644 réponses à ce sujet

[LegendaryBlade]

Killing the Geth is genocide, it's silly to say it isn't. Many arguing that because you can't quantify their soul, even though there's no way to tell that any other sentient race has it, that some how disqualifies them from being living people. That's just preposterous. Like it or not, the human body is a lot like robotics. We work on a complex system or organs and data transfer. The best we can figure, conscious thought is set off by specific patterns of fired synapses, a recent study showed that when viewing certain things synapses fire in an almost predictable way.

DNA is code, the brain and it's synapses are how it's read. Our nervous system transmits information through our body. So why is it so different that the Geth are cold steel? Even before the reaper code, Legion begins to form attachments. After the reaper code, he self identifies. May I remind you that "Self-Awareness" is one of the biggest qualifiers of 'life' by today's scientists? He is aware and he feels. His body is not organic, but after the reaper code each and every geth is alive.

Even if you're on the fence, who are you to decide that they aren't? Who are we to say, it's okay to end an entire race of people because i'm not entirely sure how sentient they are? Why would you choose this, when there is another viable option.

[Provo_101]

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.

I'm not sure I really support the Indoc Theory anymore, but I won't deny that I think the Catalyst is lying about the Geth.

I had the intent of creating peace between the Geth and Quarians when Rannoch rolled around, I fought for the Geths' personal intelligence. EDI's personality also got through to me over the course of the game, I held both EDI and the Geth in high regard, I think the StarInfant knew this seeing as how he may be bloody telepathic <_< (VentBoy appearance). He SMILES during Control, the choice of which you just argued with TIM over, and Synthesis is his personal "best" option as it basically turns everyone into a Reaper, which he praises as "the pinnacle of evolution". 

So I gave the crackhead the middle finger by killing him off. Oddly enough, EDI and I are okay at the end.

[Zeppex]

This reminds me of a Star Trek the next Generation episode.
Picard mentions or someone mentions to him.

Would you save your family and let a million people die.
Would you let your family die and the million people would live. But one of those million would be the next Hitler.

[Eudaemonium]

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.

The Catalyst can be lying to you anyway, without Indoc. Theory. (Although I suspect that Control might leave room open for potential indoctrination as one possible interpretation, or at least a 'you fell into our trap' plausibility). The Catalyst could also simply not fully comprehend the Crucible's full capabilities and thus not so much be lying as simply unaware.

[DJBare]

So did anyone ever manage to define "true life"?, consciousness, self awareness, survival, it's funny, Legion and the geth exhibited all those traits, Legion most notably when he referred to himself as "I" instead of "WE"

One of my favorite scenes from Star trek TNG www.youtube.com/watch

[Allan Schumacher]

I had the intent of creating peace between the Geth and Quarians when Rannoch rolled around, I fought for the Geths' personal intelligence. EDI's personality also got through to me over the course of the game, I held both EDI and the Geth in high regard, I think the StarInfant knew this seeing as how he may be bloody telepathic smilie (VentBoy appearance).

I feel silly because I never thought to think of it this way!

[Slash1667]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Hate to say it but that is one of the main problems. We are left to infer too much. Can we win with out the crucible? Will destroy kill the geth and EDI? Will control give us exactly that or can we only give one command? Will synthesis actually unite the galaxy or tear it apart? Is this Reaper telling me the truth or lieing through his holographic teeth?

[Zine2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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."

Notice the bolded portion?

Art is about communication, because you're sharing something with others. It may simply be about sharing the breathtaking beauty of a painting, but that still ultimately conveys a message - "There are beautiful things in this world".

Therefore any artistic work can in fact be judged based on the "message" in conveys. Leaving it up for interpretation is not meant to be a cop-out; your work must truly open new vistas and not simply cause people to go "Meh, nothing I did mattered".

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.

You have noticed a lot of people not liking the ending, to the tune of over 90% of people polled in the BSN forum, yes?

I am telling you why those people are not liking the ending, I am not telling you how you should like or dislike the ending.

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.

And I am talking in terms of what a lot of people got out of the ending. "Nothing you did mattered". "Evil prevails".

For a lot of people, working with a genocidal monster like the Star Child is simply unacceptable. They refuse to make a moral compromise. And in my view? They have a right to do so. Because they are standing for the values of universal peace and goodwill - that we are stronger united and without prejudice - that are the foundations of modern, civilized values. To reject the Star Child is to reject prejudice, genocide, and "Might makes right".

And these are pretty heavy values we're talking about. It's not just a game. It's about people's fundamental beliefs and characters, and players found themselves getting slapped in the face by the Star Child's logic on how "It's okay to commit genocide because of my imaginary divide between Organics and Synthetics".

You do not get a 90% disapproval rate without fundamentally insulting the fanbase in very deep and personal way. There is a reason why people don't want to play Mass Effect anymore. I am simply stating it - the message they got from the ending sucked.

So, it's nice if you managed to amuse yourself by playing a Solipsism game over the Red, Blue, and Green options. But for most people, the glaring slap on the face will be the only thing they remember; and they'd rightly point out that the Red, Blue, and Green options were factually pretty shallow choices in the first place.

Modifié par Zine2, 11 avril 2012 - 08:15 .

[Provo_101]

Zeppex wrote...

This reminds me of a Star Trek the next Generation episode.
Picard mentions or someone mentions to him.

Would you save your family and let a million people die.
Would you let your family die and the million people would live. But one of those million would be the next Hitler.

This is freakin' horrifying.

[Catroi]

Geth are sentient, ergo exterminating them is a genocide

The fact that this is also the only ending allowing you to survive is horrible

[kaotician]

CronoDragoon wrote...

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."

You're quite right that I did leave out the other two options from my analogy, and your view that moral culpability swings back towards Shepard when they are factored in has given me pause for thought, for which I thank you. I left the other options out solely because I was trying to focus on the single issue of moral culpability to the point of accusations of genocide being levelled at Shepard in the consequence of his making the choice of the Destroy option, where that issue resides, as per I think the focus of this thread.

If I move consideration of the choices to address one of the others, although not strictly speaking the focus of this particular thread, the Synthesis option for me fails as a morally good choice because of its' requirement of the imposition of my own will on the lives of countless billions of others, who would be irrevocably changed whether they wanted to be or not, by that action. If I'm to hold free choice as a paramount value, which I think I've been arguing in my points about moral culpability, then Synthesis must be seen to be anathema to that view, since it takes away the option of choice, in the most profound way imaginable, from every single other living, sentient being in the entire galaxy.

[Icinix]

Catroi wrote...

Geth are sentient, ergo exterminating them is a genocide

The fact that this is also the only ending allowing you to survive is horrible

Correction - you only survive that ending if you play multiplayer.

As such, I think its nothing more than an Easter Egg of perhaps more to come, or indeed just an Easter Egg that you can read into it whatever you want.

If it was anymore than that, it would have been part of the single player by itself.

Of course, thats just lots of speculation, but I hear thats doing the rounds a lot these days.

[Slash1667]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Actually that is WHY alot of us don't like the ending but anyway

[Allan Schumacher]

Zine2 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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."

Notice the bolded portion?

For someone that's a stickler for semantics, I find it pretty weak.  By presenting it to others I am sharing it.

You have noticed a lot of people not liking the ending, to the tune of over 90% of people polled in the BSN forum, yes?

I am telling you why those people are not liking the ending, I am not telling you how you should like or dislike the ending.

Based on what you've written, it seems like you're saying that people are mad at the ending because they just didn't properly "get it" then.

[Icinix]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Zine2 wrote...
You have noticed a lot of people not liking the ending, to the tune of over 90% of people polled in the BSN forum, yes?

I am telling you why those people are not liking the ending, I am not telling you how you should like or dislike the ending.

Based on what you've written, it seems like you're saying that people are mad at the ending because they just didn't properly "get it" then.

Maybe if the ending did have some kind of moral lesson or piece of wisdom to impart, it would have been better recieved.

As it stands - "he whost thouh dost the least through the game, dost get thy same ending as everyone thy else." Is not really one for the ages.

Modifié par Icinix, 11 avril 2012 - 08:18 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Anyways, I'm out guys. Later.

[shodiswe]

Xandurpein wrote...

Some people accept , as an article of faith, that there is such a thing as a soul and that it's unique to organic beings. Whether they do so, because they have been told so by some religious figure or came up with the idea themselves is beside the point. The point is that it has nothing to do with logic or reason, it's just something some people believe in as an article of faith. Other people don't believe so. There's no "proof" that will ever convince those who believe differently because no such "proof" exist. You either accept this belief or you don't.

All arguments just become circular logic. "Killing Geth isn't genocide because I define the word genocide in a way that doesn't include killing the Geth" is a perfect example of circular logic. So is "Killing Geth is genocide, because I define the word in a way that includes killing the Geth".

Probably a good time to agree to disagree...

I've always thoguht people who holds on to "articles of faith" like that are the most dangerous people in the world. It's called fanatism, like fanatical jihad people, Binladen, Hitler. None of those every listened to reason or logic, they had their own convicion, be it religious or psudo religious. The ****s tried to make their politics into a religion and thats what it was for Hitler and his closest follower. Teneths of faith that can't be questioned. No proof or logic can sway them they do what they think they must because their scripture tells them it's right and they wont even contemplate a contradicting argument, even letting the argumetns get analyzed in your mind is a crome that should be avoided.

Faith is the most dangerous thign there is, blind faith even more so. It doesn't relate to the people and the world around you only to a very narrow view that you wont allow yourself to examine because the process of examining it would be damning act. I'm on the clock and I got a doctors appointment sorry if it got rushed.

[xenu101]

This is stupid. The endings suck. Genocide, lol.

[Zeppex]

TBH my biggest gripe about the ending is just not knowing what happens after. I was promised closure you know...

Back on topic... I think the moment Legion refers to itself as any organic would. That meant sentience to me, but if you do wipe them out. What would repercussions be.

What if wiping them out set a change of events that could lead to an unimaginable event. Something like disease strikes the Qurians, and they find out the only way they can survive is if a Geth would interact with their suit.

[kaotician]

Personally, I wasn't a fan of the ending, but really only for technical and cost related issues such as the cheapo nature of the final sequences, and the almost fatal flaw of Bioware not appreciating just how much we'd invested in all these characters down through the years - in that sense, B is a victim of its' own success - that left us feeling a bit short-changed, to say the least.

As for the final encounter with the Catalyst, what an extraordinarily brave thing to have a boss fight take place entirely in your mind, about the moral and philosophical implications of your actions. To be essentially fighting a major battle within - and indeed, to still be fighting it on many levels, just to judge by the often excellent contributions on this single thread alone, will I hope in the long term be seen as an outstanding contribution to the development of games and gaming.

[LegendaryBlade]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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."

Notice the bolded portion?

For someone that's a stickler for semantics, I find it pretty weak.  By presenting it to others I am sharing it.

You have noticed a lot of people not liking the ending, to the tune of over 90% of people polled in the BSN forum, yes?

I am telling you why those people are not liking the ending, I am not telling you how you should like or dislike the ending.

Based on what you've written, it seems like you're saying that people are mad at the ending because they just didn't properly "get it" then.

I have no idea what your discussion is really about, and therefore this is the absolute best time to interject.

I don't know why he said he didn't like the ending, but I didn't like it because I found the whole thing with the Starchild week and jarring. A painful genre shift during the last few minutes. It was like an episode of TNG ended with Star Wars. Even worse is, the deus ex kid only has 14 lines of dialogue, and then the plot just sort of...ends. Even if you argue that the three things are fundamentally different, what we SEE is the same regardless and this is a visual medium.

I could go on and on, but I just wanted to add my two cents.

[Joccaren]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Based on what you've written, it seems like you're saying that people are mad at the ending because they just didn't properly "get it" then.

No, he is saying we interpreted it in a different way. Saying we didn't "Get it" is like saying you didn't get it because you liked it. Different ways of interpretation, different overall messages.

[Zine2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

By presenting it to others I am sharing it.

Actually, that's factually true. That's the whole point of presenting: Sharing it to a large audience.

Based on what you've written, it seems like you're saying that people are mad at the ending because they just didn't properly "get it" then.

Nope, I'm actually saying that they're right to dislike the ending.
 
You can enjoy your Solipsism (as do others who like the ending), but thinking that you "get it" and others don't is a pretty snooty line of thinking. Until you get past focusing just on the parts you liked, you'll never understand the "other side of the coin".

My post was meant to show you the other side of the coin.

A lot of players did not like the ending. Because there are parts of the ending which attacked the very core beliefs of many players. That the Star Child was allowed to preach "Might Makes Right", "Prejudice is Okay!", and "Genocide is Justifiable as long as you call it a Solution."

In short, people are right to be mad at the ending. Because the Star Child was preaching values that are considered banal by the modern world, and being forced to work for him was like a slap on the face.

To enjoy the ending, you have to deliberately shut out huge portions of it - and focus on the Solipsism over Red, Blue, and Green (which I personally find pretty shallow, as the supposed moral compromises between them didn't strike me as very original or very emotional).

And again, if you can ignore the slap to the face, you're free to enjoy the ending. But most players will simply remember the slap to the face, and then get annoyed when you point them at the "deep" Solipsism portion and come to the same conclusion as I did.

Modifié par Zine2, 11 avril 2012 - 08:41 .

[Nimrodell]

Eudaemonium wrote...

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.

The Catalyst can be lying to you anyway, without Indoc. Theory. (Although I suspect that Control might leave room open for potential indoctrination as one possible interpretation, or at least a 'you fell into our trap' plausibility). The Catalyst could also simply not fully comprehend the Crucible's full capabilities and thus not so much be lying as simply unaware.

What I said has nothing to with Catalyst being able to lie or not - that wasn't what I was trying to say when I questioned the claim of Catalyst being an agent of free will.

[Slash1667]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

You have noticed a lot of people not liking the ending, to the tune of over 90% of people polled in the BSN forum, yes?

I am telling you why those people are not liking the ending, I am not telling you how you should like or dislike the ending.

Based on what you've written, it seems like you're saying that people are mad at the ending because they just didn't properly "get it" then.

What we got (or I did anyway) was that no matter what Shepard does he can't win. He goes from being the galactic hero to the guy that pushes buttons for his most hated foe.

No matter how hard we fought against the Reaper imposed destiny we couldn't change it. Self-determination is just a bitter joke.

The adage that for evil to succeed only requires the good man to do nothing was wrong because evil always wins anyway.

The Kobiyashi Maru is a good simulation for training but not for entertainment. No-win senarios are never enjoyable.

I could go on but it's pretty bleak and depressing.

Modifié par Slash1667, 11 avril 2012 - 08:29 .