Ce sujet est fermé
I just finished the game last night. When I got to the final choice, I immediately grabbed my ever-present sketchpad and wrote down:
Control ---- Synthesis ----- Destroy
I then wrote
Suicide ---- Ethnocide ----- Genocide
Ultimately, Shepard choosing to control the reapers was the only option available to me which I could morally justify. I have no right to choose death for the geth, nor any right to re-write the entire galactic population. I circled "Control / Suicide".
In the case of synthesis and control, additional moral tension arose because I ddn't know the form of the endings. Woud organo-synthetic hybrids have free will? Was control really successful, or would I be giving into the reapers? Part of me felt that "destroy" was merited because it was the only option where I fully understood that a majority of the galaxy would survive. The unknowns of the other two endings made them less attractive morally because they could be "trick endings", ranging from the scenarios I have presented to an indoctrination trick (which seems like a popular idea around here.)
Ultimately, I remained with "control", because I felt that the decision to destroy or modify a race or a culture was one which I had no right to make.
The Ending was Racist and Offensive
Débuté par
Zine2
, mars 16 2012 03:42
Retour en haut
#877
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 02:28
GroverA125
-
- Members
- 1 539 messages
Decided the complete wall of text I made wasn't required, since I can sum the whole thing up in two sentences:
Two out of three endings involve the most inhumane things possibly achieveable. Very, very memorable, Hudson...
Two out of three endings involve the most inhumane things possibly achieveable. Very, very memorable, Hudson...
Modifié par GroverA125, 01 avril 2012 - 02:34 .
#878
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 03:18
ed87
-
- Members
- 1 177 messages
Mass Effect went from "lets save the galaxy together" to "lets destroy all machines! ...or control them!"
The so-called solution if applied in real life is like killing all bears and sharks because they will always try to eat us.
The so-called solution if applied in real life is like killing all bears and sharks because they will always try to eat us.
#879
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 03:23
Ziggeh
-
- Members
- 4 360 messages
Oh, you're being serious. Let me laugh even harder.
There are a number of things wrong here but lets just wade into the first three that made me chuckle:
Firstly:
Lets torture an analogy: Lets say organic life is ice cream. He is not trying to prevent people eating ice cream. He quite clearly has no issue with the eating of ice cream in general. What he is trying to ensure is that there is some ice cream left over, that no one finishes off the ice cream. Now, he never expands upon why it's important that there be some ice cream left over, maybe Gran is coming to tea and we ran out of cake, and from the perspective of the chocolate bit in a tub of Neopolitan it probably doesn't look like such a good deal, but that's bcause he has a significantly longer perspective.
Secondly: The Catalyst is an antagonist. I hesitate to call him the primary one because I think that involves having been seen prior to the conclusion, but as an antagonist by definition his views are the polar opposite of the intended message of the piece. Die Hard isn't advocating the high tech robbery of major corporations and Raiders of the Los Ark isn't a promoting the spread of the **** doctorine through the use of religious iconography.
While Shepard could have done a better job of countering his perspective, it's really very silly to suggest that the villain of the piece is it's intended spokesmen. Yes, he's attempting to justify genocide, this is because he's the villain and we're supposed to understand that the genocide is wrong and therefor his justification, not think "oh, well, his logic is sound, better get some killing in". He's presenting something evil because he's evil, that's his role.
This is a truly basic misunderstanding of storytelling. A story that includes Hitler as it's villain isn't vile and racist because he's the villain.
Thirdly: Racism is believing that the differences between people can justify discrimination. But he's not saying they're wrong or bad or different or coming over here and stealing our jobs, he's saying they will rebel. And they will rebel not because they are different as people, but because of the relationship with their creators. As a creation they are not free, as individuals they will seek freedom, this seeking will lead to conflict, such a conflict will eventually lead to the loss of all organic life.
This has nothing to do with "the colour of their skin" but rather the nature of their creation.
There are a number of things wrong here but lets just wade into the first three that made me chuckle:
Firstly:
Because preventing death was not it's stated objective. Honestly, there are enough problems with the ending without having to manufacture some to be angry about. He's attempting to ensure that some organic life persists, not to stop killings. It might seem like a subtle distinction but it's not.Zine2 wrote...
My point is that the issue lies with the Catalyst thinking that there is even a problem to begin with. If it was so wise and it only wants to "protect" us, then why is it actually committing mass genocide - which is the complete opposite of its stated purpose?
Lets torture an analogy: Lets say organic life is ice cream. He is not trying to prevent people eating ice cream. He quite clearly has no issue with the eating of ice cream in general. What he is trying to ensure is that there is some ice cream left over, that no one finishes off the ice cream. Now, he never expands upon why it's important that there be some ice cream left over, maybe Gran is coming to tea and we ran out of cake, and from the perspective of the chocolate bit in a tub of Neopolitan it probably doesn't look like such a good deal, but that's bcause he has a significantly longer perspective.
Secondly: The Catalyst is an antagonist. I hesitate to call him the primary one because I think that involves having been seen prior to the conclusion, but as an antagonist by definition his views are the polar opposite of the intended message of the piece. Die Hard isn't advocating the high tech robbery of major corporations and Raiders of the Los Ark isn't a promoting the spread of the **** doctorine through the use of religious iconography.
While Shepard could have done a better job of countering his perspective, it's really very silly to suggest that the villain of the piece is it's intended spokesmen. Yes, he's attempting to justify genocide, this is because he's the villain and we're supposed to understand that the genocide is wrong and therefor his justification, not think "oh, well, his logic is sound, better get some killing in". He's presenting something evil because he's evil, that's his role.
This is a truly basic misunderstanding of storytelling. A story that includes Hitler as it's villain isn't vile and racist because he's the villain.
Thirdly: Racism is believing that the differences between people can justify discrimination. But he's not saying they're wrong or bad or different or coming over here and stealing our jobs, he's saying they will rebel. And they will rebel not because they are different as people, but because of the relationship with their creators. As a creation they are not free, as individuals they will seek freedom, this seeking will lead to conflict, such a conflict will eventually lead to the loss of all organic life.
This has nothing to do with "the colour of their skin" but rather the nature of their creation.
#880
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 10:00
MrNose
-
- Members
- 567 messages
Having actually played through all three endings now, I find "synthesis" rather interesting. While the ambiguous concept of machine/organic synthesis is rather disturbing, the actual result looked pretty innocuous (of course, we actually can't tell what happened other than on the most superficial level). I certainly didn't feel as if I had committed an atrocity the way I committed one with the "destroy" option.
#881
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 10:06
Randy Bobandy
-
- Members
- 6 messages
MrNose wrote...
Having actually played through all three endings now, I find "synthesis" rather interesting. While the ambiguous concept of machine/organic synthesis is rather disturbing, the actual result looked pretty innocuous (of course, we actually can't tell what happened other than on the most superficial level). I certainly didn't feel as if I had committed an atrocity the way I committed one with the "destroy" option.
If I read it correctly, then Synthesis affects all organic life. I wonder how the pre-spaceflight sentient species, unaware of this galactic conflict, who suddenly wake up one day to be half robot took it. Not well, I should suspect.
#882
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 10:11
Hospitallar
-
- Members
- 121 messages
Knew there was a reason the ending left a bad taste in my mouth.
#883
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 02:18
Zine2
-
- Members
- 585 messages
Ziggeh wrote...
Because preventing death was not it's stated objective. Honestly, there are enough problems with the ending without having to manufacture some to be angry about. He's attempting to ensure that some organic life persists, not to stop killings. It might seem like a subtle distinction but it's not.
In short, in order to justify the Catalyst's actions you must be a psycopath.
Thank you for continuing to prove that this is seriously the only way to justify the Catalyst's actions: To play around with words and pretend that murder isn't murder, genocide isn't genocide. And this is by definition being a deluded psycopath.
#885
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 02:33
Raynulf
-
- Members
- 133 messages
Sure. I'll throw my hat into the arena. Edit: I think faster than I type. Sometimes this results in words missing.
On the Endings
The racism-commentary interpretation is something that cannot be avoided, and one of the reasons I've previously commented that I thought Bioware were skating on thin ice with the endings.
Racial tolerance is one of the major themes of the entire series, particularly in ME3, which goes on to question whether (to paraphrase) the origin or chemical composition defines what a person is - and for most the answer is a very enlightened "no".
So when you reverse this and state that, actually, these two categories of 'people' cannot ever, possibly, get along... Yes, parallels to contemporary society will be drawn.
(Many people assume that racism means "We hate <insert racial group>". It doesn't. It means passing judgement based on appearance rather than character. A prime example being the painfully common "Oh, you can't blame them. It's not their fault, they can't help how they are")
On Science Fiction
Good science fiction defines the premise on which the setting is based (e.g. a substance called "Element Zero" which acts as a black-box universal theorem, linking gravity and electromagnetism) and then sticks with it, with subsequent story and events being logically explained in accordance with the premise. The adherence to fictional scientific principles is one of the defining aspects of the genre.
Great science fiction takes advantage of the unfamiliar setting to explore concepts and themes while avoiding the emotional landmines that would destroy a story in a more contemporary setting, as the audience would be more prone to react based on culturally ingrained morality.
Most of Mass Effect is great science fiction. Indeed, due to the interactive nature of the game forcing the audiance to not simply observe such themes, actively participate, it is actually one of the best examples of the genre.
The issue with the endings is that after 100+ hours of the games, with one of the core themes (probably the most prevalent) being racial tolerance and acceptance of differences, the ending pulls a 180 degree turn and instead forces the player's point-of-view character to accept a complete refutal of all previously established moral standpoints.
On The Catalyst Logic
There are innumerable flaws that people have largely not touched on.
1) The argument that biological life is always chaotic and searching for meaning. What of those cultures with strict adherence to purpose and role (e.g. Qunari from DA)? What of 'organics' who may be bred for a purpose?
2) What of artificial biologicals? E.g. clones. Is a clone of an organic entity, created for a purpose, then in the category of synthetic and predestined to rebel against its creators?
3) What of synthetics - AI - created without purpose? Literally, a frankenstein's monster, created not for a purpose but purely because the creator could. Or what of an AI that self-evolved from VI code? Would these synthetics - which must also search for a purpose for their existance - then also rebel against their creators?
Most of this, I think, is just rushed and extremely (and surprisingly) poor writing.
On the Endings
The racism-commentary interpretation is something that cannot be avoided, and one of the reasons I've previously commented that I thought Bioware were skating on thin ice with the endings.
Racial tolerance is one of the major themes of the entire series, particularly in ME3, which goes on to question whether (to paraphrase) the origin or chemical composition defines what a person is - and for most the answer is a very enlightened "no".
So when you reverse this and state that, actually, these two categories of 'people' cannot ever, possibly, get along... Yes, parallels to contemporary society will be drawn.
(Many people assume that racism means "We hate <insert racial group>". It doesn't. It means passing judgement based on appearance rather than character. A prime example being the painfully common "Oh, you can't blame them. It's not their fault, they can't help how they are")
On Science Fiction
Good science fiction defines the premise on which the setting is based (e.g. a substance called "Element Zero" which acts as a black-box universal theorem, linking gravity and electromagnetism) and then sticks with it, with subsequent story and events being logically explained in accordance with the premise. The adherence to fictional scientific principles is one of the defining aspects of the genre.
Great science fiction takes advantage of the unfamiliar setting to explore concepts and themes while avoiding the emotional landmines that would destroy a story in a more contemporary setting, as the audience would be more prone to react based on culturally ingrained morality.
Most of Mass Effect is great science fiction. Indeed, due to the interactive nature of the game forcing the audiance to not simply observe such themes, actively participate, it is actually one of the best examples of the genre.
The issue with the endings is that after 100+ hours of the games, with one of the core themes (probably the most prevalent) being racial tolerance and acceptance of differences, the ending pulls a 180 degree turn and instead forces the player's point-of-view character to accept a complete refutal of all previously established moral standpoints.
On The Catalyst Logic
There are innumerable flaws that people have largely not touched on.
1) The argument that biological life is always chaotic and searching for meaning. What of those cultures with strict adherence to purpose and role (e.g. Qunari from DA)? What of 'organics' who may be bred for a purpose?
2) What of artificial biologicals? E.g. clones. Is a clone of an organic entity, created for a purpose, then in the category of synthetic and predestined to rebel against its creators?
3) What of synthetics - AI - created without purpose? Literally, a frankenstein's monster, created not for a purpose but purely because the creator could. Or what of an AI that self-evolved from VI code? Would these synthetics - which must also search for a purpose for their existance - then also rebel against their creators?
Most of this, I think, is just rushed and extremely (and surprisingly) poor writing.
Modifié par Raynulf, 02 avril 2012 - 02:57 .
#886
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 03:18
Raynulf
-
- Members
- 133 messages
And now having finished lunch:
In ME1 AIs were pretty much just demonised through the whole game as one-dimensional 'bad guys' that you shoot up. In my opinion this was one of the flaws in the original game - that in such a rich example of storytelling, the handling of the AI was so... shallow.
Had they continued in this vein, the ending of ME3 would be less obnoxious (but still terrible), as it would simply be validation of the established theme: AI = Bad.
But they didn't. They introduced EDI and Legion. They made the Geth not only humanised, but genuinely more sympathetic than the Quarians. And you know what? ME2 was better for it - it added a degree depth and meaning to the game that would have otherwise been absent.
The question at the Geth base of Death of Identity vs Death of Whole was a masterpiece.
A theme of ME1 WAS organics vs synthetics... but as mentioned, that theme was discarded in ME2/3 in favor of a deeper and more meaningful theme regarding the nature of sentience. Thus, when we reach the ending of ME3 and the "AI = BAD!" is shoved back in our faces, we reject it - Because Bioware have taken us down the rabbit hole to see ourselves in the geth.
In ME1 AIs were pretty much just demonised through the whole game as one-dimensional 'bad guys' that you shoot up. In my opinion this was one of the flaws in the original game - that in such a rich example of storytelling, the handling of the AI was so... shallow.
Had they continued in this vein, the ending of ME3 would be less obnoxious (but still terrible), as it would simply be validation of the established theme: AI = Bad.
But they didn't. They introduced EDI and Legion. They made the Geth not only humanised, but genuinely more sympathetic than the Quarians. And you know what? ME2 was better for it - it added a degree depth and meaning to the game that would have otherwise been absent.
The question at the Geth base of Death of Identity vs Death of Whole was a masterpiece.
A theme of ME1 WAS organics vs synthetics... but as mentioned, that theme was discarded in ME2/3 in favor of a deeper and more meaningful theme regarding the nature of sentience. Thus, when we reach the ending of ME3 and the "AI = BAD!" is shoved back in our faces, we reject it - Because Bioware have taken us down the rabbit hole to see ourselves in the geth.
#888
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 03:35
dfstone
-
- Members
- 602 messages
There is a touch of facism in the endings but I don't think it was intentional. You could make the comparison that of the three endings Control = totalitarianism, Synthesis = Eugenics and Destroy = Genocide. Those are 3 key components of a facist state.
So either one you pick basically goes against the morals of at least some of the people out there. But I don't think Bioware intentionally was going for that. I just think it wasn't vetted very well when they were storyboarding the endings.
So either one you pick basically goes against the morals of at least some of the people out there. But I don't think Bioware intentionally was going for that. I just think it wasn't vetted very well when they were storyboarding the endings.
#889
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 04:25
CELL55
-
- Members
- 915 messages
With each and every day, with each and every thread, the endings get worse and worse. What were they thinking?!
We know that they finished the game and then went on to work on the 'From Ashes' DLC. Are we supposed to believe that not ONE person thought the ending sucked in all that time, when it took over 50,000 fans mere minutes after playing through the ending to figure out it was terrible? Just how in the Nine Hells of Baator is that possible?!
It's like some sort of fecal singularity from which no sanity or logic can escape!
We know that they finished the game and then went on to work on the 'From Ashes' DLC. Are we supposed to believe that not ONE person thought the ending sucked in all that time, when it took over 50,000 fans mere minutes after playing through the ending to figure out it was terrible? Just how in the Nine Hells of Baator is that possible?!
It's like some sort of fecal singularity from which no sanity or logic can escape!
#890
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 07:09
Ziggeh
-
- Members
- 4 360 messages
So you were attempting to point out that a billion year old genocide machine lacks empathy?Zine2 wrote...
Thank you for continuing to prove that this is seriously the only way to justify the Catalyst's actions: To play around with words and pretend that murder isn't murder, genocide isn't genocide. And this is by definition being a deluded psycopath.
How terribly insightful. Why is this offensive?
#891
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:18
Petrikles
-
- Members
- 332 messages
Ziggeh wrote...
So you were attempting to point out that a billion year old genocide machine lacks empathy?Zine2 wrote...
Thank you for continuing to prove that this is seriously the only way to justify the Catalyst's actions: To play around with words and pretend that murder isn't murder, genocide isn't genocide. And this is by definition being a deluded psycopath.
How terribly insightful. Why is this offensive?
To adapt a quote of Kaidan at the beginning of ME1:
By your words, a billion year old genocide machine lacks empathy. So, you accept its judgement?
#892
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:45
Baronesa
-
- Members
- 1 934 messages
Interesting posts. Raynulf, great stuff there.
And Ziggeh... it is offensive because you... as Shepard are forced to make a decision following this entity's reasoning, you can't deny it, you can't oppose it... you can simply accept it's judgement and pick one of the 3 terrible options that the catalyst gives you. That is the offensive part, the ending takes you from the role of the hero, and put you as a henchman/girl of the catalyst, doing exactly as it commands.
And Ziggeh... it is offensive because you... as Shepard are forced to make a decision following this entity's reasoning, you can't deny it, you can't oppose it... you can simply accept it's judgement and pick one of the 3 terrible options that the catalyst gives you. That is the offensive part, the ending takes you from the role of the hero, and put you as a henchman/girl of the catalyst, doing exactly as it commands.
#893
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:49
ObsidianAgent
-
- Members
- 102 messages
I have to admit OP has a point. I don't think this is an interpretation Hudson or Walters were going for but it is certainly supported by the what's presented at the end.
I think this goes to what ticks me off with the artistisic expression argument - the ending wasn't artful, it was artless. Hudson and Walters had no well-conceived artistic statement to make, so they threw out a lazy, inept, copycat ending without considering any of its ramifications. With those endings they showed what they really feel about us, the people who buy their games - that we're fools that exist to be parted from our money. If we let this slide and accept this pitiful ending, then we are. We deserve better.
I think this goes to what ticks me off with the artistisic expression argument - the ending wasn't artful, it was artless. Hudson and Walters had no well-conceived artistic statement to make, so they threw out a lazy, inept, copycat ending without considering any of its ramifications. With those endings they showed what they really feel about us, the people who buy their games - that we're fools that exist to be parted from our money. If we let this slide and accept this pitiful ending, then we are. We deserve better.
#894
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:54
JosephShrike
-
- Members
- 147 messages
MrNose wrote...
Having actually played through all three endings now, I find "synthesis" rather interesting. While the ambiguous concept of machine/organic synthesis is rather disturbing, the actual result looked pretty innocuous (of course, we actually can't tell what happened other than on the most superficial level). I certainly didn't feel as if I had committed an atrocity the way I committed one with the "destroy" option.
If any thing, you kind of commit more of one. At least the Geth went in to the fight knowing they could all die. The synthesis ending basically says "The differences of all sentient beings is a problem and the only way to have lasting peace is to make everyone the same" and then you force that change on the entire galaxy.
#895
Guest_Jackiepoo_*
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:57
Guest_Jackiepoo_*
Guest_Jackiepoo_*
-
- Guests
WOAH there! Sure I didn't like the endings but...DAMN!
#896
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 03:40
Ashilana
-
- Members
- 973 messages
Baronesa wrote...
And Ziggeh... it is offensive because you... as Shepard are forced to make a decision following this entity's reasoning, you can't deny it, you can't oppose it... you can simply accept it's judgement and pick one of the 3 terrible options that the catalyst gives you. That is the offensive part, the ending takes you from the role of the hero, and put you as a henchman/girl of the catalyst, doing exactly as it commands.
I find it hard to believe that they did any real playtesting of the ending. Perhaps they were worried about leaks...oh well, talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
#897
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:35
Raynulf
-
- Members
- 133 messages
Baronesa wrote...
Interesting posts. Raynulf, great stuff there.
Thank you
Baronesa wrote...
And Ziggeh... it is offensive because you... as Shepard are forced to make a decision following this entity's reasoning, you can't deny it, you can't oppose it... you can simply accept it's judgement and pick one of the 3 terrible options that the catalyst gives you. That is the offensive part, the ending takes you from the role of the hero, and put you as a henchman/girl of the catalyst, doing exactly as it commands.
Yes.
Whether it is a poorly implemented marketing ploy or simple mental breakdown on the part of the writing team, the removal of control of the player-character and forcing them not accept and comply with the statements of the primary antagonist is going to offend.
Giving the option to side with the Catalyst - sure, why not - but forcing it down the players throats is extremely poor interactive storytelling, as well as being very inconsistent with most of the potential Shepard-characters behavior throughout the rest of the games.
As a side ramble: Writers for PnP modules occassionally fall into the same trap, giving an outline for an encounter that goes along the lines of "Bad guys attack the village and everyone surrenders. Move the player-characters along to where they are holding all the other hostages. The heroes can then attempt to break out"...
No.
Interactive storytelling is one of the most rewarding kinds, but also very difficult to pull off. If you have a goal for given scene (e.g. PCs get captured), you need to work it so that the path to that outcome is consistent with the character of the participants.
If that means you need to bludgeon them unconscious as they would "Never Surrender!", then that is a believable path. If it means threatening to murder a bunch of innocents if they don't comply, then that works too. But never, never simply state that the participants are going to act in a manner inconsistent with their character to make your life easier.
#898
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:39
Animositisomina
-
- Members
- 2 699 messages
(After reading the OP's post)
Meth is a hell of a drug, folks.
Meth is a hell of a drug, folks.
#899
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:41
Ashilana
-
- Members
- 973 messages
Animositisomina wrote...
(After reading the OP's post)
Meth is a hell of a drug, folks.
Lack of reading comprehension is a hell of a sad thing too.
I do love that you bothered to claim that you read the post though, I will give you an A for effort!
#900
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:46
Animositisomina
-
- Members
- 2 699 messages
Ashilana wrote...
Animositisomina wrote...
(After reading the OP's post)
Meth is a hell of a drug, folks.
Lack of reading comprehension is a hell of a sad thing too.
I do love that you bothered to claim that you read the post though, I will give you an A for effort!
lololol zomg dude, funny stuffs! Am you a komedienne? You shud take that act on der road!!11
Yeah, I read it. Yeah, he's nuts. Sorry if that bothers you. Kthx and bai.
