1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Relicness]

dafuq i just read...

[Lugaidster]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

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.

The actions of one individual aren't constituents to judge another individual. Look at the whole middle-east problem. One guy comes dressed as a muslim and he gets anal-probed and assumed terrorist. Your argument supports that idea.

Even if the galaxy is at war, it is they who should solve their problems. Not a third party.

[Peer of the Empire]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

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.

IMO Starchild is an indoctrination sequence, and were it not, Shephard is still at least weakened from his wounds.  Since, as OP helpfully reminds us, Shephard's actions are predetermined for us by the developers, we resist by choosing our actions to defy the Starchild, not by some guy's idea of a moralizing rant.  I don't want to accidentally go into histrionic verbiage when sparring with Starchild.

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 16 mars 2012 - 04:56 .

[Peer of the Empire]

Lugaidster wrote...
The actions of one individual aren't constituents to judge another individual. Look at the whole middle-east problem. One guy comes dressed as a muslim and he gets anal-probed and assumed terrorist. Your argument supports that idea.

Even if the galaxy is at war, it is they who should solve their problems. Not a third party.

Perhaps the Middle East should solve its own problems, rather than a third party.

EDIT To add more, the matter is not about supporting Starchild, it is that focussing on his racism is obscuring the truth.  So Starchild is a racist and a mass murderer.  We can stop him.  That doesn't mean AI will not attack organics

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 16 mars 2012 - 05:05 .

[Zolt51]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

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.

Hey' that's actually not a bad analogy.
1 would be more like "Defeat Hitler but keep his secret weapons just in case"

Modifié par Zolt51, 16 mars 2012 - 05:09 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Skirata129 wrote...

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.

What the OP is actually pointing out is that if synthetics are all Germans, Reapers are the "elevated" Aryans, and the god-child is Hitler then the last choice (3) is actually kill all Germans in the name of stopping their inevitable destruction of other races.

[xMaeRx]

Actually, I agree with a lot of this.

A big problem I had was how my character basically just said "Oh, alright. So what do I have to do?"

Preposterous.

[Lugaidster]

The best example I can come up with for the "Control" option in real life.

Fidel Castro rose to become the leader of an anti-dictatorship movement. Everyone in Cuba loved him and supported him. At the end, he chose to become the new leader of this dictatorship. We all know how that turned out...

Controlling the reapers is supporting that line of thought.

[Flashlegend]

edit: ignore, multiple threads open and posted in wrong one, LOL.

Modifié par Flashlegend, 16 mars 2012 - 05:05 .

[millich]

I hope this thread gets mainstream attention .

Modifié par millich, 16 mars 2012 - 05:03 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

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.

IMO Starchild is an indoctrination sequence, and were it not, Shephard is still at least weakened from his wounds.  Since, as OP helpfully reminds us, Shephard's actions are predetermined for us by the developers, we resist by choosing our actions to defy the Starchild, not by some guy's idea of a moralizing rant.  I don't want to accidentally go into histrionic verbiage when sparring with Starchild.

If indoctrination theory is correct, then it is still possible for Shepard to overturn the star-child's assertions, so the rhetoric changes and just becomes villain character dialogue - you're supposed to oppose their horrible ideologies anyways. Just one more reason this ending shouldn't be the ending.

Oh, and again, the OP is not saying the writers or devs were TRYING to be racist, the OP is saying that rhetorical analysis shows the support for interpreting the end sequence as having racist ideology.

[Ticonderoga117]

I'm a bit torn here. One is because, yeah, I can see these points. Are they deliberate? I doubt it. However, more importantly, I really, REALLY, wanted to kill ALL the reapers without all the railroaded ramifications of the red flavor. Could I argue that we are fighting in self defense? Sure, but the point still remains. All in all, I think this is a bit deeper than we need to look, but an interesting point of study nonetheless.

[sadako]

xMaeRx wrote...

Actually, I agree with a lot of this.

A big problem I had was how my character basically just said "Oh, alright. So what do I have to do?"

Preposterous.

Indeed, I speculate that shepards brains liquified after getting shot by Harbinger, and he/she was reduced to a moron.

[Zolt51]

Deztyn wrote...
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!

In scenario B, future organic species don't even get the chance to develop at all.

Also from the Reapers point of view they, don't genocide organic life, they transform it. Yes it's ****ed up that's why they are the villains of the game.

You could compare that to the Protheans who in their time essentially commited cultural genocide on every other sapient species in the galaxy. From their point of view they weren't doing anything wrong.

Oh hey it just occured to me that you could compare the "Control" ending to defeating the Third Reich but keeping their secret weapons, just in case. Hmm.

[shadey]

op is probably the same type of person who would call someone a racist for calling someone black,

nuff said.

anyway the correct term would be specist, they are different SPECIES, not races

[Peer of the Empire]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

If indoctrination theory is correct, then it is still possible for Shepard to overturn the star-child's assertions, so the rhetoric changes and just becomes villain character dialogue - you're supposed to oppose their horrible ideologies anyways. Just one more reason this ending shouldn't be the ending.

It is a horrible ending.  We all know that.  It is why indoctrination theory exists, to save the devs from themselves.  This doesn't mean we should be whining and ranting at Starchild.  Are we not to do anything in game then?  Just complain while the Galaxy is conquered?

Oh, and again, the OP is not saying the writers or devs were TRYING to be racist, the OP is saying that rhetorical analysis shows the support for interpreting the end sequence as having racist ideology.

Doesn't matter.  It's obvious to anyone that Starchild is making automatic assumptions about life, organic and synthetic.  We as players choose what to do after he spouts his verbiage.  Cries of racism, 'oh but actually the devs are innocent' is just attention whoring.  An impressive essay nonetheless

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 16 mars 2012 - 05:11 .

[Zolt51]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

It is a horrible ending.  We all know that.  It is why indoctrination theory exists, to save the devs from themselves.  This doesn't mean we should be whining and ranting at Starchild.  Are we not to do anything in game then?  Just complain while the Galaxy is conquered?

We don't "all" know that. And indoctrination theory is more puke-worthy by several orders of magnitude.

[Peer of the Empire]

sadako wrote...

xMaeRx wrote...

Actually, I agree with a lot of this.

A big problem I had was how my character basically just said "Oh, alright. So what do I have to do?"

Preposterous.

Indeed, I speculate that shepards brains liquified after getting shot by Harbinger, and he/she was reduced to a moron.

A moron, yes, but a moron who was resting throughout Starchild's speech.  Shepard was after all dying.  Doesn't mean omg racism.  I killed the Reapers

[Punahedan]

YOU REAPERS ARE ALL RACIST.

[Dreogan]

I clicked for the absurd title, but... the actual post makes a little sense.

...

Oh well, the more ways we can reject the endings the better.

[burke111]

Lugaidster wrote...

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...

As much as I agree and hate Fox News, it would probably ensure that Bioware at least makes an official statement on the ending...

[Sc2mashimaro]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Oh, and again, the OP is not saying the writers or devs were TRYING to be racist, the OP is saying that rhetorical analysis shows the support for interpreting the end sequence as having racist ideology.

Doesn't matter.  It's obvious to anyone that Starchild is making automatic assumptions about life, organic and synthetic.  We as players choose what to do after he spouts his verbiage.  Cries of racism, 'oh but actually the devs are innocent' is just attention whoring.  An impressive essay nonetheless

I was only saying the devs and writers were not guilty of *trying* to infuse the ending with racism. I was not excusing them for a bad ending. Proud to hold the line!

Modifié par Sc2mashimaro, 16 mars 2012 - 05:14 .

[Soaringeagle78]

Sir, you can't do that. You have to pick one of the three coices we force upon you.
Random Turian appears: You genocidal reaper-god-children are all racist!

[NReed106]

We've been dealing with Genocide since ME1, ME2 it is forgiven at least (collectors are reapers ), and ME3 Quarian/Geth/Krogan.

Just another reason to dislike the ending.

"We've committed genocide countless times, but its cool cause we put their liquified bodies into ships m'kay"

[Flashlegend]

burke111 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

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...

As much as I agree and hate Fox News, it would probably ensure that Bioware at least makes an official statement on the ending...

Nah, they definitely couldn't. In all seriousness, this is far too intellectual for fox news.

Modifié par Flashlegend, 16 mars 2012 - 05:17 .