1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

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

Again, stop being a liar.

I did not rant about the Holocaust. I merely pointed out the parallels. Those parallels will exist even if I did not point them out.

Someone sooner or later would have made the conscious connection, because the unconscious reasons for reviling the ending were there.

So again, don't blame me for letting the genie out of the lamp. Someone was gonna rub the lamp sooner or later, I apparently was just the first (or at least one of the first).

[Zine2]

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

Sorry, but this has already been addressed. You cannot use the "it's a game" argument other than as a personal opinion, and that opinion is made irrelevant as the game has been touted as art by its creators.

Your objections are thus again completely pointless and silly. Thank you for amusing me with your complete and utter irrelevancy to the discussion.

[Sc2mashimaro]

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".

If you are offended by the ending then so what?

I am personally not offended, but I do think the OP is right about the underlying rhetoric. I am not offended by the accidental use of racist rhetoric - otherwise, half the shows and commercials on television would be offensive to me - but I think it would be wise to be aware of it. Society changes on how we understand our communication. Additionally, it is an excellent way to point out where the ending really went wrong - despite what people think, they unconsciously notice theme and rhetoric. The themes and rhetorics of the end sequence are IN CONFLICT with the rest of the story, which is why it FEELS wrong. The FEELING of wrongness is what breaks the immersion in the story and suddenly everyone is seeing "plot holes" everywhere. I put "plot holes" in quotes because, frankly, Mass Effect is filled with them from start to finish, but nobody notices the holes until immersion is broken - that's why hardly anyone complains about the HUGE plot holes in "Avatar".

Bioware's goal should be to fix the rhetorical and thematic style of the ending. This would actually give everyone almost everything they've been wanting from the end, whether they are aware of it or not. Indoc. theory is really attractive for this because it fits thematically, with foreshadowing, and turns the rhetoric of the last scene on its head - bringing it in line with the rest of the story. That's one reason everyone seems to fancy it, even if they don't think that Bioware really intended it.

[Zine2]

Zkyire wrote...
He's a troll?

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

Ah. I see. So we should let your opinions trump real facts.

Let me offer an alternative: No. Stop wasting pople's time.

[Zkyire]

Zine2 wrote...

Zkyire wrote...
He's a troll?

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

Ah. I see. So we should let your opinions trump real facts.

Let me offer an alternative: No. Stop wasting pople's time.

Holy crap.

You really can't take it can you.

Someone out there doesn't think the way you think and it's actually irritating you.

..wow.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Zkyire wrote...

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.

A) You didn't say, "Nah, I don't agree"

The OP has dealt with a lot of TL;DRs and, frankly, anyone that bothered to read the whole OP would realize that the OP is looking for an intellectual discussion - not a shallow "Am not"/"Am too" discussion.

C) Yes, I support the OP. Because I read the OP's argument and they did a damn good job in his/her critique. As a communication major, I am interested in rhetorical analysis, so I find the shallow, meaningless, and banal arguments used against them to be incredibly obnoxious.

D) Oh, and there is nothing self rightous about supporting your own argument.

[p__q]

I won't lie this is something I never really considered (to distracted by the plot holes and such) but everything your saying is factually correct, personally I'm relatively unfazed even reading your criticisms (game wise not the real world examples) but that is probably due to a moral disconnect many have with video games (I see myself as a moral person but can play renegade without batting an eyelid), still whatever your reaction to them the underlying themes pointed out here are kinda undeniable, and it is something to think about (and one more example of the out of character moments during the ending)

[Exeider]

@OP,

Yeah, i kinda have to agree with you, i got that feeling myself when i was coming down to it. I thought it was just me, but yeah, there was something just anti-life and freedom about the kid when i got to him. I mean at one point, i really question the writer and wonder if the writer has been reading things like eric holder's eco science or some other crypto-eugenics nonesense. Because all the crypto-eugenics books are replete with that kind of circular logic, of because thats the nature of people, this stuff will happen kind of logic.

when ME1 , 2 AND 3, completely disproved it by your actions, i mean you didnt just hear about it, you lived it, you helped shape it, so yeah, I can say we were all there, and in those situations so we can say first hand that the kid if full of BS.

-AE

[Baronesa]

To those people thinking that just saying "I don't agree" is enough, and then get offended when they are told it is not, or that with no justification their stance has no weight... remember:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

[GetDaved]

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

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? 

I wasn't discussing science fiction in general, I was talking about equating a story with made-up genocide and an actual historical genocide.  When real people die because of the ending of ME3 I will redact the point, until then it may be an accurate comparison, but I will still call it poor taste to equate them so heavily.  The ME3 ending had a strong genocide theme and offended me in that as well... it's enough to leave it at that without saying "It was just like the holocaust", because it wasn't.  Let's get a grip.

[Baronesa]

GetDaved wrote...

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

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? 

I wasn't discussing science fiction in general, I was talking about equating a story with made-up genocide and an actual historical genocide.  When real people die because of the ending of ME3 I will redact the point, until then it may be an accurate comparison, but I will still call it poor taste to equate them so heavily.  The ME3 ending had a strong genocide theme and offended me in that as well... it's enough to leave it at that without saying "It was just like the holocaust", because it wasn't.  Let's get a grip.

But generally speaking, art is a commentary of reality... it offers insight, takes a theme and extrapolate it, and at leas tinliterature comparing  and analysing a story in contrast with real life is a common place.

[N-Seven]

Ashilana wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

TUHD wrote...

o.O? Okay, there are elements which are strange, but 'racist and offensive'?....

I especially like how after 25 pages, the angry mob has now made a the link that 'Bioware is racist, and shares the Reaper's ideology'.       

And you disprove the ideas stated in the op with funny faces.  Interesting approach.

Perhaps give some more thought to how the child uses the word "solution" in reference to genocide, how synthesis is the closest thing to a happy ending... even though it forcibly alters all living beings, and how the closest thing most fans can find to a "good ending" is to wipe out an entire people they helped save multiple times.

Also, see if you can find the dialogue you get from Mordin's replacement.

Nice, you're making a connection with the word 'solution' to the Holocaust and the extermination of Jews. 

And then you make the connection with 'synthesis' to 'solution'.   That's just grand.

If you can't see how patently ludicrous, mean-spirited, and juvenile it is to accuse Bioware of being 'racists who endorse genocide', because of the endingsa fictional AI character presents in a video game, I don't know what to say.  Especially in a video game series where they encourage, (and reward) the player when he/she establishes relationships with other races, same-sex relationships, etc.   In short, the Mass Effect series, and other Bioware games like the Dragon Age series, are hippie-love fests.

From previous posts you've made, you find synthesis to be the most horrible thing that could happen to a living being, because of how they don't have a choice in the matter.  In fact if I remember correctly, you feel it preferable that all life should be murdered by the Reapers instead, as if that was more 'dignified'.   Your dislike of this particular ending, which you DON'T have to choose, is coloring your views. 

Some grumbling at Bioware over unsatisfactory endings is expected, but concluding they are genocidal racists?

And you know what, as someone who has experienced genuine racism directed at him throughout his life, these accusations of racism are obscene.  Shameful and ridiculous.  People honestly need to grow up and move on.

Modifié par N-Seven, 27 mars 2012 - 02:55 .

[Tim_H]

I didn't interpret the ending as being sympathetic toward genocide--genocide walks hand in hand with demonizing a group of people and the ending didn't employ those sentiments.

However, I did see the "anti-technology" slant that other posters here mentioned. The information presented to me by the ending struck me as quasi-mystical, that Ray Kurtzweil "futurism" that asserts it is inevitable that humans synthesize with machines ("the singularity").

I don't buy Kurtzweil's philosophy (I see him as a showman, not a visionary). And, I feel the game rail-roaded me into adopting one of three reactions to "futurology" which had not been the previous direction of the game.

By contrast, the game is incredibly humanizing--even Legion's alien hive-mind thinking from ME2 was toned down for ME3 into very human-like individualism and sentiment.

So, for a game that emphasized the human-condition (every character had a strong, memorable personality) against the faceless reaper assault, the sheer impersonal nature of the ending threw me off completely.

We played the game with Shephard wracked by guilt over one little kid he couldn't save, but at the ending everything is summarized in impersonal, abstract brush strokes (we didn't even get the personal encounter with Harbinger and his nutty, narcissistic banter that was so common in ME2)--the ending involved no individuals, no concrete concepts. Just big visions of mystical synthesis or absolute destruction.

[giljs2198]

I hadn't exactly considered the ending in this depth. I stopped at "The reapers are evil, and the being that created them therefore must be moreso. Therefore, any option they offer must also be evil." I have to give the writers at Bioware the benefit of the doubt and believe that they did not deliberately intend the ending to be racist/pro-genocide. But I do agree that you have a valid interprtation of the game's ending.

[Tony208]

N-Seven wrote...

Some grumbling at Bioware over unsatisfactory endings is expected, but concluding they are genocidal racists?

What? No one is saying that about Bioware. They're just saying one interpretation of the endings is that it condones genocide. Most likely it is unintended but, it's a valid point to make. Just another in the long line of reasons the ending blows and why it should be changed.

Modifié par Tony208, 27 mars 2012 - 03:09 .

[Tim_H]

PS. I missed Harbinger's nutty, narcissistic banter!!!!

Harbinger: Your attacks are an insult. We are the Harbinger of your perfection. Me noticing you was the luckiest day of your life. You should thank me. 'You got lucky, babe, when I found you.'

Shephard: Yeah? Well, bite me, Nutjob!

We go from that to Woody Allen trying to play Arnold Schwartenegger trying to play Arthur C. Clarke at the end...

[Jackal82]

I have already said this in polite respectful way but now I am upset because I feel like you have dug far too deep into the story and you are not looking at any other viewpoints. There is no such thing as war crimes I have already said why on previous post. Genocide is wrong on many level but many countries current nuclear war policy is MAD meaning MUTALLY ASSURED DESTRUTION. That mean if a nuclear armed country such as Russian launches it nukes at the United States then United States will launch theirs at Russia which mean everyone dies and probably all life. That is basically genocide on a massive scale and I have to agree with it. Just because someone says solution does not automatically mean holocaust. Plenty of countries commit war crimes even that country that says “all men are created free” do they get put on trial for it no. If you win the war it is justified. Using the Nuremburg trials is awful example because it was a show everyone knew they were going to prison for life or executed that’s why they were committing suicide before the trial. The prosecutors in the trail had to make up a law just so the defendants could not use the just following orders excuse. I do not think Bioware was promoting racism or genocide you reading too deep into it. I feel like you made this topic just because you did not like ending so you are just going to accuse Bioware as racist which is unethical. I can find racism in just about anything if I look hard enough. So I am saying just because you may have made connections that make sense that does not mean the argument is valid in anyway. You have opened Pandora’s Box.

[Tony208]

Jackal82 wrote...
So I am saying just because you may have made connections that make sense that does not mean the argument is valid in anyway.

This part made me lol.

It's Bioware's fault, instead of giving a coherent ending, they're hiding behind artistic integrity and letting everyone speculate. They practically invited this. The OP's argument is completely valid and you can disagree if you want.

Modifié par Tony208, 27 mars 2012 - 03:36 .

[fle6isnow]

Didn't read most of the other posts, just replying to the OP.

Very interesting interpretation! See, this is part of why I like the endings--you can make sense of it how you see fit. Racism is definitely one of the themes in Mass Effect--racism against Humans, Batarians, Quarians, Krogan, and the Geth. And yes, there are definite Holocaust parallels in the Catalyst's logic.

We aren't supposed to see Starkid AI as a sympathetic character. He's arrogant, uses flawed premises (although it IS logical if you take the premises as true), and it is basically lording over the galaxy. We're supposed to HATE him. But to reject his logic, we have to pick the Destroy ending and truly get rid of the Reapers.

I don't think of the Destroy option as genocide per se. In WWII terms, it is the willful choice of the US to drop atomic bombs on Japan to stop the war even if thousands upon thousands of civilians would be killed. Was that wrong of the US to do? Hell yes! But the government at the time believed that it was the best way to end the war, collateral damage be damned. The Geth and EDI are the hapless Japanese people who suffered due to you basically nuking all Reaper tech (and the Geth and EDI have that...I believe if they didn't, they would not have been affected by the blast).

Control=play at being God. Synthesis=perform eugenics on the galaxy. Destroy=atomic bomb with massive collateral damage. It's a difficult decision, to be sure, and it's an interesting moral quandary.

[frustratemyself]

This is a new take on things, I like your lateral thinking op.

[Bronze65]

Can we get this stupid ass post locked?