5087 réponses à ce sujet

[BigglesFlysAgain]

Seijin8 wrote...

@BigglesFlysAgain: You may use whatever source of information you wish to create the things BioWare didn't think we needed. Or, to put it differently: Your speculations have documentation!

@edisnooM: You know... if the endings had been great, I wouldn't have read anything in this thread... and I am starting to think that I prefer all of *this* over solid endings to a video game.

I know :innocent:,

well I am sure some of us have private ideas of what may  or may not happen, but I persoanly felt the discussion was based on the premise of the absence of any more information than what the game presents, and the idea that bioware will never actualy present the "truth" at some point,


Some of our discussion does have a shelf life, (assuming there is a way to fail/ a right answer) though if they do go for the expansion of the literal then... Well, maybe it will have a longer shelf life....


I have also enjoyed reading the discussion here, an alkali for the acidic pessimism of other threads I frequent, even if I have not contributed very much up until now.

[edisnooM]

@Seijin8

Ah, but now we enter the realm of the Twilight Zone.

Had the ending been good we would probably have been happy and content with it, we would not have had the pleasure and solace this thread has given us, but we would not have known anything different, and would probably not have needed the panacea this thread has been to many of us.

Still this thread and it's exceptional contributors do make for one heck of a consolation prize. :-)

[BigglesFlysAgain]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I have two somewhat serious questions for everyone, because I've realized something that may be unique to me...

My intent was always to defeat the Reapers and make sure they could never threaten the galaxy again... but if I reached the point where the Reapers were no longer a threat, I'd be satisfied, even if there were hypothetically a few of them out there somewhere. I mean logically, the Reapers could easily retreat into Dark Space at any time, where we couldn't get them. I never expected to be able to destroy every reaper everywhere in one fell swoop. I expected to maybe be able to destroy a bunch of them in battle before they retreated, or drive them off. Heck, I expected one of the endings to be "Reapers win, but the next cycle will cause even heavier losses, and so forth until organics beat them fair and square." 

Was everyone else just assuming that we were going to get a magical thing to kill all Reapers? 

Also, does nobody else draw a distinction between fighting and killing an enemy and and committing genocide? I always thought genocide implied a systematic killing of people who are under your power, outside the bounds of war. That is to say, if you've got a button you push that kills every citizen in your country who belongs to [SUBGROUP], that's genocide. Whereas if the [JETS] are attacking the [SHARKS], and the [SHARKS] retaliate in a way that happens to kill most of the [JETS], that's not genocide, it's war... it's fighting. It's still horrible, but not the same thing. Do you guys really all think that killing a helpless ally or citizen is the same thing as killing an enemy who is actively trying to kill you, for the purposes of "whether or not something counts as genocide"?

Well the UN definition

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."


I think you could argue that breaking the cycle would constitue these parts,  it may not be Genocide in the sense "oh thats terrible" and somthing civilised people should avoid, but it is in the letter of the definition Genocide.


The "its war" part has been an excuse for a lot of people in the 20th century, so I would be careful with that, that part is the most shakey of the whole thing.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 02:04 .

[delta_vee]

@Seijin8

You know... if the endings had been great, I wouldn't have read anything in this thread... and I am starting to think that I prefer all of *this* over solid endings to a video game.

I'm coming around to this as well. Mostly after estimating the time spent here versus playing games I have waiting for me...and not minding one bit.

@CulturalGeekGirl

I never expected to be able to destroy every reaper everywhere in one fell swoop.

I did, the instant the Crucible was introduced. I thought it was rather lazy, but once it was established...yeah.

That is to say, if you've got a button you push that kills every citizen in your country who belongs to [SUBGROUP], that's genocide. Whereas if the [JETS] are attacking the [SHARKS], and the [SHARKS] retaliate in a way that happens to kill most of the [JETS], that's not genocide, it's war... it's fighting. It's still horrible, but not the same thing.

There are two factors at work, here, I think.

The first is whether the button is yours, or someone else's. In the case of the Catalyst and the Crucible, that's up for debate.

The second is trickier. If the button is designed by you to kill [SUBGROUP], then that's genocide, easy. But if the [JETS] are attacking the [SHARKS], the [RANGERS] and the [KINGS], and the [KINGS] press a button which kills the [JETS], saving the [KINGS] and the [RANGERS] both, but also kills the [SHARKS], then it gets murky, and there are consistent, non-malicious perspectives either way.

Edit: to clarify, it also depends if the button was widened in its target selection to include the [SHARKS], because the makers of the button wanted rid of them too, or the button wasn't able to be narrowed enough to exclude the [SHARKS] and still kill enough of the [JETS] to stop them. The first I'd say is genocidal; the second belongs to that grey land of civilian casulaties we've been dealing with in warfare since, well, forever, without easy answers.

Modifié par delta_vee, 16 juin 2012 - 02:19 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@CGG

My assumption was that it was going to be a long war, and that taking back Earth was just the beginning. I figured that after Earth, we'd liberate each and every system in a long, bloody, horrible campaign, using the Crucible as some kind of godmode super laser. In short, I expected we'd have to do things the old-fashioned way: Mission by mission.

As for war vs. genocide, whenever I've mentioned it in relation to the Destroy ending, I've been referencing the Geth, in a playthrough where peace is brokered between them and the Quarians. I have no problem wiping out all the Reapers I can, particularly because it's their goal to basically do that to us.

The Catalyst isn't even right on his assertion that races are preserved in Reaper form, as far as I'm concerned. No living thing would want to be made into something so frightful, right? And would anyone consider themselves preserved if they could no longer recognized their own remains?

[Jorji Costava]

@BigglesFlysAgain:

Not annoying at all; that's a perfectly legitimate question. I was trying to use the leaked script to second-guess the intentions of the authors. I take this to be a trustworthy way of guessing the intentions of the Catalyst, because my assumption is that the Catalyst is basically a big infodump where the writers are giving you all the information they want to to know. But this could easily be a wrong-headed enterprise; I'm not really sure.

As far as showing us how bad all the endings are, you've succeeded, but you may be preaching to the choir.

@edisnooM:

The best possible scenario would have been if the ending were so mind-blowing and thought provoking that it would stimulate these sorts of discussions without, you know, being bad. But perhaps it's precisely because they were going for this that we got what we got.

@CulturalGeekGirl:

I'm not quite sure what your first question actually is. If the question is, what was I expecting the story to do as far as resolving the Reaper threat, then yes, I was pretty much expecting (not hoping for) a Reaper-off-switch that would magically kill them all, since in most stories of good guys vs. bad guys, the bad guys die. It's more rare for them to run away or find redemption or whatever.

If you're asking whether we should be satisfied with anything less than the total destruction of the Reapers, then I say yes. Here's a plausible principle of self-defense: One may only use the minimum means necessary to end a threat to one's life. If someone's trying to kill you, and you have the opportunity to easily end the threat by knocking him out, it seems wrong for you to go overboard and kill him. Maybe the same is true with the Reapers; if you have a method to end the threat without killing them all, you should prefer that method to the one that kills them all, other things being equal.

I'll probably have some thoughts on the genocide vs. war issue later (sounds like one of those double effect cases to me), but my brain is pretty fried right now. I probably won't respond to anything for the rest of the night, as I won't have access to a computer. So even though it's relatively early, for all intents and purposes, 'night everyone.

[Sable Phoenix]

To me, it's as simple as the Destroy ending being the only ending that gives any certainty in the outcome.

With Control, we don't know what the result will be. Does Shepard fly the Reapers into the sun? Does the Reaper fleet remain in the galaxy and help rebuild, or do they simply fly off into dark space again? Does the collective Reaper consciousness eventually overcome Shepard's reprogramming and allow them to restart their campaign of genocide? We have no way of knowing any of these ahead of time, and the cutscenes we're shown don't answer any of the inherent questions, so we can't even assess it metatextually.

With Synthesis, we also don't know what the result will be. Does this "new DNA" leave individuality and personality intact? Does it create extensive modifications like immortality, quantum-entanglement emotion exchange, and eye-mounted laser beams, or is it something more subtle like turning on your iPod by thinking about it? Does the Reaper fleet continue to play a role somehow, and if so what kind? Once again, we can't even extrapolate the results of this choice, and the resulting cutscenes give us no ability to re-assess our choice after the fact.

But with Destroy, the Crucible finally gives us Kaidan's "bigger boot", and the Reapers are crushed flat. Yes, you lose the geth (if you believe Starkid), but once the Crucible fires the red beam, everything else in the universe remains largely the same as before you fired it (minus the mass relays of course, but that's a universal loss for all the endings). Granted the cutscenes don't make much sense for this ending either, but there's one crucial difference that sets it apart from the other two... the Reapers collapse into inert hunks of bio-metal. It's the only option for which we can not only extrapolate results, but for which the following cutscene actually demonstrates those results, at least in part.

I don't believe that makes it any less repugnant than the other two, but I believe that's why it is the most popular. People as a whole prefer to bet on a sure thing.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

The "its war" part has been an excuse for a lot of people in the 20th century, so I would be careful with that, that part is the most shakey of the whole thing.

I keep trying to keep things short, and then my point gets missed.

I'm not talking about a generic "it's war" excuse. I'm saying that if someone has said "hey, I'm going to murder you" and then is actively trying to murder you right that second, it is a different thing to kill that person than it is to kill someone who is an ally, or peaceful, or surrendered, or who poses no threat? I believe that killing someone who has declared they are going to murder you and who is actively trying to carry out that threat is in a different category than killing someone who is not currently trying to kill you.

Does that make sense?

It's the difference between being in a war and killing an enemy soldier who is wearing a uniform and is actively firing at you vs. killing a citizen just because he is a citizen of an enemy country.

If you can find me an example in history where something has been labeled a "genocide" that did not include killing civilians, prisoners, or the wounded and only included killing soldiers engaged in active combat, then I'll admit that I'm wrong. But if you classify "trying to kill the enemy military who is actively trying to kill you" as genocide, then all wars are genocide.

To clarify a third time, to try to ensure that my meaning is not missed at all: Imagine that there was a group of 1000 highly trained mercenaries who all were the only surviving members of a religion... let's call them the Hypotheticals. Now, the Hypotheticals represent a unique culture, an ethnic group. If the Hypotheticals then descended on Grand Fenwick in an attempt to murder every single Fenwickian , and, during the resulting war, every single Hypothetical mercenary died while actively fighting the Fenwickian military (none surrendered, all fought to the death), would you consider the Fenwickians to have committed genocide? 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 02:27 .

[edisnooM]

@CulturalGeekGirl

To the first question, I assumed we would have to destroy the Reapers simply because that seemed to be how it had been presented from the beginning. They were attacking and we would have to defend, and Sovereign made it pretty clear that there would be no quarter given. But had the Reapers backed down, I don't think I would have gone all Captain Ahab on them.

To the second question, I don't think I would have classified destroying the Reapers as genocide because we really didn't have a choice. They wouldn't stop, and we never had an option for peace or diplomacy. If you are forced to wipe out an attacking group in self-defence I'm not sure it can be classified as genocide.

[delta_vee]

@CGG

Your Fenwickians/Hyptotheticals example is too narrow, though. "...[T]he difference between being in a war and killing an enemy soldier who is wearing a uniform and is actively firing at you vs. killing a citizen just because he is a citizen of an enemy country" is the question of Dresden and Hiroshima and "males of military age in a combat zone", and highly dependent on the nuance of circumstance and reliance on maybes and what ifs.

Metatextually, though, we weren't given an option which resulted in the Reapers withdrawal. We were given a relentless, immediate existential threat - which inherently pushes the utilitarian perspective to the fore.

Modifié par delta_vee, 16 juin 2012 - 02:39 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

The "its war" part has been an excuse for a lot of people in the 20th century, so I would be careful with that, that part is the most shakey of the whole thing.

I keep trying to keep things short, and then my point gets missed.

I'm not talking about a generic "it's war" excuse. I'm saying that if someone has said "hey, I'm going to murder you" and then is actively trying to murder you right that second, it is a different thing to kill that person than it is to kill someone who is an ally, or peaceful, or surrendered, or who poses no threat? I believe that killing someone who has declared they are going to murder you and who is actively trying to carry out that threat is in a different category than killing someone who is not currently trying to kill you.

Does that make sense?

It's the difference between being in a war and killing an enemy soldier who is wearing a uniform and is actively firing at you vs. killing a citizen just because he is a citizen of an enemy country.

If you can find me an example in history where something has been labeled a "genocide" that did not include killing civilians, prisoners, or the wounded and only included killing soldiers engaged in active combat, then I'll admit that I'm wrong. But if you classify "trying to kill the enemy military who is actively trying to kill you" as genocide, then all wars are genocide.

To clarify a third time, to try to ensure that my meaning is not missed at all: Imagine that there was a group of 1000 highly trained mercenaries who all were the only surviving members of a religion... let's call them the Hypotheticals. Now, the Hypotheticals represent a unique culture, an ethnic group. If the Hypotheticals then descended on Grand Fenwick in an attempt to murder every single Fenwickian , and, during the resulting war, every single Hypothetical mercenary died while actively fighting the Fenwickian military (none surrendered, all fought to the death), would you consider the Fenwickians to have committed genocide? 

Ooops, I did not mean to emphasise the careful part so much, I did not seriously think you were condoning genocide so don't worry.


I just thought the "Jets" and the "sharks" example might include family members of the said gangs through their association.

There are rarely such black and white situations but if there was one there still might be problems with the treatment of wounded Hypotheticals, (monty pythons black night comes to mind!), but if they all were an armed group and had no offspring or non combatents at all then it probably would not be, but its unlikely to happen, non combatents would have to be killed or absorbed into the Fenwickians which would be part of the UN's definition of genocide.


The reaper situation is fairly straightfoward in the fact they all seem to be combatants, but since the definition of genocide as we know it is shaped by the UN's definition of it, which is based only on human conflict, where there are nearly no combatant only situations, then you can't really say what destroying the reapers would be defined as.

[Sable Phoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Also, does nobody else draw a distinction between fighting and killing an enemy and and committing genocide? I always thought genocide implied a systematic killing of people who are under your power, outside the bounds of war. That is to say, if you've got a button you push that kills every citizen in your country who belongs to [SUBGROUP], that's genocide. Whereas if the [JETS] are attacking the [SHARKS], and the [SHARKS] retaliate in a way that happens to kill most of the [JETS], that's not genocide, it's war... it's fighting. It's still horrible, but not the same thing. Do you guys really all think that killing a helpless ally or citizen is the same thing as killing an enemy who is actively trying to kill you, for the purposes of "whether or not something counts as genocide"?

No.  I don't.

Self defense, or defense of others who are incapable of their own defense, is a perfectly legitimate reason to destroy the aggressing force, by any means necessary, and to any extent necessary to end the aggression.  From the moment Sovereign started talking on Virmire it's been very clear that it's an us-vs.-them proposition with the Reapers.  War is not genocide, although genocide may sometimes result from war.

A simplistic answer: aggression is wrong, responding to aggression is justified.

Destroying the Reapers isn't genocide, it's justice.  Not to mention survival.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 16 juin 2012 - 02:46 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

I think we should just use the "popular" definition of a genocide, which is wiping out a race or culture of people rather than the legal definition, which is contentious, because I doubt any of us would argue that destroying the reapers would be a crime, yet you probably should call it genocide, even though its not popular to think of it that way, its technically correct. Nobody's shep is going to end up in the dock over this.

[Sable Phoenix]

That's the problem though. The U.N. definition of genocide (even ignoring the laughable status of the U.N. for actually defining, well, anything) is far too broad. By their definition, torturing members of a certain group of people, any group, no matter how few of them you tortured or how lightly, could be defined as genocide. As usual, the U.N. goes overboard to such an extent that their input is meaningless.

The Merriam-Webster definition is much more concise and useful: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 16 juin 2012 - 02:54 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

I think we should just use the "popular" definition of a genocide, which is wiping out a race or culture of people rather than the legal definition, which is contentious, because I doubt any of us would argue that destroying the reapers would be a crime, yet you probably should call it genocide, even though its not popular to think of it that way, its technically correct. Nobody's shep is going to end up in the dock over this.

Regardless, it's hard to feel guilty for "technically" committing genocide when the opposition refuses to stop attacking you, are the aggressors in the conflict, and are attempting to commit genocides of multiple species.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 juin 2012 - 02:55 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...



Regardless, it's hard to feel guilty for "technically" committing genocide when the opposition refuses to stop attacking you, are the aggressors in the conflict, and are attempting to commit genocides of multiple species.

I know, thats why I said we should not, but care or not destroying the reapers will destroy the reapers, there will be no more reapers. They probably feel that they are totaly justified in doing whatever it takes to continue the cycle in the same way we are totaly opposed to that.

The reapers and their "uncomprehenable" ness probably had a unique existance with their culture of assimilated speices and all that will be gone, their own beliefs "each one a nation" ect ect, and that will all be destroyed...


I don't care about any of what I just said, I want to set phasers to kill, you should just always bear in mind what you are doing, even if you don't care at all.

[Hawk227]

osbornep wrote...


Again, very good points. There's a possible loophole around the first one: Perhaps the person who chooses synthesis doesn't have to believe that the problem really is synthetic/organic conflict. She need only assume that the Reapers sincerely believe this. So long as the Reapers themselves believe that synthetic/organic conflict is the root problem, and insofar as the Reapers believe synthesis solves this problem, then perhaps synthesis can be counted on to end the Reaper threat. Full disclosure: I chose control when I played through the ending, because I took it to have the least connection with the singularity theme. I'm not 100% sure that's actually the case, but as I indicated, I have little interest in answering this question.

I agree with delta_vee that Control is the more easily justifiable choice than synthesis (or Destroy, depending on what assumptions you're making). The thing about control and synthesis is that choosing them is predicated on a certain level of trust in the catalyst that they will do what they're supposed to. The biggest problem with Control is not that it is morally reprehensible so much*, but that it feels so much like a trap. We spent all game making the point that it was impossible, that it was hubristic, and at the end it feels wrong rather than necessarily being wrong.

I argued a long ways upthread that (for me) Synthesis is the worst choice. Or perhaps more accurately, the only one I can never rationalize. The major reason for my (emphasis: hypothetical and relative) leaning towards destroy is because I do not trust the Catalyst. I find every line he utters suspicious, and I suspect he is trying to steer me to an outcome he deems favorable. Destroy eliminates (completely) the Reapers, and the Catalyst is very much against it. If I knew I could trust the Catalyst, I would gladly choose control, for reasons essentially stated by delta_vee.

*It has some very negative implications, but not to the extent of Eugenics and Genocide.

PS: For emphasis. I hate all the choices (though I guess I hate synthesis most) and if the EC does not eliminate the entire scene with the Catalyst (or delegitimize it with IT or something similar) it will be a failure in my eyes.

It does seem to me that the goal of destroy, from the point of view of the catalyst at least, is to reduce diversity. This is why it affects specifically the Geth and EDI; Destroy is intended to at least postpone the singularity by wiping out all synthetic life, preventing them from wiping out organics. In the leaked script, the text is "All synthetic life will succumb." They aren't collateral damage; their death is how the singularity is supposed to get solved. The Catalyst's worries about destroy have nothing to do with guilting you about killing off one of your allies, and everything to do with the perceived impermanence of the solution to the singularity. At any rate, the idea that the best method of proving that synthetics and organics can coexist is to wipe out synthetics seems highly counterintuitive.

I never interpretted it as being designed to reduce diversity. I saw it as a way of temporarily wiping out a threat (as the Catalyst sees it) or as an inability of the Crucible to sufficiently target only Reapers (Collateral Damage). The reason I didn't see it as a solution to the singularity is because the Catalyst so forcefully emphasizes that eventually our children will make synthetics blah blah. I think part of the problem is that it's unclear where these options come from. Is the Catalyst providing them, or is he just a roadsign telling us the outcome of our work? I don't know.

I also think he's trying to guilt you a little. He's saying "this choice is bad. Real bad. It'll kill the Geth. And EDI and you're part synthetic so take that as you will. But if you'll follow me to door number 2...."

You're absolutely right that in making any choice, you are taking on substantive moral commitments about the acceptability of certain outcomes versus others. My only point is that these commitments need not coincide with the moral judgments the catalyst makes about those choices. You don't need to think that the singularity is real to choose
destroy or synthesis; you need only think that the outcomes associated with them are the least bad. You don't need to be hubristic to choose control; perhaps instead you need to think that the other outcomes are so horrific that you're willing to risk the uncertainty of control.
[...]
I think that the "What choice is best" question is like chmess; there is probably a correct answer to the question, "Which choice is least bad?", but the question is not worth answering. Either we're dignifying a work, by our extended discussion and analysis of it, that doesn't deserve to be dignified in this way, or we're abstracting the choices away from the thematic content of the ending and trying to construct a thought experiment out of them. But the choices are so vaguely defined, so without content, that the thought experiment is a poorly constructed one. In neither case are we doing something really interesting.

The only solution I have to this problem is to not play the game again, or at least, not play through this sequence. I don't have a headcanon or anything. The ending was bad and there's not much I can do about it. But I still enjoy talking about the game here, because it gives me the opportunity to have intelligent conversations with lots of people I otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity to do so with. Thanks everybody!

I used the word tacit rather intently earlier. For me, making whichever choice (rather than abstaining) is a tacit agreement with the moral implications of that choice. You may be trying to rationalize it, but by participating you are still saying "sometimes genocide is okay/diversity is bad, we need more eugenics/I'm awesome enough to pull this off". But that's just me, maybe I'm the crazy one.

I do think there is a little bit of dignifying an undeserving work, but this thread has been more intellectually stimulating than anything I've participated in for awhile. The ending is terrible, but it brought us here and inspired us to converse in ways many of us may not have otherwise been able to. So it's worth it.

PS: Busted, I didn't read it. Thanks for the TL:DR.

@seijin8, CGG

I do not consider obliterating the Reapers as genocide. They are enemy combatants, and more importantly, the aggressors in this conflict. I'm inclined to consider the "sacrifice" of the Geth as genocide, but the issue is a little gray for me. Delta_vee's breakdown with [Rangers] and [Kings] articulates this better than I could.

Also, when the Crucible was presented... yes I expected there would be a Reaper off-switch/bomb at the end.

Modifié par Hawk227, 16 juin 2012 - 03:47 .

[Fapmaster5000]

Hey guys, been away for a while. CGG, I really appreciate the internal perspectives on these things.

Everyone... I don't think this thread is the best place for discussing which ending sucks the least. (If I must throw in my two cents, I'd go with Destroy.)

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Hawk227 wrote...

I used the word tacit rather intently earlier. For me, making whichever choice (rather than abstaining) is a tacit agreement with the moral implications of that choice. You may be trying to rationalize it, but by participating you are still saying "sometimes genocide is okay/diversity is bad, we need more eugenics/I'm awesome enough to pull this off". But that's just me, maybe I'm the crazy one.

I avoided making a ridiculous example before, because I was trying to keep things more grounded. I'm making one now, because I want to focus on a specific point. Bear with me.

Let's say you were given a box with three buttons, and told the following: 

Button A will kill all left-handed humans.
Button B will make everyone's TV commercial free for a month
Button C will set 40% of humans on fire

Now, with absolutely no additional knowledge, you'd pick B, right?

OK. Now, imagine you are handed the exact same box that does the exact same thing, only it's being handed to you by the robot devil, and he says the following: 

Button A will kill all left handed humans. Don't do that, Left handed people are evil and are servants of the devil!
Button B will make everyone's TV commercial free for a month, because [MINORITY GROUP] controls the media and deserves to be erradicated
Button C will set 40% of humans on fire, but hey... they can all stop drop and roll, they may be OK!

Would that change which button you pick? Would you pick Button A just because it seems like the one the devil agrees with least?

I deliberately created (and then later modified, to make the point clearer) these points to have no relationship to the options given in the ending of Mass Effect, because I wanted to seperate the idea of choices and endorsements from the specific choice at hand.

Now, I am not saying that [WHATEVER] is the "right" answer. I'm saying that the "correctness" of a choice in a given situation is unrelated to any running comentary that may be going on in the background.

Say the Starkid conversation had been different, and he had said "My favorite choice is destroy, because it kills all those pesky synthetics!" and then said "I don't like synthesis, because it's itchy and gross" would you change your mind and pick synthesis over destroy every time?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 04:37 .

[edisnooM]

@Fapmaster5000

Quick, write us a mission idea as a distraction. Something with Monty Python killer rabbits would be good.

[KitaSaturnyne]

The weird thing I find about this conversation is that we're debating the merits and (whatever the word for anti-merits is) of the three choices, when we each seem to find them all equally disgusting.

I also wonder if the Catalyst's final choices can be likened to being made to choose between causing a Holocaust or dropping A-bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[Hawk227]

@CGG

The Catalyst is only one of many reasons why I oppose synthesis, but he's a major issue in why I'm disinclined towards control. Take him out of the equation, and I still pick control every time.

Also, I think you understate Synthesis a lot. I know you imagine it as a slight adjustment (turns everyone's hair purple, a slight homogenization, ipod implant, etc), but there's nothing in the text to support that. It could just as easily be turning everything into Reaper goo or husks. We have zero idea either way. In the absence of data, the reputation of the one providing (or advocating) the choice becomes important.

Choice B, the apparent stand-in for synthesis, contains way more information than what we actually have. If synthesis had been explained as "All organics can now turn on computers telepathically, and AI have empathy" then I would be on board. But its not. It's not explained at all. The only data we have either way comes from someone who thought the Reapers were an appropriate solution, and he thinks this an appropriate solution.

While it may sound like I'm ignoring your point, it's really that I just completely disagree with it. In the absence of information, the running commentary is absolutely important. Also, unlike this analogy (and your Manson one previously) the narrator is inexorably tied to the issue. He isn't just random evil guy. He is the creator of the most evil entities ever, entities designed to solve the same problem that synthesis supposedly solves. He isn't manson saying we should do something about global warming, he's the unabomber telling you that whatever is in that box will stem the tide of evil technology.

EDIT: You seem to have edited choice b after I started responding. Oh well, I think my point still stands.
EDIT2: In the interest of clarity, I'll say that if it had not been the Catalyst but rather Balak presenting the choice, then his input would have been irrelevant, and I would probably choose control (but maybe destroy).

Modifié par Hawk227, 16 juin 2012 - 05:04 .

[edisnooM]

@KitaSaturnyne

I say we call them nega-merits.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

Why does that sound like a villian from a children's Saturday morning cartoon?

Or a rock band. Murray Harbinger and the Nega-Merits!

[memorysquid]

edisnooM wrote...

@CulturalGeekGirl

To the first question, I assumed we would have to destroy the Reapers simply because that seemed to be how it had been presented from the beginning. They were attacking and we would have to defend, and Sovereign made it pretty clear that there would be no quarter given. But had the Reapers backed down, I don't think I would have gone all Captain Ahab on them.

To the second question, I don't think I would have classified destroying the Reapers as genocide because we really didn't have a choice. They wouldn't stop, and we never had an option for peace or diplomacy. If you are forced to wipe out an attacking group in self-defence I'm not sure it can be classified as genocide.

I presume the Reapers get outed as dominated pawns of the Catalyst precisely to make the dilemma more difficult.  From the beginning they were giant galaxy slaughtering bad guys, wiping them out is no big deal.  But hark!  They are arks storing the remnants of trillions of harvested lives and only doing bad things as a kind of triage to prevent the utter annihilation of organics!

My point is, who cares?  How did a big giant twist introduced in the last minutes of a 100+ hour trilogy bring anything of worth to the story?  What the hell was the point?  You'd made plenty of grueling decisions throughout so why throw in one last barely sketched curveball at literally the last minute?