5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Grammarye]

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.

I would point out that your overall world view appears to drift dangerously close to the 'ends justifies the means' slippery slope. Doing the right thing, in my view, is not about results. It is most definitely about intent. Most legal systems out there agree. If I shoot someone, whether I did it with malice aforethought or by accident usually counts for a lot.

I'm not sure I agree that it's 'ok' for any action to be considered reasonable provided that one looks at the circumstances & consequences. So, for example, and I realise that any analogy is bad because people end up arguing about the analogy, but this one should be close to the topic: if in modern day today's Earth an alien race popped by and starting killing everyone, that's ok because it's by their morality, not ours? I'm pretty sure we'd be quite irritated by their approach & view them as evil. Would you calmly sit by and say 'well, it's ok, it's their world view'?

Perhaps your point about detachment goes deeper than you realise. Perhaps you are playing a game, entirely detached, devoid of emotion, interpreting each in their own context as a new logical puzzle - and I say that without criticism because I know some people play that way. Others do not react that way. Reading drayfish's post, it's quite clear that for them, Tess Shepard exists - I won't say is real, but rather the imagination is in full swing, and that world, that universe, for that player, feels alive, feels like you can reach out and touch it if not for barriers of time & space & quite possibly physics.

It's not about a parallel universe where crazy people think different thoughts. It's that other people, staggeringly enough, don't have exactly the same beliefs, core values, or even, when one gets right down to it, experiences, genetics, brain patterns, response to stimuli and so on.

There is also the point that one hopes that we do not merely tell stories to reinforce the daily sense that real life is really as dull as it gets, that there is no possibility to dream.

Modifié par Grammarye, 29 juin 2012 - 09:58 .

[Ieldra]

drayfish wrote...
[...]
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.

Hmm......perhaps I have a different concept of what it means to stick to your beliefs. It certainly doesn't mean disregarding possible consequences if I stick to a principle. If something bad follows from my choice that could've been avoided with another, it was not the right one regardless of the principles that lead to making it. And actually, I see no particular virtue in stories that send the message "Follow your heart and everything will be ok." 

I agree that it was possible to play that way through the trilogy until right before the end, so I can see why you'd expect it to continue. Perhaps it is because I've always disliked that message that I'm not just content, but very satisfied with all the new EC endings. I don't see the three choices as endorsing the Catalyst's viewpoint, I see it as the hand fate has dealt you. And on the meta level, someone else has said it better than I did:

http://social.biowar...ndex/12854162/1

The final choice of ME3 is the only choice that's actually a hard choice. All others are no-brainers where the consequences of violating the principles of the "standard heroic template" are negligible. Hmm.....I can empathize.....may I guess that you have trouble seeing your Shepard as a hero after selecting one of the three options? But perhaps.....there is no harder sacrifice than sacrificing your principles for a better future?

[Subject M]

Of course "doing the right thing" is dependant on what results it yields. But its more complicated than that. The means and ends must be weighed against one another. Sometimes its clear enough that "the ends does not justify the means", but sometimes they very much do.  And the same goes for the "means justifying the end".

Intent is based on understanding and understanding requires one knowing what the consequences of your actions are. That is why, for example, Shepard choosing Destroy also is Shepard choosing to Destroy Reapers, Geth and EDI alike. Its never you intention to "only pull the trigger" unless you know your gun will never fire when you do so.

To have an good understanding and reacting responsible to a situation rarely involves sticking blindly to a dogma, you need to think and adapt to the new situation without loosing what is important to those affected by your decision (if you care for such things, that is).

Modifié par Subject M, 29 juin 2012 - 10:31 .

[Seijin8]

Yeah, different world views can be difficult to deal with. Better if we all have the same one.

/Partakes of the green kool aid.

EDIT:  Appears dark humor and sarcasm aren't translating...

Modifié par Seijin8, 29 juin 2012 - 10:36 .

[antagonist99]

Seijin8 wrote...

Yeah, different world views can be difficult to deal with. Better if we all have the same one.

/Partakes of the green kool aid.

You know, the only reply to this that I could think of would be a bit inappropriate, as I am German. I'll let that one stand as is.

[Subject M]

Seijin8 wrote...

Yeah, different world views can be difficult to deal with. Better if we all have the same one.

/Partakes of the green kool aid.

Some world-views are based on simple errors, lack of information and misunderstandings. Fixing those problems does not mean that everyone will "be the same" but it does mean that we will understand each other and possible exist in and describing the same world and its objects, although on and from different locations.

Modifié par Subject M, 29 juin 2012 - 10:25 .

[RenegonSQ]

jason32choy wrote...

I agree that Control and Synthesis are at odds with the themes presented with the ME games.

Why is Destroy in conflict with the theme???

The professor/thread starter claims that it is committing genocide over the synthetics and it carries an immoral theme that values the organic life over the synthetics.

But I haven't found anyone complaining Shepard destroying the Batarian homeland as genocidal and at odds with his/her character or moral. And that was JUST for preventing Reapers from arriving a bit sooner. So in the face of this "final chance" to stop the Reaper threat, Shepard, in that professor's view, should choose not to make ANY SCARFICES despite the FACT that the Crucible is the one and only chance that stops the obliteration of the advanced species, Organic and Synthetic.

I found it hard to believe that any Shepard, irrespective of your experience, personality or morality, would opt for the Refuse choice over the Destroy one just because they can't come to terms with the sacrifices necessary to stop  the Reaper threat. I, too, lament for the loss of EDI and the Geth which is an emotionally difficult choice for me given the excellent Geth-Quarian story in ME3. I value the Geth just as much as the organics, but that doesn't negate the need to do whatever it takes to preserve the other lifeforms.

I sincerely hope that the thread starter or people who agree with him that Destroy is a "thematically revolting" choice to answer this question: WHY TAKE REFUSE OVER DESTORY???

P.S. I found the professor's comment enlightening as well and agrees with him on the Synthesis and Control fronts.

EDIT: Finishing the post cause I posted prematurely due to inadvertant touch on a smart phone. 

I wish there were more people who thought like you...

For those very reasons you just stated, I chose Destroy almost without a second thought, that being both times I completed ME3. Sacrifices and losses are inevitable if you expect to save an entire galaxy. I would go on a 10 paragraph rant, but my previous sentence basically wraps up my thoughts too well to proceed.

jason32cho, hats off to you, sir.

[helloween7]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The final choice of ME3 is the only choice that's actually a hard choice. All others are no-brainers where the consequences of violating the principles of the "standard heroic template" are negligible. Hmm.....I can empathize.....may I guess that you have trouble seeing your Shepard as a hero after selecting one of the three options? But perhaps.....there is no harder sacrifice than sacrificing your principles for a better future?

But, is it a better future? The way I see it, all of them have serious implications. 


In Control, Shepard is 5 minutes away of becoming as bad as the Catalyst was, because absolute power corrupts absolutely, and so on so forth. 


In Synthesis, the Catalyst is still around (I think; in any case, the Reapers definitely are.) What's to stop it from deciding Synthesis won't work afer all and reinstating the cycle? What is so bad about diversity that it has to be eradicated?!?!?! 


Destroy is Reaper-free, granted, but sets a grim precedent. Does it mean that if (or when) the Krogan get uppity again, it's OK tho kill them all? They're a threat for the Galactic peace as well, aren't they? What about the Rachni? They almost wiped out the Galaxy once already. Better to off them, just in case, don't you think?


And Reject ends in defeat. You stick to your principles of freedom, free will, unity through diversity and "we're in this together" and you lose. But it's precisely in the face of defeat when your morals are tested. So what, being principled and standing by your beliefs is A-OK except when it's inconvenient? Shepard said it best: "I won't let fear compromise who I am". Granted, I would have loved Reject to offer a chance to win (with high EMS and all that), but apparently at BioWare they no longer know how to write that story. 

Modifié par helloween7, 29 juin 2012 - 10:37 .

[Subject M]

RenegonSQ wrote...

jason32choy wrote...

I agree that Control and Synthesis are at odds with the themes presented with the ME games.

Why is Destroy in conflict with the theme???

The professor/thread starter claims that it is committing genocide over the synthetics and it carries an immoral theme that values the organic life over the synthetics.

But I haven't found anyone complaining Shepard destroying the Batarian homeland as genocidal and at odds with his/her character or moral. And that was JUST for preventing Reapers from arriving a bit sooner. So in the face of this "final chance" to stop the Reaper threat, Shepard, in that professor's view, should choose not to make ANY SCARFICES despite the FACT that the Crucible is the one and only chance that stops the obliteration of the advanced species, Organic and Synthetic.

I found it hard to believe that any Shepard, irrespective of your experience, personality or morality, would opt for the Refuse choice over the Destroy one just because they can't come to terms with the sacrifices necessary to stop  the Reaper threat. I, too, lament for the loss of EDI and the Geth which is an emotionally difficult choice for me given the excellent Geth-Quarian story in ME3. I value the Geth just as much as the organics, but that doesn't negate the need to do whatever it takes to preserve the other lifeforms.

I sincerely hope that the thread starter or people who agree with him that Destroy is a "thematically revolting" choice to answer this question: WHY TAKE REFUSE OVER DESTORY???

P.S. I found the professor's comment enlightening as well and agrees with him on the Synthesis and Control fronts.

EDIT: Finishing the post cause I posted prematurely due to inadvertant touch on a smart phone. 

I wish there were more people who thought like you...

For those very reasons you just stated, I chose Destroy almost without a second thought, that being both times I completed ME3. Sacrifices and losses are inevitable if you expect to save an entire galaxy. I would go on a 10 paragraph rant, but my previous sentence basically wraps up my thoughts too well to proceed.

jason32cho, hats off to you, sir.

The difference should be quite clear if one thinks about this for a While.

Did Shepard destroy the Batarian homeworld?
What was the options?
Did Shepard wipe out all the batarians everywhere?

[clennon8]

Let me summarize Ieldra's pro-Synth argument for everyone. Morality is for noobs. The end justifies the means. I know bad things won't happen because I saw the slide show. Oh, you won't let me use the slide show as evidence? Then because the Catalyst told me so, and he's really smart.

[Seijin8]

Speaking of the synthesis slide-show, I remember seeing Javik's four eyeballs a glowin. I am curious what it is that made Javik change his mind about the supremacy of organic evolution? You know, that driving motive of the Prothean culture? He seemed pretty steadfast on that topic when we spoke...

I guess something must have changed his mind.

/mmmm, synthesis tastes like Ecto-Cooler....

Modifié par Seijin8, 29 juin 2012 - 10:45 .

[Ieldra]

clennon8, I have not argued for or against any particular choice in this thread. I have argued against the opinion that there must always be a way to succeed without compromising our moral principles.

[TrevorHill]

Subject M wrote...

RenegonSQ wrote...

jason32choy wrote...

I agree that Control and Synthesis are at odds with the themes presented with the ME games.

Why is Destroy in conflict with the theme???

The professor/thread starter claims that it is committing genocide over the synthetics and it carries an immoral theme that values the organic life over the synthetics.

But I haven't found anyone complaining Shepard destroying the Batarian homeland as genocidal and at odds with his/her character or moral. And that was JUST for preventing Reapers from arriving a bit sooner. So in the face of this "final chance" to stop the Reaper threat, Shepard, in that professor's view, should choose not to make ANY SCARFICES despite the FACT that the Crucible is the one and only chance that stops the obliteration of the advanced species, Organic and Synthetic.

I found it hard to believe that any Shepard, irrespective of your experience, personality or morality, would opt for the Refuse choice over the Destroy one just because they can't come to terms with the sacrifices necessary to stop  the Reaper threat. I, too, lament for the loss of EDI and the Geth which is an emotionally difficult choice for me given the excellent Geth-Quarian story in ME3. I value the Geth just as much as the organics, but that doesn't negate the need to do whatever it takes to preserve the other lifeforms.

I sincerely hope that the thread starter or people who agree with him that Destroy is a "thematically revolting" choice to answer this question: WHY TAKE REFUSE OVER DESTORY???

P.S. I found the professor's comment enlightening as well and agrees with him on the Synthesis and Control fronts.

EDIT: Finishing the post cause I posted prematurely due to inadvertant touch on a smart phone. 

I wish there were more people who thought like you...

For those very reasons you just stated, I chose Destroy almost without a second thought, that being both times I completed ME3. Sacrifices and losses are inevitable if you expect to save an entire galaxy. I would go on a 10 paragraph rant, but my previous sentence basically wraps up my thoughts too well to proceed.

jason32cho, hats off to you, sir.

The difference should be quite clear if one thinks about this for a While.

Did Shepard destroy the Batarian homeworld?
What was the options?
Did Shepard wipe out all the batarians everywhere?

True dat. If it was like, "Commander, by destroying this relay you will wipe out every last Batarian in existence", people would have had a little more pause. Likewise, if the catalyst was like, "by choosing destroy the reapers will be destroyed, but technology will be damaged and 300,000 geth wil die", 99% of everyone would have been like, "Oh, well. Sh*t happens. Kablam, Motherf*cker!" The point is, 300,000 is a lot different than 20,000,000,000.

[RenegonSQ]

Subject M wrote...

RenegonSQ wrote...

jason32choy wrote...

I agree that Control and Synthesis are at odds with the themes presented with the ME games.

Why is Destroy in conflict with the theme???

The professor/thread starter claims that it is committing genocide over the synthetics and it carries an immoral theme that values the organic life over the synthetics.

But I haven't found anyone complaining Shepard destroying the Batarian homeland as genocidal and at odds with his/her character or moral. And that was JUST for preventing Reapers from arriving a bit sooner. So in the face of this "final chance" to stop the Reaper threat, Shepard, in that professor's view, should choose not to make ANY SCARFICES despite the FACT that the Crucible is the one and only chance that stops the obliteration of the advanced species, Organic and Synthetic.

I found it hard to believe that any Shepard, irrespective of your experience, personality or morality, would opt for the Refuse choice over the Destroy one just because they can't come to terms with the sacrifices necessary to stop  the Reaper threat. I, too, lament for the loss of EDI and the Geth which is an emotionally difficult choice for me given the excellent Geth-Quarian story in ME3. I value the Geth just as much as the organics, but that doesn't negate the need to do whatever it takes to preserve the other lifeforms.

I sincerely hope that the thread starter or people who agree with him that Destroy is a "thematically revolting" choice to answer this question: WHY TAKE REFUSE OVER DESTORY???

P.S. I found the professor's comment enlightening as well and agrees with him on the Synthesis and Control fronts.

EDIT: Finishing the post cause I posted prematurely due to inadvertant touch on a smart phone. 

I wish there were more people who thought like you...

For those very reasons you just stated, I chose Destroy almost without a second thought, that being both times I completed ME3. Sacrifices and losses are inevitable if you expect to save an entire galaxy. I would go on a 10 paragraph rant, but my previous sentence basically wraps up my thoughts too well to proceed.

jason32cho, hats off to you, sir.

The difference should be quite clear if one thinks about this for a While.

Did Shepard destroy the Batarian homeworld?
What was the options?
Did Shepard wipe out all the batarians everywhere?

Good point, but my personal belief is that... Synthetics are created. As long as there is organic live, as the forsaken God Child stated, they will create synthetics to improve on their lives. Synthetics will be re-created. The genocide of synthetics is the smallest price to pay in my eyes because they will be re-created. Is that harsh? Or is it necessary? That's for you to judge.

I'd rather not be a Reaper God, destroy my entire galaxy because I can't live with my options, or fuse together everything with magic green dust because I think it's right. I'd much rather complete the mission I have been on for three full games because thats what I set out to do. I felt for the lost of EDI, but there will be another EDI. There can't be another Shepard, or another Garrus shall I decide to refuse the hand I'm dealt.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I'd rather the cycle repeat itself all over again in a way that I feel personally is realistic, than to play God in the Mass Effect Universe. My Shepard is no God.

Modifié par RenegonSQ, 29 juin 2012 - 10:59 .

[Seijin8]

@Ieldra2: I get what you are saying (being serious-ish now), and your opinion is noted. I certainly don't mind stories like that myself. I can even think of a few that I really enjoyed, but Mass Effect was never one of those types of stories, until its final 10 (now extended to 20!) minutes. Previously, ever option could be directed by a player's/character's moral compass toward something they could live with. It might still be sacrifice, but it wasn't an atrocity in most people's eyes, even when the act itself was brutal (exterminating the Rachni, allowing civilians to die to catch a terrorist, etc.)

I won't argue against (or for) your view of what kinds of stories are good or bad. That's personal, and I suspect we like the same kinds of stories much of the time.

This whole thread is about how ME was NOT that kind of story. Not until the end.

[NobodyofConsequence]

You know, I will say one thing in Hudson/Walter's defence - they've driven the creation of a video game that has people intensely examining the types of issues this thread contains. I doubt that was their primary intent, but it's certainly an interesting consequence, and perhaps even ironically appropriate.

[Ieldra]

Grammarye wrote...
I would point out that your overall world view appears to drift dangerously close to the 'ends justifies the means' slippery slope. Doing the right thing, in my view, is not about results. It is most definitely about intent. Most legal systems out there agree. If I shoot someone, whether I did it with malice aforethought or by accident usually counts for a lot.

The thing is, sometimes the end does justify the means, namely if the goal is important enough. The survival of galactic civilization has a high value.

I'm not sure I agree that it's 'ok' for any action to be considered reasonable provided that one looks at the circumstances & consequences. So, for example, and I realise that any analogy is bad because people end up arguing about the analogy, but this one should be close to the topic: if in modern day today's Earth an alien race popped by and starting killing everyone, that's ok because it's by their morality, not ours? I'm pretty sure we'd be quite irritated by their approach & view them as evil. Would you calmly sit by and say 'well, it's ok, it's their world view'?

I make a difference between the necessity to fight someone and a moral condemnation. Of course I'd not lay down and let myself or others killed in your hypothetical scenario. I reserve morality for human-analogues. Most species in the ME universe are human-analogues, i.e. they are social species whose cultures are based on co-operation between distinct individuals. The Catalyst is not of that kind. I don't need to see it as evil to fight it with everything I have. I don't need to assume a "right to live". I want to survive, that's enough.

Perhaps your point about detachment goes deeper than you realise. Perhaps you are playing a game, entirely detached, devoid of emotion, interpreting each in their own context as a new logical puzzle - and I say that without criticism because I know some people play that way. Others do not react that way. Reading drayfish's post, it's quite clear that for them, Tess Shepard exists - I won't say is real, but rather the imagination is in full swing, and that world, that universe, for that player, feels alive, feels like you can reach out and touch it if not for barriers of time & space & quite possibly physics.

Oh no, I'm not detached from my character. Not at all. But I do make *some* decisions with emotional detachment, I *work* at emotional detachment, because I think that's the right way to go about it if the stakes are as high as here. Moral outrage has no place in decisions made on that scope. That, btw, is part of my core beliefs. That's not to say I don't regret. That's the mistake people make about the Renegade mindset. Renegades are the unsung heroes, those who make the decisions that tear them up psychologically and are condemned for it on top of it. But they make them anyway, because they believe it gets the best future.  

[NobodyofConsequence]

If I might add something - synthetic life is articifially designed and created, and by implication re-creatable. Each organic life is not. We're weighting uniqueness here, folks, as the criterion for continued existence, perhaps? (leaving the blurring of Shepard/Legion/EDI aside).

[RenegonSQ]

^That uniqueness has to be sacrificed in order to save the galaxy. The game gives you no other choice. If there was one, just like all of us in here, I'd make the other choice.

[TrevorHill]

Since a lot of people on here are saying that there is no problem with destroy, since in war sacrifices must be made, I will retort. First of all, I completely agree that in war sacrifices must be made. However, I am of the opinion that it isn't necessary to have this in the game, but that is irrelevant to the point I am making. To begin, there are acceptable losses in a war, and sacrifices that can justifiably be made. However, not every loss and sacrifice is justifiable. To use a, relatively, real-world example, if our planet, as a whole, were threatened through war, somehow, and we were getting pwned, no one would ever say that it was a justifiable loss to slaughter every cow in existence. Why? Because we need them (and it's kind of f**ked up). Likewise, from a pragmatic standpoint the Geth are needed by the Quarians to acclimate to their new environment. Without them, it could take a century, with unforeseen problems. The galaxy is an ecosystem. And like any ecosystem, if you eliminate one part of it, the whole thing goes to sh*t. So wiping out the Geth would be a big-ass layer cake of sh*t-storm.

P.S. I think someone was talking about how synthesis wasn't unrealistic and, thinking about it, the imagery gave me a chuckle. So I'll leave you all with that.
Since mixing organic and synthetic life is mixing carbon-based life with silicon-based life, It's essentially like your neighbor trying to mate with his sliding-glass door.

[Seijin8]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

You know, I will say one thing in Hudson/Walter's defence - they've driven the creation of a video game that has people intensely examining the types of issues this thread contains. I doubt that was their primary intent, but it's certainly an interesting consequence, and perhaps even ironically appropriate.

Very likely an unintended consequence, but you are absolutely correct in its power to drive people to discuss issues like this.  Very astute.

[NobodyofConsequence]

RenegonSQ wrote...

^That uniqueness has to be sacrificed in order to save the galaxy. The game gives you no other choice. If there was one, just like all of us in here, I'd make the other choice.

Order ftw, then. Geez, strikes me as a particularly, well, facist notion, actually. Not pleasant at all. In fact, breaking it down to something that simple really captures my problem with the whole tonal change and the endings. The Catalyst was right, you just get to choose how to continue its work.

[helloween7]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

If I might add something - synthetic life is articifially designed and created, and by implication re-creatable. Each organic life is not. We're weighting uniqueness here, folks, as the criterion for continued existence, perhaps? (leaving the blurring of Shepard/Legion/EDI aside).

While synthetic life might be re-creatable, the Geth are not. The Quarians don't know how they made them in the first place, and they've evolved past their basic programming in the 300 years since they were accidentally born.

New synthetics can be made, but they won't be Geth. 

Likewise, EDI was an unique blend of a VI gone rogue and Reaper tech, shaped by her experiences with the Normandy and it's crew. Another AI might be created, but it won't be EDI.

Don't fool yourself into thinking it's OK to kill all synthetics because they can be recreated. Because 1) it isn't true, and 2) that is tantamount to saying they're not really alive. And since you don't think they're alive to begin with, Destroy can be justified because (for you) it doesn't imply genocide.

[the slynx]

frypan wrote...

I suspect many folks who said, "I'd rather just reject the catalyst and die fighting" were suggestng that endings were so bad even defeat seemed a more palatable offering. Bioware listened to the words, but not to the intent behind them. They missed the fact that "reject" is a symbol of folks' defiance in the face of defeat, and an expression of their faith in the human condition.

...

But we didnt. What we got was what they had to say about "reject" and that whole miserable no-win scenrio that was set up in the last few minutes. Bioware missed entirely the intent of their audience here, as they seem to have throughout the whole sorry episode. Another blunder in misreading the audience and stubbornly sicking with a premise that works for them, but not for so many of us.

Well said.

I think this is especially true because several people tried to get BioWare to incorporate a 'reject' ending not because they thought it was a great ending - it wasn't - but because that would give the fans a more reasonable, in-character option at the end that let BioWare save their ending choices without retcon. It was a compromise trying to save BioWare's vision and ours, without destroying either one. Most people specified that rejection should come at terrible cost, but that it should be a meaningful and active decision, whether it panned out into a sort of victory condition or not.

Instead, we got rejection that led to Shepard passively watching things fall apart, and Mike Gamble saying on Twitter that the next cycle used the Crucible to win anyway. So: not a rejection so much as a deferral, and a passive, weak one at that. That's not what motivated the desire in the first place, and I'm confused that the developers apparently misinterpreted it along those lines.

[NobodyofConsequence]

Seijin8 wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

You know, I will say one thing in Hudson/Walter's defence - they've driven the creation of a video game that has people intensely examining the types of issues this thread contains. I doubt that was their primary intent, but it's certainly an interesting consequence, and perhaps even ironically appropriate.

Very likely an unintended consequence, but you are absolutely correct in its power to drive people to discuss issues like this.  Very astute.

So, would that justify the endings, then? Would that qualify as 'artistic vision'?

<--- Devil's Advocate