1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Zhuinden]

Zine2 wrote...

Mass Effect's Ending attempts to condone and justify genocide. This is why it is almost universally reviled.

I am honestly amazed by this observation. It is a shame some people have their tl;dr filter turned on and thus only see the title, but not the actual facts and argument.
Overall, I am just getting more and more disappointed by the endings, as time progresses.
But, in order to bring more attention your post, I linked this thread to your post, thus ensuring that more people will notice it.

[Skull Bearer]

Yearlongjester wrote...

It may be a tad racist, but the general attitude of ME3 kinda was too. Oh god the entire galaxy is under attack from metal space Cthulhu! Quick all you aliens, come help the HUMANS!

Yeah, that really bugged me too. My Shepard is a raving xenophile Colonist who went to Earth once and wasn't too impressed. Why the hell would he give a damn about it over, say, Palaven.

[Zhuinden]

Baronesa wrote...

Yearlongjester wrote...

It may be a tad racist, but the general attitude of ME3 kinda was too. Oh god the entire galaxy is under attack from metal space Cthulhu! Quick all you aliens, come help the HUMANS!

Ugh don't remind me... I HATED the Earth-centric stupidity... I honestly was hoping to sacrifice Earth in order to save the rest of the Galaxy.

That way you surely carve the place for humanity deeply... sacrifice homeworld to keep Galactic Civilization alive. That would have beena  lot more epic. Sure eventually Earth would have become habitable etc.. but the immediate shock of that would have been great... I wanted to save the Galaxy, not just Earth... that part of the argument was MAJOR fail

I wonder how I didn't pick up on that... our goal was to defeat the Reapers, not just "take Earth back"... considering there are various human colonies in other sectors, so even in the worst case scenario, some humans would survive. The galaxy is at stake, not just humanity - even if we are the chosen race for preservation.

[Judah Ben Hur]

Ashilana wrote...

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.

A "bleeding heart" doesn't need to be a liberal. I meant someone getting ants in their pants over something they have no business being uspet about. In this case, genocide of alien species. No one on this planet has the frame of reference to make moral judgments on it. Especially not as broadly as the original poster did:

"Genocide is wrong. Period. There is no room for debate."

Oh really? To make that conclusion, the original poster would have to qualify that, with firsthand experience. What did he do when faced with the invasion of an alien or robotic species (in real life)? What about the mass-killing of smallpox? Viruses and bacteria, after all may not be exactly like us, but we do our damndest to kill every non-useful bacterium we can find. Why be so angsty about the geth - because Legion spoke our language?

As to the last part, about trolls and bleeding hearts being indistinguishable - both say outlandish things, and you're not sure whether to take them seriously or not.

[Zhuinden]

I'm not sure if viruses are sentient beings. Legion was.

[Judah Ben Hur]

Zhuinden wrote...

I'm not sure if viruses are sentient beings. Legion was.

Sentience is relative. Our only basis for saying that Legion was sentient is that he became human-like. Therefore, I see the OP's argument dissolving thus:

1. Genocide is absolutely wrong.
2. Genocide means killing a race of sentient beings.
3. Sentience requires being human-like.
4. It is absolutely wrong to kill things that are not human-like.

But, doesn't that parallel the Cerberus presumption that only humanity has worth?

Whether or not I'm being clear here, I hope you can see what I'm saying. The problem is, we're being told that genocide against another group of beings is wrong, so long as they're like us.

EDIT: Also, what we're talking about here is more xenophobia than racism. A disposition against the unkown is considerably less morally repugnant than racism.

Modifié par Judah Ben Hur, 04 avril 2012 - 05:49 .

[Jjacobclark]

everyone is a little racist

[Zhuinden]

Cerberus's views placing humanity all on top of all other races is not much better either, but we do halt their plans at the end. The Catalyst has more "blood on its hands".

[Sainta117]

Interesting. I don't know that it's racist per se (I don't think that construct applies on a scale this big). But I can definitely see your points about genocide and immorality.

Wonder if the writers thought that through...

[UnstableMongoose]

OP violated Godwin's. Having that be the first post of a thread is a class-Eighteen offense.

[Zhuinden]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

OP violated Godwin's. Having that be the first post of a thread is a class-Eighteen offense.

I think it was well-phrased enough to make a decent point, regardless.

[Frakel]

On a side note: OP didn´t violate Godwin´s law... In fact you can take it as an example of Godwins law being correct...

To the point: I find that the points made by the OP is valid. Not only is the logic of the starchild based on a racist premise, but the argument that follows is also totalitarian in nature. It is the totality of the thinking, not the premise per se, that is mostly at fault.

(We do in fact encounter a lot of racism and interspecies intolerance in the ME series,
but in most cases this is tempered with some form of moderation or actually overcome
through the story. Only the reapers are stoneset in their logic
- thats what makes them so abominable!)

If a premise is raised to be the infallible starting point for every logical thought, and no reflection, no moderation of any form is allowed; if all thinking is reduced to following a stoneset logic based on a single premise: then you have totalitarianism.

Thats when a racist premise turns into liquidation of lesser races. Thats when a communist premise turns into liquidation of useless classes. Thats when the premise of the starchild turns into the (actual) liquidation of organics, or the destruction of synthetics.

I dont mind that Mass Effect puts the player into a dilemma where you have to face a totalitarian machine god. Actually I think it is an interesting theme. But I do mind that the player is forced into compliance with this logic. The final heroic act of Shepard should be an act of defiance, not compliance, against this.

Modifié par Frakel, 04 avril 2012 - 10:46 .

[2Shepards]

Since Casey and Mac wanted the end to be "open to interpretation" This interpretation is pretty effing great.
The Catalyst Kid and his solution are offensive.

[UnstableMongoose]

Frakel wrote...

*snip*

I dont mind that Mass Effect puts the player into a dilemma where you have to face a totalitarian machine god. Actually I think it is an interesting theme. But I do mind that the player is forced into compliance with this logic. The final heroic act of Shepard should be an act of defiance, not compliance, against this.

That is certainly a germane point, but it is only true if the Catalyst is telling the truth, which he obviously isn't in the "Shepard lives" scenario. This throws the door wide open in terms of interpretation of Shepard's final actions. I don't necessarily believe them to be indicative of compliance with some hideous doctrine--if "Destroy" didn't kill Shepard, the implication is that it didn't kill the Geth either and the Catalyst, being a Reaper itself, is lying to manipulate you. The fact that you can choose the option that it tries to paint as the genocidal one and have it only kill the Reapers is, in my mind, certainly a defiant act.

My reason for calling out Godwin's law in this case is a question of prejudicial over probative value. While the OP's use of the ****s as an argumentative point is indeed a valid assessment to some extent, using the ****s as an example is almost always better served by using something else.

The disconnected references throughout the OP's prose to "solutions" obviously meant to reference a "Final Solution" are indicative of this disconnect between prejudicial and probative value. I recognize the OP didn't mean it this way, and that some of his connections are legitimate, but the fact is that Godwin's Law exists for a reason. No matter what you're discussing, you're usually better off not using the ****s as a vehicle for your writing.

[Skull Bearer]

bump

[Ashilana]

2Shepards wrote...

Since Casey and Mac wanted the end to be "open to interpretation" This interpretation is pretty effing great.
The Catalyst Kid and his solution are offensive.

Oh, don't worry...they will "clarify" why it isn't offensive.

In fact, they will "clarify" it without even needing to bring back the voice actors for shep...I am sure that will fix the problem of not being able to disagree/fight the starchild.

[Galldune]

Maybe I'm a bad person but, I was ok with being friends or working with synthetics, but in my mind they are tools made by organics so if the synthetics threaten organics in anyway, I'm taking them out..that's why legion died on my play through of mass effect 3..he lied to me way to much then almost killed all the quarians.....sorry geth but you have to go....

I may have gotten misty eyed when I had to put him down..because I considered him a cool..guy/girl/thing...but when it comes down to it he was a tool...BUILT to serve a purpose..surpassed that purpose and then became a threat...to its creator

Modifié par Galldune, 05 avril 2012 - 04:03 .

[anonymous137]

I've come to the same conclusion as OP. Even if you don't consider the Geth or other AI actual beings, in Mass Effect it's made VERY clear by the codex and characters that the geth/EDI are supposed to be. I think that makes all the difference for interpreting the ending. The ending then comes down to choosing to either enslave one race through Control, create a master race through Synthesis, or commit genocide in Destroy. I really think we need to spread this. Bioware's decided they want their work to be considered art, I say we analyze like we would a piece of art then. The geth/EDI are supposed to be considered races. Thus the starchild is arguing for racial intolerence.

[BountyHuntress16]

Original Post is well thought out and amazing.
I don't think that anybody on the writing team meant for their endings to have such gross implications. But that doesn't change the fact that the implications are quite gross (and riddled with crazy amounts of plot holes.)

[AnuzaGray]

More people need to read this thread.

[SerraAdvocate]

I also came to the same conclusion as the OP, although maybe not with such vitriol. Assuming that organics and synthetics must combat one another is false. Assuming that making everyone the same produces peace is even more false - conflict happens within groups as much as it happens between them.

In the end, that's why I chose Destruction. Because, while in Destruction I may be unfortunately forced to destroy the Geth and EDI (although I'm still not buying that they're really gone until someone shoves that down my throat, because it makes so little logical sense), at least in Destruction the galaxy gets a fresh start, free from the insanity of the Catalyst and the Reapers. The Geth would have made peace with the Quarians, proven themselves loyal, sane members of the galactic community, and then (potentially willingly, depending on if we ever got to ask them) sacrificed themselves for the betterment of that community. And maybe, the next time a true Synthetic race arose, the Organics of the galaxy would know not to make the same mistakes as the Quarians, know not to assume aggressive tendencies. Those could, of course, occur - but they would not be mandated because of the nature of their brain circuitry.

It infuriates me that Shepard can't say "screw you." Now, it might be that he has to choose one or lose the galaxy altogether, but we should have that choice. I'd even take a "critical mission failure" Morinth-style ending.

Modifié par Helm505, 07 avril 2012 - 02:52 .

[Apollo Taren]

Excellent revival. With the revelation that Tali's racist tendencies at the beginning of the series towards synthetics, along with her gradual warming to Legion and eventual acceptance of the Geth as loyal and friendly members of the galactic community, the racism in the end becomes all the more apparent. Not only that, it begins to seem intentional. And that is disturbing and completely unacceptable. It's art the same way Mein Kampf is art.

[Ashilana]

Apollo Taren wrote...
 Not only that, it begins to seem intentional. And that is disturbing and completely unacceptable.

Yet the PR spin keeps claiming that if they clarify what they intended with the ending...all will be well.  I don't really want to see the current ending clarified, I think it would be too upsetting to even watch.

[ubermensch007]

We all have an opinion about the ME3 Endings that's for sure.I've just recently come to a new outlook on them.That has caused me to better perhaps understand why BioWare is saying that they will not create a 'New Ending' this revelation came to me while I was writing a post in "Threads Locked" Which has unfortunately, just been locked an hour or two ago.

Yeah... Like what the hell happened to this thread: "What I got from PAX: The ending is racist."

There was some very intriguing insights being made in that thread. About how BioWare should change the ME3 Endings, not just because they have some serious plot-holes and don't make a whole lot of sense.But rather
because as they stand right now:

- Control: Slavery

- Synthesize: Homogeny

- Destroy: Genocide

These are all  hyper negatives and sends the wrong kind of message... As Javik the Last Prothean puts it.

"War is atrocity in the name of survival." Perhaps that is the message that BioWare sought to bring
across with these Endings.

But for many of us, we just think the Endings suck. And with good reason I say.

Maybe this is what BioWare was saying to us.That not even Commander Shepard can avoid this.As powerful and accomplished as Shepard is.He too cannot escape this reality.Javik also says to Shepard Commander at another point of the story, "You still think that you will end this war with your honor intact."

If we fans have a right to be mad with BioWare about anything, it is that they did not provide us with enough opportunities to prove Javik wrong...

Mass Effect 3 isn't about Shepard and the Starchild. Or Shepard and the Illusive Man. Its about Shepard and Javik's point of view...

Modifié par ubermensch007, 08 avril 2012 - 09:43 .

[GuardianAngel470]

My instinct when I see bombastic statements and colorful language as well as most uses of Hitler, genocide, and the like to make a point is to ignore it.

But this OP makes too much goddam sense and I actually agree a lot with it, even if it does overuse real world examples and terminology.

Even more reason why the ending is a fail it if was intentional.