1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Riknas]

Well...Wow. The OP presents his point fairly and it makes sense, mostly.

Despite that, I agree with the others saying you might be reading too much into this. The theme did become "Synthetics vs Organics" for a while, always pushing to the idea that if you wanted, you could try to wipe out all of them, but I don't think it was Bioware's intention to promote racist ideas.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't like the ending either. Hold the line.

[Baronesa]

Riknas wrote...

Well...Wow. The OP presents his point fairly and it makes sense, mostly.

Despite that, I agree with the others saying you might be reading too much into this. The theme did become "Synthetics vs Organics" for a while, always pushing to the idea that if you wanted, you could try to wipe out all of them, but I don't think it was Bioware's intention to promote racist ideas.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't like the ending either. Hold the line.

the OP has also said, as many of us who have seen this problem on the endings, we don't adscrive this ideas to Bioware.

I honestly don't think they thought about this interpretation, but the comparision stand sby its own merits. If they intended it or not has no real difference to what it is. As long as we don't go the route "OMG Bioware are bigots OMG" we can see the ending for all it's faults.

[MOELANDER]

Baronesa wrote...

the OP has also said, as many of us who have seen this problem on the endings, we don't adscrive this ideas to Bioware.

I honestly don't think they thought about this interpretation, but the comparision stand sby its own merits. If they intended it or not has no real difference to what it is. As long as we don't go the route "OMG Bioware are bigots OMG" we can see the ending for all it's faults.

I agree. I don't think BioWare did this intentionally.

I just know now, why I found Synthesis revolting! In germany we are very aware of the hatecrimes, that came from such "Pinnacle of Evolution" ideologies - or should I say "Master Race" ideologies!

[Xandurpein]

MOELANDER wrote...

I agree. I don't think BioWare did this intentionally.

I just know now, why I found Synthesis revolting! In germany we are very aware of the hatecrimes, that came from such "Pinnacle of Evolution" ideologies - or should I say "Master Race" ideologies!

I actually find it disturbing that they focus on biological evolution and DNA at all, with the talk about "the pinnacle of evolution". Modern society has now pretty much done away with biological evolution for mankind, because with technology and healthcare we've eliminated the pressure for biological adaptation. Many extremist thinkers have also worried about the fact that modern society would "dilute" the human DNA. It's not long ago there were campaigns to forcefully sterilize people whose DNA was deemed undesirable.

[Ashilana]

Rodia Driftwood wrote...

This was created 11 days ago?. Who the hell resurrected this crap?.

I am pretty sure you did not read the op or the majority of responses.  This thread has not been resurrected, it is simply a topic that people continue to discuss.

If you find that you disagree with the op, please state why.

[Paco_023]

Honestly how did people think Shepard was going to save the universe? Diplomacy, a civilized game of chess against Harbinger, a Basketball match?

''Even worse, this is an entity that attempts to justify its genocidal actions - in a way that is bluntly little different from the real world genocide of the Jews.''

Did you just play the ''****'' card? ANY attempts to rationalize genocide looks the same when you examine them. The Reapers (I can't believe I'm doing this) **** germany, The Soviet Union, The Khmer Rouge etc all of their reasons boil down to: These are the people we don't want and are a threat to what we're trying to accomplish they must therefore be removed.

The ending isn't racist because the catalyst is trying to rationalize the genocide of the universe the same way every genocide on earth have been ''justified'' where else are the writers supposed to draw inspiration?

''It uses euphemisms to describe mass murder. It uses the term "Chaos" to describe people, as though they are a problem and not living, breathing, beings. It calls its actions a "Solution", just as the certain people called the Holocaust their "Final Solution".''

The Catalyst is a computer and in his ****ed up circular logic we are a problem... the reapers are HIS solution as the holocaust was **** Germanys solution. He is trying to eradicate all advanced organic life, a genocide of unprecedented proportion. Why do you have a problem with the fact they they draw parallels between the catalyst and one of the worst genocides on earth?

''It even goes as far as calling the the liquification of corpses into Reaper components as "Ascension", no different from how the Concentration Camps collected the hair and skin of the dead victims to use as furniture components.''

Provide source would you kindly. I have never in my life read, heard or seen any inclination that they did anything but cut of peoples hair and remove gold fillings after they were dead. Any way what you're saying is insane, first of the reason harbinger says ''We are your salvation through destruction'' and the whole Ascension business is because that is what the catalyst thinks he is doing, he thinks he is saving us from ourselves, turning us into something better than organic life i.e synthetics. There's none of that in **** Germany, shaving peoples head is step one in destroying another persons sense of self worth. Removing gold fillings is just plain greed, there's no connection.

''Even worse, the premise of the Catalyst is fundamentally a racist premise. It boils down to "Organics and Synthetics are so different that they will always end up destroying each other". Really? You are now judged by your component parts - metal or protein - instead of the content of your character? How offensive would it be in real life to hear someone say you should be judged by the color of your skin?''

That's why people are upset about the endings, not the racist part your trying to club us over the head with but because it makes **** all sense. Geth and Quarians are fighting side by side as the catalysts spews his nonsense. I still don't know why you say the ENDING is racist when it is clearly the catalyst who is.

''But it gets even worse. You are not simply prevented from telling the Catalyst that it is wrong. You are also forced to go along with its next plan - its next "solution".''

Drop your issues with the word solution and fast for your own sake. What's next. you're in intensive care and refuse IV because it feeds you a ''solution''? And no you don't have to be apart of it, it's called the Destruction ending...

''This is why the most popular alternate ending thus far is the "I refuse all of your options" ending. Players would seriously rather have the entire galaxy wiped out than be forced to serve the Catalyst.''

Don't act like you speak for 50,000 people. This is your words, YOUR opinion.

''This is why the ME3 ending was a total and abject failure. It is not art. It is not deep. It is offensive.''

Offensive to you, and so far only you. Well that's not true I did find the ending offensive but it was more about the non Bioware standard in it's execution than anything else.

''It is about a brat AI proudly explaining his Mein Kampf. That people should be judged along racial lines: Organic vs Synthetic. And that because of these racial lines, he was totally justified in committing genocide over, and over, and over again.''

Not the **** card again... Godwin's law all up in this place.

''And the player is forced to become one of the pawns in his game. That is why players hate the ending; and why the most popular "alternative" ending is one wherein the player completely and totally rejects the Catalyst's "options", even if it means certain military defeat.''

YES! Precisely that! But not for the same reasons as you seem to think.

The Mass Effect franchise has throughout the series had an underlying theme of Organics vs Synthetics but also a message: strenght through diversity. Think about it, Javik tells you the reason their empire fell to the reapers was because they were too homogeneous, too static. You and your team consisting of Turians, Asari, Drell, Humans, Krogans, Quarians and even a Geth, (now that's a kick in the teeth of the catalyst) kick all kinds of collector/reapers ass.

Yes what the Catalyst says can easily be seen as racist but then again he and the reapers are the bad guys, you're not supposed to feel connected to them. Stop focusing on the bad things that can be learned from this series and see the positive things I just highlighted for you. Use that beautiful, analytic mind of yours to find the good things instead.

[sindrie111]

I kinda agree though I don't think it was intentional.... just poorly thought out lol.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Dendio1 wrote...

This is why the ME3 ending was a total and abject failure. It is not art. It is not deep. It is offensive.

This is where I stopped reading. Seriously...its all fantastic racism (http://tvtropes.org/...antasticRacism. Dont take it personally. You raised some interesting points on the star child and the way he views organics, but you crossed the line with such blatant hyperbole. Me3 is the farthest thing from total and abject fail.

Im done with this thread.

Fantastic racism is still racism. The player is still forced to accept fantastic racist logic even if they spent the entire trilogy rejecting it. And he didn't say that ME3 was total abject fail, he said the ending was.

[ArmaVirumqueCano]

Zine2 wrote...


Moreover, "since when can a computer be racist!" is a dumb question. The Catalyst is more than just a computer. It is a sentient being. Therefore it can be judged as a person, and based on its moral actions it is quite simply a war criminal.

This is where you lose me.  I reject your definition of personhood.  Someone with a pacemaker or a hearing aid is still a PERSON; a robot without a soul is not.  And that's not meant to be religious, either.  

There's a difference between being able to understand the complexities and irrationalities of some choices (like EDI or Legion seem to be able to do -- and not sure that will ever be possible) and feeling actual physical and emotional pain.  Be more concerned with the monkeys from ME1 if that's where you're going (kidding...!).

So although I can't follow you down your road for long, I will agree that the writers' forcing the player to "side" with the child does create a moral conundrum, if you choose to view it that way.  I think it's more easily explained by 2 things: sloppy/rushed writing, and this horrible trend in choice-based games to make ANY choice you make have gruesome consequences.  That's one-track thinking, and it's actually puerility disguised as "maturity."

Also, since you seem to be taking a literary-criticism point of view on this, remember that art creates a "neutral zone" of sorts that allows us to investigate our own humanity (or inhumanity).  Like Gulliver's Travels.  And there's lots more to consider, such as this: If analyzed morally, then a work of art cannot and should not be divorced from its creators' intentions (intentional/affective fallacy).  Many people believe that; not sure I do.

Anyway, to sum up: if a "being" can be dismantled without pain, it's not a person in my book.  And just because ME sloppily pulls on heartstrings by making Legion act like a human (see: I, Robot) doesn't mean you have to fall for it. Protect the living from robots, I say.

Lastly, I'm more bothered by Reapers saying, at one and the same time, "We are the end of all organic life" and "The cycle has continued more times than you can fathom."  Uh, huh.  SLOPPY WRITING is key here.

[Riknas]

Baronesa wrote...

Riknas wrote...

Well...Wow. The OP presents his point fairly and it makes sense, mostly.

Despite that, I agree with the others saying you might be reading too much into this. The theme did become "Synthetics vs Organics" for a while, always pushing to the idea that if you wanted, you could try to wipe out all of them, but I don't think it was Bioware's intention to promote racist ideas.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't like the ending either. Hold the line.

the OP has also said, as many of us who have seen this problem on the endings, we don't adscrive this ideas to Bioware.

I honestly don't think they thought about this interpretation, but the comparision stand sby its own merits. If they intended it or not has no real difference to what it is. As long as we don't go the route "OMG Bioware are bigots OMG" we can see the ending for all it's faults.

Fair enough, I see why that might make sense to some; however, I  think reading into a meaning that isn't supposed to be there is unnecessary. It's one to poke holes about bugs and plotholes, but it's another to try and super-impose a meaning that you have to read into to really get in the first place.

Modifié par Riknas, 27 mars 2012 - 05:53 .

[xefiroEA]

I don't agree with everything the OP says, but I agree with the conclusion. The game presents as the best solution what is the most abhorrent one. Synthesis implies eliminating diversity for the sake of peace.

The reasoning that only by eliminating differences we can achieve peace, however, is fundamentally racist. It may not be what the writers intended, but then bigoted people don't think of themselves as racists, they just simply believe that people that are different are a problem that needs to be fixed.

Making this be the reasoning that frames the entire work, and forcing the player to agree with their logic (by removing any possibility of dissent within the game) is what opens the game itself to be seen in this light, however. This is not just a morally objectionable character in a work filled with different characters. By forcing the player to actively participate in this, and leaving no other alternative, the work itself can be accused of pushing this belief.

Personally, I don't think they wanted to express what they ended expressing either. I think they wanted to send a different message. Still one that had nothing to do with the game, of course, which is why they failed and delivered the garbage they did. I hope they meant to explore transhumanism, not homogenization. But after having EDI specifically say that that's not a theme in the game, the conclusion comes from nowhere.

[Phearmonger]

Stygian1 wrote...

To be honest... it was a lil' racist.


(or whatever being prejudice against robots would be called)

I vote for the word "synthetist"

[Clumsy Astronaut]

I would like to state disagreements with some of the ideas that have been occasionally put forth personally I also found it to be somewhat racially charged, but not to the degree of OP but anyways, to the meat of my post

1) A common point is that these endings do not allow a consensual decision and as a result Shep is pretty much forcing his/her will on the galaxy

This happens in every ME game. You do not radio up the soldiers of the Alliance fleet in ME1 to get there opinion on whether or not the council should be saved and in ME2 you do not pass a survey around to the family and friends of colonist who have been processes to ask them about whether or not such technology should be used. Decisions like this are what make the game interesting precisely because they impact a great deal of (fictional) people and that it is entirely up to you.

2) I should have been able to refuse

Would you refuse the option? I see many post claiming defeat is preferable to the victory we get, but really you are damning countless other races in a perpetual cycle to inevitable genocide by refusing. As a result your (Shepard's) unwillingness to make decisions like this allows the cycle to perpetuate indefinitely. And before it is stated that the Reapers COULD be beaten conventionally remember it took almost the entire council fleet to kill Sovereign, and the only reason the could was because you killed Saren. It also took the second largest fleet in the galaxy multiple salvoes to take down a diminutive Reaper Destroyer on Rannoch, how well could a united fleet do against the power of a thousand Soveriegns? Not very well, something along the lines of certain defeat.  To sum this point up I feel that Shepard should have been able to argue with the Catalyst for sure and perhaps have the option to refuse, but victory should have been impossible at that point.

3) All the endings end in genocide

I will examine each

A) Destroy- the Geth I could view as collateral damage because I knew uploading a Reaper's would have negative consequences, though combined with EDI I can see why some would call it that.

Control- How do we know Shepard doesn't just fly 'em into a sun? Either way he could just use them for mundane things like reconstructing relays instead if exercising  their power to enforce his world views.

C) Synthesis- The words forced homologizing seem to be thrown around alot, why? Turians are still Turians, Quarians are Quarians and Humans are Human. When Joker and Garrus stepped of the Normandy I saw only minor cosmetic changes. Their individuality seemed preserved and as a result I could infer that this new synthetic DNA functions more or less like it's predecessor, and so individuality and uniqueness are preserved.

In conclusion I feel that there are a lot of reasons to loathe the ending, but OP's statements are not one of them.

*edited for le spelling!*

Modifié par Clumsy Astronaut, 27 mars 2012 - 09:32 .

[Zine2]

ArmaVirumqueCano wrote...

Zine2 wrote...


Moreover, "since when can a computer be racist!" is a dumb question. The Catalyst is more than just a computer. It is a sentient being. Therefore it can be judged as a person, and based on its moral actions it is quite simply a war criminal.

This is where you lose me.  I reject your definition of personhood.  Someone with a pacemaker or a hearing aid is still a PERSON; a robot without a soul is not.  And that's not meant to be religious, either.  

There's a difference between being able to understand the complexities and irrationalities of some choices (like EDI or Legion seem to be able to do -- and not sure that will ever be possible) and feeling actual physical and emotional pain.  Be more concerned with the monkeys from ME1 if that's where you're going (kidding...!).

I tend to not ascribe "personhood" to having a "soul", because how exactly do you define a soul? It's a pretty vague concept.

For instance... Simply being able to feel actual physical and emotional pain is actually much more expansive a definition than sentience. It has been scientifically proven that some animals - such as Elephants - are capable of feeling emotional pain (they have been shown mourning for their dead family members), physical pain, and even display empathy towards other living beings that are not fellow Elephants. So by the strictest interpretation of your definition, Elephants have a soul. So are Elephants people too?

Which is why I prefer sentience to be the benchmark.

[Zine2]

Clumsy Astronaut wrote...

3) All the endings end in genocide

I will examine each

A) Destroy- the Geth I could view as collateral damage because I knew uploading a Reaper's would have negative consequences, though combined with EDI I can see why some would call it that.

Control- How do we know Shepard doesn't just fly 'em into a sun? Either way he could just use them for mundane things like reconstructing relays instead if exercising  their power to enforce his world views.

C) Synthesis- The words forced homologizing seem to be thrown around alot, why? Turians are still Turians, Quarians are Quarians and Humans are Human. When Joker and Garrus stepped of the Normandy I saw only minor cosmetic changes. Their individuality seemed preserved and as a result I could infer that this new synthetic DNA functions more or less like it's predecessor, and so individuality and uniqueness are preserved.

In conclusion I feel that there are a lot of reasons to loathe the ending, but OP's statements are not one of them.

*edited for le spelling!*

The core idea, again, is not centered on the three choices. The core idea is that you are forced to cooperate with the Catalyst, which is a proven mass-murderer and its stated rational boils down to "I think Synthetics and Organics can never get along so I will commit periodic genocide because of my prejudiced outlook."

Moreover, not including a "refusal" option - and thus going against the previously established theme of "bring the galaxy together" - is a pretty clear statement that "You are not allowed to question the Catalyst. It is right. You must follow it. Because God is right"

[Zine2]

forsaken gamer wrote...
Ok, my mistake then.

No worries. Despite the heated nature the discussion did eventually lead to something productive. I thank you for it.

[Valo_Soren]

OP definitely reading way to much into it.

[Zine2]

Valo_Soren wrote...

OP definitely reading way to much into it.

Then perhaps Bioware should not make nonsensical claims of creating "art" and comparing it with other actual great works of art.

You cannot ask people to look at something "deeply" and then whine when people (factually) demonstrate why the ending is actually even worse under the lens of a full and comprehensive review.

[Vakarian89]

Edje Edgar wrote...

Vakarian89 wrote...

well yea with the destroy ending u get the sense that "ok u can go ahead with your original plan and just kill all the reapers BUT this is the price your gonna pay" there just HAD to be a catch all along huh? i just find it funny that the only option that involves the reapers actually destuction is also the only one with a consequence along with losing your own life

It still requires you to accept the premise of the starchild, which you are taught should be considered evil. The only moral choice would be to make no choice at all. The fact that Shephard is forced to go along with Starchilds retarded logic is what many people hate about the ending.

i completely agree with u on that, i dont think any of those option where good and shepard would not have just accepted it every time soverign (mispelled i know) or harbinger tried to convince him/her that thier way was the only way shepard just brushed it off and kept going and all of a sudden this reaper kid tells him a bunch of bull and he just stands there and "oh yea ok well ill just pick one of these pretty color and be on my way!"...... its like he became a completely different person!! anyways what i was saying about starchild is just me thinking about how i as shepard wouldve reacted haha its not really my take on the ending, personally i really like the idea of IT 

[Zine2]

Paulomedi wrote...

Trying to apply human logic to Catalyst...hmmm

"Human logic does not apply" is frankly a cop-out argument. That's the equivalent of saying "But Hitler was clinically insane! So we cannot judge him like any other human being!"

No, we can and we do. Because intent does not matter. Action does.

Genocide is genocide. Murder is murder.

And to quote a real sci-fi classic:

"Men are not potatoes."

Likewise, people cannot be compared to ants, because people are not ants.

Modifié par Zine2, 28 mars 2012 - 01:54 .

[Pericles Redstorm]

Instead of xenophobic are we looking at robophobic???

Anyway it was all a dream/not real.

Modifié par Pericles Redstorm, 28 mars 2012 - 01:56 .

[Zine2]

Pericles Redstorm wrote...

Instead of xenophobic are we looking at robophobic???

Frankly, as I've said repeatedly, I don't really care. It's all just semantic quibbling - but ultimately the Catalyst's premise was still based on the principle that WHAT you are is more important than WHO you are.

[ArmaVirumqueCano]

Zine2 wrote...

ArmaVirumqueCano wrote...

Zine2 wrote...


Moreover, "since when can a computer be racist!" is a dumb question. The Catalyst is more than just a computer. It is a sentient being. Therefore it can be judged as a person, and based on its moral actions it is quite simply a war criminal.

This is where you lose me.  I reject your definition of personhood.  Someone with a pacemaker or a hearing aid is still a PERSON; a robot without a soul is not.  And that's not meant to be religious, either.  

There's a difference between being able to understand the complexities and irrationalities of some choices (like EDI or Legion seem to be able to do -- and not sure that will ever be possible) and feeling actual physical and emotional pain.  Be more concerned with the monkeys from ME1 if that's where you're going (kidding...!).

I tend to not ascribe "personhood" to having a "soul", because how exactly do you define a soul? It's a pretty vague concept.

For instance... Simply being able to feel actual physical and emotional pain is actually much more expansive a definition than sentience. It has been scientifically proven that some animals - such as Elephants - are capable of feeling emotional pain (they have been shown mourning for their dead family members), physical pain, and even display empathy towards other living beings that are not fellow Elephants. So by the strictest interpretation of your definition, Elephants have a soul. So are Elephants people too?

Which is why I prefer sentience to be the benchmark.

The soul comment's not meant to be taken that strictly.  Ease up on the verbal scalpal; everything doesn't have to be a point-counterpoint battle.  (Although I notice a lot of people conceding certain points to you, and you nothing to anyone...)

Regardless, my last word: YES, the destruction of LIFE in the biological sense I can follow (elephants, monkeys who hiding the damn transmitter, etc.) but not "synthetics" (Geth, Reapers, EDI).  This is where the genocide argument to me seems preposterous -- computers, whether or not you label them as "sentient," are NOT persons the same way you or I (or elephants or monkeys) are.  That's where you're overshooting the mark.  Now, if you won't concede that -- that the "genocide" of machines (PURE machines, parse-master) is NOT the same as real genocide -- then you're just fighting to win.  But I suspect that anyway...

[Zine2]

ArmaVirumqueCano wrote...


The soul comment's not meant to be taken that strictly.  Ease up on the verbal scalpal; everything doesn't have to be a point-counterpoint battle.  (Although I notice a lot of people conceding certain points to you, and you nothing to anyone...)

Regardless, my last word: YES, the destruction of LIFE in the biological sense I can follow (elephants, monkeys who hiding the damn transmitter, etc.) but not "synthetics" (Geth, Reapers, EDI).  This is where the genocide argument to me seems preposterous -- computers, whether or not you label them as "sentient," are NOT persons the same way you or I (or elephants or monkeys) are.  That's where you're overshooting the mark.  Now, if you won't concede that -- that the "genocide" of machines (PURE machines, parse-master) is NOT the same as real genocide -- then you're just fighting to win.  But I suspect that anyway...

Perhaps if people actually brought up valid counter-arguments, you'd see me concede something.

I stated that the defining mark of personhood is sentience. You countered with a fuzzy definition, and I pointed out that the definition would in fact result in Elephants (as scientifically proven fact) having a "soul". But now you backpedal, thus showing that the definition was indeed "fuzzy" and had more nuances.

You are now shifting to "persons the same way you or I", and you further say that Synthetics cannot be the same as us.

In effect, what you're actually saying is this: "Legion does not have a soul."

And again, while the definition of personhood is still very much up for debate, I can say with great confidence that most players will disagree with you. Legion had a soul. The Geth do have souls. So wiping them out is very much the same as wiping out an entire race that are "persons the same way you or I".