1086 réponses à ce sujet

[gekko513]

@op

And also, this is science fiction, one of the good things about science fiction is that you get to do change the basic premisses of the universe and ask "what if" questions. What if there was dark energy that allowed biotics and FTL communication and travel? What could the universe be like. What if there were synthetics with true AIs? Would they think as individuals or through consensus? What are the implications of thinking through consensus?

Premisses like these can also be great for exploring real world issues and human psychology and behaviour. Take for instance genocide. Once the issue is brought up, we instantly react with absolute disgust and contempt by the very idea, yet somehow, throughout human history it has been seen carried out and seen as the right thing to do. How can that be? How different from ourselves must the "them" in "us and them" be before we can justify genocide? Yet other question, how do you get from atrocities such as genocide to peace. Questions that are explored several times in different variations in Mass Effect which also relates to real world issues. We've forgiven nationalities that stood behind genocides in human history. When can this be forgiven and when can in not? Why, if genocide is unforgivable, can we forgive and offer the Quarians peace, but not the Reapers, for instance?

Modifié par gekko513, 03 avril 2012 - 03:49 .

[Heimdall]

MrFob wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
*snip*

What's important to realize is that the Catalyst has no control over what choices are presented to Shepard.  It is only explaining it's reasons and explaining how they can proceed forward.

I just want to say something to that particular part of your post since it seems to be the upshot and since I don't really want to get into the discussion of the moral ambiguity of the choices themselves (another interesting topic IMO)

So, even if what you postulate there is true (and we have no way of confirming that), it doesn't really resolve the issue the op stated.
This is not necessarily only about what Shep will do but also how s/he reacts to the star child AI. This entity had presided over the "transformation" of countless races over countless cycles. Since it s implied that it controls the reapers, ultimately defines their purpose, these races - even if preserved in reaper form - have no free will. Thus, the essence of these races is destroyed and I (as well as my Shep) would classify that as genocide.
Now given that situation and that this is all explained to Shep in quite a bit of detail, the offensive part is that you are not given the choice to tell the star child how insanely evil you think it really is. Shep just does not get the opportunity to raise the concern about what the situation is and what role the star child played in getting us into it. Shep is effectively docile in that whole scene, from the moment the conversation starts to the choices themselves.

If red, green and blue are the choices and there is nothing anyone can do about it, than fine, I guess I have to bite the lemon (is that even an expression?). However, Shep doesn't even look for alternatives, s/he doesn't even inquire or even if it would be clear hat there are no alternative, s/he doesn't even get a chance of telling the star child what a bastard it really is for forcing this on us (or having done so for the cycles in the past). No, you just stand there, wide eyed and wondrous and then you walk into your death (and the death of pretty much everyone else).

That moment is so out of character for Shep and most player that it is offensive. It is an implied statement of consensus simply because it jsut doesn't (give us the opportunity to) state the opposite.
In my mind, that is the problem!

As I feel it is readily apparent that there is no alternative, I really don't have a problem there.  I also don't believe silence=agreement.  Just like the silence ofthe majority never means it agrees with the minority.  I don't see how that can be construed as a mandatory acceptance of the Catalyst's logic.

Actually, Shepard can tell the Catalyst that by taking away the free wil of organics it takes away what makes them unique and they may as well be machines.  Does that help?  It certainly sounds like an objection to me...  Much as the Reapers have always done, the Catalyst brushes off the statement without batting an eye.

Also, I have to disagree, I feel it is obvious that the Catalyst is not in control.  First it outright tells you that the Crucible has created the possibilities, not him.  He gives choices counter to his own goals, like Control and Destruction.  All indicate that he is not controlling the choices given.

[Heimdall]

Zine2 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
Okay, I'll just address the first part of this.  The Catalyst outright tells you that the changes are coming from Shepard.  Not the Reapers, Shepard.  Nobody is being implanted with Reaper technology.  For the record, I believe the main purpose of the Catalyst was access to the relay network controls, allowing the Crucible to affect the entire galaxy,

Cop out argument.

Shepard did not create the choices. The Catalyst did.

If I give you a gun, and then tell you "You must shoot person A, B, or C. You are NOT allowed to continue existing unless you shoot person A, B, or C", then you are not responsible for the choices. I am for forcing you into this situation. The onus is therefore on me.

The only real moral choice you have is actually whether to be forced into committing murder, or to say "Screw it, I refuse to commit murder. Kill me instead".

The latter is even denied to us in the ending. 

In short, your logic is faulty and your assignment of moral responsibility is completely wrong.

First, I never once stated that Shepard created the choices.  That was the Crucible, entirely outside the control of both Shepard and the Catalyst.  I haven't even brought morality into the discussion, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

I don't see how that makes the synthesis ending turn everyone into synthetics. 

Decent people do not forcibly implant mechanical components on another person in the name of conformity.

It's no different from forcing a black man to make his skin white so that he will "conform".

Good thing this has nothing to do with the Synthesis ending or my statement whatsoever, eh?  Leave it, this is another topic.

[Admiral H. Cain]

I this thread.

[CronoDragoon]

gekko513 wrote...

@op

And also, this is science fiction, one of the good things about science fiction is that you get to do change the basic premisses of the universe and ask "what if" questions. What if there was dark energy that allowed biotics and FTL communication and travel? What could the universe be like. What if there were synthetics with true AIs? Would they think as individuals or through consensus? What are the implications of thinking through consensus?

Premisses like these can also be great for exploring real world issues and human psychology and behaviour. Take for instance genocide. Once the issue is brought up, we instantly react with absolute disgust and contempt by the very idea, yet somehow, throughout human history it has been seen carried out and seen as the right thing to do. How can that be? How different from ourselves must the "them" in "us and them" be before we can justify genocide? Yet other question, how do you get from atrocities such as genocide to peace. Questions that are explored several times in different variations in Mass Effect which also relates to real world issues. We've forgiven nationalities that stood behind genocides in human history. When can this be forgiven and when can in not? Why, if genocide is unforgivable, can we forgive and offer the Quarians peace, but not the Reapers, for instance?

Nobody has ever forgiven a group for genocide. It is wrong regardless of whether or not the killers say it is right. You need to stop and think for a moment about just how much relativism is warping your brain.

Edit: Also, Germans today are not the ones who burned Jews. So they do not need forgiveness from anyone. Similarly, Tali did not join a group attempting to wipe out all geth. If she had and believed it was right, I never would have re-recruited her in ME2. If quarians were like asari, lived 1k years, and were the same ones who tried to exterminate the geth, I would have felt much differently about them.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 03 avril 2012 - 04:11 .

[gekko513]

CronoDragoon wrote...

gekko513 wrote...

@op

And also, this is science fiction, one of the good things about science fiction is that you get to do change the basic premisses of the universe and ask "what if" questions. What if there was dark energy that allowed biotics and FTL communication and travel? What could the universe be like. What if there were synthetics with true AIs? Would they think as individuals or through consensus? What are the implications of thinking through consensus?

Premisses like these can also be great for exploring real world issues and human psychology and behaviour. Take for instance genocide. Once the issue is brought up, we instantly react with absolute disgust and contempt by the very idea, yet somehow, throughout human history it has been seen carried out and seen as the right thing to do. How can that be? How different from ourselves must the "them" in "us and them" be before we can justify genocide? Yet other question, how do you get from atrocities such as genocide to peace. Questions that are explored several times in different variations in Mass Effect which also relates to real world issues. We've forgiven nationalities that stood behind genocides in human history. When can this be forgiven and when can in not? Why, if genocide is unforgivable, can we forgive and offer the Quarians peace, but not the Reapers, for instance?

Nobody has ever forgiven a group for genocide. It is wrong regardless of whether or not the killers say it is right. You need to stop and think for a moment about just how much relativism is warping your brain.

No, we have forgiven. I hate bringing up the germans in particular, because it all gets very sensitive then, but the germans have been forgiven. Some of the leaders have payed and been tried for the war crimes, yet most of those who supported the genocide at the time, or didn't act to stop it, we made peace with them. Dismissing genocide as horrible is a good thing. Stopping thinking at that point is reckless, because the germans who once supported or didn't oppose genocide were people just like us, who for some reason were able to justify it to themselves. That should be a warning and is worth thinking about.

Everything in the story suggest that the reason the reapers keep up their cycle of genocide is that they themselves were attempted eradicated once just like the Geth. Their original violence was an act of self defence that has long been forgotten.

Modifié par gekko513, 03 avril 2012 - 04:24 .

[D.I.Y_Death]

Racist? What is the OP smoking, because I want some.

[Ashilana]

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

Racist? What is the OP smoking, because I want some.

Maybe try reading the op or some of the discussion in the many pages afterwards?   

[Judah Ben Hur]

Someone say something inflammatory so that Bioware will lock this. I'm sick of seeing this total, utter nonsense take up a spot on the front page. I can't tell if the OP is a troll or a bleeding heart with no discretion.

[Larryboy_Dragon]

It's my favourite comedy thread!

[Ashilana]

Judah Ben Hur wrote...

Someone say something inflammatory so that Bioware will lock this. I'm sick of seeing this total, utter nonsense take up a spot on the front page. I can't tell if the OP is a troll or a bleeding heart with no discretion.

So... you want someone to deliberately say something offensive to get this locked?  Odd approach.

You claim it is utter nonsense, yet don't explain why... also kind of odd.

Lastly you seem to think being a troll on the forums and being a bleeding heart liberal are so similar as to be impossible to distinguish.   That is kind of neat.

[D.I.Y_Death]

Ashilana wrote...

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

Racist? What is the OP smoking, because I want some.

Maybe try reading the op or some of the discussion in the many pages afterwards?   

I did read the OP, or most of it. Genocide isn't nessicarily racism but racism can definitely be genocide. In either case in ME3 the reaper goal was to erradicate all evolved, sentient life. If that's racism you could call someone racist for hating all silicon-based life forms.

[Ashilana]

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

Racist? What is the OP smoking, because I want some.

Maybe try reading the op or some of the discussion in the many pages afterwards?   

I did read the OP, or most of it. Genocide isn't nessicarily racism but racism can definitely be genocide. In either case in ME3 the reaper goal was to erradicate all evolved, sentient life. If that's racism you could call someone racist for hating all silicon-based life forms.

Actually your last statement is something the op discusses (somewhere back a few pages). 

Maybe give the op a little more of a read, he has a lot of good points. 

[Raynulf]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Okay, I'll just address the first part of this.  The Catalyst outright tells you that the changes are coming from Shepard.  Not the Reapers, Shepard.  Nobody is being implanted with Reaper technology.  For the record, I believe the main purpose of the Catalyst was access to the relay network controls, allowing the Crucible to affect the entire galaxy,

I respectfully disagree.

In the fantasy genre, I would give your argument some credit. In the Science Fiction genre, however, I unfortunately cannot.

The catalyst, in his 14 lines of dialogue, states that the presence of Shepard and the Crucible gives him new options. Even putting aside over-analysis of bad writing, there is utterly no justification of how Shepard (who was resurrected using Collector/Reaper tech anyway) has the ability to modify every living creature and synthetic life form (definition vague) in the galaxy.

Reapers/Catalyst have the technology to do that on a small, localised scale. Shepard does not. In a genre defined by logical extrapolation of a premise, the Synthesis ending must be based in reaper/catalyst technology, and yes, everyone gets forceably implanted with cybernetics.

Lord Aesir wrote...

 I don't see how that makes the synthesis ending turn everyone into synthetics.

I must admit, I did a double take here.

Without digressing too much further from the topic of this thread: The synthesis ending takes all forms of life in the galaxy and synthesises them into a new, Created aka Synthetic form.  What results is not a result of accident, mutation or evolution, but a deliberately created new equilibrium.

In short, Synthesis makes Synthetics.

Lord Aesir wrote...

As I feel it is readily apparent that there is no alternative, I really don't have a problem there. I also don't believe silence=agreement. Just like the silence ofthe majority never means it agrees with the minority. I don't see how that can be construed as a mandatory acceptance of the Catalyst's logic.

And back to something closer to the core topic.

Without going searching for poets to quote, there is a lot that has been written about speaking up against injustice... or not. Remaining silent and allowing injustice to occur unopposed, especially for someone in Shepard's position, is tantamount to collusion.

You could argue that he is merely gritting his teeth and accepting the inevitable (and you are), but that is contrary to what is culturally ingrained (silence is usually assumed to be acceptance), and utterly opposed to the majority of possible Shepard-characters' nature.

I can see where you are coming from, however I respectfully (if fervently) disagree. I would hope that you can attempt to see where we are coming from.

[sammysoso]

Dang, this is a new arguement for me, but....it kinda makes sense.

Damn you OP for making me feel worse about the ending

[Orthodox Infidel]

Ashilana wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...
Oh. Ok. Yes, we agree.

Yay, for once miscommunication on the internet didn't explode.  

Yay indeed!

*shamelessly bumps the thread*

[Zine2]

gekko513 wrote...

@op

And also, this is science fiction, one of the good things about science fiction is that you get to do change the basic premisses of the universe and ask "what if" questions.

Science fiction does not work that way. If it is considered to be an artform, then it must be beholden to real-world examination. Science-fiction can be art. Therefore, it is beholden to critical examination. 

To claim that it is immune from critical analysis is not "artistic license", it's "artist arrogance".

When the novel Starship Troopers was first published, it was criticized for promoting Fascist and Militarist themes. Heinlein did not shy away from these criticisms - he addressed them by showing real-world counter-examples.

For instance, he points to the Swiss model, which requires all Swiss citizens to serve in the army before they are able to fully participate in their democracy. No sane social or political scientist would call the Swiss a "Fascist" or "Militarist" nation, hence demonstrating that the government model he shows in the novel does not necessarily mean it will degenerate into Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany.

If you want science fiction to be treated seriously, then it must be able to address its criticisms in a mature and critical manner. Not whine about how you are above it all like you are doing - again, this is nothing more than artistic arrogance; not artistice license.

Moreover, you are very foolishly thinking that the mere inclusion of real-world elements such as genocide and prejudice makes a piece of artwork "deep". It does not. Used banally, it can actually be used to glorify these negative values. Works like Triumph of the Will and Mein Kampf exist as dark marks of how "art" turned to simple "propaganda" which led to genocide.

Modifié par Zine2, 03 avril 2012 - 06:32 .

[Zine2]

D.I.Y_Death wrote...
I did read the OP, or most of it. Genocide isn't nessicarily racism but racism can definitely be genocide. In either case in ME3 the reaper goal was to erradicate all evolved, sentient life. If that's racism you could call someone racist for hating all silicon-based life forms.

It's pretty clear you don't even know the meaning of the words. Genocide and racism are not synonyms.

What I have demonstrated is that racism has been used as a justification for genocide. I then demonstrated that the Catalyst is essentially committing genocide based on a "racist" premise. Hating all silicon-based life forms does in fact make you "racist", because silicon-based life forms are people just like us and your inability to see past your prejudices is no better than people in the real world unable to see past the color of another person's skin.

Prejudice is prejudice. Racism is racism. Genocide is genocide. I don't think you even know the meaning of any of these words.

[Zine2]

First, I never once stated that Shepard created the choices.  That was the Crucible, entirely outside the control of both Shepard and the Catalyst.  I haven't even brought morality into the discussion, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

I bring up morality because you are copping out the Catalyst's responsibility in all of this.

We don't know if the Crucible really only had 3 options. We were only given these options by Little Space Hitler.

Who, BTW, committed mass genocide, and is the bastard who is directly responsible for this entire mess.

The fact that he controls the Reapers means that he could have stopped any time. No need for Shep to intervene. He didn't. Because he's an idiot Star Child who is actually a mass-murdering psycopath.

And you seriously expect the choices he gives to be good ones?

This only again shows the depths of willful ignorance that you have to inflict on yourself to justify the ending.

Good thing this has nothing to do with the Synthesis ending or my statement whatsoever, eh?  Leave it, this is another topic.

It has everything to do with the topic.

Address it or concede that forcible implantation in the name of conformity is not acceptable. It is the product of prejudice and the ideology of hatred. It is no different from forcing a black man to become a white man to "conform".

Address or concede. None of this running away from the truth that LIARS about the ending keep peddling.

[Petrikles]

Suppose.... the cataclyst/crucible/starchild is probably not really a sentient being, but a machine. The machine tells you, it is the control switch for the reaper machines. You plug in the crucible, and the machine has two new ways of working, and you have control over it. Now you decide how to use the machine. (Edit: What is entirely missing is, of course, the choice to NOT use that machine at all).

That supposition could work fine, but it contradicts the assertions made before that the reapers (the geth, EDI, ...) are actually intelligent beings, a race of their own. Consequently, the starchild must be more than a machine.

Or: This was the whole point about the "interpretations" of the ending. Are reapers just machines or are they a people. They act as if they were a people, but in the end they are only machines. Well... we are back to the point where racism kicks in; something alien becomes reduced to a "lower state of being" just because they are of such an alien concept, that they are back to be an analogue of a machine.

However you turn it, the racist implications are strong. Add to the fact that the interesting, provocing (philosophical?) questions of where a people begins and where the machine ends, has been clearly built up as the opposite (=people) of what the end presents (=machines), and we are where we are with Zine2´s statement.

Modifié par Kailord, 03 avril 2012 - 09:51 .

[Baine10]

He's not wrong. This is what "lots of speculation" results in. EA and bioware is only waiting for a lawsuit if a fanatic is able to justify himself. That's why it's suddenly in their interest to "clarify" the ending. Because they're at risk, however minor.

Another thing is that EA is probably trying to squeeze more out of Bioware, but releasing a placating "clarification". They still don't understand. They will soon.

[D330]

xAmilli0n wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

now replace biotics with Koolaid.. and yea i went there!

[Raynulf]

@ Zine2: Chill Winston. It's me. Charlie knows it's me.

Okay, without the Lock Stock references: I appreciate that at times people's arguments can be frustrating, but there's no real need to get annoyed.

You made a thought provoking thread, solid arguments and got many people thinking. I'd call that a win.

Cheers

[mirage2154]

this game has power because it's ifluence millions of people, and can change ideal of many people. It's very subtle but the game actually change people. I agree with OP about this subtle cover up of genocide, it can have bad influece on people. We are what we think, not what we think we are, if you think genocide is right, then when you have chance to make such decision you may do it.

[Trentgamer]

Wow, and yes you are right, they wanted their ending speculated about and this is pretty well thought out speculation. Very valid points in this. I think that is what annoyed me most about the ending, and the character Javik. I didn't like Javik because of his 'supremist' attitude and I hated the star child for the same reason. The choices we are given don't fit at all with what my Shepard was all about. I mean he brought peace to the Geth and Quarians (even understood the Geth's reasoning because the Quarians started the war in the first place), and of course there is EDI. Honestly, when given the choices at the end thinking about EDI is what made me mad at the actual choices. She was one of my favorite characters in ME 3 and the ending seemed to totally ignore her and the geth parts of the story line. Of course I'm not going to destroy them, but I don't want to control or merge them either. It's just easier to turn off the game at that point and imagine my own ending. I hated being 'forced' to pick between those three things without even being able to question any of it.