644 réponses à ce sujet

[CerealWar]

The "kill all synthetics" option was tacked on to the destroy option in an attempt to give players pause. There was a moral dilemma present for the sake of a moral dilemma being present. It just shows how screwy the entire Crucible plot was.

[Metroidvania]

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.

Technically, I think the "Nothing you do matters" started more as in a direct response to the overall similarities of the 3 main ending sequences, starting upon entry to the citadel.

Once you ascend through the teleporter, nothing changes except for TIM pulling a Saren based on your paragon/renegade actions, and Anderson possibly living long enough to give his speech.

And then, once you ascend to the crucible, the scene plays out in an extremely similar fashion no matter what your EMS is, save for the inclusion of the Control and Synthesis endings.

No matter what your outcomes were earlier in the game, i.e. Genophage, Geth/Quarians, they're all made much less relevant in front of this new choice.

Thus tying this back into the genocide debate, your decisions do actually becomes a primary factor in your decision making process. Do you kill off the Geth, who have just begun to show individuality? Is your Shepard committing genocide (at least, to you as the player, as that's the only person who can really determine this type of thing in a situation such as this)

Unfortunately, that's the only decision that affects your perception of the endings, as we aren't given enough info to really ascertain or extrapolate other than the Mass Relays blowing up no matter what you do, hence, "nothing you did mattered". Could the fleets we assembled hold their own? How was the retake of Earth going? We have no idea on how our previous choices came to lead to the current endings. The ending itself leaves things open in huge broad strokes, but these strokes are wide enough to avoid giving any information on our choices, especially important ones like the Genophage, retaking Palavan, what happens to Rannoch, etc.

The whole "nothing you did mattered because everyone dies" came after more thought on how the endings left the ME universe, as well as the problem of judging the relay explosion of Arrival versus the unexplained 'overload' with the ME3 endings and trying to come to a conclusion.

But I think we're getting a bit off-topic, so I digress. IMO, killing off an entire species which possess intelligence is cutting it dangerously close, the synthetic question is an interesting aside, as technically, the geth could theoretically be rebuilt.

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

[Zine2]

Joccaren wrote...
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.

I find it very amusing that almost everyone else got what I had to say.

Even though I am supposedly the one twisting words around instead of using clear, concise, and blunt language.

[Sanrei]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This would be fine except one of the choices has no place in the universe in the way that it was set up. Synthetics do not have DNA, and while I can agree that you can use nano machines and make organic life partially synthetic the way that it is done pretty much constitutes the very essence of space magic and the idea that you can make synthetic life partially organic dances on the absurd, to put it nicely.

Take that away, you have the choice of control: I played mostly Para and everything I had seen up to that point told me control was a bad idea. So then what, destroy? Ok, except why would I choose that after having made peace between the Quarians and the Geth? You can argue acceptable losses in the grand scheme of things but the destruction of an entire race for the sake of others is not acceptable.

When I played the game, I was faced with three unacceptable choices and a wilted, shell of a person who just gave up and let starbrat steamroll her into a decision. That wasn't Shepard. It wasn't anyone's Shepard. It wasn't Bioware's Shepard. Honestly I would have told the kid to shove his choices where light doesn't reach and hedge my bets on taking them down the hard way. Maybe give the next cycle a chance to do it right.

At this point I'm down to wishing the Indoc. Theory were true. Anything.

Modifié par PedEgg, 11 avril 2012 - 08:46 .

[BobbyDylan]

CerealWar wrote...

The "kill all synthetics" option was tacked on to the destroy option in an attempt to give players pause. There was a moral dilemma present for the sake of a moral dilemma being present. It just shows how screwy the entire Crucible plot was.

This.

And even then, I didn't even hesitate. Sorry for the Geth and Edi, but the other options are just too vague or horifying.

I can "control" the reapers by dying.... ya right. You kill me, then I control the reapers? That's like saying "let me prove to you that there's an afterlife by killing you". Ya... I'll pass.
I can combine synthetics and Organics...... Uh--huh..... Sure... why didn't we think of that? Oh year, free will. What id I dont want to be 1/2 a robot? But lets get my rape face on and enter the bodies of every organic being and change the way their bodies work.
Or destroy. And the space-brat lies to you that you'll die anyway. My shep lives, so I assume the kid is talking bullcrap.

[Eudaemonium]

Nimrodell wrote...

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.

Yeah, sorry. I was responding primarily to Zine2 here (and the claim that the Catalyst lying is necessarily equated to Indoctrination theory). You are right in challenging the assertion of whether the Catalyst is actually a free agent (although, whether it has the capacity for deception might be able to indicate one way or the other, it is complicated). =)

[Zine2]

CerealWar wrote...

The "kill all synthetics" option was tacked on to the destroy option in an attempt to give players pause. There was a moral dilemma present for the sake of a moral dilemma being present. It just shows how screwy the entire Crucible plot was.

Yep. The ending consistently makes the mistake of presenting moral dilemmas that are devoid of context, which (in my view) makes them pretty shallow and make for very poor starting material in terms of a philosophical debate. You can't really weigh moral choices if you're not allowed to look at half the variables, and the ones that you see look as though someone just made them up.

So what happens is that they come off as options created by a very foolish entity who didn't think things through, which honestly just reinforces the notion that the Star Child is either a psycopath or it's lying to you deliberately.

Modifié par Zine2, 11 avril 2012 - 09:03 .

[Zine2]

Eudaemonium wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

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.

Yeah, sorry. I was responding primarily to Zine2 here (and the claim that the Catalyst lying is necessarily equated to Indoctrination theory). You are right in challenging the assertion of whether the Catalyst is actually a free agent (although, whether it has the capacity for deception might be able to indicate one way or the other, it is complicated). =)

Well, true, I should have clarified it could be lying even outside of the Indoc theory.

[legion999]

It is genocide they think and they experience emotions.

[Chrillze]

legion999 wrote...

It is genocide they think and they experience emotions.

They are still machines and are not alive

[Sanrei]

Chrillze wrote...
They are still machines and are not alive

Not in the sense that organics are alive but they are self aware. "I think, therefore I am."
Throw out notions of a soul or divine creation and the line of what constitues as life is not so clearly defined.

Taking what is known about EDI and the Geth, I think it's safe to say destroying them is considered genocide. They have a culture, they can self-determinate/ have self awareness and they can be snuffed from existence and are not replaceable as individuals.

[Transgirlgamer]

Chrillze wrote...

legion999 wrote...

It is genocide they think and they experience emotions.

They are still machines and are not alive

Organic life forms are just biological machines, some of which can think.  So let's kill everyone as that's not genocide.

Please tell me exactly what part of you makes you alive that a Geth in ME3 doesn't have an equvalent for.  And before anyone says a soul, prove you have one, or that a synthetic lifeform couldn't have one.

Modifié par Transgirlgamer, 11 avril 2012 - 09:36 .

[Transgirlgamer]

Thinking about the endings a little, I have to wonder why anyone would choose synthesis. Suree it seems the lesser of three evils, no genocide and no mind control, but it makes everything into a synthetic/organic hybrid. Aren't reapers synthetic/organic hybrids?

So to protect ourselves from the reapers, we must become them?

At least with destroy, we have the chance that the godchild was lying about killing the Geth and Edi.

With control, if godchild's telling the truth we brainwash an entire race, if it's lying the cycle continues.

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Wrong. That's semantic wordplay. If you're saying "sacrifice" can be unwilling, then your definition of sacrifice is actually no different from murder or genocide.

Because if I decide to kill a friend of mine to save a million people, I sacrifice my friend.  I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd unequivocally declare it murder.  It becomes a slippery slope.

It is uequivovally murder, we then get to argue wether it was the lesser evil, but it was still murder.  If your friend was aware that his death would save a million and died willingly, THEN it would be a sacrifice.

[ZtalkerRM]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Chrillze wrote...

legion999 wrote...

It is genocide they think and they experience emotions.

They are still machines and are not alive

Organic life forms are just biological machines, some of which can think.  So let's kill everyone as that's not genocide.

Please tell me exactly what part of you makes you alive that a Geth in ME3 doesn't have an equvalent for.

I fully support you on this.
That geth Destroyer (huge one) that came to Tali after the mission, explaining a few things, was one of the best scenes in the game. Because the Geth forgave the quarians and offered them to come home. To forgive such a thing (the quaruans tried to exterminate them), you'll need to be a strong personality, which was probably caused by the upgrade Legion sacrificed himself for.
The geth can forgive, wich is what the quarians, ironically, could not. They even equiped their civilian ships with weapons so they could fight.

That's why (for me) the destroy ending is the worst one. It's like Mandela giving his victory speech and then putting the apartheid regime back in charge.

OT: Even in my ending, Shep is a war criminal. I chose synthesis, which forces all life to evolve, thus going against the very nature of evolution. The synthetics didn't ask for it, the humand didn't ask for it. I bet alot of humans (and synthetics) would kill themselves over this, because it leads to a Deus Ex: HR situation: How far will you go with your modification? There will be geth and human 'purists' who want to get rid of it all and human and geth groups who fully embrace the other part.
In that ending, there is hope for peace, because everyone will understand oneother, but I'm afraid it will lead to civil war on every planet anyways...

[Oakenshield1]

It's been established (at least if you're a paragon) that AIs are people too. They may not think quite the same way, but they are self-aware and have free will. And as for the "they don't have souls" argument, that may be valid in real life, but this is fiction, and within this fiction (as far as we know) there is no spiritual reality to speak of. Therefore what is a "person" has to boil down to sentience.

[Elyiia]

In terms of the destroy ending, seeing as EDI can leave the ship it's unlikely that the Geth were also destroyed. I know it says they are, but Geth are simply using Reaper code and EDI was built with Reaper tech. EDI's body was especially built with Reaper tech. If EDI isn't destroyed it seems unlikely that the Geth are as well.

[Transgirlgamer]

Personally, I chose Destroy on my first playthrough as there is a chance godchild was lying since my Shepard survived enough to take a breath, the Geth might have as well and the other two choices seemed wrong as well.

[legion999]

Chrillze wrote...

legion999 wrote...

It is genocide they think and they experience emotions.

They are still machines and are not alive

Yet they feel regret, forgive, show mercy and are willing to die for others?

Modifié par legion999, 11 avril 2012 - 09:50 .

[Eudaemonium]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Thinking about the endings a little, I have to wonder why anyone would choose synthesis. Suree it seems the lesser of three evils, no genocide and no mind control, but it makes everything into a synthetic/organic hybrid. Aren't reapers synthetic/organic hybrids?

So to protect ourselves from the reapers, we must become them?

At least with destroy, we have the chance that the godchild was lying about killing the Geth and Edi.

With control, if godchild's telling the truth we brainwash an entire race, if it's lying the cycle continues.

See, I think this was some of the speculation Bioware *wanted* to engender with the ending, (and hopefully will after they patch it up a bit).

[robertm2]

synthetics are not people. killing of robots to save the galaxy seems like a far trade. killing of humans even to save the galaxy is a fair trade. its not wrong its compromise. besides the fact that people who say that its genocide are either crazy or looking for something to nitpick at because they didnt like the ending i seriously hope they are never forced to face a tough decision like saving the galaxy. because we would all be screwed. edi is not alive legion is not alive your fridge is not alive. unless you are schizo maybe than your electronic appliances are alive in your mind. still not genocide and even if it was its not wrong and very necessary.

[Nyctyris]

Regardless of what you say about the geth, the Reapers are definitely sentient, and killing all synthetic life forms is genociding the reapers.

You could argue that this is acceptable genocide given the alternatives (ie us or them) but it's still genocide. Also, just because the Geth don't function in the same way that we do (collective minds etc) doesn't mean they don't function. Intelligence is very difficult to gauge. Either way, you don't have any opportunity to discuss this with the Catalyst.

[bboynexus]

I think a huge problem with the ending is actually being presented with the three options to begin with. I don't think that should have happened. That is, strangely enoguh, quite 'video gamey'.

Allan talked about the endings making him question 'who he is and what he stands for',  but you shouldn't have to consciously consider that in the game's final moments. The nature of the ending should have been determined by your previous decisions (and, to a lesser extent, your EMS). That would reflect both the 'journey' and 'who you are and what you stand for'. This is exactly how it should have been done:

http://social-iconoc...t.com/#/d4tc9u0

Modifié par bboynexus, 11 avril 2012 - 10:14 .

[sdfgdsfsdfsfs]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Computers with consciousness is preposterous

I have no idea why so many people think this is "preposterous." You can't even prove that any other human being in the universe, besides yourself, has a consciousness. Yet you discount the possibility that a machine can be conscious. Why?

Modifié par sdfgdsfsdfsfs, 11 avril 2012 - 10:15 .

[legion999]

robertm2 wrote...

synthetics are not people. killing of robots to save the galaxy seems like a far trade. killing of humans even to save the galaxy is a fair trade. its not wrong its compromise. besides the fact that people who say that its genocide are either crazy or looking for something to nitpick at because they didnt like the ending i seriously hope they are never forced to face a tough decision like saving the galaxy. because we would all be screwed. edi is not alive legion is not alive your fridge is not alive. unless you are schizo maybe than your electronic appliances are alive in your mind. still not genocide and even if it was its not wrong and very necessary.

I don't know where to begin with your fail of a post.

Stop comparing AI to kitchen appliances. Yes hur derp they're artificial and we're organic. Guess what? Plants are also organic. Is it alright to wipe out the human race because we're both organic and plants don't think?

And we would be screwed if you made the choice because you'd kill us all since you're fine with genocide apparently.

Genocide is always wrong. You remind me of a certain individual made infamous for the mass murder of those he believed weren't human and that it was necessary. Hint Godwin was proven to be right.

And the Geth have shown mercy, forgiveness and regret. That's better than a lot of humans I can say that much.

Modifié par legion999, 11 avril 2012 - 10:24 .