1086 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Zine2 wrote..
You would be surprised at how often writers don't think things through. And note that I did not say it was deliberate.

Oh, I'm sure it wasn't deliberate. At least, I hope it wasn't deliberate.

My point was only that there's absolutely now way that Bioware could ever sensibly have intentionally set out to write an ending that justifies genocide.

[flaming arrows]

If you make a work of art (i.e. a story or novel) that glorifies racism and genocide, then you should expect to get criticized.

Not only those atrocities but also inevitable suicide. Bioware forced absolutely appalling actions on the player with the thoughtless ending. 

[Knight Terror]

OK, not sure if troll or not, but I am laughing so hard right now I really think I might have peed my pants a little bit. Holy crap that was great.

[Zine2]

nevar00 wrote...

To be fair, the Reapers (and AI kid if you believe he's real and not just Harbinger via indoctrination) are the antagonists regardless of whether or not they attempt to justify their position.  We aren't supposed to think they make sense or are justified in any way.

Except that an attempt was made to justify their position - and this position is being taken as fact by some supporters of the ending. This was a foolish decision by the creative team from the start.

Genocide can never be justified. What can be done is to give them a reason why committing evil truly serves a "greater good" to make them more sympathetic, or to give them a motivation why they commit such acts (making them tragic villains).

It is my understanding that the unused Dark Energy plot was supposed to reveal that the Reapers commit genocide because otherwise the Galaxy will be destroyed. That doesn't condone what they did and they should have looked for another way (and it's still pretty bad writing, as opposed to utterly awful writing), but it gives them a solid "For the greater good!" reason why they did it.

And in another sci-fi game - Star Control 2 - you meet a genocidal race called the Ur Quan. And yet they are treated as tragic villains because they are only trying to conquer the galaxy after being enslaved by an ultra-evil race for a very long time period. That doesn't change the fact that they're monsters - but at least you understand why they became monsters.

By contrast, all we got in the actual ending was "This had to be done because Organics and Synthetics will always fight one another". That's just a racist premise. It is killing people based on their component parts, and not the strength of their character. And we are supposed to take this premise as fact.

[PrinceOfFallout13]

this topic made me smile

reminds me of the whole re5 issue again

[zimm2142]

Spot ON sir.
HOLD THE LINE!

[Giguelingueling]

I can follow you with the racism thing. But (and I apology if I say something completely stupid) isn't genocide a way to eradicate not only all individual who are part of a group but also eradicate everything that define this group (culture, philosophy, etc) to wipe out the group from existence ?

While the reaper do kill pretty much every individual from a race their goal is also to preserve the civilization for eternity. For them (the reaper) they don't kill a civilization they make it evolve into the next stage of life. Which is completely different from trying to eradicate the civilization.

[Deztyn]

OP,

<3

Seriously, I don't why people are mocking.

Isn't the fact that we proved throughout the game synthetics and organics can be allies one of the bigger reasons the ending is criticised?

Zolt51 wrote...

millich wrote...

BioWare wrote the catalyst and prevented Shepard from rebuting it.
The Catalyst's message is BioWare's message.

That is simply untrue on so many levels.

Both
destruction and control endings intrinsically reject the catalysts's
rationale. Synthesis accepts them but tries to achieve galactic peace in
a more humane way.

Green is pure body horror. I don't consider fundamentally changing all life in the galaxy without permission to be humane.

Blue arguably embraces the Catalysts message. It allows you to keep the reapers in reserve, just in case.

In Exile wrote...

Zolt51 wrote...
The Reapers prevented both scenarios by the most fool-proof possible method: Harvesting sapient species before they could become too powerful to be stopped. It's wrong priorities of course, but you can't say it doesn't make sense.

Of course you can say it doesn't make sense! The plan is "we'll stop the genocide of everything by committing intermittent genocide of everything!"

Let's suppose (1) that time is finite; and (2) that there is a finite number of possible organic forms of life. Let's suppose (3a) that the reapers exist, and (3b) that the reapers don't exist but synthetics will kill all life.

Now let's suppose we're at the end of time. What happens in (1)+(2)+(3a)? Every single organic species that has ever lived was eventually extermited in Reaper genocide. What happens in (1)+(2)+(3b)? Every single species that has ever lived was eventually extermine in synthetic genocide.

Man, what a change! I totally like how in one scenario, everything gets murdered by the Reapers, but in the other scenario, everything gets murdered by synthics, which is basically the general category reapers belong to! Wow!

This is why I always say it was a stalling tactic, not a solution, even if you accept the Reaper's creepy logic. The end result is the same.

Modifié par Deztyn, 16 mars 2012 - 04:40 .

[Zine2]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Ok.  But the Jews are not the only ones who have been genocided.

People are racist and true AIs are dangerous.  It is the order of things.  Your essay is like complaining the universe is not Heaven

Actually, I said explicitly that conflict will always happen.

But I point out that conflict is not necessarily Organic vs Synthetic. It can be Krogan vs Turian. Turian vs Human. Human vs Human.

And that any attempt to classify people under the "organic" and "synthetic" camp is racist because it is attempting to divide people further, rather than bring them together. The very premise of the Catalyst creates more conflict; it does not reduce it.

[KlownSnypr]

I'm not sure racist is the appropriate word to use. It is more xenophobism since racism would imply hatred between the races of a certain species versus xenophobism is species vs species I.E. Cats v Dogs or in the case of your argument Synthetics vs Organics.

[Sc2mashimaro]

wesr wrote...

It's amazing what people can see racism in. If they wanted to show some sort of racism against the machines they really didn't do a good job of it.

Just chose one of the people not thinking through or TLDRing the OP's post.

The OP is engaging in what is called "Rhetorical Analysis". They are NOT saying Bioware was intentionally promoting racism or that racism was the overt message of the ending. They are saying the rhetoric, or choice of symbols and limitations/framing of the communication, supports a racist ideology (internal meaning). This is not a surface analysis of the ending, it is an academic one that many college students will be familiar with. To me, what their analysis underscores is just how contrary the ending was to the rest of the story up until that point. The OP finds it offensive, but I tend to reserve the label "offensive" for overt and intentional advocacy of intolerant ideologies. And, for the record, the OP makes a very good point from a communication/rhetoric perspective.

[Orthodox Infidel]

agathokakological wrote...

Guardian is Immortal Hitler. No wonder the ending was so bad!

This can actually be used as a valid analogy, within the context presented by the OP. 

If Guardian is Immortal Hitler, then the whole thing is WWII all over again, and Commander Shepard's offered choices are:

1. Accept Hitler's resignation and become the new leader of the Third Reich.
2. Take the offered peace deal, where we're all Aryans now!
3. Defeat the Third Reich at all costs, including firebombing Dresden.

I know what ethically questionable choice I'd make.

Modifié par Orthodox Infidel, 16 mars 2012 - 04:43 .

[firebreather19]

Weird. I didn't see this argument when the Alpha Relay got owned and millions of Batarians died.

[Zine2]

Giguelingueling wrote...

I can follow you with the racism thing. But (and I apology if I say something completely stupid) isn't genocide a way to eradicate not only all individual who are part of a group but also eradicate everything that define this group (culture, philosophy, etc) to wipe out the group from existence ?

While the reaper do kill pretty much every individual from a race their goal is also to preserve the civilization for eternity. For them (the reaper) they don't kill a civilization they make it evolve into the next stage of life. Which is completely different from trying to eradicate the civilization.

Civilization is not simply the continued existence of your component parts. It is the continued existence of your freedom, your art, your culture. All of this is taken away when you are "Ascended".

Again, the Catalyst attempts to soften the blow by calling genocide "Ascension", just like how people attempted to use euphemisms in the Rwandan genocide - "We are killing cockroaches, not people". But in reality, it does nothing to soften the actual monstrosity of the act.

[Sc2mashimaro]

KlownSnypr wrote...

I'm not sure racist is the appropriate word to use. It is more xenophobism since racism would imply hatred between the races of a certain species versus xenophobism is species vs species I.E. Cats v Dogs or in the case of your argument Synthetics vs Organics.

You make a good point and the question, "Is it racism to bias against a different species?" is a legitimate one in the real world. However, because the different species have been used in analog to different ethnic groups in the real world, it is fair to approach this analysis assuming species = race or ethnicity.

[Zine2]

firebreather19 wrote...

Weird. I didn't see this argument when the Alpha Relay got owned and millions of Batarians died.

I haven't actually played that DLC. However, do note that Shep is (rightly) almost charged with war crimes for that, despite arguably serving the "greater good" by trying to slow down th Reapers.

By contrast, you are not allowed to question the Catalyst. You are forced to presume it is correct by your inability to question it and point out the gaping flaws in its "logic".

[nevar00]

Zine2 wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

To be fair, the Reapers (and AI kid if you believe he's real and not just Harbinger via indoctrination) are the antagonists regardless of whether or not they attempt to justify their position.  We aren't supposed to think they make sense or are justified in any way.

Except that an attempt was made to justify their position - and this position is being taken as fact by some supporters of the ending. This was a foolish decision by the creative team from the start.

But again, most villains, regardless of how awful what they are doing might be, usually justify what they are doing for themselves and believe that what they are doing is right.  Explaining their side, no matter how messed up and corrupt, isn't the same as endorsing it, in my opinion.

I just believe you're op would be better directed at people who believe the Reapers have a point.

[Sc2mashimaro]

firebreather19 wrote...

Weird. I didn't see this argument when the Alpha Relay got owned and millions of Batarians died.

Because the rhetoric of the Batarian situation was not "this group of persons will always act in manner X and thus destruction is justified" it was framed as "The sacrifice of these people is justified by the lives it will save". In Arrival, the question was never about the group of people being killed, it was always about whether their lives would be worth the lives saved. It's a different ethical argument.

[Harbinger of Hope]

I can see the headline from FOX NEWS now: Mass Effect 3 condones genocide

EDIT:  I made sure to save your whole post OP. Incase the SS Mods come by and delete it on one of their false claims, just like they did to the people who found out how to get Javik on your squad by changing ONE LINE OF CODE!

Modifié par Harbinger of Hope, 16 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[rockman0]

L(-_-L)

PREACH!

[Peer of the Empire]

Zine2 wrote...
Mass Effect's Ending attempts to condone and justify genocide. This is why it is almost universally reviled.

It is reviled because it is nonsensical and unsatisfying when interpreted literally.

This is the entity that created the Reapers. This is the entity that is directly responsible for the genocide of multiple sentient races over tens of thousands of years. It is his fault that Earth, Palaven, Thessia, and the Galaxy is burning.

The Catalyst is in fact a war criminal on a scale worse than any of our own real-world tyrants. Hitler's gas chambers, Genghis Khan's campaigns of extermination, and Tamerlene's pyramid of skulls is nothing compared to what the Reapers have done. That it tries to disguise itself as a young child does nothing to exonerate it of the magnitude of its crimes - it's actually sickening. It's like Hitler having plastic surgery to look like an innocent child.

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.

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". 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.

So he is a bad guy.  He is the end boss.  I don't really worry about all these unrelated things when I play the game.

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.

I stopped him.  I did so to ensure that humanity could have a future, not so that I could be morally pure.

-----
[Also... since some people will argue "But the Catalyst is correct about organics and synthetics!"

The Catalyst was in fact completely and totally wrong. Just because it says it's correct does not mean it is true. That is the trick used by propagandists everywhere.

A trick which you are currently using yourself, no? 

Instead, what people should do is to analyze the strength of its arguments. And frankly, anyone with some common sense would realize that this is a very weak argument.

There is nothing that inherently forces Organics and Synthetics to fight each other. Races and people fight all the time. Turians make war on Krogans. Krogans make war on Salarians. Even without synthetics there will still be conflict in the universe.

However, the Catalyst's premise is that there is a divide between Synthetics and Organics, and that they are "fated" to kill each other. That's not a sound argument. That's just racist ideology. Again that's just judging people based on their component parts - metal or protein - rather than the strength of their character. Only a racist in the real world would claim that your character is dictated by the color of your skin, just as the Catalyst's grand assertion that being a Synthetic or an Organic hard-wires you down a particular path is no less racist.

And ironically, you can in fact forge an alliance between an organic and Synthetic race (Quarians and Geth) within the game - proving that the divide between the two is nothing more than a lie.

The Catalyst is a racist, sure, and a mass murderer to boot, but synthetics and organics have killed each other and are at the moment killing each other in game.

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 16 mars 2012 - 04:51 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

nevar00 wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

To be fair, the Reapers (and AI kid if you believe he's real and not just Harbinger via indoctrination) are the antagonists regardless of whether or not they attempt to justify their position.  We aren't supposed to think they make sense or are justified in any way.

Except that an attempt was made to justify their position - and this position is being taken as fact by some supporters of the ending. This was a foolish decision by the creative team from the start.

But again, most villains, regardless of how awful what they are doing might be, usually justify what they are doing for themselves and believe that what they are doing is right.  Explaining their side, no matter how messed up and corrupt, isn't the same as endorsing it, in my opinion.

I just believe you're op would be better directed at people who believe the Reapers have a point.

The study of video game rhetoric gets a little more complicated because of the element of player agency. What the OP is saying is that because you cannot challenge the god-child in the game and are forced to accept the solutions derived from their logic, the rhetoric of the game is inhernetly supporting the god-child's ideology. This means, because that ideology seems to be based around the inevitability of one species (analogs for ethnic and racial groups in the ME universe) to act a certain way, the rhetoric of the game becomes one of intolerance and racism.

[Lugaidster]

Harbinger of Hope wrote...

I can see the headline from FOX NEWS now: Mass Effect 3 condones genocide

EDIT:  I made sure to save your whole post OP. Incase the SS Mods come by and delete it on one of their false claims, just like they did to the people who found out how to get Javik on your squad by changing ONE LINE OF CODE!

Not that I'm for censoring speech in general, but the worst thing that could happen in all of this debacle is Fox News coming and using this argument against Mass Effect. God knows we don't need that **** again...

[Skirata129]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

agathokakological wrote...

Guardian is Immortal Hitler. No wonder the ending was so bad!

This can actually be used as a valid analogy, within the context presented by the OP. 

If Guardian is Immortal Hitler, then the whole thing is WWII all over again, and Commander Shepard's offered choices are:

1. Accept Hitler's resignation and become the new leader of the Third Reich.
2. Take the offered peace deal, where we're all Aryans now!
3. Defeat the Third Reich at all costs, including firebombing Dresden.

I know what ethically questionable choice I'd make.

that's actually very appropriate.