5087 réponses à ce sujet

[delta_vee]

@ismoketoomuch

This is relevant here because people in this thread seem to be cherry-picking the story to suit their arguments re the validity of the ending. Contextually, the Reaper invasion is not just the back-drop to the story behind the game, it is the leit motif, the driving factor behind the main protagonist's actions and decisions, including those involved in the end. A lot of discussion here, in my mind at least, is not informed by that basic recognition. ("Moby Dick" w/o the whale, is just a story about a group of men sailing the world, talking; while Captain Ahab is just a mean guy with a wooden leg).

Few here are actually ignoring the rest of the story. I obviously cannot expect you've read the preceding hundred and forty (!) pages, but the totality of the work has been discussed repeatedly. I, for one, have argued many times that the Reapers must remain both utterly alien and utterly evil, to justify the full breadth of morality permitted to our avatars. And my comments a couple pages back about the Reapers not being the central conflict aren't meant to trivialize them - you're absolutely right that they are the linchpin - but merely to say that the particulars of their defeat are not the primary focus of the series (especially ME2). Much of what we actually do in ME3 is a collection of prerequisites to winning the war, but rarely do we fight the war itself. This isn't a game like Gears of War, where we fight our primary enemy again and again, to the exclusion of everything else. This is a game where the two most memorable and important sequences (outside of the Ten Minutes, of course) have little to do with the larger enemy and much more to do with resolving longstanding conflicts in the setting which predated our enemy's arrival.

Edit: Heh. Okay, now it's time for Pachelbel's Canon!

Modifié par delta_vee, 16 juin 2012 - 07:27 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@CGG

Ok, maybe I am not using the word correctly, perhaps it should only be used in relation to the prosecution of a crime, the details of the definition have always been written by the prosecutors though, Would the reapers consider their destruction a genocide? Because they certainly don't see what they are doing as genocide, they would be hypocritical but nearly everyone is. I am trying to be a party that sees all potential arguments, even if they are rubbish, someone could potentially make them.

It would never be considered genocide from any human perspective, but I still can't see why the reapers point of view would be any less valid, they are diametrically opposed to us, but why are their own motivations less valid than ours?

I don't support killing the geth, but everyone involved has literally placed themselves at Shepard disposal, its probably a renegade view for Shepard to think the geth agreed to die by coming along so he is right to destroy them in destroy, but any Shepard who picks synthesis also feels he has a right to make a decision for everyone else.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 07:36 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

delta_vee wrote...

This choice, these three (revolting) options, and all the resultant hand-wringing and arguments and rationalizations and conspiracy theories they inspire - all of that is thrust upon us by the developers, not the story.

I never asked for this.

The text - the merits (or lack thereof) of the three choices - is almost immaterial. The paratext of an insistent, cancerous final choice, grafted onto the game to make us sweat and agonize and argue afterwards, is what's more important. We were denied the victory we were near-as-dammit promised. The relative popularity of Destroy, I believe, has less to do with tolerance of genocide or collateral damage or anything except that it is the closest thing to what most of us expected, the nearest thing to the resolution we craved. And as much as it goes against my usual objections, in this case the paratext of denying the player a straightforward resolution is more relevant than the semantics of genocide or suspicion of the exposibot or the unknown boundaries of possibility spaces.

I agree with you that stories are powerful things. If they weren't - if this one wasn't - we wouldn't be here bothering to examine the details. But I think you're focusing too much on the text, and not enough on the paratext. I don't think you can view the choice in a vacuum; much as I'd love to excise it entirely and toss it in the biohazard bin, we have to study the parasitic lump while still attached to its host. And it really is a parasite, existing to the detriment of its carrier, and while its removal would make for a healthier host, it cannot be evaluated on its own.

I agree with all of this, and I, as always, feel like every single possible scenario is revolting on pretty much every concievable level.

My problem is that people seem to be using their revulsion towards synthesis as a tool to help themselves become more comfortable with the idea of genocide. The primary coping mechanism for accepting the ending that I've seen employed is "learning to justify genocide."

I have never, in my entire life, seen a community anywhere develop such a persistent consensus about the acceptability of genocide. All of the arguments, no matter how twisty, that eventually lead to even a remote implication that "hey, sometimes genocide is OK!" disgust me so fundamentally, and make me afraid. If humans can literally believe that the crime of genocide is sometimes an acceptable thing... then what hope do we have for the future? I realize that this may sound histrionic, but it is legitimately upsetting to me. I am legitimately upset.

If the primary intellectual impact of your work is "We got millions of people to say that genocide isn't really all that bad, in the long run," there is something so broken, so abhorrent about your work that I can barely comprehend it.

I'm sorry for my constant edits, I'm kind of mentally roiling about all this.

Essentially, I'm fine if people consider Blue and Green more horrifying than Red, but it sickens  me when anyone argues that Red is NOT HORRIBLE. For instance the following sentence is completely acceptable to me:

"The ending of Mass Effect is so bad that the vast majority of players consider the option where you commit genocide on a peacefully allied race the 'least bad' option."

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 07:45 .

[giveamanafish...]

delta_vee wrote...

@ismoketoomuch

This is relevant here because people in this thread seem to be cherry-picking the story to suit their arguments re the validity of the ending. Contextually, the Reaper invasion is not just the back-drop to the story behind the game, it is the leit motif, the driving factor behind the main protagonist's actions and decisions, including those involved in the end. A lot of discussion here, in my mind at least, is not informed by that basic recognition. ("Moby Dick" w/o the whale, is just a story about a group of men sailing the world, talking; while Captain Ahab is just a mean guy with a wooden leg).

Few here are actually ignoring the rest of the story. I obviously cannot expect you've read the preceding hundred and forty (!) pages, but the totality of the work has been discussed repeatedly. I, for one, have argued many times that the Reapers must remain both utterly alien and utterly evil, to justify the full breadth of morality permitted to our avatars. And my comments a couple pages back about the Reapers not being the central conflict aren't meant to trivialize them - you're absolutely right that they are the linchpin - but merely to say that the particulars of their defeat are not the primary focus of the series (especially ME2). Much of what we actually do in ME3 is a collection of prerequisites to winning the war, but rarely do we fight the war itself. This isn't a game like Gears of War, where we fight our primary enemy again and again, to the exclusion of everything else. This is a game where the two most memorable and important sequences (outside of the Ten Minutes, of course) have little to do with the larger enemy and much more to do with resolving longstanding conflicts in the setting which predated our enemy's arrival.

Edit: Heh. Okay, now it's time for Pachelbel's Canon!

common "mean guy with a wooden leg", some of my best stuff. but again  I have to disagree. The need to resolve longstanding conflicts derives from the Reaper invasion or its threat. and I don't understand why you would say investigating and responding to a reaper threat (ME 1 & 2), or preparing to ward off their invasion is not the primary focus of the series. It isn't, maybe. the primary focus of the gameplay, but the entire series is premised on the threat of and response to a reaper invasion. By the way, isn't the IIlusive Man really Ahab?

[Hawk227]

I don't think separating the decision from Mass Effect is useful, because the context of this decision is so unique that the factors at play don't translate to other scenarios. I'm a big believer in context and nuance, and when you insert other factors those factors change the way I approach the issue.

Apologies in advance, cuz this will be long.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This right here is why I was trying to separate the idea from Mass Effect itself, at least for the purpose of some of the questions. We're getting closer, but I'm not 100% sure I understand yet, because your answers rely on some assumptions about both Mass Effect and the starchild that we don't share, so I am still a bit confused.

I've come up with three different and somewhat contradictory modes of thinking that could potentially relate to factors you've brought up during the discussion. I dont' think any of these are a complete picture of your thought process, but I'd be interested in seeing where you agree and disagree on each one: 

1. You feel that it is impossible to make a rational decision in the Starkid chamber. Since there is no way of verifying anything that is said, the best bet is to do the opposite of what the evil guy seems to suggest. You don't even know if the red thing will destroy the Reapers, you're basing everything 100% on the idea that the Starkid doesn't like that one, because there's literally no other fact you can have any reasonable degree of certainty about.

2. The Starkid is giving at least semi-accurate descriptions as to what each station does: Red destroys the Reapers while committing genocide, Blue kills Shepard and controls, Green kills Shepard and creates hybrid creatures. You consider all three options equally bad, so the deciding factor is which one the Starkid likes least.

3.  You consider each option based primarily on how repellant you consider the idea the Catalyst associates with the choice to be. In your mind, synthesis is related explicitly to the idea of eugenics, and it is not in any way related to the idea of building understanding between different groups by breaking down racial barriers. You cannot concieve that Synthesis could mean anything other than eugenics.  Since the Catalyst does not actually seem to care that Destroy is related to genocide, the genocide inherent in destroy is less relevant to your decision-making process than it would be if the Catalyst was advocating genocide.

I also have to ask straight out: do you consider all forms of bio-engineering that seek to improve health a worse crime than genocide? If not, what determines for you whether you consider a particular case of bio-engineering to be worse than genocide? If a government released mandatory gene-therapy that prevented anyone from getting cancer ever again but that made fundamental changes in DNA, would that be as bad as genocide because of the inherent violation of forcibly altering someone's DNA?

Again, I feel the need to clarify that I'm not trying to attack here, or make a specific point. I was just looking up different terms that are applied to different methods of bio-manipulation, and I wanted to see what aspect of altering DNA you most strongly object to.

There's going to be a common theme with these, you start out with similar thought processes, but then propose different conclusions. I'm bolded the spots where you lose me. I am worried I won't be able to properly articulate myself though, so bear (bare? I'm really bad at homophones) with me.

1. I mostly disagree with this one. I get the impression you approach the decision as though you are actually in the chamber, whereas I still treat it somewhat metatextually knowing there are some confines imposed by the fact that it is within a game space. This means that while I can suspect the Catalyst of being dishonest, I can't really assume its all a lie and control is really destroy. It becomes a useless exercise occupying a space somewhere between three card monte and that poison scene in The Princess Bride.

2. This is the closest of the three, but the Catalyst is not a deciding factor, he's really only an important factor in rejecting Control. Although he remains relevant to rejecting synthesis. The problem is that, we don't have any information on the outcome of Control and Synthesis (only Destroy seems relatively well elucidated, as SablePhoenix mentioned a page or so ago). We have vague ideas of the mechanism, but not much on the outcome. Knowing the outcome is an important factor, especially when the ideas are being presented by a madman with a relevant bias (as opposed to Manson and Global Warming).

3. I don't get a whole lot from the Catalyst beyond whether he likes it or not. I don't know that he thinks Synthesis is Eugenics, I just know he likes it. The problem is, no matter where on the scale synthesis falls, it is always some level eugenics. The implication is that the Reapers were right, and organics and synthetics can't coexist unless they are fundamentally changed on a structural or psychological level. I reject the Reaper thesis entirely, and Synthesis (in addition to sounding like eugenics, as opposed to transhumanism) is a solution to their thesis, rather than a solution to them.

My decision making process is a lot more involved than any of these examples really allow for, and they take multiple factors into play. Once the Catalyst starts talking, everything he says contradicts my own knowledge coming in.

"I am the Catalyst" - No, the Citadel is the Catalyst. The Crucible was designed by organics that didn't know you existed (Shep is the 1st organic ever to meet you), why would they make you an integral piece of the puzzle?

"The Created will always rebel against their creators" - He's using the word "always". In very few contexts do I regard absolutes as valid, and this not one of them. Plus the Quarians initiated the Morning, the Geth only ever wanted peace and autonomy. Plus EDI.

Without going into too much more detail, the Catalyst also says he created the Reapers (and talks similarly to Sovereign) and associates himself with all the baggage that goes with them (Indoctrination, Husks, Galactic Genocide). The two options he favors either directly (Control/TIM) or loosely (Synthesis/Saren) resemble the endgame of indoctrinated antagonists. He basically establishes himself as a (likely) unreliable narrator, this plays a factor later. However, since the decision is confined to a certain extent. I approach the three options with a sort of mental pros/cons list.

Destroy
Pros: destroys the Reapers for good (a huge,huge,huge Pro), Well elucidated (huge pro)
Cons: Genocides the Geth/EDI (huge Con). Caveat: I'm suspicious of the Catalyst, the Geth may not be collateral damage, though I assume they will be.

Control
Pros: No collateral damage (huge pro)
Cons: Doesn't destroy the Reapers, might be a trap, No reason to suspect it'll actually work (hubris), Catalyst seems to favor it (adds weight to trap possibility).

Synthesis
Pros: ?
Cons: No data available, Possibility space is infinite (could be worse than genociding the Geth), requires an active violation of all organic and synthetic life on a scale we don't know, The Catalyst seems to favor it (adds weight to worse than genocide possibility)

The role of the Catalyst's reliability comes into play by adding weight to different factors. We don't have Tali and Legion providing input about rewriting the Geth, but we have the creator of the Reapers telling us what to do about the Reapers. It's not a deciding factor, but its not irrelevant.

I have trouble finding a pro to synthesis, perhaps because I reject the validity of the problem that it "solves", and because there is so little data available. I almost included does "not genocide the Geth", but we don't actually know that. It could make everything Reaper goo, in which case we're genociding everything. A choice predicated only on the knowledge that it will somehow change everything (but we don't know how) becomes useless to me. If I'm going to change everything, I need to know how. This becomes doubly true when I can find reasons to rationalize (not necessarily justify) one or my alternatives to that choice. Therefor, the choice is between Control and Destroy. We know what Destroy is, it does what we set out to do, with horrendous collateral damage, but the certainty (and finality of it) make it worth considering. We also know what Control is, we just don't have any real compelling reason to think it'll work. If it does work, it would be better than Destroy, but we don't really know.

For what its worth, my leanings between control and destroy are pretty fluid. If only it didn't feel so much like a trap...

To bioengineering/cancer: I would object to that too (though not as strongly). The mandatory part is my major issue, but the motivations are important too. The problem with synthesis isn't that it's curing cancer, its that it is curing differences. It's not vague bioengineering, its vague eugenics. It's saying, by bioengineering everyone we can make you less different and therefore you will get along with eachother. That morality is as bad as intentional genocide (which I don't necessarily consider destroy to be, see delta_vee's Rangers/Kings breakdown). Interestingly, both synthesis and your example imply a resulting stagnation (Cancer, like evolution, comes from mutations. Final stage of evolution=Synthesis), which bothers me on some level

I realized last night as I was falling asleep how much this relates to my inability to classify pretty much anything as "worse than genocide," which is why, again, I object so strongly when people insist that killing the Reapers is also genocide, especially when they loop that in with the genocide of the geth.[...] Basically, I'm not as afraid of the unknown as I am of genocide, and I don't think that will ever change.

This may be the the big schism between us. I see genocide on a scale. What's worse than genociding [Race A]? Genociding [Race A] and [Race B]. What's worse than genociding [Race A] and [Race B]? Genociding [Race A], [Race B], and [Race C]..... Genociding Everyone.

The problem with the unknown is that it could fall somewhere on the scale that's worse than genociding the Geth.

Though, let me reiterate I agree with you on the Reapers, Genocide, and WWT.

Modifié par Hawk227, 16 juin 2012 - 08:05 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

I don't want any of the options either lol, though I have primarily been defending destroy, mainly because most people seem to debate either one of the other is better.

You seem to have hit on a worrying point though that people might consider committing it in destroy, if the EC does somehow make destroy better than it seems now, but keeps the original advertisement of the choices, people won't be role playing. Shepard won't know destroy potentially turns out alright, he will be thinking he is willing to kill the Geth (if you argue he truly believes the catalyst is not lying)


"causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life"

I don't see how it can't be argued that synthesis does not also equal genocide by that definition, I know you probably don't want to go around spiting in everyone's face who picked destroy saying "your a genocidal monster" but you can't fall back on synthesis to avoid that either.



Edit. Ok I know you probably don't like any of the endings, but our debate gives of the impression that we arguing our point becuase we belive its best, rather than trying to prove none of them is best, I think we should just drop it lol

I don't think many people on this thread seriously like one over the other, after all they were all "Thematically revolting"

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 08:15 .

[Hawk227]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

@CGG

Ok I am sorry if I seem to be misreading you, I just got that from this:

"No, screw that. Calling the destruction of ancient Cthulu machines who are engaged in an active attempt to destroy us "genocide" devalues and minimizes the horror of that concept."

I'm not trying to set out to make people feel like criminals for killing the reapers, we should kill the reapers! crush the reapers! kill reaper babies with sledgehammers ect ect. Maybe I just feel that wiping them out is genocide if not an actual crime.

Given that A.I.s do not exist and may never exist can they be brought into a situation where destroying them would be called genocide?

Maybe using the word genocide in a fictional setting does devalue it compared to all the terrible things that have happened, but its in all kinds of fiction so its hard to avoid using it.

Augh. Ok, let me clarify further, in big letters: "engaged in an active attempt to destroy us" was meant to relate to previous statements that they are actively trying to murder you right this second, I mean look out the bloody window.

My argument isn't that the word genocide shouldn't be used in fiction.

It's that it has no relation to a race composed entirely of superpowered beings who have explicitly stated that they are trying to murder you and who are, at that precise second, trying to murder you.

It could have some application as a concept in almost every other concievable situation related to killing sentients, but not that one.

I know you're not trying to make people feel like criminals for killing the reapers, but if you think that killing the Reapers is genocide, then not only do you think there are some situations where genocide is acceptable, you are also explicitly stating that you believe there are circumstances under which genocide isn't even a crime.

Any rhetorical framework under which there are ever circumstances where genocide isn't even a crime is rhetorically bankrupt. Genocide is a warcrime. To use it to represent something-that-is-not-a-warcrime is nauseatingly repellant to me.

Okay, so I think you two are using two very different definitions of genocide. CGG is using it in the Rwanda, Bosnia, Godwin sense, and BigglesFliesAgain is using it in the very literal sense.

In medicolegal circles, "homicide" means death at the hands of another, but it doesn't carry any judgment. If I'm attacked by someone who is trying to kill me, and I fight back and kill him that is "homicide" in the medicolegal sense, but "justified" in the legal sense. This cause problems when a "justified" officer involved shooting is deemed "homicide" by the Medical Examiner but the Prosecutor doesn't prosecute. People hear homicide and think murder. I think this relates to the argument here. One person is using a definition of Genocide that carries judgement, and one is using the literal definition of "eliminating every individual of a given race". CGG hears "genocide" and thinks holocaust and BFA hears "genocide" and thinks entire species wiped out.

[giveamanafish...]

When it is said that justification or necessity is a complete answer to a criminal charge of murder, it means the act of taking someone else's life is no longer murder in a criminal sense, there is no basis for a charge. Absent a clear exclusion of these defenses under the governing UN (or Interplanetary) law, the same would apply to an act that would be otherwise be understood as genocide. I seriously doubt that either defense has been raised or at least been accepted by a competent court re: genocide. However, in the context of the ME series (reaper invasion, announced and demostrated intent to extinguish all life above a certain level of sentinence), it is something that would have a lot of validity.

I just realized I just using the term "Interplanetary" in a discussion about a serious issue in our world. I'm leaving.

Edit: added two words.

Modifié par ismoketoomuch, 16 juin 2012 - 08:12 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@Hawk227

I think you have hit it on the head there

I think this is an interesting consideration "Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG [the UN definition] was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that for various reasons, none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support."

What we are doing is basically using a real world definition for "research purposes" where it is not suitable, so that's why I want to use Genocide as a specific act rather than a crime because you can't apply any modern law to the situation.

[delta_vee]

ismoketoomuch wrote...

common "mean guy with a wooden leg", some of my best stuff. but again  I have to disagree. The need to resolve longstanding conflicts derives from the Reaper invasion or its threat. and I don't understand why you would say investigating and responding to a reaper threat (ME 1 & 2), or preparing to ward off their invasion is not the primary focus of the series. It isn't, maybe. the primary focus of the gameplay, but the entire series is premised on the threat of and response to a reaper invasion. By the way, isn't the IIlusive Man really Ahab?

"Mean guy with a wooden leg" was indeed great. I'm going to steal that.

I know what you're saying, now. And to an extent I've already agreed with you. The Reapers are the crux, the impetus, the reason we have a game and the baseline for judging our actions. I haven't ever argued that Mass Effect would have been better without the Reapers and their threat. That said, the primary focus of the gameplay should be our primary focus of analysis. I've said before that ME2 in particular resembles a picaresque in form, and others have compared it to that style of episodic television which nurtures an overarching "C" plot, constantly in the background and occasionally surfacing as the main storyline for an episode or two.

Few stories are unrelentingly obsessed with their main plot, and fewer still of the class of length in which Mass Effect resides. Even Moby Dick wasn't "about" Ahab and the White Whale, so much as the whaling industry, life at sea, and other things nearly independent of that obsessive mean man with the wooden leg and the thing he chases. I say "nearly" here, because you're certainly right that the novel would suffer for Ahab's removal, and his quest provides the framework for the rest. That framework is necessary. Odysseus required his journey home. War and Peace required Napoleon's rampage of conquest. And Mass Effect, in turn, requires the Reapers and their cycle. That does not, however, mean that those skeletal elements are the most worthy of discussion.

When it comes to the ending, I agree with you more than you seem to realize. My problem with the very existence of the Ten Minutes comes from its lack of necessity, its lack of cohesion with the precipitating conflict - the game told us to build the Aperture Science We-Don't-Know-What-It-Does so we can defeat the Reapers. We did. And then we had to answer a question rather orthogonal to the rest of the series.

@CGG

If humans can literally believe that the crime of genocide is sometimes an acceptable thing... then what hope do we have for the future? I realize that this may sound histrionic, but it is legitimately upsetting to me. I am legitimately upset.

We are both standing on ground acquired through some degree or another of genocide. Of course humans can literally believe that the crime of genocide is sometimes an acceptable thing.

Hell, we get at least a couple chances in Mass Effect, with the rachni and the continuation of the genophage. I understand you're upset, and I'm not trying to delegitimize that, but this isn't even the first time in the series the idea has surfaced.

Modifié par delta_vee, 16 juin 2012 - 08:19 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@Delta

I thinks she worries that people who are mostly modern educated people can consider it rather than people the past or in general.

I think its also upsetting because its the first time its not 100% avoidable, or clearly a unacceptable option compared to the others. most people here would have resolved the G Q conflict.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 08:25 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I don't want to go around calling everyone who picked Destroy a genocidal monster. What I do want is for Destroy-pickers to acknowledge that this is what the Destroy ending entails:

"In Destroy, Shepard consciously and willingly committed genocide on an entire race of sentient allies when he knew there were other options, because Shepard thought those other options were potentially even worse."

I don't want anyone to ever forget the "consciously and willingly committed genocide" part, and I don't want them to forget that that was awful.

The same thing goes for Synthesis. I don't want anyone who picked Synthesis to minimize the risk they were taking either. I want everyone who picks that to acknowledge what it entails:

"In Synthesis, Shepard consciously decides to risk the continued existence and autonomy of all life as we know it because she thinks the other options available were potentially even worse."

And again, for Control.

"In Control, Shepard decides to risk indoctrination and death because he believes he has the ability to control the reapers and not be corrupted by that control, despite the fact that he argued precisely to the contrary not ten minutes prior."

I don't want anyone to think about Destroy without thinking about the horrors of genocide, just as I don't want anyone to think about Synthesis without considering the utterly insane risk they took, or to think about Control without recognizing the incredible hubris that that choice entailed. I don't want anyone to forget the horrors implicit in the selection process of any of the three endings, ever.

@Hawk227

Thank you for that giant wall of text, it has actually helped me fully understand your thought process, and I think I've uncovered the fundamental disconnect. When presented with the choices, you felt that Synthesis implied more risk of multi-genocide than any of the other options, wheras I did not see any reason to draw that conclusion.

I felt that it was possible that all options were traps, but I felt that that all three options had an equal chance to be a secret "kill everyone or do something else really bad" trap.

It seems that you felt that Synthesis was more likely to be a secret really horrible things happen trap than the other options.

I was going to go on to examine why I thought one way, but then I realized that this is just a testament to how truly muddy, confusing, and indecipherable the ending choices are as presented. I don't think there's any strong evidence in either direction... there's no reason to believe your assessment of the riskiness of any of the three options is more or less accurate than mine because, even within the context of the game, there is absolutely no reason that Shepard should even believe that the Catalyst's general summaries of the kind of thing each selection might do corresponds in any way with their actual function.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 08:26 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@CCG

Ok shake hands now?

We dislike all the endings, we are all trying to move an object, but we ended up pushing in opposite directions.


Ok to try and move on to something slightly different,


If the EC makes the decisions clearer (though obviously not necessarily better) Does acting as an all knowing power (perhaps after looking up the consequences online) to choose an ending which Shepard does not know the results of, but you like mean you can't role play the game properly and get an ending you like at the same time?

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 08:47 .

[delta_vee]

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

I thinks she worries that people who are mostly modern educated people can consider it rather than people the past or in general.

Probably, and apologies to CGG if I assumed too much. I think it's important, though, to remember that our past isn't as far away as we'd sometimes like to think - see the "males of military age in a combat zone" controversy. Or hell, twenty years ago, when "mostly modern educated peole" sold weapons and gave training to genocidal maniacs in Rwanda and Bosnia.

I think its also upsetting because its the first time its not 100% avoidable, or clearly a unacceptable option compared to the others. most people here would have resolved the G Q conflict.

True. And this is another testament to the clusterfrak that is the ending. The G/Q conflict and its potential resolution indicate how unsuitable "organics vs synthetics" is as the theme to hinge the final choice on, and at least the rachni and krogan questions required a certain intentionality to the use of genocide, which the player must admit to when making the choice. Compare to the end, where the murkiness of intent infects the decision-making process.

This, along with this...

If the EC makes the decisions clearer (though obviously not necessarily better) Does acting as an all knowing power (perhaps after looking up the consequences online) to choose an ending which Shepard does not know the results of, but you like mean you can't role play the game properly and get and ending you like at the same time?

...is a problem of the dialogue wheel mechanic, actually. Whatever decision we pick, whatever metagaming principles (if any) we apply, there will always be an opacity to the process which no game can hope to penetrate.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

@delta_vee

1. I don't think there has ever been a historical example we (as a society) have labeled "genocide" that wasn't an avoidable atrocity that involved innocents, so putting something that doesn't have those qualities into the same category is bad.

2. It is bad to do so because it will lead people to no longer draw any distinction between self-defense and genocide. And if disapproving of genocide means disapproving of self-defense, people will decide to simply not care about genocide. This is a literal argument that I have seen dozens of people on these boards make. I'm not speaking hypothetically here.

This kind of bizarre rhetorical creep is something that's kind of endemic to debate nowadays.

The source of my distress is how easily it seems to be for a modern person to say "well, genocide and self-defense can be the same thing, so we can't say that genocide is objectively wrong."

I don't want to reach a point where, as a society, we can hear a report that there's a genocide undereway somewhere and a significant portion of people will think "meh, it might be one of those acceptable genocides."

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 09:08 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

Lol I don't want to continue this but I feel compelled to...

CGG

I think you seem to unwittingly approve of my "the act" rather than the crime of genocide definition, because its true the catalyst says the geth will be destroyed if you choose destroy, so you are in theory killing every single geth, I think the arguable point is the Geth are not a third party, the are not innocent in the reapers eyes they are one of your allies and it could be argued that they consented to any risk being acceptable when joining you, even their destruction. I don't think many people who see it that way (who you think are the people condoning genocide) would see that very strange and unlikely situation on par with contemporary acts of mass murder.

I can see arguments that killing the Geth is not genocide in the traditional sense yet I do not suddenly think that organised mass murder is acceptable.


Edit.


So basicly I am happy to call killing the geth Genocide in the technical sense, but not in the moraly outraged sense.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 09:40 .

[delta_vee]

@CGG

I...don't really know how to continue without getting into a lot of rather contentious historical ground, so I'm going to very respectfully back away from this particular so-hot-it's-plasma potato. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to know my extended answer (which probably isn't what you'd think).

In the meantime, I'll fully agree with this:

"The ending of Mass Effect is so bad that the vast majority of players consider the option where you commit genocide on a peacefully allied race the 'least bad' option."

[CulturalGeekGirl]

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

Lol I don't want to continue this but I feel compelled to...

CGG

I think you seem to unwittingly approve of my "the act" rather than the crime of genocide definition, because its true the catalyst says the geth will be destroyed if you choose destroy, so you are in theory killing every single geth, I think the arguable point is the Geth are not a third party, the are not innocent in the reapers eyes they are one of your allies and it could be argued that they consented to any risk being acceptable when joining you, even their destruction. I don't think many people who see it that way (who you think are the people condoning genocide) would see that very strange and unlikely situation on par with contemporary acts of mass murder.

I can see arguments that killing the Geth is not genocide in the traditional sense yet I do not suddenly think that organised mass murder is acceptable.


Edit.


So basicly I am happy to call killing the geth Genocide in the technical sense, but not in the moraly outraged sense.

The Geth agreed to fight to defeat the reapers. That is all. Your argument is only valid if you are 100% certain that Destroy is the only way to save the galaxy from the reapers, (which is something that, failing IT, the endings show us to be completely untrue).

If your Shepard is genociding the Geth because he believes it is the only way the Reapers will stop reaping,  he is merely an idiot who is wrong. A monster who became a monster due solely to his own idiocy and hubris, but not one who was malicious. A commander who stupidly and needlessly sacrificed his troops.

If your Shepard is genociding the Geth because he believes that killing the Reapers is more satisfying than not killing them, then that doesn't seem to be part of the agreement you had with the Geth.

By arguing that their agreement to fight justifies genociding them in destroy, you must believe that the act of allying yourself with someone to fight an enemy is the same thing as giving up your right to live. Under this line of reasoning, any time anyone allies with you in a war, they are agreeing that you can commit genocide on them any time you want, as long as you have any reason to think that murdering them may end the war in a way you find more satisfying.

We know for a fact that the Reapers stop attacking in all three endings. We end the war in all three endings. The Geth agreed to fight with us to end the war, we aren't committing genocide in order to end the war: we're committing genocide to get a result in the war that we prefer. I don't think that was part of the deal.

Again, I apologize for my irritation. This discussion is... challenging.

I do believe that most people who picked Destroy did legitimately believe it was the only way to stop the reapers from killing everyone... but I also feel it's important from an ideological perspective that they admit they were almost definitely incorrect in that assessment, and that they didn't commit genocide in order to stop a worse thing, they committed it because they incorrectly thought it was the only thing that would work.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 10:12 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@CCG

Its an extreme extension of the idea that a commander might bombard the positions close to his soldiers to hit a target of opportunity, people have been doing that since arrows and slings have been about, sending entire groups of soldiers to die because you think it serves a purpose. The bottom line is you will probably get sh*t on by the people in charge of you, but you have to trust its for the right reason (though its mostly not). Of course the catalyst suggests every geth in range of a relay explosion will die, so that will include the ones still rebuilding on Rannoch ect so it won't just be "combatants". its unlikely in the real world that a distinct group of people could be wiped out in a single military attack, though the "PAL's" battalions of WW1 sure got about half way to that idea.

I imagine most of us aspire to make our Shepard a better person than the typical cold general though, and would want to avoid this, though again with the "we know" bit "WE" know the reapers seem to be defeated whatever we choose, but Shepard does not.

Lol I am not a last word kind of guy so feel happy to continue just try not to make your next post too enticing for me to respond to lol

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 10:20 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

In my mind, the level of scorched earth is more akin to this hypothetical.

Say we were fighting a war on a planet with two continents. We live on the Eastern continent, but there are two countries on the Western continent. We are allied with the southern of the two countries, and they agree to help us fight our mutual enemies in the Northwest. The Northwesterners are currently trying to destroy everyone, so we all agree we must fight ferociously and sacrifice heavily to defeat them.

The war goes on for a long time. At one point one of our scientists creates a bomb so immense it will destroy all life on a single continent. At the same time, the Northwesterners contact the East with an offer of peace. They will end their atrocities and surrender. Some of our diplomats want to try this, others think it is a trap. No one is sure.

So instead, we use our superbomb. This will win the war easily, so we use it on the Western continent so that no Northwesterner could possibly survive. We do this without informing our Southwestern allies of our plans: their agreement can be assumed, after all. Our allies in the Southwest agreed to help us fight the Northwesterns, and thus inherently agreed thart we could nuke them at any time if we thought that was the best way to win. Now we in the East can live our lives in peace and security.

That's what we do to the Geth in Destroy. We take their agreement to fight to the best of their ability as an agreement to let us nuke them at any time if nuking them will destroy our enemies.

We're not simply talking about heavy strategic losses, or the strategic sacrifice of a number of soldiers in order to gain a tactical advantage, and I find it incredibly frustrating when people make that kind of analogy.

The only thing it can be treated as equivalent to is the destruction of an entire race or nation, or the nuking of an entire continent.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 10:41 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

CCG

Sure I was waiting for the next analogy (!), but you are right there is no difference unfortunately, on a similar level the SW people could be biologically similar to the enemy, you make a poison that kills the enemy but also kills them, though that situation might allow more time than than Shepard has to decide the right course of action, though it would depend on the urgency of the scenario. A nation of biologicals would be less likely to agree to just die like that, while I assume the interconnected geth could reach a decision much quicker.


If shepard saw the alliance with the geth as a mutual benefit  but not really care about them he would probably do it, while most people see the geth as more than usefull allies

Please can we stop now though? We agree we hate all the endings equally, we just stuck on this tail end of the discussion...

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 16 juin 2012 - 10:43 .

[delta_vee]

We have that. That's basically the entirety of (some varieties of) Cold War-era MAD, especially the scenarios of war in Western Europe which escalate to nuclear exchange. "Modern, educated people" have already designed that exact scenario, and the scary thing is that it only works if someone is willing to equate genocide with self-defense.

I'm plenty ambivalent about it, but really, the principle can be seen as the bedrock of our survival of the Cold War, from a certain point of view.

Modifié par delta_vee, 16 juin 2012 - 10:41 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

delta_vee wrote...

We have that. That's basically the entirety of (some varieties of) Cold War-era MAD, especially the scenarios of war in Western Europe which escalate to nuclear exchange. "Modern, educated people" have already designed that exact scenario, and the scary thing is that it only works if someone is willing to equate genocide with self-defense.

I'm plenty ambivalent about it, but really, the principle can be seen as the bedrock of our survival of the Cold War, from a certain point of view.

I'd disagree with that point of view. I think that discomfort about genocide as collatoral damage is the bedrock of our survival from the cold war. If a single powerful leader in the cold war had thought the way the Easterners in the above scenario thought, the entire planet would be a smoking crater right now, because that person would have actually started a global thermonuclear war.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 10:51 .

[JadedLibertine]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

We have that. That's basically the entirety of (some varieties of) Cold War-era MAD, especially the scenarios of war in Western Europe which escalate to nuclear exchange. "Modern, educated people" have already designed that exact scenario, and the scary thing is that it only works if someone is willing to equate genocide with self-defense.

I'm plenty ambivalent about it, but really, the principle can be seen as the bedrock of our survival of the Cold War, from a certain point of view.

I'd disagree with that point of view. I think that discomfort about genocide as collatoral damage is the bedrock of our survival from the cold war. If a single powerful leader in the cold war had thought the way the Easterners in the above scenario thought, the entire planet would be a smoking crater right now, because that person would have actually started a global thermonuclear war.

Like Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone.  

I've heard arguments that the Soviet Union had got everything it wanted at Yalta and had reached the very limit of it's expansion so the intensity of the Cold War was  unnecessy and dangerous.  This may have been the primary cause of why Stalin and Tito fell out.  Tito wanted to heavily back the Communist insurgency in Greece and Stalin preferred to avoid a confrontation with the Western powers at that stage.  Of course my knowledge of post war European geopolitics consists entirely of random factoids, so I will happily concede I may be mistaken in this.

[delta_vee]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'd disagree with that point of view. I think that discomfort about genocide as collatoral damage is the bedrock of our survival from the cold war. If a single powerful leader in the cold war had thought the way the Easterners in the above scenario thought, the entire planet would be a smoking crater right now, because that person would have actually started a global thermonuclear war.

We may have to agree to disagree, then. While I have my...quibbles...with the narrative of the Cold War (see below), I doubt it was the absence of genocidal bloodlust as the uncertainty of it - how far it would go, how much would remain, whether the ashes left over could be counted as "victory". This is why relations normalized once ICBM ranges expanded and warhead numbers increased. This is also why McNamara's graduated response scheme was so controversial - when retribution was swift and total and most importantly unavoidable, the calculus of nuclear war was simpler, but when it became more complex, the possibility of some single leader miscalculating became worringly high.

JadedLibertine wrote...

Like Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone.

I've heard arguments that the Soviet Union had got everything it wanted at Yalta and had reached the very limit of it's expansion so the intensity of the Cold War was unnecessy and dangerous. This may have been the primary cause of why Stalin and Tito fell out. Tito wanted to heavily back the Communist insurgency in Greece and Stalin preferred to avoid a confrontation with the Western powers at that stage. Of course my knowledge of post war European geopolitics consists entirely of random factoids, so I will happily concede I may be mistaken in this.

From what I know (and I am no historian), the intensity of the rhetoric of the Cold War, on both sides, was far less than the intensity of its practice. Neither side was truly convinced of the immediacy of the existential threat, and thus detente and proxy wars could be deemed sufficient.