1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Atomsk Rex Pirata]

theSatirist wrote...

That is a really pathetic try to invoke Godwin's law! OP, you fail miserably. Big time!

Godwin's law only states the likelihood of a person referencing Hitler, not the legitimacy of his/her argument.

I, like many, clicked on this thread expecting to find the ravings of a lunatic...and instead found a disturbingly well-reasoned argument.

Modifié par Atomsk Rex Pirata, 27 mars 2012 - 01:55 .

[Zine2]

Baronesa wrote...

Good catch!

I think the majority of comments of people making snide remarks, is simply a defense mechanism. They see something that challenge core values or can have a deep impact, and rather use ridicule than confront it.

Pretty much.

People would much rather make jokes about the "race card" rather than confront the fact that the ending had very clear parallels with real world justifications for genocide (It's not genocide, it's a Solution! They're not people, they're a Problem called Chaos!) and that it is ultimately based on an ideology of hatred and pure prejudice (The Synthetic Man and the Organic Man shall always kill one another. Because God said so).

But in reality, you cannot play the "It's just a game!" card alongside the "It's art!" card. Nor can you cherry pick that it should be the former because somebody came up with a factual commentary on how the ending belongs more properly beside Mein Kampf as "art" rather than the other great artworks Bioware once tried to arrogantly compare the ending to.

[Admiral H. Cain]

Seifer006 wrote...

you've got to be kidding me...

you're pulling the "race card" act... c'mon. Bioware may have done a poor job on the ending...but they didn't go and promote genocide........IT'S A GAME DUDE!!!

But it's far more than a game isn't it, Seifer? 

How is a story driven game different than a book or film? BioWare claimed this was art, did they not?

[DaeJi]

Very well written. I do not know if I agree, however I cannot say that your view is lacking in merit.

[Zine2]

Atomsk Rex Pirata wrote...

theSatirist wrote...

That is a really pathetic try to invoke Godwin's law! OP, you fail miserably. Big time!

Godwin's law only states the likelihood of a person referencing Hitler, not the legitimacy of his/her argument.

Yep, and it's kinda hard not to reference Hitler when the Star Child itself seriously uses the same terminology. "Solution" as a euphemism for "Genocide".

Killing people and using their body parts as building materials? That totally happened during the Holocaust too on a massive scale.

If that makes people upset, that's not my fault. Blame the game, because those parallels will still exist regardless. I just brought them up in an effort to explain why people (consciously or subsconsciously) were offended by the ending.

[Risselda]

Wait until bioware explains the ending before going further with this please. Just chose the destroy ending. The kid says all the synthetic life will be destroyed....but wait...you;re trusting everything hes saying? May not be the smartest choice.

Because it may make you regret this thread.

May your words be as sweet as cupcakes, in case you have to eat them later - saw this in someones sig.

[akashacatbat]

So I read the title of this post and I was like like, "Um, okay..." But then I read the post and... it makes a lot of sense. Kudos, OP.

[Admiral H. Cain]

forsaken gamer wrote...

Since when does a fictional story need to align with conventional morality principles or adhere to a litmus test? 

Well, considering it is written by REAL humans, they had to have drawn their inspiration from somewhere. The parallels to Hitler and the Holocaust are irrefutable.

[United_Strafes]

Offensive of course (because some sort of monkey drunk on Jagermeister obviously wrote it), racist is left open to your own weird interpretation, not that racism is exactly the most horrible thing ever, some people have perfectly valid reasons for being racist, and some cultures based on backgrounds together have many reasons to hate each other. Just because you don't have it in your face in suburbia doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

[Zine2]

forsaken gamer wrote...
So the Catalyst's logic is disgusting.  And?

That only means you completely failed to even read the OP. Hence, your arguments are not worthy of discussion.

Seriously, why would you snidely question the relevance of the Catalyst's disgusting logic when the OP's purpose is quite clearly to explain WHY people hated the ending and preferred the "Shoot the Catalyst" alternative if you had read the OP? The fact that you ask indicates you did not actually read, and therefore are blabbering unrelated nonsense.

Modifié par Zine2, 27 mars 2012 - 02:12 .

[Zkyire]

Zine2 wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...
So the Catalyst's logic is disgusting.  And?

That only means you completely failed to even read the OP. Hence, your arguments are not worthy of discussion.

Seriously, why would you snidely question the relevance of the Catalyst's disgusting logic when the OP's purpose is quite clearly to explain WHY people hated the ending and preferred the "Shoot the Catalyst" alternative if you had read the OP? The fact that you ask indicates you did not actually read, and therefore are blabbering unrelated nonsense.

Until you started ranting about the ****ing Holocaust; NOBODY was talking about that being their reason.

People hated it because it was a BAD ending to a decent game.

Not because "Oh dear if I stretch this enough it might be able to draw parallels with World War 2".

If you are offended by the ending then so what?

Modifié par Zkyire, 27 mars 2012 - 02:17 .

[Baronesa]

Zkyire wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...
So the Catalyst's logic is disgusting.  And?

That only means you completely failed to even read the OP. Hence, your arguments are not worthy of discussion.

Seriously, why would you snidely question the relevance of the Catalyst's disgusting logic when the OP's purpose is quite clearly to explain WHY people hated the ending and preferred the "Shoot the Catalyst" alternative if you had read the OP? The fact that you ask indicates you did not actually read, and therefore are blabbering unrelated nonsense.

Until you started ranting about the ****ing Holocaust; NOBODY was talking about that being their reason.

People hated it because it was a BAD ending to a decent game.

Not because "Oh dear if I stretch this enough it might be able to draw parallels with World War 2".

Actually, other people mentioned the link to genocide way before the OP made this comprehensive post, as well as others have made similar analysis.

[Inujade]

There is a certain truth to what the OP says. Consider that the final solutions come down to genocide (against all AI, including the geth, who can be helping you), control, and "make everybody the same."

That last one bothers me the most. In a series that has celebrated and encouraged tolerance, and emphasized that difference is not necessarily a threat, we have this ending where Shepard just accepts "Oh we're too different to ever get along. Better change everyone against their will."

[GetDaved]

Although I think some of your comparisons are maybe a little inappropriate since we are comparing science fiction to actual historical events, I do agree with your general point.

Consider what the moral of the story is in Mass Effect. In ME1 it was (even if you were renegade) that cooperation and individuality is important. In ME2 it is the diversity and uniqueness of the individuals on your team that brings everyone back alive. In ME3 Javik the Prothean explains that his empire fell because of homogeneity.

But the ending forces a different conclusion. The moral of the story isn't that diversity matters - it's that the only way we can all get along is to kill each other, control each other, or all be the same. That is the final thesis, and it is literally indisputable. I found it quite distasteful, especially after the game pushed a contradictory theory for so long.

I am not unsympathetic to the dilemma of Bioware in all of this: working on a project for years, the pressure of deadlines, the gradual loss of objectivity as you become more and more immersed in your work and being unable to pull away from it for a while and look at it with fresh eyes. And then the dilemma of writing an ending comes up. I get how it could not be perfect, but seriously - the theme of the ending is just such a slap in the face to the series.

[Admiral H. Cain]

GetDaved wrote...

Although I think some of your comparisons are maybe a little inappropriate since we are comparing science fiction to actual historical events, I do agree with your general point.

Isn't that the point of science fiction? 

[Sc2mashimaro]

Zine2 wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...
So the Catalyst's logic is disgusting.  And?

That only means you completely failed to even read the OP. Hence, your arguments are not worthy of discussion.

Seriously, why would you snidely question the relevance of the Catalyst's disgusting logic when the OP's purpose is quite clearly to explain WHY people hated the ending and preferred the "Shoot the Catalyst" alternative if you had read the OP? The fact that you ask indicates you did not actually read, and therefore are blabbering unrelated nonsense.

The TL;DR folks won't understand, they only read the title and had a gut reaction to the term "racism". On one level it is understandable, but anyone that took the time to read the OP would understand that this is an intellectually sound critique of the ending's rhetoric. One does not *have* to agree, but if you want to argue that the OP is wrong you should bring an equally strong argument to the one laid out or a thoughtful critique of the OP's premise or assumptions.

[Admiral H. Cain]

forsaken gamer wrote...

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...

Since when does a fictional story need to align with conventional morality principles or adhere to a litmus test? 

Well, considering it is written by REAL humans, they had to have drawn their inspiration from somewhere. The parallels to Hitler and the Holocaust are irrefutable.

As are a lot of fictional stories. 

........and? 

[Sc2mashimaro]

forsaken gamer wrote...

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...

Since when does a fictional story need to align with conventional morality principles or adhere to a litmus test? 

Well, considering it is written by REAL humans, they had to have drawn their inspiration from somewhere. The parallels to Hitler and the Holocaust are irrefutable.

As are a lot of fictional stories. 

Zine2 wrote...
That only means you completely failed to even read the OP. Hence, your arguments are not worthy of discussion.

Seriously,
why would you snidely question the relevance of the Catalyst's disgusting logic when the OP's purpose is quite clearly to explain WHY people hated the ending and preferred the "Shoot the Catalyst" alternative if you had read the OP? The fact that you ask indicates you did not actually read, and therefore are blabbering unrelated
nonsense.

No, actually what it means is that I disregard the premise of your op.  What it boils down is your own self-righteousness. 

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Marinemike69]

Good post. The title is a bit strong though; but the subject matter gives food for thought.

Keep posting.

[Admiral H. Cain]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...

Since when does a fictional story need to align with conventional morality principles or adhere to a litmus test? 

Well, considering it is written by REAL humans, they had to have drawn their inspiration from somewhere. The parallels to Hitler and the Holocaust are irrefutable.

As are a lot of fictional stories. 

Zine2 wrote...
That only means you completely failed to even read the OP. Hence, your arguments are not worthy of discussion.

Seriously,
why would you snidely question the relevance of the Catalyst's disgusting logic when the OP's purpose is quite clearly to explain WHY people hated the ending and preferred the "Shoot the Catalyst" alternative if you had read the OP? The fact that you ask indicates you did not actually read, and therefore are blabbering unrelated
nonsense.

No, actually what it means is that I disregard the premise of your op.  What it boils down is your own self-righteousness. 

Obvious troll is obvious.

Seconded.

[Manou1]

This thread.. Godwin's law crits you over 9000!

Modifié par Manou1, 27 mars 2012 - 02:25 .

[Zkyire]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

forsaken gamer wrote...

Since when does a fictional story need to align with conventional morality principles or adhere to a litmus test? 

Well, considering it is written by REAL humans, they had to have drawn their inspiration from somewhere. The parallels to Hitler and the Holocaust are irrefutable.

As are a lot of fictional stories. 

Zine2 wrote...
That only means you completely failed to even read the OP. Hence, your arguments are not worthy of discussion.

Seriously,
why would you snidely question the relevance of the Catalyst's disgusting logic when the OP's purpose is quite clearly to explain WHY people hated the ending and preferred the "Shoot the Catalyst" alternative if you had read the OP? The fact that you ask indicates you did not actually read, and therefore are blabbering unrelated
nonsense.

No, actually what it means is that I disregard the premise of your op.  What it boils down is your own self-righteousness. 

Obvious troll is obvious.

He's a troll?

One does not have to rebuke someone's argument in order to disagree with it.

I don't agree with the OP. That doesn't mean I want to write a god damned essay to refute him. Instead I can simply say "Nah, don't agree".

Like that guy did. And he was replied with a pretty self-righteous and condescending response.

And because he didn't put up with that he's the troll?

The OP is being an ass, and you're supporting him. Nice.