you accuse me of "black/white" outlook is only laughable when you are seriously attempting to soften the act of systematic mass-murder of an entire race/species. 

Call it genocide. Call it mass murder. Call it Ascension. It's all the same thing.

You are therefore not arguing on the grounds of a "grey" morality. You are just playing around with the dictionary, not discussing ME3's ending.

Modifié par Zine2, 22 mars 2012 - 05:27 .

[Ashilana]

Zine2 wrote...
It's that incredibly simple. No amount of playing word games will change that. This thread is about saying blunt, honest truths - not about hiding behind words like how the Catalyst uses the word "Solution" to disguise the fact it is committing genocide.
 

When the starchild used the word solution it made my skin crawl.  It is amazing that after only 60 some years people don't have the same horror at using that word in such a context.

Shep should have at least had the option to tell off that evil thing... but obviously the game designers feel the starchild is not evil.   Not sure which is more scary: the people who are not upset by what the starchild says or bioware defending the ending as artistic choice.

Modifié par Ashilana, 22 mars 2012 - 06:00 .

[burb2500]

I apologize for my poor photoshop skills, but I thought that I would create an image summing up the OP's point.

Modifié par burb2500, 22 mars 2012 - 06:01 .

[Zine2]

Ashilana wrote...

When the starchild used the word solution it made my skin crawl.  It is amazing that after only 60 some years people don't have the same horror at using that word in such a context.

Yep. One of my reasons for starting this thread is the realization that people have subconsciousy connected the dots (Solution = Hitler's euphemism for genocide), but they didn't consciously realize it yet.

I'm not sure if it was a deliberate parallel made by the writing staff, but regardless of the intent - it's in the game.

So people should seriously judge what's actually said and done in the game, as opposed to playing with a dictionary.

[Zine2]

burb2500 wrote...

I apologize for my poor photoshop skills, but I thought that I would create an image summing up the OP's point.

Actually, I would wager most people would see that to be a better ending to the series than we actually got. The Catalyst is a war criminal. It would not have been out of the question for the Paragon Choice to bring him to trial for its crimes. That would actually be a novel change than simply "shoot the villain".

By the way, I wouldn't have bothered with the mustache or the hairdo - The fact that the Catalyst tries to disguise itself as a young child only further heightens the revulsion of most players to its actions.

So again, your dishonest debating and attempts at mockery only serve to waste time; and provide mild amusement. Thankfully it's more of the latter this time, as your photoshop skills are not as lacking as your debate skills.

Modifié par Zine2, 22 mars 2012 - 06:09 .

[Ashilana]

Zine2 wrote...

Yep. One of my reasons for starting this thread is the realization that people have subconsciousy connected the dots (Solution = Hitler's euphemism for genocide), but they didn't consciously realize it yet.

I'm not sure if it was a deliberate parallel made by the writing staff, but regardless of the intent - it's in the game.

So people should seriously judge what's actually said and done in the game, as opposed to playing with a dictionary.

Unfortunately I have little hope that this aspect of the ending will be changed.  The official response from bioware seems to be that they are still dumbfounded as to why people are upset.

I feel sorry for the folks who crafted all the moving stories about diversity, free will and tolerence through out the mass effect series.  To have your efforts capstoned by such a monstrous declaration of the validity of genocide... it must be horrible.

[brian_breed]

 Zine, good God. I hadn't opened this threat yet (because I thought it was a joke). The second I do, I realize that my biggest problem with the ending boils down to this. The "synthetics killing organics so that synthetics don't kill organics" meme puts a silly front on this interpretation, but damn if you aren't spot on.

[Ashilana]

Zine2 wrote...
Actually, I would wager most people would see that to be a better ending to the series than we actually got. The Catalyst is a war criminal. It would not have been out of the question for the Paragon Choice to bring him to trial for its crimes. That would actually be a novel change than simply "shoot the villain".

It would be great to destroy the reapers and then hold their creator accountable.

Zine2 wrote...
By the way, I wouldn't have bothered with the mustache or the hairdo - The fact that the Catalyst tries to disguise itself as a young child only further heightens the revulsion of most players to its actions.

And at the same time the appearance of a small child makes the more gullible who play the game accept his words as well meaning, almost noble.

[lothvamp]

I never thought too much into it, what with all the other nonsense happening, but it really did bother me that destroying the reapers (which was my original intention, and the only choice that didn't smack of reaper coercion) ended up with all the geth, and my friend EDI, dead. Not even mentioning the whole "mass relay explosions destroy the whole system" or "turians and quarians would starve on Earth" details.

[Tony208]

I can't see how Bioware can redeem the endings without scrapping the starchild bit completely. That part either has to go or is part of indoctrination.

[recentio]

Tony208 wrote...

I can't see how Bioware can redeem the endings without scrapping the starchild bit completely. That part either has to go or is part of indoctrination.

They can redeem it, I think, if they set up the idea that the Catalyst AI even might exist earlier so it's not such a shock in the final scene and -- most importantly -- if they allow the player to REJECT the Starchild's scenario on philosophical and moral grounds.

[Lanay]

Read over this again after reading some pro-ending arguments, and I still think it holds a disturbingly convincing amount of water. I still think it's accidental, too, but... yeah.

The only possible fix I see for this is offering the option of rejecting the Littlest Reaper's choices. Or removing them outright.

[Tiax Rules All]

This is the dumbest thread in the entire forums.

[Aimi]

Lemme get this straight.

So, in a game in which Shepard, a human being who is absolutely beholden to the legal system of the Citadel polities, can commit total xenocide three separate times during the confines of the story itself, in which every Shepard commits mass murder on a scale unparalleled by any single being in human history at least once - and all this ignoring any definition of "mass murder" that could potentially include the geth - we're supposed to get all hot and bothered about a Reaper avatar and put it in the dock somehow?

[frostajulie]

Wow that was a very well written post that is completely supportable by the facts.

I also am one of the players who would have rather fought to the last against the Geth and lost the entire galaxy but kept the soul of who we were intact than choose any of the options Starchild presented us with.

It really would have been better and preferable to fight until the Reapers won.

HOLDING THE LINE. A NEW SUBSCRIBER TO FORBES MAGAZINE. I spend my money on my convictions. Forbes got the money I would have used to purchase DLC

[Therefore_I_Am]

If you see it that way, fine. But really, the Reapers are more based off of the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft. The "Cosmic Horror Story" trope, to be more accurate. God-like incomprehensible beings that drive people mad while spanning the entire universe and beyond.
Until that stupid ending I always thought the Reapers were doing this because of the whole "survival of the fittest" thing.