644 réponses à ce sujet

[Slash1667]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a million years.

That's why I find the specific choices fascinating.  The only thing really missing is the inclusion of a choice "refuse the Catalyst" which means Shepard refuses to make a choice knowing that he dooms the cycle to repeat.

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing.  But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?  Is it as bad as forcing every lifeform into a different state of being?  Is it as bad as doing nothing, letting the Reapers kill not only the Geth, but also the Turians, Quarians, Asari, Humans, Salarians, Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha, etc.?

I'll upset people by bring this up but here goes. Accord you the terminal in the War room if you have enough war assets and readiness it says that the galactic powers have a 50/50 chance against the Reapers. If a refuse the Catalyst option is picked it means that you take the chance of having the powers decimated but maybe pulling out a win.

The Refuse option should still be there though.

[Zine2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is there a moral lesson for the game?  Should there be one?  I think that that is reading too much into it.

If you want a game to be art, then it should in fact try to impart some kind of message - which in turn can serve as its "moral lesson". Art by definition is about conveying a message to the audience using various mediums.

And frankly, the message a lot of people got was "Nothing you do matters." Or, worse, the message is "They say that evil prevails if good men do nothing. What they should really say is: Evil prevails."

Which is a shame as it's a pretty awful reversal from the rest of the game, which played on hope and "We can do the impossible if we work TOGETHER".

[Eudaemonium]

Provo_101 wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...

Of course, the issue remains that killing a Reaper (not simply the Reapers) is an act of genocide in itself. Each Reaper is a nation, a people, a civilisation? Many minds with a single will, to quote Legion. Is it rigth to kill them? Not necessarily, but I find it justifiable within the context of the game. I'm surprised the devs didn't actually play up the fact the Reapers were not pure synthetics, considering that was the twist of ME2. There were too many references to them as 'machines' for my liking.

It's just standard self-defense, kill or be killed, that kinda thing. They have the intent of wiping us out, just because we might make synthetics. That's like if my parents decided to kill me at a young age because I MIGHT turn into a serial killer.  And the stupid Starkid smacks the whole "each a nation" awesomeness in the face.

Well, yeah, that's why I ultimately find it justifiable within the setting. It's pure self-defence. I just wish Bioware can kinda played up the fact that each Reaper was a unique civilisation unto itself a bit more. Sadly, like you said, they smacked it in the face. I just kinda have to wonder what the point of the ME2 twist was if they were just going to continue as if the Reapers were purely machines anyway =/.

Zine2 wrote...

And frankly, the message a lot of people got was
"Nothing you do matters." Or, worse, the message is "They say that evil
prevails if good men do nothing. What they should really say is: Evil
prevails."

Sometimes I think the fact the credits track translates as 'The evil-doing' was pretty deliberate.

Modifié par Eudaemonium, 11 avril 2012 - 07:44 .

[Provo_101]

alpha54 wrote...

At the end of the day, the Geth are still synthetic. They aren't people. They were created to be used as tools. Saving a single human life more than justifies wiping them out. Would you say I committed murder if I threw my laptop out the window? Please.

The Geth have consciousness though, they can think for themselves, form their OWN opinions against their initial programming. If the Geth DIDN'T achieve personality by the time the Crucible rolled around then it would be no problem.

EDI "likes" things, she has sympathy for others, she uses humor and expresses "humanlike" (hate that word) genuine emotion. She was created as a tool too.

I picked Destroy, sure. And I think destroying the Geth as a result is justified, I don't like it, but I think its justified.

Just a couple years back the color of someone's skin decided if they were to be used as a tool, to serve. That sure as hell didn't make them any less of a living being. 

Life is life. I don't value EDI and the Geth under or over anything else. Once your laptop starts talking to you and forming opinions about it's programming, lemme know.

Modifié par Provo_101, 11 avril 2012 - 07:46 .

[shepard1038]

Elyiia wrote...

Provo_101 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

You can choose to warn the colony, but the game won't let you do it. Doesn't matter though, Shepard performed a deliberate act that wiped out a Batarian colony. It doesn't matter whether the colony would have been destroyed. The reasoning doesn't matter for it to be genocide.

Its either that or have everyone die tomorrow. 

Again, it doesn't matter. The question is has Shepard committed genocide. Not whether it is justifyable.

Wouldn't it have been genocide it Shepard didn't do nothing and the reapers would have destroyed the colony?

It wouldn't have been Shepard commiting genocide.

But he would have been the cause of that genocide, does that make it better than Shepard itself as you say comiting genocide?

Modifié par shepard1038, 11 avril 2012 - 07:45 .

[CronoDragoon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is there a moral lesson for the game?  Should there be one?  I think that that is reading too much into it.

If Bioware defends the game's ending based on their "artistic integrity" then I think examining the morality of said art is completely fair. Every story deals with morality to some degree, and the conclusion of the story usually reveals the conclusions about that morality.

I don't think it is reading too much into it. Bioware took great pains to create a deep universe with three-dimensional characters that have real problems that they need you to solve. You are tasked with real moral issues ever since Mass Effect 1, and how you deal with those moral issues is the entire basis for the Paragon/Renegade system. It is these issues which separate everyone's Shepard - along with who they banged. 

The problem with the ending is that on a broad scope the moral conclusion is the same no matter what color you choose: you must be willing to compromise your beliefs to get what you want. Are there moral differences between RGB? Sure, but they are all subsumed under that specific category of "moral viewpoint." Can you see how lacking in catharsis such a conclusion can be?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 avril 2012 - 07:48 .

[kaotician]

CronoDragoon wrote...

kaotician wrote...

Shepard's action in choosing the Destroy option does not amount to genocide. It is the Catalyst who declares that the Geth will die too if Shepard makes the choice as they do. The only way that Shepard's actions can be tied to the fate of the Geth is if in some way the Catalyst itself is helpless to prevent the destruction of them.

But is it? What is the contingent connection here? If the Catalyst controls the Reapers, as it claims, then the Catalyst itself can order the Reapers to 'stand down' as it were, without a shot being fired. The Catalyst itself can be seen to be the only true agent of free will in the scenario we are presented with, and it can equally clearly be seen that it is the Catalyst that forces the contingent connection between the Geth and the Reapers.

The Catalyst chooses to link the fates of these species together, not Shepard. The Catalyst chooses the possible outcomes of Shepard's actions, not Shepard. In that sense, Shepard is no more to blame for the moral decisions of the Catalyst than the Reapers themselves are. Where Shepard is the forced agent of change, it cannot be said that he therefore becomes morally culpable for those actions, in my view.

Sucky as they are, he is given two options that don't destroy the geth. He indeed does have choice whether or not he will destroy the geth. It's not the same as the Reapers who are being controlled.

I do appreciate the point that you've highlighted there, in the fact of two possible outcomes not leading to the genocide of the Geth, but my point overall is really directed towards the question of moral culpability, which I think is the OP's question, and that the contingent linking of the fate of the Geth is actually a free choice made by the Catalyst itself, and not by Shepard.

If I may argue the point by analogy: if there is a man who has his finger on a button that when pressed will lead to the destruction of every nation, and every member of every nation, on earth, and he's willing to do it, indeed he wants to, and the only way to prevent that action is to drop a bomb on him, despite the fact he has a baby in the room with him, are you then morally culpable for the death of that child, or is the man making the free choice to hold that baby against himself the morally guilty party? I argue that it is the agent of free choice with whom moral culpability truly resides, not with the forced agent of change .

[Allan Schumacher]

Slash1667 wrote...

I'll upset people by bring this up but here goes. Accord you the terminal in the War room if you have enough war assets and readiness it says that the galactic powers have a 50/50 chance against the Reapers. If a refuse the Catalyst option is picked it means that you take the chance of having the powers decimated but maybe pulling out a win.

The Refuse option should still be there though.

I always inferred that Hackett's assessment included using the Crucible.  Though it's fair to say it's not.

[Zine2]

kaotician wrote...


I do appreciate the point that you've highlighted there, in the fact of two possible outcomes not leading to the genocide of the Geth, but my point overall is really directed towards the question of moral culpability, which I think is the OP's question, and that the contingent linking of the fate of the Geth is actually a free choice made by the Catalyst itself, and not by Shepard.

If I may argue the point by analogy: if there is a man who has his finger on a button that when pressed will lead to the destruction of every nation, and every member of every nation, on earth, and he's willing to do it, indeed he wants to, and the only way to prevent that action is to drop a bomb on him, despite the fact he has a baby in the room with him, are you then morally culpable for the death of that child, or is the man making the free choice to hold that baby against himself the morally guilty party? I argue that it is the agent of free choice with whom moral culpability truly resides, not with the forced agent of change .

Yep. Shepard didn't create the conditions which result in the destruction of the Geth; the Catalyst did. One could argue that the Star Child was in fact holding the Geth hostage to force Shepard to choose an option other than Destroy (which is the option it likes the least anyway).

[tvman099]

alpha54 wrote...

At the end of the day, the Geth are still synthetic. They aren't people. They were created to be used as tools. Saving a single human life more than justifies wiping them out. Would you say I committed murder if I threw my laptop out the window? Please.

Can your laptop tell you it doesn't want to die if you attempt to throw it out the window?

Didn't think so. That's a terrible comparison.

[shepard1038]

shepard1038 wrote...

The real genocide here is the Guardian. Because he has the power to stop the cycle, yet he thinks that his word and will is above everyone else and refers to organics as "chaos" and choses to wipe them out. And gives Shepard three choices that demand sacrifice. Why didn't he instead order the reapers to stop?. He takes advantage of Shepard and gives him three only solutions. When itself he is the problem and the chaos.

And when Shepard refuses he says that if he doesn't act, he would lose control of the reapers. So the Guardian
backed him in to a corner.

[Provo_101]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I always inferred that Hackett's assessment included using the Crucible.  Though it's fair to say it's not.

It could have blew up in his face for all he knew. 

[Nimrodell]

Provo_101 wrote...

kaotician wrote...

Shepard's action in choosing the Destroy option does not amount to genocide. It is the Catalyst who declares that the Geth will die too if Shepard makes the choice as they do. The only way that Shepard's actions can be tied to the fate of the Geth is if in some way the Catalyst itself is helpless to prevent the destruction of them.

But is it? What is the contingent connection here? If the Catalyst controls the Reapers, as it claims, then the Catalyst itself can order the Reapers to 'stand down' as it were, without a shot being fired. The Catalyst itself can be seen to be the only true agent of free will in the scenario we are presented with, and it can equally clearly be seen that it is the Catalyst that forces the contingent connection between the Geth and the Reapers.

The Catalyst chooses to link the fates of these species together, not Shepard. The Catalyst chooses the possible outcomes of Shepard's actions, not Shepard. In that sense, Shepard is no more to blame for the moral decisions of the Catalyst than the Reapers themselves are. Where Shepard is the forced agent of change, it cannot be said that he therefore becomes morally culpable for those actions, in my view.

This reminds me of Thane's outlook on contract killing.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, sir.

But is Catalyst indeed the agent of free will - there is something compulsory in the way it behaves, perceives things... almost reminds on a mad man, watching the laws of physicis unable to introduce new variable, until countless civilizations along with Shepard's finish the Crucible and introduce 'new' solution - but as we see, Catalyst can't implement new solution by its own as it did with destroy and control. This reminds me on Hadron collider and what currently people there are trying to find - new variable, something that would maybe even change the percepption of our existence and universe... but until they actually find a particle faster than light and graviton, we are forced to behave according current laws of physics - no new variable is introduced, it's still 1+1=2. So, it's actually not matter of free will at all when it comes to Catalyst, especially because we can't assign human traits to it - it is something alien, something we can't comprehend.

[Slash1667]

acidic-ph0 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

acidic-ph0 wrote...

Technically Shepherd doesn't have the "right" to make any of the final decisions. He/she's not given any information about what he/she's doing and we have no idea what the reprecussions will be for ANY of the three choices other than the relays being destroyed. Basically it's a "leap of faith" moment that decides the future for the entire galaxy. The only logical decission to make in a situation like this is none but we weren't allowed that choice <_<

Just to make sure I'm understanding here, you feel the issue is that Shepard shouldn't make the choice because he doesn't know what the reprecussions of his choice will be?  Can you elaborate a bit on that?

In a nutshell yes. Shepherd always makes difficult decissions in the games, but I can't recall any choice that was made blindly. I guess technically you could do that, but there was always an option to investigate further to better your understanding of the consequences. At the end of ME3 we are given choices that have no explanation, and thus can not infer any of the consequences. And yes, I know that it's impossible to predict EVERY outcome, but we should at least have enough information to establish some form of educated guess.

Of course none of this would be such a big deal if we just had to arbitarily make a choice of what colored socks to wear, but when deciding the fate of the galaxy we (as Shepherd) should know full well what our choices will end up doing. Or at least be able to make an educated decision.

A good example of informed decision making is the Genophage arc. Shep made a lot of difficult decisions throughout this part of the game and each one varies based on your knowledge of the situation. You can generally infer that a cured genophage with Wrex and Eve in charge gives the highest possibilty of a positive outcome for the Krogan and the Galaxy. Conversely if Wreav is in charge and Eve is dead, the possible consquences of this scenario make sabotaging the genophage a more preferred solution for galactic (and Krogan) stability.

The situation with the geth is also similar. We interact with the Geth in all 3 games, the first being overly negative, but then we find out the truth of the Geth's intentions in the 2nd game. And in the 3rd game, by entering the mainframe and viewing the "memories" of the Geth we end up with a pretty sound knowledge bank of what they are and what they intend to do as a species. We can then make a decision regarding the fate of their species as well as the Quarians.

Basically, knowledge of the consequences reduces variables. If you have too many variables to where you have absolutely NO idea as to how a situation will turn out, then the best course of action would be to simply do nothing.

In the end, the catalyst gives us 3 flavours of space magic that are vague and poorly described. We have no idea what the consequences of any of the paths are except for the certainty of the mass relays getting blown away. These galaxy changing topics are also sprung up on us in the last 5 minutes of the game with only 14 lines of dialgue given to explain all three topics. Conversely we had 5 years and 3 games filled with tons of lore and inforamation to weigh out the pros and cons of the genophage cure, Geth conflict... etc.

Then at the end of ME3 we get 14 lines of dialogue to choose one of 3 options that literaly spring out of nowhere in a litteral deus ex machina fashion. It's the illusion of choice for truly galaxy changing consequences with the only known fact is that the relays will be destroyed. 

So I hope that explains my reasoning as to why I think taking NO action in the ending should technically be the only "right" action. At least in that scenario we could see if our own unified galactic fleet would be enough to stop the reapers, or at least go out in one AWESOME blaze of glory... To be honest, I was actually hoping for that... An ending where the reapers win but at least we could see Shep and his/her crew fighting valiently to the bitter end and dying like heroes... Rather than joker turning tail, and Shep meekly blowing him/herself up in a red, green, or blue explosion at the whim of the head reaper.

I hope this makes more sense XD

My reasoning for not picking is rather simple actually

ME1: We spent the entire game chasing Saren who was preaching that Synthesis was the answer. How did that turn out?

ME3: We spent the entire scene right before the Catalyst argueing against Control. How did that work out for him?

ME3: We unite the entire galaxy against the Reaper and then have to pick 1 race to eleminate in order to destroy the Reapers.

And to top it off we're getting what little info we do get from a Reaper.

We get no lifelines. Can't call a friend "Yo Prime. I got this dude her saying I can kill all the reapers at once but you and your guys all have to die to do it."

Can't Ask the Audience. "Hey guys! Y'all mind being part machine, part organic?"

You get the idea

[CronoDragoon]

kaotician wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

kaotician wrote...

Shepard's action in choosing the Destroy option does not amount to genocide. It is the Catalyst who declares that the Geth will die too if Shepard makes the choice as they do. The only way that Shepard's actions can be tied to the fate of the Geth is if in some way the Catalyst itself is helpless to prevent the destruction of them.

But is it? What is the contingent connection here? If the Catalyst controls the Reapers, as it claims, then the Catalyst itself can order the Reapers to 'stand down' as it were, without a shot being fired. The Catalyst itself can be seen to be the only true agent of free will in the scenario we are presented with, and it can equally clearly be seen that it is the Catalyst that forces the contingent connection between the Geth and the Reapers.

The Catalyst chooses to link the fates of these species together, not Shepard. The Catalyst chooses the possible outcomes of Shepard's actions, not Shepard. In that sense, Shepard is no more to blame for the moral decisions of the Catalyst than the Reapers themselves are. Where Shepard is the forced agent of change, it cannot be said that he therefore becomes morally culpable for those actions, in my view.

Sucky as they are, he is given two options that don't destroy the geth. He indeed does have choice whether or not he will destroy the geth. It's not the same as the Reapers who are being controlled.

I do appreciate the point that you've highlighted there, in the fact of two possible outcomes not leading to the genocide of the Geth, but my point overall is really directed towards the question of moral culpability, which I think is the OP's question, and that the contingent linking of the fate of the Geth is actually a free choice made by the Catalyst itself, and not by Shepard.

If I may argue the point by analogy: if there is a man who has his finger on a button that when pressed will lead to the destruction of every nation, and every member of every nation, on earth, and he's willing to do it, indeed he wants to, and the only way to prevent that action is to drop a bomb on him, despite the fact he has a baby in the room with him, are you then morally culpable for the death of that child, or is the man making the free choice to hold that baby against himself the morally guilty party? I argue that it is the agent of free choice with whom moral culpability truly resides, not with the forced agent of change .

I get what you are saying, but your analogy lacks the other two possible options, and I do think that the existence of alternatives swings the pendulum of culpability further towards the side of the forced agent. It is definitely not so far as to hit him in the forehead, but the culpability is, I think, different than if his decision was simply "do it or everyone dies."

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[Zine2]

Nimrodell wrote...

But is Catalyst indeed the agent of free will - there is something compulsory in the way it behaves

Except that we can't know that for sure. There's plenty of people who interpret the ending as the Star Child simply lying to Shepard (the Indoc Theory), because it never shows that it actually based any of its actions on real evidence. He just sort of tells you to accept whatever he's saying as fact.

[Allan Schumacher]

Zine2 wrote...

If you want a game to be art, then it should in fact try to impart some kind of message - which in turn can serve as its "moral lesson". Art by definition is about conveying a message to the audience using various mediums.

Art, by definition, is "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects,
environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."

And frankly, the message a lot of people got was "Nothing you do matters." Or, worse, the message is "They say that evil prevails if good men do nothing. What they should really say is: Evil prevails."

I think this is just a perspective gained if you don't like the ending.  The game's final choices challenged me to think "what does it mean" for each of the decisions.

If you want to start waxing philosophically, then I could probably go as far as to say the ending made me evaluate who I am as a person based on the mental ramifications I created for each outcome, evaluating each of them on an ethical level where there is no easy choice.

[Elyiia]

shepard1038 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Provo_101 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

You can choose to warn the colony, but the game won't let you do it. Doesn't matter though, Shepard performed a deliberate act that wiped out a Batarian colony. It doesn't matter whether the colony would have been destroyed. The reasoning doesn't matter for it to be genocide.

Its either that or have everyone die tomorrow. 

Again, it doesn't matter. The question is has Shepard committed genocide. Not whether it is justifyable.

Wouldn't it have been genocide it Shepard didn't do nothing and the reapers would have destroyed the colony?

It wouldn't have been Shepard commiting genocide.

But he would have been the cause of that genocide, does that make it better than Shepard itself as you say comiting genocide?

It is better for Shepard to commit genocide in Arrival than allow the Reapers in. That's not the point. The question was did Shepard commit genocide.

[Metroidvania]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I always inferred that Hackett's assessment included using the Crucible. Though it's fair to say it's not.

If I recall correctly, the problem with that theory is that we have no idea what the crucible does all the way up to the point where the crucible docks with the citadel.

Therefore, Hackett shouldn't have any idea on how its level of completion will have an actual effect on the war.

Granted, as you said, he could be basing his projections on the state of completion of the crucible and its supposed status as a superweapon, but I never really got that feeling.

For all we know, the crucible could in fact be a reaper decoy, or been a dud. Throwing all your eggs in one basket solely based off of the chance of the crucible seems silly, though he does admittedly state that a direct conventional slug-out fight would end in a disaster for the united races. So I guess I can see both sides as well, but side with the non-inclusion.

Just my two cents.

[stevefox1200]

Honestly all the options for the ending seemed a bit psycho to me

I rather of just ate my gun and let the reapers win and hope that the next cycle will be better off

[Allan Schumacher]

Provo_101 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I always inferred that Hackett's assessment included using the Crucible.  Though it's fair to say it's not.

It could have blew up in his face for all he knew. 

Hmmmm.  So the fewer war assets you acquire.... the better?  I LIKE IT!

/emailsImportantPeopleThatCanMakeDecisions

[shodiswe]

In the end the starchild/reapermaster could stop it at any point, it even admits this solution is no longer valid, still it wont give the ceasefire order to the reapers. Why? Because it wants a moral voctory and it's even prepared to sacrifise it's own existance to be abel to point fingers at Shepard, look mass genocide and the extinction of an entire race or more is an acceptable price if your ideals are justified.

It could stop the fighting at any time with no further consequences, but it want's a moral voctory. It can't knows it can't win but it gloats at shepard knowign Shepard has to sink to the catalysts moral level to defeat it.

The three choices given by the catalyst were all about giving into the catalysts whims or proving his point of view and methods were right. Will you do what I've been doing for the past few million years? Are we realy that different Shepard?

Modifié par shodiswe, 11 avril 2012 - 07:58 .

[Allan Schumacher]

If I recall correctly, the problem with that theory is that we have no idea what the crucible does all the way up to the point where the crucible docks with the citadel.

Therefore, Hackett shouldn't have any idea on how its level of completion will have an actual effect on the war.

Granted, as you said, he could be basing his projections on the state of completion of the crucible and its supposed status as a superweapon, but I never really got that feeling.

Good point. Good enough that I'll actually concede it. Well played!

[Nimrodell]

Zine2 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

But is Catalyst indeed the agent of free will - there is something compulsory in the way it behaves

Except that we can't know that for sure. There's plenty of people who interpret the ending as the Star Child simply lying to Shepard (the Indoc Theory), because it never shows that it actually based any of its actions on real evidence. He just sort of tells you to accept whatever he's saying as fact.

And yet, maybe the ending is what it is - and we'll see if you're right when Extended Cut DLC is released. It might happen now that BW plays with that theory now actually, thus making you happy, but until then - lets not assume anything as certain. Catalyst indeed has that compulsory trait because Harvesting cycles are compulsory until broken - just like Earth revolves around sun until dark energy expansion destroys our universe or something even bigger hits our planet thus utterly destroying it.

[CronoDragoon]

Metroidvania wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I always inferred that Hackett's assessment included using the Crucible. Though it's fair to say it's not.

If I recall correctly, the problem with that theory is that we have no idea what the crucible does all the way up to the point where the crucible docks with the citadel.

Therefore, Hackett shouldn't have any idea on how its level of completion will have an actual effect on the war.

Granted, as you said, he could be basing his projections on the state of completion of the crucible and its supposed status as a superweapon, but I never really got that feeling.

For all we know, the crucible could in fact be a reaper decoy, or been a dud. Throwing all your eggs in one basket solely based off of the chance of the crucible seems silly, though he does admittedly state that a direct conventional slug-out fight would end in a disaster for the united races. So I guess I can see both sides as well, but side with the non-inclusion.

Just my two cents.

The Galaxy at War messages you get starting at....70% maybe? say that Allied forces are holding their own and even pushing the Reapers back on some fronts. Now, that may just be the ground battles, but it certainly doesn't sound hopeless.