5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Hawk227]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'd phrase it this way: no morally objectionable act exists for which it isn't possible for a context that justifies it to exist. It's always a matter of balancing results against methods, and survival of a galaxy full of people is a good with a very high value. Presented with a goal, you are obliged to find the least objectionable method to achieve it. You either find the goal isn't worth it or you find that it is. And if it is, then you must use that least objectionable method regardless of how repugnant it is in a more absolute sense. A simple moral calculus. It's of no use to complain that no better method exists if no better method exists.

This is where I disagree. ME isn't real life, it's a story told by an author. Film Crit Hulk likes to say that in their story, the author is God. The author defines the world as they see fit. When we complain that there's not another option, that complaint isn't directed necessarily at the Catalyst, but at the authors. You're simple moral calculus can be valid in the right situation (Warhammer is a good example, I've been told), but I think a lot of people felt that it was tonally and thematically inappropriate for the ME universe. We always had a chance to do what we thought was right, now we're forced into a situation to do what we think is the least bad.

As for endorsing the Catalyst's worldview: not so. If an action gives you an acceptable result, then the worldview of the one who presents it to you as a solution to some problem is completely irrelevant. You can make a decision and completely ignore the Catalyst's premise, just make it based on benefits versus drawbacks, both immediate and projected. Which kind of future do you think is best, and will you pay the price for it? Again, the future course of galactic civilization is a very high good.

The thing about the ending is that it changes the nature of the conflict at the last minute, and this change is what drives people's opposition. For 2.99 games the central conflict was Reapers (imposed order) vs. Everyone (chaos), but the Catalyst (read: The authors) change that conflict into Organics vs Synthetics. Through the lens of Order vs. Chaos, we are told that Chaos (Us) is wrong. The three choices are presented through, and thus validate, the Catalyst's worldview. We are told implicitly that we must abandon Chaos and impose Order to achieve victory.

Destroy may be a refutation of the Catalyst's politics, but not his methods. We are rejecting the Why (Diversity/Synthetics are bad) through the use of the How (It's okay to murder the few for the sake of the many).

Control is... I haven't quite decided yet. I think it is an acknowledgment that the Why might be legitimate and the How might be legitimate. We are saying "You might be right, but let's let it play out". I think.

Synthesis is embracing the Why but finding a different How.

Of course, only one of these solves our problem (The Reapers and their Cycle) directly. The other two solve it indirectly either through imposition (Control) or by rendering their protocol obsolete (synthesis). 

All of this leads to the realization that with our final dying act we are being forced to solve the Catalyst's imagined* problem, rather than our own very real one. If we refuse then we lose. Again, despite everything telling us that this was our story and we could shape it as we see fit, the ending tells us that we were wrong. The way we (many of us, anyway) saw fit... was wrong. The more "Paragon" you were, the more you stood by your principles and said the Ends don't justify the means, the harder this message hits home. We weren't virtuous. We were naive, and we were wrong.

You can argue that there is an upside to embracing the Catalyst's worldview, and I suppose in practical terms you'd be right, but that is only because the God's of the ME universe (Bioware) ordained it to be so.

*I say imagined not because the Tech Singularity isn't an idea, but because within this text there is no supportive evidence.

EDIT: Not only did I get stuck at the top of the page, but the point I was trying to make was more elegantly made by others in the time it took me write it.

Modifié par Hawk227, 28 juin 2012 - 10:35 .

[AloraKast]

drayfish wrote...
-snip-

And it's true: you can't grieve for something if you didn't love it first.
 
Goodbye Mass Effect.
 
Tess Shepard
 
N7 officer and first human spectre.
 
Born on Mindoir on April 11, 2154.
 
She lived through the Mindoir slaver raid and proved her valour in the Skylian Blitz.
 
She saved the Citadel and Galactic Council against Reaper attack, and survived a journey through the Omega 4 Relay to stop the Collector incursions.
 
She helped cure the Gennophage, honouring the wishes of one of its creators, and was a pivotal figure in negotiating the burgeoning peace between the Geth and the Quarians.
 
She amassed the largest unified defence force in the history of the universe.
 
Killed in action.
 
Bled to death on the bridge of the failed Crucible project.
 
She fought, but all hope was lost.
 

Dray... *tears* I honestly don't know what to say. That was simply... beautiful *choke*

What you've presented brings about a lot of pain... but rings true with a defening sound which reverbrates in my very bones.

*sigh* I guess that Mass Effect 3 was our Kobayashi Maru... but as much as we'd like to, it is clear we are no James T. Kirk.

I will leave my rambling musingson the EC here, perhaps I could get some of your thoughts on it (in "your" I am referring to anyone and everyone having any thoughts they'd like to share), for whatever they are worth:

http://social.biowar...781/80#12837722

But I also take some comfort, for your words reminded me of other possibilities that exist out there, and they are much more satisfing and can offer a balm for our wounded hearts and souls:

It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.

Modifié par AloraKast, 28 juin 2012 - 10:06 .

[helloween7]

 So.

 
I played the new endings today, on a Shepard I no longer consider my main, canon one, to remain emotionally distant and somewhat objective, and I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised.


Don't get me wrong, the endings are still bad, but at least now they're well delivered bad endings. They no longer feel like a half-cooked pastiche of "recycled" ideas (to use a kinder adjective than the one I'm actually thinking of), but I think they remain fundamentally disconnected from the rest of the trilogy and the player's expectations of its outcome.
 

It's a bit jarring that, after the trilogy went out of its way to show me, the player, that yes, this unit did indeed have a soul, the endings answer that question with a categorical "no" (unless we slap some organic DNA on them and call it Synthesis, that is, and only after that. Ugh.)

 
Well, maybe it's because I've watched too much Star Trek TNG (and the Short Circuit movies, and several Frankenstein and Pinocchio retellings), but "no" has never been even the possibility of an answer for me. I might have had doubts about curing the genophage, and I certainly would have welcomed a chance to slap the Salarians on the hand (forget the Rachni, the Yagh and the Krogan, these guys are the real galactic threat after the Reapers are dealt with),  but the Geth and EDI have ALWAYS been "real" life forms in my eyes. Even before the Reaper tech enhancements.



Anyway. Control is still a joke, Synthesis is still an abomination and Destroy still amounts to genocide, no matter how BW tries to whitewash it. But then there's Reject, which the devs clearly intended as a "you suck" scenario... and turns out to be the best ending of them all, IMHO.

 
I no longer follow the BioWare and Mass Effect Twitter feeds (their PR nonsense constantly got on my nerves), so I haven't seen the now infamous "the next cycle did use the Crucible" tweet. And, since this little bit of information wasn't referenced in game in any way, shape or form, it didn't happen. The Reject ending remains blissfully ambiguous, and my headcanon is gone into overdrive. For example, I choose to believe that the next cycle didn't have to fight the Reapers because none survived the war with The Shepard. And yes, she got out of the Crucible, because Joker  and Garrus (seriously, Garrus, of all people!) didn't bail on her. And then she destroyed the wretched thing so no one could get ideas (or better still, she repurposed it to fuel the new stasis project to preserve the several galactic species until the next cycle, in case things went sideways). My Shepard went on fighting the good fight, until many, many years later, because the Lazarus Project implants had slowed her aging process to a crawl as an unintended side effect of bringing her back to life (much like her resistance to drugs and poisons), when she and her crew rammed the Normandy SR7 straight into Harby's glowing eye and blew the hell out of that... that thing.


 
So yeah, this is me waving my middle finger back at BioWare. Your trolling attempt failed miserably, and Reject is the only ending any of my Shepards will ever choose. Not that there will be many Shepards to come, mind you. I'm playing my final personal canon run throughout the entire trilogy (I'm 3/4 through ME2), and then I think I'm done. 


EDIT: Whoah, the format really got screwed here.

Modifié par helloween7, 28 juin 2012 - 10:13 .

[jason32choy]

Hawk227 wrote...

The thing about the ending is that it changes the nature of the conflict at the last minute, and this change is what drives people's opposition. For 2.99 games the central conflict was Reapers (imposed order) vs. Everyone (chaos), but the Catalyst (read: The authors) change that conflict into Organics vs Synthetics. Through the lens of Order vs. Chaos, we are told that Chaos (Us) is wrong. The three choices are presented through, and thus validate, the Catalyst's worldview. We are told implicitly that we must abandon Chaos and impose Order to achieve victory.

I disagree that the ending suddenly changes the nature of the conflict, instead it reveals the true purpose of Reapers / Catalyst. And as found on my post earlier, throughout the story, you are experiencing the Quarian-Geth and Genophage conflicts. And I don't find organics being chaos, nor the races survived / changed after the control and synthesis choice respectively = eradication of future conflicts (chaos in your words).

[Hawk227]

jason32choy wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

The thing about the ending is that it changes the nature of the conflict at the last minute, and this change is what drives people's opposition. For 2.99 games the central conflict was Reapers (imposed order) vs. Everyone (chaos), but the Catalyst (read: The authors) change that conflict into Organics vs Synthetics. Through the lens of Order vs. Chaos, we are told that Chaos (Us) is wrong. The three choices are presented through, and thus validate, the Catalyst's worldview. We are told implicitly that we must abandon Chaos and impose Order to achieve victory.

I disagree that the ending suddenly changes the nature of the conflict, instead it reveals the true purpose of Reapers / Catalyst. And as found on my post earlier, throughout the story, you are experiencing the Quarian-Geth and Genophage conflicts. And I don't find organics being chaos, nor the races survived / changed after the control and synthesis choice respectively = eradication of future conflicts (chaos in your words).

I don't mean in the strictly literal sense. jbauck explained this better than I can in his blogpost, but all the literal conflicts (fighting, arguments) can be loosely defined thematically as Chaos/Free Will vs. Order/Control. In the Quarian-Geth conflict, those leading the call to war (Xen, Gerrell) wanted to impose control on the Geth, who wanted to maintain their free will. In the Genophage act, the Krogan represent Chaos (they want to be free to self-determinate) while the Genophage itself (through the actions of the Salarians) is an effort to control the Krogans. To impose order on them.

Chaos as I'm using it isn't fighting, anarchy, and lawlessness. It is free will and self determination. Live and let live, for better or worse. Order is authoritarianism. It is imposing your will on others. No characters imbodied Order more strongly than the Reapers, and it was them we fought against. We fought for the freedom of all life, to simply live. But the way the end is structured, it is telling us we must jump sides. We must impose order if we want to win. Free-will and self-determination are luxuries that are no longer afforded to us. Switch sides or lose.

Modifié par Hawk227, 28 juin 2012 - 10:27 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
This is why all three endings are terrible: all of them endorse at least one part of the Catalyst's worldview. I happen to find Destroy's especially repugnant, since you are agreeing with the philosophy of the cycle itself. You're basically making the same decision the Catalyst made when he decided to reaperize his creators: any atrocity, no matter how horrific, can be justified as long as you think it's the "only logical answer."

I'd phrase it this way: no morally objectionable act exists for which it isn't possible for a context that justifies it to exist. It's always a matter of balancing results against methods, and survival of a galaxy full of people is a good with a very high priority. Presented with a goal, you are obliged to find the least objectionable method to achieve it. You either find the goal isn't worth it or you find that it is. And if it is, then you must use that least objectionable method regardless of how repugnant it is in a more absolute sense. A simple moral calculus. It's of no use to complain that no better method exists if no better method exists. 

As for endorsing the Catalyst's worldview: not so. If an action gives you an acceptable result, then the worldview of the one who presents it to you as a solution to some problem is completely irrelevant. You can make a decision and completely ignore the Catalyst's premise, just make it based on benefits versus drawbacks, both immediate and projected. Which kind of future do you think is best, and will you pay the price for it? Again, the future course of galactic civilization is a very high good.

I have made this argument before, in my past Synthesis defenses. I sort-of-agree, but there's a difference: in my stupid opinion, all of the endings leave the Galaxy worse off than it would have been if the Reapers had just left. It's a lose-lose-lose situation. 

I like a lot of things about synthesis, but I just can't get past its involuntary and universal nature. For me, trading the ability to choose our own path for peace is... still a trade down.

Control is also not promising, since I worry that the Citadel is sort of like GlaDOS's core: whatever personality sphere gets connected to it will eventually go insane. There's no guarantee of this, but as much as I normally do like phenomenal godlike power, this particular manifestation of it seems dumb. Either the Reapers are creatures with a sense of self, and shouldn't be controlled (as Synthesis kind of implies), or they're monsters who need to be destroyed. Either way, control has a lot of problems.

Destroy, well, you know my problems with Destroy. I've made them abundantly clear.

Ok, so we're left with a lot of choices, all of which leave the universe much worse than it was before Mass Effect 3. (This is very different from Dragon Age, where all the decisions were potentially bad, but none of them made the entire universe a worse place to live.) We're left with a final decision that is, in essence, what flavor of "worse" we want the universe to be.

The problem is that there are a wealth of much, much better solutions easily visible on the horizon. A voluntary synthesis program, where the reapers get the gift of synthesis, and EDI and whoever else wants to can enjoy it too. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers, and within a few centuries, the majority of people would have made the choice.  A destroy option that kills only the Reapers - I'm still a little unclear on how a beam targets "all synthetic life" but doesn't actually disable things that are simply advanced computer systems. A control system where it's clarified whether the Reapers are free-will-posessing members of dead races who are helping us, or if they're mindless, or if they're murderers on a leash.

So... why aren't any of these options available? Because of plot fiat. None of the "solutions" we're given emerge logically from circumstance, or relate in any way to anything we know about the Mass Effect universe. They're being handed down by an idiot who is, frankly, really bad at concocting intelligent solutions. They're terrible ideas that have downsides not because that's how the universe works, but because they were designed that way on purpose. That's where my problem comes from.

[KitaSaturnyne]

drayfish wrote...

Thank you all for the very kind words, and for raising a toast. That truly meant a great deal. I'm not ashamed to say I was a little emotionally raw after that ending, and being able to talk it through with you all, and to see similar experiences being expressed has helped a great deal. There are simply too many posts that I want to call out that it will swiftly become infuriating, but do believe that everyone's critique (on all sides of the debate) has blown me away in these past several pages. The level of insight is to be celebrated – and certainly has been more helpful than my woeful little outburst.
 
 
@ Ieldra2: Hi again. I'm truly glad that the endings worked for you. Indeed, I am particularly glad in your case that Synthesis got clarified some. I've not seen that ending yet, but from what I hear it turns out to be quite an appealing glimpse of the future. Of course, I still personally reject it wholly, but I am glad that for those alert to its poetry it is a satisfying and elegant end.
 
To answer your implied question, I guess what I am lamenting is my own misreading of the entirety of the text. 
 
Until the last couple of days I could, on some level, put it down to a miscommunication – the creators had rushed out their conclusion and as a consequence had butchered its meaning. But knowing that this was their definitive statement – that this was the message they developed this spectacular universe in order to send – has led me to see that this beautiful universe is not one in which I want to live in anymore. It certainly appears it's not one in which I my avatar is welcome.
 
If Star Trek is about hope, and Firefly about defiance, and Star Wars is about the balance of good and evil (and infuriatingly stilted dialogue), and Battlestar Galactica is about cycles of self-destruction and our capacity to alter that inevitability, then Mass Effect reveals itself to be wholly about compromise. What are you willing to sacrifice in order to succeed? For some that's everything.
 
(And if that sounds like a criticism, it's not meant to be. Clearly that was the premise the creators were attempting to play out: how far will you compromise those 'ideals' that pushed you along the whole time? Or do you even need to sacrifice your beliefs at all? Because if you never saw Synthetics as people, then gravy. Not only does the game force this compromise upon you for victory, but it rewards you for making any choice that gives you over to your enemy's point of view. You create universal peace by meeting your enemy in the middle – I would argue stepping further than the middle, but still.) 
 
But what I don't understand, what even now fills me with bewilderment and genuine shock, is why, if the whole theme was compromise, did they kept insisting that the central thrust of the game was 'hope'? Liara even throws the term out to future generations in the opening of her holo-log in the 'Refuse' ending. We offer you hope... 
 
...No we don't. We hoped and failed, remember? We didn't do what apparently needed to be done. 
 
And the word hope is not just a trump card that you can slap own amidst a cavalcade of despair to pretty up the carnage. As silver linings go it's pretty flimsy. Just four little letters, more a puff of air than a declaration. It has to be attached to something. There has to be something to hope for. 
 
So why on the whole way to those final choices was everyone blathering about hope? I mean, all the 'I'll-see-you-after-this-is-all-overs' were heartbreaking enough, knowing what was to come, but to then have everyone praising Shepard for sticking to her beliefs, a litany of platitudes about how magnificent it was that she never sacrificed what defined her, how that fortitude was a beacon for the peoples of the galaxy. And what for? To be called an abject failure for continuing to stick to those beliefs when it counted most?
 
In his farewell Javik told me I was the 'avatar' of all life. That everyone and everything in the universe was looking to me and at me at that very moment. That Shepard was a symbol of all that existence could and will become, from the metaphorical blood of whom a new generation will emerge. Even the Illusive Man, while cursing my name in a video feed said that he respected that Shepard's beliefs never wavered. She would do what she believed in, no matter the cost, no matter what the circumstance.
 
And then the game places before her three atrocities cooked up by the guy who has been strangling the life out of the universe and demands that she go along with one. Her legacy is to be a sycophant to the sociopath who eons ago lost himself down a perverted path of malformed altruism. Not to shut him down. Not to expose the horror of his actions to him, nor argue him back to sense. To agree that his ways (destruction or control) or his wildest fantasies (* sparkles just-makes-everyones-the-sames rainbows *) are the only way forward for life. We've spent hundreds of hours fighting against such twisted ideals, and now we must not only suffer one of them, but wholly embrace it. Make it our own choice.
 
The Reapers get to stand over us – even metaphorically in their deaths – shouting 'Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! What? Gonna cry?'
 
Hope it aint. 

Indeed. There was never any hope. It was all an illusion. We were lead on a very compelling path of lies and deception, and we didn't even realize how our souls were being misled until the very last reveal. In that way, they've been very successful. So at least there's that.

[jason32choy]

Do any of the Refuse advocates think they are committing Genocide on all lives, synthetics and organics by refusing to choose? It's a seemingly moral high ground that ignores your own responsibility to save all advanced lives, thus committing genocide on all. But your hands are free of blood, right? That's hyprocricy in my eyes. The best possible way out of the four, IMHO, is Destroy, giving the remaining lives a chance to create their own future.

And I agree that there is not a "win" solution out of the four. And that's what many people state as THE problem. But why are people so obsessed with one is beyond me. Can anyone explain why they feel that need? Because we shall always defeat the bad guys in a video game? Because we worked so hard for the EMS or beat the game on INSANITY so I shall get the ending and the average gamers should not???

[M0keys]

jason32choy wrote...

Do any of the Refuse advocates think they are committing Genocide on all lives, synthetics and organics by refusing to choose? It's a seemingly moral high ground that ignores your own responsibility to save all advanced lives, thus committing genocide on all. But your hands are free of blood, right? That's hyprocricy in my eyes. The best possible way out of the four, IMHO, is Destroy, giving the remaining lives a chance to create their own future.

the people of the galaxy can not create their own future, as it has already been decided by their corrupted new-genesis. the reapers are now the gods of the galaxy, dead or alive, and the progeny of their twisted existences live on in everyone who will ever be.

two classic examples: jesus and buddha, in their stories, brought enlightenment to the world and saved it from the greatest evils that threatened to subsume What Was Good. eyes were opened, minds and souls were saved, and goodness spread over all. in buddha's story, even the plants, the trees, and the souls in hell got in on the action, and  rejoiced in the wave of light that spread from his enlightenment under the bodhi tree.

Shepard, on the other hand, is the Anti-Savior, bringing disenlightenment to all, embracing illusions, obliterating free will, and damning the innocent. his is not a wave of pure light, but a tide of darkness; murdering, enslaving, and molesting as it expanded.

that might seem too harsh a judgment, but I can think of no other way to say it. he reached the very highest heights, embracing a power that could only be described as divine, and then proceeded to fall further than lucifer from the seat of heaven. and the funny part is that very few people understand that this has happened.

someone once said that kirk could logic bomb the starchild into oblivion, but what seems to have happened is that bioware has logic bombed us.

Modifié par M0keys, 28 juin 2012 - 11:05 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

jason32choy wrote...

Do any of the Refuse advocates think they are committing Genocide on all lives, synthetics and organics by refusing to choose? It's a seemingly moral high ground that ignores your own responsibility to save all advanced lives, thus committing genocide on all. But your hands are free of blood, right? That's hyprocricy in my eyes. The best possible way out of the four, IMHO, is Destroy, giving the remaining lives a chance to create their own future.

And I agree that there is not a "win" solution out of the four. And that's what many people state as THE problem. But why are people so obsessed with one is beyond me. Can anyone explain why they feel that need? Because we shall always defeat the bad guys in a video game? Because we worked so hard for the EMS or beat the game on INSANITY so I shall get the ending and the average gamers should not???

Firstly, committing genocide requires awareness of what you're doing. If Shepard picks refuse, he could still believe that he could win the war. Destroy Shepard is fully aware that he is going to destroy all synthetic life whe he hits the button - and takes deliberate action to do so. Reject Shepard genuinely believes that it's possible to win against the war criminal in front of him without surrendering, appeasing, or becoming a collaborator.

This is my problem: you shouldn't be forced to endorse the views of a war criminal. All three "main" options are appeasing and collaborating with a monster. And that's fine in a game where you play as a horrible amoral creature of hate. My sociopathic renegade shepard has no problem with any of the endings. They validate her worldview: She believes that anyone who isn't willing to lie, cheat, and murder to get what they want is unworthy of life. Only those with no compassion are worthy of survival. The endings make her feel like a hero who was right all along. There's something... wrong with an ending that proves a sociopath right.

If you pick destroy, you're doing exactly what the Catalyst thought he was doing: committing genocide for the greater good. That's his origin story: "This war is unwinnable, unless I commit this atrocity. Oh well, it's THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE ORGANIC LIFE. So I'll commit this genocide for the greater good, and the next time there's a need to commit genocide for the greater good, I'll do it again. And again."

I don't want a special "win." I want a solution that isn't arbitrarily created for me with bizarre, nonsensical parameters that requires me to directly and with intent collaborate with a war criminal instead of opposing him. All three main endings convey the moral that, when faced with ultimate evil, the best thing to do is compromise your own morals and appease them.

Endorsing collaboration and appeasement does not fit with the rest of the trilogy, in my opinion.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 28 juin 2012 - 11:18 .

[Spartas Husky]

Let me ask... so in synthesis, I get to know why some criminal in jail raped and killed many and i'm ok with that. I understand it. Or that a serial killer is now understood. He is just sick I understand him now. Or that batarian slavers were just doing it for misguided views, we all hug and sign kumbaya as all is forgiven. As all the pain and loss is suddenly gone ... just because?

If that aint brainwashing I dont know what is. We might as wlel be machines ...no? programed to feel a certain way.

[FirstBlood XL]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Chrislo1990 wrote...

Guys just imagine if we hadn't complained about the broken endings to the degree that we did? What kind of message would it have conveyed to Bioware? That they can rush out games and not beat themselves over quality storylines because in the end their artistic integrity would be there to protect them from our complaints? Just think about that for a while. What do you guys think?

The extended cut dlc was developed out of the intense pressure we placed on Bioware to live up to the promises they had made.  And even in the face of all this negative attentiont, they refused to change the broken ending and rereleased it, only this time it's slightly less broken. Does it change the fact that it's still broken? Nope. What I find funny is that upon closer inspection they actually HAD to change a couple of the cinematic sequences because they just couldn't convey their intended story with the original scenes. What does that tell you?   

You raise some really good points here, and I wish I could address them more fully, but unforunately, I'm currently cooking an amazingly healthy dinner metwursts.  

I think they had a game, whose core I fundamentally opposed, poorly delivered.  I thought they had simply misdelivered a game I would like, and so raised my voice with many others.  Now, they've delivered a sold game that I fundamentally oppose.  Yay?

Well, I can respect Mass Effect for what it was, now, and feel no urge to ever play it.  I think Bioware learned a lesson, but whether that lesson was "take no risks, and end with sunshine" or "deliver on your promises", only time will tell.  Given that we live in a perverse universe, they probably learned the former lesson, but I'm still an optimist.

And, hey, I learned something, as well.  I loved a series that didn't love me back, and now I'm free.

Agreed... we have similar feelings.  It's a shame really..  they came so close, only to throw it all away in the last damn mission of the trilogy.

[jason32choy]

My view is that Shepard is no saint. He has to deal with the choices and impossible situations as presented to him. So given the four choices, Destroy would be the best cause at least it would give freedom to the remaining organics. And to M0Keys and CulturalGeekGirl, wouldnt Refuse be the worst ending of all? In your opinion, isn't that genocide on all lives? Shepard knew very well that the Reapers cant be defeated in conventionall means. For any players or Shepard who choose to ignore this fact is self-comforting themselves. Again, this is pure hyprocricy.

At least killing one race, the Geth, would be more acceptable. Then people will say u succumb to the Catalyst' belief that atrocity is ok for greater good. But can you answer this, if a new deadly virus with no cure is infecting a city of people, the logical choice would be to qurantee it, right? Same wit my earlier example of cutting off a limb to save one's life argument.

This is a tough decision yet sane and rational and needs to be made. And the Destroy choice is a one time scarifice, though lamentable and atrocious, should never be compared to the absurd conclusion that the Catalyst believes and enacts REPEATEDLY!

[CulturalGeekGirl]

jason32choy wrote...
My view is that Shepard is no saint. He has to deal with the choices and impossible situations as presented to him. So given the four choices, Destroy would be the best cause at least it would give freedom to the remaining organics. And to M0Keys and CulturalGeekGirl, wouldnt Refuse be the worst ending of all? In your opinion, isn't that genocide on all lives? Shepard knew very well that the Reapers cant be defeated in conventionall means. For any players or Shepard who choose to ignore this fact is self-comforting themselves. Again, this is pure hyprocricy.

At least killing one race, the Geth, would be more acceptable. Then people will say u succumb to the Catalyst' belief that atrocity is ok for greater good. But can you answer this, if a new deadly virus with no cure is infecting a city of people, the logical choice would be to qurantee it, right? Same wit my earlier example of cutting off a limb to save one's life argument.

This is a tough decision yet sane and rational and needs to be made. And the Destroy choice is a one time scarifice, though lamentable and atrocious, should never be compared to the absurd conclusion that the Catalyst believes and enacts REPEATEDLY!

The result of refuse is the worst, yes, but Shepard has no way of knowing that. We don't have conclusive proof that conventional victory is impossible. Our own progress bar says it's a fifty fifty shot.

Is it genocide? Not by any stretch of the definition. When someone is committing genocide, they must be taking an action that actively kills and entire race with awareness that this is what that action will accomplish. Otherwise, every living human would be guilty of genocide for failing to stop genocides happening in other countries. Inaction while another race (the Reapers, in this case) commits genocide does not make one guilty. Fighting againt a race that is committing genocide and losing is not the same as committing genocide... I should think that is obvious. Otherwise you'd be able to say that any nation that was defeated by a country that committed genocide was guilty of genocide, and that's utterly ridiculous.

I'd argue that if you are consciously aware that what you are doing will result in the destruction of an entire race, and then you do that thing, you're guilty of genocide. If not genocide, a war crime so similar that it really does not make significant difference. Collateral genocide?

Shepard isn't committing genocide to save the galaxy from extermination, though. He is well aware that there are two other choices. He's committing genocide because he doesn't like the alternatives. That's fine, the alternatives suck, but you shouldn't phrase it in such a way as to suggest that other options did not even exist.

Finally, it is directly comparable to what the catalyst does. There's no escaping that comparison. If you make a choice that genocide is acceptable to save all life in the galaxy once, wouldn't you make it again? Are you saying that if new synthetics were created and new Reapers appeared, you wouldn't pick destroy the second time, because obviously you only get one free genocide in your life.  If committing genocide is OK when the galaxy is at  risk once, wouldn't it be acceptable if it seems like the safest choice and the galaxy was at risk again? That's the entire point. If one genocide is acceptable in very dire circumstances, then two genocides are acceptable in very dire circumstances. It never ends. And downward and downward and downward.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 29 juin 2012 - 12:11 .

[CuseGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I've been skimming the last few pages of this thread and it is as if I've entered a parallel universe, an incomprehensible one at that. Are you seriously telling me that "doing the right thing" is in any way independent from the results you get? That it isn't as if you do X and get the worst possible result, then you most definitely did *not* do the right thing?

Sorry if I'm getting somewhat into rant mode, but I can't stand this fallacy of "follow your heart and everything will be OK" most people appear to expect from their stories. Human morality is not the measure of the universe, and I think *that* message desperately needs to be sent.

I've also read several claims that - and here's where the parallel universe comes in - the new endings are nihilistic. Eh....what? That's....an....alien thought. The original endings, they were nihilistic. You destroyed the universe whatever you did. The new ones just force you to compromise but you do save the galaxy and you get to see it. I can't see anything fundamentally wrong with that.

The only criticism I agree with is the fundamentally flawed premise of the ending, Flawed not because it's unrealistic, but because the rest of the trilogy sent a different message. I think the ending concept was poorly planned, but I can live with it since I still get a satisfying story out of it with a little mental tweaking. That's why I like the new endings. 

Edit:
Well, perhaps I'm that parallel universe because I tend not to think in terms of good and evil, but of motivations, goals and methods and their justification within a larger context. For me, no one ever *is* good or evil. Actions are justifiable by the circumstances or not, the people who act should not be so attributed. The Catalyst is an "entity X", and because I really think *and* feel that human morality only applies to humans or human-analogues like most characters in the stories I don't judge its actions the same as if they were done by a human. I view them with  emotional detachment.

Human morality isn't the measure of the universe but the problem is, there are no non-humans playing this game. What other morality is neccessary to consider during the ending?

I don't think the EC is anywhere near as nihilistic as the original ending. But the ending is still fundamentally flawed because it's really not the ending to Mass Effect. The conversation with the Starchild was even worse because the more you try to explain his actions, the more ridiculous his existence is. I still cannot fathom how the Starchild was written on a piece of paper and fleshed out into the script without SOMEONE standing up and saying "this is not the end of Mass Effect"

[CuseGirl]

jason32choy wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...
The thing about the ending is that it changes the nature of the conflict at the last minute, and this change is what drives people's opposition. For 2.99 games the central conflict was Reapers (imposed order) vs. Everyone (chaos), but the Catalyst (read: The authors) change that conflict into Organics vs Synthetics. Through the lens of Order vs. Chaos, we are told that Chaos (Us) is wrong. The three choices are presented through, and thus validate, the Catalyst's worldview. We are told implicitly that we must abandon Chaos and impose Order to achieve victory.

I disagree that the ending suddenly changes the nature of the conflict, instead it reveals the true purpose of Reapers / Catalyst. And as found on my post earlier, throughout the story, you are experiencing the Quarian-Geth and Genophage conflicts. And I don't find organics being chaos, nor the races survived / changed after the control and synthesis choice respectively = eradication of future conflicts (chaos in your words).

No, it's not a matter of opinion. The central conflict of the game was changed and the characterization of the original antagonist was changed all within 10 minutes (or now 20 minutes with the EC). The original story was "stop the Reapers from killing us" and in video gaming, "stop" usually means "KILL". Suddenly, a god-like figure (something that is simply NOT a part of the ME universe) shows up from a device that was built by scientists who have no knowledge of the the god-like figure. The figure then tells Shepard that EVERYTHING he's worked for is toward ending the war between synthetics and organics.

That's CLEAR. That's not to be interpreted. That's what he said. And that's bad writing. That's not what Shepard was working toward. He wanted to kill the Reapers. Not make them fly away. Not control them. And the control option is particular grating because time WAS spent telling the audience that control is not a worthy goal.

[flemm]

Hawk227 wrote...
 You're simple moral calculus can be valid in the right situation (Warhammer is a good example, I've been told), but I think a lot of people felt that it was tonally and thematically inappropriate for the ME universe. We always had a chance to do what we thought was right, now we're forced into a situation to do what we think is the least bad.

They decided not to provide a choice that just gives you what you want and allows you to win. There's no reason for you to like that or think it's good. But... it is a legitimate choice.

Previously, the endings were so poorly differentiated from one another and so poorly fleshed out overall that one could reasonably complain that they were completely unworthy of the series as a whole and really insulting to fans who had invested a lot of time and some money into the experience.

But I think now it's more simply a matter of not liking the direction they chose. Which is a different type of complaint.

Modifié par flemm, 29 juin 2012 - 12:52 .

[delta_vee]

@flemm

But I think now it's more simply a matter of not liking the direction they chose. Which is a different type of complaint.

You're right in that it's a different type of complaint - but it's exactly the complaint elucidated repeatedly on this thread. My objections, for example, were never rooted in the brevity or the ambiguity, but in the very nature of the Ten Minutes and the Starbrat. The choice is legitimate inasmuch as it remains Bioware's perogative to do so, but I don't think its legitimacy in a narrative, thematic, or mechanical sense is particularly great.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

@drayfish -- I mourn for your loss.

Oh how I wanted to do that at one point, but I'd seen Sophie's Choice and knew what I was looking at straight away: "Play it my way or you will lose everything." The catalyst literally was the N@zi Death Camp Commandant. His arguments this time were much more ruthless sounding than they were the first time. They made the Catalyst much much better this time. His explanations made my skin crawl. He was telling you that you must choose in so many words. All were vile. You must choose. Not making a choice is still making a choice. This was our one chance. We would not get another. "Take EDI." Irina said, and she shot the red tube.

Macchiavelli wrote that the end justifies the means. Trotsky wrote the sometimes the end can justify the means, but only if there is something to justify the end. We had three other choices: Absolute power, and I don't even trust myself with that -- it would not end well; rewriting everything in the galaxy, and even EDI had told me earlier she would rather be non-functional than be rewritten, and still our little "Fuehrer" would be in charge of things; or complete annihilation.

The something is that although we come out of this scarred we did not sacrifice our souls to gain a better future, we did succeed. It was not without cost. Too many lives were lost. So many people scarred for the rest of their lives, and we will move on. We will rebuild. The main connections between home worlds will be first for commerce and trade, then the connections with our colonies. Hopefully people won't forget this war and repeat the same mistakes in the future. A better future awaits us all.

{* note that due to some special circumstances accidentally discovered via some minor screw ups during missions certain options were not available.}

Irina Shepard - Born April 11 2154 on Mindoir. Was an over zealous young officer on Torfan taking out revenge on the surrendering Batarians slavers for Mindoir. Became the first human Spectre. Specialty: Infiltration. Bondmate: Dr. Liara T'Soni; Daughter: Selena

* Spared the Rachni Queen
* Field executed Urdnot Wrex on Virmire; Rescued Lt. Alenko and Cpt Kirrahe
* Saved the Citadel Council during the Attack
* Destroyed the Geth base
* Survived the mission through the Omega 4 relay and saved the Collector Base but lost two squadmates (Legion and Thane Krios)
* Faked the cure to the genophage
* Delivered the Quarian Fleet to Admiral Hackett
* Fired crucible destroying the reapers and Catalyst at great cost.
* Somehow managed to survive the final mission, was found and underwent several years of medical rehab.
* Given disability retirement from Alliance Military and Council Spectres.
* Reunited with Dr. T'Soni and her daughter and relocated to Thessia in 2195
* Wrote "Don't Be A Dumb Ass: Politicians During Wartime" in 2204 -- #2 Bestseller (#1 Bestseller was "The Used To Eat Flies" by Javik)
* Taught "Commando Tactics and Large Explosions" part time at the miitary academy.
* Spent every spare moment she could with her daughter and Liara.
* Retired from teaching in 2230
* Spent retirement fly fishing, painting, and woodworking and remained clean and sober.
* Died November 25 2270
* P.S. Selena won Interstellar Olympic Gold Medals in all classes age of 20.

[edisnooM]

@drayfish

To Tess Shepard.


Edit: @alleyd

Sheer utter brilliance. :-)


@jason32choy

And I agree that there is not a "win" solution out of the four. And that's what many people state as THE problem. But why are people so obsessed with one is beyond me. Can anyone explain why they feel that need? Because we shall always defeat the bad guys in a video game? Because we worked so hard for the EMS or beat the game on INSANITY so I shall get the ending and the average gamers should not???

I would ask why it wasn't possible to achieve a win solution. Throughout ME1 and ME2 we could play our Shepard as we saw fit. We could choose hope and idealism if we so desired, and you know what it payed off. We could pilot our course and in the end achieve a "win", a cliched happy ending that evidently enough of us liked for there to have been an ME2 and 3.

But then we get to ME3 and everything is tinged with grim, cure the genophage Mordin dies, save the council Thane dies, peace on Rannoch Legion dies, save Samara and her daughter she still loses one. We can't get a break anywhere. But still I continued to think it would have a payoff. I've read Dickens, I know the concept of dragging down to the depths to be brought back up triumphantly, and there was enough hope to sustain me. But it didn't happen. I played three games, got two cliche happy endings, but I got to the end and found out that the Mass Effect universe I fell in love with was gone.

And for the record I've expected since ME1 that Shepard would die at the end of the story. Before ME3 came out I pictured Shepard standing at whatever plot device they gave us to beat the Reapers, looking Harbinger in the eye (all four of em) and with a half smile of grim determination flipping the switch. Saving the universe one last time. I even have a rewriting the Phantom Menace ending rattiling around in my brain I might force on you all at some point.

But I really I don't get the obsession with making games and stories true to life. Stories allow us to transcend the normal, to reach the extraordinary. I can cruise the milky way with a blue skinned mono-gendered alien on one side, and a dextro-amino acid one on the other.

And Mass Effect has always been about the impossible being over come. Can't get to Ilos? Did it. Come back from the grave? No sweat. Omega 4 Relay and the Collector Base? Been there done that, even got the t-shirt (didn't fit though, they never do). Doing the impossible is as much a part of the Mass Effect universe as the Relays and the Reapers. So why couldn't we do it one last time?

Modifié par edisnooM, 29 juin 2012 - 01:27 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

flemm wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...
 You're simple moral calculus can be valid in the right situation (Warhammer is a good example, I've been told), but I think a lot of people felt that it was tonally and thematically inappropriate for the ME universe. We always had a chance to do what we thought was right, now we're forced into a situation to do what we think is the least bad.

They decided not to provide a choice that just gives you what you want and allows you to win. There's no reason for you to like that or think it's good. But... it is a legitimate choice.

Previously, the endings were so poorly differentiated from one another and so poorly fleshed out overall that one could reasonably complain that they were completely unworthy of the series as a whole and really insulting to fans who had invested a lot of time and some money into the experience.

But I think now it's more simply a matter of not liking the direction they chose. Which is a different type of complaint.

You're right. It's the difference between a complaint about an unfinished product and a poorly constructed one. If someone sells you a table and delivers a bunch of unfinished wooden boards, you can tell that something's wrong... but only a carpenter can tell that [i]those aren't even the right boards[/].

So we've been saying the entire time "don't you see, the wood is poor quality and full of worms! and the boards aren't the same length!" while everyone else has just been focusing on the fact that the table wasn't built. Now it's built and they're happy, but we're not. We could have built the table ourselves, we just wanted quality raw materials, which were not provided.

The ending is centered on a character and philosophy introduced in the last ten minutes. If you know even a little bit about story structure, you know that is terrible. It might have a place in post-ironic parody fiction, but Mass Effect has always been pretty sincere. So we could just use that as evidence that this is badly constructed, and leave it at that.

Secondly, the choices that are available are determined by authorial fiat, rather than emerging naturally through the fundamental nature of the story. Why does a beam target sentient synthetics but not normal computer programs and VIs? Because they say so. Why do you have to die to control the Reapers, while a living Shepard was able to join the Geth consensus? Because they said so. Why do plants get circuitboards when a green beam of something shoots through the universe somehow? Because they said so.

This differs from things like the Collector base. Why did you only have the choice to destroy it or not-destroy-it? Because we already knew going in that it was packed with explosives and Cerberus was watching our every move. The idea that we could blow it up or give it to them emerged rationally from the narrative.

Every other choice in the narrative prior to the ending is a choice that emerges naturally from circumstances we are already aware of. On Virmire, it's not like Saren kidnaps one of your squadmates and orders you to murder the other if you want that person to live - circumstances that made sense caused you to split up, and then you had to make a decision about which team to support. Do you see the difference?

If the endings as they are had emerged naturally from the rest of the story, they might be palatable, even interesting. But they don't. They're handed down by fiat and have absolutely nothing to do with any existing circumstances. They relate only to the mind of a character who has just been introduced, and their parameters are arbitrarily constructed so as to create a fake tension and force the player to actively collaborate with the very force that you're trying to oppose.

You may be fine with authorial fiat and diabolus ex machina, but I can't imagine you'd argue that they constitute good writing.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 29 juin 2012 - 01:44 .

[CuseGirl]

I would ask why it wasn't possible to achieve a win solution. Throughout ME1 and ME2 we could play our Shepard as we saw fit. We could choose hope and idealism if we so desired, and you know what it payed off. We could pilot our course and in the end achieve a "win", a cliched happy ending that evidently enough of us liked for there to have been an ME2 and 3.

But then we get to ME3 and everything is tinged with grim, cure the genophage Mordin dies, save the council Thane dies, peace on Rannoch Legion dies, save Samara and her daughter she still loses one. We can't get a break anywhere. But still I continued to think it would have a payoff. I've read Dickens, I know the concept of dragging down to the depths to be brought back up triumphantly, and there was enough hope to sustain me. But it didn't happen. I played three games, got two cliche happy endings, but I got to the end and found out that the Mass Effect universe I fell in love with was gone.

And for the record I've expected since ME1 that Shepard would die at the end of the story. Before ME3 came out I pictured Shepard standing at whatever plot device they gave us to beat the Reapers, looking Harbinger in the eye (all four of em) and with a half smile of grim determination flipping the switch. Saving the universe one last time. I even have a rewriting the Phantom Menace ending rattiling around in my brain I might force on you all at some point.

But I really I don't get the obsession with making games and stories true to life. Stories allow us to transcend the normal, to reach the extraordinary. I can cruise the milky way with a genetically engineered biotic brunette, and a dextro-amino acid one on the other.

And Mass Effect has always been about the impossible being over come. Can't get to Ilos? Did it. Come back from the grave? No sweat. Omega 4 Relay and the Collector Base? Been there done that, even got the t-shirt (didn't fit though, they never do). Doing the impossible is as much a part of the Mass Effect universe as the Relays and the Reapers. So why couldn't we do it one last time?

There, fixed it for you.

But I agree with the whole "why can't we just win?" part. I didn't play this game to feel like "eh, I barely made it". I played this game because I wanted to feel like a freakin' hero. Does that sound childish and cliche? Well yea, and it's cliche because it works. More often than not, people don't want to end on a bad note, especially with a video game that asks you role play. So it's not just the story dictating semi-failure, but the story telling the player that YOU, YOURSELF is an integral part of the failure. That doesn't make me want to play the game multiple times.

[SpaceXDebris]

Best part of the EC, was that all endings didn't end up with the Relays exploding. Second best, was that the catalyst was actually a faulty (evil) A.I. Felt more plausible than whatever was implied in the first ending.

The rest felt essentially the same. C-

Refusal felt like a bit of a troll, from its brevity at least when compared to the other three endings.

[TrevorHill]

I've always played the Mass Effect series by making choices that I would make in reality. I never strictly played Paragon or Renegade, but made the decisions based on the circumstances. For example, on Virmire I politely asked Wrex to step down, but I capped Rana Thanoptis because I thought there was a risk she might be indoctrinated (turned out to be right). In doing so I felt a large emotional connection to the universe. Reality is how you perceive it, and by Mass Effect 3 the universe felt real to me. I needed Salarian support, so I sabotaged the genophage even though I knew it was wrong. And When Shepard shot Mordin and Threw his gun to the side in disgust, that's exactly how I felt. But it was a necessary evil to save the galaxy. But then I got to the end, and nothing mattered. I killed two of my friends, and for what? Not only that, but two of the choices completely sh*t on the morals and ideals taught to me by another friend who sacrificed himself to give his race self-awareness, a race which I would have to obliterate in the third option. So I determined that destroy would be the lesser of the evils. And I felt awful knowing what I had done. So when the extended cut came out, and they added a rejection option, I chose that. And it sent my entire galaxy into oblivion. And when I think oblivion is the best course of action, that's saying something.

[MrFob]

@drayfish:

I like the eloquence of your responses and although they read a bit like closing remarks these days (which I hope is a misinterpretation on my part), they do capture a lot of my thoughts and feelings in this matter.
However, I think you are going to far in putting blame on yourself (and by extension all of us who agree with you :-)) if you say that the problem lies in your own misinterpretation of the text. This assumes that we are dealing with a coherent plot that was ultimately designed to reach this kind of conclusion and to leave the audience with the kind of message that we have to draw from it now.
It is my strong belief (backed up by a number of facts) that this is not the case. Knowing as much as we do about what was going on "behind the scenes" at BW during the development of the trilogy, it is clear to me that there is no such thing as coherence throughout the development of the plot.
The earlier iterations of Mass Effect as well as 90% of the third game do establish the themes that you, myself and many others have taken as the essence of this story. The extended cut, despite the fact that it further integrates the endings into the context of the ME universe, does not suddenly and retroactively change the disconnection between the main body of the text and its conclusion. It tries to give that impression by digging out images that refer to earlier locations and situations but it does not - it cannot - change the fact that the ending choices are a digression, maybe even an inversion of the themes that dominate the story beforehand.
If scenes like "hold the line", like Saren's suicide, like Shepards speech before and in the collector base, like his final moments with the LI before the storm, like all of the goodbyes in London (to name just a few) do not establish themes like courage in the face of impossible odds, friendship, moral perceptiveness and yes: the power of hope, then I don't know what else could.
I refuse to believe that what we saw in the EC was the original intent. For all their ramblings about artistic integrity, BW betrayed their own vision with the original cut as well with he extended one. In the end, it came down to business, PR and an attempt to save face at all cost and for that, BioWare and the ME team cheated themselves, not once but twice. That is the real tragedy here.

BTW: You said you were traveling. I hope you are not in Australia at the moment because if you are able to write this stuff at 7 o'clock in the morning, you start to frighten me.

Modifié par MrFob, 29 juin 2012 - 02:41 .