5087 réponses à ce sujet

[RShara]

Hey I wanted to say, dray, thanks for continuing to respond to this thread in all 185 pages of it. I'd recruit you for something that I dislike greatly about ME3, but I think you already have your hands full

[3DandBeyond]

@GodSentinelOmega,
That's it exactly. Just because you can do a thing, and just because that thing may (MAY) achieve your goal doesn't make it the right thing to do if in so doing it you directly compromise or contradict that which makes your own purpose valid. Or even if the cost is just too high. It's easy to shoot a gun, mechanically. Theoretically, it's easy to shoot it at a bad guy doing something bad. It is easy even to think about shooting at a really bad guy in a crowd of people if it looks like you have a clear shot. It's difficult to let a bad guy get away if you had even a minute chance to kill him.

I am reminded of Helena Blakely. I killed her once and let her live twice. Once I saw that she would not give me the option of putting her in jail I wanted to see what letting her go would do. I was rewarded for my efforts in a heartfelt way in ME2. I didn't get money for doing it-I got something far better.

In Bring Down the Sky. I had options that meant I could kill some bad guys, but at what cost. Deciding not to kill means that a character shows up in ME3, but also not killing the one guy and letting him go also means some people are not sacrificed because I did that.

What both of these stories and many like them say is that I won't sacrifice some things just for expediency's sake. One person does matter especially if their death is too high a price to pay.

Another is the example of Dr. Heart. Garrus wants him dead. He's done horrific things, but I'm not just going to kill him. I won't let Garrus kill him, but Dr. Heart decides to fight and dies. Garrus questions this and my Shepard says basically that you can't control someone else's actions, but you can control your own. Shepard over and over again must prove that. Doing the right thing takes its rightful place-it is its own reward even if bad things happen.

At a point where Shepard decides the kid's choices are not credible or not worth what is lost, the real game should begin. It is when Shepard becomes authentically Shepard again and where the galaxy at last takes responsibility, grows up. But the writers have made it like something you'd never do to a child. You try to teach them to do the right thing and take responsibility for their actions. Your child sees temptation and easy ways to get things that are not his, not right, or that might hurt someone else and your child decides that's just wrong and avoids temptation. You find out and spank that child, ground him, take away his toys, and go and get those things your child avoided and give them to his brother.

I never saw ME as dark because you always had this opportunity to do something good, to make things better.

By the way, loved Farscape--one of the most underrated shows and I so love it that Claudia Black voices characters (Aethyta) in ME. I loved the stories.

I will have to read the Lost Fleet.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 16 juillet 2012 - 04:19 .

[GodSentinelOmega]

Even now after all these years i have yet to see a series that equals Farscape. And each time i watch it now i see more and more elements that deem to have inspired mass effect. The Delvians (Asari) the Luxans (Turians) and more.

As for the lost fleet, i feel that it embodies the fight to hold on to your values even in the face of unremitting brutality. The main hero spends his time showing others the need for justice, the value of mercy, and the results of showing compassion.

This is how i viewed mass effect right from the beginng, all the way until the beam run.

Prior to that run i always liked to think of ME as showing that no matter how dark it gets, there is always light, there is always hope.

Afterwards, the endings makes me think of an LOTR quote by Saruman.
The white cloth can be dyed and the white light can be broken.
But as Gandalf replies and how i view those responsible for the original ending concepts/catalyst/origin of the reapers.
He who breaks a thing to see what it is made of has left the path of wisdom!

And don't forget Claudia Black voiced Quarian Admiral Xen too.

Modifié par GodSentinelOmega, 16 juillet 2012 - 06:15 .

[vallore]

Obadiah wrote...


Let's assume that the player had more time to engage with the Catalyst and explain, well, pretty much everything that has been explained in this thread with regards to what is wrong with The Catalyst's logic. Is there really an expectation that the Catalyst will say some something like, "Wow, that was so obvious - I'm broken, why didn't I think of that"?

Sorry to cut in but, it is not just about winning, it is about:

One: staying true to the character. Shepard was never a quitter, certainly not without trying at least. We’ve seen Shepard argue her way out of impossible situations before, why wouldn’t she try it now? (hint: she did just so minutes before with another character).

Two: Shepard’s goal may be about neutralizing the reapers but, I dare say, that is not the player’s goal. The player’s main goal is to have fun, and how to achieve that?

Shepard must be allowed to win in a satisfying way. Just being granted a set of choices by your main enemy is not particularly enjoyable, (for many of us at least). So the authors should have taken that into account when creating the ending. A better way would be one were Shepard has not to kowtow to the catalyst and can question his faulty logic, or where victory can be achieved by "finding another way." You know, to use a star trek analogy:


From this player’s perspective, Bioware gave us a kobayashi maru scenario, (as no ending is enjoyable). What we needed was for Shepard to pull a Kirk, and change the rules of the game, so she could win on her own terms.

Obadiah wrote...
The Catalyst is millions of years old. It was probably thousands of years old before it even decided on the Reaper solution.

I think it is far more likely that Shepard will be dumb-struck when the Catalyst starts displaying reams of statistics collected over millions of years, along with helpful flow charts, and then pulls up the 100s (or maybe 100,000s) of similar temporary alliances between Creators and Created that took place, but eventually fell apart to start another conflict.

The problem with any counter-example from our cycle that could be presented to the Catalyst is that, even though it is a breakthrough to us, to the Catalyst it is a mere anecdote. What would a response be when the Catalyst shows Shepard a few choice anecdotes of its own where the actual destruction of every organic has been close at hand?

I imagine Shepard saying something along the lines of "Oh no, that doesn't apply. We're different because XYZ." To a point the Catalyst already agrees, hence the reason it is even speaking to Shepard.

Or, perhaps, in those millions of years, the catalyst didn’t spend a single nanosecond wondering about if the event he was trying so hard to avoid was true or not. Why?

Well, let’s consider things: He wasn’t the one who came up with the idea of the extinction of all life at the hands of synthetics; he tells us that it was his creators who did. So he was either specifically created to find a solution for this problem or was tasked to find it.

Regardless, the extinction of all life at the hands of synthetics was the problem he was tasked to solve, he was not created/tasked to find out if it was a true assumption to begin with. That was a premise of the problem he was tasked to solve. So it would have been a loophole in his logic, (and one that would make him look less silly, imo, as the error would have been made by his creators), a loophole that Shepard could have been able to exploit: (A “Kirk-like solution”).

Note:Edited to expand the answer

Modifié par vallore, 16 juillet 2012 - 07:08 .

[SHARXTREME]

vallore wrote..
You know, to use a star trek analogy:


From this player’s perspective, Bioware gave us a kobayashi maru scenario, (as no ending is enjoyable). What we needed was for Shepard to pull a Kirk, and change the rules of the game, so she could win on her own terms..

Yes. That is the exactly what would make a better ending, and better story even with sad inclusion of Art Integrisimus character. To follow that analogy, one can say that in ME3 Vulcan "logic" prevailed-

a) "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few" (AKA Destroy/Control)
"When situation is beyond solution by action, only logical choice is inaction" (AKA Reject)
c) "Logic is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."(AKA "synthesis")

I have already compared ME to Star Trek ad nauseam , because of character focus and many similar themes,
but I must say that ME was a something fresh&fun in SF(even with accounting alll derivatives), and COULD HAVE been far better then Star Trek(even though ST had much more complex characters and dialogues) and I would not love it, if it was "too Star Trek or -ish"

We could have this as underlying game/war theme in the moments when catalyst "reveals" himself, from both sides(if Bioware thought they must rip the "control" from players hands to/and to finish the story) This twist, I think, could have worked quite well:

“Misdirection is the key to survival, never attack what your enemy defends, never behave as your enemy expects, and never reveal your true strength, if knowledge is power then to be unknown is to be unconquerable.”
Or that theme of Reapers with unknowable, superior and/or ultimately meaningless goals(fire analogy, suprapotent species etc)

A normal way to resolve such situation:
" Spock: Random chance seems to have operated in our favor.
McCoy: In plain, non-Vulcan English, we've been lucky.
Spock: I believe I said that, Doctor."
or
"Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain.
Kirk: I prefer to call it inspired."

but we got this(in worst possible way, as an ultimatum and philosophical nonsense):
" I am what I am, Leila, and if there are self-made purgatories, then we all have to live in them. Mine can be no worse than someone else's."

But, as much I loved the story, Mass Effect has shown few bright spots in some parts of the story, but sadly, it will be remembered as the game with worst ending-writing in history, an ending without character(s), meaning or sense, filled with logical errors and weak(dead) Nietsche's philosophy, or better said, his psychology.
In the end, they(Bioware) have extrapolated the fear itself as the enemy in the ME3(dreams of burning boy, Reapers as superior force, end of days etc.)
BUT, they have failed to deal with that fear, or let the player to deal with it. In Kirk style, or even Jane-way:
" You know as well as I do that fear only exists for one purpose: to be conquered."

I have played ME in that style, as Shepard "saved the day" many times with words and swords.
To see that she got nothing to say or do in the end was ... (fill it yourself)

@dreyfish
I have enjoyed your many nick-names for Catabrat few pages back, especially: Biowareist

EDIT: @dreyfish again, this was great:

nd Admiral Xen and The Illusive Man?   That is a buddy cop film I would love to see.
 
Indeed – if I may – the tagline: 'He's smoking and she's smokin'.'
 
Xen and the I-Man.
 
Rated R for ...really?

 

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 16 juillet 2012 - 11:37 .

[drayfish]

[Once again I am arriving late, and many of the points I am going to make have already been better expressed by others, but here goes...]
 

@ Obadiah:
 
Again, I appreciate your point – from one perspective the Geth and EDI might be considered, in the dispassionate terms of battle, 'casualties of war' – but I rather revolt against this premise, because it seems to me that unlike many of the fallen soldiers in this narrative, the racial dimension that the Camembert (and by extension the Bioware writers) places on these events, complicates such lamentable, necessary sacrifice.
 
The Mass Effect universe goes to some pains to express to us that there is little distinction between artificial and organic life: we have EDI questioning her existence, finally positing that she feels 'alive'; we have Legion and his soul; the Geth and their yearning for autonomy; even (as you note) the Reapers and their 'We are a Nation' business. Fleshy organic life is revealed, by the end of the game, to be only one kind of life, with synthetics an utterly valid form too.   So in choosing to value one class or subsection of life over another in the Destroy option, we are being compelled to make, by definition, a prejudicial distinction between creatures that have been proved to be equal, and who should presumably be afforded the same rights. This is like differentiating Australian people from French; people with blue eyes from those with brown; people who like Bruce Springsteen and those who don't (...well, maybe we can wipe those people out).
 
Unlike the tragic action of sacrificing the Krogan soldiers, or Hackett's lost fleets (all of whom were fighting willingly at their commanders' behest, knowing the risks they faced) in order to ensure a greater victory, for me the action of deciding that one entire species can be wiped out in order to preserve a second is an act of genocide, one that by its very nature values one category of life above another and thereby taints the survivors unalterably. 
 
These are not 'casualties of war' – the Geth and EDI weren't standing too close to the nuclear bomb to use your analogy – they are the specific targets of the said bomb, one that will decimate them without remorse no matter where they run. One battalion of Geth aren't killed so that the rest of their peoples can survive; they are simply all gone forever. To decide to unleash that outcome does not absolve the one who selected it from ascribing to that belief. For me, this is not 'Shoot the hostage'; it is 'I agree that the Hostage and everyone like them must die'.
 
Regarding Control, I would consider the fact that the Reapers and Husks immediately shift their entire behavioural pattern and belief system from 'WE ARE GREAT KILL ALL MORTALS!!!' to 'Hey there... can I help you build this cute little hospital?' implies that some kind of extensive psychological rewriting or invasive mind control has to have occurred, one that can only have been performed by Shepard imposing her will upon them. One might therefore argue that perhaps Shepard is freeing the Reapers from a form of mindlessness, but again, as you say, Harbinger and Sovereign were clearly acting with relative autonomy and expressing quite individual personalities before this final act.
 
If, on the other hand, Shepard cyber-mind-wipes them to effective death, as you secondly suggest, this could theoretically be the most appealing ending I've heard, but nothing in text gives any indication that is what's going on, and it still leaves the vulgarity of the central premise that Shepard has ascended to the role of judgemental Godhead, monitoring and judging the universe (whether good or ill), an uncomfortably dictatorial action that has never, across the span of the fiction, ended well (Illusive Man; Saren; Henry Lawson; Harbinger, etc).
 
And all of this completely leaves aside the fact that by picking any of these three options Shepard is validating Catpurse's* specious premise that Synthetics will in fact destroy organics, something that logically has never actually happened in the history of the universe – because if it had, there would be no more life left in the universe.
 
In fact, now that I think about it, the Catheter really never has let a cycle play out. He's never bothered to actually see what the true final result of the Creator versus Created grudge match would be. Every time, based on his cold mechanical 'hypothesis' he has stepped in to prevent it – so in truth we have no idea what would 'inevitably' happen between synthetics and organics if he had just left everyone alone.
 
Indeed, following this logic, the reason that the Geth and Quarians were able to patch things up was because they were given the time to, because the Reapers were delayed from returning during the events of the first game. Maybe, if the Reapers had stayed the hell out of things before, every single cycle would have ended with a New-Rannoch style Prodigal Children reunion, Created and Creators standing in the dawning of a new collaborative age. ...Instead of boring old presumptive death imposed by the outside force of the McReapingtons.
 
But at the end, rather than point this rather glaring fallacy out to him, we are forced to do what he says. 'Sure the entire basis of this pitiless slaughter makes no sense, and you yourself have perpetuated this mad scheme with no conclusive evidence to support your theory, so I might as well just finish the clumsy job you started...'
 
But again, all of this is just my personal perspective upon the endings. I would certainly not expect it to sway your, nor anyone else's, vision of what is happening at the conclusion – merely to state why I still have fundamental issues with the ending I was provided.
 
Personally, I do not see how a character forced to make such a decision can remain a 'hero'. I think (and again, this is just my own beef), that in this kind of bleak scenario 'heroism' is utterly off the table. Bioware has concocted a narrative endpoint in which 'heroism' must be sacrificed for success. In order to undertake any of these options one must align oneself with the enemy, to use their techniques and by doing so validate them as appropriate actions in war, and for me that fundamentally perverts the 'hero' in a way that I find impossible to align with valour.
 
Again, perhaps Bioware desperately wanted to craft a fiction in which, in order to defeat the terrorists, you have to use their techniques and agree with their world-view in order to save your own vision of the world, but I believe that this is a dangerous and irresponsible message for them to have set, and a worrying sign if they expect anyone to applaud such a scenario as a fitting conclusion to a 'hero's' journey.
 
A disturbing hypothetical test of morality – as you have outlined – certainly; a celebration of anything 'heroic', most definitely not.
 
(...And don't even get me started on the vulgarity of Bioware meta-game baiting players to choose or excuse genocide in order to give them 'a little beacon of hope' (according to the SDCC panel) by seeing their Shepard live. Gah!)
 
 
 
* @ SHARXTREME: Yep, now I'm going Shakespearean for my insults. 
 

Modifié par drayfish, 17 juillet 2012 - 02:18 .

[3DandBeyond]

@drayfish,
Excellent post as usual. You really do challenge one to think rather than just accept. I most definitely agree with you on the removal of Shepard from hero status if Shepard "buys into" what the Kudzu is selling. It is one thing to understand a murderous foe and their motivations and intent. It is another thing completely to agree with them and validate their reasons for the horrors they commit. In shifting the goal of the story to the goal of the Catawampus (I'm trying), Shepard gives it credibility and must agree the Kiddle is right. There is no other reason to make one of the choices if Shepard does not believe and agree with the Pugugly one. The displacement is often seen as the loss of Shepard by many of us. It still exists but Shepard just has more irrational thought as reason to disregard the Cat o' nine tails. It makes it worse if Shepard accepts what he says in my opinion. It is clear. The Kindling says he needed a new solution and voila, we have one or actually 3 step sisters from which to choose, each more revolting than the last, but pay no mind to the one sitting over there in the corner.

The prettier step sister covered with ash and all but abandoned and unloved should just be left alone. That one over there amongst the cinders might have been something had a fairy godmother seen fit to dress her up and let her ride to the ball in style. She might have met a real hero there and might have given meaning to an otherwise unhappy dreary life that others always have controlled in some insane version of right and wrong-that what's right for them is the only thing that is right. In a happier tale the 3 step sisters (your choices) might have never been considered because a shoe didn't fit. And one with obvious heart and soul, the one that sits alone in fear and silence will never become what she could be. She will never fulfill the promise of her brilliance, of her truth. So, the obvious choice is not for you and the others are not what you want. And they all (more or less) lived unhappily ever after.

One thing becomes apparent and applies to perhaps a certain type of Shepard (but I'd make the case for any Shepard)-death and killing for no reason is not valid and is wrong.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 juillet 2012 - 03:58 .

[Obadiah]

@drayfish
For me, the calculation to use the Destroy option would be the exact same calculation if firing that weapon was going wipe out all synthetics, the human race, all organics, or the entire current civilization. It is not relevant or necessary to generate empathy for the Synthetics from me or anyone else since I'm pretty sure everyone that played Mass Effect 3 already has that, and I saw them as equals.

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me the Destroy option is not about picking one race or group over the other. The only question to be answered when picking Destroy is whether finally, completely, and permanently stopping the Reapers is worth sacrificing trillions of beings.

Picking one of the three options stops the Reapers - it doesn't validate the Catalyst's view. I feel this is a "straw man" argument. It has given you the options on how the weapon can be fired, it is up the Shepard to work out why one of the options is best above all others. This seems pretty cut and dry to me.

With respect to Control - and I want to make sure I get this right. The Reapers have been corrupting, controlling, and slaughtering life in the galaxy for at least 37 million years and will continue to do so if Shepard does not stop them. They will kill trillions upon trillions of beings - everyone we know and everyone we loved will be dead, "ascended" or turned against us. But seizing control of them (their own tactic) to get them to stop is morally problematic? I just don't see the problem there. I understand the concerns raised, but they just seem easily dwarfed. Clearly you and some of the others have made a different determination - I will refrain from discussing that point further in this thread because I feel it would not be constructive.

With respect to the fascism - we Control Paragons now have Galactic Protector Shep who among other things, "ensures that all have a voice in their future." I'm not sure of all of the ramifications of that Control ending, but as I see it, it is as morally perilous as any misinformation and propaganda infused republic or parliamentary system we have. To stop the Reapers I can live with that.

Let me just point out that in the original Control ending the devs didn't specify what would happen after the players took control, so we players could just head-cannon the Reapers going dormant, flying into the sun, darkspace, or something. Thanks to all the complaints, now we can't.

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 juillet 2012 - 06:06 .

[Oxspit]

A quick thought.

Just wondering if it wouldn't have been better all around if they ended it, or allowed you to end it with a slight twist on control. Instead of inserting yourself into the catalyst replacement thingy you, I don't know, maybe destroy it in some way or something - the idea being that you replace the catalyst not with yourself but with nothing at all.

i.e. you free the reapers. Make them each their own cthulu so to speak.

Seems to me that would probably count as a win..... I mean the whole "hibernate for 50,000 years then killing a whole lot of people: repeat indefinitely" routine hardly seems likely to be the life a group of sentient space-gods are all going to choose for themselves if the only reason they've really been doing it is because of this god-child controller. At least some of them are likely to prefer sitting on a beach sipping rum drinks or something, right?

Seems to me that'd probably be thematically O.K.

I mean, I'd still think the whole 'all reapers are controlled by this god-child' thing stupid and demeaning, but I imagine I'd prefer this ending.

[Hawk227]

@obadiah

I see what you're saying. I've made similar arguments in the past, but I think it's worth emphasizing that the bulk of this thread is looking at the ending as a literary text, rather than a hypothetical or literal scenario. If someone transported you or I to the Mass Effect universe and we really genuinely had to make this decision, we could have a debate about which one is the best or most appropriate or whatever.

In such a hypothetical scenario where we are Shepard and this is not a game I can imagine myself choosing any of the choices save for synthesis. Can I reasonably convince myself that "sacrificing" the Geth is justified by the ends? Maybe. Can I reasonably convince myself that stepping into Godhead status is okay cuz I'm awesome (plus noone dies)? Maybe. Can I convince myself that taking a stand and sacrificing this cycle in order to reject the Catalyst's thesis and solution is appropriate? Maybe.

The problem of course is that ME isn't just a hypothetical scenario but a literary text. Mechanically it may differ from Star Wars or Dune, but like both it is beholden to the whims of the author. The author is the God of the text, and they decide what happens. The title of this thread is "All Were Thematically Revolting" and that's not simply a judgement on the end choice, but a judgement on the decision by the authors to interject the choice in the first place. I'd like to refer back to the OP, because Drayfish is so much more eloquent than I am:

Drayfish wrote...

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly
earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point
been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity –
indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting
against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and
only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in
the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make
the sacrifice meaningless.

This is ultimately the point. Not simply that there is no rationalization for any of the choices (there is, unfortunately), but that the existence of the choice itself is not justified within the text. The entirety of the series has been about the Reapers vs. Everyone (or more abstractly, Order vs. Chaos). For the entire game we have been fighting for chaos. We've been saying that diversity, tolerance, and the right to self-determination are of the utmost importance. The Reapers have been saying that life can only continue if order is imposed through force. It's always been their way or the highway, and we've chosen the highway. The ending (at least the original) forced us to take their way (I'll elaborate in a minute). The ending effectively tells us that we were on the wrong side all along. "Order isn't the bad guy, Chaos is. Duh, why didn't you get that? Now do something about it!" Tolerance, diversity and self determination were out the window, and we were left with imposed order. It was a decision, an imposition, that was not appropriate to the story. It was not earned by the story. It came out of left field, and it sucked.

Changing topic slightly, you've said that you don't think we're embracing the Catalyst's worldview, and I'd like to explain why I think we are.

The Reapers worldview consists of a Why and a How. The Why is:

- Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist. Their fundamental differences preclude the possibility of peace. Because Synthetics can advance faster than Organics, and absolutely will initiate hostilities, organic life will eventually be extinguished by synthetic life. Organic life must be allowed to exist.

The How is:

- Imposing order on unpredicability is necessary for existence to continue. Killing the few (a single cycle) allows the many (every subsequent cycle) the opportunity to live on.

With each of the three endings we are in some way acquiescing to either the Why or the How of the Reaper worldview.

- In synthesis we are rather explicitly embracing the Why, but finding a new How. We are agreeing that coexistence is impossible, and finding a new solution. In this case, the new solution is homogenization (in at least one facet). By eliminating the differences that precluded it, there will now be peace. We also end the Reaper threat, but that is just a side effect. We've made their task unnecessary, so now they can find something else to do.

- In control we are timidly agreeing with both the Why and How. We are conceding that Organic/Synthetic relations may be destined to hostility, and we are conceding that through the imposition of Order (via Godhead Shepard) we may prevent this problem from proceeding. Also, it (apparently) undoes the Reaper threat. But that's another topic.

- In Destroy we are rejecting the Why but embracing the How. We may well be telling the Catalyst that the Reapers were the problem all along, but you're embracing his solution: Killing the few, for the sake of the many.

In all three we are imposing order. We are fundamentally changing all life. We are placing ourselves in authoritative Godhead status and enslaving the Reapers. We are deciding for all organic life, that synthetic life is an acceptable cost to insure our further existence.

Now, Destroy may be more acceptable thematically if the few were not so strictly defined racially. If the price had simply been Earth, this problem may be fixed. But the price was defined as an outcast racial group, whose legitimacy is at least partially in question. They are the alien other, not like us. Now for you or I, who embraced EDI and the Geth as valid lifeforms, this may be a choice made with sorrow. The problem is that someone who is effectively racist, can make this choice guilt free. Indeed, the only way to straight up win ME3, without making a choice that compromises who you are is to be a racist sociopath, and that's a troubling implication.

It also serves to highlight that ultimate point: The ending is thematically revolting. It did not need to be this way. This ending was in no way predicated by the preceding events, it was injected by authorial fiat. It is there because the Gods of the ME universe demanded it to be.

Modifié par Hawk227, 17 juillet 2012 - 08:09 .

[SHARXTREME]

Like @drayfish said, there is no excuse for ANY of the endings.
I have said this before; there is an ultimatum in the end by the de facto ONLY enemy in the game, and that fact alone is logically not acceptable, let alone wiping out/controlling/merging with the Geth and Reapers.

To make other points more clear, or to bring them closer to home let's imagine this story plays out on Earth in 20th century.
For example, let's switch the Reapers with some nation, the Russians, the Americans or the Chinese.
For some reason they want to annihilate and enslave rest of the world, big war begins- world unites, and makes the supa-dupa weapon to destroy them, they just need some unknown party to activate the trigger. As it turns out, that unknown party is Dictatorist, the entity posing as president of America, Russia or China. He has the absolute power over the enemy troops, while the people fighting you have been completely brainwashed, and Dictatorist gives you three choices:

a) You become a dictator that replaces Dictatorist, you enslave entire nation to rebuild everything they have destroyed under the leadership of Dictatorist, and now your leadership, or to do everything you think of as your slaves - Control
You merge whole world in one state in the way the Dictatorist has envisioned it(everybody suddenly loves baseball, drinks Votka and eats beef steak with chopsticks while singing French national anthem)
c) You Destroy the Russians, Americans or Chinese completely, but you must also "sacrifice"(read: genocide) the population of Asia, or South America along with the last Indian(native american) tribe alive.
d) after learning that Russians, Americans or Chinese troops have been brainwashed, you refuse a/b/c choices and continue to fight them instead of fighting your enemy 

Even simpler.
a) become/replace Hitler or Stalin and die
help Hitler or Stalin to achieve his ultimate "vision" and die
c) Kill Hitler's or Stalin's entire nation + the population of Europe + first fully intelligent Koala bear and maybe die
d) Die, fighting the wrong enemy 
Choose wisely.

That is the ending of ME3. It's just wrapped up in shiny SF aluminium-paper

EDIT: 

Obadiah wrote...
(...)With respect to Control - and I want to make sure I get this right. The Reapers have been corrupting, controlling, and slaughtering life in the galaxy for at least 37 million years and will continue to do so if Shepard does not stop them. They will kill trillions upon trillions of beings - everyone we know and everyone we loved will be dead, "ascended" or turned against us. But seizing control of them (their own tactic) to get them to stop is morally problematic? I just don't see the problem there. 

Unlike you, I see, or have problem with that. Problem is that Reapers are not the enemy. They are brainwashed former inhabitants of the galaxy, now weapons, tools in the hands of Catabrat. 
Also Geth and EDI, or any synthetic are not the enemy.
There is a single idea that is the main and only cause of that loop of horror: Idea -> need for Control -> creation of Catalyst -> takes over Control. Logic loop created. Same idea is the start and end point of this logic loop.
His existence is unneccesary(in story and otherwise), a mistake, everything that he has ever done was only to logically sustain his own(and only his own) existence. Bioware extended the ending to sustain his existence. Forget about trillions of trillions of victims, you're dealing with one, the wrongest idea, and you should crush it. 

There is absolutely no excuse for his actions or the very existence(in story or otherwise), not one, the excuses, or moral debates  are not needed. To use his own analogy: "When fire burns you put it out." When Catalyst kills or enters the story you destroy it. Bioware is now stuck in that logic loop too. I think that pride and arrogance are keeping them from fixing that mistake. There is a single line by Catalyst that was cause of all problems: "I control the Reapers". And next line in EC: "They didn't agree to become Reapers"
From there, everything else is just wrong and unfixable if the end of the game is left as those 3+1 choices.
In Bioware they have somehow thought that players need shinier ending movies, not seeing the real mistake, just like Catabrat which became the ugly manifestation of writers themselves.  

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 17 juillet 2012 - 01:37 .

[3DandBeyond]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
For me, the calculation to use the Destroy option would be the exact same calculation if firing that weapon was going wipe out all synthetics, the human race, all organics, or the entire current civilization. It is not relevant or necessary to generate empathy for the Synthetics from me or anyone else since I'm pretty sure everyone that played Mass Effect 3 already has that, and I saw them as equals.

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me the Destroy option is not about picking one race or group over the other. The only question to be answered when picking Destroy is whether finally, completely, and permanently stopping the Reapers is worth sacrificing trillions of beings.

Picking one of the three options stops the Reapers - it doesn't validate the Catalyst's view. I feel this is a "straw man" argument. It has given you the options on how the weapon can be fired, it is up the Shepard to work out why one of the options is best above all others. This seems pretty cut and dry to me.

With respect to Control - and I want to make sure I get this right. The Reapers have been corrupting, controlling, and slaughtering life in the galaxy for at least 37 million years and will continue to do so if Shepard does not stop them. They will kill trillions upon trillions of beings - everyone we know and everyone we loved will be dead, "ascended" or turned against us. But seizing control of them (their own tactic) to get them to stop is morally problematic? I just don't see the problem there. I understand the concerns raised, but they just seem easily dwarfed. Clearly you and some of the others have made a different determination - I will refrain from discussing that point further in this thread because I feel it would not be constructive.

With respect to the fascism - we Control Paragons now have Galactic Protector Shep who among other things, "ensures that all have a voice in their future." I'm not sure of all of the ramifications of that Control ending, but as I see it, it is as morally perilous as any misinformation and propaganda infused republic or parliamentary system we have. To stop the Reapers I can live with that.

Let me just point out that in the original Control ending the devs didn't specify what would happen after the players took control, so we players could just head-cannon the Reapers going dormant, flying into the sun, darkspace, or something. Thanks to all the complaints, now we can't.

The problem remains that in playing the game, reading a story like this, you are in effect the hero-especially so in ME, or you at least are meant to see things through the hero's eyes.  You do this to judge this story because it is set up as a first person kind of narrative.  If you are making the choices, you are the hero.  Unlike merely watching a character do things, you are creating Shepard's story  You are supposed to only know what Shepard knows and sees, not have the ability to foresee things.

Shepard learns many things from the kid.  S/he learns that the kid controls the reapers, the collective intelligence of the reapers are within him, reapers have been killing people, the kid defines the problem as synthetics vs. organics, order vs. chaos, conflict avoidance.  The kid is the only one so far that knows where the crucible came from and what the crucible will do  and to do it it must join with the citadel and the citadel is a part of the kid.  In essence the citadel is him even though he is "more" than the citadel.  His solution to his problem-synthetics, chaos, conflict is not longer working.  He has a new solution.  He says it comes from the crucible changing him.  Well, he has said also that he put his own creators into a reaper-the first reaper.  He also has tried to avoid the idea that he has used his reapers to kill people, because he is merely ascending them. 

Well, even as they speak Shepard can see his reapers killing people.  He, at the very least has a goal that is at odds with Shepard's.  He is also a bit warped-he put his creators in a reaper against their will.  His creators wanted him to find a balance between organics and synthetics.  His solution is a corrupted way of doing that through the removal of that which might create synthetics before they can create them.  If he were a person, he would be considered evil and crazy.  We have no knowledge who or what he really is.  He is somewhat insulted when Shepard says he is an AI.

So, Shepard cannot look at anything the kid says as even being relevant and certainly cannot trust it.  The kid tells Shepard that he cannot make the change to the new solution-he can't make it happen.  He needs Shepard to do it.  The whole thing is one big suspect conversation that could be just a lot of deception aimed at getting Shepard to believe him.  It may be important for some reason for Shepard to believe him.  If the choices are real, it even makes more sense for the kid to not tell Shepard what they do-even tell Shepard that there is only one choice.  Why tell Shepard about the other 2 that seem to get rid of the kid?  If I put myself in Shepard's shoes, it all just falls apart.  I cannot believe anything shown to me in the kid's house.  I cannot believe what he says-I don't believe that any thing that has been sending reapers as his solution would want me know how to destroy them and him.

Remember the reapers and thus the kid have lied to 2 people at least before, telling them that if they help the reapers they will be spared or telling them they can achieve certain goals.  Saren was shown Synthesis as a solution.  TIM was shown that Control was.  They were both misled and believed (were led to believe) they would survive and save the galaxy.  They had been given the solution to do so and merely needed to convince others or seize the opportunity. Does this sound familiar?

The choices are suspect.  If a man shows up at your door and you see that he is the one that sent his friends to kill your neighbors and has been killing your people for years and then gives you an item and tells you it can be used to kill him and his friends, do you believe him?

As a player, I know that Destroy works as far as the reapers are concerned, but I also am left wondering what it meant for the kid to say that even Shepard is partly synthetic-is Shepard partly dead?  Ok, as a player I know it does what the kid says it does.  As Shepard it's a risk that may not be worth taking.  It could be a big new, "turn people into organic paste" button.

All choices are poisonous options that rely on the word of one being.  Yes, people made the crucible, but the kid knows about it and he never sent reapers to destroy it.  He seems to not care that the choices exist because they are not there to fulfill Shepard's purpose, but to fulfill his.

Destroy, if true, is the only thing Shepard had "permission" to do.  That doesn't mean Shepard must choose it if any other viable option is present.  But there is no viable option.  All the choices feature compromises that are not ones Shepard could agree with. 

Synthesis with microscopic precision alters the existence of trillions of people on a molecular level.  Forced.  But it is abhorrent for what it says about people and what it does to them.  They have no value as organic beings alone-in order to be the best that they can be, they must become something different, something more, and something that is not some inevitable endpoint in the march of evolution.  It is not perfection, it is aberration.  It imposes internal shackles on a genetic level on those that through the chaotic move forward may someday learn how to defeat the reapers and the kid on their own.  This does not destroy the reapers.  It is failure.  Stagnation.  Consider that a child learns and grows in character sometimes best by making mistakes or by working against some adversity.  They learn even the value and worth of learning and knowledge.  They learn in fact the values and worth that are within themselves. 

Destroy acts not like a precision laser, but like some huge scythe, ripping through a whole race and then apparently all AIs.  It's indiscriminate and does by virtue of what it targets set one race above another.  There's no way to see it as anything else.  It isn't collateral damage, because it isn't some unintended consequence.  The annihilation is on purpose.  As has been pointed out, if destroy was something that targeted only humans (because the reapers are part human), this would be clear. 

This is part of the problem that they created in using a kid as the catalyst.  Many don't see him as evil or off or as a killer, because of what he looks like.  Many have no real empathy for the geth and even EDI, because they won't (not can't) see them as people.  This is pretty much the standard for genocide.  The only way some human beings in the past have been able to commit the mass slaughter of other groups of people has been to depersonalize them.   It starts subtly and then it becomes "truth" to them.  The geth and EDI can be "sacrificed" because hard choices have to be made.  Well, actually sacrificing them is a very easy decision once you decide they are not a part of that group of "everyone you know and love".  I loved EDI.  I loved Joker and he loved EDI.  I loved Legion.  Destroy then kills a part of me.

Control has a core problem.  The Shepard that controls them is no longer Shepard.  You cannot remove emotion and feeling from a person and say the person is still the same person.  This actually is what is done in order to get people to commit genocide.  Those in charge work to make their subordinates not care about those that they want dead.  The intelligence of the person remains-they know it's wrong to kill people, but they do not care about the people they will kill.

The kid was given quite possibly a good purpose by his creators.  He wasn't told to kill anyone.  He was told to find a balance between two groups that his creators thought might always fight.  He changed somehow and then believed he needed to always remove organics in order to prevent the creation of synthetics.  His purpose became warped.  Flawed programming. 

In choosing control, Shepard joins with this programming.  There is nothing to say that this unfeeling Shepard might not become flawed as well.  There's a bug in the software and inserting Shepard's intelligence into it does not fix the bug.  In fact, this Shepard god says things that are not what a paragon would say and the music and whole feeling afterward is dark and ominous.  Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  These things become even more likely without the heart and care of Shepard within the programming.

So Control gives people a "voice" in their future.  I assume at some point you determined you no longer wanted your parents telling you what to do.  You also may have been given some freedom to make some of your own decisions. At some point, even this was not enough.  You wanted more than a "voice", you wanted to make your own way.  As the member of a community, you wanted to have a real say in things that happened.  You elect officials and so on.  How would it be if some "ultimate" authority with a physical presence that you can never get rid of (you have no vote, no "voice" in whether they are there or not, they just are there) is there to watch over all?  Consider what happens or even what has happened recently.  No autonomous sovereign nation likes to be occupied indefinitely and it certainly makes no sense for the defeated power to be the occupier.

The reapers also have the organic matter of someone's loved ones inside of them.  I don't care how good they are at fixing relays.  I don't want them in my face, I want them dead.  This would be how many would feel.  There is no way, no logical, no emotional, no possible way without at least some acknowledgement of the past horrors inflicted upon the galaxy that all people would accept them as neighbors.  You killed my kids-I will fix the damn road myself.  No, they aren't Santa's helpers-they are killing machines.

A building has no feeling whatsoever.  A building can't do anything at all except keep out the elements if constructed well.  I have given examples of many cases in which buildings that were the settings for some horrific incidents have been demolished because people cannot bear to look at them.  The Sharon Tate house (Manson murders)-torn down.  Jeffrey Dahmer's house-torn down.  John Wayne Gacy's house-torn down.  These houses didn't do anything but were torn down because people died there and their bodies in some cases rotted there.  The reapers need to be gone.  Control makes them the neighbors of people they've caused to suffer.  They are buildings that did the killing and have kept their trophies within them, using organic people past to make more of their kind.

In fact, even if people could get beyond what the reapers did, having them around, fixing relays (their tech) means people need never learn or achieve on their own.  What if mass relays are not even the best way to get around and a person could develop some better way?  Well no one would even care because the relays are there and they work.  Before the reapers came only a couple people wanted to learn how to make a mass relay and they were told it wasn't necessary.  With the reapers around, a lot of knowledge is unnecessary.  Learning is unnecessary. 

Or course you can head canon your own ending.  Delete the EC DLC and play it as before.  I know some things can be un-seen, but don't blame people that wanted better endings.  These endings are not the fix people wanted.  They explain supposedly what the writers meant.  I don't really believe this is at all what they meant, because I don't think they knew what they meant.  They just used endings from other stories and changed the names and the situation a little bit and slapped it together.  When people complained they had a problem and said at some point they would explain them.  That bought them time to figure out what the endings "might" mean.  They read a lot of threads and thoughts by fans that were actually very critical where people said what the endings might mean, but generally saying nothing could fix them and they needed to be changed.  The writers then used fan speculation to flesh out what "they" meant.  This becomes obvious if you follow any of the discussions about what they say and have said on twitter.  They constantly contradict each other as to the meaning of the endings and particular parts of it.  One dev thinks the destroy ending with Shepard in rubble means Shepard died, others have said it clearly means Shepard lives and reunites with friends. 

It's a mess because they did not follow their own story and did not keep the goal, the purpose as central at the end.  They changed antagonists and made the catalyst at once ambiguous and evil and helpful, confusing.  As drayfish has stated so eloquently and repeatedly and thoroughly, they abandoned the theme.  They began a vastly different story at the end of one big story.

If you like what you got, that's great.  Personally, I see these endings as out of place.  They answered and asked questions that were never central to ME, and they did not achieve the one goal that existed from the start.  At least not in any way that makes sense.  It's not a straw man to find the kid and his choices not credible.  It is an example of occam's razor.  It is much simpler to come to the conclusion the choices could be a lie, than it is to believe they are true choices-it requires the fewest assumptions.

[drayfish]

...Yet again I find myself shamefully behind in responding as other voices better elucidate what I would have loved to have said.

In particular: thanks for the compliment Hawk227, but there's no way I could have expressed as eloquently as you that division between Order and Chaos in the text, and the sad realisation that our wonderful cultural 'Chaos' is precisely what is under threat at the end. And that distinction between the 'Why' and the 'How' was fantastic stuff. Very illuminating. 

And thank you for continuing to post your readings of the text, Obadiah.  Once again, I am glad that the ending worked for you - my comments are simply my response to this narrative.
 
 

Obadiah wrote...
 
Picking one of the three options stops the Reapers - it doesn't validate the Catalyst's view. I feel this is a "straw man" argument. It has given you the options on how the weapon can be fired, it is up the Shepard to work out why one of the options is best above all others. This seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Apologies if it seemed I was making a 'straw man' argument – it was not my intent, and I am not sure exactly how it would have come across that way.
 
My central premise is that (for me) having my Shepard select any of the options offered to her by her enemy – three options that symbolise precisely what her enemy has always wanted for the universe: an end to conflict through genocidal massacre; the domination of free minds; or forced eugenic 'unity' – in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist anyway, is a validation of the Christmas-Ghost's visions of the world. It has to be. 
 
One might argue that to employ these methods is necessary just to shut him the hell up and get rid of his creepy little face and his army of cuttlefish, but it still carries with it all of the baggage of the Reaper's own intent.
 
To use a (perhaps tortured) analogy: if an horrific biological weapon is created by an enemy in order to be used upon 'our' people, but 'we' then seize and subsequently use that weapon against others, we are, in that act, validating its application. We are saying that in certain circumstances we support its usage; are not above using our enemy's vile tactics in order to further our own ends. The justification we ascribe to this action may speak of a 'greater good', but it cannot absolve us of our agreement that such tactics can and should be used. It is a slippery slope, one that Bioware mystifyingly forces upon the player and then sugar-coats with cheery, hopeful colours.
 
 

Obadiah wrote...
 
With respect to Control - and I want to make sure I get this right. The Reapers have been corrupting, controlling, and slaughtering life in the galaxy for at least 37 million years and will continue to do so if Shepard does not stop them. They will kill trillions upon trillions of beings - everyone we know and everyone we loved will be dead, "ascended" or turned against us. But seizing control of them (their own tactic) to get them to stop is morally problematic? I just don't see the problem there. I understand the concerns raised, but they just seem easily dwarfed. Clearly you and some of the others have made a different determination - I will refrain from discussing that point further in this thread because I feel it would not be constructive.

While I agree with you that I don't foresee the two of us coming to an accord on this topic, I will respond, just so that my own perspective (and again, it is just my own perspective, not a definitive philosophical declaration) is clear.

To answer your question: yes. Emphatically yes. Morally I am disturbed that this fiction has engineered a scenario in which the only way to win is to become the terrorist that you are fighting, to use their very tools of violent oppression against them, and by doing so, fulfil their agenda.
 
And although I am saying this in response to your question about the Control option, I believe it to be true for any of the three 'solutions' offered by the Reapers to solve the problem they have created.
 
I'm not saying it's the wrong choice, or in this utterly hypothetical circumstance it doesn't make a kind of perverse sense to do it – but if the question (as you phrased it previously) is whether this act is moral or heroic, then absolutely without question or reservation: it is not. It is, by its best possible definition, a 'necessary evil'; and it is in that evocation of evil that I personally draw the line.
 
Replacing one act of evil with another does not 'solve' the problem of evil itself; it just reshuffles the deck. Worse than that, it corrupts the force of good who came to combat that very evil in the first place. And posing the conundrum it in terms of 'you have to do this evil thing or everyone will die' is simply using the Reaper's own logic to validate an unforgivable act. I have to believe that humanity, and its most celebrated fictions, stand for more than that.
 
 
Also (and I should make this abundantly clear): at no point am I saying: 'Anyone who picked Destroy endorses genocide! People who like Control love mindless zombies! Derp!' I would never suggest any such thing. Such categorisations are both ridiculous and utterly unhelpful.
 
My fundamental complaint is that the fiction itself forces all of its players (undoubtedly against their will; I can't imagine many people refusing conventional victory if it were offered) into a position whereby, through the necessity of our limited options, we are forced to choose a morally bankrupt option. It's an intentional ethical trap, one that was specifically designed to complicate and taint any player's sense of remaining virtuous in the conclusion. I believe that the writers of the game mistook the 'grey' decision making that had been celebrated throughout the remainder of the franchise and went a step too far, forcing everyone into fundamental compromise.
 
By doing so, rather than reminding us of the weight of all decision-making throughout the saga (which I hope was the intent) it perverted the hope and unity that had otherwise defined the fiction, specifically stating that faith in one's friends and the bonds of social fellowship would never be enough. Evil can only be overcome through an escalation in kind. I hope that message was unintentional, but it is most certainly now at the heart of the most pivotal moment in their fiction.
 

Modifié par drayfish, 17 juillet 2012 - 10:02 .

[Eryri]

drayfish wrote...


My fundamental complaint is that the fiction itself forces all of its players (undoubtedly against their will; I can't imagine many people refusing conventional victory if it were offered) into a position whereby, through the necessity of our limited options, we are forced to choose a morally bankrupt option. It's an intentional ethical trap, one that was specifically designed to complicate and taint any player's sense of remaining virtuous in the conclusion. I believe that the writers of the game mistook the 'grey' decision making that had been celebrated throughout the remainder of the franchise and went a step too far, forcing everyone into fundamental compromise.
 
By doing so, rather than reminding us of the weight of all decision-making throughout the saga (which I hope was the intent) it perverted the hope and unity that had otherwise defined the fiction, specifically stating that faith in one's friends and the bonds of social fellowship would never be enough. Evil can only be overcome through an escalation in kind. I hope that message was unintentional, but it is most certainly now at the heart of the most pivotal moment in their fiction.
 

Thank you for writing this. You've very eloquently explained all my misgivings about the ending that I was unable to put into words myself. Guilt and moral queasiness are not the emotions I want to be feeling at the end of a piece of entertainment.

Modifié par Eryri, 17 juillet 2012 - 10:31 .

[3DandBeyond]

@ drayfish, again such great and to the point comments.

We have I think entered new territory in terms of video gaming. Never before have fans to this extent challenged the "art" if you will within a story within a game. And I think it caught the devs off guard. Gamers do complain, but it's usually about the external structure (mechanics) of the game and not the internal content. And if they dislike a thing they generally at most say that and move on.

They are trapped by their own design and success. And they have taken cover behind artistic integrity but that is actually one of the best things to use to refute what they have done. The ending is far removed from the art that is within ME.

Unity through diversity and moral values that are not surrendered for convenience. The ending does an about face based on perhaps what one type of Shepard would think and do, but it also goes against what is done in real life. "The needs of the many" does not mean the sacrifice of one or of a few. My Shepard says this at one point, "you don't sacrifice people over here to save some over there." But if I choose control, in the end she says the exact opposite of that, that she needed to become something greater to serve the many. No, never would my Shepard think that. She believed that synthetics don't always have to fight organics-she said that to the dying reaper on Rannoch. And then she listens and offers no real protest when the kid says they do always have to fight. My Shepard says, "you do not condemn a whole race to extinction based upon what might happen." How can that be reconciled with killing the geth? My Shepard has various conversations about what life is-with EDI, she discusses life being more than knowledge and all. EDI changes her programming based upon this. My Shepard sees the horrors in attempts to perform some sort of synthesis and she even questions her own being when on TIM's base. She wonders if she is only an AI that thinks she is Shepard. She continually let others make their own choices. This is not someone who would choose Synthesis.

I as a player cannot choose reject because it is set up as a way for players to be told the choices are the real endings.

The devs abandoned some types of Shepards and a whole lot of players that saw more and wanted better from their own galaxy and their own Shepard. The game doesn't allow the real Shepard to come out and play at the end. Even in reject/refusal Shepard is still bound by the confines of futility-that in finding a voice and remaining true to her values, morals, the goal, and the art, Shepard dooms the galaxy. It kills all because it is saying you the player refuse to believe the kid and therefore refuse to play the game "right".

[Obadiah]

@drayfish

drayfish wrote...
...
My central premise is that (for me) having my Shepard select any of the options offered to her by her enemy – three options that symbolise precisely what her enemy has always wanted for the universe: an end to conflict through genocidal massacre; the domination of free minds; or forced eugenic 'unity' – in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist anyway, is a validation of the Christmas-Ghost's visions of the world. It has to be.
 ...
 

No. It doesn't have to be. That's why it's a straw man.

People can think they are, and repeat it over and over again, but they're not. Hackers are not validating Microsoft's vision because they use Windows. You are not validating Bioware's vision by using their forums. Mordin isn't validating Maelon's vison by using his research.

In addition, Shepard is not trying to stop the Creator Creaton conflict, the goal is to stop the Reapers.

With respect to the biological weapon example, I'm pretty sure if most people think long and hard enough about that they can come up with a situation where they would use it. Maybe you can too.

drayfish wrote...
...
The justification we ascribe to this action may speak of a 'greater good', but it cannot absolve us of our agreement that such tactics can and should be used. It is a slippery slope, one that Bioware mystifyingly forces upon the player and then sugar-coats with cheery, hopeful colours.
 ...
 

Doesn't seem like a mystery.

For Mass Effect 1 and 2 Shepard was able to opine on and judge the difficult choices others had made in the past without ever having faced the circumstances they had - a losing war in which they risked their own annihlation. Eventually Shepard could even reverse some of their decisions (bring back the Rachni, cure the Korgan).

Now it's Shepard's turn, and a fair amount of the responses in this thread can basically be summarized by, "why did the writers put me in this position?" 

Its easy to judge the decsions others make in difficult circumstances - not so much to be the one to have to make the decision.

@3DandBeyond
I would be really surprised if they were able to get a green light for another game with this type of ending, which is unfortunate.

Modifié par Obadiah, 18 juillet 2012 - 07:58 .

[Sajuro]

drayfish wrote...
 
My fundamental complaint is that the fiction itself forces all of its players (undoubtedly against their will; I can't imagine many people refusing conventional victory if it were offered) into a position whereby, through the necessity of our limited options, we are forced to choose a morally bankrupt option. It's an intentional ethical trap, one that was specifically designed to complicate and taint any player's sense of remaining virtuous in the conclusion. I believe that the writers of the game mistook the 'grey' decision making that had been celebrated throughout the remainder of the franchise and went a step too far, forcing everyone into fundamental compromise.
 
By doing so, rather than reminding us of the weight of all decision-making throughout the saga (which I hope was the intent) it perverted the hope and unity that had otherwise defined the fiction, specifically stating that faith in one's friends and the bonds of social fellowship would never be enough. Evil can only be overcome through an escalation in kind. I hope that message was unintentional, but it is most certainly now at the heart of the most pivotal moment in their fiction.
 

I don't like needlessly evil or dark choices, but sometimes in life you have to choose which you feel is the lesser of the evils presented to you. It says that the friendship and unity got you to that point where the races put aside their differences but when you reach the end, sometimes you need to be willing to comprimise yourself for what you feel is the greater good of the galaxy. There are not high roads at these kinds of choices and if there was a perfect choice, people would be choosing that since the others would seem pointlessly evil. I don't think their message was the only evil can beat evil but that sometimes you have to fight when you aren't prepared to fight and you have to make choices you don't want to. It's like 'Fight Song' by the flaming lips, sometimes you have to face your problems and make a decision based on what you have, not what you want and Refusal is surrendering because you can't bring yourself to do the one thing everyone needed Shepard to do, to do what had to be done.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish

drayfish wrote...
...
My central premise is that (for me) having my Shepard select any of the options offered to her by her enemy – three options that symbolise precisely what her enemy has always wanted for the universe: an end to conflict through genocidal massacre; the domination of free minds; or forced eugenic 'unity' – in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist anyway, is a validation of the Christmas-Ghost's visions of the world. It has to be.
 ...
 

No. It doesn't have to be. That's why it's a straw man.

People can think they are, and repeat it over and over again, but they're not. Hackers are not validating Microsoft's vision because they use Windows. You are not validating Bioware's vision by using their forums. Mordin isn't validating Maelon's vison by using his research.

In addition, Shepard is not trying to stop the Creator Creaton conflict, the goal is to stop the Reapers.

With respect to the biological weapon example, I'm pretty sure if most people think long and hard enough about that they can come up with a situation where they would use it. Maybe you can too.

drayfish wrote...
...
The justification we ascribe to this action may speak of a 'greater good', but it cannot absolve us of our agreement that such tactics can and should be used. It is a slippery slope, one that Bioware mystifyingly forces upon the player and then sugar-coats with cheery, hopeful colours.
 ...
 

Doesn't seem like a mystery.

For Mass Effect 1 and 2 Shepard was able to opine on and judge the difficult choices others had made in the past without ever having faced the circumstances they had - a losing war in which they risked their own annihlation. Eventually Shepard could even reverse some of their decisions (bring back the Rachni, cure the Korgan).

Now it's Shepard's turn, and a fair amount of the responses in this thread can basically be summarized by, "why did the writers put me in this position?" 

Its easy to judge the decsions others make in difficult circumstances - not so much to be the one to have to make the decision.

Now who's straw manning? 

The question isn't "why did they put me in a difficult position?" The question is "why did they create an ending where a bigot, an authoritarian, or a war criminal can be content, and it's only those who value freedom and diversity who must make a real sacrifice?

Why did they make an ending where every single choice openly endorses authoritarianism? Do you think that was on purpose?

I'm fine with difficult decisions.

The question isn't "why are the choices hard?" it's "why are they stupid?" Why are they exactly what they are? Why is the minority that is frequently classified as worthless by bigots on the chopping block, rather than, say, Earth? Or all the homeworlds? This breaks down further into two different categories of question. I'm only going to go into the first category right now.

The problem isn't the difficulty of the decisions, it's their specific thematic implications, and how they completely unbalance the game in favor of authoritarians, murderers, and bigots.

Let's be clear here: there are a huge number of Mass Effect fans who consider synthetics valueless and inconsequential. They get a win condition without sacrifice. They get their happy ending. Why write a story where only bigots willing to commit genocide can get a "happily ever after?" They are out there. There are thousands of them on BSN alone, thousands upon thousands of people who didn't feel it was a hard decision, who now feel the EC is a perfectly happy ending, the only thing missing being a sweet little kiss and blue babies. Why cater to them? All the writers would have had to do to make things more balanced would be to put something that bigots cannot ignore on the chopping block - something like Earth. So why didn't they? Why did they place a race on the chopping block that they must have known a large number of people would consider "trash" and "less valuable" than other races?

Similar questions can be asked about the other endings: Why does Synthesis need to be a change forced upon everyone? Why couldn't they have written it like the actual Deus Ex ending it rips off, and had Shepard give society the opportunity to chose Synthesis? Thematically, the forced nature of it turns what they clearly intended to be a positive ending into a violation. Do you believe Bioware actually intended Synthesis to strike the thematic note it has with their fanbase? Do you think they actually intended for it to be perceived as a horrible war crime that violates every being who can remotely be considered alive? Or did they make some kind of a thematic error in judgment?

Also, why did they remove your squad for the final sequence? Why did they take away Shepard's ability to discuss the choices he makes with others? Having the crew there was always like symbolically having the other races of the galaxy by your side. Removing them heightens the authoritarian connotations immeasurably.

You're right, they're probably going to have trouble getting permission to make another ending that leads the vast majority of their fanbase to spend several months talking enthusiastically about how smart they were to realize that murdering an entire sentient race who are actively trying to help you is no worse than any other sort of collateral damage.

You like endings where one big shiny hero gets to impose their will will on every living thing. That specific kind of "hard decision" feels right to you. That's one way to play Mass Effect, one way to view it. The problem is, there used to be two ways: the pro-authoritarian way and the anti-authoritarian way.

The ending can only appeal to someone who can be at least a little bit comfortable with authoritarianism. That seems to be the most fundamental disconnect between those who still dislike the ending and those who are now satisfied: if the idea of a top-down, hard-decision-making authority figure is more appealing to you than the idea of a community, it's easy to like the endings. But the rest of the game allowed you to enjoy it even if you have within you a fundamentally anti-authoritarian perspective. Only the last ten minutes kick you to the curb if you're not willing to engaged in the same kind of acts perpetrated by authoritarian dictators throughout history.

Why not give us another kind of awful thing? One that isn't associated with authoritarianism? Anarchy can be just as bad. You could write an ending that was anti-authoritarian but still felt like a difficult choice.

They just chose not to. And I have to wonder whether or not that was on purpose.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 18 juillet 2012 - 09:36 .

[SHARXTREME]

@Obadiah

Obadiah wrote...
1. Hackers are not validating Microsoft's vision because they use Windows. - what? (hackers and Microsoft are not direct or equal opponents/competitors)
2. You are not validating Bioware's vision by using their forums. - again what? Bioware and their fans are not enemies
3. Mordin isn't validating Maelon's vison by using his research. - Yes he is. Directly. You see, Mordin had a change of heart. He was behind genophage modification when krogans started to break free naturally. While Mordin was using his knowledge and position in STG to sabotage krogans even further with behavior acceptable in society(society that believed that Krogans are threat), Maelon used questionable, but not utterly evil methods to counteract that goal of Salarian/Turian society. Difference between Mordin's and Maelon's methods are purely based on the given situation and necessity

Let's put aside for a second that none of 3 examples are relevant or comparable (at all) with the ending. You seem to completely ignore the fact that Reapers(enslaved against their will) are not the enemy from the moment that Catalyst says -:"I control the Reapers".
From that moment on ME3 situation changes from:
a) United Galaxy forces- opponent 1
the Reapers- opponent 2

to:
a) United Galaxy forces - opponent 1
Catalyst - opponent 2 - master
c) the Reapers - Catalyst's slaves/weapon/tool
d) Crucible - Galaxy's weapon/tool
e) Shepard - Galaxy's representative (not master)
f) choices - represented by the one and only enemy
and
Problem 1: Reapers are weapons that will continue to fire on you, unless you:
a) destroy/control/disarm the weapons(control, destroy and synthesis)
destroy the opponent wielding the weapon(destroy the Catalyst or his hold on Reapers, option not given by Bioware, I repeat: not given by Bioware)

Problem 2:
Weapons firing on you(Reapers) are sentient beings, absolute majority of them are being used against their will

Problem 3: Crucible(Galaxy's weapon) fires under Catalyst's approval and terms

Problem 4: Galaxy building the Crucible without knowing what it does(this one alone does not belong in SF)

Problem 5. Shepard is manipulated in position to make the choices that Society would not approve/agree on so s/he stops being galaxy's representative and represents his own beliefs

Problem 6: Shepard's beliefs are not represented in ANY of three choices unless:
a) he is utterly corrupted/brainwashed or evil
he still thinks that Reapers are the enemy even though Catalyst explicitly says that he is the only enemy

With that crucial change you cannot shift back the enemy focus back on Reapers. When there is only one enemy behind Reapers.
And only solution for Shepard is to refuse, because:
a) he cannot trust/negotiate/compromise with lunatic genocidal VI - Logic
he can't value his beliefs/wishes/life more then everything else.- Moral/Logic
c) he can't fight the wrong enemy - Intelligence

This is the only way that leaves any hope and this is the only "choice" that is strategically/logically acceptable. Next cycle will win with the info on Catalyst you left them.(given that you atleast try to destroy the catalyst) 
Unless Shepard is so stupid that he forgets to mention that "small detail".

Whole ending is illogical on so many different levels(all of them). It's based on disproved hypothesis that:
a) synthetics and organics cannot live in peace
and never proven theory that.
organics MUST create synthetics
c) created synthetics MUST evolve faster(collective mind is imperative for this)
d) they MUST have collective mind(EDI and Legion disproved this)
e) they MUST rebel on massive scale(given that the collective mind is an imperative for this and again EDI and Legion disproved this)

So, again. Ending is just tacked-on without any second thoughts and deeper meaning intended, and our prolonged discussion on our view on the ending could validate in completely wrong way the "artistic vision" (see OC) and "integrity"(see EC) on part of the authors. They wanted the ending "that will be talked about". Sure, they can say: "See, how much they discuss about it", but it's a delusion.

@ CulturalGeekGirl

Nicely said. I'll just say something on writers intentions. I simply believe that only intention was to finish the game, everything else is unintended. Original plot/story/vision is overriden in the end so badly that the only conclusion is that they wanted to destroy ME story or they didn't know what they were doing(and they won't admit it)
 

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 18 juillet 2012 - 10:58 .

[robertthebard]

Drayfish wrote...

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly
earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point
been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity –
indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting
against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and
only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in
the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make
the sacrifice meaningless.

Shepard:  I'm going to stop the Reapers, or die trying.

Exactly how is this goal going to be achieved, if not by eliminating the threat?  I believe this dialog comes up if you don't punch the reporter in the Embassies, as hard as it is not to.

How did we stop Saren and Sovereign?  Did we negotiate them into leaving us alone?  While seemingly unrelated, how did we stop the Collectors?  Again, there was no Paragon option to talk them into going to another galaxy, and leaving us alone.  What I take away from this is it's kill or be killed, and while I don't play through the endings any more, choosing instead to die in London, aka die trying, the one time I did, even with EC since it was already released when I got the game, I chose Destroy.  I neither asked for, nor wanted the responsibility of deciding the fate of the galaxy, but it was dumped on me by the powers that be.  You can even ask Hackett "why me" in one of the little talks you have after a mission.

However, if I'm going to live up to what I have pulled off in the previous two games, the antagonist must die.  It is not the first time that the game has asked me to sacrifice people.  In fact, depending on how I chose to play, it's possible that none of my original ME team, barring Liara, are even alive.  Either Ash or Kaidan is certainly dead at Virmire, and the SM can effectively kill off everybody else, even me, if I chose to go that route.  Again, stop them, or die trying.  So thematically, the same scenario has been presented, ableit not on this scale, the entire series.  To paraphrase the ST reference again:  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  On a comparative scale, assuming the Geth aren't already decimated at Rannoch, the Geth are few compared to the rest of the galaxy.  EDI is no different than sacrificing Ash or Kaidan at Virmire.

In short, it wasn't realized very well, but the endings aren't, other than personal perspective, thematically revolting.  Again, the Deus ex Machina reference really doesn't fit.  You find out there is a Catalyst before the game ever gets out of "it's more of a movie at this point" mode.  You have no idea what it is, but, as I have put forward before, if learning about it early in the game, but not finding out what it is until the end game qualifies it for DeM, then the Conduit is no better.  In support, while the Conduit doesn't provide you with an option to instantly destroy Sovereign, it makes fighting him possible, because without it, you're stuck on Ilos, while Sovereign opens the Relay, and lets the Reapers in.  Now, the Catalyst could have been handled differently, but really, what was everyone expecting the Crucible to be?  In the very first dialog you get about it, it's explained as a way to stop the Reapers.  So what, everyone thought it was ME's equivalent of the ultimate negotiater?  Once it's determined that the Citadel is required to make it work, nobody considered that it may be so that it can take advantage of the Mass Relays to transmit some kind of method of shutting them down/destroying them?

[bc525]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

....

Why not give us another kind of awful thing? One that isn't associated with authoritarianism? Anarchy can be just as bad. You could write an ending that was anti-authoritarian but still felt like a difficult choice.

.....

Sorry to cut so much of your comment CGGirl, but the anarchy angle is a very interesting one.  I don't normally play the "what if" exercise with the endings to stories, but what about an ending in which Shepard destroys/disconnects the Catalyst.  And then everything just stops for a moment.  There's a dramatic pause in the battle for Earth, and the question hanging over the scene would be, okay, what will the Reapers do now that their controlling device has been removed?

An ending based upon anarchy could be the Reapers continue to fight, but now they're misguided and disoriented.  Some of the Reapers flee throughout the galaxy (and must be hunted down), some just shut down (and can be analyzed), and some simply go ballistic and begin wildly attacking everything in sight (even other Reapers).  The threat of the Catalyst's cycle would be significantly reduced, but the fight would rage on - although a conventional victory against a disorganized Reaper force now becomes possible.  Shepard's story would end there, and the ultimate threat would be defeated, but sporadic fighting would continue throughout the galaxy.

Although of course, anarchy could also mean that in defeating the Reaper threat, the governments and technological securities of the Citadel races must be sacrificed and the galaxy is plunged into a time of chaos and uncertainty.  Some typical apocalyptic sci-fi stuff in that regard.

Oh well, just some random thoughts I felt like sharing.


EDIT:  Okay, I'm still trying out some hypotheticals here.  In order to destroy the Catalyst, I can imagine a conversation in which Shepard must convince Hackett to use the fleet to destroy the Crucible/Citadel.  That would be an extremely emotional argument, considering all the effort that went into constructing the Crucible and the fact that Shepard is still onboard the Citadel.

The player would need to pass some tough Paragon/Renegade checks in order to convince Hackett, but wow that could be a powerful ending.

EDIT 2:  Last edit, I promise.  I just noticed that I pretty much echoed an idea that Oxspit had expressed earlier on this page.  So I figured I better give credit where credit is due.  I didn't mean to steal anyone else's ideas.

Modifié par bc525, 18 juillet 2012 - 04:39 .

[3DandBeyond]

In making a choice, Shepard has no way of knowing whether the choice is authentic or not. The reapers went from autonomous beings that kill for their own reasons to lap dogs that kill for the star kid's irrational excuses.

At the moment the star kid says he knows all about the crucible plans (but does not state who originally created them) and he states the citadel is his home and a part of him, both the crucible and the citadel become his tools. He is the only one that knows what they do and in order to do anything they must work together and synthesis, control, destroy do not originate from the possibly "good" crucible, but rather are a part of the "bad" citadel-from the kid himself.

At no point do any reapers threaten the crucible. At no point does the kid say Shepard must not use the crucible. The kid says he has a solution (reapers) to a problem (that is not Shepard's goal). The kid then says the answer was to find a new solution. He then has 3 that achieve his goal and not Shepard's. Shepard never said that all s/he wanted to do was stop the reapers and was ok if that meant they became best buddies and all. No, destroying them was necessary because they could not be stopped. And there is nothing that conclusively shows they have been stopped if S or C are selected and no way to know prior to making a choice that D will even do what it says it will do-stop the reapers. It might, but it might not. That's a big risk to take on an unknown.

The only thing that making a choice may conclusively do is achieve the kid's goal. His solutions have always been designed for that purpose alone. He turned his own creators into a reaper to achieve that goal, so misleading Shepard into making a choice to further his own purpose is possible.

[Obadiah]

@CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
"create an ending where a bigot, an authoritarian, or a war criminal can be content, and it's only those who value freedom and diversity who must make a real sacrifice?" = "put Shepard in this position?" while describing what is distasteful about the situation.

@SHARXTREME
My basic points were to dispute drayfish's premise:

a) Shepard using an enemies options does not in an of itself validate their worldview. If my examples aren't convincing; I'm sure someone else can come up with some better ones.

 The options given do not acheive the Catalyst's goals. The Catalyst wants to completely stop a Creator Created war it thinks is inevitable, and two of the options (Control and Destroy) don't do that.

Per Problem 6: The options Shepard gets don't always represent all of Shepard's beliefs. If Shepard absolutely will not compromise - that option is there in the ending now, it just doens't end well.

Modifié par Obadiah, 18 juillet 2012 - 03:23 .

[robertthebard]

Because the Reapers never say "We are your salvation through destruction" in any of the games, or something similar? Gee, it seems like Sovereign says something very like that on Virmire. It does seem like Harbinger goes on and on with something very like that as well in ME 2, perhaps not in those exact words, and then the Reaper on Rannoch, that also says the same thing, as it lays there waiting for you to get the Renegade option to hit it again with the combined forces in orbit. Yeah, we had no clue what was going on, ever.

[DistantUtopia]

drayfish wrote...

(snip) 
My fundamental complaint is that the fiction itself forces all of its players (undoubtedly against their will; I can't imagine many people refusing conventional victory if it were offered) into a position whereby, through the necessity of our limited options, we are forced to choose a morally bankrupt option. It's an intentional ethical trap, 

(snip) 

I agree, hence the 2nd part of my signature.